Funny, but I went immediately to the ink section (I like fountain pens, and sometimes you are required to use special inks) in Henleys, and they were all interesting (page 399 and 400). I have to guess some of these inks are amazing.

But more to the point, Why not print a book like this or buy a book like this and just keep in case of that frightful day. I think its 800+ pages are well worth the shelf space.

You know, I like what you wrote since it brought up a safety issue once I read about. It was about a plane making a crash landing, and the pilots heard a "GONG" sound, they were never trained for that sound, but they were able to find it in the manual. It seemed that that gong sound was the sound of everything is failing including redundancy. Now that gong sound is in all the simulations.

So I look at it as a tool, a tool to test all the code and see if it works in general for most situations, then test again to see if it works correctly with other applications by trial and error.

While everything you just said makes sense, nothing beats good testing, and like any tool, this is another one. All that code coverage does is let you focus on what has not been touched, then you'll be able to test it somehow. Also, I could create a similar problem, just like the one you wrote about above and would happen more often. I'm thinking of traffic management in the air. Or maybe even traffic management on land.

Really, you think that they have a DOJ and or any fed regulator problem???
Hmm...
Specific chip driver, designed for that chip only
Copycat chip using the above chip driver
Change the driver code slightly for improvement or whatever reason
Results:
Your system crashed, if it was using the fake chip.
Not the fault of the manufacture of the specific chip.
The liability goes towards whom sold that configuration to you with the promise of that specific chip. They lied.

I am guessing that this should be happening more often in the next 5 to 10 years, built in clones killing.

Debunking is not such an easy task and as the above stated, it's 10x as hard. Really, most perpetual motion debunking was done by highly skilled magicians that had a scientific bent and testing that required the help of physicist ( don't recall the episode of Bullshit with Pen and Teller in which they said that)

Could you imagine what it must cost just to test something like this, just so you can say, Hey it's a scam or not, and then publish it. I'm rather sure no one works for free so.

I've been flush with cash and dirt broke.
the one thing i could count on was the ability to walk to work, then bike to work, then scooter to work.
I've saved more than enough for a car, but every week I use the scooter I save
9 to 10 gallons of gas
$ 37 insurance

In 1 month, that's about 275 extra that I don't have to think about.
my current cost is 7.00 per week.

I happen to live in florida so I get to use it all year around

Just the way they write about it, it's like we can watch the entire process from almost start to finish in less than 10 lifetimes. Seems rather fast.

The sad thing is, if it did happen, and it was not state sanctioned, they would end up dead. Even the Chinese have learned this ( blowing things up in higher orbits, then finding out a few years later they could not launch like they wanted to ) and are most likely careful never to do it in such a high orbit again.

problem with something like your asking it cost a lot to drill. figure 100 to 200 a drilling. so 900 for a test ... Now I can see why no one want to test

ok, I get the idea of pick 3 spot's random, and dowse for 3. But what about depth to find water. Last time it was just 3 hours and boom I had water.

There was no control group, I just 'felt' those locations were correct.
Now, I would love to be in the same situation again and test it out. I can afford to spend some cash and see the results if I need to do this again.
It was lucky guessing the first time, but again, my question is how the heck do you set something like this up for an honest review.

While I cannot account for anyone else. I once owned some land, and tried my hand at dowsing. Found 3 spots that felt just right, drilled the first, and found water at 70 feet. I still call it luck. If I ever need to look for water again, I'll try my hand at it again and mark 3 spots.

While it's not science, I would be interested in how do you set up a test for a peer review of this. Seems to me that if I really think about it. It's just a lot of pot luck.

the question is ... did the realtor find it ?

I find it refreshing that "dirty tricks" are still used in this day an age.
I don't welcome it, but it's good to know that this is still used, Now you ask why? Simple really, what they are doing (which I don't think is illegal, but I wish it was), is abusing the competitions, making them waste resources (time and gas). Right now the only person suffering is the driver. I would think that if this game was played on taxi companies, someone would be visiting with a bat.

It's fun and games until someone figures out how to counter, then the consumer will get screwed.

I kinda see this as a weird form of a DOSS attack, but seems viable.