Paid reviews, I should think, would violate the Amazon TOS.

Retracting an honest but negative review in explicit exchange of cash, would, IMO, constituted a paid review. Adding an addendum explaining the 75$ payment and satisfaction, thereof (if any), would not.

I for one am tired of having my umbrella whipped out of my hand by a gust of wind. I'd much rather strap the thing to my head so can get knocked to the ground rather than just my umbrella...

Looks like an antique salesman's miniature demo sample of full sized shop tools, not tools intended to be used.

...ahhh...real corpses...ew. Amazing, but ew.

Not actually an "air strip" in a box. It is an "airport" in a box. That is, it is a machine shop with portable lights and a radio. It has absolutely no equipment for making or improving a landing strip.

EMI demanded that MP3tunes commit copyright infringement on a massive scale in EMI's behalf.. EMI wanted **copies** of every song on MP3tunes 300 terabytes of server space--regardless of whether EMI owned the copyright. MP3tunes doesn't have the right to make copies yet EMI had the gumption to demand MP3tunes break the law. Hypocrites.

Girth is the circumference of the penis - divide by pi to get the diameter, then use the equation (pi*D^2)/4 to get the area and multiply by length.

Yes, a good estimate assuming a perfect cylinder, which is why I differentiated by saying "actual cubic displacement" as opposed to a calculated estimate. Yea Archimedes!

Final say? Ha. It only measures length and girth. Real men measure actual cubic displacement.

This device might help you spot crash damage, but only if the car has been spot painted and only if you happen to put the detector on the exact spot that was painted. If the car was given a full paint job the detector will be useless. Anyway, you can check for repairs made with putty by using a magnet (well, or cars that have metal bodies, anyway.)

I suspect it is larger than BookofJoe's cheesy photoshop job would suggest. 35 640x480 photos is probably too small a sample to get much of anything, I would have hoped at least for a card slot on this $50 trinket.

...I saw the infomercial and wondered how they made the VOIP to telco service only $19.95, but I couldn't figure out the catch from the ad. Now it begins to make sense. Too bad, too. Because the idea behind USB/analog phone adaptor is a sound one for many users.

Forgot to retype my post to Liszt:

Liszt, if that were true I'd have to say "Worst...Liberal...Ever..."

Ditto on #8.

Compelling as the harrowing account is, Sheldrake is not a scientist. He's more of an alternate scientist--which, of course is an oxymoron.

#15 POSTED BY LISZT , APRIL 9, 2008 9:59 PM
Wow, I never figured Boing Boing would be comprised of so many conservatives. That is the only possible explanation for the hate, as Bill is 100% liberal (don't believe the hype).

OT PS:

Comment engine is still bollocked. 'keep having to re log in to avoid "Text entered was wrong" error.

"Skep - How do patents "stifle innovation"?"

First off, patents are only for the purpose of advancing the useful arts and sciences. They are not for the purpose of maximizing corporate, or even individual, profits. They are supposed to advance the arts and sciences in two ways. First, by getting inventors to publish their ideas instead of keeping them secret and in exchange by giving the inventor a limited monopoly. The publication allows future inventors to build off the idea and the monopoly means that inventors have temporary exclusive rights to their invention--this encourages people to spend money and time creating inventions because they can exploit them exclusively.

Software patents are unnecessary. Innovation in software occurs without patents and there is no evidence that people will stop innovating software if there are no software patents.

Next, software patents are written not to be open so that other can exploit them when they expire--part of the deal in a patent--instead they are written to be as vague and inscrutable as possible so that the patent holder can sue for all sorts of people. That means that you as a software developer have no idea what is or isn't already patented--unlike copyright, independent invention doesn't get you off the hook in patents. You can't spend your entire life trying to cross check each line of code and innovation against the patent list. And doing so could even hurt you since you could be accused of knowingly violating a patent.

Big companies can afford to create Mutually Assured Destruction portfolios of patents, so that if someone sues them they can sue back on a different patent. You, on the other-hand, could be sued at any time for anything in your software. This means that you may just get out of the business entirely--I'd say that would count as stifling innovation.

Software patents are bad primarily for one reason: they stifle innovation.

If software patents are allowed it may become impossible to write software unless you work with a huge corporation with a defensive patent portfolio. It will be virtually impossible to write code that doesn't violate at least somebody's patent--and it will be impossible to know if you have because you can't review all the patents--especially since patents are deliberately written to be vague to give the patent holder as much wiggle room to sue anybody as possible, thus even experts often have no idea what the patents really cover.

The purpose of patents is to encourage innovation with a trade off. In exchange for revealing your secret technology in public you get the temporary right to a monopoly of your invention. The idea is that the publication of your technology will allow others to build on it once the patent expires. With the software industry ***we already have tremendous innovation*** patents are not needed to encourage innovation as proved by all the innovation that has already occurred. Software patents would do the opposite of what they are intended to do.

Patents are not a right, they are a privilege--a privilege that can only be extended you you in the interest of *advancing* the useful arts and sciences. Software patents do not do that and you do not have an inherent right to a monopoly on ideas.

". I would just deposit them in the ATM without signing the back, and they never switched me. It was free money. "

Hmm...I imagine you can also use a printed endorsement stamp like business do and which don't count as a signature for purposes of signing a contract--but, neither should an ELUA, so who the heck knows.

I just wonder if it's a good idea (not relating to the prank, mind you) to pop actual gold into regular un-insured and untracked business reply mail. I wonder how much of it actually arrives? And I wonder how often the company says, sorry, not our problem?

#79 POSTED BY XODARAP , APRIL 8, 2008 1:20 PM See, people think that philosophy is just something everyone understands and gets a piece of. But there are those of us who study it, and discover it to be a very coherent and well-developed rational science

Philosophy isn't science, it is what we had before we had science. If what philosophical theories have been rejected, as whole, by the science of philosophy? And I don't mean by you or people who share your opinion, but philosophy as a whole? There may be some examples, but nothing ever gets kicked out of philosophy as being wrong the way "creation science" or alchemy get booted out of science for, well, not being actual science.

#17 POSTED BY SEMIOTIX , APRIL 8, 2008 10:37 AM Also, I'd just like to toss this out there: "invisible sky wizard" is roughly in the same connotative space as n****r.

Alas not. Blasphemy is a victimless crime.

If you wish to continue your claim then, by all means, have god file a tort.

errata--everything but the last paragraph is a blockquote.

#22 POSTED BY SEAN BLUEART , APRIL 4, 2008 10:00 AM
Does labeling Manson a " psychopathic monster, juvenile reform school rapist, thief, pimp, or all round scum bag" somehow avoid recognizing that he's first and foremost a human being?

Does labeling anyone "vermin, or swine" make it easier to exterminate them?

Is it easier to forget that they are human by applying a characterization?

Actually, I'm pretty sure it's ok to vilify people based on actual, proven villainous behavior--unless you are prepared to claim he is not of those things?

Since the prof has already typed up his notes he should be able to offer them cheaper than the note taking service who, presumable, has to pay a student to generate notes. So, why not compete? Unfortunately, the professor seems to think that copyright extends to the ideas in his lectures rather than just the specific expression he uses to convey them and is unwilling to compete on the merits. If nothing else, students might like to get notes that are more legible than the black on dark green paper offered by "Einstein." (Nothing you couldn't filter out with a back process in Photoshop, mind you.)

What if a student took notes, but didn't copy anything verbatim from a professor's lecture, and then decided to publish the notes online or sell them? "While that may not be slavish copy, the notes would be a derivative work and a copyright holder has the exclusive right to create derivative notes," Sullivan said.

I wonder to what extent the professor believes he can copyright facts? Surely the content in his lectures is fact-based? Are his students allowed to have citations in their papers?

By his beliefs, movie reviews are prohibited derivative works.

What? You don't like the tag line "Creative Commons, a license so good even a psychopathic murder knows its good?"

I wonder if he did so to evade a Son of Sam law that prevents profiting from crimes or some such?

Again, Cory has never written a pro-music article on Boing Boing and this one, which is literally riddled with falsehoods, is no exception. We readers get it Cory, you hate musicians, but can't you at least be honest about it? Is that too much to ask?

I guess it depends on what you mean by "pro music." I'm certainly interested in hearing more inside info from you. You have some interesting points. But I do think Cory is "pro music" but not necessarily "pro-corporate music oligarchy." "Pro-music" is a very arguable concept in that there are lots of ways one could consider one's self to be "pro music."

By your definition Cory has also never written a boing boing post that is "pro book," though, in fact, he does not try an dictate his business model for books on others even though he is a great advocate of giving away his work to increase sales.

"#11 POSTED BY CORY DOCTOROW , APRIL 3, 2008 10:34 AM
The guy from Warner used to be a free agent. He's a radical copyfighter named Jim Griffin, and he's a hell of a dude. I trust him to the ends of the earth."

Well, that's good news. He does have a challenge in pleasing his employers and coming up with a plan that will be fair consumers. It's a contentious issue and I would think he's in the unenviable position of being criticized from all sides no matter what he comes up with.

It would seem that the devil is in the details. With Warner, the devil is writing the details, so it seems their proposal is much less likely to be desirable than one put forth by EFF.

"When a DJ drops the needle on his record, he is legit, no matter where the recording came from (an iPod, a bootleg, a download), and no matter what happens to the transmission after it is received (shared, retransmitted, recorded, webcast). The radio station has paid for the right to play all the music, over its equipment, regardless of origin or eventual disposition."

IIRC, one of the copyright trade groups sued radio stations looking for royalties for all the internal copies made on tape for playback, though I think the trade group lost. I think that with radio stations they are allowed to play them over the air for compulsory royalties, but they aren't necessarily allowed to download music. A radio station could be sued by the RIAA for downloading/uploading--or what ever the RIAA sues for. Being a radio station wouldn't necessarily be a defense.

Note you can get blanket licenses for playback of songs at venues and events from ASCAP/BMI but you still have to buy the music in spite of the license. The license is only for playback, it doesn't exempt you from any other copyright claim.

With the radio stations, they pay based on playback rather than transfer, so they pay when they play the songs. With the ISP license you pay for transfer, I'm unclear on whether I then "own" permanently because I paid a license to download it and how I prove I own it at a later date after I've stopped paying the license.

Also, is it a double dip? Do both the uploader and the downloader have to pay or only one? After all, in the sales model only one party pays royalties.

Take a look at this #4 POSTED BY HOUNSKULL , APRIL 3, 2008 1:06 AM #1 posted by Skep

You're missing the point.

It would be broadcast from the music studio's servers to the licensed users of the ISP. So yes, they would have control of where they open the spigot to.

And you are missing the FA.

From TFA, for your convenience:

All the Music, From Anywhere. Music fans have made it clear that they are going to use whatever software they like, to download anything that can be found in any "Shared" folder on the planet, including the unauthorized concert recordings, the rarities, the old b-sides, and the alternate takes. It's time to figure out who should be paid for them, rather than wishing for a world where you can somehow make them disappear.

That means that downloaders need a way to know what's licensed other than an "official site"--which would partially defeat the whole purpose of the "tax."

Yes, the studios could provide songs directly. The bandwidth could cost them more than than their cut. A good portion of Apple's 30 cent cut of iTunes music (most) goes to costs of running iTunes. Therefore, the studios would have to charge around 20-25 cents person to break even for costs unless they had other things to monazite.

If people can download for free, they will only buy limited things from the studios.

What also remains to be seen is how such a "tax" would affect aggregators. Would this only be benefit for individuals? Could the *AA still sue Napster-like companies? Could Allofmp3 pay the $5/mo and start back up? Could other companies sell songs by the bandwidth the way Allofmp3 did? How would it affect streaming audio royalties.

It is an interesting idea but there are a lot of kinks to consider.

...additionally, is the license like the rental schemes in that you have to keep paying it in perpetuity if you want to keep listening to the songs? i.e. can pay the tax, download for a month and then stop downloading? Do you then legally own the song? Or do you have to erase them when you stop paying the tax? How do you prove you own them? Why pay the tax by the month? Why not by the week? Day? Or hour? i.e., just when you are actually downloading and not merely for the possibility?

Until everything is tagged with a machine readable license I don't see how this can work. People who pay the license will have no guarantee that any song they download is licensed under the agreement unless they look it up in advance somehow in a database. And, due to international treaties, US users could be sued by foreign copyright holders who are not signed parties to the deal.

"Anyways, please resume ignorant but highly passionate debate."

Not really possible with out you. Kind of need the main protagonist to continue.

#136 POSTED BY HOUNSKULL , APRIL 2, 2008 But don't worry. Your skull seems to be highly opaque and like a "fancy filter" prevents any illumination from dawning upon you.

Remarkably, that was apparently stated "irony-free," in spite of the fact that HOUNSKULL's handle is named after a type of medieval helm with a full-face visor with tiny eye slits--all the better to call down from one's high horse with epithets while ignoring any need for rational argument.

#133 POSTED BY HOUNSKULL , APRIL 2, 2008 11:16 PM Skep, "idiot" goes for you too.

Now you are just repeating yourself. Reminds me of Anime. "Baka! Baka! Baka!"

Now if I was truly predictable you would have predicted my dissection of your arguments and, in anticipation, also included the counter arguments. Strangely, in spite of your psychic powers of prediction, you did not.

Your logic as run out, but your bluster has remained. Sort of like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. It seems Dr. Jekyll has lost the battle, leaving only Mr. Hyde here to call people idiots.

As much as I enjoy a proper rational dustup, there is not much point to arguing with someone who's main counter argument is "idiot." And it is not that you are mean--though you are--it is that your **arguments** are ad hominems rather than rational discourse. You started out with arrogant but fact-inspired arguments but soon dispensed with the need to support your arguments when you could, instead, simply call people "idiot."

If you are going troll with ad hominems rather than rational discourse you could at least attempt some panache and be entertaining rather than just dull boor.

"Ok, so it acts like a fancy filter. It sees "through" clothes exactly to the extent that the clothes are transparent to visible light."

Very close. Near IR is not actually visble, its litterally a shade past red, light that you can't see. But you have the general idea.

Most clothes do not show anything by using an IR camera--which is what I meant by normal. Many consumer cameras have a special "night" mode and built in IR LED "light" source. They can take pictures with light you can't see. You can play with this feature and you'll discover that it does not magically make clothes see-through. (BTW, surely the ability to see in total darkness has more privacy implications than the occasionally IR translucent swimsuit, yet no EULA is required to by the numerous consumer cameras that come with that feature, or the many, many in-expensive concealable security cameras with that feature--but I'm sure Mr. Super Genius (Helmet Head) has an explanation of why we are all "idiots" for thinking so.)

"#128 POSTED BY HOUNSKULL , APRIL 2, 2008 10:58 PM
#125 sproing3

You don't know what you're talking about and are an idiot. I've already told you that as have others."

Sproing3 is at least willing to try to learn, unlike you, who's main talent seems to be the rapidity with which you can type the word "idiot.".

"125 POSTED BY SPROING3 , APRIL 2, 2008 10:52 PM
Hounskull @123 - IR, as you might know, will "see through" to the same extent as visible light. The main difference that the body glows with heat, and this shine out through shear fabrics. So you might be able to pick up the body glow. But the body glow is nothing like reflected light - it is more amorphous (less morphous?)."

Close. Near IR is just a little past the visible spectrum and is very similar in a lot of ways. It is similar to putting a dark red filter over your camera and taking B&W photos--only more so. You do not see the heat glow of bodies in near IR and you can't take images in total darkness without an IR source (bodies don't show up as glowing as they do in thermal IR like you see when watching a FLIR camera shot from a police helicopter. This camera requires "light" to take pictures, but it may not be visible "light."

BTW, I was ready to chastise JAKE0748 for suggesting you are a troll. The troll accusation is a bit like Goodwin's law. However, I think that closing a post with "(idot.)"--for the sole reason that you disagree on the definition of "normal"--combined with your additional liberal use of ad hominem attacks in this thread, definitely elevates you to an increasingly clear qualification for trollhood.

122 POSTED BY HOUNSKULL , APRIL 2, 2008 10:29 PM #111 Genius, you're equivocating a telephoto lens to an IR camera. What kind of an idiot you must be to even conceive that equivalence...

It would seem you are giving up all pretense of making honest arguments in favor of ad hominems. That's too bad since you aren't an idiot, but you can sometimes be functionally identical to one.

One can, in fact, pool various privacy threats together when making a rational analysis of the actual legal implications. You seem to be unfamiliar with how invasion of privacy laws work, and indeed, taking extraordinary measures to see what could not ordinarily be seen by eye is part of invasion of privacy laws. Both telephoto lenses and IR can, depending on the circumstances, meet that standard. The "kind of idiot" who would "conceive that equivalence" of IR and telephoto lenses includes law makers across the 50 states, judges and prosecutors.

Your rather obvious ignorance on the matter of privacy laws--whether real or feigned--and the arrogance with which you wield it suggests that your further comments are likely of the same ilk and really aren't worth considering based on the credibility of the source.

"As for near and far IR, I'm not quite getting your point, as regards to seeing though clothes. Neither can, correct? You see infrared of the clothing itself, the heat of the clothing - you don't see through clothing."

We see through clothing all the time. Black panties under white pants? Red bra under a white blouse? Certain fabrics are more transparent than others.

Near IR doesn't magically see through clothing, but some fabric is more transparent to near IR than visible light. Let's go back to the Red bra under a white blouse. Could you see the same red bra under a red blouse of the same kind of fabric? Maybe a little, but not so much. I'm not giving you a very good analogy, but the idea with the near IR is that when you filter out the visible light it can be like turing the red blouse white but leaving the bra a contrasting color, taking the reflecting color of the blouse down making it easier to see through the fabric to the bra underneath, but not a miracle and it only works with thin fabrics with a high IR transparency relative to the visible light reflectivity. And, as you noticed, many of the "IR" photos on the website were not very different from the full spectrum photos--if anything they are mostly just shots of extraordinarily thin fabric swimsuits.

The reason the Sony fiasco died down is because near IR is not a big deal and it doesn't live up to the hype. It doesn't see through normal fabrics.

"#113 POSTED BY SPROING3 , APRIL 2, 2008 9:07 PM
Infrared doesn't pass through clothes any better than does visible light. You can't "see through" clothes with it.

The link to the joke porn site has nothing to do with IR."

Sorry, Sproing3, but there are different wavelengths of IR, including near and far IR. The "near" IR is near visible wavelegth. It is the kind of IR used in the photos of swim suits and in photos of plants that show the leaves as brilliant white--because the leaves reflect so much near IR. The kind of IR you are thinking of is far, or thermal, IR imaging.

However, near IR isn't really that effective at seeing through clothes. In a few cases, some thin fabrics are more transparent to near IR than to visible light, but the swim suit photos in the website are **worst case examples** especially chosen for the site and are not representative of clothing or swimsuits in general. Heck, many swim suits are more transparent when wet and any camera can see that difference.

Many spy devices are sold openly, partially due to poor enforcement of existing wiretapping laws and because there many legal applications for gear that can also be used to invade privacy--legal hallway security cam/illegal bathroom cam, etc.

Take a look at this #110 POSTED BY HOUNSKULL , APRIL 2, 2008 8:53 PM Ok, troll kiddies. I'm big bad meanie for commenting on your nonsense. Happy now?

It's not a mea culpa if you are still calling their arguments nonsense just because you disagree with them.

Mod parent -1

Pervs can photograph kids, stalk people, do some really illegal and uncool things. The sort of things people tend to have alarmist and visceral responses to, that make the evening news, and prompt law suits.

Yes, apparently you need to buy any of Fuji's other products if you want to take pervy photos. The lack of an ELUA for those cameras implies it's ok to use them, especially since neither IR or UV are necessary to taking Perry photos and because all cameras are capable of invading privacy. Fuji should have considered that when implementing the ELUA.

And unlike a telephoto lens, which still requires someone to voluntarily make themselves visible, it's hard to prevent against this unless a person wears a lead coat all the time. (another distinction goof balls seem incapable of understanding.)

Yes, because anyone who disagrees wit hyour god-like reasoning ability must be a "goof ball." In fact, telephoto lenses allow photographers to take photos of people who reasonably believe they are in private--contradicting your false statement that such people are "voluntarily mak[ing] themselves visible." That is why using extraordinary means to take photos (including telephoto lenses) is an invasion of privacy.

This EULA is perfectly understandable, and basically just an unenforceable CYA maneuver. As someone said, equivalent to a head shop posting a disclaimer over the door.

Understandable != reasonable. If it's truly unenforceable then there is no reason to ask for it in the first place (if Fuji knows it to be unenforceable then it isn't a meaningful measure and it won't give them legal cover.) Second, it is enforceable. It is an explicit contract required as part of the purchase. Name the "un-enforceable" part of the contract.

The people alarmed over this (OMG!! AN EULA!!!) are the sort of people who are always in hysterics about something. They're unhelpful and frankly, rather stupid.

That isn't an argument, it is merely a general ad hominem.

HOUNSKULL , APRIL 2, 2008 7:49 PM #92 Takuan

"Hounskull: Are you aware that you come across as a deliberately ill-mannered and arrogant person?"

No, I come across as someone who responds to lame posts with derision. way.

You seem to mistake the mistake of thinking they are mutually exclusive. They are not. So much for you always being right.

OT
@Doggo,

How about the word "Shero?" as in when Maya Angelou says "Heros and Sheros" apparently because there's not enough "she" in "he-ros." Gotta say "shero" bugs me.

#52 POSTED BY HOUNSKULL , APRIL 2, 2008 5:19 PM Come on people. Think. Use the brain.

This particular EULA, despite being a minute of hassle, isn't anything to get alarmed about. It doesn't actually constrict user's rights in any way that wasn't already illegal. It's not even enforcable. It's just FUJI covering thier ass in case of a lawsuit.

By people reacting hysterically to this EULA it muddies the waters with other EULA issues where usage rights are actually being unreasonably burdened.

Nothing to see here, sheeple, sign the ELUA and move along.

A minute hassle? You can't even buy the camera online because of it. That's no minute hassle. You can buy a frick'n thermal camera on line but a stupid near IR camera requires a sworn oath? Yes, its a big deal. They even go so far as to dictate what **kind of person** is allowed to use the camera (only government or business professionals), what kind of photos you can take (no hobby photos) and whether you can sell it ( firmware license is not transferable). That's a big deal.

If its not a big deal then Fuji would take the "not a big deal" ELUUA and **not ask you to sign it**, ergo it is a big deal.

Not enforceable? This ain't no shrinkwrap or click wrap license, this is a signed before you get to buy it enforceable contract--with the exact degree of enforceability decidable in a court of law.

And to the why is this such a big deal when the camera has been out for a year crowd, what a stupid argument. How about, "Hey honey. I just noticed a clause in the contract with the car dealer that says we aren't allowed to drive the car for anything but business, I'm the only person allowed to drive it and we can't ever sell it. Oh, never mind. That contract is a year old..." Just because we just found out about it doesn't mean it isn't a big deal. It is.

"#34 POSTED BY COWICIDE , APRIL 2, 2008 3:25 PM
Whut Phuji Phears (NSFW, but you'll click it anyway)"

Indeed I did. I think the photos displayed there, being for commercial purposes, are not typical of IR and the swim suits chosen were most likely chosen to give dramatic results. In fact, I think at least one of them is one of those super thin "Tan through your swimsuit" suits.

#29 POSTED BY GUAN , APRIL 2, 2008 3:10 PM Skep, IANAL, but is it clear that a second-hand buyer of the camera needs a license to use the firmware? Obviously the first buyer has agreed to the license. But the second-hand buyer does not make any copies of the firmware, and he should not need a license just to use it.

IANAL, either, however I believe you are right that the contract obligations of the initial purchaser are not binding on the second hand owner, thus the second owner has no obligation to use the camera for Fuji-authorized business or government use. But, just as the obligations of the contract do not transfer, neither do the benefits, i.e., a license to use the firmware.

The issue of the transferability of licensing for the firmware is not so clear from a legal stand point and is, unfortunately, not as cut and dried as one would hope. One can argue that copyright law and the doctrine of first sale applies, however, the there are exceptions to the doctrine of first sale for computer software and they may or may not apply to the firmware. I'd say not, but that is my opinion and I don't think it is settled law.

"But what's the worst that could happen to you if you buy it as a hobbyist? No Fuji death squads descending on your house? I'm getting one then."

Maybe not, but you could get an **AA-style copyright infringement lawsuit for using their copyrighted firmware without a license.

This is ridiculous. Most digital cameras are IR sensitive. You can even pay 3D parties to remove the IR filter so you can use your DSLR for IR photography.

Fujifilm UVIR Digital Camera USA End User License Agreement:

By breaking the packaging seal you acknowledge your understanding and acceptance of Fujifilm's Ultraviolet (UV) and/or Infrared (IR) sensitive digital camera firmware End User License Agreement. The camera firmware contained in each system package is fully activated to engage the camera's UV and/or IR capabilities and ready for use. No other firmware modifications are necessary in order to activate the camera's UV and/or IR wavelength sensitive CCD. THIS LICENSE IS NON-TRANSFERABLE.

You hereby acknowledge and agree that your use of the camera's UV and/or IR light energy sensitive capabilities, as enabled by Fujifilm's camera firmware, will be purely to accomplish a legitimate business purpose in the medical, forensic, fire investigative, law enforcement, scientific, systems integrators, museum/antiquity, aerial photographic survey, astronomy, professional nature and fine art photography, photographic education and local and federal government markets.

In addition, you further agree not to use the camera's hardware and firmware enabled capabilities to engage in unethical photographic conduct involving the violation of personal privacy, child endangerment, lewd photography, and or paparazzi like activities.

They are saying that you can't even sell this camera, ever, because the license to use the firmware is not transferable. Further, hobbyists may not use the camera because it is only licensed for **business** use.

EULA's suck. And this one sucks more than most. But, on the plus side of bad, at least it isn't hidden in the box.

12,000 zip ties I can swing. It's the 1,500 hoola-hoops I can't do. Sigh, no techno/redneck geodesic pool cover this year.

"This is from the 1994 MTV Music Video Awards hosted by Roseanne Barr (yes Barr). I was 13 when this aired and my mind was blown. I taped it when they replayed it and watched at least once every three months for about 4 years."

I remember back then, when only the Soviet Union was bankrupt, not the US (ah, to be only a few trillion in debt...) To bad we couldn't have learned some lesson from them about trying to sustain an occupation in the Middle East being financially devastating...:-p

Absolutely great, and on target, prank. Perhaps Schauble will have a change of heart? More likely, he'll just push for ineffective laws making distributing copies of fingerprints a crime.

..In the meantime he also has to worry that not only can a fingerprint be used to access scanners, a finger print impression can be left at crime scenes...

One of the problems with biometrics is that people put too much stock in them. DNA, for instance. We shed DNA all the time, so it is actually just as easy, perhaps easier, to plant DNA evidence. In court, however, people are awed by the DNA identification, and gloss over the details of whether that actually proves the suspect was involved. DNA is a tool, like fingerprints, and it must be considered in careful context.

Isn't this from an old MTV Awards show at Radio City Music Hall?

$12K? Seems rather high. I wonder what the dealership charges for an oil change? $500?

Yes, as other's have said, this isn't a 3D rendering but a sophisticated morph of a photograph--that's why the skin luminosity is so perfect. You can even see the crude cutout of the hair, which has been separated from the original background but left artifacts ("crud") around the edges.

Hmmm...so "gyp" may have been a word like niggardly? Good to know.

As argumentative as I can sometimes be, I want to have the correct information, not just think I'm right. And if I have the wrong idea, I do want to be corrected (doesn't mean I'll necessarily agree at the time ;-) )

Um, what could be worse than having blank passports manufactured overseas? They're **blank**, as in they have the security features and printing on them and you can print whatever else you want on them.

Perhaps we should save money by printing our currency in Thailand? No? That would be stupid? Of course it would!! And so is the outsourcing of the production of high security documents with major national security implications to an overseas low bidder!!!

AFIK, wireless mics don't require a license but some wireless mic users (*cough*ESPN*cough*) are licensed to use certain frequencies and licensed users take priority over non-licensed use. That is, ESPN comes in to town and kicks people off the frequencies.

Wireless mics are used in virtually all entertainment industries, live music, musicals, plays, sporting events, tv and film production, etc, and at all levels, from high school productions to multi-million dollar films.

Right now, you select you frequencies by working around local broadcasters. If the FCC lets spread-spectrum data transmission into the "whitespace" it is going to totally screw up live performance, tv and film production big time. As it is, certain kinds of cell phones can interfere with UHF wireless mics.

So, if I'm an ass for defending my work, then I'm an ass.

Well, you are certainly different than many. I'll assume you really are he, rather than an impersonator trying. The voice sounds convincingly like the writing in the novels.

You know more about tentative fame and publishing than I do, so I posit this only theoretically. It seems to me that the popularity of a book is not only based on the quality of the writing, but the caprices of a fickle public. I have no idea if being an ass will help or hurt you in that regard, but I have no doubt it will have some kind of impact, one way or another.

@ #7

Damn! I wondered why the Yomiuri article didn't have the photo (no really, I was looking for more info, not more photos of bra-less models in knife-resistant mesh shirts, now what site did you say that came from?...)

This is a controlled release -- if you want the whole story, go buy the book, if you can wait every week, more power to you. The choice is yours. If BoingBoing readers can find fault in that, they are a jaded bunch.

This is the internet, of course we can find fault with that. Overall, it's a pretty cool deal for readers and potential fans. Too bad about the lack of concurrent release of the PDF and book--out of your hands, I know, but it does rather get in the way of the impulse buy thing.

And Technical Writing Geek, how about you blow me? I'm sorry that writers don't all make clones of what the "sci-fi masters" did and regurgitate a style done by someone else 40 years ago. Time moves on, champ; if you don't like the new stuff, don't read it. And Iron Maiden RAWKS!

Hmmm...I can't decide if you are refreshingly blunt or an just an ass.

From the article on carny games:

The nigger in the woodpile is that the balls are of two different sizes.

It is interesting to see "quant" old racist phrases used in magazines. I'm glad they didn't try and bowdlerize them as it helps to show where we've come from.

Of course, we still have plenty of racist phrases in current use, such as "Dutch treat" (i.e., the Dutch are to cheap to treat one another to a meal) or to "gyp" someone (short for Gypsy, i.e., Gypsies are dishonest). But it is also easy to misattribute racism to phrases that have completely separate origins, such as the word niggardly, which is not related at all to the racist term used above in Modern Mechanix.

Funny, I hadn't even noticed the title change :-) I wonder what prompted it?

What ever the case, I'll give the new version of the audio book a listen--if it is un abridged and once it is finished (I'm wary of starting anything, print or audio, unless I know it's finished. Its bad enough having read 10 Wheel of Time books (where time seems to pass slower and slower with each book) and have the author die before he could finish the series himself (best wishes to all who knew him), but to get into a book that's partially finished would be even more annoying...

From Engadget:

It’s made from a thicker fiber that is three times stronger than the cotton used for an average T-shirt.

Wow! Three times stronger than a T-Shirt! I'd be completely immune to Spork attacks. Oh, think of the power... Well, Spork attacks to the torso anyway...

Real knife protection needs to be against punctures as well as slashes, as the OP alludes to, and woven or knitted material is generally a poor choice. Even bullet resistant vests have poor puncture resistance, especially to narrow pointy things (regular lead bullets deform on impact, armor piercing bullets, less so--hence why they are especially dangerous to vests that don't use ceramic inserts). One vest that has additional puncture resistance (for prison guards) apparently uses titanium foil--not exactly cool and breathable.

I'm surprised they pulled the podcast, if that's true. He'd said in his "Adventures in Sci-Fi Publishing" interview that he had a special clause in his contract clearly saying that Crown couldn't stop him from releasing a free audio version of the book. I wonder what happened.

It could just be being* revamped. It isn't clear to me from either Scott's site or Podiobooks. Either way, you can't get at the moment. Whether it comes back is yet to be seen.

*"be being" seems, somehow, worse than "that that," but it's too early in the morning to think of a better phrasing :-)

They've also pulled the audio Podcast of Infection from his site and from Podiobooks. (Well, the intro is out of date "Infection is a podcast only novel. You can't buy it in stores and you can't peek at the end. Written and performed by Scott Sigler.")

I can't find any licensing information on the podcast, either in the audio or the metadata of the version I subscribed to via Podiobooks... Lucky fro me it isn't DRM'd by Amazon, since Random House would probably like to retroactively rescind it.

A couple of things come to mind.

1) Because the couple did not go through a doctor, the sperm donor is the legal father.

2) Being pregnant while taking testosterone isn't normal. Gender IDing as male is one thing, but to use male hormones while gestating as a female seems dangerous to fetal development. I would hope that the mother (if you are gestating a baby that's the biologically necessary way to refer to you) is discontinuing all male hormone therapy..

Take a look at this #7 POSTED BY DCE , MARCH 23, 2008 8:43 AM Neuromancer has it: While I own the books on my shelf, I don't own the content they contain.

When I loan out a volume or sell it back to a used bookstore, I'm passing on the license along with the physical item - the two are inextricably linked. It's a perfect DRM system; I can't "sell, gift or trade" my content, only the hardware that it happens to be printed on.

Actually, you do own what your books contain, for that copy. Otherwise you would have to erase the pages before you could sell the book part. At it's simplest, copyright is the exclusive right to **copy** the book, not to control what people do with a copy of the book.

As for physical copies of Books (or CDs or DVDs) being the perfect DRM, that is false. You could copy any of them before selling them. All traditional used media sales rely on the honor system, not "the perfect DRM." Thus digital media aren't really different in that respect.

With this the TSA would have to ban aluminum foil since you could IR and RF shield the device by covering it. Granted, it might be tough to get a perfect seal, but you'd probably get enough attenuation so others people's cuffs would get set off first.

Here in Florida (and some other states as well maybe?) we have the "Shoot First Law". Basically, we can shoot anyone anywhere whenever we feel threatened. I think I'll write my congressman to introduce a "Poo First Law"

At least in florida you have to "feel threatened" before you can open fire. In Texas, you can kill fleeing trespassers at night, even if you don't feel threatened at all and even if you know they are lawfully reclaiming your car (the contract with the bank says that you allow them to do so, too).

Perhaps this booby trap boob should just move to Texas, where he can be properly appreciated.

GANDALF23 , MARCH 19, 2008 7:19 PM Pffft!

One repo man gets shot, 14 years ago, and the whole state is forever know as repo man killers.

Yup.

Know why? It isn't the lethal shooting of a Repo man in the back that made the national news. It was the fact that the deliberate homicide, where no life was in danger of harm of any kind, was and remains legal under Texas law.

Want to change the perception? Then change the law so that murdering the agent who is legally reclaiming a car you don't own is illegal.

#23 POSTED BY XOPHER , MARCH 19, 2008 3:27 PM Enochrewt 21: Like I said, Texas has some crazy-ass laws. There are certain circumstances under which it's legal in Texas to shoot a fleeing person in the back. The law there is grotesquely out of whack when it comes to the relative values of property and human life

Second that. In Texas you can legally murder the repo man driving off with the car the bank owns since you didn't keep making payments. But don't think Texas is some sort of vigilante free for all, you can only do it at night--really:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9805E2D81F3AF93BA35750C0A962958260

I gotta agree about the excess of the railroad tie launcher. That is lethal force by any measure, no different than a pit of punji sticks (with rubber tips of course). If you get hit in the head with an airborne railroad tie, "rubber block" or no, you are likely going to die.

This guy is a dangerous idiot. For all he knows the "trespasser" will be a meter reader, a deer or a relative coming for a visit. As with guns which are more likely to be used to accidentally kill a family member than protect a home from intruders, the series of booby traps is far more likely to harm an innocent individual than protect that moron from intruders.

Indeed. Kids will say what you want them to, especially if you keep ignoring their original answers they way investigators do with adults.

All memory is malleable. The mistake is believing that anyone's memory is like a photography. The malleably in children and adults has been proven time and time again.

What this study actually showed was that kids memories were less mediated, not that they weren't malleable under leading questioning.

BTW, not to belabor the point too much but here is a still of the adorable munchkin where he puts his foot in the path of the scissor -like descending catapult arm.

http://aycu15.webshots.com/image/49254/2003872810869307195_rs.jpg

Granted, the maker has taken some precautions as can be seen by the clear plastic safety covers protecting some of the mechanics but the exposed pinch points are still appear to be an amputation hazard, as can be seen in the video.

Hmm...the creepy girl character in the wide-flared dress keeps flashing her bloomers at the end. Who knew they had "fan service' even back in their 1930's propaganda cartoons?

Skep, it can't have been used unsupervised; otherwise, who's shooting the footage?

Yes, you are right of course.

I wasn't being completely literal in my mockery. However, even attended, this device could snip off a finger faster than the camera operator could react. That, and it seemed implicit to me that such a device could be left on for the dog unattended--but that could just be me.

Really, is there anything safer than the combination powerful automated homebrewed robotics and un-attended dogs and children?

Better count those toes, fingers and cute sobery tongues...

(i.e., neat device, but dangerous for dogs and children because of the powerful motors used to automatically elevate and retract the sling shot.)

I'm a little dubious of the 950,000 volt claim. How do you not shock yourself with a tiny device that produces a voltage that can jump 10 inches or more?

"Good afternoon. If you're interested in reading the TSA's side of the story, come on over to http://www.tsa.gov/blog"

...in which the TSA claims that running a private security business couldn't possibly have any conflict of interest with running the TSA. Interestingly, the first comment posted to their blog entry is by a TSA employee noting that they were investigated by the TSA for a year for having "outside employment"--a rental property.

More of the do as we say not as we do mentality.

BTW, the TSA also defends themselves by proudly proclaiming that the FAA doesn't "conduct covert security tests anymore" (makes me feel safer...) so they couldn't possibly be cheating on inspections...

Uhm, I'm guessing that an insulated punch down tool is generally a good idea. The Leatherman mod, not so much. Granted the voltage on twisted pairs is usually low, but the ringer voltage for analog phones is 48V.

Prankster? Let's look at TFA, (as JSO did):

"There, witnesses reported that teenagers and young adults have thrown rocks at the buses, breaking windows and denting the bodies, officials said. A couple of drivers reported being assaulted, although nobody has been seriously injured."

The article never uses the word "prankster." Just turning off the bus might qualify as a prank. But turning off the bus in a bad neighborhood, breaking windows and assaulting drivers. That's no prank. Vandals, hooligans and criminal batterers, not pranksters.

I don't know why this is a surprise. RAM latency attacks have always been taken into consideration by products like PGP, though I don't know if they are vulnerable for the whole disk encryption issue.

Actually, upon further investigation, it appears as though LM probably already owns the trademark for the name "Lennon" and that Yoko is attempting to take it away. Is John Lennon ever marketed as only "Lennon?" If not, I'm not sure I see the trouble.

"Lenon" already applied for the trademark in 2003. Yoko was informed back then and didn't object until just now, two days before the deadline. Why wait so long? I'm going to have to agree that there is more to this story than either Lenon or Yoko are telling us. That, and that non-transparent editing if prior posts is reprehensible--like the pigs in Animal Farm painting over the rules at night with new ones.

After very careful consideration, I chose to buy Anansi boys as my firt Gaiman book and I have yet to read it.

Then get the audio book, which is wonderfully read by British actor and comedian Lenny Henry. I think the book is even available as an mp3 disc.

" NEX , FEBRUARY 9, 2008 8:54 AM Therefore, the idea of using bad speakers in order to achieve a mix that "works everywhere" is pure stupidity; it doesn't work. Monitors do not "emulate 'cheap home speakers'",

You've apparently never heard of Auratones, standard 5" studio monitor speakers that were designed to mimic "typical" home radio or tv speakers. They weren't designed to insure that everything would "sound great" no matter what you played it back on but as a double check to insure that the mix didn't sound like total un-intelligible crap on a radio or tv. Good mixers still check to make sure their mixes will sound good on something other that full range studio monitor speakers in a studio control room.

While you are right that you can't predict exactly what people's systems will sound like you are also wrong to suggest that you can't also "mix to the Auratones." One thing you can predict pretty reliably is that a high end studio monitor set up (especially with an acoustically engineered room) will always sound better that 99.99% of all home set ups. Already, a number of engineers mix with mp3 conversion in mind and are careful about relying on detail that may get lost in a medium bit rate mp3.

Better make shure those drapes are closed...I don't think the SWAT team that responds will assume that you are using "primer only" rounds.

You can see this trend in other social websites like Digg or even the threads in Slashdot.

On Slashdot the first posts get seen the most and if they are reasonably good they get modded up. The key to a 5 rating in Slashdot isn't being the best but being reasonably good and being first.

60-70%? Un-cited "Studies?" From a Wikipedia entry with no citations??? And we believe this why? Because salesman Jim Sullivan says this is so?

This trick would appear part of an overall friendly salesman's manipulations. By itself it certainly will not work 60-70% on a general population, especially where people are not necessarily equally open to all the menu choices and are not completely open to suggestion on any one--they have things they do and don't like so they won't just be pushed into buying it off the menu because someone is nodding their head.

The photo on the eBay ad appears to be the exact one in the demonstration. You can see the sharp point on the upper inside of the ring from where "Donnie" pulled the bezier handle out too far, causing interference with the neighboring smooth bezier point.

Video? Funny.

Pop up ads while movie Flash player is playing the video? Really Frickin' Annoying.

Wow... A lot of skept, no first-hand experience - I am more apt to believe the debunk from someone who actually fell for this. Has anyone here even tried it before?

Then I have some magic beans to sell you...

Assuming that the magic pads work--even though they contradict known science--is really not the rational default position to take. Keep in mind that many products that don't actually produce physiological effects--*cough*homeopathy*cough*--can convince people to believe their condition is improved even though objective standards of measurement such as tumor size stay the same. Thus, feedback and anecdotes from credulous users are likely to be misleading rather than enlightening.

Instead, one should demand scientific proof for the extraordinary claims made in the infomercial. If you are going to sell a product that you claim performs magical feats then the onus is on you to prove that it works rather than on the consumer to prove that it does not.

...really needed a unicorn aperitif, too.

Tell me now,just where did modern medicine leap full blown from? Knowledge accumulates. The scientific method is a logical extension of trial and observation.

That wasn't my claim. My claim was "Science replaced false presumptions with provable explanations and sound predictions that have revolutionized our ability to treat disease."

The foundations of modern science have been long and slow in coming. But it wasn't until recently that modern scientific medicine really took off. Among the greatest discoveries were the germ theory of disease and anesthesia. Now, scientific medicine offers us an understanding of the human body at a molecular level--a process that is ongoing.

Science can treat cancer, diabetes, total hear failure. We have created vaccines that prevent diseases that killed millions, like polio and whooping cough. And we know that one of the most important issues in developing countries is insuring a supply of clean, germ free water. From advanced to simple solutions, science helps apply our efforts with a purpose and demonstrable results.

Now, describe to me the great advances in herbalism over--I'll be generous-- the last two thousand years? And, no, derivatives like digitalis don't count because herbalists don't use them.

You repeatedly deny that the application of plant preparations ever did any medical good in the history of the race, prior to the applicator wearing a white coat.

Quote me where I ever said that. I'll wait...oh, never mind. You can't because I didn't.

What I have said is that herbalism is haphazard. That it's no good having efficacious herbs when you use them indiscriminately with all the other herbs at your disposal which you think are efficacious but are not, especially in "personalized" herbalism where the herbalist gives each patient a customized mix of herbs.

But, wait, customized is good right? Not if it isn't based in sound reason. Take a librarian who gives you a customized collection of books to take home. Great! She knows a lot about books and its custom! Er, except she doesn't know which books are any good because she doesn't believe in reading. She just looks at the covers and decides based on the colors and shapes which book to give you. That is literally the basis for many herbal remedies--the appearance of the herb. (But, don't try and take the librarian analogy too far because unlike the effects of drugs on disease, the enjoyment of books is subjective and you can easily rate which ones you like. Drug effects have to be tested, differently, to separate what you think works from what actually works.)

certainty becomes laughable arrogance.

Laugh all you want. I'd be more impressed if you could come up with some arguments that stand up to careful reading.

Anyways, it isn't so much arrogance as impatience with apologists for pseudo-science. Oh, sure, you are only half way there, but still it is annoying. Herbalist vs. magic foot pad huxter. They are both part of the non-evidence based faux medicine tradition. Once you throw out evidence-based standards, all bets are off and there is no meaningful way to delineate efficacious medicine from claptrap.

The bottom line, though, is that the magic pads are bunk and are part of a larger field of fraudulent medical treatment--to which most alternative medicine is related. Medicine which may have some efficacious treatments but indiscriminately co-mingles them with a larger majority of inefficacious treatments is not good medicine just as a stopped analog clock isn't a good clock just because it happens to be "right" twice a day.

IMO.

And I am giving extra credit for the oblique Head-On joke in #23. (As long as I'm not wrong about the forehead having the thinnest skin of the body.)

I wish I could accept the credit :-) Indeed a HeadOn joke would have been nice, but alas I did not think of it.

Indeed, though, the some of your thinest skin can be found on your head: your eyelids. However, what may be the thinest skin I tried to merely imply in context rather than risk being indelicate.

If their medicine doesn't work at all, how do you explain their very existence?

Er, the same way I explain the existence of, say, gazelles. The existence of gazelles is not evidence of efficacious of gazelle witch doctors.

If you were stranded in the Amazon and infested with parasites, would you turn up your nose at what the locals had to offer?

Hmm, let's say "death vs. roll the dice." Yes, indeed, high praise for native medicine if one would accept it under those oh so artificially constructed circumstances.

Herbalists have been around for thousands of years. Clearly this explains the high level of medical knowledge before the age of modern science and how herbalists learned to cure polio and treat whooping cough and cancer. No, wait. Under herbalism, medicine stagnated since herbalists used a hodgepodge of "wisdom" to select herbs for treatment.

It is true that I have painted herbalists with broad strokes for which there may be exceptions, and yet those are the exceptions. Don't be too impressed with those thousands of years of experience. Such experience also confirmed the geocentric universe and humeric medicine. Keep in mind that all the bunk medicine of the past and the present is steeped in the "empirical evidence" of the practitioner--also known as anecdotal evidence. They all thought/think their medicine works, too.

Science is a method of systematically studying the world around us that helps us gather facts and create theories with predictive value. Science helps us separate what is true from what merely appears to be true (*cough*herbalisim*cough*)

Now back to one of your earlier howlers:

I am not "trusting" of the superior knowledge and experience of those who have put in the time and study to understand medical plants. It is not a matter of "trust". They demonstrably know more and I bow to their opinion in these matters. As should you if you haven't done the work they have.

Of course you are "trusting" them. You trust that they have the "superior" knowledge you think they have. However, you make a grave mistake if you presume "more knowledge" is better. That would be true if the knowledge were accurate knowledge, but that is the key. More data isn't better data, better data is better data. More bad data isn't a plus, its a minus.

Your claim that these herbalists have "superior" knowledge is argument by assertion. If herbalists were into genuine science then they wouldn't be called herbalists.

Your suggestion that I should "bow" to them, whether figuratively or literally, is presumptive in the extreme.

Do you acknowledge what I already mentioned about how much of our present pharmacopia derives from plants?

You seem to think this equates to evidence that "herbalism" is a valid and efficacious form of medical treatment. It is not. The fact that some plants contain pharmacologically active chemicals is not an endorsement of the non-scientific practice of prescribing "herbs" based on the whims and caprices of herbalists. It doesn't matter if some plants can be useful if the herbalist doesn't know which is which--and they don't because herbalists and alternative medicine practitioners eschew the kind of controlled, double blind testing can can tell us if certain "herbs" are efficacious in the way they are claimed to be.

A good primer on this subject can be found here:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6

There, Steven Novella writes about "The Plant vs Pharmaceutical False Dichotomy."

First and foremost, herbs and plants that are used for medicinal purposes are drugs - they are as much drugs as any manufactured pharmaceutical. A drug is any chemical or combination of chemicals that has biological activity within the body above and beyond their purely nutritional value. Herbs have little to no nutritional value, but they do contain various chemicals, some with biological activity. Herbs are drugs. The distinction between herbs and pharmaceuticals is therefore a false dichotomy.

Now, as to my "is this insistence on the precise meaning of every term of our discussion." Well, yes. If we are going to talk about science then we should be accurate--especially when we are talking about pseudo scientific claims that often hide in equivocal terms. Your attempt to exchange "draws out toxins" for "killing bacteria so the bodies natural defenses can clean it up by exuding dead white cells etc." is one such example. Toxins and infections are entirely different and the conflation of such is the kind of casual errancy that is common in pseudo science and frauds.

Your latest statement, "My intent was to show the predisposition of some to believe undesirable substances in the body could be extracted by "drawing -as was believed by many prior to modern medicine could be accomplished by the use of poultices." is much more tenable since you couch it in the frame of what was believed (in error) rather than falsely supposing it, as you did earlier, as an old belief that is still valid.

Precision is important. Otherwise we are likely not even talking about the same thing. One could have an "honest" exchange of ideas without clear language but that "honesty" would be wasted since the discussion would lose its meaning once any attempt at precision of meaning is abandoned. Would you have such a discussion with a doctor? Would you try and argue that toxins and infection are the same thing and treating one is the same as the other? Only an idiot with a death wish would try that. Yet you propose we do so when talking about the same issue in the abstract--quite untenable.

yes the foot pads are a fraud. Not in the worst way though, since I doubt they actually kill anyone.

Ok, I'll concede that.

As for seizing on "drawing out toxins", if you prefer; "killing bacteria so the bodies natural defenses can clean it up by exuding dead white cells etc."

You are, I'm afraid, dodging the question by trying to shift it. Let's get back on track. Are you aware of any evidence that poltuices "draw away toxins" in the way the pads claim to do? It would seem not since you are trying to shift the discussion.

I will leave specific citation to any herbalist that might be reading this.

Very trusting of you. Unfortunately, herbalists generally get their "wisdom" from mostly non-evidence based sources, such as compilations of herbalist "knowledge." Much of the "wisdom" of herbalisim comes from ideas like certain herbs are "good" for kidney ailments because look vaguely kidney shaped.

If the intent is to protect people from quackery, then perhaps the larger picture should be kept in mind. Knowing where an idea came from assists in tghe dislodging of it

One would hope, yet we have a whole history of debunked medicine. Science replaced false presumptions with provable explanations and sound predictions that have revolutionized our ability to treat disease. In spite of this, claptrap is growing back like a weed, perhaps because made up nonsense is easier to "comprehend" than the complexities of science. You can spend a lifetime studying quantum mechanics and never fully understand it or you can say "god did it," QED. Clearly the latter is easier.

They do work to some extent in some cases.

I'm unaware of the ability of poultices to "draw out toxins". But, as with most things, I'm open to evidence to the contrary. Citation?

In the mean time, the foot pads are a fraud in the worst way.

IMO.

perhaps we are willing to believe in such things because there is a long medical tradition of using poultices to draw toxins and infections.

Tradition? Well, if you are talking about "drawing out toxins" then a tradition of nonsense, yes, but not "medical" in the modern sense of proven by reliable, evidence-based science.

So, yes, a tradition of pseudo-science and medical nonsense may well predispose some people to believe additional nonsense.

I cheerfully admit that I'll believe anything until you disprove it. Even sorrier that you find that so upsetting.

Wow, someone this dogmatically gullible doesn't come along every day. This is even better than having a little brother :) Oh, where to start...

Leprechauns are real, natch.

I have a secret map to all of their pots of gold, but it is only viewable by people with open minds. Skeptics, people with closed minds and stupid people are unable to comprehend the mystical awesomeness of this treasure map of the Fairy realm, and to them it appears as nothing more than a sheet of A4 white copy paper swiped from Kinko's. But to the enlightened it is discernible as glorious treasure beyond all measure.

Now, I would never sell such a find--that would be material of me. No, I will give it to you free of charge, but because of its sacred nature I must ask for a token of your faith and commitment to demonstrate and prove your ability to care for this priceless artifact. Since it is a map to gold treasure, soon you will be swimming in gold. Therefore it will be no burden for you to provide me 2 pounds of 99.99% gold bullion in advance. But, you must contact me soon or I will have to return this only-one-of-its-kind treasure to the Spirit who guided me to it...

(Even as enlightened one It will take a while for the map to appear to you, 60 days or more. But not to worry, I'll offer a 30 day money back guarantee...but, of course if you don't see the map it can only be because you are an unbeliever or stupid--neither of which are sufficient reason to grant refunds.)

What else, what else...

Computers are powered by invisible demons.
All disease is caused by an imbalance of the 4 humors.
Dihydrogen Monoxide causes cancer.
There is an invisible Pink Unicorn standing right behind you.

Oh, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster is canoodling your spouse right this minute.

That being said, I feel a strong urge to correct some things: your skin actually is somewhat permeable,

Indeed, but what goes one way doesn't necessarily go the other. For instance, you can inject someone with sterile garlic infused water using a syringe. Now, try and do the opposite, try and suck just the garlic from the blood stream using a syringe. You can't do it. It is the same with your skin. You can absorb certain substances through your skin--that is how medicated "patches" like Nicoderm work--but you can't selectively suck out "toxins" like nicotine back through the skin once they are infused into the body. The infomercials pray on our flawed sense of intuition.

I cheerfully admit that I'll believe anything until you disprove it. Even sorrier that you find that so upsetting.

Boy, you must buy a lot of infomercial crap, given that you assume all claims are true until I, personally, disprove them! But that gives me an idea...

Please allow me to introduce myself. My name is Dr. (Mrs.) Mariam Abacha, the wife of the late head of state and commander in chief of the armed forces of the federal republic of Nigeria who died on the 8th of June 1998.

My late husband had/has Eighty Million USD ($80,000,000.00) specially preserved and well packed in trunk boxes of which only my husband and I knew about. It is packed in such a way to forestall just anybody having access to it. It is this sum that I seek your assistance to get out of Nigeria as soon as possible before the present civilian government finds out about it and confiscate it just like they have done to all our assets.

I implore you to please give consideration to my predicament and help a widow in need.

May Allah show you mercy as you do so?

Your faithfully,

Dr (Mrs.) Mariam Abacha (M.O.N)

Please, please don't blow all your cash on psychic hotlines, magnet therapies and detoxifying colon cleansers when, instead, you could do an old lady a favor...

@ SAISUMIMEN

I dunno, I think JCCALHOUN made the point a lot more succinctly than I did :-)

OT:

Otherwise it's like suing McDonald's for coffee being too hot.

Sorry, bub, but that was a meritorious suit. McDonald's was serving coffee in flimsy paper cups at an undrinkable and undeniably instantly scalding 180 degrees--and handing these cups of instant scalding liquid to people through their drivers windows.

It was not only completely foreseeable that people would get burned by this practice but it had already happened a number o times. McDonalds elected to continue this practice in spite of the known danger.

A the victim in the case you allude to was burned to the bone and had to have skin grafts to treat her 3d degree burns. She didn't set out to sue them, initially she just asked McDonalds to reimburse her for her direct medical costs. It was only after they told her to stuff it that she was forced to sue for medical costs. The jury decided to fine McDondalds' 3 days of coffee profits as punitive damages since a small fine would mean nothing to the behemoth. The damages were later, unjustly IMO, reduced on appeal. However, the verdict stands.

Skep,

I worked in health care for 20 years. Half of "science based" medicine is still technically voodoo because we don't understand the mechanisms by which things work. Why, as of this week, it turns out that several LDL reducing drugs actually cause more heart attacks and strokes. Good science presumes neither truth nor falsehood. It just keeps poking at it. You have a very strong bias which kills any possibility of objective observation. Also, you might want to dial down the bold-face type.

Bold? That's a stylistic choice. Sometimes I like my posts to scan quickly. Emphasis and proper organization of thoughts--you know, things like paragraphs--can help make posts easier to read.

Now, once again you are missing the point. In your first post you proceeded to posit theories as to why something worked without first checking to see if it works. You now defend yourself by saying that scientific medicine often doesn't understand why things work. This is a non-sequitur. You are ignoring your earlier, false premise that suggests that one may skip to understanding "how" something works without understanding if it works in the first place. You may not.

You can theorize all you want about "how" Leprechauns get their pots of gold to the ends of rainbows but such theories are beyond a waste of time until you prove that their are Leprechauns and they do place pots of gold at the ends of rainbows.

You can't study how an effect happens until you prove that the effect happens in the first place. If you skip that first step then you aren't doing science you are just doing make believe. Your new post doesn't do anything but confirm that to be the case--inspite of your orthographical restraint vis-à-vis bold type. (I guess your lack of bold type doesn't have a correlation with the truth value of your post...)

As to science being neutral...science has a certain practical agnosticism, unless there is evidence to believe something you don't believe it in a scientific sense. Your mind is open to evidence but you don't believe all things just because many things are possible. In the case of the IMO fraud pads, they are making extraordinary claims that contradict known science. We don't just throw out proven science on the say so of an infomercial!! If they have an extraordinary claim then they need to provide extraordinary evidence that that claim is true. That is the objective standard of science in regards to miracle claims.

BTW, "worked in healthcare" is sufficiently vague to be meaningless in terms of credentials, and it isn't germane anyway since your post must stand on its own and not rely on any alleged claims of authority.

#22 POSTED BY MIM , JANUARY 23, 2008 2:46 PM I think I'll stick to taping maxi-pads to the bottoms of my feet

The skin in your feet is the thickest and least permeable, you might get better results by using them where the skin is thinest...now where would that be...

Not that I think that these things work, but nobody has given the slightest proof that they don't. Skin is highly permeable and ingested substances certainly make their way into skin tissue. Even though these things are probably made out of vacuum cleaner lint and formaldehyde, a permeable substance placed on the skin will absorb something

You don't think "these things work" but then you go on to posit just how they work???

You are making one of the classic crank fallacies, which is to proceed directly to theorizing how something works before establishing one iota of proof that it works in the first place.

The, IMO, fraudulent product in the OP makes exraordinary and testable scientific claims. The ad says that people's toxin levels went to zero based on use of the magic pads! They sucked out lead, mercury, even asbestos. Who knew you could suck asbestos out your feet by taping a pad on to them??? That must cause a hell of a lot of damage as the asbestos fibers shred their way through your body to get to your feet!

My god, if these things really work we could cure kids of lead poisoning! We could clean up toxic waste dumps with these magic toxin attracting pads. And the Japanese have known about these since ancient times!!! Time to break out the Nobel Prize nominations!!---or, just maybe, they are a total fraud. Which is more likely? That known science is bollocks or that someone just made some shit up to scam you out of some cash?

We, as humans, don't like to believe that someone is bald-faced lying right to our faces--especially an attractive and sincere seeming spokes-model. "Likeing" is one of the basic factors that influence our judgement. Many would question their own judgement and all of science before calling her a liar. That is an error in judgement based on human psychology rather than facts.

It isn't up to skeptics to have to assume these work. These pads make extraordinary claims that contradict known science. It is up to the maker to prove that they work, not just put up graphics of trees converting sunlight into toxins that it pushes out its roots!!! Until that time, speculating "how" they work assumes facts not in evidence.

"#12 POSTED BY TRIMETA , JANUARY 23, 2008 12:23 PM
@#9:

If you want an "alternative medicine" treatment proven to be perfectly safe, go with homeopathy: Guaranteed to have no adverse (or other) effect whatsoever!"

Not anymore! Since any kind of alternative medicine is based on assertion rather than evidence anyone of them is what ever anyone says it is. Now, while you may be thinking that Homeopathy means harmless, diluted chemicals you'd be wrong because some of what is called "homeopathy" has no relation to the kind of homeopathy you are thinking. Let's take a looks:

Q. What is Zicam Cold Remedy? A. Zicam Cold Remedy is an over-the-counter homeopathic medicine that actually reduces the duration and severity of the common cold when taken at the first sign of cold symptoms.

Homeopathic? Well, then it must be diluted, right? Not so fast:

Active Ingredient: Zincum Gluconicum 2X

That's a sequential dilution of 1:10 times two, or 1:100. That ain't all that diluted. Zincum Gluconicum has been claimed to cause loss of sense of smell in some people. According the current Wikipedia post, the maker of Zicam settled 340 lawsuits over this issue for $12,000,000.

In an old post, blogger Skeptico questioned whether such a small dilution could even be considered "homeopahic."

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/06/if_it_has_any_i.html

If Zincum Gluconicum works to prevent or reduce the severity of colds its because it's a frickin' drug not because it is a magic "alternative medicine"--and any treatment than can cause a good effect can have side effects. The only thing "homeopathic" about Zicam is the fact that invoking that magic word lets them get away with introducing a powerful drug without proper clinical testing.

In anycase, the lack of consistency of what is or isn't "homeopathic" just shows that there is no guarantee of safety even in the most "benign" of alternative therapies. Once you leave rationality and scientific standards of evidence behind, all bets are off.

I was watching a reality TV show last night about cops and they showed how they seized "drug money." They did a "line up" of brown paper bags containing either cut up paper, uncirculated paper currency or the arrestee's money. The drug dog, not surpassingly, picked the "drug money" at which point the officer said that was good enough for the State of Florida to seize the money!

A while ago, tests showed that there are detectable levels of drugs on all circulating currency. I'm guessing the cops get a 100% hit rate on their "drug money" line ups! (Comparing to uncirculated currency is pretty blatant--it means they know they can't reliably ID a particular defendants money when it is compared in a line up of circulated currency.)

You lost me at "Chakras."

A title like "Communication Tech as Chakras" might as well be "Science as medieval BS."

From the website:

Digital Dharma was published by the high-quality Theosophical press Quest, and it is unquestionably an example of the spiritual self-help genre. It’s got a blurb from the What the Bleep?! physicist Amit Goswami,

Just that blurb alone is enough to give this work a pedigree of the clearest claptrap. I'm not sure what we get by comparing things that work and actually exist ("Communication Tech") to things that don't exist and are part of ancient attempts to explain how humans function ("Chakras"). It certainly won't enlighten the theosophists, who think that Chakras reside one's "astral body.

Ancient Claptrap + Tech doesn't sum. You just get Ancient Claptrap + Tech, not some form of higher understanding. Bad data plus good data doesn't equal better data.

From the video:
"just like a tree draws energy in [graphic shows sunlight falling an a tree with animated arrow streams moving in from the sky, down the canopy, through the trunk and out the roots] and toxins down its trunk--Kinoki foot pads work the same way"

Yup, your feet are just like tree roots! And trees take energy from the sun, convert it to "toxins" and expel those toxins out their roots!

There is something seriously wrong with our consumer protections when this commercial can even get television air time. It is, IMO, fraud at its most blatant, using that canard of "alternative" medicine: unspecified toxins! Which the foot pads magically know and pull out through the thickest skin on your body! Never mind that your body vitally needs a variety of "toxins" to live--such as vitamins and minerals, which are toxic in high doses, as are all substances, including water, in sufficient quantities.

This is another magic product that has been given the benefit of the doubt by our overly tolerant "science is hard and it is easier to believe in magic" thinking that also happens to be encouraged by anti-scientific religiosity of the kind Mike Huckabee represents.

As pointed out on other threads on this issue, Apple didn't just hide iTunes from DTrace, they crudely hacked it so that DTrace doesn't record when specially tagged programs like iTunes are cycling. This means that DTrace will give false results about other processes because it is so busy turing a blind eye. Oh, and malware could use the same Hide From DTrace tag to make detection more difficult.

It's a tie, but the fact that it is apparently still tied would mean it isn't a classy tie it your self kind of bow tie since those have to be completely untied to take off.

If you need to save a QT file, it is much easier to fish it out of the browser cache.

Or use Firefox, which lets you download media from the Page Info, Media tab. Or use any of a number of Firefox extensions to help you with downloading QTs.

But, on the note of QT pricing. When you by QT Pro, you loose the "Pro" features every time you upgrade a "major" revision--and the installer doesn't warn you that you will be downgrading your functionality. And in some cases you have had to upgrade QT to continue using iTunes and you were forced to by "Pro" all over again. Apple really needs to fix this silly issue.

BTW, Quicktime upgrades have often been contentious for professional media apps. In the past, a QT upgrade crippled functionality in FCP. Apple now frequently updates QT to enable iTunes/iPod/iPhone features and these updates sometimes have unintended consequences.

At the mega Final Cut User Group meeting at Macworld, an Apple presenter made careful note that the Quicktime you need for Final Cut Pro is the Quicktime that was current when your version of FCP came out and that FCP doesn't need all those iTunes Features, so be very wary of upgrading QT. He was, intentionally or not, warning people not to upgrade to QT 7.4 (so I didn't :) Thank You Mr. Apple presenter...( I could look up your name and include it here, but why get you in trouble for giving us good advice? As I presume you might...))

Perhaps Apple isn't aware that this problem exists?

Not bloody likely since they are actively deleting whole threads on the topic.

Although Apple, as a private company, can mod their own support threads however they like I'm also free to completely disagree with the authoritarian, censorship-state style control they wield over the forums. It's as if they've hired Kim Jong-il as their Super Mod to crush dissent and to delete all truths unfavorable to Apple, turning the support forums into a Potemkin Village of happy Apple fanboi love.

(PS, only use Macs, but I vehemently disagree with a number of Apples heavy handed perception control tactics)

This doesn't seem to be a DRM problem but an OS file permissions bug related to the new version of QT 7.

Whatever the case, I have a big issue with the way Apple deletes Apple Support Forum threads on issues that deal with problems like these. It seems the trotters are working overtime to delete unflattering threads by people sincerely in need of help.

It drives me nuts though when people critique the Air for not being a perfect match for their personal needs. Not being right for you doesn't mean it is a mistake.

I really only care if it is right for me or my friends, family or coworkers. So far, I think I can say fairly confidently that it isn't.

As for "not being right," well, if enough people think it isn't right then it will be a mistake.

I'll join in with the majority on this. It's too big for the compromise in features it brings.

No firewire is a deal breaker for me, and there isn't an expansion card slot to allow you to correct for tha. But, the Base 10/100 external USB is just stupid. And the fact that it still requires a case with a Macbook footprint and that has to be as thick as the maximum thickness not the minimum. All that tapering gets you is fewer ports.

I can't even recommend this to my friends. Any road warior will have to travel with a USB hub, Ethernet adaptor and an external DVD player, which reduces the advantage of its lightness.

Pass.

Dangerous? Probably? A composite? Unlikely.

The photo realistic flames, interactive lighting of the fire on the hands and the tracking and masking required is fairly complex. It could be done, but it would be rather challenging. And contrary to assertions earlier in this thread, the flames to react to being moved side to side--which would be true even if a particle system was being used to simulate fire.

Also, while agree with the "video professionals" that the video is probably real, "video professional" isn't usually how efx artists describe themselves.

Pretty swanky and way cooler than a Winnebago!

However, the owner has got to be incredibly anal. His kitchen drawers have custom fitted cutouts for each of his matching storage containers. Everything else also appears to have a custom fit storage location--no spontaneity there...

I was really hoping for a quad macbook pro 17 with OLED display. I move from desk to desk and nothing more.

Ditto on that. I need to upgrade. I really was hoping for some incremental improvements on the MBP, like an LED backlit LCD, faster processor, muti touch trackpad, reduced price and increased battery life. I guess they put the whole laptop engineering team on the Macbook Air. On the other hand, Apple has sprung updates on us a few weeks after Macworld--probably unlikely this year, though.

A cute itsy bitsy laptop with no firewire may be good for Joel but I need a desktop replacement with a huge screen, a fast GPU and Firewire and SATA--and with current laptops every hour you use the florescent backlight is another hour closer to death for your laptop screen. LEDs aren't just brighter and lower power consumption they are longer lived.

What matters to you maybe, but people also use laptops as desktop replacements. Sub-notebooks with small screens and smaller keyboards are not good desktop replacements.

Sub-notebooks may be a very, very important market but they are not the only market for laptops. Your thesis is a bit premature, I think.