 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
4b0e83f5$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Indeed. Price it high enough and people will believe that it *must* work,
> otherwise they wouldn't be able to sell it for that price.
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oil_Sniffer_Hoax
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Indeed. Price it high enough and people will believe that it *must* work,
>> otherwise they wouldn't be able to sell it for that price.
>>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oil_Sniffer_Hoax
There is a phrase that is somewhat over-used on the Internet which none
the less seems to fit this perfectly.
Truly Epic Failure.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> somebody <x### [at] y com> wrote:
>> Just when I thought my opinion of humanity could not get any lower:
>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/world/middleeast/04sensors.html
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651
>> http://www.ade651.com/ade651in.html
>
> You wouldn't believe how easily scientists themselves are fooled by
> magicians and tricksters because they, for whatever reason, don't
> understand the importance of some of the most basic scientifical testing,
> such as double-blind controlled tests.
>
> The "double" there is quite important. Many scientists are way too
> confident on their own capacity to not to influence the test results and
> to interpret the results impartially.
Didn't both the CIA and the KGB at a stage seriously study psychokinesis,
"reading" and other types of "extrasensory" phenomena for possible military
applications?
--
Stefan Viljoen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stefan Viljoen wrote:
> Didn't both the CIA and the KGB at a stage seriously study psychokinesis,
> "reading" and other types of "extrasensory" phenomena for possible military
> applications?
Hey, studying things is a valid way to determine whether there's any
truth to them - provided you do the studying correctly and don't just
try to dream up data that supports the conclusion you want to reach. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
wrote:
> The guys should be granted the Nobel Price, for sure.
>
> To be able to create an electrical field strong enough to attract ions
> over a distance of 5000 m from a plane: respect!
>
> Of course - I would not recommend using a device this highly charged near
> any combutible or instable substances, especially when one is doing the
> detecting from a few meters away. I am pretty sure if such a device could
> be built, it would detect explosives from a few meters distance for sure.
> Once. And in a very terminal way.
Teehee! Good one.
It reminds me of Terry Pratchett's "dragon detector" that CMOT Dibbler was
selling in "Guards! Guards!" - a piece of wood about as long as your hand.
You knew it had detected the dragon when it had burned completely through.
Satisfaction guaranteed or your money back.
--
Stefan Viljoen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Hey, studying things is a valid way to determine whether there's any truth
> to them - provided you do the studying correctly and don't just try to
> dream up data that supports the conclusion you want to reach. ;-)
Also if the potential benefits are high enough then even things with a tiny
chance of being successful should be studied.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It reminds me of Terry Pratchett's "dragon detector" that CMOT Dibbler was
> selling in "Guards! Guards!" - a piece of wood about as long as your hand.
>
> You knew it had detected the dragon when it had burned completely through.
>
> Satisfaction guaranteed or your money back.
ROTFL! I had completely forgotten about this one!
But there is a difference between CMOT's dragon detector and this gadget
(for want of a better word): The dragon detector, while being completely
useless, will actually to the job. And it is much more reasonably priced.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4b0e83f5$1@news.povray.org...
> Indeed. Price it high enough and people will believe that it *must*
> work, otherwise they wouldn't be able to sell it for that price.
Plus, a high price leaves a healthy margin for bribes.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stefan Viljoen <pov### [at] polardcom> wrote:
> Didn't both the CIA and the KGB at a stage seriously study psychokinesis,
> "reading" and other types of "extrasensory" phenomena for possible military
> applications?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project
Goes to tell how much influence the so-called "psychics" have had in the
world. Some scammers really do.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/26/09 10:03, Stefan Viljoen wrote:
> Didn't both the CIA and the KGB at a stage seriously study psychokinesis,
> "reading" and other types of "extrasensory" phenomena for possible military
> applications?
Well, if they did it was decades ago, and the evidence against
psychokinesis wasn't that strong.
I guess my phrasing is poor. There were always lots of _reports_ of it,
so it was worthy of looking in to.
--
"Gentleman, this computer has an auditory sensor. It can, in effect,
hear sounds. By installing a booster, we can increase that capability on
the order of one to the fourth power." - Captain Kirk in "Court Martial".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
