Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #52561 > unrolled thread

Security Scare ?

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Security Scare ? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-23 16:59 -0500
    Re: Security Scare ? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-23 17:16 -0500
      Re: Security Scare ? Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-11-24 09:34 +0100
        Re: Security Scare ? Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-24 07:23 -0700
          Re: Security Scare ? Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-11-24 15:40 +0100
            Re: Security Scare ? Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-24 08:39 -0700
              Re: Security Scare ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-11-24 16:56 +0000
    Re: Security Scare ? billy@MIX.COM - 2013-11-23 22:19 +0000
    Re: Security Scare ? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-11-23 20:21 -0500
    Re: Security Scare ? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-24 04:38 +0000
      Re: Security Scare ? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-24 00:52 -0500
        Re: Security Scare ? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-11-24 02:09 -0500
          Re: Security Scare ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-11-24 16:47 +0000
          Re: Security Scare ? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-24 12:32 -0500
        Re: Security Scare ? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-24 17:32 +0000
          Re: Security Scare ? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-24 12:53 -0500
            Re: Security Scare ? jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-25 19:19 +1300
    Re: Security Scare ? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-11-24 11:56 -0500
      Re: Security Scare ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-11-24 17:09 +0000
        Re: Security Scare ? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-24 12:45 -0500
          Re: Security Scare ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-11-24 18:26 +0000
            Re: Security Scare ? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-24 13:40 -0500
              Re: Security Scare ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-11-24 21:15 +0000
                Re: Security Scare ? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-24 21:41 -0500
          Re: Security Scare ? jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-25 19:19 +1300
            Re: Security Scare ? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-25 09:02 +0000
              Re: Security Scare ? jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-25 23:10 +1300
                Re: Security Scare ? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-11-25 10:24 +0000
                  Re: Security Scare ? jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-26 07:39 +1300
                    Re: Security Scare ? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-11-25 20:48 +0000
                  Re: Security Scare ? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-25 21:01 -0500
                Re: Security Scare ? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-25 20:26 -0500
                Re: Security Scare ? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-26 07:13 +0000
                  Re: Security Scare ? jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-27 13:59 +1300
            Re: Security Scare ? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-25 20:23 -0500
              Re: Security Scare ? jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-26 16:28 +1300
            Re: Security Scare ? Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-12-01 12:23 +0100
        Re: Security Scare ? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-11-24 13:00 -0500
      Re: Security Scare ? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-24 17:39 +0000
        Re: Security Scare ? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-24 12:51 -0500
          Re: Security Scare ? billy@MIX.COM - 2013-11-24 18:38 +0000
          Re: Security Scare ? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-11-24 17:10 -0500
            Re: Security Scare ? Ted Lee <tmplee@mr.net> - 2013-11-24 16:24 -0600
            Re: Security Scare ? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-24 21:46 -0500
          Re: Security Scare ? jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-25 20:26 +1300
            Re: Security Scare ? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-25 21:04 -0500
              Re: Security Scare ? jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-26 16:28 +1300
        Re: Security Scare ? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-11-24 13:18 -0500
          Re: Security Scare ? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-25 01:15 +0000
            Re: Security Scare ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-24 20:23 -0500
              Re: Security Scare ? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-24 21:55 -0500
                Re: Security Scare ? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-24 22:22 -0500
                  Re: Security Scare ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-24 23:34 -0500
                Re: Security Scare ? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-25 08:54 +0000
                  Re: Security Scare ? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-11-25 12:19 -0500
                    Re: Security Scare ? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-25 21:07 -0500
                      Re: Security Scare ? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-11-25 23:27 -0500
                    Re: Security Scare ? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-26 07:10 +0000
                      Re: Security Scare ? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-11-26 02:22 -0500
                  Re: Security Scare ? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2013-11-26 12:45 +1300
                Re: Security Scare ? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-11-27 20:17 -0500
                  Re: Security Scare ? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-12-10 01:25 -0500
            Re: Security Scare ? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-11-25 16:48 -0500
              Re: Security Scare ? billy@MIX.COM - 2013-11-26 03:01 +0000
                Re: Security Scare ? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-11-27 19:36 -0500
              Re: Security Scare ? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-11-25 23:22 -0500
      Re: Security Scare ? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-24 12:41 -0500
    Re: Security Scare ? jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-25 19:11 +1300

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#52561 — Security Scare ?

Three explanations:

1. The dude has SERIOUSLY lost his marbles.
or
2. He has some perverted motivation for an incredibly involved hoax
or
3. Big trouble is coming.

A mere "April Fool's Joke" does not seem to be a viable explanation.

http://tinyurl.com/q3e4zgj

http://tinyurl.com/l6oh2bj

http://tinyurl.com/jwndfuw


-- 
Wes Groleau

   A bureaucrat is someone who cuts red tape lengthwise.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#52563

On 11-23-2013, 16:59, Wes Groleau wrote:

> A mere "April Fool's Joke" does not seem to be a viable explanation.

One more:   http://tinyurl.com/q7xcj9r


-- 
Wes Groleau
“To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation
of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.”
                            — Thomas Jefferson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52586

Wes Groleau wrote:

> On 11-23-2013, 16:59, Wes Groleau wrote:
>
>> A mere "April Fool's Joke" does not seem to be a viable explanation.
>
> One more:   http://tinyurl.com/q7xcj9r

That was the first article I came across on the subject.  The bit about
ultrasonic soundwaves had me thinking about the tales of the time
travelling rock band we were treated to on this news group several
years ago.

-- 
Paul Sture

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52587

In article <e9q8ma-i12.ln1@news.chingola.ch>, Paul Sture
<nospam@sture.ch> wrote:

> That was the first article I came across on the subject.  The bit about
> ultrasonic soundwaves had me thinking about the tales of the time
> travelling rock band we were treated to on this news group several
> years ago.

That's time-traveling rock band terrorists.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52589

Michelle Steiner wrote:

> In article <e9q8ma-i12.ln1@news.chingola.ch>, Paul Sture
> <nospam@sture.ch> wrote:
>
>> That was the first article I came across on the subject.  The bit about
>> ultrasonic soundwaves had me thinking about the tales of the time
>> travelling rock band we were treated to on this news group several
>> years ago.
>
> That's time-traveling rock band terrorists.

I stand corrected.

Wasn't there an "industrial rock" or "post-industrial rock" in there
somewhere as well?

-- 
Paul Sture

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52590

In article <cnf9ma-ro6.ln1@news.chingola.ch>, Paul Sture
<nospam@sture.ch> wrote:

> >> That was the first article I came across on the subject.  The bit about
> >> ultrasonic soundwaves had me thinking about the tales of the time
> >> travelling rock band we were treated to on this news group several
> >> years ago.
> >
> > That's time-traveling rock band terrorists.
> 
> I stand corrected.
> 
> Wasn't there an "industrial rock" or "post-industrial rock" in there
> somewhere as well?

You're right, it was "industrial rock band".

-- Michelle

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52593

On 2013-11-24, Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> wrote:
> In article <cnf9ma-ro6.ln1@news.chingola.ch>, Paul Sture
><nospam@sture.ch> wrote:
>
>> >> That was the first article I came across on the subject.  The bit about
>> >> ultrasonic soundwaves had me thinking about the tales of the time
>> >> travelling rock band we were treated to on this news group several
>> >> years ago.
>> >
>> > That's time-traveling rock band terrorists.
>> 
>> I stand corrected.
>> 
>> Wasn't there an "industrial rock" or "post-industrial rock" in there
>> somewhere as well?
>
> You're right, it was "industrial rock band".

Yes, and according to the story, Marshall Mathers was the
time-travelling lead singer of this industrial rock band:

Message-ID: <1170440668.463517.128920@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>

Truly fun reading!

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52564

Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@freeshell.org> writes:

> Three explanations:
> 
> 1. The dude has SERIOUSLY lost his marbles.
> or
> 2. He has some perverted motivation for an incredibly involved hoax
> or
> 3. Big trouble is coming.
> 
> A mere "April Fool's Joke" does not seem to be a viable explanation.

I'm going with choice #1 in your list, above.  Heh.

> http://tinyurl.com/q3e4zgj

This came up in ba.internet - here are my articles from there, edited
a bit for easier reading.

>From: billy@MIX.COM
Newsgroups: ba.internet
Subject: Re: badBIOS -- the mysterious Mac and PC malware that jumps airgaps
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 20:57:12 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <l514j8$fot$1@reader2.panix.com>

Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> quotes ARS Technica:

> In the intervening three years, Ruiu said [...]

The speculation about propagation via ultrasonic audio using
the computers' loudspeakers and microphones is rather odd, in
that it'd take about three days max to rent and deploy test
instruments to actually observe anything like this.

Billy Y..

Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 01:44:21 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <l549pl$de$1@reader1.panix.com>

Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> writes:

> It would appear you didn't read the "Comments" following the
> article:

I did read it, and I stand by what I've said.  Yes, there
are many ways to screw with someone's computer (as with the
Russians and USB memory at the recent G20 conference), but
a) I rather doubt ultrasonic audio is involved here, and
b) it's trivially easy to take a look and discover it, if
it is.

Billy Y..

Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 02:19:39 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <l54brr$d1r$1@reader1.panix.com>

Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> quotes Dan Goodin:

> Three years ago, security consultant Dragos Ruiu was in his lab when he
> noticed something highly unusual: his MacBook Air, on which he had just
> installed a fresh copy of OS X, spontaneously updated the firmware that
> helps it boot.

My understanding is (I don't own any newer Apple gear, so I can't confirm
from my own experience) starting with OS 10.6 Apple can install things that
need to be done as root without the user entering the admin password.

> Stranger still, when Ruiu then tried to boot the machine off a CD ROM,
> it refused.

That it did not work is no surprise to me, even if it did work with a
prior firmware version.  What he was trying to boot isn't specified, but
OS X has not fit on a CD or three since before the days of Intel.  So,
I'm guessing it was not OS X.

> He also found that the machine could delete data and undo configuration
> changes with no prompting.

Heh.  He is hardly the only guy to whom this stuff happens.  As but
one tiny example, I've had Apple Mail delete messages, including the
copy on my IAMP server, just from toggling through the program's open
windows.  And undo config changes just from closing a window, as opposed
to quitting the program with the window open.  I remember these because
it pissed me off - but they're a mere drop in Apple's bug bucket.

Billy Y..
-- 
        sub     #'9+1   ,r0             ; convert ascii byte
	add     #9.+1   ,r0             ; to an integer
	bcc     20$                     ; not a number

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52573

On 13-11-23 16:59, Wes Groleau wrote:

> A mere "April Fool's Joke" does not seem to be a viable explanation.
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/q3e4zgj


The fact that he uses BIOS in most of his diatribe removes some credibility.

Normally, on a MAC, EFI boots the OS directly because the EFI boot
program is in the firmware. However, it is still possible to load an EFI
program in the EFI partition on the boot disk and have EFI load that
program to boot. That program runs at EFI level, but would have access
to hard disk data.

Normally, the EFI program is specific to an OS so that it knows
where/how to seek the boot block from the boot drive. In the case of
OS-X, the EFI program knows how to scan an HSF+ disk to find the boot
file, load that block into memory and branch to it.

EFI programs can be more complex.

If the virus is in the EFI boot program, you might clean your OS
partition, but next time you boot, the EFI program would put the virus
back onto the boot drive partition.

So one would have to zap the disk and recreate the partitions from
scratch to ensure there is no EFI program in the EFI partition.

As to how this would have gotten loaded, this is another question. The
EFI partition is a FAT partition (or might be FAT32, not sure). Not sure
how easy it would be for a user program to access it and load data onto it.

And since OS-X doesn't have the "autorun" when you put in a disk into
the OS, such a utility wouldn't really execute by itself and gain
privileges without asking for your password.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52580

In message <l6r8gg$u21$1@dont-email.me> 
  Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> Three explanations:

> 1. The dude has SERIOUSLY lost his marbles.
> or
> 2. He has some perverted motivation for an incredibly involved hoax
> or
> 3. Big trouble is coming.

> A mere "April Fool's Joke" does not seem to be a viable explanation.

> http://tinyurl.com/q3e4zgj

> http://tinyurl.com/l6oh2bj

> http://tinyurl.com/jwndfuw

All three seem very unlikely. First off, this is a well known and
respected security expert, so 1 and 2 seem unlikely. OTOH, 3 seems just
as unlikely. Of the three choices, 1 seems the most likely.

We shall see, I guess.


-- 
Qui me amat, amat et canem meam

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52582

On 11-23-2013, 23:38, Lewis wrote:
> All three seem very unlikely. First off, this is a well known and
> respected security expert, so 1 and 2 seem unlikely. OTOH, 3 seems just
> as unlikely. Of the three choices, 1 seems the most likely.

I wold say that when you bump his reputation up against the incredible 
improbability of (3), it makes (1) or (2) seem almost certain.

-- 
Wes Groleau

    There ain't no right wing,
    there ain't no left wing.
    There's only you and me and we just disagree.
                               (apologies to Jim Krueger)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52584

Does OS-X provide any tools to mount/inspect the EFI partition on the
boot drive ?

Being able to look at its content would be good to ensure that one is
booting from the firmware EFI code and not from some unknown code that
was deposited in the EFI partition.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52591

On 2013-11-24, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> Does OS-X provide any tools to mount/inspect the EFI partition on the
> boot drive ?
>
> Being able to look at its content would be good to ensure that one is
> booting from the firmware EFI code and not from some unknown code that
> was deposited in the EFI partition.

Strange that the dude reporting this didn't think of that. Oh wait...

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52595

On 11-24-2013, 02:09, JF Mezei wrote:
> Does OS-X provide any tools to mount/inspect the EFI partition on the
> boot drive ?
>
> Being able to look at its content would be good to ensure that one is
> booting from the firmware EFI code and not from some unknown code that
> was deposited in the EFI partition.

Being Unix, it certainly has ways to get sector dumps--if it's capable 
of formatting a drive, it should be capable of reading what it's 
writing.  The guy allegedly posted images for other researchers.

I think the whole scenario COULD happen, but IMHO it really looks like 
it didn't.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Why does everyone call it a “fanny pack" ?
   When was the last time you saw one on a fanny?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52596

In message <l6s46u$tk4$1@dont-email.me> 
  Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> On 11-23-2013, 23:38, Lewis wrote:
>> All three seem very unlikely. First off, this is a well known and
>> respected security expert, so 1 and 2 seem unlikely. OTOH, 3 seems just
>> as unlikely. Of the three choices, 1 seems the most likely.

> I wold say that when you bump his reputation up against the incredible 
> improbability of (3), it makes (1) or (2) seem almost certain.

I suspect there are other possibilities. Someone is messing with him,
for one.

-- 
And she was looking at herself
And things were looking like a movie
She had a pleasant elevation
She's moving out in all directions

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52601

On 11-24-2013, 12:32, Lewis wrote:
> In message <l6s46u$tk4$1@dont-email.me>
>    Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>> On 11-23-2013, 23:38, Lewis wrote:
>>> All three seem very unlikely. First off, this is a well known and
>>> respected security expert, so 1 and 2 seem unlikely. OTOH, 3 seems just
>>> as unlikely. Of the three choices, 1 seems the most likely.
>
>> I wold say that when you bump his reputation up against the incredible
>> improbability of (3), it makes (1) or (2) seem almost certain.
>
> I suspect there are other possibilities. Someone is messing with him,
> for one.

That would be a variant of the hoax hypothesis.  :-)

That someone would have to be REALLY clever to fool him for this long.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Why does everyone call it a “fanny pack" ?
   When was the last time you saw one on a fanny?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52632

Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> On 11-24-2013, 12:32, Lewis wrote:
> > In message <l6s46u$tk4$1@dont-email.me>
> >    Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> >> On 11-23-2013, 23:38, Lewis wrote:
> >>> All three seem very unlikely. First off, this is a well known and
> >>> respected security expert, so 1 and 2 seem unlikely. OTOH, 3 seems just
> >>> as unlikely. Of the three choices, 1 seems the most likely.
> >
> >> I wold say that when you bump his reputation up against the incredible
> >> improbability of (3), it makes (1) or (2) seem almost certain.
> >
> > I suspect there are other possibilities. Someone is messing with him,
> > for one.
> 
> That would be a variant of the hoax hypothesis.  :-)
> 
> That someone would have to be REALLY clever to fool him for this long.

I aint buying that. Dude has actually gone bananas or bananas in the
high functioning way of conspiracy nutters.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52592

On 2013.11.23, 16:59 , Wes Groleau wrote:
> Three explanations:
>
> 1. The dude has SERIOUSLY lost his marbles.
> or
> 2. He has some perverted motivation for an incredibly involved hoax
> or
> 3. Big trouble is coming.
>
> A mere "April Fool's Joke" does not seem to be a viable explanation.

The notion of computer speakers being used to transmit data to another 
computer (microphone) is entirely plausible (remember early acoustic 
modems?).

It's further plausible that this take place above human hearing 
thresholds, esp. if the speakers are driven as directly as possible to 
avoid filtering (even if in the h/w filtering band, some will leak 
through depending on how sharp edged the filter is - for cost reasons 
these are usually not very sharp).

However you would also need some basic s/w running on the other computer 
to read the microphone and of course participate in some protocol back 
to the first computer.

Still plausible, but requires getting the basic s/w onto both computers.

Testable?  Sure: microphones, amplifier (with wide enough "audio" 
bandwidth), and low frequency spectrum analyzers and look for the 
acoustic signal.  Relatively trivial.  The mic should respond to 
frequencies well above 20 kHz if not efficiently.  (A cheap mic would 
work better for this than some fancy studio mic).

The failure of the above doesn't mean there are not other mechanisms at 
work either.

I doubt it's a hoax given the credrep of the fellow (as claimed by Ars, 
anyway), but the "denier" experts should be supporting Ruiu's search 
rather than dismissing it as seems to be the case in some commentaries.

The evil bastards out there keep looking for unexpected ways to infect 
computers and communicate with them - the fact that, especially computer 
security researchers, "air gap" their computers to isolate them for 
their work means someone will look at that airgap and try to leap in an 
unexpected way.

-- 
"The radio was once expected to promote international understanding and 
co-operation;
it has turned out to be a means of insulating one nation from another."
                                                  -George Orwell, 1945

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52594

On 2013-11-24, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> I doubt it's a hoax given the credrep of the fellow (as claimed by Ars, 
> anyway), but the "denier" experts should be supporting Ruiu's search 
> rather than dismissing it as seems to be the case in some commentaries.

IMO, the proper position at the start of any scientific endevour is
skepticism. It is up to Ruiu to prove his claims. Otherwise, the world
will no doubt rightfully call bullshit.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52599

On 11-24-2013, 12:09, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2013-11-24, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>> I doubt it's a hoax given the credrep of the fellow (as claimed by Ars,
>> anyway), but the "denier" experts should be supporting Ruiu's search
>> rather than dismissing it as seems to be the case in some commentaries.
>
> IMO, the proper position at the start of any scientific endevour is
> skepticism. It is up to Ruiu to prove his claims. Otherwise, the world
> will no doubt rightfully call bullshit.

He apparently is "cooperating fully" but no one has succeeded in 
reproducing his observations.

On the other hand, I read at least one skeptic with not very convincing 
arguments that the scenario is completely impossible.

There are skeptics who help advance knowledge, and there are skeptics 
who just attack.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Why does everyone call it a “fanny pack" ?
   When was the last time you saw one on a fanny?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web