Damien Broderick wrote:
> > Curt wrote:
> >So now somebody whose experiments are, intentionally or unintentionally,
> >fudged, has found a new implausible effect which solves a "problem"
> >which actually doesn't exist.
>
> That sounds pretty likely, Curt. I posted that newspaper piece just on the
> off-chance that it might lead somewhere expected and useful.
Well think about it, if it is actually true, which I have my serious doubts about, it would mean that not only could medical treatments be applied by downloading sound files from the web, but that you could replicate these sound files and thus break the control that the drug industry has over health care. Now, we do know that some ELF frequencies do have an effect on people, there is even what is called the "pot" frequency, because it induces euphoria. I imagine that if this is true the drug war will expand into cyberspace, with the DEA searching everyone's hard drives and web servers for sound files that replicate the drug responses of controlled substances. Receiving an email with a sound file attachment will become a federal crime.
People will be prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license, unless there is a doctor or cyberpharmacist on the staff of every ISP monitoring.
"Dude, check me out, I just got 10 years in Leavenworth for emailing my 'Mr.
Jones' clip to some of my buds."
"Harsh!"
"Well, how bout this dude, I got a life sentence for mail bombing my a-hole
teacher with a smack attack. He OD'ed, so I got a murder rap on me, I just
barely shucked a death sentence by pleading ignorance that the mail server
would resend the message."
"Whoa!"
Another implication of this would be that you could transmit REAL viruses with sound files!
>
>
> BTW, the nanobe story doesn't fall into the same category, as far as I can
> tell. It was picked up by all the major serious news outlets in Oz, can be
> traced back to journal articles in what look like sound peer reviewed
> journals (I haven't gone to the uni stacks and sought the refs out), and
> can be found linked from various reputable university research sites. I
> think it's safe to assume that the nanobe claims are perfectly serious.
> (They might also turn out to be misunderstood non-controversial
> commonplaces, of course.)
Uh, well, it is still only the 29th of March, with the 1st of April being 3 days away. I wasn't aware that April fools day had changed from a one day pseudo-holiday into an entire season of practical jokes in the global media.
Mike Lorrey