News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Ban on unscientific "bomb detector" after $85M sales by seldo on Friday January 22, 2010 @06:52PM (#1071014)
I don't understand. Why would the Iraqis buy these devices? Nobody else is using them and there's no evidence it works. It's not like they're idiots. Are they just desperate for anything to improve the situation?
Re:Ban on unscientific "bomb detector" after $85M sales by warfangle on Friday January 22, 2010 @06:54PM (#1071019)
Why do people pay dowsers to tell them where to dig a well? Why do people - some very intelligent - pay a fortune teller to tell them their future? Why do people - some very intelligent - tithe to protect their soul in the afterlife?

Never underestimate how easy it is to separate a desperate man from his money.

And the the related: you can't con an honest man.

Re:Ban on unscientific "bomb detector" after $85M sales by philk on Saturday January 23, 2010 @05:57AM (#1071658)
And the the related: you can't con an honest man.

Of course you can. Here's three types of cons that would work on honest men:

1) Romance scams: The con artist develops a relationship with the target (mark). The con artist then develops a range of fraudulent reasons that they need money from the mark, from needing the money to travel to the mark's country to see them to needing the money for cancer treatment.

2) Various fake medical cures. There's a huge industry of these preying on cancer victims, for instance.

3) The melon drop: a scammer will pretend to bump into the mark and drop a package that's already broken, then demand compensation.

There are many, many more. Merely being "honest" is no protection.

Re:Ban on unscientific "bomb detector" after $85M sales by sailormoon on Saturday January 23, 2010 @01:12AM (#1071443)
I hate that expression. Of course you can con an honest man.

For example, you could set up a high quality internet store offering, say, cameras for a few dollars less than everyone else. There is nothing dishonest about buying from there - it is simply trying to get a good deal. And yet if the store then simply takes the money and sends nothing, they have indeed conned an honest man.

Re:Ban on unscientific "bomb detector" after $85M sales by elblanco on Friday January 22, 2010 @07:43PM (#1071109)
Given who bought them, there's probably some higher-up getting kickbacks as part of the deal.
Re:Ban on unscientific "bomb detector" after $85M sales by b1tr0t on Friday January 22, 2010 @08:18PM (#1071159)
Bingo. General X doesn't need to care (much) if the product works. He's not the one doing the bomb checking. Nor is it his own money he's spending. And if he gets a tidy 10% back, he can soon retire somewhere where there aren't bombs.

An aside: what is the psychology of someone who perpetrates something like this? Fraud is one thing, but fraud which can (and has) led to the deaths of hundreds of people? Does he actually believe his products work, or is he a psychopath?

Re:Ban on unscientific "bomb detector" after $85M sales by dc2k08 on Saturday January 23, 2010 @09:43AM (#1071856)
General X's name is Major Gerneral Jihad Al Jahbiri. James Randi had offered him the million dollar prize he he could prove they were effective: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruTmqfGJhTI
Re:Ban on unscientific "bomb detector" after $85M sales by jacquesm on Saturday January 23, 2010 @08:28AM (#1071778)
> An aside: what is the psychology of someone who perpetrates something like this?

For some great insights on that mentality read Joseph Heller, Catch 22.

Re:Ban on unscientific "bomb detector" after $85M sales by warfangle on Friday January 22, 2010 @10:39PM (#1071316)
Probably a little of both. But they can't print that - it's the UK, after all.
Re:Ban on unscientific "bomb detector" after $85M sales by pmorici on Friday January 22, 2010 @08:33PM (#1071178)
Probably because Arab's hate dogs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_animals#Dogs As has been mentioned else where in discussions of airport security bomb sniffing dogs are state of the art in explosives detection. So if they won't use dogs that probably leaves them few other choices.
Re:Ban on unscientific "bomb detector" after $85M sales by pmorici on Sunday January 24, 2010 @11:49AM (#1073439)
Here's a news story about Muslims in Canada complaining about the potential use of bomb sniffing dogs.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/12/10/b...

Re:Ban on unscientific "bomb detector" after $85M sales by scotty79 on Friday January 22, 2010 @09:21PM (#1071235)
Corruption. You pay 100k dollars to few government higher ups to back up your case then you can sell lots of 40k dowsing rods and no one will argue because higher ups can't be that foolish, right? An if they are you can't say this out loud. Especially because this is about security. Important stuff. You may have to do some sciency talk that no one will understand or verify but all will revere.

Tamiflu is being purchased by governments for exactly same reasons.

You just have to grease the wheels then you can roll like hell.