Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Dutch Artist Admits Faking Viral 'Human Bird Wing' Video

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the hey-that's-just-like-my-911-call dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 125

Velcroman1 writes "Dutch filmmaker and animator Floris Kaayk in collaboration with media production company Revolver fessed up to creating a 'media art project' that took the world by storm in recent days — a video of inventor Jarno Smeets taking flight by flapping his arms. But like the wax melting from Icarus' wings, the truth is finally emerging. Kaayak admitted that he didn't expect the media attention his project would generate, with over 8.9 million views across the world. He made the project in collaboration with Revolver and Omroep NTL, sources in the Netherlands who have spoken to the filmmaker said prior to the show. They admitted their hoax Thursday evening on the Dutch television show Wereld Draait Door."

cancel ×

125 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Not Surprising. (5, Insightful)

biohazard35 (2499308) | more than 2 years ago | (#39445979)

Honestly, people have been trying to use bird wings to fly for hundreds of years. There wasn't really much chance of this being real considering that every design that used human flight via wings (excluding gliders of course) have failed.

Re: Not Surprising. (5, Informative)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446041)

Ya I'm surpised anyone fell for this at all. Anyone who even knows a tiny tiny bit about anatomy of either humans or birds knows we just don't have the muscles for anything like that.

Re: Not Surprising. (5, Interesting)

Kufat (563166) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446071)

To be fair, the troll who made the videos did claim that motors were providing 95% of the net power. That made it a good bit more plausible.

Re: Not Surprising. (2)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446115)

Ah well I guess that would get a few more people to think it was real, but even so from the short bit I watched I didn't see anything for power.

Re: Not Surprising. (2)

durrr (1316311) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446187)

From the short bit i watched it looked like terrible CG and just felt wrong.

Re: Not Surprising. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39446221)

From the short bit i watched it looked like terrible CG and just felt wrong.

yo mama's vagina felt wrong. then (only after i finished cumming) i looked down there real close up like. there was nasty inflamed herpes bumps and scabs all over dat shit! damn. guess im committed to her now.

Re: Not Surprising. (5, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446663)

Uncanny valley sort of thing. I agree with the ILM folks (hey, isn't that a smart thing to do?) - the wings and wing motion were just not fluid enough. Also lousy focus and jerky motions are easy things to do to hide GCI bits.

Avatar it's not.

Re: Not Surprising. (4, Funny)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#39448455)

Avatar it's not.

So it was very realistic with great acting and no obvious view of CGI and even an original storyline?

Re: Not Surprising. (3, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#39448595)

The obvious fail was that the fabric in the wings wasn't even tense, it was looser than the aforementioned vagina. There's no way it was being used as a wing.

Re: Not Surprising. (2)

findoutmoretoday (1475299) | more than 2 years ago | (#39448767)

Even before flying, the obvious fail was that the pilot was not tense. He was going to risk his life with a poorly tested prototype the next minute.

Re: Not Surprising. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39449499)

Terrible CG? I'd LOVE to see your offering. I thought the vid was well done though I didn't believe it for a minute. I'm not sure how it can be "terrible" when it fooled a LOT of people. IMO, "terrible" would be obvious. Perhaps you are just Diva'ing... yea, that has to be it.

Re: Not Surprising. (1)

jythie (914043) | more than 2 years ago | (#39449829)

It is not that the CG fooled 'lots' of people,.. like blurry bigfoot videos it simply preyed on existing social divisions. It was a narrative that appealed to a certain group of people and they set up the same battle lines they always stand behind. It could have been a still photograph and people still would have ranted about it being real.

Re: Not Surprising. (3, Insightful)

scottrocket (1065416) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446189)

To be fair, the troll who made the videos did claim that motors were providing 95% of the net power. That made it a good bit more plausible.

And visually - without deep inspection - it looked like a pretty good fake! Why wasn't this story on /.? :)

Re: Not Surprising. (3, Funny)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446943)

It's the typical Slashdot delay. I'm sure the original story will pop up in a week or two, followed by a couple dupes.

Re: Not Surprising. (1)

Peter Simpson (112887) | more than 2 years ago | (#39448869)

...until you looked at his drawings of the motors and the gear train. I'm an EE, not an ME, and even I had a feeling that what he had wasn't going to be able to lift a man. His sole connection to the "wing" was at one end of the mast he used as the main spar. No way, I thought, is any motor able to drive that without breaking it off.

Re: Not Surprising. (1)

Maddog Batty (112434) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446091)

The wings were driven by electrical powered motors controlled via Wii remotes. Movement of the guys arms made the wings move the same way. So not human powered at all.

(Ok, ok, CGI electric motors)

Re: Not Surprising. (4, Informative)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446549)

The part about the Wii remotes was a major red flag. Most people are very bad at lying, and this guy committed the newbie mistake of adding in to many extraneous details to the story.

Besides, who would build a giant flying machine for thousands of dollars and base the electronics around a $20 IR camera known for rapidly draining batteries? Doesn't seem practical or safe.

Re: Not Surprising. (2, Interesting)

countach (534280) | more than 2 years ago | (#39447567)

Sometimes common electronics lying around are better than some custom job. I mean, why do airlines use $500 ipads for flight maps to control a $500 million dollar aircraft? And why would you need long battery life? Flight only lasted a few seconds.

Re: Not Surprising. (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#39448609)

Which airline has flights which last only a few seconds? And is it because they reach their destination that fast, or because they can't keep their 500 million square dollar aircrafts from crashing immediately?

SCNR

Re: Not Surprising. (1)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 2 years ago | (#39449241)

Actually, the use of the wii-mote motion sensors for flight related utility is not at all uncommon. Although for flying PEOPLE it is uncommon, to be sure.

The most common current use is to use the wii "nunchuck" wired into a standard rc tx unit to allow fluid motion control of an rc plane or mutli-rotor heli. These received wide acceptance in the FPV RC community as they provide a very "natural" interface for FPV flying.

So using a wii motion control isn't THAT farfetched at all. Doesn't make the video in question any less fake, of course, but it does make it a smarter fake.

Re: Not Surprising. (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446097)

I haven't seen it, but I heard he uses hydraulics to enhance his muscle strength (of course they would add to the weight).

Re: Not Surprising. (2)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446167)

I did see the video, and its difficult to understand how the hydrolics worked at all. There was nothing connected to the guy's arms other than some thin wires. Literally nothing, at least from what I saw.

Re: Not Surprising. (2)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446215)

supposedly the connection was gyros and data(someone said wiimotes).

doesn't matter, even if the wings were ran by automatic code it wouldn't sound credible.. (in fact, you'd think he'd test it that way if it were real anyways)

Re: Not Surprising. (1, Insightful)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446275)

muscles have nothing to do with it. all wings considered equal, the only thing stopping them from helping us fly is our lack of hollow bones.

Frak anatomy, the video SEEMS unrealistic (2)

F69631 (2421974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446343)

Just look at the damn video [youtube.com] .

I know I have, as a part of my (software) engineering degree, studied more physics than the average person and I might have better intuition about what stuff should look like... but that flight seem in no way, shape or form realistic or natural. The push from the wings hardly correlates with his flight path, etc...

Re:Frak anatomy, the video SEEMS unrealistic (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39446757)

I hear ya on this one. I too saw the vid and was skeptical, though I admit that the vid was edited good enough to me to look plausible. I immediately thought about previous similar inventions' failures, the lack of hollow bones, and the fact that even bird flight takes a ridiculous amount of energy; our bodies don't have that kind of efficiency. No way a human could pull this off without first severly emaciating himself (like Christian Bale in The Machinist) and then finding some way to increase muscle leverage like chimps naturally have to give a strength advantage...and then it still isn't likely that such a stunt could be pulled off. If i remember right, our bodies cause too much drag for this kind of flight as it is.

Re: Not Surprising. (1)

wanzeo (1800058) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446371)

I would like to see a design that leverages our huge legs instead of our tiny little t-rex arms. It would be a hell of a workout, and it probably wouldn't work, but it's worth a shot.

Re: Not Surprising. (5, Interesting)

anchelo123456789 (1472241) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446473)

Has already been done: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_Daedalus [wikipedia.org] Much more impressive in my eyes as it did really work. And of course they crashed jus like Daedalus. I would love to have the opportunity to fly this thing just once in my life.

Re: Not Surprising. (5, Informative)

Isaac-Lew (623) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446901)

Icarus crashed, not Daedalus.

Re: Not Surprising. (1)

BeardedChimp (1416531) | more than 2 years ago | (#39449119)

Icarus crashed, not Daedalus.

During flight testing, Daedalus 87 was damaged in a crash caused by spiral divergence

The flight ended in the water (7 meters from Perissa Beach on Santorini, according to the official record), when increasing gusty winds caused a torsional failure of the tail boom. Lacking control, the airplane then pitched nose-up, and another gust caused a failure of the main wing spar. The pilot swam to shore.
Much of the wreckage of Daedalus 88 is in storage at the Smithsonian's restoration facility.

Seems they both did.

Human Powered Plane (4, Interesting)

phriedom (561200) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446475)

Like this maybe? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gossamer_Albatross [wikipedia.org]

Re:Human Powered Plane (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39447751)

Awesome, and they won a Kramer prize! Hey buddy!

Re: Not Surprising. (2)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446793)

As others have pointed out: Its been done. Successfully. The key is to lose the flapping wings (rigid wings are much lighter for the same lift) and use a propeller (mechanically much simpler).

On a slightly off-topic rant: Why are (practically) all the emergency boat bilge pumps hand operated? I could keep a leaky boat afloat for much longer peddling a pump. And keep my hands free to run the radio to call for help.

Re: Not Surprising. (2)

Jherico (39763) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446863)

Because foot powered pumps wouldn't be wheelchair accessible. Duh!

Re: Not Surprising. (1)

the_other_chewey (1119125) | more than 2 years ago | (#39447375)

I could keep a leaky boat afloat for much longer peddling a pump.

What if nobody buys it?

Re: Not Surprising. (2)

shadowrat (1069614) | more than 2 years ago | (#39449337)

Because storage space is a precious commodity on a boat. Why waste space with some exercise bike pump that's only helpful in a situation that crops up in the movies far more than real life. Even if you find yourself stranded in a leaky boat, how much is that pedal contraption going to really help you? sooner or later you are going to fall asleep and the boat fills with water anyway.

Think of it like spare tires. It's certainly possible to get 4 flat tires in the same trip, but is it worth always wasting all your storage space to keep 4 spares in the car?

Re: Not Surprising. (1)

anubi (640541) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446933)

we just don't have the muscles for anything like that

You just struck a chord with me. I was just munching on a chicken breast.

A good handful of meat.

More than I have in my pec.

And that's just what it takes to power a chicken!

Food for thought. ( Ohhh bad pun, baaaad pun)

But honestly, if more of us had a good feel for the physics around us, we wouldn't be fooled nearly so easy by pranksters saying their kid's aloft in a balloon ( which obviously does not have sufficient volume to displace enough air to hoist a 40 pound kid! ), or inventors claiming devices producing enormous amounts of energy from a small "investment".

Re: Not Surprising. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39446861)

There is no failure in flight since gliders exist.
I don't believe it to be impossible to take the next step.
It will happen, but right now far too many people simply dismiss the possibility.
There really is no good reason we can not create something to accomplish this.
The human body may have certain limits, but not the width of the wings or type of material we use to fly.
A bird may have the ability to grow into its ability to fly, but we can grow an idea to reach the same goal.
Biology limits the birds, technology limits us.
Technology has never had a permanent limit.

Squirrel suit (2)

18_Rabbit (663482) | more than 2 years ago | (#39445983)

Oh well, i guess it's back to the jet powered flying squirrel suit.

Re:Squirrel suit (1)

mikael (484) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446019)

Or the flying lawn mower. That was the first spoof flying video that I saw online.

Re:Squirrel suit (2)

digitac (24581) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446547)

You mean this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26PpA1kFIWw [youtube.com] It's not fake, you can buy a kit. http://flyingthingz.com/products.html [flyingthingz.com] It's an application of the theorem that with enough thrust, anything will fly. Personally, I prefer the flying dog house.

Re:Squirrel suit (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446661)

Yep. Its real. I've see one of them in person at a local R/C park.

Take a look at that video (in the parent post). In the first few seconds when that woman is carrying the mower out, she turns it sideways for a second. You can see the airfoil shape of the wing/body and that the sides and wheels are thin fakes.

The F-117 [wikipedia.org] is actually a better demonstration of the 'anything will fly' theorem.

Re:Squirrel suit (1)

mikael (484) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446665)

Yes that was the video. I thought it was a real lawn mower at the time. They have just shaped the frame at the sides to look like a lawnmower. Other shapes have been tanks and bulldozers.

Re:Squirrel suit (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446211)

Jay Leno gave that away to get new NSX #1

Poor schlubs (5, Interesting)

Cazekiel (1417893) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446055)

Can you imagine how insanely stupid the participants must feel? "YEEEA!" tears in their eyes, stumbling on speech, inspirational music... only to have their act be completed debunked by the most basic physics. I find that particularly amusing.

Re:Poor schlubs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39446093)

Not really. I doubt they expected it to last very long, all it takes is one person to ask to witness the flight first hand and it falls apart. They said they weren't expecting this much attention anyway, it was clearly just a bit of fun. Besides, how could they feel stupid when so many morons around the world actually thought it was real?

Re:Poor schlubs (1)

Cazekiel (1417893) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446117)

Wouldn't matter to me. If I tried faking something like that to make it look as real as possible, when it can be totally debunked with on tiny viewing--with that much drama-llamas? If I'd been fooled (wasn't), I'd think "Huh. Stupid jerks," then moved on to watch more vids.

Re:Poor schlubs (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39446285)

It's really too bad this didn't happen before modern record-keeping. They could have made a religion out of it instead. Then, hundreds of years later, the world would remember the glorious day when Space Raptor God showed how true believers could fly.

Re:Poor schlubs (5, Insightful)

joh (27088) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446315)

Why stupid? They got half the Internet viewing a video and discussing if it is real or not. That was well done and they obviously got everything out of it that they wanted and then some. If they had included some visible motors and a fake battery pack (hey, 2000 Watts for 60 seconds is just 33 Wh, less than the 45 Wh of an iPad) and put more work into the flapping of the wings, it would have more convincing, but still.

Harmless fun, cleverly done, I'd say.

Re:Poor schlubs (1)

Cazekiel (1417893) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446421)

Clever perhaps, but I'm targeting the drama behind it. If it'd just been them doing what they did with a few "a'right!"s and what not, big deal. But it had its own score, the teary eyes and all. That's what I find amusing.

Re:Poor schlubs (1)

jpmorgan (517966) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446983)

2000W, even for 60s, at 12V is over 150 amps. Try pulling that much current through any small lightweight battery pack and you're going to experience a large explosion.

Re:Poor schlubs (1)

amoeba1911 (978485) | more than 2 years ago | (#39447855)

You're severely misinformed, battery technology has improved quite a bit over the past few years.

Here's an example [hobbyking.com] , at 12 Volts this battery can supply 325 Amps continuous. That's about 3500 watts, and this battery weighs just 442 grams (less than a pound) and it costs only $50.

If you want even higher wattage, you can get higher voltage batteries, at 37 volts this [hobbyking.com] battery pack can supply a whopping 12000 watts continuous, and weighs only about 3 pounds.

Re:Poor schlubs (1)

schroedingers_hat (2449186) | more than 2 years ago | (#39448229)

What is this (c) unit of discharge they are quoting?

Re:Poor schlubs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39448435)

Capacity of the battery/cell. A lot of battery stuff is measured in the capacity. For example, if you discharge a battery at 1C/h, it means 1 battery capacity per hour. This stays relatively the same for each chemistry. Discharging a 1000Ah lead acid battery at 100C is just as bad for the battery as discharging a 1Ah lead acid at 100C.

Re:Better batteries (1)

scsirob (246572) | more than 2 years ago | (#39448503)

I think you are wrong here. Check out the Odyssey batteries. A PC680 delivers over 500A for 20 seconds and weighs just over 7kg. 150A for 60 seconds should be no problem. I have one of these to start my Jabiru 3300 aircraft engine and it never fails me.

Re:Poor schlubs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39446959)

Oh, you mean the Fox Snooz scribes?

Re:Poor schlubs (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39448283)

Can you imagine how insanely stupid the participants must feel? "YEEEA!" tears in their eyes, stumbling on speech, inspirational music... only to have their act be completed debunked by the most basic physics. I find that particularly amusing.

It's called "acting," something you likely view on a regular basis if you enjoy modern film.

Next time you attend a stage play, you should ask the actors how stupid they feel for participating.

Re:Poor schlubs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39448369)

"Can you imagine how insanely stupid the participants must feel?"

Which participants? You mean the other people on the team that performed the hoax?
You think they didn't notice the thing did not actually fly? You think they where not in on the joke?

Can't be really, that you mean those "participants" - that would be so stupid.

Either way, if you'd have read the article you'd know the whole thing was an experiment in media, and it seems it was rather successful.

Re:Poor schlubs (1)

DerPflanz (525793) | more than 2 years ago | (#39448417)

... only to have their act be completed debunked by the most basic physics.

You forget that most people's knowledge on physics comes from Hollywoord. Hence it is completely understandable that they buy into this.

Is anyone actually shocked? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39446057)

It was clearly fake just from a physics point of view. I don't think anyone will be surprised by this news.

Can people fly? (4, Funny)

tick-tock-atona (1145909) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446059)

I bet the conversation went a little like this [youtube.com] ..

Saw it and it was brilliant (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39446065)

IMHO, he skated the perfect edge of believability. After all, it's not that different from launching a hang glider. I see gulls launch into the wind all the time with virtually no flapping. When you watch the video you find yourself making assumptions about wind and stuff. You figure the flapping must have added just enough. For some people the angle of the camera tells them it's fake. I figured it was a wide-angle camera that could get the helmet even without being aimed towards it. For me, I was wondering how he got his legs tucked up since it didn't have any visible harness. I have to admit I was fooled though until I read the skeptical comments.

Re:Saw it and it was brilliant (1)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446961)

The launch may have been believable, but the landing was dead wrong. There are only two ways to land a flapping-wing aircraft if you've got legs instead of wheels, and he didn't use either of them.

Justice must be served (1, Funny)

cstec (521534) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446075)

How long are we going to accept excuses for what is patent fraud? If he doesn't get smacked hard, we're going to be putting up with this crap indefinitely.

Re:Justice must be served (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39446119)

Lolwut

Re:Justice must be served (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39446131)

Holy shit, this is like one of countless other silly Youtube special effects videos (the sort that seem to be all the Mythbusters test these days). Did anyone seriously believe this was real?

You want to smack this person for other folks' blind credulity? Why not focus on people who are actually causing harm with their fraud? Quacks, autism fraudsters, 'psychics', witch doctors, immoral priests, and so forth

Re:Justice must be served (1)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446571)

How long are we going to accept excuses for what is patent fraud? If he doesn't get smacked hard, we're going to be putting up with this crap indefinitely.

If you think that's fraud, wait until you see Star Wars - some may be fooled, but I for one don't believe that the Death Star could generate enough power to destroy an entire planet with a death ray.

Re:Justice must be served (1)

tftp (111690) | more than 2 years ago | (#39447407)

but I for one don't believe that the Death Star could generate enough power to destroy an entire planet with a death ray.

Would you bet the existence of your homeworld on that belief of yours about a technology that you know nothing about? A GRB [wikipedia.org] certainly can mess the planet up.

Re:Justice must be served (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39447771)

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Tor's Vidalia DUMPED my data in REAL TIME! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39446101)

How would you like your Tor traffic dumped to plain text on your hard drive in REAL TIME?

Don't let yourself get FUCKED IN THE ASS!

*
                  Tor Browser Bundle for Linux (2.2.35-8) "EVIL bug"
                                                  *** NEVER FORGET ***
*
- http://seclists.org/bugtraq/2012/Mar/85 [seclists.org]
- http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/522003/30/0/threaded [securityfocus.com]
*
"There is an EVIL bug in at least the Linux (2.2.35-8) Tor Browser Bundle start-tor-browser script. It will log things
like domain names to a file in the root of the browser bundle."

https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/5417 [torproject.org]

Ticket #5417 (new defect)

RelativeLink.sh in Tor browser bundle has small typo causing debug mode to be always turned on

Reported by: cypherpunks
Priority: critical
Component: Tor bundles/installation

Description

TBB starts in debug mode disregardless of --debug switch used or not. This is caused by small bug on line 208 on
RelativeLink.sh, where it says

if [ "${debug}" ];

where it should say

if [ "${debug}" == 1];

or

if [ ${debug} -eq 1 ];

*
Thank you for the warning. I expected something like this to happen, given the last slip up with a mistake in FF versions. This, "error", if you wish to call it such, shouldn't have happened. Again, this is a lack of testing.

I hope no one in Iran, China, or other freedom starved regions were screwed because of this.

I hope a fix is released and quickly.

These mistakes should be posted in the Tor announcements mailing list (no announcements at all since Dec/11 is pathetic) and on the blog.

It would help Tor users even more if you were to actually create web forums for discussions (but I doubt you will, we've only been asking for this for years!) where you could sticky-pin these types of mistakes and communicate better with the broad range of users.

A large number of people will never use a bug tracker, and/or never use mailing lists. They are simpler minded people or too busy, this is where web based discussion forums come in. Users should not have to scramble to unofficial .onion forums which are up one day and down the next and which may (and have in the past!) contain malicious posts/threads to target the user's browser and/or Tor itself.

With errors like this, perhaps you should let Mickey Mouse sign the future Linux release bundles with his fictional GPG key. He couldn't do any worse.

I've also noticed FF crashing more often since the last few releases.

I guess it's time for us Linux bundle users to run W.I.N.E. and the Windows version of the bundle on Linux so we know we are not getting borked with some new fantastic bug or lack of oversight like this again.

But will this post be approved for others to see, or swept under the rug like one previous post about a similar issue.

Now I'm looking forward to the next release, not for use, but just to see what type of bug(s) it may contain. THANKS!

*
Nick Mathewson
Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:40:43 -0700

It seems that a fix was merged yesterday: see
https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/5417 [torproject.org] and
https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-commits/2012-March/041036.html [torproject.org]
.

I bet there will be new TBBs out very soon.

In the meantime, Linux users should delete vidalia-debug-log and
symlink it to /dev/null. (Haven't tested that, but it should work:

    % ln -sf /dev/null /path/to/vidalia-debug-log
    % ls -l /path/to/vidalia-debug-log

    lrwxr-xr-x 1 username username 9 Mar 19 11:53 vidalia-debug-log
-> /dev/null .)

IMO, this is a really good reason for us to move to getting enough
automation done so we can have nightly TBB builds and catch this kind
of thing *before* actual releases come out.

--
Nick
*
Sebastian Hahn
Tue, 20 Mar 2012 02:20:08 -0700

The bug in TBB is quite severe, and it is against its stated goals and
design principles (one of which is leaving no/as little traces as
possible on disk for later forensics). This bug was severe, it was fixed
quickly, and hopefully nobody was impacted too much. Time to move on.
*
Read and archive these also (to record history for this "EVIL bug":

https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-commits/2012-March/040941.html [torproject.org]
https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-commits/2012-March/040942.html [torproject.org]
https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-commits/2012-March/040939.html [torproject.org]
https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-commits/2012-March/040945.html [torproject.org]
https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-commits/2012-March/040950.html [torproject.org]
https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-commits/2012-March/040952.html [torproject.org]
https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-commits/2012-March/040953.html [torproject.org]
https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-commits/2012-March/041036.html [torproject.org]
https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-commits/2012-March/041037.html [torproject.org]
https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-commits/2012-March/041038.html [torproject.org]
https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-commits/2012-March/041039.html [torproject.org]
https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-commits/2012-March/041040.html [torproject.org]
https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-commits/2012-March/041043.html [torproject.org]
https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-commits/2012-March/041056.html [torproject.org]
*
History won't recall this bug and the severity of it unless you
archive this information and the information at the links issued above.

NEVER AGAIN, TOR BROWSER BUNDLE.. NEVER AGAIN!!!!!!!! YOU SHOULD DISMISS THE PERSON WHO ALLOWED THIS BUG TO OCCUR! WHERE IS THE OVER SIGHT? NO WONDER THIS SHITTY SOFTWARE COMES WITH A WARNING!

+1 Informative (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39446515)

Mod parent up.

I can't believe I fell for this! (5, Funny)

cvtan (752695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446141)

You guys made me click on a link to FOX NEWS???? Arrghh!

Re:I can't believe I fell for this! (2)

felipekk (1007591) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446179)

Wait. It's from Fox News! So maybe they actually did manage to create those wings and fly!

Re:I can't believe I fell for this! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39446365)

Sadly, Fox News is not 100% completely dishonest, otherwise Oil Prices would be low, Crime non-existent, and Cake non-fattening.

Re:I can't believe I fell for this! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39446629)

Agreed; I'd say that a single Youtube video is a more credible source of information than Fox News. However, it is dubious to believe a thing simply because it is reported as false by Fox News. Fox News is much more like random noise and should simply be dismissed outright when considered for any use (save possibly random number generation).

Re:I can't believe I fell for this! (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 2 years ago | (#39448265)

What that guy really pulled off is getting more impressive by the minute!

It was fake? Really? (2)

stoofa (524247) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446161)

A distinct lack of fertilizer, Mr. Holmes.

This is awesome (5, Insightful)

sideslash (1865434) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446299)

The world needs to be reminded periodically not to take itself so seriously.

Fakes are easy to spot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39446403)

The key element of hiding a fake is to temporarily hide the subject. There are numerous ways of doing this. Blurring the scene, camera jiggle causing the subject to go out of frame, and having something temporarily pass between the camera and the subject. This video has a blurred takeoff and some guy randomly walks diagonally and blocks the landing.

the batteries (1)

tgibbs (83782) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446637)

The flight video could have fooled me. But I just couldn't believe it was real when they showed those little tiny batteries.

It's real! (1)

ionymous (1216224) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446697)

I believe this may be a fake hoax.

The Grade That the World Gets in Pnysics is D- ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39446761)

Why do so many gullible people believe? Because they get a D or F
in physics class or AVOID TAKING ANY PHYSICS in high school.

Plenty of USA high school dropouts. google for 'dropout factories' USA.
This is the same as investors in MADOFF PONZI SCHEME.
Many investors don't know basic math. The volatility and RISK/REWARD
ratios in the stock/bond/financial instruments market constantly changes.

Even, if you go to the GAMBLING CASINO in Las Vegas, you cannot consistently
win at a specific rate!
Congrats to the ARTIST in PROVING the increasing gullibility and STUPIDITY of the
world!

raw video (1)

RalfM (10406) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446877)

Sad, but not surprising given the effort put into the edits of the videos. No raw footage, but cut together, picture in picture, soundtrack, etc cinemagic...

R

I was pretty convinced... (2)

Colven (515018) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446879)

and awed when I saw this [wired.com] the other day, although I didn't think much about it after the novelty wore off... which happened pretty quickly.

"Kaayak admitted that he didn't expect the media attention his project would generate, with over 8.9 million views across the world."

Yeah, right. I'd dismiss this if it didn't insult everyone's intelligence. You don't put up the video, a web site, fake a press release [humanbirdwings.net] , and push it out into the public through the media channels if you don't expect it to get attention. F*** 'em.

Re:I was pretty convinced... (1)

pavon (30274) | more than 2 years ago | (#39449889)

You misunderstand. Yes, the goal was to get publicity, they are just shocked at how well it worked. Wired, BBC, and many other mainstream media sources fell for it.

Proves how dumb people are (1)

Latinhypercube (935707) | more than 2 years ago | (#39446899)

This just proves how dumb people are.
I wish there was a Darwinian award for stupidity and subsequent removal from the gene pool.

Disappointed I am. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39447171)

Man, doesn't THAT just take the Kaayk.

Bright side: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39447257)

Hey, at least now somebody really WILL build one, out of pique.

What if (1)

WinstonWolfIT (1550079) | more than 2 years ago | (#39447445)

What would be cool would be power-assisted bird-style wings, something that detects flapping motion and compensates for the subtle positions to remain aerodynamic. If done smoothly the flyer would 'feel' stronger and would experience the actual sense of self-powered flight. How cool would that be.

So wat, it got me (1)

Pirulo (621010) | more than 2 years ago | (#39447603)

I was saving already...

P.T. Barnum would be proud. (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | more than 2 years ago | (#39447729)

P.T. Barnum made his living doing hoaxes like this one, and is probably looking down and clapping for these guys. Barnum had so many people wanting to get in to see his museum in NYC, but the people already inside wouldn't leave fast enough. That's when he installed a sign over by the exit door, "This way to see the Egress". When people went through and found themselves on the street, they'd have a laugh, saying, "Ole' P.T. got us again!" And although attributed with saying, "There's a sucker born every minute!", here's the real story... http://www.historybuff.com/library/refbarnum.html [historybuff.com]

Would you like to see my shocked face? (1)

Ranger (1783) | more than 2 years ago | (#39447757)

C'mon doesn't anyone watch Gilligan's Island anymore? Remember when Gilligan launches himself off the roof of a hut with a pair of wings flapping them.

Skipper: "Gilligan what are you doing?"

Gilligan: "Skipper, I'm going to fly for help."

Skipper: "Gilligan you can't fly!"

Gilligan: "I can't?"

People actually fell for this? (1)

SilverJets (131916) | more than 2 years ago | (#39447843)

wow

Dream Of Leonardo da Vinci Translated Into Reality (1)

funnyandspicy (2560469) | more than 2 years ago | (#39447853)

Aviation has come a long way so far. Starting from Leonardo da vinci to Peoples like Henry Cavendish, Montgolfier Brothers, Sir George Cayley, John Stringfellow, Francis H Wenham, Otto Lilienthal, The wright brothers and many others contributed a lot.. http://goo.gl/2HBEJ [goo.gl]

And in other news... (1)

Nogami_Saeko (466595) | more than 2 years ago | (#39447863)

Dutch "artist" admits faking video that only fooled the extremely gullible...

Sigh...

"Wired" did it (2)

BlueTak (1218450) | more than 2 years ago | (#39447883)

This video has become "viral" because it has been published on Wired's first page. A simple look showed it was a joke ( the guy is probably lifted by a car ) but the journalist had a strong urge to fly...

It will be possible someday. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39448109)

I believe with our technology it might actually be possible now. Albeit an expensive and highly complicated venture. It's nice to revisit concepts like this every now and then as technology develops. The execution of their idea was poor but the idea does spark a lot of daydreaming in our geeky minds. If you could build one how would you go about it with today's tech? I found myself taking quite a lot of time trying to figure it out. I don't think we have the right power to weight technologies yet but we're getting close with things like carbon fiber, titanium alloys, and gyroscopes. Just look at what those little quad-rotor helicopters are doing. This might not be so far fetched in the future. We might actually replace hang gliders with birdwings in the future. Will probably still be a niche hobby and people will die but I think it will happen eventually. Just a matter of time and progress.

The BBC fell for it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39448623)

Good job there are high quality journalists spending the licence fee at the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17468907

Is there a Nintendo Tie-in? (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | more than 2 years ago | (#39449345)

Coincidentally, Nintendo is releasing a new Kid Icarus game on Friday, March 23. 8 months of work on this hoax, must've been a significant amount of money invested by 'some' entity to pay the freight of this CGI work, and Nintendo's 'not talking' to reporters. Was this all a planned hoax in order to build interest in their new release? Lots of money invested in making a video game today. I'm just sayin'...

Hadn't Heard of it, Don't Care (1)

kyrio (1091003) | more than 2 years ago | (#39450047)

I hadn't heard of this non-story, and I still don't care.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>