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!

No, a Stolen iPod Didn't Brick Ben Eberle's Prosthetic Hand

timothy posted about three weeks ago | from the too-bad-to-be-true dept.

The Military 122

New submitter willoremus writes A wounded Army vet had his $75k prosthetic hand bricked when someone stole his iPod Touch? Yeah, not so much. I'm a tech reporter for Slate.com, and a Slashdot post earlier this week prompted me to look into this story and ultimately debunk some of the key info. Sorry for self-posting, but I thought folks here might be interested in the truth since the false story was one of the top posts earlier this week.

cancel ×

122 comments

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

Rule of thumb (4, Insightful)

nysus (162232) | about three weeks ago | (#47778477)

If something sounds too crazy to be true without substantial evidence to back it up, it probably is. I take everything I read on the Internet with a very fine grain of salt.

Re:Rule of thumb (4, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about three weeks ago | (#47778521)

Yeah, apparently "what engineer would ever design a product like that?" was the correct question to ask.

Because the answer is "no engineer"

Re:Rule of thumb (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about three weeks ago | (#47778589)

But... what committee would design a product like that? [wikipedia.org] Quite a few probably.

Re:Rule of thumb (4, Interesting)

Richy_T (111409) | about three weeks ago | (#47778723)

Or a marketer (vendor lock-in) or an auto company (special tool #16)

Re:Rule of thumb (4, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about three weeks ago | (#47778751)

You don't need vendor lock-in when your product costs $100,000, and your customer can use at most 4.

Re:Rule of thumb (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47778819)

You don't need vendor lock-in when your product costs $100,000, and your customer can use at most 4.

Five.... If male... Or desiring to be male..

Re:Rule of thumb (1)

ihtoit (3393327) | about three weeks ago | (#47779805)

I have one of those.

It's a keyed 16mm 12-point triple square bolt driver. Mine wasn't from the Mercedes-Benz or Audi kit though, it's part of a generic garage set.

Re:Rule of thumb (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about three weeks ago | (#47780697)

BMW secret decoder ring tools are now common enough. Just in time for all the German cars to be junk.

Re:Rule of thumb (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47781299)

So anything in the world that has any amount or propriety hardware or software behind it is automatically vendor lock in by your standards?
 
Interesting, tell me more about how you posted to Slashdot without (GASP!!!) TEH EBIL VENDOR LOCK INSSSS!!!!!!

Re:Rule of thumb (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47778865)

Actually quite a few "engineers" like that do exist. They usually come out of China and India.

Re:Rule of thumb (1, Insightful)

c (8461) | about three weeks ago | (#47780455)

Yeah, apparently "what engineer would ever design a product like that?" was the correct question to ask.

Because the answer is "no engineer"

I once pulled apart a cheap shop vacuum to fix an electrical problem. The motor was held in with about 10 screws evenly spaced around the core.

Nine of those screws were a phillips head.

The other screw? Otherwise identical to the others, nothing special about its location or anything to differentiate it from the others. Security torx.

Because some engineers are just assholes.

Re: Rule of thumb (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47781131)

That's not an engineering decision. That's management told the product team to make the vacuum impossible for consumers to repair. He could have used ask security torx. Or he could have used all different bits. He used but one since that was sufficient to placate management and should be easy for you to defeat with a dremmel (cut a slot; now it's a flat head screw).

He wasn't an asshole. He was being as nice as he could without being fired.

Re: Rule of thumb (1)

russotto (537200) | about three weeks ago | (#47781485)

He used only one because security torx is expensive compared to Phillips and minimizing the BOM while fulfilling the requirements (including making user repairs a pain) was his job. Naturally he had to balance this against the cost of having separate tooling to insert the security screw.

Re:Rule of thumb (2)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about three weeks ago | (#47781169)

Not quite true. The article likens this to GM bricking a Corvette for losing the keys, but that's exactly what happens to a modern Toyota computer if you lose the last key (cost of replacing a key for my Prius $175. Cost of replacing key + computer $1,275, I checked and that convinced me to spend the $175 for a second key for my used Prius).

Re:Rule of thumb (5, Funny)

Voltara (6334) | about three weeks ago | (#47778603)

Something didn't seem quite right, but I just couldn't put my finger on it...

Re:Rule of thumb (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47778631)

Something didn't seem quite right, but I just couldn't put my finger on it...

That's probably because your finger was bricked.

Re:Rule of thumb (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47778869)

hahaha, you picked up on his sarcasm and overtly stated the implied joke. you so funny.

Re: Rule of thumb (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47781353)

Thanks.

Re:Rule of thumb (1)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about three weeks ago | (#47779263)

But you could have had you backed up your iOS device to the cloud like everybody else.

Re:Rule of thumb (1)

ihtoit (3393327) | about three weeks ago | (#47779819)

something about bricked fingers but I'm sure one of those ACs that I can't see has already brought himself and no bottle to that party.

Re:Rule of thumb (4, Informative)

kdataman (1687444) | about three weeks ago | (#47778743)

As the OP of the original post, I would like to point out that I listed 3 possibilities and the first was that the story was wrong, maybe even intentionally wrong.

Re:Rule of thumb (1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47778809)

This is Slashdot, most of the initial commentary is in reaction to the titles, a few people read the summary, and roughly once a Earth-Mars eclipse someone reads the linked articles.

Re:Rule of thumb (1)

nmoore (22729) | about three weeks ago | (#47779027)

The article even quotes you, but does not appear to indicate that you were the submitter of the slashdot story you were "incredulous" of.

Re:Rule of thumb (1)

dcollins117 (1267462) | about three weeks ago | (#47779573)

As the OP of the original post, I would like to point out that I listed 3 possibilities and the first was that the story was wrong, maybe even intentionally wrong.

This is Slashdot. We don't let facts get in the way of a good story.

Re:Rule of thumb (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47780021)

This is Slashdot. We don't let facts get in the way of a good story.

This is Slashdot. We don't have good stories, only bad summaries.

Re:Rule of thumb (1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47780187)

Now we're expected to read lists? Fuck, next thing you'll be expecting us to read articles.

Re:Rule of thumb: expand it. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47778745)

You need to include printed sources too since this story was originally reported in the San Antonio Express - News [foxnews.com] and picked up by the national press - see link again.

If this Slate reporter/blogger didn't follow up, we would have never known for sure.

And here's the kicker, I guarantee you that Touch Bionics will be disputing this story for years to come.

All you need is someone who is careless or just lies because it sounds good, and it catches on, people remember the misinformation and never the truth. - mostly because it falls into their world view and they ignore anything that disputes it

I am no exception to the rule and I have been weening myself off of all news. If it's really important, I'll hear about it from my friends and neighbors. Everything else is just fluff, out of my control and irrelevant to me.

As a result, the World seems much safer, nicer, and I can listen to my neighbor's opinions and disagree without getting angry. Burying my head in the sand? Am i uninformed? What good is it to know everything happening in the Middle East when I cannot do anything about and it is irrelevant to my life? Who cares what the current leader of N. Korea says? Or the idiocy coming out of the politician's mouths? It's all lies, anyway. And don't get me started on the moronic cable news channels and the professional Trolls/Pundits like Hannity, O'Reilly, and those overpaid assholes.

Now, to ween of the Internet and all it's shit.

Sorry Slate reporter and Slashdot, but my life will be better without you.

Re:Rule of thumb (4, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | about three weeks ago | (#47778757)

If something sounds too crazy to be true without substantial evidence to back it up

If something sounds crazy, on the internet, especially Facebook,etc; It's probably click-bait. They just want your clicks to earn ad revenue.

They will earn money, even if it's false or bogus. Also, there are unlikely to be any negative ramifications at all.

"Sorry, our bad"

And everyone will forget.

Sort of.... i'm sure there will be many repeats, and we'll just never get it.

Re:Rule of thumb (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47782301)

The joke's on them; I block all ads.

Re: Rule of thumb (4, Insightful)

jd2112 (1535857) | about three weeks ago | (#47778765)

Personally I use two or three large salt mines. A single grain just doesn't cut it anymore.

Re: Rule of thumb (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47782875)

Personally I use two or three large salt mines. A single grain just doesn't cut it anymore.

Salt is mined? o_O

Re:Rule of thumb (1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47779387)

If something sounds too crazy to be true without substantial evidence to back it up, it probably is. I take everything I read on the Internet with a very fine grain of salt.

I too only use a fine grain of salt. However, I've been around the internet enough to now be diagnosed with acute hypertension thanks to my total sodium intake.

Re:Rule of thumb (1)

zwarte piet (1023413) | about three weeks ago | (#47782681)

I prefer fleur de sel.

Re:Rule of thumb (1)

richlv (778496) | about three weeks ago | (#47779395)

also, if a slashdot submission excludes key facts in the hope that we will read the article, they must be smoking something stroooong.
we'll go in offtopic rants instead.

Slashdot got a sensational story wrong? (4, Insightful)

Nimey (114278) | about three weeks ago | (#47778481)

Say it ain't so!

Re:Slashdot got a sensational story wrong? (4, Insightful)

Nimey (114278) | about three weeks ago | (#47778607)

Now I hope all you jackasses who immediately piled on with your superiority complexes ("oh, how could an engineer be /that/ stupid? I know better than him, hee hee") have learned something, but I doubt it.

Re:Slashdot got a sensational story wrong? (4, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about three weeks ago | (#47778763)

I'm more incredulous that Slate ran a factual story that wasn't 99% opinion.

Re:Slashdot got a sensational story wrong? (-1, Flamebait)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about three weeks ago | (#47779275)

Or a technology story that didn't pander to their No Nukes anti-vax GMO-free science illiterate readership.

Re:Slashdot got a sensational story wrong? (4, Informative)

the gnat (153162) | about three weeks ago | (#47779861)

their No Nukes anti-vax GMO-free science illiterate readership.

Uh, which readership would that be? I've been reading Slate almost daily for a while now, and they've been very consistently against the anti-vaxxers and, to a lesser extent, haven't had much sympathy for the anti-GMO crowd either. They even employ Phil Plait, who rarely misses an opportunity to denounce scientific illiteracy. Perhaps you confused them with Salon?

Re:Slashdot got a sensational story wrong? (0)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about three weeks ago | (#47781089)

I'm talking about the readership, not the columnists. Yes, Slate readers are the multicelled version of Salon.com readers and yes, Slate's columnists seem to have sensed that the anti-vaxers have crossed a line in their Luddism. But whenever Slate runs an article questioning the anti-vaxers, there is always a healthy (in numbers) contingent of readers flaming the writer as being a pawn of Big Pharma.

Re:Slashdot got a sensational story wrong? (1)

the gnat (153162) | about three weeks ago | (#47782075)

yes, Slate's columnists seem to have sensed that the anti-vaxers have crossed a line in their Luddism

You're still grappling with a straw man. Slate writers have repeatedly denounced anti-vaxxers in fairly strong terms, and I have yet to see a single article taking the opposing view. More generally, they've been strongly anti-pseudoscience. You're assuming bad faith by making it sound like Slate has only grudgingly decide that there's a limit to their left-wing lunacy, rather than being firmly opposed to such nonsense on principle. If their "readership" really consisted of hardcore Luddites why would the editors consistently go out of their way to piss them off? Besides, you find find people saying stupid shit on virtually any Web forum - every Slashdot post about creationism inevitably attracts a slew of pissed-off religious fundamentalists, but I don't go around complaining that Slashdot's readership consists of superstitious morons.

Re:Slashdot got a sensational story wrong? (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | about three weeks ago | (#47781339)

I think he's confusing Salon.com with Slate.com since they both start with "S".

Re:Slashdot got a sensational story wrong? (3, Interesting)

gman003 (1693318) | about three weeks ago | (#47780339)

Are you reading the same Slate I read? Slate got my eyes by hiring Dr. Phil Plait, who is basically a full-time anti-science debunker, one who is specifically against anti-vaxxers, astrologers and conspiracy theorists. And although I don't often read many of their other authors, I've never seen an anti-vax or anti-GMO article there either. They've got their share of inanity (the advice blogger is almost hilariously bad), and they link to bullshit sites like Buzzfeed, but "science illiterate" isn't one of the complaints I'd voice about them.

Re:Slashdot got a sensational story wrong? (1)

Nimey (114278) | about three weeks ago | (#47780885)

I doubt he reads Slate at all: most of what he wrote was anti-liberal dogwhistles, so you bet he gets his news from somewhere that tells him what he wants to hear.

Re:Slashdot got a sensational story wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47779151)

Say it ain't so!

And how does this differentiate Slashdot from CNN? Or damn near every other "news" source out there?

Re:Slashdot got a sensational story wrong? (1)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about three weeks ago | (#47779289)

CNN would have run the same story as a shaky amateur video with two advertisements bracketing it and no audio.

Thank you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47778499)

About time at least one blatantly wrong submission gets a correction!

Re:Thank you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47778517)

Yup, they can now finally shut the site down. Only took ~20 years.

Re:Thank you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47778701)

About time at least one blatantly wrong submission gets a correction!

Ah, shudup... This wasn't SlashDot's issue, it was the lame-stream press' issue. Some big city reporter fell for the story (or invented it) and a whole lot of news services got caught up in the frenzy to publish without making an attempt to verity the story (as usual).

Re:Thank you (1)

jsepeta (412566) | about three weeks ago | (#47779039)

big city reporter? or unpaid blogger? you decide, story at 10.

Main Confusion Stems From Vocabulary? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47778557)

Bricked means you can't recover from brickedness. If you have a chip or device that can be reset with a programmer, or if you can download software for this prosth-arm and have it working again, it wasn't bricked.

Yeah, yeah, language changes, go suck a brick. "Bricked" is such new jargon that it barely had time to be properly used before the definition got raped. (I know rape doesn't apply here, but you know, languages evolve.)

Main Confusion Stems From Vocabulary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47778729)

Ya, I hate how people are using the term "Bricked" now to describe even device crashes. It's pretty self explanatory, "Bricked" means the device is now a useful as a brick. Meaning it does nothing and can't be made to do anything.

Re:Main Confusion Stems From Vocabulary? (1)

jsepeta (412566) | about three weeks ago | (#47779049)

but bricks build houses! or (charcoal briquettes) can be used to grill meat.

Re:Main Confusion Stems From Vocabulary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47779653)

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not. A device that is "bricked" means, as you say, the device is as useful as a brick. The word brick is being used a METAPHOR for your non-functioning device. It doesn't mean that your device has literally become a brick, or achieved a state of "brickedness" (lol). When I say that I drove a "piece of shit" Chrysler LeBaron back in 2000, I don't mean that the car was made of shit, or smelled like shit, or had the texture or color of shit, or was in a state of "shit". I mean it was a terrible car and describing it as excrement conveys the level of esteem I had for it.

Re:Main Confusion Stems From Vocabulary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47779485)

Bricked means you can't recover from brickedness.

Brickedness? You mean the state of being a brick?

Jeezus, is everyone on /. a frickin' freshman English comp student now?

Re:Main Confusion Stems From Vocabulary? (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about three weeks ago | (#47780735)

They come over from Redit.

They should just look for the Redit cookies and redirect them to an echo chamber, where they can complement each others spelling.

The truth? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47778565)

Slashdot readers don't want the truth, they want their own version of reality that fits their particular political/sociological/etc. slant.

Still (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47778581)

the worst design ever conceived by mankind though... (but the US government supported it, because spare parts are booming business.)

Re:Still (2, Interesting)

Nimey (114278) | about three weeks ago | (#47778621)

^^^ proof that any story can be derailed by conservative jackasses who want to complain about the government, right there. Needs more random CAPITALIZATION to make A POINT, though.

Re: Still (1, Flamebait)

jd2112 (1535857) | about three weeks ago | (#47778791)

It's all Obama's fault!!! I can't think of a single reason why at the moment, but that is Obama's fault as well.

Re:Still (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about three weeks ago | (#47778821)

^^^ proof that any story can be derailed by conservative jackasses

Um, it's only possible for a person to derail a story if you let them.

Which it appears you have done.

Ever consider just ignoring the people you find annoying? Works pretty well for me.

Re: Still (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47780141)

delicious irony

Re:Still (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47779421)

except i'm a socialist ;)

Re:Still (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47779451)

And it was GW who supported this project, and yes, everything is the bush's fault..

Re:Still (1)

ildon (413912) | about three weeks ago | (#47782093)

> Needs more random CAPITALIZATION to make A POINT, though.

No need for the strawman. Random pointless capitalization knows no political affiliation.

Mythbusters (3, Funny)

dfsmith (960400) | about three weeks ago | (#47778593)

Maybe the hurried journalists quietly noted that there are now 66% fewer Mythbusters and thought, "Let's run with it—what's the chance of being caught now, eh?" B-(

Re:Mythbusters (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about three weeks ago | (#47778667)

Hang on... there were 5, now there are 2. That's 60% fewer, not 66%.

Re:Mythbusters (3, Informative)

dfsmith (960400) | about three weeks ago | (#47778749)

I thought, "I'll run with it...".

Re:Mythbusters (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about three weeks ago | (#47779695)

You can cite your previous headline in a new article titled "Discovery Channel Removes 30% of Adam Savage"

Re:Mythbusters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47778785)

Hang on... there were 5, now there are 2. That's 60% fewer, not 66%.

They got rid of "Buster" too.... But for another reason. He'd pretty much had it.

Thanks (4, Insightful)

alvinrod (889928) | about three weeks ago | (#47778597)

Thanks for actually looking into this. Reporting in general seems (or perhaps it's always been this way, but I just wasn't as aware of it.) to have gotten a lot more lazy recently, especially with the explosion of news blogs and other internet only news sources. There's such a rush to be the first to break a story and get the massive number of clicks and associated ad revenue that reporters have lost focus on digging deep and getting to the bottom of a story. After that everyone just links to the original without bothering to verify the information and the facts gets buried under a combination of half-truths and/or agenda-driven opinion.

Re:Thanks (1)

Krishnoid (984597) | about three weeks ago | (#47779127)

Sorry for self-posting, but I thought folks here might be interested in the truth since the false story was one of the top posts earlier this week.

The additional research you did is definitely very valuable, but it's going to take a lot more than a simple 'sorry' to make up for all the self-posting so far, Bennett.

Re:Thanks (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | about three weeks ago | (#47779983)

especially with the explosion of news blogs and other internet only news sources.

Causation vs correlation: internet-only news sources are a mixed bag but if you want breaking-headline stories that definitely have a political slant/bias (whether it's the blatant "Fascism-masquerading-as-Conservativism" spewed by the likes of Fox News or the far-more-subtle and carefully-concocted "Fascism-masquerading-as-Progressive-Socialism" you'll hear on NPR), be sure to tune-in to Mainstream Media...

Re:Thanks (1)

schnell (163007) | about three weeks ago | (#47781093)

Reporting in general seems (or perhaps it's always been this way, but I just wasn't as aware of it.) to have gotten a lot more lazy recently, especially with the explosion of news blogs and other internet only news sources.

You are correct, it has gotten a lot more lazy recently. Once upon a time, when newspapers were printed once or twice a day and TV news aired only at 6 pm and 10 pm, there was a lot more time to get your facts straight and - most importantly - request a balancing comment from the "other side of the story." Today, there are so many sources of "news" - heavy finger quotes there - that operate in near real time that people are exposed to lots of rumormongering in the guise of journalism due to pressure to be first to get clicks (and the low reportorial standards that accompany a rush to publish in minutes).

Generally speaking, if I see something sensational online I will wait until I see it from an outlet that hires actual reporters (like CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, et. al.) instead of "bloggers" who just scour Twitter for unsubstantiated scoops (like Gawker properties, Deadspin, whatever) or "writers" who are just paid to write opinions with no pretense at balance (like Slate, HuffPo, Fox News, et. al.). So even if Facebook "told" me that Robin Williams was dead at noon, I was perfectly content to wait until someone did some fact checking and reported it on cnn.com two hours later before I believed it.

More Cracked Feedstock (1)

gurps_npc (621217) | about three weeks ago | (#47778673)

I love Cracked's series that lists "Fake news stories you fell for". Most of the time I did not really fall for them, but every once in a while I do.

This one was along the lines of "I don't think so, but there might be a designer about to be fired for stupidity".

I have a logical explaination (5, Insightful)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about three weeks ago | (#47778677)

The guy said "they stole my iPod now I can't use my hand until I get a new one"
The media interpreted that as need a new hand, not need a new iPod. Since need a new hand means more clicks on headlines, they run with it without clarifying.

Re:I have a logical explaination (1)

mistaryte (2446492) | about three weeks ago | (#47783191)

Finger bricks iPod... that's not a story. iPod bricks finger... now that's a story!

I'm surprised anyone From The Slate is truthful (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47779069)

Really!

may need to reprogram? (2)

fermion (181285) | about three weeks ago | (#47779115)

While he can keep the same hand, it’s possible that he’ll have to reprogram some specific settings on his new device, said a spokesman for the Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, where Eberle is a patient.

I don't see why that would be needed. The iPod should be backed up to something. Even if the setting are not backed up to a computer or icloud, it would seem for that amount of money the firm supplying the app would provide a cloud based service to make the service device independent. What if the iPod no longer had charged and you wanted to use your phone?

It still seems kind of fishy.

Notice how they refused to address the issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47779199)

Why do they think it is ok to screw over veterans like this? Why does their kind think it is good business to throw away $70,000.00? I know Republicans are stupid, but these xians are taking even farther. Screw them for trying to leave us armless and handless.

Re:Notice how they refused to address the issue (2)

techno-vampire (666512) | about three weeks ago | (#47779757)

What made you think that the vet got screwed over? He lost his legs and his arm, meaning that his disability is service connected and he's responsible for none of the costs related to it. I know; I have a minor service connected disability (hearing loss caused by being around too much outbound shore bombardment back in '72) and all of my hearing aids, batteries, repair and replacement are done at no charge.

Re:Notice how they refused to address the issue (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47781133)

Demanding someone give you $72,000.00 when you have no money or they will not allow you to use your arm is screwing someone over. I'd hate to see what you'd object to. Killing someone for missing a car payment?

Oh you Republicans are all alike.

Re:Notice how they refused to address the issue (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | about three weeks ago | (#47781995)

If you'd bothered to RTFA, you might have kept your foot out of your mouth: "The money will come from the government, but a new hand is worth $75,000, authorities said."

Oh you Republicans are all alike.

Yet another pointless, irrelevant unproven argumentum ad hominum from an aptly named Anonymous COWARD.

Self-posting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47779229)

As far as I'm concerned self-posting is perfectly fine. The only problem is that you should be careful to only submit articles that fit the site. Even there, it's the editors responsibility to only admit suitable posts. Given the circumstances, this was probably the best way to proceed.

Oh, and someone else already said, but thanks again. It's good that at least one member of the media thought to check with the principals before publishing. Maybe Touch Bionics will sue some of those involved with the incorrect story. It seems that the media could use some incentive to fact check before publishing. And unlike many cases, they don't have to worry about the Streisand effect--they've already gotten the bad publicity.

Facebook post... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47779235)

In the original slashdot story's post, an AC posted this comment:

https://www.facebook.com/pages... [facebook.com]

have a look at his comment.

I don't do FB, anyone here that knows if this is pertinent?

Speaking of unsubstantiated statements of fact (1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47779325)

Submitter wrote in his TFA:

The Daily Mail, in a rare instance of actual reporting, did at least take note of Eberle’s Facebook post.)

I keep seeing this here on /. and other sites, but is it really true? Is the Daily Mail any worse than any other media outlet, like CNN, the NY Times, Spiegel, etc.? Or is this just one of those internet born factoids that's been passed around so often that its just accepted as to be true, and is mindlessly repeated by careless individuals who didn't bother to verify its veracity?

Re:Speaking of unsubstantiated statements of fact (1)

Nimey (114278) | about three weeks ago | (#47780615)

That paper didn't get known as the Daily Fail and Daily Hate for nothing.

Re:Speaking of unsubstantiated statements of fact (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about three weeks ago | (#47780751)

It's about the same as fox news. The same as the others, but from the other side.

Don't believe anything any of them report.

Amazing story (1)

almostadnsguy (2009458) | about three weeks ago | (#47779343)

I'm not sure what's more amazing to me that 1. a newspaper in America still has reporters (not relying on th AP) or 2. that they got something wrong.

You'll not only go blind, but... (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about three weeks ago | (#47779895)

There's a ROFL episode of Big Bang where a cast member is using a robot hand for "personal pleasure", when it locks up.

Re:You'll not only go blind, but... (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about three weeks ago | (#47780759)

Penny? Gotta find that episode.

Re:You'll not only go blind, but... (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about three weeks ago | (#47782447)

Not unless she has a wanker

Hijacked limb? (1)

Tactical Bacon (1879876) | about three weeks ago | (#47780059)

While it's good to read that his prosthetic isn't useless due to the loss of an inexpensive device, I really hope there's some way to lock out that old iPod Touch from his hand. If the thief realized what he had stolen he could cause some mischief with it. Presumably his identity is unknown since he hasn't been caught, which means he could get close enough without being noticed. So unless the limb can be programmed to ignore the old device, could the thief just get within range of the prosthetic and cause the poor guy to unwillingly and repeatedly flip everyone around him off or otherwise mess with him?

Fox News (1)

Princeofcups (150855) | about three weeks ago | (#47780351)

It works for Fox News. Make outrageous statements, and let people get all riled up about it. The next say explain that it was wrong, but you have already won with that emotional tie. Same for Apple haters. Rationality never enters into it.

Mutual authentication? (1)

manu0601 (2221348) | about three weeks ago | (#47780989)

TFA says the iPod finds the hand by its unique serial number. But how does the hand authenticate the iPod?

Just goes to show that slashdot is retarded... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47781877)

I posted a link to Eberle's facebook with a note saying that the story isn't true. Shortly after, the post was deleted by moderator...

Re:Just goes to show that slashdot is retarded... (1)

gweihir (88907) | about three weeks ago | (#47782861)

Aehm, moderators can down-mod but not "delete".

Journalism only in the correction... (1)

gweihir (88907) | about three weeks ago | (#47782857)

It is pretty pathetic when original stories do not contain any journalism as in verification and clarification and using plain, apparently old-fashioned common sense. The correction is the only good thing here, and how common "journalism" fails to deliver seems to have become a story in its own right. Again.

Typical of Slashdot (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | about three weeks ago | (#47783177)

Rush to post a story without even an ounce of research or fact-checking.

Really, I only come here anymore for the profound amusement I get from watching this train wreck continue in super slow motion.

Punish the News? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47783305)

Should those groups that published this article without checking the facts be sued for negligent publishing of falsehoods? Especially those with large income (less so slashdot, especially since it was a slashdot member who noticed this error)

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>