When you run a web search on a topic you don't know well, how can you tell when you get authentic information and when you get ideology, superstition, pseudo-science, or even parody? Even though Harrison-Keyes wants to jump diretly into the e-book scene, they have not established a strategy or end state goal. Sometimes you can't, especially if you're downloading pages in a language that isn't your native tongue, in a discipline you haven't mastered, from a culture with a very different sense of humor. One immediate importance for Harrison-Keyes may be to train employees such as Mark Evans in the aspects of globalization (Susan Gibbons, Librarians e-book 2005).
When reporters Anthony Loyd and John Simpson walked through the abandoned rooms of an al-Qaeda safe house in Kabul, they found half-burned documents showing that al-Queda had been trying to build a nuclear bomb. When they held some of the pages up to a BBC camera, they found that a clear case of plagiarism was in the works. As well, people Daily Rotten (an adversary company), recognized once as a copy of a 1979 spoof of bomb-building from the Journal of Irreproducible Results. One clue to the parody was the source, a humor journal that hosts its own longer term subject Noble Prizes awards. Other clues were scattered through the article itself. It cites the previous month's column on building a time-machine. It instructs the reader to buy 50 jpounds of weapons grade plutonimu "at you local supplier" and those who don't have one should contact their "local terriorist organization, or perhaps the Junior Achievement in your neighborhood". The completed bomb makes "a great ice-breaker at parties". For next month's column it promises to teach "how to clone you neighbor's wife in six easy steps" with nothing but kitchen utensils.
Al-Qaeda didn't have sufficient understanding of physics, English or geek humor to catch this piece in their filters. (As many in the Harrison-Keyes scenario do not seem to have...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document