The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

8 - Orono Weekly Times Wednesday, March 17, 2010 Basic Black by Arthur Black Internet: You get what you pay for Spending an evening on the World Wide Web is much like sitting down to a dinner of Cheetos... two hours later your fingers are yellow and you're no longer hungry, but you haven't been nourished. ~ Clifford Stoll Hey, did you see Jimmy Kimmel get bitten by that rattlesnake? Unbelievable! Happened live on his late night TV show! Two zoo guys brought out this huge rattler supposedly restrained by a neck clamp but it broke loose, lashed out and bit Kimmel right on the hand! Happened on prime time TV. You can check it out yourself on YouTube. On second thought, don't bother - it's a crock. Never happened - or rather it seemed to, but it was faked. It was all part of a razzle-dazzle setup to introduce Kimmel's guests that night - some of the actors who appear on the TV show House. I only mention it because at least five people have emailed me the original YouTube video. All of them fervently believe it actually happened. Hey, I was sucked in too. I only got suspicious when there was no mention of the incident in the next day's newspapers. Surely a TV show host getting fanged by a rattlesnake on prime time TV would make the front page? It surely would. And that's my problem with the Internet. The very thing that's trumpeted as the beauty of the beast is its major problem - nobody's in charge. Everything that appears on the Internet has the weight of a lead story in the Globe and Mail about regime change in Ottawa. Or a National Enquirer exclusive about Martians snatching Obama and replacing him with a robot. How can you tell if what comes out of your laptop is legit? You can't, for sure. Newspapers have grumpy and suspicious editors, not to mention reporters with 'news sense' and a resistance to being conned by fraudsters. The Internet, by contrast, is peppered with pimply geeks with perverted tastes and 24hour access to online photograph manipulation programs such as Photoshop. They get their kicks by gulling the gullible and they answer to no one. Six years ago, the world was stunned when a tsunami swept shorelines along the Indian Ocean killing tens of thousands. Soon after, horrific photos appeared on the Internet, including one iconic shot taken from the window of a high-rise in Phuket, Thailand. It shows a massive foaming wave sweeping across a coastal highway and about to crash into the downtown area. The photo is chilling, horrific, stupendous. And a complete fraud. The skyline it depicts bears no resemblance to the actual skyline of Phuket. The wave that's crashing ashore is right out of Avatar special effects. It would appear to be at least twenty storeys high. The waves that devastated the Asian coastline were powerful but not one of them was more than twenty feet in height. Whoever put up the photo even got the highway traffic flow wrong. Thais drive on the left-hand side of the road, not the right. An expert who analyzed the photograph determined that it actually shows the skyline of the city of Antofagasta, Chile. Different ocean, different continent. As for the killer wave supposedly poised to strike...can we say 'Photoshop'? The World Wide Web is awash with bogus news stories shored up by fake photographs. Have you see the 800pound razorback hog shot by a hunter in Arkansas? The giant human skeleton found in the Arabian Desert? The catfish with a basketball stuck in its mouth? The carcass of the Mermaid that washed ashore on a beach in South Africa? Or in the Philippines. Or at Fort Desoto Beach in Florida, depending on what the faker who posted the video has been smoking. A guy by the name of Rich Wurman figured out that a weekday edition of the New York Times contains more information than the average person was likely to come across in a lifetime in Seventeenth Century England. We're in the Twenty-First Century now - when a school kid has access to more information in her handheld iPod than she'd find in a year's worth of New York Times. The difference is, most (well, much) of the crap has been edited out of the newspaper. The scary fact is, newspapers are an endangered species; the Internet is thriving. There is one thing you can do for yourself - put www.snopes.com in your 'favourites' file. It's a website devoted to exposing frauds, rumours, myths and outright lies. If you come across a story that sets your BS antennae waving, check it out at snopes. Oh yeah - and keep buying newspapers. We need them more than ever. Rhubarb Meringue Trifles This refreshing and light "pretty in pink" spring dessert, featuring early hothouse rhubarb, is the perfect ending to a dinner. You'll feel good serving this healthier take on the traditional trifle. Preparation Time: 15 minutes Baking Time: 30 minutes Chilling Time: 2 hours or up to 2 days Serves: 6 Ingredients: 6 cups (1.5 L) chopped (1-inch/2.5 cm pieces) Ontario Rhubarb about 1-1/2 lb (750 g) 3/4 cup (175 mL) granulated sugar 1/4 cup (50 mL) all-purpose flour Grated rind of 1 lemon 6 prepared meringue nests 1-1/2 cups (375 mL) vanilla yogurt Mint leaves (optional) Preparation Instructions: In 13-x 9-inch (3 L) glass baking dish, stir together rhubarb, sugar and flour. Cover with foil and bake in 350°F (180°C) oven for 30 minutes or until rhubarb is tender and still holds its shape, stirring halfway through. Stir in lemon rind. Let cool on rack. Cover and refrigerate for 2 hours or until chilled or for up to 2 days. Break meringue nests into bite-size pieces. In six 10 to 12 oz (284 to 340 mL) glasses, layer in yogurt, rhubarb filling and meringue pieces. Repeat layers once. Garnish with mint if desired. Serve or cover and refrigerate for up to 1 hour. Tips: ·For a sweeter sauce, taste rhubarb filling and add 1 tbsp (15 mL) sugar at a time. ·Meringue nests are available at most large supermarkets in 125 gram packages. ·For optimum flavour, select yogurt with 2% M.F. or higher. Nutritional Information: 1 Serving - Protein: 5.0 grams, Fat: 2.0 grams, Carbohydrates: 55.0 grams, Fibre: 2 grams, Calories: 250