Slashdot Mirror

"the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." -- Reichsmarschall Hermann Goering, Nazi founder of the Gestapo, Head of the Luftwaffe

Neither Germans nor Chinese: http://www.snopes.com/business/misxlate/ancestor.asp

Snopes doesn't do too bad of a job there with the myth of the Chevrolet Nova, but they just miss the most glaring problem with the story: who would seriously believe that Spanish speakers would avoid buying a foreign car just because its name would be a pun for "no go" in Spanish? It's like the Americans who believe this story also believe that Spanish speakers are all stupid simpletons. (Hmmm, I might be on to something there...)

It is true, as Snopes points out, that the normal way to describe in Spanish a car that doesn't work would be something like "no funciona," "no marcha" or "no camina," and not "no va." However, you can also be pretty sure that, more than once, the hapless owner of a broken down Chevy Nova has jokingly described it with a pun: "Mi Nova no va"; "Tengo que vender el Nova y comprarme un Siva" (I gotta sell my "no-go" and buy a "yes-go"); etc. It's like the Americans who don't believe this story also believe that Spanish speakers are all humorless literalists. (Hmmm...)

Reminds me of Chevrolet Nova halted sales in South America

Urban legend. http://www.snopes.com/business/misxlate/nova.asp

> It is not a gaff like, Chevy Nova in South America, No va meaning No go, but that could be truth in advertising.

http://www.snopes.com/business/misxlate/nova.asp

Try again.

The sign reminds me more of the story behind ELO's album No Answer , which is (according to Snopes) actually true: a request for a name receives a reply saying the information is unavailable, and the reply itself is mistaken for the requested name. No one notices until it's already gone to the printer.

It is not a gaff like...

No, it's not a gaff quite like any of those, in the sense that this one actually happened.

Snopes is your friend. Well, okay, maybe not your friend, but it's certainly a friend to pedants like me.

Snopes says no: http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/tadpole.asp

See snopes: http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/tadpole.asp

Snopes.com debunks the Chevy Nova myth and the Coke-tadpole story. I've never heard of the other two, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were bunk as well.

Snopes.com debunks the Chevy Nova myth and the Coke-tadpole story. I've never heard of the other two, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were bunk as well.

http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=37;t=001039;p=0

People may hate Bush, and with good reason, but there's simply no excuse for exaggerating with lies, and to do so weakens the anti-Bush side of the camp. For people like me who have yet to fully formulate their opinion on Bush, it's hard to forget something like the parent's post, and makes me lean strongly away from "the side that has to lie to gain followers", even though I know deep down that only the extremist minority believe such things.

It's Otto Titzling, and it's an urban legend at least according to snopes.com... http://www.snopes.com/business/origins/bra.asp

Before anyone is going to post the story about Bill Gates and the director of GM about cars crashing 3 times a day: it never happened...

I'm not going to take my chances with the gods of exploding water!

This has been quite thoroughly debunked; see http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

I'm not pleased to see a decent and honorable person like Gore lampooned for something he never even said. He received a Webby in 2005 for lifetime achievement, and Vint Cerf has also defended him.

Claim: Vice-President Al Gore claimed that he "invented" the Internet. Status: False. Origins: Despite the derisive references that continue even today, Al Gore did not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way. The "Al Gore said he 'invented' the Internet" put-downs were misleading, out-of-context distortions of something he said during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "Late Edition" program on 9 March 1999. When asked to describe what distinguished him from his challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey, Gore replied (in part):

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

Clearly, although Gore's phrasing might have been a bit clumsy (and perhaps self-serving), he was not claiming that he "invented" the Internet (in the sense of having designed or implemented it), but that he was responsible, in an economic and legislative sense, for fostering the development the technology that we now know as the Internet. To claim that Gore was seriously trying to take credit for the "invention" of the Internet is, frankly, just silly political posturing that arose out of a close presidential campaign. Gore never used the word "invent," and the words "create" and "invent" have distinctly different meanings â" the former is used in the sense of "to bring about" or "to bring into existence" while the latter is generally used to signify the first instance of someone's thinking up or implementing an idea. (To those who say the words "create" and "invent" mean exactly the same thing, we have to ask why, then, the media overwhelmingly and consistently cited Gore as having claimed he "invented" the Internet, even though he never used that word, and transcripts of what he actually said were readily available.)

Still, the original story is pretty unlikely. In this regard, the relevant Snopes entry is interesting: http://www.snopes.com/science/cannon.asp

You mean it wasn't Nasa engineers testing the Space Shuttle windows with the Chicken gun BAC used for Concorde?? Well, I'll go to the foot of our stairs!!

See what Snopes says..

copied from snopes

Check out http://www.snopes.com/military/m16.asp/

Like if you live in Alabama?

Happy Birthday is indeed not a folk song, it is a ripoff of Good Morning To You, which was written by the Hill sisters in the 19th century. The Hills then used copyright law to claim ownership of Happy Birthday, and the copyrights are now in fact owned by Time Warner.

http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp

... paying everyone who forwards an e-mail message $245.00

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/nothing/microsoft-aol.asp

Life imitates an urban legend. Shit.

First line of defense for the Bush legal team...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Snopes says it's fake.

Also, I'm unclear as to the legal theories by which a bad recommendation could be illegal. I guess it could be libelous, if untrue, but there are plenty of ways to include subjectively true statements that would not be libelous. Say he is technically competent but hard to work with, something like that. A law that prohibits any negative information on a job recommendation would clearly be in violation of the 1st amendment.

False

debunked - http://www.snopes.com/religion/pi.asp

So...the 9/11 BIPARTISAN commission were just 'Republican Water Carriers'?

How predictable. If they agree with you, they're "speaking truth to power" but if they don't, they're sellouts.

I'll freely say that the intel on Iraq's WMD programs was sketchy, inconsistent, and largely inaccurate due to excessive dependence on defectors who had their own agendas (Who EVER takes defector information without considering their context? What a rookie mistake....).

But this doesn't mean that Richard Wilson isn't just a partisan media whore who was given this assignment through some insider discussion within the anti-Bush bureaucrats @ Langley, as a very neat & tidy way to use someone to fling poo at Bush & co.

As far as it being a LIE? You have a little tougher slope there:
Somehow, Bush managed to brainwash all of the following in the years BEFORE his presidency & before the invasion?
(from http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp)

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass des

A 15 year old artillery shell containing mustard gas has much less destructive potential than a 1 megaton nuclear warhead. The Bush adminstration and its pals conjured up the term "Weapons of Mass Destruction" to put all these things in the same category so that they would be better able to scare the American public into supporting an invasion of Iraq to prevent "mushroom clouds over Manhattan".

First, it wasn't a 15 year old artillery shell in 1995 when the inspectors were first removed. Second, I'm not entirely sure what your attempting to get at with the warhead. I don't seem to remember anyone claiming Iraq had a nuclear warhead. At best, it was that he was attempting to get one. Third, It wasn't the Bush administration or his pals who "conjured up the term "Weapons of Mass Destruction"". That was first used by the Clinton administration in reference to Iraq. The term is actually a wording from the UN resolution the brokered the armistice to end the first gulf war. Both Bush's and the Clinton administration has used the term. George H. Bush only used it in referencing the cease fire. And Clinton and the democrats had used the term in the same way that Bush has. Of course there are the right wing sources too, I can even find Video of Clinton saying it in '98. Finally, "mushroom clouds over Manhattan" was never used to describe the Iraqi threat. As a matter of fact, The first I remember it being reference by the administration was in the Jose Padilla "dirty bomb" case and then it was used to claim that a dirty bomb isn't exactly "mushroom clouds over Manhattan". That was in may of 2002, about a year before we went into Iraq.

Apparently you fell for that BS. Gratz.

Yes, obviously I was paying attention throughout the years and not only when Bush get elected. BTW, there are sources all over the internet. It really is inexcusable for you to make incorrect accusations without even looking for them. Did you actually believe that I would not provide them for you or something or that I was incapable of paying attention like you seem to be?

Out of curiosity, did you rush out to enlist for the invasion or were you already in the armed forces and request a transfer to a unit that would be part of the invasion force?

Actually, I was too old to join when the second war started. They would probably take me now if I could get a medical waiver but not when the war started. I signed up for the marines before the first gulf war but was in an automobile accident on my way to boot and they didn't want me after I was healed. They said the injuries would cause issues in the field. My foot and ankle still gimp up every once and a while. However, that doesn't really matter. My service or willingness to serve has no bearing on my views about what we should have done or when.

If you're seriously throwing them in the trash, you're the one making this a big problem. From http://www.snopes.com/business/money/pennycost.asp

Were it not for the matter of the metal they contain being worth significantly more than the face value of coins (in these last few years), all the furor and "Say it's not so!" attaching to pennies' costing more to make than they can buy for you at the grocery store would be mere academic quibbling: A penny that cost 1.2 to make isn't all that big of a deal once the concept of multiple use is grasped. If pennies were used but once then thrown away, yes, of course their costing American taxpayers 1.2 apiece would be a horrible, horrible thing. But they're not — pennies pass through hundreds, thousands, and maybe even millions of hands before they somehow drop out of circulation, which more than covers the additional 0.2 that went into their manufacture. In other words, while it's a great "gosh, golly, gee" fact to fling at your friends ("Say, Joe, did you know it costs 1.2 to manufacture a coin that's worth only 1?"), all the gobsmackedness of it runs right out of that conversation stopper once you pause to ponder how many times that one penny will change hands.

Just like Coca-Cola introduced the "New Coke" in the 80s simply to draw attention to their brand, meanwhile planning all along to reintroduce "Coke Classic"... which eventually became the only Coke available. (Though I'm still not sure if the switch from cane sugar to corn syrup had anything to do with it.)

That's a myth: http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/newcoke.asp New Coke was not introduced as a ploy to draw attention to their brand, with the intention of reintroducing Coke Classic. It was in fact a failure, from which Coke recovered brilliantly.

http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/newcoke.asp

Basically they argue that, just like Netflix today, Coca-Cola simply screwed up.

I think he was modded troll because he was spreading a ridiculous urban legend.

I know that the "Al Gore Claimed to Invent the Internet" thing is used in a lighthearted way, but he never made that claim

One he realizes there aren't 57 states however, he might have to adjust his schedule to avoid campaigning in the imaginary ones.

Yeah, yeah, "57 states" and "fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today" were funny slips of the tongue.

But they no more means that he's as dumb as W than your typo of "One" for "Once" makes you a dunce. (This guarantees at least one typo in this post.)

Or about 1 million Al Gore type homes.

Oops - he made some improvements last year - so make that only 900,000 homes worth.

So, should ALL the people in the link I just provided, including Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger, John Kerry, Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, and the oracle himself, Al Gore all be tried for treason?

Do you think they should?

Origins: All of the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S.

If so, on what grounds? No, they did not say "THE EXACT SAME THING." They made similar statements, when discussing the real dangers of Iraq, but they did not ignore contradictory facts and they did not run a publicity campaign for the purpose of waging a war of aggression in Iraq.

First, nothing from the Huffington Post can be used as a source... EVER. It is opinions posted by the most ignorant of Americans, celebrities. If anything, having something said in the Huffington post should be used as COUTNER-evidence to whatever was said.

In my opinion, discarding any one article merely because it appears in the Huffington Post [or any other source] would be to subscribe to the premise of guilt by association, which I do not. Heh, I held my nose and read the article you posted from snopes. You're entitled to your opinions. Everybody else is equally entitled to our opinions, and that includes everybody who disagrees. That's life. The subject at hand is not difference of opinion, but irresponsible and dishonest representation of fact in the pursuit of others' opinions, voters' opinions, in one of the gravest of all political matters, declaration of war. To dismiss a fact merely because it's expressed by a person, or in a journal, with which you have a difference of opinion is to make the very same type of error as we are discussing.

However, I did notice that there was no mention of Sandy Berger, the Clinton security advisor stealing top secret documents and cutting them up with scissors during the 9-11 investigation. I guess that was no big deal, what with Bush lying and all.

That's a disgrace, no doubt about it and no argument, but it is not currently "news." It was not omitted from that article because of Democratic bias. That was the correct professional journalistic decision.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said yesterday that his intelligence service had warned the Bush administration before the U.S. invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein's government was planning attacks against U.S. targets both inside and outside the country.

Vladimir Putin, no matter how friendly he may be nor how pure his soul, is primarily responsible for advancing the interests of Russia, not of the United States. As those tend to overlap these days, it is wise to be receptive to any tips he offers, to take them seriously. But because he is primarily responsible not to us but to a foreign power, the correct next step is to validate what he says independently, with U.S. intelligence assets and never take him, nor any other foreign power, on feith. "Russian President Vladimir Putin said" is not relevant rebuttal to the findings of the U.S. Congress, for this U.S. citizen.

Granted, Saddam Hussein was not in full compliance with terms of treaties he signed. It is also worth noting, however, that his invasion of Kuwait was in response to diagonal oil drilling from Kuwait into Earth under Iraq and that oil was as much a motive for the defense of Kuwait against Iraq as it was a motive for Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, so the U.S., and especially t

First, nothing from the Huffington Post can be used as a source... EVER. It is opinions posted by the most ignorant of Americans, celebrities. If anything, having something said in the Huffington post should be used as COUTNER-evidence to whatever was said. However, I did notice that there was no mention of Sandy Berger, the Clinton security advisor stealing top secret documents and cutting them up with scissors during the 9-11 investigation. I guess that was no big deal, what with Bush lying and all.

But, speaking of willful ignorance of obvious facts, if you go back to my first post, you will read this:

Let's look at another paragraph from Rockefeller's report:

There will always be underperforming, overpaid CEOs but these people won't stay CEO for long.

[OK mods, I going to go waaaaay of topic, but I hope it's some relevance to this thread. Mod accordingly if you must.]

All the pro-CEO talk. I'm not convinced.

If it's a small or mid sizes business I could see the CEO getting reasonable albeit lopsided compensation.
It's incredibly difficult running a small business with razor thin profit margins and fighting to stay in a niche market.
You really are making decisions that determine whether the business lives or dies and if the people
you hire really stay employed. The CEOs I knew personally in this area were more populists than straight
business men which I salute and respect. They agonized not for the losses they would suffer, but
for everyone else. Very rare altruism. The business success rate for those was 50/50, but at the end of the day
they could sleep better at night.

The gargantuan businesses. The Fortune 500 and Fortune 100 companies. The CXO [CEO,CTO,CIO,CFO] crowd can screw up miserably
and pull the rip cord on their parachute almost like any politico retiring for "family reasons".

If I were a less understanding person I would say we revolt against these people AND their board of directors
not unlike a political coup. In a twisted sense of democracy, have the employees of these companies vote on
the fate of their CXOs. The real people would be spared a fate that should justly be served to the sociopaths
that currently run a majority of our business.

Compare it to the days of the past. I prime example I give is Milton S. Hershey of Hershey choclate fame.
A shrewd business man who cared for his workers. When presented with the idea that he could buy machines
that would do the work of 5 men. Loosely paraphrased he said, "Remove the machine and hire 5 more workers."
Of course this was also during the American Great depression.

Flash forward to now. The old factory lies almost dormant. A new automated factory opened a few years ago
and now a portion of production is also moving to Mexico.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/hersheys.asp

Guys like Milton S. Hershey are not only rolling over in their graves, their spinning around so fast I could
use them as a wood lathe.

don't (in the legal sense) enter the US.

I'm afraid the idea that you're in international territory until you've crossed passport control is a myth. Some countries decide to exclude parts of their airports from passport & border controls so those areas appear to be international territory.

The US doesn't treat their airports like this & couldn't have a case like (for instance) Merhan Karimi Nasseri.

I'm guessing your country has laws similar to France, but guess what? There's a big world out there & laws are not uniform.

If you don't like the US's laws, don't go to the country - simple as that (I don't & don't).

look here

How is this 'typical of the obama campaign'... or insightful for that matter?

Look at this;
This is a list of crap email received on Obama. Note the themes and quantity of emails... Really a bit telling to the mentallity of the people sending them out, as well as the people who forward them on and on.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp

Now; Here's the same for McCain.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/mccain/mccain.asp

That said, I'm more then a little pissed at this idiot for the google bomb. These were funny once, but trying to manipulate politcs with them isn't. I view the 'good guys' as being above this.

That said however, I'm at the point where I'd sacrifice some of my personal views on that to prevent what happened in 2000, and then 2004. If that's the only way to get the idiot vote, go for it... because at this point the idiot vote has to be 50%

How is this 'typical of the obama campaign'... or insightful for that matter?

Look at this;
This is a list of crap email received on Obama. Note the themes and quantity of emails... Really a bit telling to the mentallity of the people sending them out, as well as the people who forward them on and on.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp

Now; Here's the same for McCain.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/mccain/mccain.asp

That said, I'm more then a little pissed at this idiot for the google bomb. These were funny once, but trying to manipulate politcs with them isn't. I view the 'good guys' as being above this.

That said however, I'm at the point where I'd sacrifice some of my personal views on that to prevent what happened in 2000, and then 2004. If that's the only way to get the idiot vote, go for it... because at this point the idiot vote has to be 50%

What do you mean by "might" be translated as network? Réseau is the french word for network!

Well, see that's the difference between a democrat and a republican: a democrat only thinks of it, a republican actually does it....

Actually, the available evidence says otherwise.

Grey is actually the car to get the most speeding tickets. Red isn't anything special. White gets fewer.

Source: http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/redcars.asp

As a wise, but thoroughly unpleasant man once said:

Hermann Goering at the Nurenberg trials, according snopes. Sadly any comment on that is like to get me Godwinned out of the debate. I don't suppose Mussolini said anything similarly helpful? (just kidding, really)

So do you want terrorists to kill you and your family while you sleep in bed?

No. I don't want a meteorite to strike my house while killing everyone while they sleep, either. The odds on both occurrences are, however, extremely small. So far as I can see, neither likelihood is lessened by laws allowing the government to have me detained without evidence for six weeks.

But I think the best reply to this is "won't someone please think of the children"

Do you want your children to grow up in a country where they can be legally held without trial for protracted periods of time. Do you want a country where your loved ones can just disappear if they upset a minister somewhere. All it would take is one of them mouthing off on the wrong discussion board, after all.

There was Kelvin McKenzie on the radio this morning, saying Rupert Murdoch has suggested that he stand against David Davis in the bye-election. I thought it very revealing when he said that The Sun supported 42 days, or even 420 days for that matter. And I think that's the crux of the matter. Do we want our loved ones to live in a country which supports detention without trial for an arbitrary period. There are countries in the world where people who upset the government routinely disappear, I know. That was always presented to be as a Bad Thing. somehow it's ok when we do it to ourselves.

We're making the world our children will have to live in, here. I think that's an angle that warrants wider discussion.

The republicans know that misinformation will sway people. All the facts in the world can't keep up with lies.

So what if you are proven wrong later, the point is to say what you want to be true loud as possible, and even if half the people find out its a lie, you've gotten the other half.

Compare this for example:
Snope.com shows this for emails and spam received about McCain; 3 articals, 2 true, 1 partialy true but the lie was swayed toward McCain.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/mccain/mccain.asp

While it shows this for Obama.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp
_________________

I'm not saying the rep party is sending these out or any such tinfoil hat nonsense, I'm saying look at the mentality that shows.
This spam email hits enough people who take it as fact that it is effecting things. (How many people still belive we swallow dozens of spiders a year while sleeping?)

Just food for thought.