Slashdot Mirror

If you ever meet a televison crew (I have one for coworkers), you'd know that media folks can't spell - especially your min. wage Chyron operator. They'll put things on-air exactly how the rundown and graphics are given to them.

Pretty much. There was this some years ago:

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/innis.htm

...but of course, for some reason, I don't remember anyone auggesting that it was a conspiracy to smear the (moderately conservative) Mr. Innis by the left-wing MSNBC. Which is, after all, the broadcast home of Keith Olbermann! It's a selective sort of outrage, I guess - the ones that work against your agenda are deliberate, the ones that don't are accidents. Convenient, that.

"There NEVER was a possibility that German would be the official language of the United States, nor was there a vote on such a measure."
"In 1794 some German settlers in Virginia petitioned the U.S. Congress to have certain federal statutes translated into German and printed in both languages. This petition was referred to a committee, which voted the idea down - by a margin of one vote."
Snopes

A snopes link addressing this.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/north.asp

After all, the conspiracy theorists have some compelling points--the collapse of WTC #7, that none of the released footage of the Pentagon attack shows what actually hit the building,

• Collateral daamge penetrating four rings of the pentagon wing.
• A tail of the airplane.
• A preliminary shot of the damage just after the hit - showing impact marks from wings.
• A shot of a fire being extinguished, with the building section collapsing shortly after.

Honestly, I'm about as anti-conspiracy as one can get. There's just so damn much about 9/11 that's so glaring, so obvious, so uncomplicated, that I'm left with two conclusions: massive unprecedented incompetence by a team headed by some of the most competent political operatives in America (Cheney, Rove, etc.)...or a conspiracy.

It's an urban legend.

Snopes has proved it false

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/north.asp

That's an urban legend.

The article says "According to Ford, Armstrong spoke, 'One small step for a man ...' in a total of 35 milliseconds, 10 times too fast for the "a" to be audible."

I just checked the video (first one I found... I'm sure there are some that don't have Mahler music in the background, and it takes him a good three seconds to make the statement.

With pure bullshit like that, how can I trust anything else the article says?

The official transcript confirms the mistake, and the lengthy Snopes article (with an embellished recording indicates that Armstrong himself acknowledged and regretted the error. He flubbed his line, and encyclopedias that quote him with as "That's one small step for [a] man" are doing so for courtesy, not historical accuracy.

As so why some of us are so bothered by the whole issue... it is very disturbing to see a perfectly plain, perfectly simple bit of history being distorted within one's own lifetime. I listened to that broadcast as it occurred. There was no static. It took everyone a moment to absorb the fact that he'd obviously made a mistake, and quitely likely some people "heard" what they expected to hear.

If we can see history distorted in a case like this where the only thing at stake is very mild embarrassment to Mr. Armstrong, it certainly makes me feel that we can't trust history in cases where anyone has anything important to gain from distortion.

The article says "According to Ford, Armstrong spoke, 'One small step for a man ...' in a total of 35 milliseconds, 10 times too fast for the "a" to be audible."

I just checked the video (first one I found... I'm sure there are some that don't have Mahler music in the background, and it takes him a good three seconds to make the statement.

With pure bullshit like that, how can I trust anything else the article says?

The official transcript confirms the mistake, and the lengthy Snopes article (with an embellished recording indicates that Armstrong himself acknowledged and regretted the error. He flubbed his line, and encyclopedias that quote him with as "That's one small step for [a] man" are doing so for courtesy, not historical accuracy.

As so why some of us are so bothered by the whole issue... it is very disturbing to see a perfectly plain, perfectly simple bit of history being distorted within one's own lifetime. I listened to that broadcast as it occurred. There was no static. It took everyone a moment to absorb the fact that he'd obviously made a mistake, and quitely likely some people "heard" what they expected to hear.

If we can see history distorted in a case like this where the only thing at stake is very mild embarrassment to Mr. Armstrong, it certainly makes me feel that we can't trust history in cases where anyone has anything important to gain from distortion.

"Good luck, Mr. Gorsky"

I thought Armstrong had himself later addmitted he messed up the line. The Snopes article on it says so, but then he did it right after listening to a tape of the transmission.

You could have pulled a David Phillips and found a way to get tons of miles for a mere $0.0018 per mile (after a tax deduction; $0.0025/mile before).

Check out: http://www.snopes.com/language/literary/rosie.htm

On Friday, 29 September 2000, Governor Bush was on the stump in Saginaw, Michigan, and deviated from his prepared speech to reassure the business community that he would not support the tearing down of energy-producing dams merely to protect threatened fish species, an issue he had recently covered while campaigning in the Pacific Northwest:

. . . on Friday, feeling the need to explain his statement during a speech on energy policy that he intended to maintain dams in the Pacific Northwest, he departed from his text and added, "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." He did not elaborate.

yea, nothing like compounding a vehicular manslaughter charge with a fleeing the scene of a crime.

Sorry, but we live in an era where idiots will collide head on with someone, get them stuck in the car's windshield, DRIVE HOME, and let them die in the garage at the driver's house.

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/gruesome/bargrill.as p The bulleted list, not the initial comment...

Personally, I think a nice, justified punishment for these idiots is to make them watch as their car is crushed into a cube, without reimbursement, of course. Then they get sent to prison...

I've heard this urban legend many times -- but noone ever has any specifics to back it up. Can you provide such specifics? According to this, the one about the burglar trapped in a garage is fake.

For some things subliminal messages can work. For others, it is well-known to be completely ineffective.

Yeah, it's a pity that Vicary actually falsified the results of his now-infamous theatre experiment. Futhermore, I challenge you to provide any real evidence of a controlled, repeated study in which subliminal advertising was actually proven to work. My guess, you can't.

> Does it work?

Rarely and barely. Under very controlled conditions, with very careful measurement, a very slight effect which lasts a very short time can sometimes be found. However, most of the conditions under which people attempt to use it are so uncontrolled (ie. the entirety of whatever environment you're in is affecting you) that there'd be no way to detect the usually tiny effect. If anyone claims it has effect in such a situation, they have no clue how it works, and are probably trying to sell advertising to someone who is so desparate that they have even less of a clue.

The reality of the matter doesn't keep it from happening. Greed drives people to try things that would make even a habitual lottery ticket buyer snicker. For many years (and still, as far as I know) advertisers of tobacco and alcohol would have grotesque death images airbrushed into their magazine and billboard ads. This was based on the dual assumption that subliminals work, and Freud's theory that there was a ubiquitous "death wish", and it was stronger and more prone to manipulation in people who used these substances.

We've dispresnsed with the first, given that magazines and billboards are hardly "controlled" environments. Freud dispensed with the second before he died, years before this was ever attempted.

Despite overwhelming odds against it, advertisers still paid to have these images inserted into their ads. I know of one couple who worked at a commercial art house in New York who made $125,000 together in 1978 doing nothing but these. Large corporations will gamble large amounts way out of proportion for any real return just to grab a tenth of a per cent from competitors. John Sculley's biography about his Pepsi days talks about this greed effect (though not subliminals).

The very first "attempt at subliminals" (the "popcorn and Coke" experiment in a movie theater) was a hoax. Like all such material, it is properly filed on snopes.com, along with the rest of the story. http://www.snopes.com/business/hidden/popcorn.asp

After hearing the 911/Burger King call, someone calling the cops about some stolen Monopoly money wouldn't surprise me at all...

I have my calendar marked "Public" on Google, and there's no way that this silly article is changing my mind.

This is, to me, akin to the old scare about putting your phone number online.

Do any of you remember? The attitude of the 1990's was: Oh My God Jesus Christ, That Man Has His Phone Number Online! Somebody stop that man, he's a menace to himself, and to Society!

Then I read something Philip Greenspun wrote, where he said: (A) I have X,000,000 gajillion hits on my site per day. (B) My cell phone number is featured prominantly on my website. (C) I have only once received a phone call that was unwelcome, but I have far more many times received phone calls that I wanted (due to the posting.)

Personally, I have never received the unwanted phone call.

I think people have a way of inflating plausible threats to themselves, regardless of the actual risks.

In the event (it has to actually happen several times!) that people start using Google Calendars to raid homes, and in the event that it's statistically significant as far as threats go, I will simply wire up my apartment with cams, hard drives, and redundant offsite storage.

Quite a bit longer than Laura Bush has been infesting the White House.

Straight from the Nazi playbook (we are getting alot of this these days):

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, 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." http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm

Good ol' Wikipedia. Biased to a fault: http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cheers.asp

From Mr. Johnson:

"Last fall, in light of questions about the study design, I directed that all work on the study stop immediately and requested an independent review. Since that time, many misrepresentations about the study have been made. EPA senior scientists have briefed me on the impact these misrepresentations have had on the ability to proceed with the study.

I have concluded that the study cannot go forward, regardless of the outcome of the independent review. EPA must conduct quality, credible research in an atmosphere absent of gross misrepresentation and controversy."

Snopes is, in this case, not 100% convinced that that has ever happened, but cites a few potential examples from geek chronicle. It classifies it with the colour white, which means "a legend of indeterminate origin or unclassifiable veracity".

http://www.snopes.com/business/bank/salami.asp

By the way, I was intrigued by your examples, 0.002 and 0.004 (of?) cents. :)

And yes, I guess someone would be losing money -- the bank itself. Is that not one of the ways they make money?

tmegapscm

Maybe they'll put the lyrics to the theme song back in.

Unfortunately, that article is a hoax.

Maybe you should learn the tale about the scorpion and the turtle. Sad indeed.

yeah, in the 19th century it had cocaine, but not anymore. This is a bit more current though still a bit speculative.

During 2005 Steorn embarked on a process of independent validation and approached a wide selection of academic institutions. The vast majority of these institutions refused to even look at the technology, however several did. Those who were prepared to complete testing have all confirmed our claims; however none will publicly go on record.

Well, according to this Coca-cola was low-cocaine from 1904 until technology improved enough to remove all cocaine in 1929.

Yes, it is amazing that all the north american tribes, the Incans, the Aztecs, etc. all got along great before Columbus. They never fought or had any kind of tribal wars. They never tried to take the territory of each other. They all stood around like the crying indian in the commercial who had trash thrown at his feet, all communing with nature like the Noble Savages they were. The fact that there was so many different tribes was simply for accounting purposes, not because they formed into any kind of groups that protected themselves from outsiders. It is not true that when the asiatics came down from the northwest that they wiped out all the peoples that were here before them; they simply asked them to leave and they did peacefully. It was indeed the evil white man who taught them to fight for territory and hunting grounds, taught them genocide and slavery among other things, because as we all know, these traits are not borne out of human nature but are a european construct. This was also true in africa and the far east; none of these things were known in history until the white man brought them. In fact, I believe Cain was a white male, and Abel was some sort of minority/indigenous person.

Your post has a myth that needs to be put to bed. Michael Jackson owns the publishing rights to up to 260 Beatles songs (the number is in dispute). This means that if you wanted to publish the lyrics to a Beatles tune in the paper, Michael Jackson (and Sony, since Michael Jackson's debts and legal mess started) would get paid. The tapes to the Beatles tunes are owned by Capitol/EMI/Apple Corps. As to your second point, yes Paul McCartney was upset. For more, see Snopes or Cecil.

But Disney isn't going to "accidentally" include a sequence where you murder prostitutes and bathe in their blood in the next "Learning With Nemo" title

No, you're right. They're going to "accidentally" include photographs of naked women in their animated movies:
http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/rescuers.htm

So it's good to give Disney the benefit of the doubt and not Rockstar.

The urban legend you are referring to has been disproven.

Also, how did you manage to insert a link without Slashcode diplaying the destination domain?

I am assuming you don't count http://ogrish.com/ ? There is undoubtedly a lot of killings and deaths posted there.

Yes, and those are not snuff films. A snuff film is not just a film made of someone dying, plenty of deaths have been caught on film or video over the years. A snuff film is (hypothetically) someone dying explictly so that a film of it can be made and sold - i.e., if they ran out of film, they wouldn't kill the guy until they reloaded the camera.

Here's that Snopes link one more time: http://www.snopes.com/horrors/madmen/snuff.htm.

I've been following this thread, Stormin' and have to say that you've done a great job defending your case with logic and passion. I agree with you, too.

I'd say a large number of people just read and do not comment, either way.

I believe that most rational people agree with you and are able to see through the thin veneer of multiple forms of idealism, including passivism/pacifism.

I have seen countless people attacked on this site over the years, for not following the status quo and it's hypocrisy. It's amazing, for example, for people to share a believe in "tolerance", only to have the same sort of people slander someone who disagrees.

This thread wasn't quite as bad as others, and many of the previous threads surprisingly had a large number of people agree with you. (I'm a bit surpised at the agreement, today)....

I personally liked this article.

And, I think it's silly to have a "no military use" edition of the GPL. I'm sure Al-Qaida will have their legal department get right on it....

I assume videos of beheadings and dismemberment using not-so-sharp blades are not considered snuff, since they are not mass marketed?

Films of people dying obviously exist. They are not snuff films. A snuff film is a killing done explictly to be filmed and sold, i.e. if they ran out of film, they'd wait to kill the guy until the camera was reloaded.

Snopes quotes Kerekes and Slater's "Killing for Culture", which they call "the bible on the snuff film rumor":

Snuff films depict the killing of a human being -- a human sacrifice (without the aid of special effects or other trickery) perpetuated for the medium of film and circulated amongst a jaded few for the purpose of entertainment.

Films take to inspire terror - the execution videos taken by Islamic extremists, the bombing raid footage proudly displayed by the American military - aren't snuff films.

User-created content is at the center of YouTube's web-2.0 pedigree: the idea that the "new" fluid Internet model will be based on user interaction and contribution.

It seems that this is presicely what is meant by how the internet is a World of Ends. As upload capability becomes more and more prevalent, it will become more representative of the global population. The question then becomes- Is this a good thing?

Shallow content, rumormonging, and misinformation will lead to a populace that is more popular, but will it be more true?

It's not an awesome idea because as much as it has it's good use there is also the darker side with pedophile, snuff and other crap that should not be tolerated.

Snuff films are not real. And the problem with pedophilia isn't the transmission of images of the sexual abuse of children, it's when actual sexual abuse of children goes on.

Freedom has risks. If you have free elections, the "wrong" guys might win. If you have secure communications, "terrorists" might use them to make plans. If you have the right to keep and bear arms, "bad guys" may have guns.

But if you believe in freedom, you're very very wary of the state getting to define who the "wrong" guys, the "terrorists", the "bad guys", are. Consider that Martin Luther King Jr. was a target of COINTELPRO; consider Nixon's "enemies list"; consider the Fugitive Slave Act, the Dredd Scott decision, the Alien and Sedition acts, the Red Scares, the concentration camps for Japanese Americans...

you cant have a place where you can bend the rules forever, that's anarchy!

And? "Anarchy" means no ruling hierarchy. Some people think that's a good idea, especially when it comes to communication. As Robert Anton Wilson put it, "A monopoly on the means of communication may define a ruling elite more precisely than the celebrated Marxian formula of `monopoly in the means of production.' Since man extends his nervous system though channels of communication like the written word, the telephone, radio, etc., he who controls these media controls part of the nervous system of every member of society. The contents of these media become part of the contents of every individual's brain."

I really hope that no one has taped over these films with their "home movies."

"That's one small step for man. One giant YESYESYESYESYESYESYES!!!!"

Actually it was a master marketing move and worked beautifully.

Coke was releasing a a new product. What better ways to get it out than apply all manufacturing capability to the new product to get it on the shelf?

In the meantime they knew all the other Cokers would bitch and moan and complain their Coke was gone.

After two weeks of media frenzy it came back.

But it was a changed formula. Corn syrup instead of sugar. Corn syrup is cheaper.

After the two weeks no one noticed the change in the formula. They had forgotten the original taste and CC got it close enough.

Throw me a bone here. Since when does a major company toss a flagship product for no reason?

Think about this in computer terms. MS pulls Windows whatever and only provides Diet Windows. The revolt happens and MS goes back to the previous Windows. Do you think that version is unchanged?

I think not.

Oh, BTW they did tout how it was unchanged in their history of Coke except for the corn syrup. They left out that cocaine was removed in 1929

Then we have this which disputes what I have said but...

Study history with a bit of skeptcism. It helps.

qz

Actually it was a master marketing move and worked beautifully.

Coke was releasing a a new product. What better ways to get it out than apply all manufacturing capability to the new product to get it on the shelf?

In the meantime they knew all the other Cokers would bitch and moan and complain their Coke was gone.

After two weeks of media frenzy it came back.

But it was a changed formula. Corn syrup instead of sugar. Corn syrup is cheaper.

After the two weeks no one noticed the change in the formula. They had forgotten the original taste and CC got it close enough.

Throw me a bone here. Since when does a major company toss a flagship product for no reason?

Think about this in computer terms. MS pulls Windows whatever and only provides Diet Windows. The revolt happens and MS goes back to the previous Windows. Do you think that version is unchanged?

I think not.

Oh, BTW they did tout how it was unchanged in their history of Coke except for the corn syrup. They left out that cocaine was removed in 1929

Then we have this which disputes what I have said but...

Study history with a bit of skeptcism. It helps.

qz

"Note also the bit about having to drink any baby milk - previously held to be only an urban legend http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/milk.htm. Fiction becomes reality."

Well that's better than rubbing baby oil on yourself.

All cabin baggage must be processed as hold baggage and carried in the hold of passenger aircraft departing UK airports.

Passengers may take through the airport security search point, in a single (ideally transparent) plastic carrier bag, only the following items. Nothing may be carried in pockets:

[...snip...]
for those travelling with an infant: baby food, milk (the contents of each bottle must be tasted by the accompanying passenger) and sanitary items sufficient and essential for the flight (nappies, wipes, creams and nappy disposal bags).

female sanitary items sufficient and essential for the flight, if unboxed (eg tampons, pads, towels and wipes).

KFC (whatever that means nowdays)

Probably the same thing it always meant.

It's not a child, and it's not even true, but there is http://www.snopes.com/horrors/freakish/stripper.ht m .

"the hack who put Kerry and Fonda in the same photo during the last election cycle."

For what it's worth, only one of the two photographs floating about purporting to show Kerry and Fonda together was actually a fake. The other, as it turns out, was real. More here.

There are many ways to break a car by putting sugar in the gastank.

Sugar in the gas tank doesn't hurt a car. That's an urban legend.

The funny thing is, Gore never said that:

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

But the GOP propaganda machine has everyone repeating it.

I keep hearing that statistic about his use of air fuel, but should he take a rowboat to China? You didn't see the movie probably- and I'm not saying anyone's "obligated" to do so. The message, however, as far as I can tell was very calm: This is a legit problem (spends a whole bunch of time on that- demonstrating things are a indeed bit amiss) but w/ some adjustments in efficiency and other areas this is a problem that does not need to be a problem. His presentation is not a call to abolish jetliners as we know it or make everyone get out and walk to work. At best, you could call him a hypocrite w/o any other way to get his ideas out yet. You make it personal (I guess as I'm doing w/ you right now) and miss the argument entirely- unable to weigh its merits. That last jab at 'ol Al for making that wacky statement that he invented the internet... check this out: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp But ignore all this, since you seem more interested in information from the "competitive enterprise institute" or the DCI Group- folks who like when they can get others to roll their eyes and dismiss new ideas.

Here are some links about dihydrogen monoxide:

• http://www.snopes.com/science/dhmo.asp
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_h oax

Stroller.