Slashdot Mirror
BP Caught Photoshopping Disaster Response Photos
An anonymous reader tipped a post up on Americablog revealing that BP Photoshopped a fake photo of their crisis command center and posted it on their main site. The blogger commented, "I guess if you're doing fake crisis response, you might as well fake a photo of the crisis response center." While this story was just being picked up by the Washington Post, an Americablog reader spotted another doctored BP photo on their website, this time of a "top kill" working group. How many others?
Really, who cares? They photoshopped an image for aesthetic reasons, big deal. If you don't believe what's going on you can watch the streams yourself.
http://www.bp.com/sectionbodycopy.do?categoryId=9034366&contentId=7063636
A quick read of TFAs and some links within them lead me to think this is a non-story. They write that BP had blank screens and photoshopped them to be not blank, saying "Why were they blank? coffee break ?" There's a ton of reasons they could be blank. A bit stupid of BP to 'shop them though.
while (true != false) process_more_stupid_code();
"BP Removes reflection of camera flash from meaningless publicity photo! UPDATE: Twice!"
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
If you have to find fault with BP, find fault with things they really messed up, of which there are many, but not a photo retouched for aesthetic reasons.
Make sure you shake them down real good. Know you, bankrupt them or something. Just don't come crying to me when you wake up and realise a good 38 or 39% of BP is US owned, despite the apparent 'anti British feeling' this whole thing is riding upon. As far as the media are concerned, it's fighting the redcoats all over again... except in actuality, you're shooting yourself
The first photo had some easy to spot glitches and EXIF data that indicated the photo was nine years old.
The second photo was so obviously photoshopped it was ridiculous.
Clearly there's a business opportunity here, I know I could throw together much better fakes in under an hour and even if I billed them for a full day of labor it would probably still cost them less than what this horribly botched photoshop job cost them...
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
It looks like BP might have used the same people for its image editing needs as Microsoft and Iran
Things must be bad when you have to photoshop a fake photo. Most people have their hands full photoshopping the real things.
Causing an environmental disaster is one thing, but this... this... I'm sorry it's too much.
Recycling of existing photos is more "green" than wasting them and making new ones.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
What ever happened to the days where you'd get some skilled laborers and build a set, hire actors and fake a photo LEGITIMATELY?
For one thing. Why the hell does it matter? It's an
However there is utter garbage reporting on that site. They used the exif data as 'proof' the photo was actually taken in 2001. If you're going to call out a company for incompetence and/or missleading people, perhaps it would be best to demonstrate a bit of common sense.
Do the editors also wonder if they've been caught in a time vortex when they notice their AV equipment flashing 00:00?
the graphician is the one who's gonna get fired.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Is in the EXIF data of the high-res picture.
The camera date being 2001-03-06T15:15:50.25-06:00, original filename being 0035.CR2, shot using a Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III, firmware 1.1.4, lens being EF24-70mm f/2.8L USM, Serialnumber 633347.
However, the edit seems to be done using Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh, at 2010-07-19T18:54:04-05:00
Notice the dates, camera type, and firmware.
I'm a Nikon-user myself, so I haven't got a clue whether that firmware version matches 2010 or 2001.
This is just an attempt to get more hits on that shitty blog. These images are just filler material for purely aesthetic purposes, it's not like BP submitted these in court to prove that they were trying their bestest to stem the leak.
So, as long as it's not in court, a company can tell lies... because most stories they tell about their products and business model are in the media basically for aesthetic purposes.
In fact, commercials too are all about aesthetics.
The point is that BP have done an awful lot of things for "aesthetic purposes" lately. Like changing a few numbers (flow of oil) in the media. Like predicting when it'd all be solved. Like saying that oil isn't dangerous.
It's easy to do "aesthetics" if you have billions of profit to keep the logo looking green.
actually use Photoshop, or are they abusing the word to mean doctoring the photo?
"BP's Huston Crisis Room turns out to be partially imaginary!"
Which raises the question, "Just how much of their work to fix the spill also exists only in the form of pixels?".
Also, it is very much implied that they are pathological lairs a cheaters whose every statement might be a lie.
So all that "whole truth and nothing but the truth" (once it comes to it) should be taken with a particularly large grain of salt in this case.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
When did photoshopping a fake photo become unacceptable? I mean what did they do, make it less fake?
So, as long as it's not in court, a company can tell lies... because most stories they tell about their products and business model are in the media basically for aesthetic purposes.
Ever seen a woman wear makeup...?
The reason this story is newsworthy is because humanity in general hates liars. Call it what you will...spin, doctoring, touching up for "aesthetic reasons", etc...it's a variation from the truth.
That being said, I agree there's a boundary where nobody cares anymore whether it's real or not - e.g. if a cover girl's photo is severely doctored to conform to the beauty standard of the times. Why? Because it's bubblegum pop news.
BP on the other hand is not only front page news, it's currently the antagonist in what will be recorded as one of the worst environmental disasters of the 21st century. History will forget that People Magazine's cover of Britney Spears makes it look like she's a D cup instead of a B cup*, but it won't forget that BP downgraded the seriousness of the situation at every available opportunity.
*This is a purely fictional example...I have no idea of what magazines splashed Britney Spears' cleavage all over their front page, and what her actual vs depicted dimensions are...all I care is that she appears to be popping out of any garment they squeeze her into.
As far as I can see, the photoshop edit made to the other faked photo is only of cosmetic nature: the computer presentation has been made darker in order to reduce contrast and make the content better visible. So I don't see a big deal here.
This is what PR means today: putting up the appearance of doing something seems to be more important than actually doing it. This doesn't necessarily mean that they are doing nothing but such manipulation (under the name of PR) means that there is a large disconnect between image and content that can only raise questions...
A cynic is what an idealist calls a realist...
Ever seen a woman wear makeup...?
More importantly, ever wake up next to her the next morning and seen the reality of the same face without makeup? Can be a scary thing sometimes, perhaps best left unseen.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Yesterday I photoshopped(actually, Paint.netted) a picture for my job's website. It could mean we hate the environment....or that we're covering up a reflection in the window. Just in case, we better go with the hating the environment angle, because thats the responsible thing to report.
D
The first, last, and only tech news site on the net
Corexit's old tag line:"Got a slick? Can't correct it? Corexit!"
New tag lines:
"It's Photoshop for oil slicks."
"Photoshop. With neurotoxins!"
"It's like Photoshop, for the real world, on steroids."*
*if steroids caused internal bleeding, cancer, brain damage, and kidney failure.
BP has done a lot of things for aesthetic reasons, and not all of them are as inconsequential as doctoring photos.
Ever seen a woman wear makeup...?
More importantly, ever wake up next to her the next morning and seen the reality of the same face without makeup?
No, I haven't. :(
It says 16/07/10 on screens 2 and 3 on the top, and 07/16/10 on the screen 5 on the top.
http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/incident_response/STAGING/local_assets/images/HIVE_houston01.jpg
Take a look at the large version of that photo. It looks like someone in the office was busy playing transport tycoon instead of trying to manage some real world logistics.
872835240
Why isn't there a real spill response center? Because there is no spill!!
I knew it - just like the damned moon landings. This whole spill thing is a fraud, isn't it? Those shots of the oil coming out of the sea bed are probably computer generated! This proves it - BP is clearly just making all of this stuff up. And who is going to question them, huh? Can you go down 5000 feet to see it for your self? NO! You just have to take their word for it, that the "cameras" they have "placed" are really there.
Drop a few cans of Pennzoil on the surface, dip some wild life if a bucket of goop, and maybe dispose of some of that tar you can't find a landfill to take. Heck, I've heard the stories about how the private fisherman in LA have been fishing the whole time without any problems.
I call bullshit on the whole spill story. In fact, I think they did it just to make the Obama administration look bad. Yeah, that's it! Make a disaster they CAN'T fix, because it doesn't exist, then blame them for not fixing it fast enough. Bloody geniuses, I tell you!
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
All they need now is that "wailing woman" and BP will be able to go into business as a "news" agency.
Ya, but besides the fact that they got caught doc'ing up photos, I think one of the really suprising things is how badly it was done. I've seen sys admins do better "photoshopping" on their lunch break at work.
from BP's web site and stories of onlookers prohibited from photographing the clean-up, I'm sure this will stir up new conspiracy discussions.
they (badly) masked an area of the screen and darkened it, or conversely they brightened everything that wasn't the screen.
if the photo was exposed for the screen so as not to clip highlights, then the people would be too dark. so they brightened them. big deal. this is done on everything you watch on TV, and every film you see done after 1997 or so. the only difference is it's done better...
would Top Gear cop shit about faking their test drive videos, or be accused of hiding something because of their ridiculously over-graded images? i hope not.
i wish i could remove my hit from that shitty blog's log now...
This is slashdot my friend, people post mathematical equations about what women look like, hypothesise about the probability of running into one... heck a rare few have seen one once ... without make up? :)
Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that
So, as long as it's not in court, a company can tell lies... because most stories they tell about their products and business model are in the media basically for aesthetic purposes.
"Puffery" (lies a company tells in the media about their products) can, in fact, cross the slippery slope and be illegal under the Lanham Act. http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/00/00-10071.cv0.wpd.pdf
They are keeping legitimate news organizations away from key locations by pretending that it will interfere with the cleanup. (Just check NPR for reports on this.) They are hiring local off duty cops, IN UNIFORM to keep people from seeing what is going on. When the cop tells someone to leave, you have no idea if they are working as sworn officers of the law or stooges for BP (not that there is much difference). They are paying local fisherman to help in the clean up and exposing them to harmful substances, and keeping them quiet by threatening to kick them off the payroll if they talk to reporters, or tell anyone that they are getting ill from chemical exposure.
Right after the explosion, they make rig workers sign papers saying they had no injuries BEFORE THEY LET THEM GET ON SHORE. They have consistently lied about how much oil was being released, because penalties are based on a per barrel amount. This is still in process, which is why they were trying to silence local scientists who would be able to provide evidence about how bad the spill is.
I can't say that they have killed anyone, but they have bullied, lied and intimidated people to a disgusting degree. If you think this is OK, then I suggest you change places with someone who has their life ruined by corporate greed and then see how you feel. Yeah, a little PhotoShop tweaking is no big deal, but when it is a part of a pattern of law breaking and corruption then it is just one more fact that needs to be brought out to insure that the truth is not ignored.
Why is Snark Required?
BP released the full version of the image they admit was shopped for style. Some claim this image is not of the 'HIVE' response center either and was taken in 2001. This version of the image shows indications on the monitors photographs that it was taken on 16/07/10. (See middle screen above white screen).
... now this 20 megapixel camera wasn't out until 2008, and certainly wasn't around in 2001.
http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/incident_response/STAGING/local_assets/images/HIVE_houston01.jpg
The clues are in the image metadata:
Title: HIVE at Houston Command Center 16 July 2010
Authors: Marc Morrison
Date Taken: 06/03/2001 3:16 p.m.
Program Name: Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh
OMG Fake? No... it also shows it was taken with a Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III
What is unexplained in this the large monitors in this shot are the window titles showing 'Microsoft Excel' but perhaps these are some custom Excel based application that BP uses to display the ROV video feeds.
So frankly I find this whole event uninteresting. Someone didn't set the date stamp in a camera or a system somewhere along the way.
This is not a isolated incident however, so why is BP photoshopping so many images and doing such a amateurish job of it? (Ok maybe that latter part needs no explanation).
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
You must be new here.
is they're now in final testing of their Super Ultimate Cleanup Technology.
Thats right, they're about to PHOTOSHOP THE BAY INTO 2001.
Lets just hope the operator won't accidentally nudge the joystick while
sipping his coffee and fill the whole frame with #000000
Internal use ONLY
Office BP response to “BP Caught Photoshopping Disaster Response Photos”
Without checking facts the “reporter” from the American blog is lying. We would like to refute all claims that the picture was Photoshopped ®.
Thank you,
BP CEO
Tony B
PS
While we intended to Photoshop ® the picture the DL manager opened and tried to update Photoshop, Flash and Reader and took our internet access away. Then with no access to the internet to get the latest patch for Photoshop®, we called the helpdesk. A person from IT came to our rescue. He has long grey hair in a ponytail, you may know him. He told us about a program called gimp 2.6.10. Since he had internet on his PC and we were able to “alter” the image to benefit us, leak it to the press and the blog and then claim we knew nothing about it.
...I do not defend BP's handling of this or their utter incompetency.
But why so little mention of Halliburton (= big American corporation) who were actually responsible for the drilling site?
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
I really wish people would stop using the term "Photoshopping". There are dozens of programs that can edit photos in such ways. I mean, we don't call it "Gimping", for example.
I suggest the term "photoediting".... or even just "editing"...
"BP Caught Photoediting Disaster Response Photos"
"BP Caught Editing Disaster Response Photos"
I know, "good luck with that"
I think BP is not only busy doctoring bad photos, they are busy doctoring reality, minimizing the dimensions of the spill and the ecological consequences of their lack of an adequate response to the spill. Did they go drilling without having a plan "B" in case something goes wrong?
Yes, they are very busy doctoring reality, minimizing the ecological damage caused by their criminal conduct. Sadly, their whole money can't repair the damage they have done.
What they have done is a crime against humanity!
Really, what they have done has no name. This may be the beginning of the end of life on earth as we now it.
I hope, I'm wrong with my perception, but as a chemist, I know very well what the consequences might be.
Don't blame BP for this kind of activity. This is standard operating practice for any big corporation.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
http://nearestexit.com/bp/bp_commandcenter.jpg
Now we finally get to know where the Iranian Rocket-Fake was shopped!
Can you say whether they have raped any dolphins?
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Yeah, but imagine waking up next to your best bud after a night of drinking and he's wearing makeup and a bra and a sign saying, "Just Married". Friends suck.
Ever seen a woman wear makeup...?
More importantly, ever wake up next to her the next morning and seen the reality of the same face without makeup? Can be a scary thing sometimes, perhaps best left unseen.
I have and I now only have one arm!
So, as long as it's not in court, a company can tell lies... because most stories they tell about their products and business model are in the media basically for aesthetic purposes.
In fact, commercials too are all about aesthetics.
The point is that BP have done an awful lot of things for "aesthetic purposes" lately. Like changing a few numbers (flow of oil) in the media. Like predicting when it'd all be solved. Like saying that oil isn't dangerous.
It's easy to do "aesthetics" if you have billions of profit to keep the logo looking green.
How the hell is this modded insightful?
a) They didn't give the flow number, that was your very own coast guard that gave the wildly wrong estimate.
b) From the very beginning they started drilling relief wells, from the very beginning they said it would be mid august before they are ready, from the very beginning they said this will be the final solution and they will simply attempt all sorts of other methods of stopping the flow in the meantime.
c) {citation needed} and not just some shitty blog either, every single press release from BP is available in full on their website. Show me where BP has officially said oil isn't that dangerous.
Call it what it is, It's marketing. Everyone does it. I'm more disgusted that Microsoft photoshopped out black guy on their polish website. These pictures are just another crap job rather than some stupid conspiracy.
the responsibles would be sentenced to death propably Good choice!
"They are keeping legitimate news organizations away from key locations by pretending that it will interfere with the cleanup."
It depends upon the location whether this is truly weasely or not. For example, some people have requested permission to fly over the wellsite, steam through it on ships, or even deploy their own ROVs in the area, all of which are unsafe and unreasonable requests given the equipment (dozens of ships), flaring, and tons of flammable oil floating on the surface. It's a fricking technical circus they're coordinating out there, and I'd be telling news crews or other people in their boats to stay the hell away, not for any nefarious reasons. If people just want to see the guys scraping tar balls off the beach, that's different.
"Right after the explosion, they make rig workers sign papers saying they had no injuries BEFORE THEY LET THEM GET ON SHORE."
That initially sounds sinister, but after thinking about it, it seems reasonable to me. It's simple: either declare that you have injuries now (in which case a doctor will treat them), or sign a paper saying you don't have any. They were probably trying to avoid a situation like someone suing them 6 weeks later for "whiplash" or some other injury that would be hard to disprove after the fact. "Are you injured or not?" is a reasonable question to ask, and to get legal documentation of, before someone leaves a workplace where an accident has happened.
Photoshopping some content into otherwise blank ROV screen feeds is trival. I don't see any reason to get worked up about it if they were trying to make the picture look prettier. It's not like they were falsifying key data or something. It's a PR picture -- big deal!
Note that I haven't defended BP on the other things you've listed.
Of course, if an image isn't Photoshopped, that means it is a perfect and infallible record of the real truth as it actually happened. It won't have been staged, there will be no camera trickery, the people pictured won't be actors, and so forth. Um, yeah, right.
With the advent of Photoshop, I think people are beginning to forget just how easy it is to manipulate images using simple optical tricks and other fakery that have been around for decades and in some cases centuries. Look at these image of the moon landing, for example, made in 1971: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Wm7pW4697oEJ:stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm+clangers+fake+moon+landing&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk [Google cache] Almost totally convincing.
. . . to look like it's been Photoshopped!
So, as long as it's not in court, a company can tell lies
That's why we here on Slashdot are so confident about Microsoft's pledge to not sue Linux users for $INSERT_RANDOM_PATENT. Because, like BP, they have so much money that they don't need to lie.
Seriously, if that's a question then the answer is a resounding, "yes!" Why would you believe anything a multi-billion dollar company would tell you? The only time you can actually buy what they're saying is when there are some legal repercussions for not telling the truth.
It's not that giant companies are pure evil (unless you're Apple, Inc., then yes you are pure evil) it's just that they get so big that they have serious left-hand-not-knowing-what-right-hand-is-doing-itis. Which in turn falls back to filthy rich CEOs doing an incredibility shitty job at keeping people accountable for their actions. In the end thought it's really because we buy this isolation pile that heads of company's (hell even the heads of most Government's now) tend to use when crap hits the fan. You're in charge, all hell is breaking loose on your watch, you took a risk (directly or indirectly) and it turned out to be the undoing of all life in the Gulf of Mexico; now the only thing that should be going through your mind is how to leave your job in the best of light, after you are done with the relief well.
I'm so tired of this, it's complicated and your little brain cannot understand it or it's an isolated event that will never happen again crap that we've been getting since 2008. At least here in the United States the last president was genuinely too stupid to relay the information to us.
Sorry this rant could go on for a while... I'll just head over here and mumble in the corner.
Ha! Normally, you'd have gotten away with this, but it's just after the one time every four years that Americans actually pay attention to soccer.
Imagine if it had been a US corporation shitting. Would there have been the outcry? Well, in the past this was not true. US corporation Exxon. 21 years later, still hasn't paid the money they said they would. Outrage: nil
The point is that it SHOULDN'T matter who owns the corporation. The PROBLEM is that it does. That the UK majority corporation gets villified when the US majority corporation doesn't is proof of this effect, so, please, DO NOT claim "it doesn't matter who owns it" unless you prove it doesn't matter by your actions in other cases of corporations shitting in your backyard.
Also note that BP in the UK and NW Europe puts dual failsafes like the US is now saying should have been used here. This is because in the UK and Scandanavia, the governments there INSIST these failsafes are there. The US government DOESN'T. As so many Fre Marketeers insist, the corporation has a duty to maximise shareholder value. If the safety isn't required, it won't be applied. Just go and see if other drilling platforms use the safeties that are now being cried about in the US.
I'm sure captainpanaic wears makeup and to the double horror of many guys, has woken up next to them where they see reality.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
It's not Bush's fault?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Well, the evidence is circumstantial; but they've sure lubricated a lot of blowholes in the past few months... That suggests intent.
I don't think anyone has plan 'B's, at least not after the entire rig goes boom. There was a similar incident off the western coast of Australia a few years ago. Fairly similar story with the clean up: Many attempts to top kill it, which usually are a failure (working kilometers down, trying to pump in heavy mud against a strong, high-pressure flow - not likely to work) until the relief well was finished a few months later, that allowed the sealing of the original well to succeed.
We were lucky that this well was further off shore, and winds and currents remained off-shore for the entire incident. No oil came on shore, although there is some evidence of damage to fish stocks in the Indian ocean.
It would be nice for relief wells to be drilled as a precaution, and we might see it for wells that might be higher risk. At the moment, the cost/benefit seems in their favor, but I admit i have no idea of the cost!
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
Ever seen a woman wear makeup...?
Perhaps not the best example. If a woman wears makeup properly it will only accent or showcase what's already there.
I'd equate this to a woman stuffing her bra: it looks good if you don't look too close.
They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
So they are acting like any other global company, or any Large American corporation .... ...What exactly did you expect?
By the way have you heard of Transocean (Who owned the Rig, Ran the Rig and employed most of the people on the rig) ...and do not seem to be vilified or even mentioned in the press ?
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
Not necessarily 2001 -
Sometimes hardware devices can create really weird dates. I have a music converter that produces stuff tagged as 2002.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
OK...not even half way through the comments and this is all starting to feel like some 9/11 Truther convention.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
As long as these photos were not used to convey a message of "hey the leak has stopped and we are cleaning up, look how clear the water is..." to the public or used in court to defend themselves..." here we have a view of what went wrong clearly showing we had no hand in this mess"....
I just want to remind everyone, there are 27,000 of the same types of wells that have been abandoned in the gulf of mexico, of which 1000 belong to BP, of which 600 did not pass proper disposal tests, and could spring leaks at anytime.... I have to say, knowing this, I will never trust any oil companies again, when they say anything, and I really do hope that the US presidency can find someone (not you Obama, obviously...mr.puppet) maybe another JFK that can NOT be swayed by the money thrown at them by these big corps....
and start really pushing stricter regulations of off shore drilling....especially since it can kill our planet if you get another few of these disasters potentially possible....I dont even know if we will come out from this one ok!
In fact, commercials too are all about aesthetics.
Aesthetics and bad enunciation.
"BP Gasoline with Ivigory"
They can't even get a voice actor who can correctly enunciate "Invigorate". Bugs me every time I hear that commercial.
Why do I get the sense that the responses to the BP photochop would be much different around here if it was Haliburton doing the photo editing?
"Thoughts are more powerful than any weapon, and I don't even let my people own guns." --Joseph Stalin
More importantly, ever wake up next to her the next morning and seen the reality of the same face without makeup?
Yes, and it's been my experience that no amount of makeup will make an ugly woman look good. Ever notice how morbidly obese women wear tons of makeup as if it will cover up the fact that they're fat?
Makeup will nake a good looking woman look better, and then only if it's applied right. Makeup won't help an ugly chick at all.
Now, your being drunk will make an ugly woman look good, that's when you wake up sober the next morning and say "OMFG!!!!!! WHAT HAVE I GOTTEN MYSELF INTO?!?" But that's your bad, not hers.
Free Martian Whores!
You may not be able to say if they killed anyone, but there are 11 dead people from the initial explosion.
Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
They are hiring local off duty cops, IN UNIFORM to keep people from seeing what is going on.
Surely that is illegal?
I've seen my share of women whose makeup makes them look worse than they would without it.
Though I know there are no girls on Slashdot, here's a tip: if I can tell you're wearing makeup, you have already failed. Proper makeup application enhances beauty, it doesn't attempt to replace it.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
I photoshopped myself next to one once, does that count?
More importantly, ever wake up next to her the next morning and seen the reality of the same face without makeup?
Yes, and most of the time it's actually better
Props for a joke that made me think before getting it.
PR stands for public relations, i.e. public image protection, and not: People's Right to know.
You cannot really ever trust a company covering their own relief/cleanup/repair efforts in an objective way. They have a vested interest in making themselves look as good as possible, while attributing any issues or setbacks, either to someone else, or to some "inherent difficulty", even if actually due to management failure.
They edited the photo to put images on some blank screens. Ooohh, what an evil thing. I say we round them all up and shoot them for this horrible breech. I swear this is on par with that guy who added bombs and smoke and stuff to that Israel bombing Hamas picture. Yes, covering blank screens is even worse than that! /sarcasm
Would you people please get a fucking grip?
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Seriously, if that's a question then the answer is a resounding, "yes!" Why would you believe anything a multi-billion dollar company would tell you? The only time you can actually buy what they're saying is when there are some legal repercussions for not telling the truth.
And the cost of being found out multiplied by the risk of being uncovered in the lie is greater than the cost of telling the truth. Given the right conditions, legal repercussions can and will be treated as a simple business expense.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
The reason you should care is because BP has been pretending to be a credible source of information for this event while they have been diong things to block public access and government oversight. Here is a copy of some photojournalistic ethics rules that they really should be following, if they are going to pretent to be reporters: (http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/business_practices/ethics.html)
1. Be accurate and comprehensive in the representation of subjects.
2. Resist being manipulated by staged photo opportunities.
3. Be complete and provide context when photographing or recording subjects. Avoid stereotyping individuals and groups. Recognize and work to avoid presenting one's own biases in the work.
4. Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. Give special consideration to vulnerable subjects and compassion to victims of crime or tragedy. Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has an overriding and justifiable need to see.
5. While photographing subjects do not intentionally contribute to, alter, or seek to alter or influence events.
6. Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.
7. Do not pay sources or subjects or reward them materially for information or participation.
8. Do not accept gifts, favors, or compensation from those who might seek to influence coverage.
9. Do not intentionally sabotage the efforts of other journalists.
Everyone who is a photojournalist know this. It permeates every aspect of the job. Cropping, exposure, white balance, and modest curves adjustments, and that's it. This is to maintain integrity of the image.
Yeah, BP is not a news organization. We should be taking everything they say with a grain of salt. Fine. Except that's not how the perss are treating them. The press and the government are treating them as subject matter experts who are reporting on the status of the oil spill. If nothing else, this should be a stark and public reminder that they have a conflict of interests, and they are acting on that conflict all of the time.
Women who false advertise? Not only no makeup in the morning, but:
* no pushup bra so not as big as you thought ;)
* or you find out they are silicon induced (Still partly acceptable...
* no colored contacts so no blue eyes, just brown
* maybe the fake nails are off
* maybe the fake eyelashes are off
* no platform or high-heel shoes, so about 2-4" shorter (or more)
* no tummy tuck wrap, so she's got a gut
* no trimming panties, so she's got waves of cellulite
* botox lips
* Silicon eyebrows
deceptions... deceptions...
But, is it a lie? Not really, unless she didn't tell you that she used to also be a guy or has a penis. THAT then, would be the lie.
That is the real question for the BP photoshopping... Nope, The command center exists somewhere, and the topkill conference / meeting took place. Did they have to jazz up the pics for "marketing"? probably, just like every news anchor has a ton of makeup on camera. Would they have to try so hard if everyone wasn't demonizing them while doing their damn best to get it fixed? And folks believe they WANT to kill their customers and wildlife, etc? It was an ACCIDENT! Get over it.
(No, I'm not saying they get a free pass, so don't read that into it... I'm saying they had to spin a little pr like everyone else. )
--- Relax, that mass muderer is just trying to reduce our carbon footprint, one fetus at a time...
Reading through the comments and seeing the deluge of "who cares" comments, I'm simply baffled. Who cares about a major corporation deceiving the public? Who cares about this deception occurring while the corporation is dealing with an ecological/public relations disaster? Who cares about a corporation being caught outright lying?
Yeah. Who cares indeed. Let's invest our attention on finding a new reason to hate Apple instead - they are the new, cool target-of-hate, after all.
Seriously, when I watch people come up with bullshit reasons to heap hatred upon a tech company at the same time that an oil company gets a free ride when caught outright deceiving the public, I'm left wondering what the hell is wrong with people.
Mod me troll. Feel free. After all, who cares.
Blogs (and bloggers) should die.
Stupid story. Everyone photoshops. There is not a brochure or magazine that hasn't been tweaked.
Unless you're trying to trick people into thinking you're good looking when you're really not.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
So, as long as it's not in court, a company can tell lies... because most stories they tell about their products and business model are in the media basically for aesthetic purposes.
Ever seen a woman wear makeup...?
Ever seen a grown man naked?
What is even more disturbing than the photoshopped "we are busy" is what is on the laptop, bottom left. Business Marketing?
What? Did you read the link you posted? They tried to hire a research department and asked them to sign a NDA. WTF? What's more normal than this? A load of people reading your post, myself included, had signed one in some point of their lives. And the university just screamed "Oh, I'm important, BP wants to buy me off". Bullshit. On a situation like this any company will hire external consultants - and get them to sign NDAs.
BP release live feeds to the spill. Get the footage. That's how close anyone will get to measure the volume. No better method. No hidden way. Get the footage they released and tell me how bad is the spill?
I'm sorry if this sound really offensive, but you're fully out of touch with reality.
English is not my first language. Corrections and suggestions are welcome.
All, I repeat, ALL of the negative commentary that I've read has correctly identified this as a multi-national corporation led by greedy, self serving, evil bastards. The fact that some of them happen to be British is understood to be a minor detail not worth talking about. After all, some (many?) of the BP people making key decisions are American, French, Dutch, or Ghu knows what else.
If Obama can fake his birth certificate way can't BP doctor a few photos.
Is it just me... or does the picture at:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_1xQeOPE9ePU/TEXJFhjMElI/AAAAAAAAFDk/Susb7Y6PP9I/s1600/fake_GOM_simops_operations_top_kill_houston.jpg
have a laptop on the bottom left that's left running the sims... or sim city... or something like that?
The goal of computer science is to build something that will last at least until we've finished building it.
I find in extraordinary that anybody could consider corporations lying as routine aesthetics. Why would any consider the individuals hiding behind the façade of a corporation have gained the moral right to lie to every person outside of the corporation.
Substantive misrepresentation of company or product capabilities for one can 'illegally' alter the public's perception of the value of the company and artificially inflate it's share price. It is the responsibility of the regulatory to investigated artificial inflation of the company share prices especially when insiders start selling stock.
Most countries have consumer protection agencies and in the event of sufficient registered consumer complaints they will investigate and if appropriate prosecute (don't forget to make formal complaints they count). Truth in advertising, it was tackled before by people in the fifties and sixties and it is pretty bloody obvious not enough was done. It is time that truth in advertising became a major political issue again so that it can be further tightened up, especially advertising as news B$ (lies for profit).
The big thing about this story, lamed arsed British Petroleum, is too slack and stupid not to do a better job of it web PR=B$ efforts, it seems pretty obvious it needs to let go of it's current antiquated amateurish staff and replace them with some quality amoral professionals. There a many major corporations who all recognise the power and the danger of the internet, yet time and time again they show some real noob like efforts, you can't help but imagine all those BP marketdroids sitting in a office together nodding and agreeing with each others brilliance, wiping white powder off their noses as they launch yet another ill fated marketing stunt.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
What? ... Were we lucky? ...
And what about the millions of liters of oil that are now in the ocean? and all the dispersants they used in order to hide the oil? ... that was really a very infantile reaction, trying to hide what they have done...
Seems you don't understand where the main damage was done. Even with all of the dispersants, the chemicals are there in the ocean, killing the marine life.
As for the plan "B" there are certain things you should NOT undertake, given the risks associated with those activities unless you are prepared for any contingencies. That is how a socially and ecologically responsible enterprise should work. But in name of money everything goes, no mater the costs associated with such irresponsible/criminal conduct.
Scotland has a similar relationship to the UK as the States in the USA do to the Federal Government. Scotland is essentially independent in all local and legal decisions. The United Kingdom is only able to set taxation, run foreign relations and control defence. All other powers are controlled by Scotland.
The UK Prime Minister has no powers to interfere in judicial decisions in any event, regardless of whether in Scotland or England. Its notable that Obama used the same excuse as to why he was unlikely to interfere in the McKinnon case...
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
My only question is why is Harrison Ford working for BP? (next to left circle) Once you see it, you will....
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_1xQeOPE9ePU/TEXJFhjMElI/AAAAAAAAFDk/Susb7Y6PP9I/s1600/fake_GOM_simops_operations_top_kill_houston.jpg
Actually, in some ways, it's even worse than what you've described:
http://theintelhub.com/2010/07/03/first-amendment-suspended-in-the-gulf-of-mexico-as-spill-cover-up-goes-orwellian/
Basically, the U.S. government is taking BP's side with regards to censoring the ability of people to view and report on the situation out there!
Ever seen a woman wear makeup...?
More importantly, ever wake up next to her the next morning and seen the reality of the same face without makeup? Can be a scary thing sometimes, perhaps best left unseen.
What are you talking about this is Slashdot. That has never happened. O.o
Lol...this reminds me of a girl i sat by in high school. My first impression was she was pretty bangable, but one day (probably the result of being late to school) she didn't put on any makeup whatsoever. Oh the horror. It was almost like looking at Freddie Kruger.
I personally think all woman should wear the cheap "K-Mart bras".
The padded style may give the illusion of a larger breast but all it it changes the shape more than it changes the apparent size, it looks to fake and obvious because the breast shape is a little larger but flattened, specially when wearing a tight shirt and the padding is obvious. I think woman look at themselves in a mirror and it might look okay but any other viewing angle it it looks obviously wrong.
The pushup style is not as bad and pleasing to look at when the woman is still or moving slowly or maybe for pictures, it shows more cleavage and attempts to create a specific shape of breast but there is no bounce or movement when they walk and is not natural.
The combination of padding and pushup in one bra is a disaster. Bad shape, no movement, it is the worst of both worlds.
Size and cleavage is nice but it is just one part of the overall appearance. The cheap "K-Mmart bras" allow the natural shape to show and you get realistic movement, they also provide the most revealing and real overall view of the breast close to natural. They look the great on tight and lose fitting clothes. I think it is a nice balance that provides support, some shape, and the required movement.
Did that woman cause a major environmental disaster and was the makeup involved in it?
Because that's what we are talking about.
BP tried to put up a facade of responsibility on display and it was fake.
Though I know there are no girls on Slashdot, here's a tip: if I can tell you're wearing makeup, you have already failed. Proper makeup application enhances beauty, it doesn't attempt to replace it.
The same can be said for perfume. The intent of perfume is to make someone want to get closer to smell it. If you bath in it such that everyone can smell you in a 40x40 room then it implies you're trying to hide an oder which will make the average male puke. And if you can be smelled 40 feet away, there is no incentive to want to get closer. In fact, it will likely drive people away who get too close.
In fact, it wasn't so long ago that such actions would label you a whore. After all, only a whore need cover the oder of sex with fifty men; as there isn't a need to otherwise smell so strongly. A subtle oder is much desired to attract a potential mate.
Like most good things, moderation is key!
One last tip! Frequently change your perfume. Constant use of the same perfume causes your nose to effectively filter the constant source of over stimulation. As a result, women who constantly wear the same perfume almost always wear far, far too much because they can no longer effectively tell how strong the oder.
In a nut shell, DON'T SMELL LIKE A WHORE! Its not attractive!
Oh ya, some men could certainly learn from this as well!
I can't say that they have killed anyone...
O rly?
Ever seen a woman wear makeup...?
LIES! Makeup, fake boobs, fake but, fake eyelashes, fake hair, all lies.
I can't say that they have killed anyone...
I would consider BP's negligence the cause of the the 11 men's death, much like a drunk driver would be blamed for involuntarily hitting and killing somebody in his/her car.
kdawson should've taken a couple of minutes to read the comments from people who know what they're talking about on the http://www.americablog.com/2010/07/bp-fakes-another-oil-spill-photo-this.html link he included with this story because it's reactionary nonsense and does a disservice to legitimate stories about BP's malfeasance.
It’s obvious to anyone familiar with digital photo editing that the image in question on this blog made a selection of ('masked')the projection screen, which was overexposed, and darkened (‘burned in’) that area so that you could see what bit of detail could be salvaged. This is not uncommon when photographing and editing images of monitors, projections, and windows. It's done all the time when you have an area in the original image that is overexposed and it has been done since the beginning of photography. Before Photoshop, it was done by exposing certain areas of the photo-sensitive printing paper to the light passing through the negative longer than other areas.
The areas inside and outside the masked area contain the same colors and continuations of shapes, just darker (look at the lower left corner, lower right corner, & the top of the guys’ heads). If something that wasn't there originally was 'pasted' over that mask, you wouldn't see the tops of the people's heads within the mask.
The only problem with this photo is that it was edited poorly (i.e. noticeably). If you have an issue with 'darkroom' photo editing (i.e. photoshopping), you have an issue with just about every single professional photo you've ever seen.
Good job propagating irrelevant reactionary nonsense into the discourse regarding BP and the oil spill.
I can't say that they have killed anyone
A dozen workers died when the rig blew up. Had they not cut corners, had they followed safety procedures and listened to their own engineers, the damned thing wouldn't have blown up.
They DID kill people. Someone should be in prison for negligent homicide (but then again, the same could be said of the mine that blew up earlier, whose owners had been repeatedly cited for the very conditions that caused THAT explosion).
Some people don't care who dies if they can save or make more money.
Free Martian Whores!
This is exactly why. Fucking morons who somehow expect that if a particular monitor doesn't show something important going on it means that someone is not working or slacking off.
Well, the evidence is circumstantial; but they've sure lubricated a lot of blowholes in the past few months... That suggests intent.
What's the porpoise of these allegations? You're just try to slander their names and those of dolphinophiles everywhere, by relating them to BP execs.
(Yes, porpoises are not dolphins, if you thought this and thought to correct me - then I hope you get molested by a dolphin)
"What is there a tank on the boat? WHY IS THERE A TANK ON THE BOAT?!?" L4D2
The vast majority does look better with it on (of course applied correctly)...IMHO.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Yep..and now we have a president who is smart enough to go out of his way to openly deceive us.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Or digitally retouching.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Technology makes it easier to lie ... harder to get away with it.
We do live in a modern Panopticon
We need a "+1 -- nice sig" moderation.
Oh no! Why... Stricter regulation will cost AMERICAN JOBS... It will raise OIL PRICES meaning more "pain at the pump!" Let the market sort it out, Capitalism rules! If you have the government dictating to corporations, why that is SOCIALISM!
The industry can self-regulate and besides, any oversight by government is just wasted money on innefectual beauracracy because the industry watchdogs will end up on the payrolls of the corporations anyhow via corruption and will be asleep at the wheel when the next diaster comes.
Meanwhile, our head-in-the-sand dolts in Congress will just yammer away and waste what little time is left for our nation, and distract us with wedge issues, and the American public with gross A.D.D. will be distracted by some celebrity horrorshow or maybe something about race relations.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Though I disagree with you abouy there being no girls on slashdot, being one myself, I do agree with your makeup tip. The follow on from that logic being, if the goal of good make up is to look like you have none on, why bother with any at all. I can think of much better ways of spending my time and resources. Btw, yeay for geeky girls \ : D /
It made me think too, but I still don't get it!
Makeup won't help an ugly chick at all.
Not true. Just add dim lighting and alcohol.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
It's funny that their green flower logo is becoming a symbol of failure and incompetence (if you browse comedy sites you know what I'm talking about).
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Though I know there are no girls on Slashdot, here's a tip: if I can tell you're wearing makeup, you have already failed.
Hah, I'm sure girlintraining will respond to this tidbit.
That said, you're wrong; for instance, things like lipstick, eyeshadow etc. will pretty much always be obvious as being makeup, not natural. The key is just to not overdo it and become a living caricature.
That said, there is a kernel of truth in what you say, too, although you seem a bit confused about what it is: makeup should enhance a face and draw attention to it rather than draw attention to itself. If the first thing you see is the makeup, then it's indeed overdone. In a way, good makeup is like a good butler - it stays in the background.
Sometimes it is easier to just chew your own arm off rather than risk waking a beast.
No girls on Slashdot? Maybe not, but there might be one or two -women- on Slashdot, women in IT are rare, but they are out there. I have the privilege of actually working with one, and she IS rather cute, actually. Like any other IT professional, however, when she's on the job, she's entirely ON THE JOB.
Such temptation, such disappointment. Man, Mondays really suck.
once a 'shop gets past 30 layers, I start thinking they're trying to fool me.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Haha, thank you!
(By the way, the joke was still funny after the explanation, that's quite rare.) :)
The exact phrase is "coyote ugly", where you would rather gnaw off your own arm than wake her. That was before the movie/bars/etc. which attempted to change the meaning of the phrase.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Proper makeup application enhances beauty, it doesn't attempt to replace it.
Yeah, but a 0 on the beauty scale enhanced to be 10x more "beautiful" is still a 0.
What are you supposed to do then? Just cover it up completely! Most any woman could probably get to 1 or 2 status that way.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
Only if you work for BP
"The world really, seriously needs to get off its oil-addiction, and I don't think people will be willing to give up the convenience of cheap energy unless it somehow becomes a massively uncool things to use oil in the public imagination."
Calling it "convenience" diminishes it. It's not just a convenience. If we give up cheap energy, we absolutely MUST massively downgrade our lifestyles. I mean, downgrade it to the point of moving huge numbers of people into massive slums. Cheap energy is mandatory for western society to function. Well, cheap energy and massive debt accumulation.
"The world needs to get off its oil addiction" is a mantra I keep hearing. It's not happening any time soon. It's not because people don't know it's a problem. Everybody knows that. But I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that you haven't actually considered the amount of cheap energy that it took for you be able to post on slashdot about how cheap energy is a problem. You know there's a problem intellectually, but you don't even take the single step of using less of it by not wasting it on idle internet forums.
In that regard you're very typical.
Funny? Women may be downright murderous the first time they are awoken by your startled cry of sheer horror
Out of concern for your safety, all such poorly considered hook-ups should be done in the morning.
Bars where I went to school would hire uniformed off duty city police as entrance door guards or just to have them sit in their vehicle, monitor the radio, and notify them if a raid for underage drinking was imminent. Then again this was in a city well known for it's corruption in a state that is well known for the same. (It's not Chicago, but it's on the Gulf Coast where all this BP barf is happening)
"What is there a tank on the boat? WHY IS THERE A TANK ON THE BOAT?!?" L4D2
LOL Look closely at the google panel: how to plug an oil leak
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_1xQeOPE9ePU/TEb7dj5CrMI/AAAAAAAAFEM/CzVHjYyZBHE/s1600/bpjoke.jpg
ROFLMAO
Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
I disagree. It's clearly a half-assed (no pun intended) job of lube application, so they obviously aren't all that interested in the dolphins.
If they were serious they'd be using the more expensive "top lube" penetration preparation technique whereby they capture the dolphins and use a targeted application of lube directly in and around the blowhole. It really isn't all that much more expensive considering they will need to capture the dolphins at some point anyway, which is further evidence that their heart really isn't into the whole "dolphin rape" thing.
Now, a wide lube dispersal job is the most effective method of lubing up smaller fish, like various types of sardines, so take from that what you will.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
My girlfriend is awesome without makeup... you obviously don't look at girls much.
There Can Be Only One...
Seriously, who cares? People say "BP did this" and the implication is that the entire organization was devoting it's full will towards maniacally deceiving the public. In all likelihood somebody said, "Put a web page together", and some lackey did so. In the process said lackey thought the picture would look better with more monitors populated with images, and he did that.
Now that somebody spotted it, I'm sure his supervisors are asking him, "What the hell were you thinking?"
I guarantee you nobody higher up made that decision. If they had, they'd have paid to have it done well. This kind of ridiculous nitpicking is just noise. There are thousands of other reasons to be mad at BP - good ones, even.
Yes, and it's been my experience that no amount of makeup will make an ugly woman look good. Ever notice how morbidly obese women wear tons of makeup as if it will cover up the fact that they're fat?
I'll go you one better. I just got back from my 20th high school reunion. The girls who were nice and fun to be around in high school were - without exception - attractive and young-looking. Some had, um, eaten well, but they were still pretty and had contagious smiles.
The girls who were spiteful and snotty in high school were - without exception - unattractive and worn. Some had nice figures but their faces where creased with scowl lines and crows feet.
Lesson learned: "good personality" is a much better makeup than anything you can buy in a store. It lasts a lot longer.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Maybe the government could help out here...the government is blocking most of BP's efforts to clean up the spill IMHO.
"Some men"? I find that men are frequently more guilty of "serious over-application" of the cologne than women are. And sorry Axe - something cannot be both a "deodorant" and a "perfume". Same goes for patchouli oil all you "natural" types out there. Putting one bad smell on top of another bad smell doesn't really diminish either - it just makes you smell doubly bad.
"But this one goes to 11!"
Except that, during the oil spill, there was plenty of outcry against Exxon. That wasn't as bad for PR as the BP disaster, since more people are involved in the Gulf of Mexico than the shores of Alaska.
You're looking for outrage 21 years later about Exxon dodging out on its financial obligations. Come 2031, if BP doesn't pay what it said, observe the outrage over that. I'd guess there won't be a whole lot.
So, compare outcry against Exxon at the time with outcry against BP now, and expect more outcry against BP because it's a bigger spill in a much more visible area. Then tell us if the ownership or perceived ownership makes a difference.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Welcome, Comrades!
Welcome to the Glorious Union of Soviet Corporatist Republics!
The second photo of the screen was edited, but it appears it was modified only to reduce the brightness/contrast of the image on the screen, which exceeded the contrast ratio of the medium. Note how the hair on the individuals is darker than the rest of their bodies.
If the editing wasn't done, the screen would have been an unreadable white, which would have made for a really crappy photo.
The only "crime" here is the poor lassoing.
IMHO.
Glad you added that, I prefer women to be as "au naturel" as possible when it comes to makeup. ;-)
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
It was an ACCIDENT! Get over it.
I, for one, am more than willing to accept that this catastrophe was completely unintentional! What I am unable to just "get over" is the apparently willful negligence of all three companies before it happened that made the spill more probable, as well as BP's ineptitude in resolving the situation quickly and effectively. IMHO, this type of "little white lie" dishonesty is just adding an annoying insult to a very large injury.
activist journalism....
Is that kind of like "consensual bestiality"?
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Though I know there are no girls on Slashdot
Though I disagree with you about there being no girls on slashdot, being one myself, I do agree with your makeup tip. The follow on from that logic being, if the goal of good make up is to look like you have none on, why bother with any at all. I can think of much better ways of spending my time and resources. Btw, yeay for geeky girls \ : D /
I can tell by the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time!
PPN
The "no girls" thing was a joke, of course. And I have no problem with women who want to go all natural. I'll take that over someone with five pounds of makeup caked all over her face.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
BP didn't make the workers sign anything it was Transocean the owner of the Rig. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/oil_spill_company_to_workers_sign_on_the_dotted_li.php BP only had few employees on the rig and the vast majority where Transocean employees. Additionally BP also hasn't actually released any numbers on spillage since right at the beginning. BP's position is that we don't know how much oil was leaking. It was the Coast Guard who as been changing estimates based upon the Government's flow rate committee.
This is a sig, there are many like it, but this is mine.
"It made me think too, but I still don't get it!"
The coyote ugly joke. A snare trapped coyote will chew its leg off to get free. Waking up next to a coyote ugly girl with her head on your arm and you too will chew it off to get free in fear of waking her up.
Ever seen a woman wear makeup...?
More importantly, ever wake up next to her the next morning and seen the reality of the same face without makeup? Can be a scary thing sometimes, perhaps best left unseen.
Ah, I see you are a highly imaginative narcissistic misogynist. You've come to the right place.
"BP is acting like their major problem is PR. They are not acting like they have committed a major environmental disaster."
I suppose in your view the PR department should all be in diving suits at the bottom of the ocean manually collecting the oil in buckets?
"They are trying to weasel there way out of responsibility in many ways, some of them truly evil."
Like offering to pay for the complete costs from the outset rather than sticking to the mere $75 million they're actually obliged to pay? This as opposed to say BP's partners in the well and other companies responsible for some of the mistakes like Transocean and Haliburton who have dodged their responsibilities entirely so far? The whole thing was a non-issue at first, it was only when Obama realised he was getting some political heat for the problem and that he realised he could deflect attention by creating a big fuss about how the big bad evil foreign company was big bad and evil that conspiracy theories about BP dodging responsibilities and so forth came out- once again, they made it clear from the outside they accepted responsibility and costs.
I see zero evidence for your assertions bar some shock story on a blog at a non-factor news oultet which is essentially 100% FUD because they're claiming they are trying to silence scientists who might provide evidence against them, when in fact what they're doing is trying to hire a mere handful of the thousands of scientists out there to aid their legal defence, and being legal defence part of that contract requires that they have to keep any research BP commissions as part of that defence private for the duration of the legal cases. There's quite a big difference between what the blog claims they are trying to achieve, and what they're actually trying to achieve because logic dictates that BP can't in a million years possibly expect to get even half of the scientists available to back such a conspiracy theory.
I suggest you pay more attention to independent articles on foreign news sites that have none of the conspiracy theories or idiotic rhetoric that is apparently required to compete in idiot America's news industry.
Your wrong: http://thechive.com/2010/07/21/imagine-waking-up-next-to-this-sea-donkey-17-photos/
According to TFA, they determined this was "photoshopped" because zooming in on the full-resolution image you can see that the projection screen "looks edited". This is stupid because any photographer knows that you almost always have to adjust the black/white levels of a projection screen separately from the rest of the frame because it's so much brighter than the rest of the room. Granted they didn't do a great job of it, but they shouldn't be paying big money for a professional anyways. They have other places to be spending their money.
Its just like when you walk into McDonalds and see the huge juicy burger on the menu screen, but what you get in reality is a soury, poor excuse of a burger. Photoshop will always plague us in distorting reality.
Or for that matter Haliburton who performed the well cementing operation, or the blow-out preventer building company who sold a faulty blow-out Haliburten preventer. Or frankly, has anyone been talking about the fact that the people on the rig were attempting to shut down the well when it blew out? Seems that that is what they should have been doing and were attempting to do when a catastrophe hit, but no, all you hear about is that BP are the worst people on earth. At least when the Valdez wrecked, Exxon was the correct company to complain at, in this case, the blame is all over the place, but it is BP paying for and doing everything they can to stop the leak, not any of the other companies involved.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I have no idea where that "Haliburten" came from, that was blow out preventer in what I typed...
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Though I know there are no girls on Slashdot, here's a tip: if I can tell you're wearing makeup, you have already failed. Proper makeup application enhances beauty, it doesn't attempt to replace it.
Hmm I still don't get it.. could you translate that into texture mapping terms?
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
From before the very beginning, BP said they were prepared to deal with a spill an order of magnitude worse than this one.
Though I disagree with you abouy there being no girls on slashdot, being one myself
Hey babe, can I buy you a beer? (sorry, bad joke)
The follow on from that logic being, if the goal of good make up is to look like you have none on, why bother with any at all.
I've known some women who look good without makeup; Meg being the best looking one. She looks like Sandra Bullock, only better. WITHOUT makeup. But she wears it, and applies it skillfully, and it makes her look even better still, while making it look like she's not wearing any. But, you know, I agree -- she could find a better use for the money, she has absolutely no need whatever for it.
Btw, yeay for geeky girls \ : D /
I agree completely. BTW, you should register a /. account so people will actually see your comments; I only saw it because it was listed on the page that lists responses to one's comments. ACs rarely get modded up, and your comment deserves an upmod.
Free Martian Whores!
Some had, um, eaten well, but they were still pretty and had contagious smiles.
A plain girl with a smile is better looking than a frowning supermodel. And I've found that it goes the other way, too -- a smile will get you a date with a woman a lot faster than a Ferrarri will. A scowl will get you nowhere.
I don't know why you weren't modded up for that comment; you should have been.
Free Martian Whores!
Another example of "aesthetics" would be the chemical dispersants used to hide the oil spill below the surface of the water.
But in that case it isn't the makeup, but the lighting and alcohol. Especially the alcohol.
Free Martian Whores!
That is the real question for the BP photoshopping... Nope, The command center exists somewhere, and the topkill conference / meeting took plac ...
Well, a major point of the article is that the command center might not actually exist anymore (The metadata on the picture says that it's nine years old)
CATS/Diebold '08- All your vote are belong to us!
Maybe not those words, maybe not officially (you're poisoning the well, by the way), but CEO Tony Hayward referred to the spill as (paraphrased) a drop in the bucket.
"We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
The other thing is, they're spending millions, possibly billions, on PR stunts. The 4th of July fireworks in Denver, CO? $100 million or so, courtesy of BP. I'm sure if I looked harder, I can find more examples.
That PR money can easily go towards ordering more boats, hiring more cleanup personnel. But that doesn't get sales or drilling contracts next year, does it?
Meanwhile, they're counting "inability or refusal to help" as a cost (potential income declined), and will deduct this cost from compensation claims by spill victims and businesses.
"We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
So what you're saying is that you don't understand the difference between someone talking about scale and someone talking about something that isn't dangerous?
It is a drop in the bucket. Compare the millions of barrels of oil that have leaked out to the trillions of barrels of water in the ocean. That doesn't mean it's not dangerous. You're simply taking the action of paraphrasing way too far.
Anyway I see where you're coming from, and one thing I'm sure we can both agree on is that Tony Haywood is like George W Bush. If for a moment he is caught in a public situation without flash cards you can guarantee anything he says will be a PR nightmare.
A cool car attracts men. I have driven exotics at a previous job, and my current vehicle is a heavily customized Jeep.
Cars attract men.
I am sure there are some rare exceptions, but I have not met them.
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
Ever notice how morbidly obese women wear tons of makeup as if it will cover up the fact that they're fat?
Well that at least explains this: http://sagaofawahm.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/bobeck_mimi2.jpg
Show me where BP has officially said oil isn't that dangerous.
Tony Hayward told Sky News the following, which, I guess, is kind of saying that it's not all that dangerous:
I think the environmental impact of this disaster is likely to be very, very modest. It is impossible to say and we will mount, as part of the aftermath, a very detailed environmental assessment as we go forward. We're going to do that with some of the science institutions in the US.
Source
BP employs wonderful artists. Look at how well they oil painted the Gulf.
I totally agree. I laughed out loud, even after thinking about it.
I guess that there must be a technique to explaining it, without giving it away.
testing out my trending skills
I have consistently stated that the BP oil volcano, which I pointed out is what it is because this is not oil being spilled when it is coming out at 30,000 PSI out of the ground.
And THAT is the difference between the pressure underground, and the over laying water at the point of escape.
Which is what people do not talk about on the evening news because they do not want you to know that.
They (BP) also took over the Coast Guard, instituted what is basically martial law buying closing down the entire coast from cameras or any sort of news, even going to the extremes as I pointed out of doctoring sat com images and others to make the whole thing look like a small "spill" and paying Google to assist them, which Google was very eager to oblige intercepting searches for any kind of information on the issue.
This company like many other corporations that run the United Fascist States of America pays Obama and his cronies for this sort of power and actually gets away with it.
After posting this information on Slashdot I got labeled a Troll and a "NUT Conspiracy" crackpot 4 weeks ago.
I am not such a crackpot now am I?
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
Nobody cares about the meme you're trying to launch. Fuck, self-promoting people like you are worse than any BP board member in my eyes.
Tony Hayward, is that you? Don't you have some oil to cover up?
I think the largest difference between exxon and BP is not who owns the company, but who's front yard you are shitting on. the gulf coast has some seriously expensive real-estate, and lots of people in a position to fight back.
as a previous poster said, this sort of thing usually happens to third world, where the victims don't have nearly the power to fight back that the residents of the gulf coast have. If this happened to the California coast, the outcry would be even greater; simply because more powerful people would have been directly harmed.
First, Citation needed and a proper citation not some random blog.
Second, this is BP's Duty Of Care. To ensure that it's staff leave their care in a fit condition. What do you think would have happened if a staff member refused to sign that bit of paper?
Do you think the "company man" would have thrown them overboard?
If you answered yes to this question lay off the tabloids and late night sci-fi. If an employee was injured, the companies responsibility (duty of care) was to take the employee to hospital (at the companies expense, given the lack of a decent health care system in the US) and ensure they get treatment for injuries sustained whilst on a company site. I've worked for a major oil company and they would not let you on shore until you've signed a disclaimer like this even if everything went swimmingly, further more if it even looked like you were injured the company man wouldn't even let you near the paper until you've been checked out by a doctor. It's not just arse covering, they actually need to find out if you're OK before letting you off their site.
How people cant figure these things out for themselves is beyond me.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
i still care more about them.