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
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
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.
Googling around 1.2.0 seems to have been for hardware released in 2009. Hard to believe that 1.1.4 came out before 2001.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
"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
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 Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III is from around 2007 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS-1Ds_Mark_III). So if this info is correct then 2001-03-06 is wrong.
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.
most likely the photographer never bothered to set the camera timer.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
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. :(
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?
Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh
In the oilpatch?
Ah yes, that explains a lot :)
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
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"
If Canon can't make the default date on a camera at least be greater than the production date, what other sophomoric failures are they making in their camera firmware? And if BP can't take a picture of their ops center that makes them look busy, but instead needs to photoshop images to achieve that, how busy are they?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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
Can you say whether they have raped any dolphins?
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Of course, the difference is Top Gear wouldn't be in the media's line of fire for one of the worst man-made ecological disasters in our history. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with trying to clean up an image for display, but when a company is already under immense scrutiny for their actions and their attempts to skew the truth of those actions, it's a poorly judged mis-step to then allow themselves to get called out for doctoring photos of the clean up operation (especially following on the heels of stories about how they are supposedly making it difficult for others to photograph the clean up operation - again regardless of the validity of that story), whatever the reason.
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.
You want the default date to be no later than the production date.
The EOS D range dates back to 2001. No doubt the programmer chose an arbitrary date before the day he wrote that line of code. Nobody has seen any reason to change it for subsequent revisions of the software becaue, well, why bother?
. . . 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.
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
The Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III is from around 2007 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS-1Ds_Mark_III [wikipedia.org]). So if this info is correct then 2001-03-06 is wrong.
This clearly is irrefutable evidence that they Photoshopped the '7' in 2007 to make it a '1'...
This guy's the limit!
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!
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?
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.
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.
Would you people please get a fucking grip?
I'm glad you feel safe under your bridge Mr. Troll, but the full economic impact of this spill remains to be seen. It can easily run into a couple trillion dollars. But what's another two trillion dollars, to a country already up to its ear in debt.
I live in Costa Rica, and our local currency - the Colon - has appreciated 10% against the dollar in the past 6 months. This after a 20 year history of losing value. Now the reverse is happening - does this mean that our currency is so strong it's outperforming the dollar? We make coffee and bananas for crying out loud, and we're not leaders in either export. No. It means the dollar is so weak that no one wants it anymore. This is going to bite everyone in the ass in a few years. The "flash crash" was another example - it was preceeded by a sudden weakening of the US dollar on world currency markets - especially against the Yen. The US is losing its status as a world leader. This environmental (and ultimately economic) disaster is going to be one more nail in the coffin.
But that's ok, let BP "take care of its image" and don't get mad. They're probably buying up politicians right now because you can be damned sure they are not going to sit around the Gulf states handing out money forever. BP is going to lie, and BP is going to hide as much incriminating evidence as they can. They are going to get out of it as soon as they can, and your politicians are going to help them. And YOU the American tax payer will be left holding the bag. Only the bag is already empty.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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.
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
Why would they? That's like asking computer manufacturers to set the epoch date to "whenever this baby rolled off the line." It's a meaningless arbitrary baseline date, one arbitrary date is generally as meaningful as another arbitrary date - which is to say, not very meaningful at all.
Too busy to stage bullshit publicity photos to make you feel warm and fuzzy about their crisis response? Just a guess. The photoshopping didn't "add people to the crisis center," it eliminated some blank screens, at least one of which was showing some pretty significant glare. If they had released the original, no doubt somebody would be bitching about how "BP doesn't even care enough to do a good job taking a photo, imagine how piss-poor their response to this crisis must be!"
Get a grip man.
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.
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.
That's like asking computer manufacturers to set the epoch date to "whenever this baby rolled off the line." It's a meaningless arbitrary baseline date, one arbitrary date is generally as meaningful as another arbitrary date - which is to say, not very meaningful at all.
Wouldn't it make more sense, then, to simply omit the data from the header instead of including some incorrect data? It's incompetent no matter what you think the solution is.
And if BP can't take a picture of their ops center that makes them look busy, but instead needs to photoshop images to achieve that, how busy are they?
Too busy to stage bullshit publicity photos to make you feel warm and fuzzy about their crisis response?
How about "too incompetent to take publicity photos on a day when they will make the place look busy", or "too incompetent to hire someone who can use photoshop better than a mongoloid on crack"? It all comes back to the "I don't give a fuck" principle; no one gives them a reason to give a fuck, so they don't give a fuck. And you're making excuses for their give a fuck attitude. Who gives a fuck about a photo in the long term? But it's just one more example of the attitude that pervades the company, the "good enough" attitude where "good enough" is shorthand for "good enough to turn a profit and not end up in the clink".
I can't do everything, but I'm aware of some of my current limitations. I expect others to try to understand theirs, though I am unsurprised when they are not. Trying to exceed our limitations is how we change them, but there are certain standards which must be observed when your actions will affect others.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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
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!
Why would you? The time & date the photo was taken is useful information - the camera itself doesn't know "what day it is" unless you tell it. So why omit potentially useful data because the photographer didn't set the camera's clock, and the camera has no way of determining that itself?
What if the place always looks like that? A couple guys monitoring video feeds, and acting as a communications hub? You have no idea what a "busy" crisis response center for a blown out oil well looks like, none of us do. You're simply seizing on the fact that they've photoshopped a picture for aesthetic purposes (primarily to eliminate some glare) as proof that they don't care and are doing a half-assed job. Your chain of logic sucks, and simply betrays that you have an axe to grind here.
I'd much rather that BP expend their efforts on cleanup & completing the relief wells than have a bunch of people burning lean tissue over whether or not a photo is properly staged to set the right tone for their PR department.
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.
The time & date the photo was taken is useful information - the camera itself doesn't know "what day it is" unless you tell it. So why omit potentially useful data because the photographer didn't set the camera's clock, and the camera has no way of determining that itself?
Are you really going to sit there and tell me the camera has no way to tell that the photographer hasn't set its clock? I sure fucking hope you're not a programmer or planning to become one.
What if the place always looks like that? A couple guys monitoring video feeds, and acting as a communications hub?
Then it's a switchboard and they're still overstating the case to make us feel like they're doing something important, only from an additional angle. From the graphics they put on the monitors it looks like there's a bunch of shit going on when there really isn't. If all that shit was really on screen then there would be a bunch of people standing around arguing about what to do about it, if you don't have a bunch of people involved you don't need a bunch of shit all over the displays. That's why we build stuff like that, unless we're just trying to look like hot shit. Monitoring systems have alarms and always have, and you don't have to look at everything at once but they do it in NOCs anyway so that when big colo customers come in you have something to show them so they think they know where the money went.
In actuality, BP is falling on their ass all over the fucking gulf when it comes to meeting their obligations regarding cleanup, and so they should be in a constant state of crisis. When the sun is shining, hay should be made. Anyone involved with a crisis at BP should be in a constant flurry of activity any time they're not sleeping, and if that is not true then BP is wasting resources that should be used to further cleanup. Thumb in ass equals lost productivity, and in this case, lost productivity equals further environmental damage.
Have we got an unedited picture of the meeting where some guy's face has been replaced? That's some fucking CIA's jewels black bar shit (#2 is trying to kill Castro more times than tobacco, but we won't show you #1) and some serious WTF. Who did they cover up, and why? Is it some Microsoft ethnic cleansing, or cloak and dagger "I was never here" action? Or just a ridiculous, placeholder attempt to remove a big zit?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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...
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.
Pray tell, how does a camera programatically determine that the time entered by the photographer is correct?
Right, because the thousands of people involved in the crisis response should all just be doing "something" regardless of whether or not that actually helps kill the leak & clean up the oil. Maybe next we'll ask them to do jumping jacks whenever they stop to think about something, just so they LOOK really active. Maybe we can make the IT guys start drilling their own relief well too. And the secretaries.
I suspect your expectations of what a "crisis response" should look like comes directly from watching too many Hollywood disaster movies.
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!
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
Tell me, did you even look at the unedited picture? There is nothing misleading about the picture. What is missing in the picture are some blank screens. That is right, that added elements are covering up nothing. I really don't see why the picture was changed and the edited version didn't help BP "take care of its image" let alone improve it. The effect of the picture would have been the same if the original had been used. In fact, I think the original might even be a bit better than the edited version.
This has nothing to do with the impact of the spill. It has everything to do with people blowing this WAY out of proportion.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
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.
Pray tell, how does a camera programatically determine that the time entered by the photographer is correct?
It can tell whether one has been entered at all. It could also read dates from all files on the card and if any are newer than the camera date then ask the user if the date is correct, but that might be above and beyond the call.
Right, because the thousands of people involved in the crisis response should all just be doing "something" regardless of whether or not that actually helps kill the leak & clean up the oil.
It's supposed to be a crisis center. If it's off on the periphery somewhere then rename it. Otherwise, centers are busy. If it's not busy, why show it to us? It's just a bullshit attempt to make them look busier than they are, just because they have one. And if they don't agree that it needs more people in it doing shit to look busy, then why did they photoshop in more stuff on the screens, and more people standing around pointing at shit? This is a perception they were attempting to create by these very means.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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
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
"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.
I think you just don't get it. It's not the fact that they're misleading. It's the fact that someone somewhere in the corporation felt that it was necessary to make the images "more interesting". This says a lot about corporate ethics (or the lack thereof). And although the picture doesn't prove anything by itself, if someone felt that the "real" pictures needed "enhancing", it speaks of a certain amount of guilt somewhere. Just like the girl who gets the breast implants obviously thinks her tits are too small - rightly or wrongly.
It reminds me of when certain politicians have their press people tell the people the President (Bush) or candidate (Hillary) is supposed to "spontaneously interview" what questions they can ask. Or when FEMA stages fake press conferences. Don't you see what's happening in the world? Don't you care?
Then there's the fact that BP will release the original pictures "later this evening", instead of immediately. I guess they will make sure they get a better photoshop job done this time.
Haven't you noticed that EVERYTHING BP HAS SAID has been lies, lies, lies? Haven't you seen the liveleak videos of how they are "cleaning up" Grand Island beaches - by dumping sand on top of the oil (making - asphalt!). Why do you defend them?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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.
Two points.
a) They didn't photoshop in "more people standing around pointing at shit" in the photo under discussion. You're either talking about a completely different photo I'm unaware of, or you haven't bothered to look at the photo being discussed. Either way, that clause of your argument is irrelevant.
b) They photoshopped "more stuff" on the screens by cutting & pasting the image from existing screens. Is this evidence of an inane fear of showing a "blank computer screen in a crisis center!"? Sure. Is this evidence of a diabolical master plan? Not unless you've got your tinfoil hat firmly in place and REALLY stretch for it.
So, here's how this issue could have played out:
1) BP releases unedited photo of crisis center. You immediately begin shouting about how "three unused screens, they must not be working that hard if they don't even have enough data to fill them," and how if they were REALLY working hard, there'd be more PhDs frowning thoughtfully over the blank screens in the original.
2) BP releases this edited photo of their crisis center. You immediately being shouting about how "photoshopping the screen to eliminate a huge white glare in the middle of the photo" is evidence of a diabolical master plan to make us think they're doing something when in reality they're just sitting there waiting for... well, for what, exactly? Every day this leak goes on, BP is hemorrhaging money and goodwill. Nobody's going to kill the well for them. Do you think that they're just sitting there hoping people will forget that the well is leaking, so they can pack up and go home?
Either way, you will interpret the information to suit your preordained conclusion, which is that BP is double-plus-ungood-evil-bad-wicked-naughty, and that everything they do is an attempt to avoid responsibility and avoid having to pay for or fix the mess they've made. Furthermore, since you apparently don't know fuck-all about how to stop a leaking oil well, or what is involved in doing so, all of your input here is just armchair quarterbacking about how you think an oil well capping operation "should" look, based on your vast experience of having once watched Armageddon, Deep Impact, and 2012 in all their big-screen glory.
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?
You don't complain about it with computers, why the hell are you complaining about it with cameras?
Or do you complain about the fact that if you remove and replace the CMOS battery your bios will invariably be set to some pint in the 1990's or something?
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
"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.
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.
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.
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)
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?
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
It can tell whether one has been entered at all. It could also read dates from all files on the card and if any are newer than the camera date then ask the user if the date is correct, but that might be above and beyond the call.
And then what?
A date, even if it's wrong, can still useful as long as it's from a running clock. I work with a lot of communications gear which operates without network access, GPS clocks, or battery backups, and the dates all get reset to something arbitrary whenever they lose power for whatever reason.
Which is, operationally, just fine. These particular widgets don't care what day it is.
But even a wrong date is better than none when looking through the logs for troubleshooting. With a wrong date, I can discern the order in which things occurred, and can easily extrapolate an exact date (if for some reason that is important) simply by knowing what day it currently is, and what day the device thinks it is. With no date, I cannot do these things.
I can't imagine that the same methodology could not apply to camera dates that are wrong.
But even then, I think folks are reading far too much into the EXIF data. It's not like it's set in stone. Rather, it's easily changed. So, much like an ID3 tag, it just says whatever someone wants it to say.
*shrug*
Kid-proof tablet..
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.
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 had to verify this one.
Presently we I am getting 450 Colon's to the Aussie dollar. An appreciation for colons seems like a good reason to visit Costa Rica.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.