Good point, calling the recycling program "free" is incorrect. In this case it would be better to call it a deposit on the proper disposal of your electronics. If that $2000 you just spent on your laptop doesn't include the cost to dispose of it then you're basically just assuming welfare from your fellow citizens and/or your descendants to cover the cost of its disposal and cleanup. Or rather, a deposit on the IMPROPER disposal of your electronics.
Instead of paying a recycling company $10 to actually, you know, recycle your electronics... there will be a government monopoly that will charge you double, and won't actually bother to recycle electronics in any meaningful way (instead they are opting to burn them down in an smelter). This will put the people who actually recycle/reuse electronics in a responsible way out of buisness.
They are charging for "proper disposal", the same way that the mafia often charges for "protection".
It is funny how hard people will defend behavior by the government that would get people thrown in prison for anti-trust and criminal fraud violations if it was a private buisness.
Yea, let the lower income students, who can't afford to go to college to be an engineer, scientist, or doctor, remain surfs for those who's parents are wealthy. Please, lets discuss reality and not fiction, OK?
Rich kids don't study science and engineering. They get an MBA or law degree, or perhaps an art grant if they can't cut it in a university. Damn few scientists or engineers make close to $150,000 a year. Only the extremly talented scientists earn more than plumbers or UAW auto workers. Union road construction crews have a comparible salary to your typical research scientist or engineer.
What fantasy planet are you living in where the pampered ultra-rich are competing to be sequencing the DNA of bread molds 8 hours a day in a laboratory, or measuring ice flows in a bushplane flying over the Yukon? I can just see Paris Hilton bending over backwards to get that $30/hour gig graphing wave functions in Matlab!
And don't worry about the fact that virtually all students in the U.S. qualify for student loans, so no body has to pay "extra" tuition until well after they graduate. Everyone in America who wants a student loan gets a student loan. Dead people get student loan money for non-accredited non-existant schools in the U.S... let alone someone who has the high-school academic background to get into a university science or engineering program. And don't worry that even at an extra $50 a credit, they will probably pay less for an education and a lifetime career than they would for an economy automobile.
This is the silliest issue ever to get all class-warfare about. If you want to really know what is going to keep low-income kids from a career in science or engineering, that would be the crappy "free" inner-city government schools that we make sure they have no choice but attend.
There is no such thing as "national interest". Nations are not a single entity, it is a collection of millions of individuals with competing and conflicting interests.
A nation-state can do something in the interest of a small ruling class... it can do something that directly benefits the state as a power structure... but it can't do anything in the "national interest", because "national interest" is an abstraction that doesn't really exist.
Who is to say that there are too many people studying history? Who is to say there isn't enough people studying engineering? Those are just arbitrary value judgements you made for yourself... there are probably millions of people who would disagree with you. What makes your opinion any more valid than theirs?
Perhaps there are some people who think that "national interest" is maximizing GDP. Perhaps there are some people who think that the "national interest" is full employment. Perhaps some people feel the "national interest" is creating "beauty", and out of those people some think that "beauty" is Classical music and others think that "beauty" is Hip Hop. Some people see income equality as the "national interest". Others think that defeating potential adversaries is in the "national interest". What is in the "national interest" differs widely between people of different religions, people of different classes, people in different geographic areas, people with different political ideologies. Even people who share ideologies, geographic areas, etc., can have widely different views on what is in the "national interest".
Can you even articulate your own set of priorities completly, let alone reconcile those priorities with those of millions of your countrymen?
I understand you feel your value judgements to be superior, and you want to force all your fellow countrymen to live by your value system under the threat of violence. So please just say "People should be forced or manipulated to study what I want them to study", instead of hiding behind intellectual fiction like "national interest".
I think it is in the "national interest" for people to study whatever the hell they want, for whatever reasons they see fit! So there!
first of all, a public library is nothing at all like a university library. there are no journals from the 1800s or newspapers from the 1600s in the public library. Sure there is... at least if you live in a big city.
When you start charging people more to go into higher paying fields, what's going to happen? The people who most need a leg up- kids from the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder- are less likely to choose those career paths. The kids from rich families are more likely to take those courses. Several flaws in your theory:
1. The kids from rich families are going to get MBAs... they won't touch engineering or science with a 10 foot pole.
2. No one in the United States has trouble paying for university. The government pretty much garantees a student loan to anyone with a pulse. It might suck if you have $100,000 in debt from getting your PHD in Woman's Studies, and you are working as shift manager at Taco Bell - But in this case we are specificly talking about well-paying engineering and science graduates who presumably won't have that problem.
3. Science and engineering are difficult. If you are not committed enough to scrape together another $60 a semester, then maybe the university is doing you a favor by encouraging you to go into a less difficult field.
If we were more of a socialist country, then we would need to coerce people to make productive choices (which is why socialism and freedom are mutually exclusive). America *IS* a socialist country. America hasn't been remotely free market since at least the New Deal and N.R.A. of the 1930s. The size and scope of regulation and social spending is on par with Sweden, France, etc.
So yes, for our society to function, we need to coerce people to make productive choices. The United States no longer has functioning free markets to entice people to do such a thing.
You have no idea who I endorse, or plan to vote for. Why would you assume that I favor democrats, and if I do, woould support either Hillary or Obama?? I'll go ahead and assume you are a conservative then. Guess what?? BOTH parties are the RIAA's bitch, and both parties take large campaign contributions from recording industry and film industry lobbyists. I am not a conservative nor a Republican. However, it is unnessicary to talk about Republicans because they are universally despised on Slashdot... where as Democrats are pretty much excused for anything they do, even when they openly and blatenly shill for the RIAA.
Please, do tell me who your ideal candidate is, who will get easily elected, and then save the world from evil corporations. No-one, since you qualified it with "get easily elected". However, it is far better to vote for a candidate that has no chance of getting elected, than to vote for the "lesser of two evils". And I don't have anything against corporations - I just have a big problem with corporations dictating laws. If the record companies would just sell records and mind their own buisness, I would have no problem with them.
Better yet, instead of voting for the "one true and right way for all America", lets let people decide for themselves on most issues... on those few issues that absolutly require state intervention, lets keep the decision making as local as possible. Democracy wasn't supposed to be so much about collective mediocrity and the lowest common denominator, but more about ensuring self-determination. A more "direct-democracy" just means that America will elect Jack Bauer as president. The most direct form of democracy you can have is letting people make decisions for themselves.
Republicans and the Democrats are the same party... they represent the same interests, support virtually the same policies, and are funded by the same handful of corporations and special interests. There is no difference in ideology, because neither party has an ideology. There are simply superficial esthetic differences.
They simply find that is easier to maintain control if they give you some sort of illusion of choice. If they blatently created a one party system, people would get upset and there would be revolution. By creating the illusion of a two party system, they can get people like you all fired up with your mindless us-vs-them partisan football game, and completly oblivious to what is really going on.
If you vote for the Democrats, you are voting to forfeit all your rights to the RIAA and big media companies. Those media companies are not stupid, they wouldn't donate so much money if they didn't expect results. The idea that the Democrats are less corupt than the Republicans is idiotic, because both are part of the same political machine. Both parties are completly dependent on each other.
There, fixed it for you. He is, after all, a politician. It sounds like you are just trying to make excuses for voting for a MAFIAA puppet. Snarky remarks aren't going to make Obama or Hillary any less of the RIAA's bitch. Enjoy losing all your rights to the RIAA and MPAA, in exchange for the empty promise of shitty government healthcare or whatever imaginary program they are trying to bribe people with this election.
But if I use p2p for legal, legit purposes, why should I be restricted from using p2p? If the RIAA wants to go after pirates, that is between them and the pirates, but they had better not harm or restrict me in any way. Since they are going to try to restrict my freedom and those of other innocent people, then the only way we can defend ourselves is to do our best to ensure financial ruin and destruction for the RIAA and the companies they represent. The media companies have forfeited all their rights when they decided to ignore my rights.
But now Joe Schmoe buys a copy and gives it away for free to 1000 of his friends. How can you say that they have no right to take action against that? It is not that they want to take action against Joe Schmoe "pirate". It is that they want to take action against millions of innocent people, by crippling their software and hardware with DRM, by blanket banning or restricting legit technologies like p2p, and by mass lawsuits that harm more innocent people than actual filesharers.
If I don't engage in "piracy", why should I be treated as a criminal?
I especially think there's no market anymore for smaller, more abstract games. Don't tell that to Popcap!!! They make lots of money on smaller, more abstract games... and many they give away for free and they still sell! And don't tell it to Microsoft, as the only profitable part of their console buisness is Xbox Live Arcade (a download service for smaller, more abstract games).
What you innocuously refer to as "information sharing" ignores the threat that file sharing represents to these industries: why would people pay for music/movies/games/software if they can easily and without risk get them for free? OK, here is one:
Because it is cheaper (time is money), quicker, easier to pay for it? It is a pain in the ass to look for movies, music, and games pirated online. It can take days to download an obscure movie using bitorrent, and even worse via p2p. Also, there is always a danger if you aren't downloading from a trusted source. Perhaps teenagers have more time than money, but for adults, if the media is priced competitively and it isn't crippled with DRM, it is just easier and simpler to pay.
The big problem is that media companies want to charge the same amount for a digital download as a CD or DVD, and they want to cripple it with DRM. They don't understand that the new media model will be on selling lots of diverse media for very very cheap, instead of selling a few over-hyped pieces of media for high prices.
Seeing as your ears cannot hear more than 20dB of dynamic range and 15 kHz of bandwidth, 14 bits / 44.1kHz actually seems quite reasonable. Most people can hear the difference between 16bit and 24bit audio, assuming they are listening to it on a device capable of producing the full dynamic range. 32bit might be a little iffy... it is only really nessicary if you are mixing multiple audio channels together, like in pro recording... but 14 bits is totally insufficient.
44.1 khz should be find, but there are some that claim that waveforms above the normal range of human hearing can still be percieved... either because of the way waves might interact in our enviornment (perhaps the high frequencies vibrate something in the enviornment, and the sum of those two waves, when vibrating something in the enviornment, produces an audible frequency... or perhaps the human body can sense the vibrations through touch, the same way you can feel bass frequencies below the audible range). Vinyl records can reproduce frequencies up to 48khz. So if you want the same audio reproduction quality of a vinyl record (which is the standard that digital recording needs to live up to for an audiophile), you are looking at 96khz sample rate.
Um, Red Book CD's don't employ data compression... One could make the arguement that the quantitization is a form of compression. Significantly less information would fit on the disk if you wanted to store it 32bit, 96khz.
McCarthyism was getting better? McCarthyism *WAS* an improvement. If you remember, just a few short years before McCarthyism, 20,000 Americans of Japanese heritage were locked up in a concentration camp for 4 years because they were percieved to be a threat! All that happened during was McCarthyism is that a few movie writers and producers lost their jobs, and had to work in England making big bucks, before moving back to the U.S. to make big bucks. McCarthyism might have been very bad, but it was far more civilized than what happened during WWII.
Of course, Roosevelt gets a free pass on his fascist behavior nowadays, because he was vaugly socialist... Even though by any stretch of the imagination he was far more fascist than McCarthy. Which goes back to how the thread started: Many people will give a leader carte blanche to do anything they want, so long as they are vaugly socialist.
The Internet is getting worse? The Internet has been available to the public at large for at least 10 years. We are just now seeing, however, a real attempt to restructure the internet to be more easily monitored and controlled by the state.
You can look through over 200 years of history and find lots of examples where things got better, got worse, maybe both at the same time. But now is the first time, at least in the U.S., that the classical Western liberal values are no longer what our culture aspires to. It is the first time that authoritarianism has been widely popular to the masses. In previous years, people might have supported oppressing one group, or another - But they never aspired to have a centralized authority dominate their own lives. They wanted to oppress other people, but at least they themselves didn't want to be oppressed. They had liberal values, at least selfishly. Now is the first time people actually want an authoritarian government to run their own lives - that represents a fundamental change in American values! And that change in values doesn't seem limited to the U.S., either.
Meh. Every attempt at everything ends up as totalitarianism. Correction: Every form of government ends up as totalitarianism.
I wouldn't be entirely surprised if by 2050 both the US and Australia are not democratic by today's standards. I am not sure they ever where. Certainly for specific races of people (decendents of African slaves in the U.S., aboriginal people in Austrailia), there wasn't democracy for most of both countries history. What has fundamentally changed, is that while the U.S. and Australia might have been oppressive to certain groups of people, both were slowly moving towards the ideals of classical liberalism. Now is the first time things are getting worse, instead of better.
Saying the people ate nothing but cholocate is like saying that Russia, China, Korea, Vietnam actually practiced true communism and the point of the poster that you're replying to is that these places have never done that. You haven't read Marx. Marx says that revolution by the working class inevitably leads to State Socialism, which then inevitably leads to Communism. According to Marx, revolutionaries wouldn't be able to do anything but practice Communism - They are driven by irresistable historical forces to do so.
The fact that Communists launched a revolution, and they didn't practice true Communism, refutes Communism.
The problem is, people confuse communism with dictatorship and/or totalitarianism when really, they are mutually exclusive.
There has never been any modern communist government in the past few hundred years.
A real communist country WOULD BE a democracy; in fact if you take democracy to it's logical course (where everyone has a say) you inevitably end up with a communist state. It doesn't matter what "real" communism is. Every attempt at Communism has turned into vicious totalitarianism. "Real" Communism is an abstraction. The fact is, there is something about either the Communist system, or the people who are attracted to Communism, that makes any real world attempt at "real" Communism impossible.
It would be kind of like I started a philosophy called "Chocolatism" that said "If you eat nothing but chocolate, you will live forever"... Then, when people ate nothing but chocolate and inevitably died, I said "That isn't real Chocolatism... In real Chocolatism people live forever".
Gasoline also can cling to the skin, soak into clothing, and splash over a large area. Choose your poision.
But it isn't like hydrogen cars wouldn't be crash tested and built for safety, just like any other car. When people talk about the whole explosion issue, I tend to think they have some other agenda against hydrogen.
Actually, I have heard the term used to describe plants which use carbon capture technology on the CO2 to store it in the ground ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_st orage ), as well as just the "scrubbed" emissions. I am highly skeptical of either one.
1. No one is saying hydrogen is a fuel. The idea is that you manufacture hydrogen using non-CO2 emmiting technology (nuclear, solar, wind, "clean coal" if that isn't just pure hype), and the hydrogen is essentially a "battery" (for lack of a better term) that isn't totally destructive to the enviornment like current batteries.
2. Unless you plan you coat your fuel tank with powdered aluminum and iron oxide, and then connect that to some sort of static electricity igniter, you aren't going to have a hindenburg style disaster. I mean, geez, you know that cars are full of highly flamable liquids, right now, right? It is kind of like last century when some people chose to stick with gas lighting in their homes because they thought electricity might be a fire hazard.
The military accidentally leaks valuable information, and the military intentionally "leaks" disinformation. It is not an either/or thing.
"Leaking" disinformation would be useless if the military didn't actually leak real information. And if you do accidentally leak real information, it only makes sense to also release disinformation to create uncertainty.
But there is probably no way that layman like most of us here can determine if this is fake or real simply from the information in the article.
Slashdot Mirror
Instead of paying a recycling company $10 to actually, you know, recycle your electronics... there will be a government monopoly that will charge you double, and won't actually bother to recycle electronics in any meaningful way (instead they are opting to burn them down in an smelter). This will put the people who actually recycle/reuse electronics in a responsible way out of buisness.
They are charging for "proper disposal", the same way that the mafia often charges for "protection".
It is funny how hard people will defend behavior by the government that would get people thrown in prison for anti-trust and criminal fraud violations if it was a private buisness.
Rich kids don't study science and engineering. They get an MBA or law degree, or perhaps an art grant if they can't cut it in a university. Damn few scientists or engineers make close to $150,000 a year. Only the extremly talented scientists earn more than plumbers or UAW auto workers. Union road construction crews have a comparible salary to your typical research scientist or engineer.
What fantasy planet are you living in where the pampered ultra-rich are competing to be sequencing the DNA of bread molds 8 hours a day in a laboratory, or measuring ice flows in a bushplane flying over the Yukon? I can just see Paris Hilton bending over backwards to get that $30/hour gig graphing wave functions in Matlab!
And don't worry about the fact that virtually all students in the U.S. qualify for student loans, so no body has to pay "extra" tuition until well after they graduate. Everyone in America who wants a student loan gets a student loan. Dead people get student loan money for non-accredited non-existant schools in the U.S... let alone someone who has the high-school academic background to get into a university science or engineering program. And don't worry that even at an extra $50 a credit, they will probably pay less for an education and a lifetime career than they would for an economy automobile.
This is the silliest issue ever to get all class-warfare about. If you want to really know what is going to keep low-income kids from a career in science or engineering, that would be the crappy "free" inner-city government schools that we make sure they have no choice but attend.
There is no such thing as "national interest". Nations are not a single entity, it is a collection of millions of individuals with competing and conflicting interests.
A nation-state can do something in the interest of a small ruling class... it can do something that directly benefits the state as a power structure... but it can't do anything in the "national interest", because "national interest" is an abstraction that doesn't really exist.
Who is to say that there are too many people studying history? Who is to say there isn't enough people studying engineering? Those are just arbitrary value judgements you made for yourself... there are probably millions of people who would disagree with you. What makes your opinion any more valid than theirs?
Perhaps there are some people who think that "national interest" is maximizing GDP. Perhaps there are some people who think that the "national interest" is full employment. Perhaps some people feel the "national interest" is creating "beauty", and out of those people some think that "beauty" is Classical music and others think that "beauty" is Hip Hop. Some people see income equality as the "national interest". Others think that defeating potential adversaries is in the "national interest". What is in the "national interest" differs widely between people of different religions, people of different classes, people in different geographic areas, people with different political ideologies. Even people who share ideologies, geographic areas, etc., can have widely different views on what is in the "national interest".
Can you even articulate your own set of priorities completly, let alone reconcile those priorities with those of millions of your countrymen?
I understand you feel your value judgements to be superior, and you want to force all your fellow countrymen to live by your value system under the threat of violence. So please just say "People should be forced or manipulated to study what I want them to study", instead of hiding behind intellectual fiction like "national interest".
I think it is in the "national interest" for people to study whatever the hell they want, for whatever reasons they see fit! So there!
1. The kids from rich families are going to get MBAs... they won't touch engineering or science with a 10 foot pole.
2. No one in the United States has trouble paying for university. The government pretty much garantees a student loan to anyone with a pulse. It might suck if you have $100,000 in debt from getting your PHD in Woman's Studies, and you are working as shift manager at Taco Bell - But in this case we are specificly talking about well-paying engineering and science graduates who presumably won't have that problem.
3. Science and engineering are difficult. If you are not committed enough to scrape together another $60 a semester, then maybe the university is doing you a favor by encouraging you to go into a less difficult field.
So yes, for our society to function, we need to coerce people to make productive choices. The United States no longer has functioning free markets to entice people to do such a thing.
Better yet, instead of voting for the "one true and right way for all America", lets let people decide for themselves on most issues... on those few issues that absolutly require state intervention, lets keep the decision making as local as possible. Democracy wasn't supposed to be so much about collective mediocrity and the lowest common denominator, but more about ensuring self-determination. A more "direct-democracy" just means that America will elect Jack Bauer as president. The most direct form of democracy you can have is letting people make decisions for themselves.
Republicans and the Democrats are the same party... they represent the same interests, support virtually the same policies, and are funded by the same handful of corporations and special interests. There is no difference in ideology, because neither party has an ideology. There are simply superficial esthetic differences.
They simply find that is easier to maintain control if they give you some sort of illusion of choice. If they blatently created a one party system, people would get upset and there would be revolution. By creating the illusion of a two party system, they can get people like you all fired up with your mindless us-vs-them partisan football game, and completly oblivious to what is really going on.
If you vote for the Democrats, you are voting to forfeit all your rights to the RIAA and big media companies. Those media companies are not stupid, they wouldn't donate so much money if they didn't expect results. The idea that the Democrats are less corupt than the Republicans is idiotic, because both are part of the same political machine. Both parties are completly dependent on each other.
But if I use p2p for legal, legit purposes, why should I be restricted from using p2p? If the RIAA wants to go after pirates, that is between them and the pirates, but they had better not harm or restrict me in any way. Since they are going to try to restrict my freedom and those of other innocent people, then the only way we can defend ourselves is to do our best to ensure financial ruin and destruction for the RIAA and the companies they represent. The media companies have forfeited all their rights when they decided to ignore my rights.
If I don't engage in "piracy", why should I be treated as a criminal?
Because it is cheaper (time is money), quicker, easier to pay for it? It is a pain in the ass to look for movies, music, and games pirated online. It can take days to download an obscure movie using bitorrent, and even worse via p2p. Also, there is always a danger if you aren't downloading from a trusted source. Perhaps teenagers have more time than money, but for adults, if the media is priced competitively and it isn't crippled with DRM, it is just easier and simpler to pay.
The big problem is that media companies want to charge the same amount for a digital download as a CD or DVD, and they want to cripple it with DRM. They don't understand that the new media model will be on selling lots of diverse media for very very cheap, instead of selling a few over-hyped pieces of media for high prices.
44.1 khz should be find, but there are some that claim that waveforms above the normal range of human hearing can still be percieved... either because of the way waves might interact in our enviornment (perhaps the high frequencies vibrate something in the enviornment, and the sum of those two waves, when vibrating something in the enviornment, produces an audible frequency... or perhaps the human body can sense the vibrations through touch, the same way you can feel bass frequencies below the audible range). Vinyl records can reproduce frequencies up to 48khz. So if you want the same audio reproduction quality of a vinyl record (which is the standard that digital recording needs to live up to for an audiophile), you are looking at 96khz sample rate.
Of course, Roosevelt gets a free pass on his fascist behavior nowadays, because he was vaugly socialist... Even though by any stretch of the imagination he was far more fascist than McCarthy. Which goes back to how the thread started: Many people will give a leader carte blanche to do anything they want, so long as they are vaugly socialist. The Internet is getting worse? The Internet has been available to the public at large for at least 10 years. We are just now seeing, however, a real attempt to restructure the internet to be more easily monitored and controlled by the state. You can look through over 200 years of history and find lots of examples where things got better, got worse, maybe both at the same time. But now is the first time, at least in the U.S., that the classical Western liberal values are no longer what our culture aspires to. It is the first time that authoritarianism has been widely popular to the masses. In previous years, people might have supported oppressing one group, or another - But they never aspired to have a centralized authority dominate their own lives. They wanted to oppress other people, but at least they themselves didn't want to be oppressed. They had liberal values, at least selfishly. Now is the first time people actually want an authoritarian government to run their own lives - that represents a fundamental change in American values! And that change in values doesn't seem limited to the U.S., either.
The fact that Communists launched a revolution, and they didn't practice true Communism, refutes Communism.
There has never been any modern communist government in the past few hundred years.
A real communist country WOULD BE a democracy; in fact if you take democracy to it's logical course (where everyone has a say) you inevitably end up with a communist state. It doesn't matter what "real" communism is. Every attempt at Communism has turned into vicious totalitarianism. "Real" Communism is an abstraction. The fact is, there is something about either the Communist system, or the people who are attracted to Communism, that makes any real world attempt at "real" Communism impossible.
It would be kind of like I started a philosophy called "Chocolatism" that said "If you eat nothing but chocolate, you will live forever"... Then, when people ate nothing but chocolate and inevitably died, I said "That isn't real Chocolatism... In real Chocolatism people live forever".
Gasoline also can cling to the skin, soak into clothing, and splash over a large area. Choose your poision.
But it isn't like hydrogen cars wouldn't be crash tested and built for safety, just like any other car. When people talk about the whole explosion issue, I tend to think they have some other agenda against hydrogen.
Actually, I have heard the term used to describe plants which use carbon capture technology on the CO2 to store it in the ground ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_st orage ), as well as just the "scrubbed" emissions. I am highly skeptical of either one.
1. No one is saying hydrogen is a fuel. The idea is that you manufacture hydrogen using non-CO2 emmiting technology (nuclear, solar, wind, "clean coal" if that isn't just pure hype), and the hydrogen is essentially a "battery" (for lack of a better term) that isn't totally destructive to the enviornment like current batteries.
2. Unless you plan you coat your fuel tank with powdered aluminum and iron oxide, and then connect that to some sort of static electricity igniter, you aren't going to have a hindenburg style disaster. I mean, geez, you know that cars are full of highly flamable liquids, right now, right? It is kind of like last century when some people chose to stick with gas lighting in their homes because they thought electricity might be a fire hazard.
No, because repeaters actually re-broadcast, where RFID tags just reflect radio signals back.
A mirror is not a light bulb.
The military accidentally leaks valuable information, and the military intentionally "leaks" disinformation. It is not an either/or thing.
"Leaking" disinformation would be useless if the military didn't actually leak real information. And if you do accidentally leak real information, it only makes sense to also release disinformation to create uncertainty.
But there is probably no way that layman like most of us here can determine if this is fake or real simply from the information in the article.