Obviously it's very important that browsers be able to run code, and increasingly large web applications are being developed. Given that is the case, it has to be asked whether a scripting language like Javascript is the right tool for the job. Clearly the interpreters have been improved greatly, but even so, speed is a real issue. It's not the only issue though. Writing a full application (like Microsoft Word for example) with Javascript would be a pain to say the least. Static typing is important for developing large applications. It helps you catch bugs early and greatly aids analysis of the code/auto-completion etc.
One way around this issue has been to develop plugins, e.g. Unity3D for games, but many users are put-off by the need to install a plugin and if everyone embraced this approach, we would be overwhelmed by endless plugins. Google's Native Code project seems quite promising. Perhaps the future lies there.
JavaScript is a great language, but using it for full-blown enterprise app development would be a major setback. Strongly typed languages are great for the enterprise, because you know (and Intellisense knows too) at compile time what to expect from objects.
I agree, but I think you probably mean Statically Typed rather than Strongly Typed. I had to learn Python recently and as I was googling for different language features I hoped for (Constants etc). I encountered the same kind of zealotry as with other scripting languages. There seems to be a huge amount of resistance to adding anything that might help to catch bugs early (static typing etc).
Most statically typed languages also have some kind of object or variant type you can use to hold any type. It seems only fair that scripting languages should offer static typing, at least as an option.
This would be funny if millions of people weren't STILL using VB6.:P Hell, I've worked at two Fortune 500 companies in the last year that had business critical applications still in VB6.
This does not surprise me. Companies made huge investments in millions of lines of VB6 code. Many companies (particularly smaller ones) simply could not afford to dump that investment and do a.NET rewrite.
It's a bad situation to be in though, especially when it's not an internal product. Customers start backing away slowly when they find out you're trying to sell them something written in a dead unsupported language.
Of course, if VB6 had been Open Source, Microsoft would never have been able to dump it, since another company would have taken over the reins and they would have lost huge numbers of developers. As it was though, they knew they could dump it and also knew that despite the anger, the enormous gravitational pull of Microsoft would drag everyone over to.NET.
This would have been nice a decade or so ago when they dumped VB6, resulting in lots of panicked and expensive migrations over to.NET. Many companies had made huge investments in VB6 and felt totally betrayed (I worked for one of them). They were hoping for a new improved version of VB6 to be released (some new features here and there) and instead they got something massively different.
If VB6 had been some kind of open standard back then, another company would have come along and basically said "Don't panic everyone, your huge investments in VB6 are safe. We are releasing OpenVB Studio and will continue to improve the language.". That would have been a disaster for Microsoft of course.
The cooling systems use molten sodium. It has the wee problem that it is explosive in contact with water.
There was a serious sodium coolant leak at the Japanese Monju reactor in 1995. It got so hot that steel structures in the room started to melt. You can imagine how such a leak could result in the destruction of other critical safety systems.
The more I learn about nuclear reactors, the more I learn of the potentially catastrophic accidents that have occurred along with a catalogue of lies, safety report falsifications and cover-ups. Nuclear does not seem to be a very safe way forward.
If they release the footage to the public then every news network will have their own nuclear "expert" pointing at a discarded firehose and claiming it's an exposed fuel rod.
In other words, the public should not see information about the reactor problem because they might misunderstand it or panic. That basically sums up the attitude of the nuclear industry/governments around the world. There has been a destructive culture of secrecy and lies with serious problems being covered up.
The Japanese nuclear industry in particular has a long history of accidents, incompetence and coverups.
1989 - Kei Sugaoka videos cracks in steam pipes at a nuclear plant. He is told to edit out footage of the cracks. Eventually he went public and a number of executives lost their jobs.
1999 - Two workers die at Tokaimura after hand mixing nuclear fuel in steel buckets. The mixture reached criticallity.
1995 - There is a serious accident at the Monju fast breeder reactor. A coolant pipe carrying liquid sodium breaks, spilling hundreds of kilograms of sodium which then reacted with moisture releasing caustic fumes and heat intense enough to melt steel structures in the room. The agency in charge (PNC) tried to cover up the extent of the accident.
1997 - Fire at the Tokaimura reprocessing plant.The operator, Donen later admitted it suppressed information about the fire.
2002 - It comes to light that TEPCO had falsified inspection reports.
The nuclear industry needs to be much more transparent if it is ever to be trusted.
The reality of Egypt is that the choices are grim and grimmer
But that's a choice for the Egyptian people to make, not for us. Except that the US government have chosen by financing a brutal and oppressive regime to the tune of billions of dollars. We're not just talking about about jets and missile systems, but also the small arms and riot equipment being used on the population right now.
However, if you support real democratic elections in Egypt, then you're almost certainly going to get an Iranian-style theocracy that'll never have real elections again.
If recent events have shown anything, it's that nothing is certain. The former IAEA chief Mohammed el Baradei could end up becoming president for example. Also remember that Iran had a democracy before a US/UK orchestrated coup destroyed it and replaced it with a brutal dictatorship in 1953.
Conspicuously absent from the mainstream media is any discussion of our support for these brutal and oppressive regimes. The use of social media in these revolts has provided a safe angle for journalists. Journalists are now able to spend most of an article talking about how amazing Facebook and Twitter are rather than note that the US has funded the oppressive security apparatus of Egypt for decades. Tacit support for a dictator is one thing, but massive material support to the tune of billions of dollars is quite another. The very least the US could do to help the Egyptian people is to stop actively helping their oppressor.
I was always led to believe that Phillips screws were used in electronics etc (rather than flatheads) because they are self-guiding. That is, a machine doesn't have to be spot-on to screw them in because the angle of the recess naturally guides in the screwdriver. These pentalobular screws don't look very self guiding to me. Then again, maybe they don't need to be with children assembling them in some Chinese sweatshop.
After the betrayal that was "Lost", I'm no longer watching anything by J. J. Abrams. Apparently the latest model of attracting viewers is to keep throwing mysteries and questions on them, without any plan to ever answer them. This is not something I am interested in.
Compare "Lost" to "Babylon 5".
BSG had the same kind of atrocious dartboard plot development, so I have similarly been avoiding anything associated with Ron Moore. There's no fun in a mystery if it's also a complete mystery to the writers. Without the writers knowing what is going to happen, there can be no real clues in the storyline and all the viewer's analyses and guesses are completely pointless. I'm also tired of religion being injected into Sci-Fi. Even the god-awful V has introduced the concept of mysterious human souls that live on after death. Do we really need this kind of nonsense in science fiction? Science fiction is supposed to be about speculative science not tribal god images and superstition.
Babylon 5, with its long pre-planned story arc, really did set the bar of quality for Sci-Fi and most shows today have no need to bend over as they limbo under it.
Like all companies (e.g. banks), energy companies do not care so much about risks to the entire system. So in deregulated markets, one problem is that companies start shutting down power stations that aren't normally needed, since it's expensive to keep them on standby. Then a cold winter comes along, or a heatwave and suddenly there isn't enough power available any more. The only way to stop this occurring is to massively fine companies that can't supply enough power but I am sure that lots of lobbying goes on to make sure such regulations are either absent or toothless.
Is it a coincidence that all this talk about nuking other countries is coming a couple of weeks after the release of that cable by Wikileaks?
This kind of rhetoric has been going on for years as have a number of dangerous military confrontations. You really can't pin this on Wikileaks.
I think that some of those cables should have been released, but Wikileaks was extraordinarily irresponsible in deciding to release all of them.
There have been many redactions in the documents to protect individuals. In recent years it has been the lies of governments that have cost so many lives. Now it's time for some truth.
I'm guessing you're not from the U.K. because the Daily Mail is probably the least reputable news source in the known universe.
They also used to be known as "The Daily Heil" due to their pre-war support for Hitler, Mussolini and the British Fascist movement. Their politics haven't really changed a great deal.
I think the lesson here is never to have sex with anyone in Sweden. Given the legal risks of consensual sex, how do the Swedish people cope with the situation? Perhaps they have to take a boat out into international waters before risking any carnal acts.
and if he didn't do anything wrong he doesn't have much to fear
Apart from extradition to the US from Sweden. This is a real possibility and it's why Assange and his lawyers will fight any extradition attempt. The Swedish authorities have been behaving very strangely over his case, raising suspicions of political involvement.
Stopping Julian Assange isn't going to solve the problem. Better idea: infiltrate Wikileaks and corrupt the information before it arrives. Let them post garbage. Ruin their reputation.
Or alternatively, if you think it's wrong for the US to violate treaties it has signed by spying on top UN officials, make a donation to wikileaks.
If these diplomatic cables simply showed up Usenet one day, lets face it, the world would outright ignore them.
I'm glad that someone actually understands this. The media will cheerfully ignore all kinds of big stories (COINTEL PRO) etc unless they are promoted. Assange is effectively acting as a PR agent for the leaks and he's been doing a good job of it too.
Getting the truth out is not the problem. Getting the media to actually report in it is something else. That's exactly why Assange has put on a show. He has drummed up interest because he knows that without a big circus, the media will not be interested.
More leaking and less bragging about what they are sitting on and are going to release in a few weeks.
The "bragging" is the whole reason that the media have shown so much interest. Assange is well aware of how useless the media are, and of the necessity to aggressively promote the leaked material. Plenty of damaging material has been released under the US freedom of information act over the years, but it has been largely ignored by the media. Releasing information is simply not enough if you want the world's media to report on it. You have to promote it. You have to put on a show. It's sad but unfortunately true. There are actually similar organisations to wikileaks already who do not try to whip up a media circus. Haven't heard of them? I wonder why.
Spying on the UN is a big deal. It's a complete violation of a number of treaties the US signed (I was going to say 'signed in good faith' but I suppose that's just not true). Perhaps it is time for the UN Headquarters to move to a country which shows the organisation a little more respect.
With Microsofts history over the past 20 years, I'd say they won't pull any strange tricks until enough people have adapted it and are locked in,
Certainly there are dangers. Microsoft do have a community promise not to sue people making other implementations but it only covers the ECMA Standard parts of.NET. Is this promise really legally binding though and who knows whether there are loopholes etc. Also what happens if those patents end up falling into the hands of another company as was the case with Java and Oracle?
The same kind of dangers exist with QT. Now that it's LGPL, it's becoming quite popular. Nokia are being very open source and generous with it but what happens if they sell off QT at some point? There are bound to be patents that could be used aggressively.
I think it has become clear that just because something is open source, that doesn't mean it's safe to use it in the long term.
Actually, there's one other you can be pessimistic about, and it has pretty depressing implications for us: the fraction of technological societies that get off-planet. Two big humps here:
The societies themselves might not get off the planet, but their creations might. Intelligent machines would be far more adaptable than biological intelligence. You can see that even from today's non-intelligent machines. Humans have not been to Mars or Titan, but robots have. They can survive in conditions completely unsuitable for biological life.
Machine intelligence only needs a power source and there are plenty of stars around for that. To build more machines they would need raw materials, but almost any planet or asteroid orbiting around a star would be suitable.
If any sizable portion of the viewership felt the same way, that would account quite well for the lack of viewership.
Certainly I know many people (myself included) that have avoided Caprica like the plague due to the dire writing on BSG. BSG started out good, but just turned into a soap opera in space. Where there was any plot development, it was decided with a dartboard. There seems to be a growing trend of sci-fi shows becoming nothing more than very pedestrian drama that just happens to be set in space. Do we really need to be on a spaceship or an alien planet to deal with someone's drinking problem? Does a spaceship flying past while a man is arguing with his wife make it science fiction? Am I the only one that fast forwards through the boring "Earth" scenes on Stargate Universe?
Whatever happened to science fiction shows that actually used the genre to explore amazing new ideas? Whatever happened to stories that had a proper beginning middle and end with possibly a clever twist as well?
I think a better platform would strictly be about being a repository for the data it finds rather than an interpreter for what it means. Leave that to the journalists.
You can't just dump thousands of documents on the internet and expect journalists to write articles about them. These things need to be thoroughly analysed, and most journalists don't seem to be very good at analysing anything or even checking basic facts (e.g. the 400,000 documents figure which comes from one dubious source).
Over the years there have been many damaging documents released under the US Freedom of Information Act and these have been routinely ignored by journalists. You simply cannot rely on the mainstream media to report on these things unless you whip up a lot of fuss and that is exactly the role that wikileaks is filling. They don't just analyse classified documents and publish them (and then sit back and watch the media cheerfully ignore them), they also promote them.
The fact that wikileaks exists at all tells you all you need to know about the credibility of journalists and the media as a whole.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously it's very important that browsers be able to run code, and increasingly large web applications are being developed. Given that is the case, it has to be asked whether a scripting language like Javascript is the right tool for the job. Clearly the interpreters have been improved greatly, but even so, speed is a real issue. It's not the only issue though. Writing a full application (like Microsoft Word for example) with Javascript would be a pain to say the least. Static typing is important for developing large applications. It helps you catch bugs early and greatly aids analysis of the code/auto-completion etc.
One way around this issue has been to develop plugins, e.g. Unity3D for games, but many users are put-off by the need to install a plugin and if everyone embraced this approach, we would be overwhelmed by endless plugins. Google's Native Code project seems quite promising. Perhaps the future lies there.
JavaScript is a great language, but using it for full-blown enterprise app development would be a major setback. Strongly typed languages are great for the enterprise, because you know (and Intellisense knows too) at compile time what to expect from objects.
I agree, but I think you probably mean Statically Typed rather than Strongly Typed. I had to learn Python recently and as I was googling for different language features I hoped for (Constants etc). I encountered the same kind of zealotry as with other scripting languages. There seems to be a huge amount of resistance to adding anything that might help to catch bugs early (static typing etc).
Most statically typed languages also have some kind of object or variant type you can use to hold any type. It seems only fair that scripting languages should offer static typing, at least as an option.
This would be funny if millions of people weren't STILL using VB6. :P Hell, I've worked at two Fortune 500 companies in the last year that had business critical applications still in VB6.
This does not surprise me. Companies made huge investments in millions of lines of VB6 code. Many companies (particularly smaller ones) simply could not afford to dump that investment and do a .NET rewrite.
.NET.
It's a bad situation to be in though, especially when it's not an internal product. Customers start backing away slowly when they find out you're trying to sell them something written in a dead unsupported language.
Of course, if VB6 had been Open Source, Microsoft would never have been able to dump it, since another company would have taken over the reins and they would have lost huge numbers of developers. As it was though, they knew they could dump it and also knew that despite the anger, the enormous gravitational pull of Microsoft would drag everyone over to
This would have been nice a decade or so ago when they dumped VB6, resulting in lots of panicked and expensive migrations over to .NET. Many companies had made huge investments in VB6 and felt totally betrayed (I worked for one of them). They were hoping for a new improved version of VB6 to be released (some new features here and there) and instead they got something massively different.
If VB6 had been some kind of open standard back then, another company would have come along and basically said "Don't panic everyone, your huge investments in VB6 are safe. We are releasing OpenVB Studio and will continue to improve the language.". That would have been a disaster for Microsoft of course.
The cooling systems use molten sodium. It has the wee problem that it is explosive in contact with water.
There was a serious sodium coolant leak at the Japanese Monju reactor in 1995. It got so hot that steel structures in the room started to melt. You can imagine how such a leak could result in the destruction of other critical safety systems.
The more I learn about nuclear reactors, the more I learn of the potentially catastrophic accidents that have occurred along with a catalogue of lies, safety report falsifications and cover-ups. Nuclear does not seem to be a very safe way forward.
If they release the footage to the public then every news network will have their own nuclear "expert" pointing at a discarded firehose and claiming it's an exposed fuel rod.
In other words, the public should not see information about the reactor problem because they might misunderstand it or panic. That basically sums up the attitude of the nuclear industry/governments around the world. There has been a destructive culture of secrecy and lies with serious problems being covered up.
The Japanese nuclear industry in particular has a long history of accidents, incompetence and coverups.
1989 - Kei Sugaoka videos cracks in steam pipes at a nuclear plant. He is told to edit out footage of the cracks. Eventually he went public and a number of executives lost their jobs.
1999 - Two workers die at Tokaimura after hand mixing nuclear fuel in steel buckets. The mixture reached criticallity.
1995 - There is a serious accident at the Monju fast breeder reactor. A coolant pipe carrying liquid sodium breaks, spilling hundreds of kilograms of sodium which then reacted with moisture releasing caustic fumes and heat intense enough to melt steel structures in the room. The agency in charge (PNC) tried to cover up the extent of the accident.
1997 - Fire at the Tokaimura reprocessing plant.The operator, Donen later admitted it suppressed information about the fire.
2002 - It comes to light that TEPCO had falsified inspection reports.
The nuclear industry needs to be much more transparent if it is ever to be trusted.
The reality of Egypt is that the choices are grim and grimmer
But that's a choice for the Egyptian people to make, not for us. Except that the US government have chosen by financing a brutal and oppressive regime to the tune of billions of dollars. We're not just talking about about jets and missile systems, but also the small arms and riot equipment being used on the population right now.
However, if you support real democratic elections in Egypt, then you're almost certainly going to get an Iranian-style theocracy that'll never have real elections again.
If recent events have shown anything, it's that nothing is certain. The former IAEA chief Mohammed el Baradei could end up becoming president for example. Also remember that Iran had a democracy before a US/UK orchestrated coup destroyed it and replaced it with a brutal dictatorship in 1953.
Conspicuously absent from the mainstream media is any discussion of our support for these brutal and oppressive regimes. The use of social media in these revolts has provided a safe angle for journalists. Journalists are now able to spend most of an article talking about how amazing Facebook and Twitter are rather than note that the US has funded the oppressive security apparatus of Egypt for decades. Tacit support for a dictator is one thing, but massive material support to the tune of billions of dollars is quite another. The very least the US could do to help the Egyptian people is to stop actively helping their oppressor.
I was always led to believe that Phillips screws were used in electronics etc (rather than flatheads) because they are self-guiding. That is, a machine doesn't have to be spot-on to screw them in because the angle of the recess naturally guides in the screwdriver. These pentalobular screws don't look very self guiding to me. Then again, maybe they don't need to be with children assembling them in some Chinese sweatshop.
After the betrayal that was "Lost", I'm no longer watching anything by J. J. Abrams. Apparently the latest model of attracting viewers is to keep throwing mysteries and questions on them, without any plan to ever answer them. This is not something I am interested in. Compare "Lost" to "Babylon 5".
BSG had the same kind of atrocious dartboard plot development, so I have similarly been avoiding anything associated with Ron Moore. There's no fun in a mystery if it's also a complete mystery to the writers. Without the writers knowing what is going to happen, there can be no real clues in the storyline and all the viewer's analyses and guesses are completely pointless. I'm also tired of religion being injected into Sci-Fi. Even the god-awful V has introduced the concept of mysterious human souls that live on after death. Do we really need this kind of nonsense in science fiction? Science fiction is supposed to be about speculative science not tribal god images and superstition.
Babylon 5, with its long pre-planned story arc, really did set the bar of quality for Sci-Fi and most shows today have no need to bend over as they limbo under it.
Like all companies (e.g. banks), energy companies do not care so much about risks to the entire system. So in deregulated markets, one problem is that companies start shutting down power stations that aren't normally needed, since it's expensive to keep them on standby. Then a cold winter comes along, or a heatwave and suddenly there isn't enough power available any more. The only way to stop this occurring is to massively fine companies that can't supply enough power but I am sure that lots of lobbying goes on to make sure such regulations are either absent or toothless.
Before Paypal, Mastercard and Visa started blocking wikileaks without any court rulings, I would have asked the same question.
Is it a coincidence that all this talk about nuking other countries is coming a couple of weeks after the release of that cable by Wikileaks?
This kind of rhetoric has been going on for years as have a number of dangerous military confrontations. You really can't pin this on Wikileaks.
I think that some of those cables should have been released, but Wikileaks was extraordinarily irresponsible in deciding to release all of them.
There have been many redactions in the documents to protect individuals. In recent years it has been the lies of governments that have cost so many lives. Now it's time for some truth.
I'm guessing you're not from the U.K. because the Daily Mail is probably the least reputable news source in the known universe.
They also used to be known as "The Daily Heil" due to their pre-war support for Hitler, Mussolini and the British Fascist movement. Their politics haven't really changed a great deal.
I think the lesson here is never to have sex with anyone in Sweden. Given the legal risks of consensual sex, how do the Swedish people cope with the situation? Perhaps they have to take a boat out into international waters before risking any carnal acts.
and if he didn't do anything wrong he doesn't have much to fear
Apart from extradition to the US from Sweden. This is a real possibility and it's why Assange and his lawyers will fight any extradition attempt. The Swedish authorities have been behaving very strangely over his case, raising suspicions of political involvement.
Stopping Julian Assange isn't going to solve the problem. Better idea: infiltrate Wikileaks and corrupt the information before it arrives. Let them post garbage. Ruin their reputation.
Or alternatively, if you think it's wrong for the US to violate treaties it has signed by spying on top UN officials, make a donation to wikileaks.
If these diplomatic cables simply showed up Usenet one day, lets face it, the world would outright ignore them.
I'm glad that someone actually understands this. The media will cheerfully ignore all kinds of big stories (COINTEL PRO) etc unless they are promoted. Assange is effectively acting as a PR agent for the leaks and he's been doing a good job of it too.
Wanting to get the truth out is one thing
Getting the truth out is not the problem. Getting the media to actually report in it is something else. That's exactly why Assange has put on a show. He has drummed up interest because he knows that without a big circus, the media will not be interested.
More leaking and less bragging about what they are sitting on and are going to release in a few weeks.
The "bragging" is the whole reason that the media have shown so much interest. Assange is well aware of how useless the media are, and of the necessity to aggressively promote the leaked material. Plenty of damaging material has been released under the US freedom of information act over the years, but it has been largely ignored by the media. Releasing information is simply not enough if you want the world's media to report on it. You have to promote it. You have to put on a show. It's sad but unfortunately true. There are actually similar organisations to wikileaks already who do not try to whip up a media circus. Haven't heard of them? I wonder why.
Big fucking deal, everybody spies.
Spying on the UN is a big deal. It's a complete violation of a number of treaties the US signed (I was going to say 'signed in good faith' but I suppose that's just not true). Perhaps it is time for the UN Headquarters to move to a country which shows the organisation a little more respect.
With Microsofts history over the past 20 years, I'd say they won't pull any strange tricks until enough people have adapted it and are locked in,
Certainly there are dangers. Microsoft do have a community promise not to sue people making other implementations but it only covers the ECMA Standard parts of .NET. Is this promise really legally binding though and who knows whether there are loopholes etc. Also what happens if those patents end up falling into the hands of another company as was the case with Java and Oracle?
The same kind of dangers exist with QT. Now that it's LGPL, it's becoming quite popular. Nokia are being very open source and generous with it but what happens if they sell off QT at some point? There are bound to be patents that could be used aggressively.
I think it has become clear that just because something is open source, that doesn't mean it's safe to use it in the long term.
Actually, there's one other you can be pessimistic about, and it has pretty depressing implications for us: the fraction of technological societies that get off-planet. Two big humps here:
The societies themselves might not get off the planet, but their creations might. Intelligent machines would be far more adaptable than biological intelligence. You can see that even from today's non-intelligent machines. Humans have not been to Mars or Titan, but robots have. They can survive in conditions completely unsuitable for biological life.
Machine intelligence only needs a power source and there are plenty of stars around for that. To build more machines they would need raw materials, but almost any planet or asteroid orbiting around a star would be suitable.
If any sizable portion of the viewership felt the same way, that would account quite well for the lack of viewership.
Certainly I know many people (myself included) that have avoided Caprica like the plague due to the dire writing on BSG. BSG started out good, but just turned into a soap opera in space. Where there was any plot development, it was decided with a dartboard. There seems to be a growing trend of sci-fi shows becoming nothing more than very pedestrian drama that just happens to be set in space. Do we really need to be on a spaceship or an alien planet to deal with someone's drinking problem? Does a spaceship flying past while a man is arguing with his wife make it science fiction? Am I the only one that fast forwards through the boring "Earth" scenes on Stargate Universe?
Whatever happened to science fiction shows that actually used the genre to explore amazing new ideas? Whatever happened to stories that had a proper beginning middle and end with possibly a clever twist as well?
I think a better platform would strictly be about being a repository for the data it finds rather than an interpreter for what it means. Leave that to the journalists.
You can't just dump thousands of documents on the internet and expect journalists to write articles about them. These things need to be thoroughly analysed, and most journalists don't seem to be very good at analysing anything or even checking basic facts (e.g. the 400,000 documents figure which comes from one dubious source).
Over the years there have been many damaging documents released under the US Freedom of Information Act and these have been routinely ignored by journalists. You simply cannot rely on the mainstream media to report on these things unless you whip up a lot of fuss and that is exactly the role that wikileaks is filling. They don't just analyse classified documents and publish them (and then sit back and watch the media cheerfully ignore them), they also promote them.
The fact that wikileaks exists at all tells you all you need to know about the credibility of journalists and the media as a whole.