There is a significant literal difference between editing for sound quality, and editing for sound content.
This is NOT a mistake where they enhanced a sound in the wrong way. It is a case where they knowingly introduced a sound from a totally different source.
If you believe that is ok, that is fine. But it is still a lie. Some people believe news should be free of any and all knowing lies, other people only care about "big" lies, or certain types of lie.
I suspect a lot of people are deciding they think it is OK in this case, and then going back and finding a way to explain-away the lie. This results from cognitive dissonance; you know lying is bad, and you already decided this action is OK, so this action must not be lying.
But thinking "white lies" are OK is not the same as thinking they are true, or honest.
It is plain and obviously fraud. Some have defended it by saying it is too small a fraud to worry about, others claim that everybody else does it too. Others still claim it is okay because you shouldn't expect better.
But saying it is not a fraud at all, that is just a lie.
I remember discussing significant problems already in 2001. I think it was in 2000 when my x.com account died on account of being bought out by paypal. It was a big disappointment, because x.com had a great service, and everybody already knew that paypal's service had various problems.
I think it would be reasonable to complain even if it was an ICE and they had used the sounds from a different car. Is it news, or fiction? If it is factual they shouldn't need any lies at all, even ones that are kind-of close.
Of course all this falls apart when we note that US is no longer recognizing anonymous and free communications as a fundamental right of the citizen.
As an American with an interest in civics and history, I'd like to point out that however you feel about anonymity, that was never a fundamental right.
It was always the case that you have a right to privacy in your personal effects including communication, but it was up to YOU to keep it private. The restriction was never on knowing who something belongs to. Instead, the Right is to be free of government interference in your communication and to be free of the government searching your effects without cause.
Clearly, to me, the government is violating that and is searching my electronic papers. But that is a violation of being free from search, not of some right to anonymity.
I was stopped by the police just a few days ago. I have no right to anonymity, and while I have a right not to be stopped without cause, I do have to identify myself when requested, even if the stop is without just cause, or otherwise unlawful. As long as they don't search my papers, they're always allowed to try to figure out who I am.
There is a wide range of gray between active and passive here. I'm willing to bet they were in an area that would make you uncomfortable.
Probably not, since the project failed. You want to retool your attack.;) A reasonable extended concern would be in what they would have done if it was successful, which is unknown. As a project that failed to attract the interest of the Cubans, for whatever reason, we know that they were not able to use it to wander into whatever gray areas they may or may not have had in mind.
As I read the article, it seems to say that the USAID helped set up social networks in Cuba that weren't controlled by the government. That sounds like a good thing to me. I'm puzzled why any/. readers would object to this.
Because dice sold us out to right wing propagandists, because that is where the money is in media these days.
As an American I would not want aid any government agencies worrying about foreign laws against free speech, or other laws that we formally consider to be evil.
You should search the web for pictures of the propaganda that the Cubans put up right next to the US base at Guantanamo Bay. You can see with your own eyes what their craft looks like, no need to resort to media corporations' interpretations.
You obviously didn't get he memo on the IRS fake-scandal... LOL
New political movements from all parts of the political spectrum were checked for in the non-profit applications. Duh. Most of the audited groups were liberal groups. Look it up, moron.
No, a witch-hunt would be if we didn't like him, and so we lied about what he said or set up an attack where loses his job if he did what we said, or if he didn't.
Roughly 50% of the population do blurt out offensive things that would negatively affect their career if they were a public figure. That is no surprise.
Probably well over 50% of the population blurts out idiotic nonsense that would get them fired if they were an engineer, too. Obviously a different set of idiotic nonsense, granted. But the average person does not have the skills or experience to be an engineer. Or a CEO. Part of being a CEO is to be the face of the organization. If you do anything that is high profile enough to be noticed by the public, that reflects on the organization. That is just part of being the public face of an organization.
Personally, I would never take that sort of job because I value privacy over money. But these are the sort of decisions a person makes in life.
This is exactly how it is supposed to work when we have free speech.
Free speech is not, was not, and will never be moral relativism.
He is free to offend the public, and being a public business figure, his public image will affect his job. Just as, he is free to say something awesome that will make people love him.
If public interest is down by the time the real programs get talked about, that is a recipe for people NOT ever knowing even what is going on. If you measure "public interest" by newspapers sold, sure it sells more papers. But if instead you were to take polls of how well the public understands what is happening, then no. Telling people the truth during the initial period of interest is what would do that.
If people are already "exhausted" with the subject by the time the truth even comes out, they not only won't know what the truth is, they won't be interested in trying very hard to stop any of it.
If I worked for the NSA and wanted to condition the public to accept this sort of thing, the Snowden/Greenwald approach is exactly what I would do. Get them riled up in a way where they will get bored and move on without turning over any sort of "smoking gun" of it being used to harm innocent people. Then later if it is used differently, people will already be comfortable with it being this far.
The world where employees do not get their employers permission to see the doctor.
Also, people don't ask their employer's permission in order to buy a house. But... but... but... they got the money from their employer, right?! Same BS.
If you don't believe in paying for everything that comes with insurance, don't provide insurance. See how different that choice is than to offer partial insurance that makes choices for the employee?
Sales statistics indicate that much more meat is being sold as whale meat than is actually caught.
The word "actually" is false there. Sales statistics indicate more meat labeled as whale is being sold than the amount of whale meat declared under their supposed "scientific" quota.
One theory is that other types of meat are being substituted. Another is that they're not declaring all of their whale catch.
"Illegal enemy combatants" are based in Law. The same Geneva Conventions that spell out the requirements for how to treat prisoners of war also describe what is needed to be legally regarded as a soldier. Combatants that disguise themselves as civilians are explicitly illegal. It creates a real and serious danger to civilians, because dual-use or ambiguous targets are legal targets. So dressing as civilians makes the civilians look like combatants, and is seen as an evil act.
Illegal Enemy Combatants are NOT legal soldiers, but a type of war criminal, and may be held indefinitely, executed, or otherwise processed unilaterally. If they had been wearing uniforms, then they would have all sorts of rights.
My advice is to learn the details of the situation first, and then make wild extrapolations and comparisons afterwards.
And I'll give you a hint: you can know what is legal and illegal, and still take either side on what should be legal and illegal! Learning is neutral.
Compare to whaling, where Japan is clearly lying about their intent. They take stomach samples, true, but they're not doing any actual science; they're not learning or attempting to learn anything other than how to hunt more effectively. All of the local politics in Japan on the issue is about protecting the cultural history of whaling for food. And then they make official claims which deny it.
While you're mostly correct, the nutrients destroyed by cooking are generally different ones than are made available by cooking, so the over-simplification as stated is slightly misleading.
Generally what is destroyed is provided by greens, and so it makes sense that humans have traditional practices of eating some of their greens raw.
Adding spectrum does not guarantee that you also have to subtract spectrum. The only reason you would block out visible light is because it is useful to the application.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a significant literal difference between editing for sound quality, and editing for sound content.
This is NOT a mistake where they enhanced a sound in the wrong way. It is a case where they knowingly introduced a sound from a totally different source.
If you believe that is ok, that is fine. But it is still a lie. Some people believe news should be free of any and all knowing lies, other people only care about "big" lies, or certain types of lie.
I suspect a lot of people are deciding they think it is OK in this case, and then going back and finding a way to explain-away the lie. This results from cognitive dissonance; you know lying is bad, and you already decided this action is OK, so this action must not be lying.
But thinking "white lies" are OK is not the same as thinking they are true, or honest.
It's not fraud. Stop using hyperbole.
It is plain and obviously fraud. Some have defended it by saying it is too small a fraud to worry about, others claim that everybody else does it too. Others still claim it is okay because you shouldn't expect better.
But saying it is not a fraud at all, that is just a lie.
I remember discussing significant problems already in 2001. I think it was in 2000 when my x.com account died on account of being bought out by paypal. It was a big disappointment, because x.com had a great service, and everybody already knew that paypal's service had various problems.
I think it would be reasonable to complain even if it was an ICE and they had used the sounds from a different car. Is it news, or fiction? If it is factual they shouldn't need any lies at all, even ones that are kind-of close.
Did you skip the part where they would start broadcasting their own propaganda over the network once it was popular?
You did, apparently. Neither happened; it did not become popular, and they did not broadcast their propaganda over it.
Of course all this falls apart when we note that US is no longer recognizing anonymous and free communications as a fundamental right of the citizen.
As an American with an interest in civics and history, I'd like to point out that however you feel about anonymity, that was never a fundamental right.
It was always the case that you have a right to privacy in your personal effects including communication, but it was up to YOU to keep it private. The restriction was never on knowing who something belongs to. Instead, the Right is to be free of government interference in your communication and to be free of the government searching your effects without cause.
Clearly, to me, the government is violating that and is searching my electronic papers. But that is a violation of being free from search, not of some right to anonymity.
I was stopped by the police just a few days ago. I have no right to anonymity, and while I have a right not to be stopped without cause, I do have to identify myself when requested, even if the stop is without just cause, or otherwise unlawful. As long as they don't search my papers, they're always allowed to try to figure out who I am.
There is a wide range of gray between active and passive here. I'm willing to bet they were in an area that would make you uncomfortable.
Probably not, since the project failed. You want to retool your attack. ;) A reasonable extended concern would be in what they would have done if it was successful, which is unknown. As a project that failed to attract the interest of the Cubans, for whatever reason, we know that they were not able to use it to wander into whatever gray areas they may or may not have had in mind.
As I read the article, it seems to say that the USAID helped set up social networks in Cuba that weren't controlled by the government. That sounds like a good thing to me. I'm puzzled why any /. readers would object to this.
Because dice sold us out to right wing propagandists, because that is where the money is in media these days.
Yeah, Putin and W. loved each other and even used the same brand of tooth paste. Great friends! Allies, not so much.
As an American I would not want aid any government agencies worrying about foreign laws against free speech, or other laws that we formally consider to be evil.
I'm not sure where it says you're the guy they need to check with in order to determine the full breadth of responsibilities for each agency.
I'd prefer to let Congress and the President figure that out between them. Since those are people I can vote for.
You seem to have confused your acronyms.
You should search the web for pictures of the propaganda that the Cubans put up right next to the US base at Guantanamo Bay. You can see with your own eyes what their craft looks like, no need to resort to media corporations' interpretations.
Kinda strange that you conflate offering a free public speech platform with "elaborate spy-type skulduggery."
Not really surprising that the real world doesn't match your expectations.
You obviously didn't get he memo on the IRS fake-scandal... LOL
New political movements from all parts of the political spectrum were checked for in the non-profit applications. Duh. Most of the audited groups were liberal groups. Look it up, moron.
No, a witch-hunt would be if we didn't like him, and so we lied about what he said or set up an attack where loses his job if he did what we said, or if he didn't.
Roughly 50% of the population do blurt out offensive things that would negatively affect their career if they were a public figure. That is no surprise.
Probably well over 50% of the population blurts out idiotic nonsense that would get them fired if they were an engineer, too. Obviously a different set of idiotic nonsense, granted. But the average person does not have the skills or experience to be an engineer. Or a CEO. Part of being a CEO is to be the face of the organization. If you do anything that is high profile enough to be noticed by the public, that reflects on the organization. That is just part of being the public face of an organization.
Personally, I would never take that sort of job because I value privacy over money. But these are the sort of decisions a person makes in life.
You are right. But he is being persecuted.
By his peers. For being an asshat.
This is exactly how it is supposed to work when we have free speech.
Free speech is not, was not, and will never be moral relativism.
He is free to offend the public, and being a public business figure, his public image will affect his job. Just as, he is free to say something awesome that will make people love him.
If public interest is down by the time the real programs get talked about, that is a recipe for people NOT ever knowing even what is going on. If you measure "public interest" by newspapers sold, sure it sells more papers. But if instead you were to take polls of how well the public understands what is happening, then no. Telling people the truth during the initial period of interest is what would do that.
If people are already "exhausted" with the subject by the time the truth even comes out, they not only won't know what the truth is, they won't be interested in trying very hard to stop any of it.
If I worked for the NSA and wanted to condition the public to accept this sort of thing, the Snowden/Greenwald approach is exactly what I would do. Get them riled up in a way where they will get bored and move on without turning over any sort of "smoking gun" of it being used to harm innocent people. Then later if it is used differently, people will already be comfortable with it being this far.
The world where employees do not get their employers permission to see the doctor.
Also, people don't ask their employer's permission in order to buy a house. But... but... but... they got the money from their employer, right?! Same BS.
If you don't believe in paying for everything that comes with insurance, don't provide insurance. See how different that choice is than to offer partial insurance that makes choices for the employee?
The UN won't enforce it. Volunteers will enforce it.
Sales statistics indicate that much more meat is being sold as whale meat than is actually caught.
The word "actually" is false there. Sales statistics indicate more meat labeled as whale is being sold than the amount of whale meat declared under their supposed "scientific" quota.
One theory is that other types of meat are being substituted. Another is that they're not declaring all of their whale catch.
"Illegal enemy combatants" are based in Law. The same Geneva Conventions that spell out the requirements for how to treat prisoners of war also describe what is needed to be legally regarded as a soldier. Combatants that disguise themselves as civilians are explicitly illegal. It creates a real and serious danger to civilians, because dual-use or ambiguous targets are legal targets. So dressing as civilians makes the civilians look like combatants, and is seen as an evil act.
Illegal Enemy Combatants are NOT legal soldiers, but a type of war criminal, and may be held indefinitely, executed, or otherwise processed unilaterally. If they had been wearing uniforms, then they would have all sorts of rights.
My advice is to learn the details of the situation first, and then make wild extrapolations and comparisons afterwards.
And I'll give you a hint: you can know what is legal and illegal, and still take either side on what should be legal and illegal! Learning is neutral.
Compare to whaling, where Japan is clearly lying about their intent. They take stomach samples, true, but they're not doing any actual science; they're not learning or attempting to learn anything other than how to hunt more effectively. All of the local politics in Japan on the issue is about protecting the cultural history of whaling for food. And then they make official claims which deny it.
While you're mostly correct, the nutrients destroyed by cooking are generally different ones than are made available by cooking, so the over-simplification as stated is slightly misleading.
Generally what is destroyed is provided by greens, and so it makes sense that humans have traditional practices of eating some of their greens raw.
If you think of "calories" as "makes you fatter," my advice is just say no to calories. It solves the problem for both of us.
Infrared essentially blocks out normal vision.
Adding spectrum does not guarantee that you also have to subtract spectrum. The only reason you would block out visible light is because it is useful to the application.