Comcast did not help us fix The Pirate Bay. The problem was GBLX using reverse path filtering. We shut down one of our transits because it was flapping. The result was that all outgoing traffic to GBLX got filtered even though the packets took the same path as before. The Pirate Bay is using different paths for incoming and outgoing traffic to avoid beeing traced. We don’t even know where their servers are. We resolved the issue by activating our other transit again.
That would be a fair argument if Mike Wise worked in a relevant department of the NFL, but the information was still passed along without a giant "RUMOR" warning without any fact-checking, which shouldn't be done regardless of the credibility of a source. This is the same kind of journalism that causes news outlets to fall for Wikipedia defacements and announce "unconfirmed reports" of celebrity deaths.
It shouldn't be done, that's why it's OK to report what another journalist has said, provided you mention your source. He was deemed to be credible enough to requote, considering his job is to uphold journalistic standards. Are you telling me that if I'm editor of a small town newspaper, and the Washington Post reports that Obama was rushed to the hospital for a stroke, that I'm not supposed to mention that report until I get in touch with the White House? This is how we get breaking news immediately. Publishing a story that hasn't been verified independently by the publisher is exactly why the stories used wording to the effect of "Mike Wise reports that he was suspended for 5 games" as opposed to "He was suspended for 5 games." A journalist lied. What you consider a legitimate source can also lie. Even White House officials lie. When people we don't expect to lie lie, we get false reports. That's why sources are credited: in case this happens. They are reporting on a report that is presumably newsworthy. If you pay attention to what you read, you don't need a big blinking "RUMOR" warning. You should realize that the credibility of the story has as much weight as you want to put into the source. This wasn't a failure of the entire institution of journalism, this was a failure of Mike Wise.
A sports reporter tweeted on Monday (this week or last week, i'm getting this second hand) that a ballplayer's suspension would be 5 games instead of 4.
Numerous outlets picked it up and ran it as news.
Thing is, he made it up. Deliberately. To demonstrate how many news outlets do zero confirmatory investigation before running stories.
So what did his employer do?
I.e., it's going to get worse before it gets better.
The news outlets didn't run his rumor as factual news. They ran him tweeting it as news. That is, they reported that he reported it, which he did. The reason they deemed it more newsworthy than any random tweet is because, up until now, he was a credible source based on his past record. This is how journalism is supposed to work. Once the information is confirmed, then they report the actual content as fact, which they didn't. As a reader, you need to pay attention and notice the difference. He in fact, demonstrated nothing other than his relevancy as a journalist, which he has now lost. Here's a good synopsis: http://deadspin.com/5626506/mike-wise-twitter-and-the-art-of-breaking-news
It’s obvious to anyone familiar with digital photo editing that the image in question on this blog made a selection of ('masked')the projection screen, which was overexposed, and darkened (‘burned in’) that area so that you could see what bit of detail could be salvaged. This is not uncommon when photographing and editing images of monitors, projections, and windows. It's done all the time when you have an area in the original image that is overexposed and it has been done since the beginning of photography. Before Photoshop, it was done by exposing certain areas of the photo-sensitive printing paper to the light passing through the negative longer than other areas.
The areas inside and outside the masked area contain the same colors and continuations of shapes, just darker (look at the lower left corner, lower right corner, & the top of the guys’ heads). If something that wasn't there originally was 'pasted' over that mask, you wouldn't see the tops of the people's heads within the mask.
The only problem with this photo is that it was edited poorly (i.e. noticeably). If you have an issue with 'darkroom' photo editing (i.e. photoshopping), you have an issue with just about every single professional photo you've ever seen.
Good job propagating irrelevant reactionary nonsense into the discourse regarding BP and the oil spill.
i said i would not censor speech. youtube in this case did. do you see the difference?
not really sure why you want to direct this into a pro-/anti-corporatist discussion. someone was censored on youtube, and some people are saying this was not a good thing for youtube to do. what is your problem this?
If I opened up my front lawn for people to express themselves via yard signs, then I would.
Now if had done that and you put a sign promoting racial tolerance and I took that one down, are you going to have something to say about me limiting the scope of discussion I'm providing or are you going to applaud my actions for being perfectly legal?
I've noticed that anytime there's a complaint about censorship, there's a number of "insightful" comments repeating that the hosting service has the legal right to do so, even though there was no case being made that the service (Youtube in this case) acted illegally or had no legal right to do so. How has it become so fashionable that whenever someone objects to censorship, so many people's knee jerk reaction is to defend that censorship based on legal grounds rather than take a stand to promote a free and open society?
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is a law that governs the relationship between the government and citizens. Freedom of speech is the principle that this law was designed to protect. If your support for freedom of speech goes only as far as the legal rights granted you, that's fine, but you don't need to reduce it to a legal argument, because it is not. Don't worry, we understand exactly what the First Amendment does and does not protect, but we also believe in the broader principle of free speech that is at the core of a free, open, and enlightened society.
Copyright does not protect 'ideas'. Copyright protects a particular--read specific--expression/manifestation of an idea
Which is yet still an idea, a more specific one.
Occam's razor is not an embargo against the positing of any kind of entity, or a recommendation of the simplest theory come what may (Note that simplest theory is something like "only I exist" or "nothing exists" or "God is the cause of all things"). The other things in question are the evidential support for the theory Therefore, according to the principle, a simpler but less correct theory should not be preferred over a more complex but more correct one. It is this fact which gives the lie to the common misinterpretation of Occam's Razor that "the simplest" one is usually the correct one.
The only thing that had changed in my life compared to the past was the smoke absorbed in the walls and furniture.
Really? That's the only thing that changed? Did the thought that there might be any number of other invisible toxins in that apartment ever enter your mind or did you just stop at the first one you could pull out of your ass? You also don't think it could be a physical reaction to the stress of moving and having to adjust to an entirely new environment either? It couldn't be anything else? You've managed to discount every other possibility and the most plausible one is "smoking residue"?