Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tawa]

Oh, and also, some nobles should get jealous of each other's offices instead of (or in addition to) each other's bedrooms.

This is a pretty good idea you have here.

[WealthyRadish]

Found my iPod. Everything is gone.

He didn't even wait more than a week to hit the reset button. Three years, all gone in a matter of one week. The guy gave away my cover, too. Because he didn't like it.

...
*hugs*
I honestly wish I could do more, tech. I really do.
Can you reclaim it via iCloud or something similar, at least?

Yeah, don't they have data reclamation programs for devices? I once saw a news article that mentioned that if you're selling your phone, you should load it up with random nonpersonal stuff before you wipe it so that it'd be hard to find your personal information via data recovery.

Yeah, the thing is that when you delete something, typically what you're doing is setting a flag that marks that data as free to be overwritten. It'll still exist if it never gets overwritten, and someone could find it if they know where to look. It may be the same on an iPod, I dunno, good luck.

[Reelya]

Actually, back to what GreatJustice was saying about Chomsky being a douche because Chomsky was wrong about the Khmer Rouge in 1977. I actually though about this and realized why it's B.S. to slam Chomsky over this single incident.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Chomsky's argument back then, was that the allegations against the Khmer Rouge were fabricated by the establishment to justify a U.S. intervention. He was wrong. But, look at the historic record going back to the 1953 CIA operation which installed the Shah of Iran as a dictator, and the United Fruit Company sponsored U.S. invasion of Guatemala in 1954, and through to the (at the time) very recent CIA operation to oust Allende in 1973 and impose Pinochet in Chile. All those incidents had the same pattern of bombarding the American media with false allegations against whomever the U.S. took a disliking to at the time. So, taking Chomsky's basic theory, you'd be right almost every time you were skeptical of the allegations from the 1950s through to the 1980s (including the Yellow Rain allegations).

So, the fact that the critics are still highlighing a single time the"Chomsky model" got it wrong back in 1977, is actually evidence that Chomsky's model works in general. "Chomsky's not right 100% of the time, don't listen to him". Well, I'll listen to him more than the guy who got it wrong 99% of the time, but was correct that one single time. If a model sucks that badly, then people don't need to highlight the same single exception over and over again ... that would be the equivalent of constantly highlighting the single state that Nate Silver didn't call correctly in the 2008 elections.

[Bauglir]

what is even happening in this thread right now

[Baffler]

what is even happening in this thread right now

ñow you will kñow why you fear the ñight!

[mainiac]

So, taking Chomsky's basic theory, you'd be right almost every time you were skeptical of the allegations from the 1950s through to the 1980s (including the Yellow Rain allegations).

If you start rationalizing by "the guys I dont like are bastards" logic, you can rationalize anything.

[Reelya]

I think that's a gross mischaracterization of what Chomsky is saying. The patriots are more in line with what you wrote: "every country which America takes a dislike to are automatically evil".

Chomsky is just saying that they spin the media towards whoever is in power to get the population to go along with whatever they happen to want. Kind of a no-brainer. e.g. the WMD evidence in Iraq is a recent example. I've seen Hans Blix on documentaries saying that his office got hold of the intelligence documents held up by Bush which claimed Iraq was getting uranium. Hans Blix said he gave the documents to his intelligence analysts and plainly states that they concluded that the documents themselves were actually forgeries, rather than just "bad intelligence". Now, we don't know who forged the documents, and I'm pretty certain Bush believed them, but the point stands that the president of the USA was waving forged documents around as a justification to invade another country. Pretty much fitting with Chomsky's theory.

[Loud Whispers]

cheeki chomsky 2 breeki

[mainiac]

I think that's a gross mischaracterization of what Chomsky is saying. The patriots are more in line with what you wrote: "every country which America takes a dislike to are automatically evil".

Why does explaining someone require you to first strawman their opponents... oh wait yeah, because this is Chomsky.

Pretty much fitting with Chomsky's theory.

Except that you've introduced complications in that dont fit Chomsky's theory (Bush believed the story he told).  That's a problem because Chomsky is an ideological purist.  If you have a theory that is supposed to explain things and you have to amend the theory afterwards to make it apply, your theory has no predictive value.  You are just claiming vindication because the guys you called bastards were bastards.  But plenty of much more reasonable people could have told you that.

[Reelya]

Except that you've introduced complications in that dont fit Chomsky's theory (Bush believed the story he told). 

The president only has access to 100% of classified information in the movies. That's not reality you're talking about. You don't really believe that leaders know every detail of what's going on in the organizations they lead, do you? Government institutions last over successive presidencies, so they have their institutional operations, and the president definitely does not get told everything that goes on. If someone is a mouthpiece, it works better if they believe what they are being told to say.

Colin Powell has publically apologized for conveying false intelligence that he was fed, btw. So we have this from the horses mouth, the Secretary of State was lied to, so that he would lie to you in turn, while believing the lies to be sincere. If the Secretary of State is being lied to, why think the president knows all? There's basically no issue here for Chomsky's theory to answer. It's not like Chomsky is claiming there's a "hivemind" or something.

Chomsky's basic idea does not require that the entire government is a hivemind or some such nonsense.

[smjjames]

@bushiraqwarcolinpowell:  That's what you get when you use unreliable informants and don't verify the facts.

Tony Blair got sucked into the 'SADDAM HAS NUKE STOCKPILES' false intel as well, apparently.

Actually, wasn't the UK part of the operation that led to the false intel?

[Loud Whispers]

Tony Blair got sucked into the 'SADDAM HAS NUKE STOCKPILES' false intel as well, apparently.
Actually, wasn't the UK part of the operation that led to the false intel?

We're having an inquiry into the last part about to be published soon
Interestingly the inquiry has had the phone call between Bush and Blair immediately prior to the invasion legally removed, as whatever it was supposedly posed such a great threat to American-British relations that it had to be removed

[smjjames]

Kind of hard to imagine anything being such a great threat to British and American relations in a phonecall. I mean, the U.S. and Britain have been pretty much BFF since WWII.

Maybe it was Bush saying something extremely facepalm-cringe worthy or either one of them badmouthing the other. It's not like Bush and Blair are in power, the most that might happen could just be some facepalming and groaning over it.

[Bauglir]

I assume it was some good-natured ribbing over the foibles of the other's population. Bush rambling about English cooking, Blair joking about guns, that sort of thing.

my assumptions are not to be trusted

[ggamer]

I assume it was some good-natured ribbing over the foibles of the other's population. Bush rambling about English cooking, Blair joking about guns, that sort of thing.

^^

making the assumption that Bush is as stupid as he looks puts you in the same spot as his political oponents