I agree with this. It degrades relatively quickly into a Wikipedia core group of elite editors kind of thing, where the disconnected ideals of a clique dominate.
That was said by Ken Olsen, CEO of DEC, in 1977- At a meeting of the World Future Society, of all places. Granted, he later said that he was referring to large computers common at that time.
My little bit of snopes'ing pulled up an interesting ass covering that Olsen made in reference to this quote, which as time goes on still sounds equally as bad:
> I did make a number of statements and still make statements that people don't understand about computers, or delight in misquoting. A long time ago when the common knowledge was that PCs would run our lives in every detail, I said that if you stole something from the refrigerator at night you didn't want to enter this into the computer so that it would . . . mess up the computer plans for coming meals.
The bottom line is that you should expect whatever you store using Google Drive to be mined- This is what the company does, and it leaves the option wide open in its terms. If your expectations are in line with that eventuality, then use the service. If not, don't.
Yes- The TV station in question has a -team- working on an established product with an established methodology (whether it all works well together is another topic). It's unrealistic to expect quick, large-scale change in any big operation that's driven by a large team... no matter how great the new ideas are. It can happen, but it takes time.
A skilled developer can single-handedly shake up the paradigm and drive things in a new direction. The real challenge for the organization that grows up around that game-changing idea is to avoid behaving like the one it replaces.
After graduation, started in '90 at a consulting firm with oil field apps using 4GL's: FOCUS, PowerBuilder, DataEase (anyone remember that?), then Paradox, DBIV/Clipper, then C, VB1 (client just -had- to use it), then VBII, III, Delphi, VB6.
Lived in SQL Server from when it was hard to differentiate from Sybase / OS/2. Did anyone ever have the problem that if you unplugged the monitor on an Sybase / OS/2 machine the whole box would crash?
In the mid-90's, the saving grace for us with VBIII / SQL Server was a small, self-published (at the time) book, Hitchhiker's guide to SQL Server, by Bill Vaughn. Actually went to dinner once with the guy- He flew helicopters in Vietnam on SAR missions... give him a couple of drinks and he'll tell some -very- interesting stories.
Three very cool years 2003-2005 creating games using Torque and GameStudio to host educational content (an FPS, hosting .avi's instead of shooting), then the C# .Net world on the desktop and the web. A little Python and Pearl thrown in for fun.
I'm lucky that I'm the go-to guy for weird requests. Keeps the job interesting.
I cannot think of a better way for this group to hurt their cause and garner the animosity of much of the world. It seems to endlessly repeat throughout history- groups with an axe to grind (whether in power or rebelling against it) use blunt force to try and further their cause. They're either too lazy or not competent enough to use a scalpel so they blow up the patient to get rid of a tumor. After the majority of the populace then turns against them, they're either shocked or self-righteously indignant that everyone else doesn't "get it". It never ends.
That could be true, but I believe it to be unlikely in this case.
It's easier to benefit from a false-flag attack by just doing it- denials don't carry as much weight in an emotional, post-attack context. When forewarning is given for a false-flag, you give the accused a chance to back away and say "it's not us" before an event, lodging enough doubt that the size of the crowd with torches and pitchforks isn't as big afterwards... I think this would be counter-productive for the guys staging the false-flag attack.
Looking at your idea from a different angle: I guess it could be useful for an opposing group to make the threat, in order to make Anonymous look impotent if it's not carried out, while the opposing group takes credit for "stopping" it.
Who knows... -We- surely don't. I feel like I'm outlining a plot for a Tom Clancy novel.
"Slander" is a strong word, and most of the folks around here are not idiots- You are not helping your case slinging that accusation around. Tell us exactly what verbage you believe is "slander".
Well, no. They suggest that the camera shake wasn't added in after the fact with postprocessing of an existing image -- or at least that the image was fairly high-res and blur was also added after the fact. He doesn't rule out that the whole video wasn't computer-generated, nor that the dude was running into a greenscreen, nor for that matter a green cable that was digitally altered out, or anything like that. Some of these would venture into "faked" as opposed to CGI -- a cable which did not need to be shopped out might be an example, although whether you could have a nice construction crane nearby to operate it would be a worthwhile question, since the video doesn't give it much place to hide and the larger it is the more dangerous it would be to hang someone off of it and then move it from point A to point B.
There is a very real possibility that the wing was pulled by a cable. The kite adapted is actually one of those ones you usually pull behind a boat and which glides you up into the air.
That's also something I haven't considered. Whether or not this was really done, if you wanted to create the same effect by faking it, you could do it at least in part by doing two different "takes" -- one where you pull the guy from the front and view with a camera behind him, and another where you pull the guy up from behind and view with the camera on his head. There is a blurry whitish splotch when he first gets air which could be a tree in the distance, but if you wanted to fake it, that could be a way to disguise the cable.
This would give a plausible way to fake the first and the last scenes, where you see the man from behind, as well as the "in the air" scenes where you just see from his perspective: you could in principle put him in a boom lift vehicle -- perhaps suspended from it or perhaps even just sitting in it -- and the image would look very similar.
The side-view shot would be much more difficult to fake.
Whether you are the original poster or not, you're not a troll, you're a sociopath emboldened by anonymity.
Cloak yourself in some idealistic mission if it makes you feel good- but your mission isn't to make the point that "people around here need to be a lot more skeptical"- You're a sociopath that enjoys kicking a hornet's nest just to watch the reaction.
