Newfie wrote:It’s a pretty sad state of affairs.
KaiserJeep wrote:Newfie wrote:It’s a pretty sad state of affairs.
I am kind of curious to understand what you meant by that.
The Internet never has been usable as a source of unbiased or dependable information. The nature of it means that it never can be such. If you choose to use the network as your only source of information, you are choosing to deceive yourself.
I get the impression that many people don't actually understand the nature of a client/server network, and probably would rather not think about the implications when the owners of the servers edit content to serve an agenda of their own.
But my point is there are no truly trusted sources anywhere. Not on the Internet. Never.
Outcast_Searcher wrote:KaiserJeep wrote:If your only references are online sources, you are lost already. This Forum uses as a standard for credibility, "can you provide a verifiable link". That is entirely inadequate when the information is so mutable.
This pliability of the internet has always bothered me. We need objectivity.
I would object slightly, that the standard is generally "can you provide a CREDIBLE link?". For example, doomers are often criticized by non-doomers for acting like a random doomer blog is credible. Credible links will at least come from a credible source, and there should generally get some confirmation from some other credible sources. (You don't see major papers printing National Enquirer stuff as valid news stories).
But of course, if "they" are "in on it", then many key links can be changed, and the data can be gummed up.
OTOH, our understanding of the world changes over time, with science even changing our understanding of some historical events, for example. So just because it is in an old offline source doesn't make it gospel. It's more subtle than that.
Maybe libraries could be a good answer re archives, but whoops -- they're going digital, and digital versions of pretty much everything can be changed, so there's that.
Rep Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) “We don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be a brown voice. We don’t need black faces that don’t want to be a black voice. We don’t need Muslims that don’t want to be a Muslim voice. We don’t need queers that don’t want to be a queer voice”
lpetrich wrote:...He needs to be impeached.....
Cog wrote:In one day of Trump tweeting, he has sucessfuly trolled the Democrat leadership into supporting these four communist anti-Semites in their party. It was a thing of beauty to behold, second only to the beauty of watching Trump curb stomp Hillary on election night.
British Prime Minister Theresa May called President Trump's tweets about the group of mostly American-born Democratic congresswomen "completely unacceptable." The prime minister's spokesman said Monday that in May's opinion, "the language used to refer to these women was completely unacceptable."
Cog wrote:May is an idiot and on her way out of power.
These four communists are going to set the Democrat party on fire and I'm breaking out the marshmallows.
Sorry your girl lost.
lpetrich wrote: Dwight Eisenhower was a Communist, as the founder of the John Birch Society had apparently believed......
As if Hillary Clinton was the liberal Donald Trump. Dream on.
KaiserJeep wrote:Sorry to break it to you, but blockchain is a dead end technology. I say this from the perspective of a computer professional with 34 years in the industry. The computing resources needed to confirm blockchains are not compatible with sub-microsecond transaction rates.
In case nobody ever shared this with you, what digital currencies are really all about is paying for illegal substances and services with a secure online currency that is not easily traceable by the law enforcement agencies. This is being done in the furtherence of crime, and not in the name of freedom as the published literature would have you believe. No, they are not one and the same.
As for the accuracy of the information in a repository, the only thing that blockchain tech provides in this application is an assurance that the information downloaded is the same as what was originally created. IOW, that you got the actual original content.
There is no assurance that the original content is correct, complete, or appropriate. I am an amatuer historian with multiple published articles on the late 17th and early 18th century whaling industry. As such I had to learn the reason that a distinction is made between "history" (defined as information 100+ years old) and "current events" (defined as more recent events that still exist in the memories of those that experienced them). WW1 is history, WW2 is current events. History is recorded after a long and scholarly debate and the comparison of as many sources as possible. Even with these criteria, certain areas of the past are not settled - the best example I can think of being the US Civil War. Debate is lively and ongoing, and the history is still unsettled when it comes to those momentous events.
Return to North America Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests