Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Putin on the Ritz

hackerfactor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 92 posts

Re: Putin on the Ritz

#81

Post by coldtea »

the_french wrote: post #49
coldtea wrote: post #47

> Kim Jong Il rarely appeared in digitally altered photos. Instead, he did a different type of misdirection. In almost every photo of him, KJI wore the same clothing. It's as if he only owned one set of clothing (or a closet full of the same discount gray suits). This wasn't because KJI had no taste. Instead, it allowed his counter-intelligence people to publish any photo of him over the decades as if it were a recen…

As the author said "counter-intelligence". It allows Kim to post pictures of him visiting a factory in one city when he is really at a completely different one. The less any one knows with certitude about him the safer he is.

OK, this makes more sense I guess.

Re: Putin on the Ritz

#82

Post by coldtea »

the_french wrote: post #49
coldtea wrote: post #47

> Kim Jong Il rarely appeared in digitally altered photos. Instead, he did a different type of misdirection. In almost every photo of him, KJI wore the same clothing. It's as if he only owned one set of clothing (or a closet full of the same discount gray suits). This wasn't because KJI had no taste. Instead, it allowed his counter-intelligence people to publish any photo of him over the decades as if it were a recen…

As the author said "counter-intelligence". It allows Kim to post pictures of him visiting a factory in one city when he is really at a completely different one. The less any one knows with certitude about him the safer he is.

OK, this makes more sense I guess. Or, you know, he just likes the outfit. After all it worked for Steve Jobs.

Re: Putin on the Ritz

#83

Post by coldtea »

aaronem wrote: post #68
t59769 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am skeptical of anyone using the expression "conspiracy theory nonsense" so casually.

I can't think why. Almost all conspiracy theory is compounded of excess credulity, overactive pattern-matching, and reheated leftover California counter-culture convictions regarding the so-called "Establishment".

The first part might be true for the Aliens/Elvis Alive/Illuminati kind of conspiracy theories.

But conspiracies happen all the time, and expecting them is not a "theory", it's a fact of politics and government, since before there was Machiavelli.

Everytime a government decision is taken behind closed doors for things that affect politics/the public/etc, it's a conspiracy.

It can be as simple as a few party heads deciding on who to push for the presidency (outside official party prodecures). Or a company paying a politician to pass some favorable law.

Or some public prosecutor trying to get some black kid thrown in jail, because he is convinced it's guilty, and not hesitating to supress witness and withold evidence (as has happened thousands of times).

Or it can be the head of FBI secretly keeping tabs on politicians and blackmailing them or giving tidbits to the press for those he didn't like. Like this Hoover guy.

It can be the President of the United States ordering people to break in the headquarters of the opposition party or eavesdrop on them. You know, like this Nixon guy.

It's idiotic to think conspiracies do not exist, or that "counter-culture convictions regarding the so-called "Establishment" were somehow proven wrong.

If anything, the whole Snowden affair proves otherwise. As if we needed such a thing.

People living in countries with actual heated political history, even places like Spain or Italy, know all about state conspiracies, including murder of dissidents (tons of them taken to court and proved from later, freeer, governments). Case in point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio

It's only apolitical people living work-to-home and back everyday lives, and only getting their information from mainstream news that can claim that conspiracies don't exist. Open a history book -- preferably one that's not about the Civil War but modern history, and you'll find aplenty.

Re: Putin on the Ritz

#84

Post by jff »

laumars wrote: post #79
aaronem wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still surprised, when I bother to think about it, that no eager beaver has come up with the idea that perhaps the US did land on the moon, but only thanks to alien technology reverse-engineered from the remains of 1947 Roswell crash.

I can't speak for your specific example, but there are some theories that equate the massive technology leap we had in the 50s->present day has been due to reverse engineered alien technology. In fact Star Trek: Voyager did a two part episode that used this conspiracy theory as part of the main story line.

I think I remember that episode.

I suppose "aliens" are a much more attractive explanation than "government-funded wartime R&D centers plus post-war prosperity plus Cold War arms race equals massive scientific advancement"

Re: Putin on the Ritz

#85

Post by malandrew »

Shivetya wrote: post #70
aleyan wrote: post #33

Trust is something hard to come by and when dealing with foreign sources you have to rely on translators and their issues. What is worse, even if the translators are reliable, alterations can be made after the fact, but verification is difficult because of language barriers. Here is an example that my father found about Putin's person of the year interview with Time. Time published a full transcript [1] in English an…

Truth is hard come by with non foreign sources as well, we just comfort ourselves by thinking its foreigners who seek to deceive us.

This is why I really like the points Glenn Greenwald made in his debate with Bill Keller from the NYTimes. His meta point was that there is no such thing as being objective in reporting and any attempts to be objective just functions to obfuscate the bias that is unavoidable. At least when sources are openly biased and wear that bias on their sleeve, it becomes much easier to separate fact from opinion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/28/opinion/a-conversation-in-...

Re: Putin on the Ritz

#86

Post by mathattack »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #58
mathattack wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes - if anything the internet makes it easier to keep alternatives to the official fictions alive.

But in this case, how can you trust the alternatives more? You might find yourself in the situation, where there is no true story left, there are only fictions pushing different agendas.

Indeed. Hard to tell the nutcases from the truth tellers. Perhaps this is why some folks don't bother to refute the outrageous tales against them.

Re: Putin on the Ritz

#87

Post by tormeh »

manimalcruelty wrote: post #17
seren wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the further back we go in time, the less independent reporter we can find. For example, how much can you trust Caesar's account of its campaign in Gaul ?

...and that brings us to The Holy Bible.

We know the Bible has been edited multiple times and disagreeable stuff chopped off. I also hear it isn't even internally logically coherent. Of course it's not reliable, but it's some of the best stuff we have from that time period.

Re: Putin on the Ritz

#88

Post by rmc »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #41
rmc wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We could rewrite the history for next generation and no one would likely notice it. Nearly all tellings of history have a bias, and people nearly always mistell history, espeically history about their tribe/country/ethnicity/country. This is nothing new.

They say history is written by the winners of wars.

Counter-examples: The Vikings. Most of the history of the Viking was by Christian monks in England and the like, who were the victims of the Vikings.

Re: Putin on the Ritz

#89

Post by aaronem »

coldtea wrote: post #83
aaronem wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't think why. Almost all conspiracy theory is compounded of excess credulity, overactive pattern-matching, and reheated leftover California counter-culture convictions regarding the so-called "Establishment".

The first part might be true for the Aliens/Elvis Alive/Illuminati kind of conspiracy theories. But conspiracies happen all the time, and expecting them is not a "theory", it's a fact of politics and government, since before there was Machiavelli. Everytime a government decision is taken behind closed doors for things that affect politics/the public/etc, it's a conspiracy. It can be as simple as a few party heads dec…

Oh, conspiracies, sure. You'd think that something called "conspiracy theory" would have more to do with them, wouldn't you? But the sort of person who, when presented with a big list of interests, would briefly consider checking the "conspiracy theory" box and then not just refrain from doing so in case the Men in Black might notice, but actually feel himself quite wise and clever for having entertained this train of thought, tends to be the sort of person who finds things which actually ever happen rather dull.

Re: Putin on the Ritz

#90

Post by sitkack »

coldtea wrote: post #80
GotAnyMegadeth wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you were ill and worried that a political rival might take the chance to over throw you, you could publish photos of you looking fine, doing dictator stuff, and they'd never know...

But actual people in your circles (including rivals) WOULD know. They don't get their information from pictures, the masses do that.

Depends on how tight the circles are and the compartmentalization. I would assume dictator dudes have multiple overlapping inner circles that compete with each other. Geodesic thought crime.
Post reply on HN