SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
This thought provoking and somewhat frightening article in Vanity Fair describes the state of play of technology which has the potential to warp our world-view far beyond anything before.
At corporations and universities across the country, incipient technologies appear likely to soon obliterate the line between real and fake. Or, in the simplest of terms, advancements in audio and video technology are becoming so sophisticated that they will be able to replicate real news—real TV broadcasts, for instance, or radio interviews—in unprecedented, and truly indecipherable, ways. One research paper published last year by professors at Stanford University and the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg demonstrated how technologists can record video of someone talking and then change their facial expressions in real time. The professors' technology could take a news clip of, say, Vladimir Putin, and alter his facial expressions in real time in hard-to-detect ways. In fact, in this video demonstrating the technology, the researchers show how they did manipulate Putin's facial expressions and responses, among those of other people, too.
This is eerie, to say the least. But it's only one part of the future fake-news menace. Other similar technologies have been in the works in universities and research labs for years, but they have never really pulled off what computers can do today. Take for example "The Digital Emily Project," a study in which researchers created digital actors that could be used in lieu of real people. For the past several years, the results have been crude and easily detectable as digital re-creations. But technologies that are now used by Hollywood and the video-game industry have largely rendered digital avatars almost indecipherable from real people. (Go and watch the latest Star Wars to see if you can tell which actors are real and which are computer-generated. I bet you can't tell the difference.) You could imagine some political group utilizing that technology to create a fake hidden video clip of President Trump telling Rex Tillerson that he plans to drop a nuclear bomb on China. The velocity with which news clips spread across social media would also mean that the administration would have frightfully little time to respond before a fake-news story turned into an international crisis.
Audio advancements may be just as harrowing. At its annual developer's conference, in November, Adobe showed off a new product that has been nicknamed "Photoshop for audio." The product allows users to feed about ten to 20 minutes of someone's voice into the application and then allows them to type words that are expressed in that exact voice. The resultant voice, which is comprised of the person's phonemes, or the distinct units of sound that distinguish one word from another in each language, doesn't sound even remotely computer-generated or made up. It sounds real. This sort of technology could facilitate the ability to feed one of Trump's interviews or stump speeches into the application, and then type sentences or paragraphs in his spoken voice. You could very easily imagine someone creating fake audio of Trump explaining how he dislikes Mike Pence, or how he lied about his taxes, or that he did indeed enjoy that alleged "golden shower" in the Russian hotel suite. Then you could circulate that audio around the Internet as a comment that was overheard on a hot microphone. Worse, you could imagine a scenario in which someone uses Trump's voice to call another world leader and threaten some sort of violent action. And perhaps worst of all, as the quality of imitation gets better and better, it will become increasingly difficult to discern between what is real behavior and what isn't.
Regardless of what ideology you subscribe to, what politician you support, what media source you visit; you fundamentally must be able to trust the information you see. If there is no way, barring forensic analysis, to tell truth or falsehood, how can we know anything? Plausible lies could literally be the end of the world.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:55AM
Fake News
Stopped reading right there.
I define "Fake News" as anything that even mentions "Fake News."
Nice try CNN!
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:16AM
I define "Fake News" as anything that even mentions "Fake News."
By that logic you are (fake news)²
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday January 31 2017, @09:25AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:06PM
Awesome! I know this one.
We just need to ask the GP how the other news reporter would report the story and we'll know to choose the opposite door.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Kilo110 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:41AM
Your loss. It's an interesting read on the future of forged digital media.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:05AM
Perhaps people will begin to exercise their critical thinking abilities in an attempt to not be played for fools. Also, perhaps they will learn some patience instead of going off half cocked only to find out they acted like complete tools railing on about something that didn't even happen.
Don't forget, one of the signs of a decent human being is being able to admit when you're wrong and show some humility. Like me! I'm the most humble person on this damned site! You'll never catch me saying a cross word to anyone!! Saint Zz9zZ they'll call me, Overseer of trans dimensional sleep.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:26AM
Perhaps people will begin to exercise their critical thinking abilities in an attempt to not be played for fools.
Sorry, but no. This tech eliminates the one sure way to counter credulity - by actually checking the source.
With this you can't distinguish the photoshopped pic from the original pic.
Unless you personally witnessed an event you will have no way to know what really happened.
Well, I think we'll see an arms race of fakery tech and fakery-detection tech - looking for telltale artifacts that aren't visible to the human eye (or ear). But the end result will be undetectable fakery.
I think the best we can hope for are recording tools that compute hmacs for the media and then stick the hmacs into a public blockchain. That way you can at least determine which version was first (or first entered the blockchain). It still won't mean the first version wasn't tampered with though.
(Score: 2) by fishybell on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:33AM
For now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 01 2017, @09:56PM
Can't discern photoshopped pic from real pic... well think about it, how do you discern them now by "going to the source?" Just make a gut decision on the source's trustworthiness? Why can't people just learn to train this faculty to be quicker?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @05:39PM
Perhaps people will begin to exercise their critical thinking abilities in an attempt to not be played for fools.
And how, pray tell, will they do that? Let's take a simple example.
A 8-year old child is told Santa Claus exists. All of his parents say it is true, his siblings say it is true, the media says it is true, even the Government has a website dedicated to tracking where Santa is. Every year around Christmas, the city breaks out in celebration of Santa's coming, he meets Santa at the local shopping mall, and the presents he asked for appear under the Christmas tree on December 25.
How in the world is this child supposed to know that Santa isn't a real person?
"Okay, the 8-year old should know the physics behind needing to travel at the speed Santa is supposed to travel at, is supposed to know the value of money and how rich Santa would be, the industrial processes of making goods and how hard it would be to make all this stuff, etc." Sure...
How about if you are shown a video supposedly of American gunships shooting down civilians in Iraq. How are you to judge whether or not it is a real video or a fake one? "Well, you should be an expert on video bandwidth, the equipment soldiers carry, how they typically communicate, the impacts of light refraction on video, Islamic practice and custom around the time of the shooting, etc." Sure...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:08AM
See, this is where the conclusion starts to go wrong. To learn anything, you must fundamentally distrust all information you see and hear. Even the most honest source imaginable may be honestly mistaken about something.
There is a real way, though, to sort through it:
1. Apply Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit.
2. Avoid speculating beyond that which has been reported from multiple angles, ideally with videos or hard evidence.
3. Be more consciously skeptical of those with biases you agree with than biases you don't. So, for example, Republicans should be particularly wary of claims they hear from Fox News or the Wall Street Journal, while Democrats should be particularly wary of claims from MSNBC or the Washington Post, Libertarians should be wary of Reason magazine and the Cato Institute, and so forth. Your natural tendency will be to be less skeptical of sources you agree with, so you need to consciously counter that.
4. "I don't know" is always an acceptable answer when you don't really know.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 3, Insightful) by driven on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:47AM
This is all fine, but as time marches on we all need to continue to live and make decisions in real time. If you distrust almost all of what you hear, what information do you base your decisions on? How do you feel about certain issues, especially issues that happen too far away for facts to be independently verified by yourself or people you know?
When you can't trust anything, you get people making snap judgements about this person or that group of people or that country, and so on. This is not heading in a good direction.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:51AM
Or you get people who withhold judgement.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Tuesday January 31 2017, @05:48AM
Withholding judgment is a rare skill.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @05:43AM
It's not just about dis-trusting sources that have biases that match yours.
Its more about dis-trusting stories that really, really confirm your biases.
Like pizzagate - those people hate hillary so fucking much that they literally wanted to believe she was part of a child molestation ring and were willing to completely suspend all disbelief because they wanted it so, so bad to be true.
Don't do that.
If fox news says something mildly positive about trump, its probably true. If fox news says something about some miracle trump pulled off, probably not really the whole story...
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday January 31 2017, @12:42PM
The equivalent stories to pizzagate on the other side of the political aisle: (A) Donald Trump is some kind of Manchurian Candidate completely under the control of Vladimir Putin, and (B) The Russians changed the vote totals to ensure that Trump won.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Some call me Tim on Tuesday January 31 2017, @05:53AM
Why must you make decisions in real time? Why can't you wait a week for the real story to come out and make your decision then? This is the real problem with internet "news". News site makes fantastic claim, everyone twitfacebooks it as the truth never ending and it turns out to be total crap later. Sadly it's too late and the damage is done. No one believes anything and the wharblegarble fest continues. There are too many idiots and not enough Darwin to even things out.
Questioning science is how you do science!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @05:07AM
Where can I obtain this wonderous item? Sounds very useful.
(Score: 2) by BsAtHome on Tuesday January 31 2017, @05:57AM
Search the web or go to the library? It seems that the most obvious and direct way is the most difficult, confirming the lack of critical thinking in the first place.
(Score: 5, Informative) by stormwyrm on Tuesday January 31 2017, @06:43AM
See The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark [wikipedia.org] by Carl Sagan (1995). ISBN 0-345-40946-9. An excellent book and required reading for everyone. This is the Baloney Detection Kit [fu-berlin.de], which appears as Chapter 12 of the book.
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:44PM
From that text:
Wait, isn't Aristarchus a regular poster here? That would be a good use of his journal! ;-)
(Score: 2, Informative) by aristarchus on Wednesday February 01 2017, @02:00AM
Yes, except there are "reasons". First, Sophocles wrote plays. Second, Democritus is actually dead. Third, two parts: The best philosophers, like Socrates, never write anything down; and I forgot what was in my lost books. That is why they are lost.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @07:14PM
Knowledge is power. France is bacon.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Justin Case on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:06PM
you fundamentally must be able to trust the information you see.
Why start now?
how can we know anything?
We can't. Deal with it.
The search for absolute Truth has always seemed to me to be a religious thing. In a world of chaos, $BOOK has the infallible answer.
But this recently-emerging term "fake news" seems to me, well, fake. You don't put a qualifier in front of something unless you want to distinguish it from the rest of the group. The fact that we say "red light" implies that there are other possible colors of light, else we would just call it "light".
So... "fake news" suggests that there exists somewhere any other kind of news. Not in my personal experience. Every newsworthy event I've experienced in person has been grossly misreported. As just one example, I was at a political event that drew I would guess about 10 thousand people and flooded several downtown streets from curb to curb.* The newspaper the next day had a front page photo of a mom and her 3 kids at the event. 100% true, but totally misrepresented the size of the gathering.
News, almost by definition, describes the deviations from reality. You don't get a million stories per day "Bob Smith safely drove to work today." But you get the one story "family drives off bridge into freezing lake". This distorts your perception of what's happening and the risks you face.
News is crap and reporters are professional liars who talk as if we are all idiots. Not only that, but virtually all of them have a strong, thinly veiled political slant to everything they say.
* It was a long time ago and it doesn't really matter what we were protesting.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by cubancigar11 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:18PM
Lets put this into a doctrine - All news is paid for.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 01 2017, @02:05AM
- All news is paid for.
Oh, you little Cuban Cheroot! You are a mercenary! How can you give away such fake news for free? HUH!! Who's paying you, you astroturfing shill for powers that prefer to stay in the dark? How much did they pay you to say this about news? Huh? Thirty pieces of bitcoin, eh? Is that all your soul is worth? Have you no decency, Sir? At long last, have you no decency?
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by cubancigar11 on Friday February 03 2017, @05:50PM
Off-topic :D Finally my karma took 1 hit.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:23PM
What's been notable is that when you hear people talking about "fake news" on the TV or in newspapers, what they are talking about isn't demonstrably false and misleading stories finding their way onto the front page of the New York Times, but small scale news outlets. So the push about "Don't read fake news" isn't about whether those sites are reporting true or false information at all, it's about major industry players trying to cut down on the competition.
I'm not sure all reporters are professional liars. I'm reasonably certain at least some of them are professional dupes who are fed all sorts of "creative" information by professional liars. The overwhelming desire of reporters is to get "the story" out as quickly as possible, rather than to do the much slower work of figuring out whether the story is true or analyzing the effects of whatever is being reported.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday January 31 2017, @07:39PM
No, those aren't reporters. Reporters are the people who go on scene and report...and while to call them "professional liars" may be overstating the case, it's not doing it by much. In every case I've witnessed they carefully collect only the "interesting" angles on the story. So that's the first level of editing. Then they take it back to the shop and summarize it, cutting out the parts that are "less interesting". These stories are then presented to the editors (their bosses) who decide how much of which story can be used, and what of the remaining needs to be cut. And they do this largely based on maintaining "interest".
And in NONE of these steps is the main concern telling a complete version of the story. It can't be. And when they are deciding "what's interesting" their biases are being imposed. They cut out parts that look "ugly" or "unattractive". They "tighten the narrative"...in fact they construct the narrative by deciding what the story-line is. Was this fire about the little girl who got out with her puppy, or is it about the insurance inspectors report being ignored, or was it about dangerously overloaded electrical fixtures or... but notice that ALL of those are a part of the same event, event though they are separate stories. And sometimes they thing the story should have a political slant, but this doesn't mean their story isn't about something that happened, it may well not be a lie, exactly, but merely a microscope focused on something that would otherwise be minor.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday January 31 2017, @06:51PM
So... "fake news" suggests that there exists somewhere any other kind of news.
There is. Even Fox does basic fact checking.
Definition of fake
: counterfeit, sham
As in, it's meant to look like news but its completely factually wrong and the author knows it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:37PM
Why should I trust that?
Well, can I have a different-angled view of that recommendation, please? With hard evidence?
I guess I should be extremely sceptical of this one.
Is it? I don't know.
(Score: 2) by hellcat on Tuesday January 31 2017, @09:26PM
Your references are excellent. Thank you.
Even Carl is a bit guilty. It took more than a little digging to get close to the reference he used for Francis Bacon's work to find the correct passage (#49). I didn't find the exact translation, however, and so Carl becomes complicit in the tendency towards losing trust.
I would like to suggest that there is truly, no such thing as "news." Information can be considered new, and hence news, but until it is old and corroborated and tested, it should be on probation.
Today's talking heads don't even provide information, but tell stories. Very different. No corroboration needed. It only serves to help me feel, alive.
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:32AM
(Score: 2) by martyb on Tuesday January 31 2017, @11:17PM
Perhaps, but as that did not come out until November 2002, I'd advocate for Adam Selene, a character from The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress [wikipedia.org] By Robert Heinlein which was "originally serialized in Worlds of If (December 1965, January, February, March, April 1966)" before being combined into a single book.
Adam Selene was a persona put forth by the sentient computer (Mike) which ran operations on the moon. IIRC, "Adam" made several audio broadcasts during the course of the story. I'm pretty sure (but not entirely certain) that Mike constructed video broadcasts as well. (Can any Soylentil confirm?)
I have been waiting ever since I first read it, for technology to advance to the point where it would be possible to create an entirely digital persona. With the advances outlined in this article, I sense we are there, or at least at the cusp of this becoming true.
So, how much audio (and video) have you sent to Amazon, Google, or Apple (among others) that they have dutifully saved away? I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to consider what kind of dystopian future that would enable. How can you prove that you did not say something? Especially when there is an audio and/or video recording of you doing exactly that?
Wit is intellect, dancing. I'm too old to act my age. Life is too important to take myself seriously.
(Score: 1) by daver!west!fmc on Tuesday January 31 2017, @05:15AM
"My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes." No imitation needed, just a moment of inspiration in the mind of the President, during a sound check.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Some call me Tim on Tuesday January 31 2017, @05:39AM
The amazing thing is that this scared the crap out of the Russians and they backed down. If it works, use it! On another note, we have to build a wall before we can tear it down. America has got to proclaim it's sovereignty and tell other nations that our border is not an open door. We can't support everyone that wants to come here, I for one can't afford it and I don't want to pay for it. Obama was happy to bring in everyone except Christians that were being slaughtered at an alarming rate. He was happy to support regimes that threw suspected gays from rooftops and treated women like cattle. Where is the outrage for this? Nothing but silence from the American Left.
Questioning science is how you do science!
(Score: 3, Touché) by butthurt on Tuesday January 31 2017, @06:52AM
> Obama was happy to bring in everyone except Christians that were being slaughtered at an alarming rate.
I don't know about that, but I've heard that more people were deported during Mr. Obama's presidency than during the term of any other president.
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-deported-record-number-immigrants-trump-claim-article-1.2774180 [nydailynews.com]
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story?id=41715661 [go.com]
http://www.snopes.com/obama-deported-more-people/ [snopes.com]
> He was happy to support regimes that threw suspected gays from rooftops and treated women like cattle.
I've heard that Saudi Arabia is the only country where women aren't allowed to drive.
There,
Homosexuality is punishable by flogging, lengthy prison terms or death [...]
-- http://www.executedtoday.com/2011/03/13/2005-a-gay-couple-in-saudi-arabia/ [executedtoday.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia [wikipedia.org]
The country enjoyed friendly relations with the United States under Mr. Obama and his predecessors. We'll see whether it continues doing so under Mr. Trump, who appears to have investments there:
President-elect Donald Trump registered eight companies during his presidential campaign that appear to be tied to hotel interests in Saudi Arabia, according to a report [washingtonpost.com] in The Washington Post.
-- http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/306990-trump-appeared-to-register-eight-companies-in-saudi-arabia [thehill.com]
So far, so good: Saudi Arabia was omitted from the list of countries from which Mr. Trump wants to halt immigration.
http://www.businessinsider.com/trumps-muslim-ban-saudi-arabia-911-2017-1?op=1 [businessinsider.com]
(Score: 5, Funny) by butthurt on Tuesday January 31 2017, @05:46AM
We already had a story about the Adobe software, in November.
"Adobe Voco 'Photoshop-for-Voice' Causes Concern [soylentnews.org]"
(Score: 2) by Some call me Tim on Tuesday January 31 2017, @05:57AM
OK, I gave you a funny because F$ck Adobe. ;-)
Questioning science is how you do science!
(Score: 1) by charon on Tuesday January 31 2017, @06:21AM
(Score: 1) by charon on Tuesday January 31 2017, @06:43AM
There are people who write lies: we call them fiction authors. There are people who make moving picture lies: we call them actors. It is, in fact, high praise when an author's work is so real it's uncanny; when an actor appears to be inhabiting her role. We find the Onion and similar parody news outlets hilarious when they report ridiculous events as factual. It's evident that we humans enjoy and reward such endeavors.
While I was reading the article, it occurred to me that this is really an old problem dressed up in new clothing. Of course anyone can write anything. Anyone can say anything on camera. How have people built their crap-filters to tell the difference between truth and fact? Can they build them stronger? Alternately, how many people never have built them at all, and how can they be induced to do so?
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday January 31 2017, @09:35AM
Consider Andy Sirtis' motion capture for Golum? I think in the first film it wasn't possible for Jackson to see Golum "live" as the motion capture was being done, but certainly by the later films it was. This is pretty much the same tech. Of course, golum was full body, there's no reason why this technology shouldn't soon be able to expand into shoulder shrugs and other gestural components.
Aside, did anyone think that in the video, the very final comparison of their work with Thies' prior work, their mouth looked worse, despite their insistence that Thies' had a less believable mouth?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @09:09AM
Acquire multiple sources and calculate an average.
(Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @05:18PM
The problem with that is that people deliberately game the system by advancing extreme positions.
It is even a well-known negotiating tactic. You ask for the moon, but then settle on something that hopefully approximates what you really want.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @06:27PM
You would have to weigh the sources. You cannot give weight of 1.0 to every stupid "news" site.
I learned long ago when contemplating selling a WoW account how shit on the internet works. I checked out dozen account selling sites and realized ALL of them were linked to the same database.... I contacted support of one of the sites and he reluctantly admitted that was the case. If I wanted to sell my account I would have to deal with them or good luck.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:01PM
Why do we need new terms for propaganda and advertising? "fake news" is in and of itself fake news a Propaganda term
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:29PM
My prediction about the death of soundbite journalism is it'll eventually break down by IQ.
Higher IQ groups will look at the actual issues and elections will mostly be along various party lines, the real election is designing the platform positions in the summer not the count in November, at least for prez elections.
Medium IQ groups will stick to holiness signalling spirals on social media in public and "voting their wallet" in private, elections are mostly an economic report.
Low IQ groups will continue the world wide practice of identity politics, elections are merely a census.
As usual there will be some limited crossover for random individuals.
Its pretty much the same as the old social class structure saying about what people talk about, which more or less maps to IQ anyway.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:48PM
You must not know many rich people.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:57PM
Wealth is yet another third hierarchy.
Someone like, I donno, a priest or bishop isn't very wealthy (ahem officially) but certainly high status.
Or going the other way I expect the average room temp IQ pro athlete or hollywood actor to vote purely along identity politics lines regardless how many Porsche he owns or how many times he appears on TV.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:38PM
which more or less maps to IQ anyway.
And just what do you think IQ is, besides pseudoscience?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @05:02PM
Its pretty much the same as the old social class structure saying about what people talk about, which more or less maps to IQ anyway.
What "saying" are your referring to? Because I think you are full of bullshit.
Social class does not map to IQ. It maps to luck - mostly birth lottery.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @05:43PM
Repeat after me, "eugenics is bad science".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 01 2017, @02:11AM
"eugenics is bad science"
Okay, now what?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 01 2017, @08:33PM
Keep repeating until you understand why you're saying it.
(Score: 2) by iWantToKeepAnon on Tuesday January 31 2017, @05:25PM
"Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -- Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
(Score: 2) by donkeyhotay on Tuesday January 31 2017, @08:31PM
I recall an episode of "Max Headroom" where video had been expertly faked creating a crisis. And now, we're "15 minutes into the future."
Ah well. I already don't trust most of what I see or hear. I guess we just need to get everyone else on the bandwagon.