Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   British news network Sky News realizes that, in retrospect, maybe, just maybe, having a reporter rifle through the luggage of a flight MH17 victim live on the air, wasn't in the best possible taste. Fortunately "a" dildo was not among the contents   (rawstory.com) divider line 95
    More: Sick  
•       •       •

9276 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Jul 2014 at 5:28 AM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



95 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-21 08:40:25 AM  
I make my living off the evening news
Just give me something
Something I can use
People love it when you lose
They love dirty laundry
 
2014-07-21 08:44:40 AM  

Delta1212: Murder or Murdoch, which is the worse crime?

/legitimate question


That's easy. Murdoch.

You only suffer through getting murdered, once.
 
2014-07-21 08:50:09 AM  

smed7: so...did they find a dildo? or not?, I'm confused...

/dnrtfa


Yes.
 
2014-07-21 08:53:14 AM  

doglover: StreetlightInTheGhetto: Shadi: I don't get it. They're dead, so what if you rifle through their stuff? You can see something similar on a popular tv show called "storage wars".

Their families are still alive you ass.


If I die, and my stuff is intact, I'd much rather someone unofficial pick it up on TV than let it sit there in the elements and get ruined. It seems silly to me that they'll wet their pants about the bodies but not the possessions.

I have some swank gadgets and some neat curios. In the event of my untimely death I'd much rather ANYONE have them than they be thrown out.


I see your logic but I have to wonder if anyone on that flight had a smartphone with an email app on it with saved passwords for auto-login. Couple that with credit cards, those terrorists (they are not rebels, they are not separatists, they are murderers) could very easily gain access to bank accounts. Sure, the deceased don't need the money any more but the families are entitled to it.
 
2014-07-21 08:58:14 AM  

dookdookdook: I assumed the headline meant they found "many" dildos.


That's what I was thinking lol

'Oh crap, yeah these shouldn't be shown to the viewers'
 
2014-07-21 08:58:39 AM  
i242.photobucket.com
 
2014-07-21 08:59:56 AM  

Deep Contact: I make my living off the evening news
Just give me something
Something I can use
People love it when you lose
They love dirty laundry


Goddmamnit, I finally got that out of my head and here you go
 
2014-07-21 09:03:33 AM  

italie: August11: I was on a 747 from SFO to NYC in 1998. It suffered a slight but fully disturbing mishap.

You had the fish?


Ha! No actually we lost an engine while landing, the pilot overcorrected, the starboard engine and wing tip smashed into the tarmac, blew a tire (loud!), lost all power (so dark), and were towed to the gate.

It was not reported in the news, or at least nationally.
 
2014-07-21 09:32:04 AM  

August11: italie: August11: I was on a 747 from SFO to NYC in 1998. It suffered a slight but fully disturbing mishap.

You had the fish?

Ha! No actually we lost an engine while landing, the pilot overcorrected, the starboard engine and wing tip smashed into the tarmac, blew a tire (loud!), lost all power (so dark), and were towed to the gate.

It was not reported in the news, or at least nationally.


So, a good landing then.
 
2014-07-21 09:38:40 AM  

thisisyourbrainonFark: dookdookdook: I assumed the headline meant they found "many" dildos.

Same thought. I don't know if I can remember a clusterfark of these proportions.

Occam's Razor: Russia "lent," or the rebels seized, a missile system of this caliber, and whoever fired mistakenly thought this was a Ukrainian transport plane.


You don't "seize" an SA-11 and make it work properly.   It akes a good deal of training and experience to work that thing.  Today the whoole thing could probably be run as an I-phone app but this is 1979 technology we are talking about so it looks like this inside:
theaviationist.com

The evidence is almost incontrovertible at this point that these systems and either handlers or training in how to use them were supplied by Russia in hopes of making Ukraine's battle with their separatists much more costly (basically pulling a Charlie WIlson )
 
2014-07-21 09:42:14 AM  
British news network Sky News realizes that, in retrospect, maybe, just maybe, having a reporter rifle through the luggage of a flight MH17 victim live on the air, wasn't in the best possible taste. Fortunately "a" dildo was not among the contents

Because that's the TSA's job?  Grow a pair.
 
2014-07-21 09:52:35 AM  

italie: August11: I was on a 747 from SFO to NYC in 1998. It suffered a slight but fully disturbing mishap.

You had the fish?


www.jeepfan.com
 
2014-07-21 09:59:09 AM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: Shadi: I don't get it. They're dead, so what if you rifle through their stuff? You can see something similar on a popular tv show called "storage wars".

Their families are still alive you ass.


So are the ones on storage wars.
 
2014-07-21 10:02:36 AM  
Just found out that I had four co-workers on the flight. Two of them were flying with their entire families and another was flying with her son. It is a sad day in our office.

/Why do assholes involve inoccents in their wars?
//Too sad to be angry right now.
 
2014-07-21 10:08:44 AM  
Bet ya Vlad's really starting to regret putting those Buks in the hands of the Keystone Cossacks.
 
2014-07-21 10:20:22 AM  
img.fark.net

Квартал обнаружен в кармане. Обратите, пожалуйста, еще раз

Kvartal obnaruzhen v karmane. Obratite, pozhaluysta, yeshche raz

(Quarter detected in pocket. Please pay again)
/blame Google Translate
 
2014-07-21 10:22:43 AM  

doglover: StreetlightInTheGhetto: Shadi: I don't get it. They're dead, so what if you rifle through their stuff? You can see something similar on a popular tv show called "storage wars".

Their families are still alive you ass.


If I die, and my stuff is intact, I'd much rather someone unofficial pick it up on TV than let it sit there in the elements and get ruined. It seems silly to me that they'll wet their pants about the bodies but not the possessions.

I have some swank gadgets and some neat curios. In the event of my untimely death I'd much rather ANYONE have them than they be thrown out.


Only he wasn't removing it from the elements. He was looking through it and then was leaving it in place.

Though if I was a family member, I'd be more traumatized by the fact the my loved one was left to rot in a field for several days while their suspected killers dicked around trying deny the undeniable.
 
2014-07-21 10:23:59 AM  

MaritimeGirl: doglover: StreetlightInTheGhetto: Shadi: I don't get it. They're dead, so what if you rifle through their stuff? You can see something similar on a popular tv show called "storage wars".

Their families are still alive you ass.


If I die, and my stuff is intact, I'd much rather someone unofficial pick it up on TV than let it sit there in the elements and get ruined. It seems silly to me that they'll wet their pants about the bodies but not the possessions.

I have some swank gadgets and some neat curios. In the event of my untimely death I'd much rather ANYONE have them than they be thrown out.

I see your logic but I have to wonder if anyone on that flight had a smartphone with an email app on it with saved passwords for auto-login. Couple that with credit cards, those terrorists (they are not rebels, they are not separatists, they are murderers) could very easily gain access to bank accounts. Sure, the deceased don't need the money any more but the families are entitled to it.


Uh. The bank cards and smartphones have been stolen.
http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/malaysia-airlines-mh17- pa ssengers-luggage-looted-credit-cards-stolen/story-fnizu68q-12269965704 56
At least two journalists have mentioned all bags they saw have been opened. No wallets, cash, purses, cell phones, or cameras have been seen by foreign journalists. One spokesperson for the DNR said local residents may have used debit cards.

Dutch banks are taking preventative measures to stop bank card use. Feel better?
 
2014-07-21 10:31:33 AM  

August11: italie: August11: I was on a 747 from SFO to NYC in 1998. It suffered a slight but fully disturbing mishap.

You had the fish?

Ha! No actually we lost an engine while landing, the pilot overcorrected, the starboard engine and wing tip smashed into the tarmac, blew a tire (loud!), lost all power (so dark), and were towed to the gate.

It was not reported in the news, or at least nationally.


I'm guessing no clapping for that landing, right?

/I would have a hard time getting on a plane again after that.
 
2014-07-21 10:39:36 AM  

August11: stamped human bacon: Grahor: Someone obviously have to rifle through the mess, sort it to neat boxes with labels "safe, can show anyone", "family only" and "top secret; show only to executor; do not allow wife or children to see!"

I've never packed for an international flight (twelve times and counting) without thinking someone might go through my luggage.  Who does that?

Rifle away.

I have the same thought. But I also write a goodbye letter to all significant people in my life and leave it near the top of the papers on my desk. It is in an envelope marked "Open if the plane goes down." I travel once or twice per year and write a new letter every time. The old ones are collecting dust behind a bunch of Nabokov novels on a bookshelf. It will be fun for someone someday to rifle through them and chart the changes in my relationships and perspectives.

But it is worse. I also read during long flights and each paragraph begins with a sort of intonation: "This might be the last paragraph I ever read." The novels I have read in-flight sparkle in my memory.

I wasn't always this way.

I was on a 747 from SFO to NYC in 1998. It suffered a slight but fully disturbing mishap.


That letter thing is disturbing, but I understand your point behind doing it. I fly a lot for work, it wouldn't be a terrible idea to tuck something permanently into my bag.
 
2014-07-21 10:40:56 AM  

jaybeezey: StreetlightInTheGhetto: Shadi: I don't get it. They're dead, so what if you rifle through their stuff? You can see something similar on a popular tv show called "storage wars".

Their families are still alive you ass.

So are the ones on storage wars.


Not a valid comparison. Storage Wars = a person (possibly still alive) doesn't pay their storage bill.

Vs.

Sky TV Reporter rifles through a bag at of a person, still lying in the somewhere in the same field. And in a place where items are supposed remain in situ for a crash investigation.

Not the same thing.
 
2014-07-21 10:43:56 AM  

beakerxf: August11: italie: August11: I was on a 747 from SFO to NYC in 1998. It suffered a slight but fully disturbing mishap.

You had the fish?

Ha! No actually we lost an engine while landing, the pilot overcorrected, the starboard engine and wing tip smashed into the tarmac, blew a tire (loud!), lost all power (so dark), and were towed to the gate.

It was not reported in the news, or at least nationally.

I'm guessing no clapping for that landing, right?

/I would have a hard time getting on a plane again after that.


I'd have clapped. And I hate landing clappers with the fire of a thousand suns.
 
2014-07-21 10:48:33 AM  

dittybopper: drxym: Zenith: well to be fair to Sky News it's not in any way the same league as Fox.

The UK has strong regulations to ensure a high standard of news reporting in broadcasting - due impartiality, fairness, accuracy etc.. Sky News would be on the receiving end of massive fines if it pulled the same shiat that US news channels get away with.

Sounds like censorship to me.

Now, you're going to argue about how it isn't because X, Y, and Z, but as soon as you start imposing "standards" on the media backed up not by civil tort but by government fines, you've got censorship.

We have some of the same thing here in the US of course, with the FCC, but you'd never see a news station fined for something like that, it would be more along lines of showing titties over the air or something, so the circumstances where that applies are much narrower.


Censorship is before the fact, the UK's OFCOM (like the FCC) operates after the fact.

From what I've seen of their actions, OFCOM only has two teeth, but at least they meet; FCC's only tooth is the issuing/renewal of broadcast licenses and when was the last time a network O&O had those challenged?
 
2014-07-21 10:58:28 AM  

beakerxf: Only he wasn't removing it from the elements. He was looking through it and then was leaving it in place.


Which is a dick move, but he was (an Englishman/a Scotsman/a Welshman/an Irishman). They're the biggest wankers in the UK.
 
2014-07-21 11:10:10 AM  
You can't rifle through flotsam. You can only rifle through jetsam.
 
2014-07-21 11:11:12 AM  
That's weird that a member of the media acted like a piece of shiat. Huh.
 
2014-07-21 11:15:57 AM  

Magorn: thisisyourbrainonFark: dookdookdook: I assumed the headline meant they found "many" dildos.

Same thought. I don't know if I can remember a clusterfark of these proportions.

Occam's Razor: Russia "lent," or the rebels seized, a missile system of this caliber, and whoever fired mistakenly thought this was a Ukrainian transport plane.

You don't "seize" an SA-11 and make it work properly.   It akes a good deal of training and experience to work that thing.  Today the whoole thing could probably be run as an I-phone app but this is 1979 technology we are talking about so it looks like this inside:
[theaviationist.com image 685x487]

The evidence is almost incontrovertible at this point that these systems and either handlers or training in how to use them were supplied by Russia in hopes of making Ukraine's battle with their separatists much more costly (basically pulling a Charlie WIlson )


Since Ukraine has compulsory military service, it is not inconceivable that there some among the rebels who have the training. Also, I would have thought that if it was a fully trained Russian crew, they would have known how to use the SA-11's IFF system, and realised they were looking at a civilian plane.
 
2014-07-21 11:20:00 AM  

beakerxf: jaybeezey: StreetlightInTheGhetto: Shadi: I don't get it. They're dead, so what if you rifle through their stuff? You can see something similar on a popular tv show called "storage wars".

Their families are still alive you ass.

So are the ones on storage wars.

Not a valid comparison. Storage Wars = a person (possibly still alive) doesn't pay their storage bill.

Vs.

Sky TV Reporter rifles through a bag at of a person, still lying in the somewhere in the same field. And in a place where items are supposed remain in situ for a crash investigation.

Not the same thing.


I bet some of the people on that plane have had storage rental in the past they didn't pay the bill on.
 
2014-07-21 11:39:06 AM  

MinkeyMan: Magorn: thisisyourbrainonFark: dookdookdook: I assumed the headline meant they found "many" dildos.

Same thought. I don't know if I can remember a clusterfark of these proportions.

Occam's Razor: Russia "lent," or the rebels seized, a missile system of this caliber, and whoever fired mistakenly thought this was a Ukrainian transport plane.

You don't "seize" an SA-11 and make it work properly.   It akes a good deal of training and experience to work that thing.  Today the whoole thing could probably be run as an I-phone app but this is 1979 technology we are talking about so it looks like this inside:
[theaviationist.com image 685x487]

The evidence is almost incontrovertible at this point that these systems and either handlers or training in how to use them were supplied by Russia in hopes of making Ukraine's battle with their separatists much more costly (basically pulling a Charlie WIlson )

Since Ukraine has compulsory military service, it is not inconceivable that there some among the rebels who have the training. Also, I would have thought that if it was a fully trained Russian crew, they would have known how to use the SA-11's IFF system, and realised they were looking at a civilian plane.


Well I am no expert, but from another article I read today, the Sa-11 is supposed to be integrated into a C&C system where the Russian equivalent of an AWACs provides over all "theater awareness" and does the IFF type work for them.  It is really not supposed ot be used by itself
 
2014-07-21 11:57:04 AM  
 
2014-07-21 12:14:23 PM  

doglover: [mariomurilloministries.files.wordpress.com image 640x441]


298 innocent people dead, but still church darling because he hates teh gay.
 
2014-07-21 12:16:16 PM  

tacos4jesus: dittybopper: drxym: Zenith: well to be fair to Sky News it's not in any way the same league as Fox.

The UK has strong regulations to ensure a high standard of news reporting in broadcasting - due impartiality, fairness, accuracy etc.. Sky News would be on the receiving end of massive fines if it pulled the same shiat that US news channels get away with.

Sounds like censorship to me.

Now, you're going to argue about how it isn't because X, Y, and Z, but as soon as you start imposing "standards" on the media backed up not by civil tort but by government fines, you've got censorship.

We have some of the same thing here in the US of course, with the FCC, but you'd never see a news station fined for something like that, it would be more along lines of showing titties over the air or something, so the circumstances where that applies are much narrower.

Just because you can doesn't mean it is tasteful. Doesn't mean we can't look at it and say "bad idea."

Free speech doesn't protect you from the public looking at you and saying "shame on you." Just means you won't be tossed in the pokey.

/pokey


That's what I'm saying:  If you are tasteless, the market can decide.  The government has no business fining a company for tasteless news coverage.  Period.
 
2014-07-21 12:20:44 PM  

LibertyHiller: Censorship is before the fact, the UK's OFCOM (like the FCC) operates after the fact.


Two words:   Chilling effect.

The government of the PRC doesn't have to come down on the media very often, because of that very thing.  They know, for the most part, what will get them in trouble for reporting, so they don't report it.

Censorship isn't always before the fact.
 
2014-07-21 12:46:01 PM  

MinkeyMan: Magorn: thisisyourbrainonFark: dookdookdook: I assumed the headline meant they found "many" dildos.

Same thought. I don't know if I can remember a clusterfark of these proportions.

Occam's Razor: Russia "lent," or the rebels seized, a missile system of this caliber, and whoever fired mistakenly thought this was a Ukrainian transport plane.

You don't "seize" an SA-11 and make it work properly.   It akes a good deal of training and experience to work that thing.  Today the whoole thing could probably be run as an I-phone app but this is 1979 technology we are talking about so it looks like this inside:
[theaviationist.com image 685x487]

The evidence is almost incontrovertible at this point that these systems and either handlers or training in how to use them were supplied by Russia in hopes of making Ukraine's battle with their separatists much more costly (basically pulling a Charlie WIlson )

Since Ukraine has compulsory military service, it is not inconceivable that there some among the rebels who have the training. Also, I would have thought that if it was a fully trained Russian crew, they would have known how to use the SA-11's IFF system, and realised they were looking at a civilian plane.


There's a website online called "SAM Simulator" that uses actual photos of the control systems for old Soviet SAM's to train operators on how to use them. No I'm not making that up. There's enough information on the site for an untrained operator to learn how to turn on the system, aim, acquire and fire the missile.
 
2014-07-21 12:48:39 PM  

Delay: MaritimeGirl: doglover: StreetlightInTheGhetto: Shadi: I don't get it. They're dead, so what if you rifle through their stuff? You can see something similar on a popular tv show called "storage wars".

Their families are still alive you ass.


If I die, and my stuff is intact, I'd much rather someone unofficial pick it up on TV than let it sit there in the elements and get ruined. It seems silly to me that they'll wet their pants about the bodies but not the possessions.

I have some swank gadgets and some neat curios. In the event of my untimely death I'd much rather ANYONE have them than they be thrown out.

I see your logic but I have to wonder if anyone on that flight had a smartphone with an email app on it with saved passwords for auto-login. Couple that with credit cards, those terrorists (they are not rebels, they are not separatists, they are murderers) could very easily gain access to bank accounts. Sure, the deceased don't need the money any more but the families are entitled to it.

Uh. The bank cards and smartphones have been stolen.
http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/malaysia-airlines-mh17- pa ssengers-luggage-looted-credit-cards-stolen/story-fnizu68q-12269965704 56
At least two journalists have mentioned all bags they saw have been opened. No wallets, cash, purses, cell phones, or cameras have been seen by foreign journalists. One spokesperson for the DNR said local residents may have used debit cards.

Dutch banks are taking preventative measures to stop bank card use. Feel better?


I know they've all been stolen - that was reported last week and I read somewhere that at least one credit card company has thankfully already cancelled lots of cards belonging to MH17 passengers. I was really just suggesting the scenario to doglover as his/her stance was that he/she would be fine having gadgets pilfered.
 
2014-07-21 12:56:17 PM  

bearcats1983: August11: stamped human bacon: Grahor: Someone obviously have to rifle through the mess, sort it to neat boxes with labels "safe, can show anyone", "family only" and "top secret; show only to executor; do not allow wife or children to see!"

I've never packed for an international flight (twelve times and counting) without thinking someone might go through my luggage.  Who does that?

Rifle away.

I have the same thought. But I also write a goodbye letter to all significant people in my life and leave it near the top of the papers on my desk. It is in an envelope marked "Open if the plane goes down." I travel once or twice per year and write a new letter every time. The old ones are collecting dust behind a bunch of Nabokov novels on a bookshelf. It will be fun for someone someday to rifle through them and chart the changes in my relationships and perspectives.

But it is worse. I also read during long flights and each paragraph begins with a sort of intonation: "This might be the last paragraph I ever read." The novels I have read in-flight sparkle in my memory.

I wasn't always this way.

I was on a 747 from SFO to NYC in 1998. It suffered a slight but fully disturbing mishap.

That letter thing is disturbing, but I understand your point behind doing it. I fly a lot for work, it wouldn't be a terrible idea to tuck something permanently into my bag.


If your plane disintegrates, so would your bag. I kind of did the same thing a few years ago when I was preparing to go to the Dominican Republic for work for a month during hurricane season and not on a resort - I gave my boss a letter (with clues of where to look in my cubicle for banking information clues, house key, etc.) to give to my parents in case I died. The trip got cancelled and I was relieved.
 
2014-07-21 01:25:12 PM  
Years ago, a reporter where I worked was doing a next-day follow-up story from the scene of a fatal police-involved shooting, found the victim's glasses still lying on the sidewalk, picked them up and mentioned this bit of "colour" in his story. shiat hit fan. Sloppy police crime-scene work, to be sure, but but the entire investigation could have been in jeopardy from that. Reporter not sacked, but was happy to later move on to less-onerous journalistic duties than the cop beat.
 
2014-07-21 02:20:39 PM  

dittybopper: tacos4jesus: dittybopper: drxym: Zenith: well to be fair to Sky News it's not in any way the same league as Fox.

The UK has strong regulations to ensure a high standard of news reporting in broadcasting - due impartiality, fairness, accuracy etc.. Sky News would be on the receiving end of massive fines if it pulled the same shiat that US news channels get away with.

Sounds like censorship to me.

Now, you're going to argue about how it isn't because X, Y, and Z, but as soon as you start imposing "standards" on the media backed up not by civil tort but by government fines, you've got censorship.

We have some of the same thing here in the US of course, with the FCC, but you'd never see a news station fined for something like that, it would be more along lines of showing titties over the air or something, so the circumstances where that applies are much narrower.

Just because you can doesn't mean it is tasteful. Doesn't mean we can't look at it and say "bad idea."

Free speech doesn't protect you from the public looking at you and saying "shame on you." Just means you won't be tossed in the pokey.

/pokey

That's what I'm saying:  If you are tasteless, the market can decide.  The government has no business fining a company for tasteless news coverage.  Period.


Then be quiet and let the rest of us complain about how crappy they are being, fine or not.
 
2014-07-21 02:35:41 PM  

Weng: beakerxf: August11: italie: August11: I was on a 747 from SFO to NYC in 1998. It suffered a slight but fully disturbing mishap.

You had the fish?

Ha! No actually we lost an engine while landing, the pilot overcorrected, the starboard engine and wing tip smashed into the tarmac, blew a tire (loud!), lost all power (so dark), and were towed to the gate.

It was not reported in the news, or at least nationally.

I'm guessing no clapping for that landing, right?

/I would have a hard time getting on a plane again after that.

I'd have clapped. And I hate landing clappers with the fire of a thousand suns.


Actually, everyone on the starboard side of the plane clapped. I guess they saw more than we did.
 
2014-07-21 03:24:24 PM  

MinkeyMan:

Since Ukraine has compulsory military service, it is not inconceivable that there some among the rebels who have the training. Also, I would have thought that if it was a fully trained Russian crew, they would have known how to use the SA-11's IFF system, and realised they were looking at a civilian plane.


No, military IFF systems don't tell this kind of information. To tell if the target is your friend they send out an encrypted code, the target should decrypt it and send back a proper answer. If it matches it is your plane, otherwise it could be an enemy plane, a civilian plane, a plane of a third party, your plane with improper IFF settings, a flock of birds, a weather balloon, E.T. on the bike, etc.

The only way to know that you are looking at a civilian plane is if you are connected to an advanced command post. This is a different vehicle loaded with radios and can be connected to civilian air controller networks.
 
2014-07-21 03:40:08 PM  

Gaylord Fister: There must be AT LEAST one dildo amongst that wreckage.


There sure were...mostly carrying AK-47s.
 
2014-07-21 03:43:41 PM  

dittybopper: tacos4jesus: dittybopper: drxym: Zenith: well to be fair to Sky News it's not in any way the same league as Fox.

The UK has strong regulations to ensure a high standard of news reporting in broadcasting - due impartiality, fairness, accuracy etc.. Sky News would be on the receiving end of massive fines if it pulled the same shiat that US news channels get away with.

Sounds like censorship to me.

Now, you're going to argue about how it isn't because X, Y, and Z, but as soon as you start imposing "standards" on the media backed up not by civil tort but by government fines, you've got censorship.

We have some of the same thing here in the US of course, with the FCC, but you'd never see a news station fined for something like that, it would be more along lines of showing titties over the air or something, so the circumstances where that applies are much narrower.

Just because you can doesn't mean it is tasteful. Doesn't mean we can't look at it and say "bad idea."

Free speech doesn't protect you from the public looking at you and saying "shame on you." Just means you won't be tossed in the pokey.

/pokey

That's what I'm saying:  If you are tasteless, the market can decide.  The government has no business fining a company for tasteless news coverage.  Period.


No, but governments DO have a legitimate interest in throwing people in jail who mess with a crash site.

Sure, it was already contaminated, but there's NO farking excuse here.
 
2014-07-21 03:48:47 PM  

traylor: MinkeyMan:

Since Ukraine has compulsory military service, it is not inconceivable that there some among the rebels who have the training. Also, I would have thought that if it was a fully trained Russian crew, they would have known how to use the SA-11's IFF system, and realised they were looking at a civilian plane.

No, military IFF systems don't tell this kind of information. To tell if the target is your friend they send out an encrypted code, the target should decrypt it and send back a proper answer. If it matches it is your plane, otherwise it could be an enemy plane, a civilian plane, a plane of a third party, your plane with improper IFF settings, a flock of birds, a weather balloon, E.T. on the bike, etc.

The only way to know that you are looking at a civilian plane is if you are connected to an advanced command post. This is a different vehicle loaded with radios and can be connected to civilian air controller networks.


IFF is really a shiatty name for it. It's really Identify Friend or Dunno.
 
2014-07-22 03:57:28 AM  

dittybopper: Sounds like censorship to me.

Now, you're going to argue about how it isn't because X, Y, and Z, but as soon as you start imposing "standards" on the media backed up not by civil tort but by government fines, you've got censorship.

We have some of the same thing here in the US of course, with the FCC, but you'd never see a news station fined for something like that, it would be more along lines of showing titties over the air or something, so the circumstances where that applies are much narrower.


If the choice is "censorship" (i.e. abiding by relatively straightforward standards that govern fairness, accuracy and impartiality) and the opinionated bollocks that passes for news in the US, then I'll choose the "censorship".
 
2014-07-22 02:00:11 PM  

PunGent: Gaylord Fister: There must be AT LEAST one dildo amongst that wreckage.

There sure were...mostly carrying AK-47s.


i2.kym-cdn.com
 
Displayed 45 of 95 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report