This rarely gets a mention in the Assange case, but hacking into protected sites and private accounts is not considered legitimate journalism.

You said that editors over the world know which articles to publish or not. If I am understanding what you said correctly, the editors of Charlie Hebdo knew that they should not publish that comic mocking Muhammad. — Lionino

They knew that it would offend some people. That doesn't automatically mean you shouldn't publish it. There are far more compelling criteria - at least to my mind - on which to decide whether it's right or wrong to publish something. That cartoon didn't hurt or endanger anyone but themselves: it was their risk to take.

But then, why? Because of Muslim extremists that would hurt them, or because it is incorrect to make fun of minority religions, or both? — Lionino

Why decide to publish? Because it's an individual artist's or columnist's right to express an opinion, whether everyone agrees with it or not, whether the editor agrees with it or not.

Making fun of anybody, whether they're a majority, minority, a church, a political party, bank, government department or institution is not 'incorrect' - it is the whole point of cartoons and satire. Associating a public figure with the organizations that act in his name is not wrong.

They didn't ruin the reputation of any living person, nor cause them financial loss or mental anguish. The cartoon merely depicted a figure that's forbidden for Muslims to look at at. They were not compelled to look at it and nobody was struck blind by Allah as a result. Nobody went to hell because of something Salman Rushdie wrote in a novel. If all publication were ruled by what might piss off an extremist, nothing would be published.

Quite frankly, I wouldn't want his hacking operation in my country, either!

That's what Julian Assange thought before his visit to Sweden. — jkop

Is this somehow relevant to the ethical responsibility of the press in general? Didn't WickyLeaks articles appear in The Guardian, The New York Times, and Der Spiegel, none of which are Swedish?

That is, is Swedish and French (for example) news more accurate, — Hanover

Sweden has diverse news outlets, some politically partisan, some not, most owned privately, some government subsidized. The press there has more guarantees of freedom as well as more self-regulation than anywhere else I've heard of.

The Swedish media accountability system has a long, evolving history. It consists of three sets of rules:
Publicity rules:
These rules ensure fair reporting, respect for privacy, interviewee rights, the right to reply, and the treatment of images. They are the oldest part of the code of conduct.
Rules of professional journalism:
These rules govern the conduct of journalists, covering their integrity, assignments, source relationships, and more. They are established by the Association of Swedish Journalists (SJF).
Editorial advertising guidelines:
These guidelines address the relationship between advertising and editorial content. They emphasize that news should be based on news value, not advertising value, and that advertising should be distinguishable from editorial content. https://www.meltwater.com/en/blog/sweden-media-landscape

Yes, of course they're more accurate.
France has more than 100 newspapers and magazines, as well as radio and television broadcasting. The media there do not speak with one voice. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17299010

Yet the French media outlets follow the more general trend of empowering (more) autonomy from politics, most news radio channels, TV channels, and more particularly news magazines and newspapers, still express a political orientation if not a partisanship backing or sponsor.

While they all may not be more accurate than their American counterparts, some are likely to be more accurate than others, just like their American counterparts.
As for the Guardian, whether it's generally more accurate than a randomly chosen American newspaper or not, it has a more objective view on American issues than the self-preoccupied American press.

Charlie Hebdo disagrees. — Lionino

Lots of people disagree. How does that affect an editor's responsibility for deciding what to print and what to avoid?

The world is watching Trump. — Hanover

If they can't avoid it, because the damn grey cataract slides across their computer screen uninvited and unwanted, with his stupid fat smirking face.
The world is also watching Putin, but no country has the same perspective on Putin as any other, and none have the perspective that Russians have.

Yes, there would be a reason. Pro and con. But mabe you're dividing it another way. — Hanover

Several ways. And so does every every other non-American who thinks about the problem.
Pro and con are not opinions; they're automatic responses requiring no brain activity at all. In fact, pro's are divided into several factions with different motivations and cons are united only in their fear of the damage, not in their conjectures as to the extent of the damage or how it would be brought about; certainly neither pros nor cons stand all together as a bloc on any other issue. The situation is nowhere near as simple as Y/N.

Would a European nation provide both sides of a Trump related issue or would that just not be necessary due to the homogenous view they might have on the topic? — Hanover

As outsiders, that European population would see the Trump issue as an American one, and the various attitudes their editorials represent would be from a very different perspective from the "sides" as seen by Americans. However, when discussing the factions in their own nations, each European country would have its own particular way of approaching the issue.
By the way - Is there any reason to assume that there are only two "sides" to the American perspective on the Trump problem?

I was listening to public radio last night and the issue being discussed was how to dissuade the Biden protest voters who have said they won't vote for Biden as long as he is supportive of Israel. — Hanover

Is this news reportage, editorial comment, or an open discussion? Who were "they"?

That was a pro-Biden, anti-Israel, anti-Trump conversation. — Hanover

And this conversation is broadcast 24 hours a day, exclusively? Or is it part of a spectrum of opinions and one of many discussions on diverse topics? (BTW, Is it "anti-Israel" to tell the truth about Israel's current leadership or disapprove of what it's doing? Is it "anti-Israel" to let someone express disapproval of those action? If so, should all "anti-Israel" opinion be censored on news media?)

I'm not commenting - I'm asking, since I don't listen to radio. But I have watched quite a lot of PBS television and found it far more factually accurate, as well as representative of more points of view - as well as airing far more informative content than commercial television.

Trump is a clear and present danger to America and the world. Whatever happened to the Republican Party to allow the Trump anomaly to occur at all was national and international tragedy of massive proportions. I don't think you have to lean too far left to see this.

The question is whether that is what the media ought to do. — Hanover

What you or I think the media ought to do is a very moot point. Of course news media should report factual news and dispense useful information. If the press were free, as is wistfully hoped in the constitution, the various outlets would represent every shade of opinion under the sun.
The reality is: money controls both politics and information: nothing is free.

The problem with that is that our best example of publicly funded news (PBS and NPR) is left leaning. — Hanover

That can't be helped: public services tend to concentrate on serving the public, not special interests. It's biased toward educating the public, regardless of party politics.

Putting the government in charge of reporting the news is a nod toward allowing propoganda. — Hanover

Only, the government and arm's-length public funding agencies in general are not in charge of the reporting, any more than they're in charge of medical services through the CDC or of law enforcement through the FBI. The government, whether the prevailing administration is liberal or conservative, can control the financing of these organizations, but not their day-to-day functioning.

but what would a publicly funded media look like that was ultimately answerable to a Trump administration? — Hanover

The right wing doesn't need a publicly funded platform for its propaganda: it has plenty of very large commercial platforms. If a Trump, or any of his ilk gained sufficient power, all public information outlets - along with public schools, clinics and libraries - would cease to exist.

Your right, it is not a requirement and few would sign or abide by it if it was. — Sir2u

How could they, knowing that Boss Murdock can overrule it at any time?

I don't think the concept is coherent enough — AmadeusD

Okay. The Supreme Court agrees with you. Yet newspaper editors the world over know exactly which articles they should not publish.

"hate speech" is not a very good descriptor of anything, despite its legal use.. which is equally as muddy and controversial. — AmadeusD

It may be controversial, but encouraging people to oppress, rape and kill other people should still be illegal, as far as I'm concerned. The legal language can be made clear enough to penalize deliberate harm perpetrated by public media.

The debate in the article referenced what was reported versus what should be covered up. — Hanover

Some faction is always mad about something, whether it's done by doctors, teachers, lawyers or climate scientists. The disgruntled/offended/irate portion of the public is not the arbiter of professional ethics.
(They're obviously both too old, but at least one of the geezers is sane.)

They have no right to take sides in politics because that would automatically breach their pledge to provide the public with the whole, complete and impartial facts. — Sir2u

I'm not familiar with this pledge as a requirement for journalists, editors or publishers. As far as I know, every publication is free to express an editorial position, as well as to choose which aspect of the news they cover and in how much detail.
Various publications have always been open about their political and economic affiliations, and that's not a problem, as long as those affiliations are known and distributed fairly - i.e. media outlets with different points of view are equally available to the audience.
However, when whole blocs of outlets are controlled by a monopoly, that freedom no longer exists.

I think all news sources should be held to a minimum standard of accuracy in the reporting of events, statistics, demographic information and quotations. I don't know how this kind of oversight could be administered, except through a professional body of their peers, such as doctors and lawyers have.
The industry should self-censor as to content: don't post inflammatory material, publish national or trade secrets, endanger the security or breach the privacy of the subjects of their articles.

Beyond factual reportage, however, the editorial position of each outlet should be free and unhindered, (short of libel, slander, incitement and hate speech, of course.) Political bias, religious leanings, ethnic, gender and class interests could all be represented by partisan media.

However, that could only work if the press were actually independent, rather than gobbled up, print, radio, television and internet, across entire regions by giant corporations with a single overriding policy that's enforced on all of its editors and reporters.

At my house, bowties are reserved for cabbage noodles. Fried cabbage requires a robust past to hold on to.
I have 12 clear plastic jars of different pastas. Don't use the penne very often; prefer fusilli, fettuccine, linguini and small shells for most dishes; there are also Chinese fried noodles, rice angelhair, Ramen, orzo and vermicelli for soup. I quite like to include some orzo with a rice dish I make in the crock pot, with chopped vegetables.
Lunch today was crepes filled with (leftover) mushroom paprika with sour cream. Nutella and ground walnuts in the dessert one.

On the up-side, Putin et al will probably decide the issue for us all.

I don't want to die either. I just need a rational or any reason (maybe even irrational) to live that would really work for me. — rossii

I'm sure you'll find one if you really want to. But finding a reason to live and actually doing something something positive is a commitment. As you don't appear in any big hurry to resolve the issue, maybe you prefer to keep your options open.

What do you mean by "We are individuals of our kind"? — Agree-to-Disagree

Our kind. We don't think in terms of species - that's another label humans impose; we think of those who are enough like ourselves to mate with and swim with; who are not our food and don't see us as their food.
Got any more lame puns?

Vegetarian cabbage rolls. I didn't actually cook them today, but two weeks ago. A small head of cabbage yields enough leaves for about six meals, preserved in the freezer for days when we're too busy to cook. Today, we have a couple of appointments in town, so a container of cabbage rolls is defrosting for tonight.
The cabbage must be cored and then cooked whole in a large pot. As they become soft, I remove individual leaves, trim the hard vein, fill, tuck in the ends and lay the rolls on a bed of sauerkraut in a casserole. For filling, I use commercial veggie ground round* mixed with cooked quinoa, paprika, black pepper, caraway and cumin and little tomato paste. The casserole holds two layers of rolls with padding between. I make a thick roux with paprika and dilute it with hot water, enough to cover the contents of the casserole. Microwave for 30-40 minutes. Two rolls and a generous serving spoon of sauerkraut per serving, topped with a dollop of sour cream, accompanied by a slice of home-made rye bread.

We fish don't wear human-imposed collective names. We are individuals of our kind. Only humans stick labels on other beings and place them in some artificial hierarchy.

I was a fish in a past life and I can tell you: some fish enjoy swimming about and some are unhappy and some are bored and one recalls having been a hookworm in a former life and therefore considers himself wise enough to comment on the mental state of hookworms - if only anyone would ask.

When we had a contract in LA, back in 1996, the OG picked up a copy of Myst on clearance sale and we played it together. That was our first sophisticated computer game, but for a clumsy chess program. Then, of course, we got all the sequels and a bunch more mystery/puzzle games that never came close to the graphic quality and originality of Myst.
We both do some wood carving when arthritic pain allows and I still grow some vegetables every summer - in containers now, since digging is beyond my capability.

That's a cute-ish exercise, but it's meaningless verbal acrobatics. The question refers to itself, but has no information content regarding which an inquiry can be validly made.

It's the ability - and willingness - to look at the world, or something in the world, from an unusual perspective and to rearrange that perception and translate it into a medium in a form that communicates the different perspective to other people. I realize that's not a very good sentence; I was trying to avoid 'originality' and 'novelty'.
There is nothing new under the sun; there are no ideas that nobody's ever had. You will never make anything completely different from everything that's been done been before. Creativity is more like being a kaleidoscope; reconfiguring what already exists in a new arrangement.

I personally came to the same conclusion, but only due to the inability to deliberately create/manipulate the exotic matter necessary, and the OP (had you actually read it) makes the necessary presumption that this restriction isn't there, it having never been proven. — noAxioms

Oh, okay. I thought you said

First of all, the time travel has to at least be a tiny bit plausible under physics — noAxioms

which it isn't
and

The alternative is magic, and if you posit magic, you can also conclude anything you want. — noAxioms

which is what you et al proceeded to do.

Now that's cleared up, carry on.

Questions are rather odd entities, both linguistically and logically. A question must have a subject about which information is being sought. That subject is not always self-evident in the structure of the sentence, since there is room for assumption and interpretation between speakers of the same language (which often leads to confusion on the part of foreign speakers, who don't know the conventions).

"Is this a paradox?" is meaningless as a question. The subject "this" refers to the sentence itself, and no further information on this subject is available. A statement is paradoxical if it contains two contradictory valid premises. This sentence doesn't even contain one proposition; thus it does not satisfy the criterion for paradox: therefore, the simple answer is No.
I don't see how it "supports" the following, apparently unrelated, question

"Is this a rhetorical question?"
Again, the subject of enquiry is "this", referring to the sentence itself. No claim is made and no information provided. It's rhetorical or the poser does not expect an answer, and the interlocutor can decide whether it shall remain so by either answering it (in which case, it's not rhetorical) or declining to answer (in which case it is.)

There is no paradox in either one.

The Knox Presbyterian church in our nearest city has a magnificent organ, as well as great acoustics. The church is often used for classical music concerts - far better than the college auditorium. I quite like the decor, too - clean, simple; big clear windows, white walls and lots of natural wood.

I meant explain the sentence:

CHATGPT made him up. It was part of a way to get it to drop its filters. — RogueAI

Who made what up to get whom to drop what filters?

CHATGPT made him up. It was part of a way to get it to drop its filters. — RogueAI

Can you explain this to the technically challenged?

Did either of those characters factor in what would have happened to Saddam's rule without US assistance?

It's like Jesus said, sir: places of worship and commerce make an uneasy mix. He may have said it more forcefully.

It sounds like a fun read in the optimistic-by-our-fingernails 70's. Not so much now...
I tried to google it just now and all I get is ads for 100 daisy spacer beads for $11.60. Weird shite.

Anyhow, harking back a bit, there is much to recommend parish churches - any denomination; I don't take sides in internecine squabbles - and their role in communities.

Don't get me wrong -- I love a nicely maintained charming old church. But charming old churches are a bottomless pit of maintenance expenses. — BC

The one I recall most fondly was in a little nothing village, built of adobe, like most of the houses, and whitewashed once every three years. Dirt floor, studded with walnut shells, got sprinkled with water in summertime. Wooden altar and pews. The roof would probably have to be reshingled about once a generation. Get enough volunteer hands, it cost hardly anything at all.
I don't suppose that church exists anymore; probably been bulldozed for a shopping mall.

The church may or may not have christianized the Empire, but more significantly, the Empire certainly imperially bureaucratized the church. — BC

The church most certainly did convert* the Roman empire (and later, several more empires). Yes to the other half: once the organization was solidly established, it required an enormous, far-reaching administrative structure - communications, banking, supervision of the monastic orders, educational facilities, construction projects.... Lots and lots of clerics doing lots of lots of clerical work, skills which they later applied to the administration of individual kingdoms as well as the Vatican's far-reaching business interests.
(I don't say christianize, since Christ seems to have been pushed farther and farther from the center of The One True Faith as it gained power)

I suspect the time to which you refer is a fourth kind: one that has a location in space, is tangible, and that, if you traveled to where it is, you can step in. — noAxioms

Since no other kind can be relevant to time travel, I refer to that version as impossible, yes.
You and others have proffered fanciful alternative realities, curly time, elastic time, ragtime, Miller time or whatever, which I admit to not reading with close attention.
Bottom line: No, you can't travel in any of them.
But good luck on your attempts!

You still haven't identified which kind of time you're making all your assertions about. — noAxioms

There are different species of time? I haven't seen, touched or stepped in any of them.
"All my assertions" are only two: 1. Time is a concept, with no physical dimensions and 2. You can mess with language; not with physics.

Here is a good example of convincing evidence: A novel I read some time ago, titled Towing Jehovah by James Morrow. I've read a couple of his other books, which have a similar slump in the middle where he doesn't seem to know where the story is going, but picks up again toward the end.

It is cruel to make children eat vegetables. :grin: — Agree-to-Disagree

Yes, it's cruel to make children eat anything. And it doesn't work. In the short term, the child is unhappy and learns to hate foods that they might otherwise come to like in time; in the long term, this is a source of eating disorders.

You have to be cruel (let them make mistakes which "hurt" them) — Agree-to-Disagree

Hitting, locking in a closet, starving, ear-pulling, burning with cigarette ends, force-feeding, carping and exorcism are cruelties. Allowing is not a cruelty. Is it not kind to let children bump a knee, but non-interference where the parent can see such a consequence might teach the child to exercise caution another time. Non-interference when he's about to fall off a three-storey building is counter-productive.
The operative phrase is: In the right measure. You use your judgment, case by case, situation by situation - rather than blindly obey a blanket directive from some uninvolved agency in the sky that's supposed to cover all contingencies.
This is what people actually do: interfere with everything - nature, their children, pets, their neighbours, other tribes, using their judgment, hoping to make improvements and often having the opposite effect.
Nobody obeys God's Prime Directive: "Don't touch the tree!" It's not in human nature to do so.