The idea that the comedic skit meant to comically portray a supposedly far-fetched theory that Ajit Pai is a shill by showing him plotting President Trump appointing him as the FCC chairman 14 years into the future was actually filmed 14 years ago and wasn't a comedic skit at all and was actually a documentary (despite the humorous jingle at the punchline) is pretty absurd by default, and besides "flat" TVs in 2003 did not look like this:
[img]https://i.imgur.com/6Lfg8di.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52983266]Though I agree in large part with your statement: It was meant as a prediction that came true that was aimed to be shown at telecom executives.[/QUOTE]
I suppose that's possible. But if that is the case, then it [I]definitely[/I] is an admission of corruption, whereas if they made it in 2017, at least they can [I]say[/I] that they're just joking about the accusations. I feel that Occam's razor should be applied here, the simplest explanation seems to me to be the most likely.
[QUOTE=Drury;52983270]The idea that the comedic skit meant to comically portray a supposedly far-fetched theory that Ajit Pai is a shill by showing him plotting President Trump appointing him as the FCC chairman 14 years into the future was actually filmed 14 years ago and wasn't a comedic skit at all and was actually a documentary (despite the humorous jingle at the punchline) is pretty absurd by default, and besides "flat" TVs in 2003 did not look like this:
[img]https://i.imgur.com/6Lfg8di.png[/img][/QUOTE]
Well, about that: flat-screen plasma TVs were a thing in 2003 (they had reached 'peak fad status' at that point iirc) -- and they did look like that. Mind, they were [I]expensive as fuck[/I] - but Verizon had plenty of money even back then.
[img]https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/csz/news/800/2005/en050825-7-1.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52983281]Well, about that. Flat-screen plasma TVs were a thing in 2003 -- and they did look like that. Mind, they were [I]expensive as fuck[/I] - but Verizon had plenty of money even back then.
[img]https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/csz/news/800/2005/en050825-7-1.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
I can't believe we're taking it this far... But, watch the video from 3:00, you can see how big the actual screen on that TV is.
[thumb]https://i.imgur.com/4UpXRRx.png[/thumb]
I don't know squat about TV's in 2003, but can you find a 2003 TV with a border that thin, too?
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;52983286]I can't believe we're taking it this far... But, watch the video from 3:00, you can see how big the actual screen on that TV is.
[thumb]https://i.imgur.com/4UpXRRx.png[/thumb]
I don't know squat about TV's in 2003, but can you find a 2003 TV with a that tiny border, too?[/QUOTE]
I've seen TVs like it when we were TV shopping back then. The border being thin wouldn't be a dead giveaway - it'd just mean the TV cost a lot more.
What [I]would[/I] be a dead give-away is if the TV in question has a depth that was shorter than about 3-4 inches. Back then, that was considered stuffing your TV into Levis - nobody had the tech to make TVs with much less depth than that without also introducing overheat problems.
The shadow in question on that TV looks to be about right for a Plasma TV's typical depth as I remember it, which was anywhere from 4~ to 8 inches. But, sure, I can spend a little bit on eBay for you and see if I can't find that exact model. I bet it's a Pioneer.
e: Also, re-examining the image in question - the black bars on either side of the video could very well be the speakers that were often commonly mounted to the side on such Plasma TVs from that age of consumer electronics -- and given the camera distance I wouldn't be surprised to demonstrate that it's a lot thicker than it appears to be for you.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52983287]I've seen TVs like it when we were TV shopping back then. The border being thin wouldn't be a dead giveaway - it'd just mean the TV cost a lot more.
What [I]would[/I] be a dead give-away is if the TV in question has a depth that was shorter than about 3-4 inches. Back then, that was considered stuffing your TV into Levis - nobody had the tech to make TVs with much less depth than that without also introducing overheat problems.
The shadow in question on that TV looks to be about right for a Plasma TV's typical depth as I remember it, which was anywhere from 4~ to 8 inches. But, sure, I can spend a little bit on eBay for you and see if I can't find that exact model. I bet it's a Pioneer.
e: Also, re-examining the image in question - the black bars on either side of the video could very well be the speakers that were often commonly mounted to the side on such Plasma TVs from that age of consumer electronics -- and given the camera distance I wouldn't be surprised to demonstrate that it's a lot thicker than it appears to be for you.[/QUOTE]
The whole face of the TV is one homogeneous shiny surface that reflects lights in the room.
[img]https://i.imgur.com/2LcBQBq.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Drury;52983306]The whole face of the TV is one homogeneous shiny surface that reflects lights in the room.
[img]https://i.imgur.com/2LcBQBq.png[/img][/QUOTE]
[img]https://imgur.com/Kx32d5y.png[/img]
Having trouble browsing the higher end of the market from back then, but I was able to find a mid-range with a fairly minimal border (and man, I forgot that those things Plasma TVs weighed 140+ pounds despite their form factor). Still searching because I swear I've seen a PTV from around that time that had a really thin border as its 'big gimmick' (despite having an enormous ass compared to its competition). Don't be fooled by the photographer of the TV above shooting from the TV's "best angle" - they did everything they could to hide its sloped butt but it's still a thick-arse TV as you'd expect from that period of time.
Also, again - this is a mid-range Plasma TV. I'd like to reiterate that these TVs were expensive as fuck despite being a huge fad.
[QUOTE=Drury;52983306]The whole face of the TV is one homogeneous shiny surface that reflects lights in the room.
[url]https://i.imgur.com/2LcBQBq.png[/url][/QUOTE]
To further that point, at 2:43, 2:48, and 2:52, you can clearly see the woman's hair reflecting off the screen.
This one looks close to a dead ringer. Part of my problem was that it was damn hard to find a TV back then that didn't 'have a border' on the screen as well; so you could have a thin frame but having a thin frame and a full screen was a thing I couldn't clearly remember as coming from 2003. Now I'm much more confident stating that such a TV could have very well existed from around that time - and I might have trouble finding it if it wasn't marketed at consumers but instead at companies and the government.
[img]https://imgur.com/xMpScZI.png[/img]
well here's my bet
[t]https://cnet1.cbsistatic.com/img/q1oqoph0tFj3fCQl3zjlEvy5C6M=/2017/06/29/b8cc8b40-d7d2-4870-ba23-82ae3dcef772/tcl-p-series-roku-tv-2017-06.jpg[/t]
a perfectly generic 2017 tv screen
is likely to be randomly hung on a wall of a conference room or such
rims are proper thickness too rather than 4 times as thick as in the video
and conveniently show footage of donald trump when people present are legitimately wondering out loud without a hint of bad comedic acting who might be a good republican candidate for the 2016 presidential election
[QUOTE=Drury;52983343]well here's my bet
[t]https://cnet1.cbsistatic.com/img/q1oqoph0tFj3fCQl3zjlEvy5C6M=/2017/06/29/b8cc8b40-d7d2-4870-ba23-82ae3dcef772/tcl-p-series-roku-tv-2017-06.jpg[/t]
a perfectly generic 2017 tv screen
is likely to be randomly hung on a wall of a conference room or such
and conveniently show footage of donald trump when people present are legitimately wondering out loud without a hint of bad comedic acting who might be a good republican candidate for the 2016 presidential election[/QUOTE]
If we had raw footage rather than that grainy YT upload they had running on their TV the biggest thing would be 'how much resolution is it showing' on the display. Displays didn't get much higher than 1024x768 back then in resolution. Given how far away it is and the compression artifacts, however, I'm unable to determine what sort of resolution it has.
Also, specifically
[quote]is likely to be randomly hung on a wall of a conference room or such
rims are proper thickness too rather than 4 times as thick as in the video[/quote]
If you bought a Plasma TV back then and didn't put it in your conference room or at your reception desk people would look at you like a crazy man. If you bought a PTV back then you flaunted it - you showed it off to people - it was more than just a thing showing pictures, they were conversation items. They were that way because they were so damn expensive and so ridiculously compact compared to the traditional tube TVs that were out at the time. So, yeah, no, that's not 'randomly hung'. That's a place where you put it to show to your clients that you're a cash-flush organization that's high tech.
e: I mean for christ's sake they put it between two pieces of art. That should tell you all you need to know about 'how randomly it was put there'. Whether this video is criminal fact or criminal/'post-ironic' fraud - they very much nailed that part of 2003 tech-company-interior-design.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;52983191]You're actually claiming the video he shows at the 'telecom prom' was made in 2003? The one where they say [I]"I think your best bet is an outsider, but I have no idea who (the Republican that will win the 2016 election and make you FCC Chairman) that could be?"[/I] and then a video clip of Donald Trump shows up in the background and music starts playing? You're saying they were confident enough in predicting that Trump would become president in 2016, [I]in 2003[/I], to make a video they would only use 14 years later? That's honestly absurd, and even the article you linked calls it 'a satirical video that showed him planning his ascension to the FCC chairmanship with a Verizon executive in 2003'. What purpose would they have had for recording this obviously acted conversation in 2003?[/QUOTE]
Be as incredulous as you want dude. I'm stating a reported fact.
This video was made then.
[editline]16th December 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;52983260]But they didn't do that, Ajit doesn't present the video as a prediction that came true, and the video wasn't meant to be seen by anyone other than the telecom executives. Seeing as the clip is obviously acted, I'm just going to say that filming it in 2017 after the events transpired is clearly the simplest explanation for the incredible accuracy. I guess we can't prove it either way with the information we have, though.[/QUOTE]
OKay.
It's fake news, and the reported date of 2003 is fake and is fake news and isn't true.
Do you have ANYTHING to back that up?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52983598]Be as incredulous as you want dude. I'm stating a reported fact.[/QUOTE]
It is? If that's true then I simply missed it and I'm sorry. If you're talking about the fact that he calls it a 14 year old video, then I guess I can't [I]prove[/I] my belief that that wasn't a truthful statement, but I'll cite the overt satirical tone of the entire skit, plus [URL=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/ajit-pai-jokes-about-being-a-brainwashed-verizon-puppet-at-the-fcc/]the article you linked[/URL] which calls it a "joke", "skit", and "a satirical video".
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52983598]Do you have ANYTHING to back that up?[/QUOTE]
I've been backing my claims up with logic, since that seemed to be all there was to go on. Eg. implausible accuracy of predictions, implausible amount of effort [I](14 years of preparation & admission of corruption!)[/I] for a joke, and the obvious satirical tone of the video. If it is as you say it is, I find that very surprising but also relieving since in that case it clearly is a blatant admission of guilt.
[editline]17th December 2017[/editline]
I might also add that in the sentence where he calls it a 14 year old video, he also says [I]"Well, moments before tonight's dinner, somebody leaked a 14-year-old video"[/I], and if he's speaking truthfully, we should be able to confirm the existence of this leak, yeah? Then we could also get a better look at that TV.
Simpsons predicted Trump in roughly the right time frame, what doesn't that make the show?
Satire being accurate is strange but it shouldn't make you instantly say it's fake.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52983755]Simpsons predicted Trump in roughly the right time frame, what doesn't that make the show?
Satire being accurate is strange but it shouldn't make you instantly say it's fake.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but like I said before, that Simpsons joke would have worked regardless of whether it came true or not, whereas this skit wouldn't work if any of the details didn't come to be [I](if it didn't take 14 years, if a Republican didn't win the 2016 election, if Ajit Pai wasn't appointed FCC chairman, if it wasn't Donald Trump)[/I].
[editline]17th December 2017[/editline]
How about my other arguments?
I don't think they planned this meticulously and made it a reality but it's been a goal of theirs for years. The accuracy of their satire doesn't mean it wasn't made at that time. I don't view that as an actual argument, does a coincidence invalidate arguments for you often?
They made a bad joke in 2003 or whatever, and it came true. It happens to align with their goals and was probably somewhat planned but who knew it could go so well? I guess the alternative is they made that video this year for a reason literally no one knows and that's more believable to you. It isn't to me
The alternative is that he made the video as joke to present it at the conference, trying to mock the criticism he is getting online. Even by a long shot if it was produced in 2003, the tone in which is presented it cleary sarcasticly and could never be considered an admission of guilt, even if deep down he knows it.
There's more than enough reason to hate him, I can't honestly understand the point in this.
All it takes is one sober look at the actual uncropped footage with less compressed sound quality to see that it's obviously an attempt at parody, or at least miles away from an actual serious documentary.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzHleu03fxY[/media]
where didn't I say it was serious? I didn't.
I said it was sarcastic.
Yes it exposes their plan but I also think they didn't think this would happen in the way it did.
But it did. And their sarcastic shit to share with themselves at a jokey Christmas party over a decade ago wasn't malicious, it just came true.
I think you're being exactly what Pai is making fun of in the skit.
[editline]17th December 2017[/editline]
You're literally making the joke work.
[editline]17th December 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52984352]And their sarcastic shit to share with themselves at a jokey Christmas party over a decade ago wasn't malicious, it just came true.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, also Verizon just happened to actually acquire MCI in 2006 rather than it working as Pai's joke about him not knowing they weren't yet a subsidiary in 2003. Amazing show of prescience right there.
He makes a joke, right at the start of the video, to the Verizon girl that "oh wait, you don't buy MCI for another 3 years". Verizon bought MCI in 2006. I hope this settles this absurd discussion about the video being made in 2003 which took me a literal 20 seconds to disprove.
[editline]17th December 2017[/editline]
Oh fuck, I was beat to it.
I mean they even play the Apprentice theme, which came out in 2004, Trump was a registered Democrat until 2009 and didn't make any statement in favour of the Republican party.
It's so obvious it wasn't shot in 2003 that I'm honestly at a loss of words on how people here are insisting on it.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52983927]I don't think they planned this meticulously and made it a reality but it's been a goal of theirs for years. The accuracy of their satire doesn't mean it wasn't made at that time. I don't view that as an actual argument, does a coincidence invalidate arguments for you often?[/QUOTE]
The coincidence doesn't invalidate the argument, I'm just saying that it's the most simple explanation that it was made in 2017. If it was made in 2017, it would require neither planning nor coincidence, wouldn't be a [I]blatant[/I] admission of guilt, and the effort would match the purpose of the video.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52983927]They made a bad joke in 2003 or whatever, and it came true. It happens to align with their goals and was probably somewhat planned but who knew it could go so well? I guess the alternative is they made that video this year for a reason literally no one knows and that's more believable to you. It isn't to me[/QUOTE]
This doesn't make sense. We know the reason they made this video: It's a joke. If they made it in 2017, that makes perfect sense. They made a skit portraying the past as a joke. If they made it in 2003, that's when you should be confused about the reasoning.
[QUOTE=Bertie;52984372]He makes a joke, right at the start of the video, to the Verizon girl that "oh wait, you don't buy MCI for another 3 years". Verizon bought MCI in 2006. I hope this settles this absurd discussion about the video being made in 2003 which took me a literal 20 seconds to disprove.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Psyke89;52984399]I mean they even play the Apprentice theme, which came out in 2004, Trump was a registered Democrate until 2009 and didn't make any statement in favour of the Republican party.
It's so obvious it wasn't shot in 2003 that I'm honestly at a loss of words on how people here are insisting on it.[/QUOTE]
Oh, wow.
This represents the guy pretty accurately:
[video=youtube;jgflCE7zRpc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgflCE7zRpc[/video]
[QUOTE=Psyke89;52984399]I mean they even play the Apprentice theme, which came out in 2004, Trump was a registered Democrat until 2009 and didn't make any statement in favour of the Republican party.
It's so obvious it wasn't shot in 2003 that I'm honestly at a loss of words on how people here are insisting on it.[/QUOTE]
I suppose because the alternative is that he filmed the video with verizon while working for the FCC and that's a flagrant breach of protocol and it would have been caught and it makes the issue seem complicated
but okay. I was wrong.
I still don't get why the video was made then, if not as a joke in that time frame, because it's a beyond scummy if that video was made this year or last year, it should be in direct violation as a employee of the FCC to so blatantly fraternize with the companies you manage.
It is scummy, but like I said it's satire not an admission of guilt. From his perspective (and the joke in his mind), it's absurd that you think he's doing it because he's paid off.
Here's an incredible and troubling nugget of ideology for you: this dude actually believes the internet would be better privatized, with data caps and throttling and choose your own adventure. That's the scary part.
If it was just greed that's one thing. But this dude actually believes his shit, that's the crazy thing
[editline]18th December 2017[/editline]
Oh he's also probably getting paid a fuck ton too btw, just wanna make that clear. But he also probably believes it. Mixing business (crime) with pleasure and all that
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.