CIA Has Killed Off The World Factbook After Six Decades (cia.gov)
- Reference: 0180735664
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/26/02/05/187252/cia-has-killed-off-the-world-factbook-after-six-decades
- Source link: https://www.cia.gov/stories/story/spotlighting-the-world-factbook-as-we-bid-a-fond-farewell/
The agency offered no explanation for the decision. Originally titled The National Basic Intelligence Factbook, the publication first went unclassified in 1971, was renamed a decade later, and moved online at CIA.gov in 1997. It served researchers, news organizations, teachers, students and international travelers. The site hosted more than 5,000 copyright-free photographs, some donated by CIA officers from their personal travel. Every page now redirects to a farewell announcement.
[1] https://www.cia.gov/stories/story/spotlighting-the-world-factbook-as-we-bid-a-fond-farewell/
Six decades? (Score:3)
Those are obviously old and stale facts. The most transparent administration in history will provide you with completely new and fresh facts to justify fucking over whichever country is next on the list.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. Personality Cult leaders don't like to be fact checked, and this fuckstain doesn't get sheepish at the idea of tearing down institutions that weren't adequately protected by statute.
Re: (Score:2)
And it will be alternate facts, which are much better!
palm pilot (Score:3)
I remember before smart phones/mobile internet/Wikipedia I could download/install the CIA world Factbook to my visor handspring.
The origin of many jokes (Score:3)
I remember the early search engines like AltaVista in 1997. Typing 'United Kingdom' into a search box would always bring back the CIA page as the top entry, with a brief text description of 'Size : Slightly smaller than Oregon'.
Re: (Score:3)
Mostly harmless.
It will be missed. (Score:1)
CIA World FactBook was a reference I kept going back to over the years. Now that is gone. /sad I guess https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/ is next in line to fall among those recurring reference points. Very well, we will all find new references and in all likelihood they will not originate from US.
Re: (Score:2)
I was a big fan back in the day. But to be honest I've never used it since Wikipedia arrived.
Obscurantism (Score:5, Insightful)
Straight from the dictatorship handbook.
Re: (Score:2)
Ya. It's exactly that. Fucking tragic.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. How more respected can you get in a community than publishing the universally recognized frigging reference for all of the world?
Also remember that all conflicts have a major component of perception. This move will make the US less safe.
This stuff worries me... (Score:5, Insightful)
This stuff worries me. The US, since WWII, has provided a starting point for the rest of the world in many areas. From the Internet to GPS, to electricity, to roads... many things that we use today were paved and made available by the US government.
I'm not happy seeing this shift. IMHO, this shows the US is retreating. This also shows to allies that the US is not interested in world affairs as much, while China and India are wooing them to join BRICS and dump the dollar, to join their trade bloc.
IMHO, these decisions seem to be made by people who don't understand basic agriculture. If you want a harvest, you have to plant something. Not bothering to plant, or cutting off seed corn means that there won't be much to bring in.
What would be ideal is the US to maintain some type of library or encyclopedia, not on just countries, but other items. At least it means there is a vetted [1] source of information which can be cross-checked.
[1]: It is relative, but at least one can point a finger to a nation-state as a source of truth, or point out it is a bald-faced lie, with the buck stopping there.
Re: (Score:1)
One place I check facts on subjects where I suspect Wikipedia might not be trustworthy is Britannica. Maybe nostalgia in part, I remember fondly the wall of bound Encyclopedia Britannica volumes my dad had (actually still has).
Re: This stuff worries me... (Score:2)
Well, but somehow nowadays that is super totally filthy hyper-capitalist, colonialist and misogynist and racist and fascist and literally nothing the US has ever done is good in any way..
So shouldnt these people be celebrating that the evil propaganda by CIA is gone? The orange man could have had some facts altered!!!
Re: (Score:2)
You can tell the loonies because there can't hear something critical about the republican administration without instantly trying to drag other people into it
You know this shit is bad otherwise your wouldn't be trying to kick up dust about whatever straw leftist you dreamed about last night. So why not just admit it and be honest without kicking up dust. You're favoured side won't stop sound the things you don't like while you keep acting like a useful idiot and ruining interference for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure... But wait what roads?
The great North American stroad is a terrible invention that no one should be copying. It is an almost unique combination of high cost, dangerous to use and prone to traffic jams.
You need to sort out your political system (Score:2)
For a start have a system whereby a potential president doesn't either need to be stinking rich to campaign and/or has to beg for donor money and then owes huge favours to said donors. Make a law that broadcast and online media have to represent all candidates equally and give them free airtime for some agreed length of time and have government moneyt pay for a certain number of campaign visits around your country which if they lose they have to pay back.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Yes, though I had to refrain from citing any numbers from that on places such as this. Every time I did, the usual suspects would insist that it's just American propaganda, CIA is fascist, or any other conspiracy theory you can think of.
Sometimes, the only way to get your point across is to do it using the recipients own preferred source material, and be careful to avoid using the ones they distrust, regardless of how accurate, or not, it may be.
Re:Obscurantism (Score:4, Interesting)
No you didn't, don't lie.
Your head is so far up your own ass that you can't have a simple story about the republican administration doing something short without bleating about teh libruhls.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't remember the last time I used that site. I can't remember much about it TBH - what did it offer that I can't get conveniently from Wikipedia?
Re: (Score:2)
> what did it offer that I can't get conveniently from Wikipedia?
A source you can cite.