Slashback: Scramjet, Golden Ears, Preciousness

Slashback tonight with a followup on the Australian scramjet test, comparing audio formats with numbers (not just complaining about them), and questionably reasonable ways to sneak abuse-begging Internet laws in "for the children," (or plaintiffs, as the case may be). Read on.

Everything that rises must come down under. spam-it-to-me-baby writes: "The Australian trial of a scramjet engine has fizzed. 'The experiment at the Department of Defence's Woomera Prohibited Area, 500 kilometres north of Adelaide, was not successful because the [United States-supplied] rocket experienced flight anomalies prior to the scramjet experiment,' an analysis of what went wrong says. Not to worry, another test is tentatively scheduled for next week, assuming researchers can work out what went wrong with this one on the way up."

Not to be confused with this previous scramjet test, also unsuccessful.

Ah, much better, I thought you were being unreasonable there for a minute. After Jamie drew attention to it in a Slashdot piece on Saturday, SafeSurf changed their legislative proposal. In Jamie's words, "Woo!"

That's not all he said, of course: "Please note that, now, they ONLY want to fine you thousands of dollars for failing to label anything you write that is harmful to an 8-year-old. What a relief! "The penalty for a first offense of failing to label or mislabeling material harmful to minors shall be limited to a fine of under five thousand dollars."

Bennett Haselton passed on this commentary as well:

"If you go to http://www.safesurf.com/online.htm in Netscape and "View Document Info", it shows it was last modified on October 29, 2001. (This function doesn't work in IE.)

The original OCPA is [at google]. SafeSurf apparently removed this paragraph from section 6:

Publishers may be sued in civil court by any parent who feels their children were harmed by the data negligently published. The parents shall be given presumption in all cases and do not have to prove that the content actually produced harm to their child, only that the material was severe enough to reasonably be considered to have needed a rating label to protect children.

and replaced it with:

Publishers may be sued in civil court by any parent who feels their children were harmed by the data negligently published. The parents/plantiffs shall be given presumption, if the case involves graphic images, and do not have to prove that the content actually produced harm to their child, only that the material was severe enough to reasonably be considered to have needed a rating label to protect children.

and then added three new paragraphs listing more exemptions from this rule."

Can you hear that pea through the mattresses? For the audio objectivists, a good update to CmdrTaco's recent MP3 v. Ogg Vorbis inquiry: E1ven writes: "Everyone is always arguing about whether Vorbis sounds better than MP3, or vice versa. Here is your chance to see who is right! ff123 is doing a set of Blind Listening tests and could use your help. The more ears the better!"

Comments

Re:What does "harm" mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is number One?!?

Re:What does "harm" mean?

[1010011010]

My mirror of their Proposed Act, with a brand new subtitle!

http://nc.flyingbuttmonkeys.com/mirrors/safesurf-t yrrany-and-profit.html

They are calling their "anti-freedom" claptrap "The Online Cooperative Publishing Act", subtitled, "SafeSurf's Proposal for a Safe Internet Without Censorship".

Except that it is not only not without censorship, but also would legislate fealty to them.

I have a more accurate, but not catchy, title for their Proposed Law:

The "We would like to legislate a healthy bottom line for ourselves, and maybe put you in jail for using your First Amdnedment free speech and press rights, because we're a bunch of greedy assholes, so will you please cooperate, Act."

My children would be harmed by reading this act. "Why are some people so mean, daddy?" ... "I don't know, honey, but I'll sue their asses off for expressing those ideas! You wait and see!" ... "Daddy, you're scaring me."

Re:diff version

[glitch!]

The parents/plantiffs shall be given presumption, if the case involves graphic images, ...

Oh, it only applies to graphic images. I guess my ASCII porn is okay, then :-)

Morons.

Re:Fine, from now on the Internet is "Adults only"

[Peter Harris]

Maybe we should just stamp "Parental Guidance Recommended in permanent ink on each child's forehead when they're born -- include a bar code and removing it would probably be a violation of the [DMCA].

Hmm. Maybe you should patent that idea. There's prior art in Revelation, but it should still get past the US patent office.

Don't complain about the lack of options

[ReelOddeeo]

4. Rate each codec against the original and comment on the defects. Listen to each of the codecs and rate each one in comparison with the original. Use a 1.0 to 5.0 scale, as described below:

5.0 = imperceptible (not perceptible)
4.0 = perceptible but not annoying
3.0 = slightly annoying
2.0 = annoying
1.0 = very annoying

They left out some important options. For example:

0.0 = extremely annoying, but imperceptible
-1.0 = the music is annoying
-2.0 = how do I compile the decoder again?


But it reminds me of...

• Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
• Feel free to suggest troll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past trolls first.
• This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Decoding errors, variations in speakers, dynamic IPs, firewalls, amplifier differences. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.