Thank god for Canada's MuchMusic. I may hate most of the videos, but at least they play videos. They'll run the occasional documentary or music-related show (Monkees, Partridge Family, B+B - none of which counts toward Much's CanCon requirements), but those things are secondary to music programming and the occasional live performance.
Since we can't receive MTV in Canada unless we have a "grey market" U.S. DSS system, I don't know how much of its soul has been sold. I do know Much somehow combines music celebrity pandering with a surprising amount of populism.
The station's main studio floor is ringed by large windows along the corners of Queen and John streets in Toronto, out of which you can usually see a few people peeking in to see what's up. It's common to see VJs speaking to people outside the building, asking softball questions and having them introduce videos.
Whenever a musical act or celebrity shows up, there is usually a massive crowd outside said windows. Much even lets crowds of people inside the environment to be with the stars in an informal setting, whether for a simple interview or a full-blown concert.
Much, along with the rest of the ChumCity building (several cable channels and one major Toronto TV station operate from it), has at least one open house a year, allowing the public to walk right through and see what the inside is like. It's quite open, yet cozy. And then there's the obligatory dance show, Electric Circus, featuring decent dancers inside and crowds of wannabes outside, even in the dead of winter.
I could go on, fawning all over it. Yes, there are things that detract from it; the expected Canadian bias, the ads, the overabundance of R+B and lack of heavy metal (or maybe that's my own musical bias creeping in), but I'll take Much over MTV any day.
the term "GNU/Linux" is offensive to people, but everyone's happy when Redhat calls their distribution "Redhat Linux"
From what little I understand of the Open Source movement, GNU, and related stuff, "Linux" is the proper name of the operating system started by Linus Torvalds and developed by hundreds of others. "GNU/Linux" is a misnomer inserted into the mainstream by a group (members of the GNU project?) trying to claim some control over Linux for virtue of it being developed using tools from the GNU project (am I way off here? correct me pwease.)
Red Hat Linux, on the other hand, is the name of a distribution of Linux. Like Debian, Linux Mandrake, Caldera OpenLinux, and the like, it's the name of a particular distribution/flavour of Linux. Red Hat isn't trying to usurp Linux's brand name with it's own version; it's simply the brand name for a particular distribution.
....give vendors the right to repossess software by disabling it remotely
What gives them that right?"
The letter of the law, it seems. A similar concept is already in force; anyone suckered into buying a Divx player agreed to this cute little statement in the Divx contractual agreement...
"YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT YOU POSSESS ONLY A NONEXCLUSIVE, LIMITED LICENSE TO VIEW THE MATERIALS CONTAINED ON THE DIVX DISCS AND THAT YOU HAVE NO OWNERSHIP OR OTHER PROPRIETARY INTEREST IN SUCH MATERIALS."
This allows them to prevent a movie from being viewed, say, if you forget to pay your bill, or a company wishes to put a movie "on moratorium".
Yes, less than 300 000 people bought those infected DVD players. Yes, it will probably die in a year or so. The ideology that birthed Divx, the concept of complete corporate control over the use of software (including the data on certain DVDs), is being adopted throughout the software and entertainment industries. The rush to create a "pay-per-listen" music format is one example; this software license bill from hell is another.
More fun statements...
"...but your warranty says that I can return it if it doesn't work as it says it would." "Too bad. We've disclaimed that warranty."
And...
"[the bill] says manufacturers are not liable for the poor quality of their products,"
These statements, and the states of mind they represent, would be unacceptable to consumers in any other product. Somehow, software manufacturers can get away with substandard products; this legislation would give that dangerous mindset legal backing.
I get the sick feeling the software lobby can get laws like this passed because the current political establishment has no idea how software works, and are unable to draw important distinctions and similarities between software products and other products. Thus, large corporations and powerful lobbies with enough money can tell the aforementioned clueless politicians how a particular law should be written, which just happens to work in their favour. I think it's time for some hackers who know how to deal with software and the Internet to get political office, before it's too late.
Believe it or not the news you get from CNN is biased (yes it really is). I've been forced to stop going there for information on this situation. Even the BBC and Telegraph are biased. Not to say that www.serbia-info.com isn't biased[...]
A Vorlon once told me "Understanding is a three-edged sword" - your side, their side, and the truth.
Let them spew their propaganda, all of them. The truth will come out when the dust settles and the bodies are counted. I expect everyone to play the propaganda game while the battles rage; assume everything in the media is skewed in one way or another. Even the Internet isn't immune, as CNN and serbia-info.com demonstrate.
Now, more than ever, is media literacy important - knowing how to separate truth from fiction, how to correct for biases hidden and blatant, and knowing that a statistic or fact may be nothing more than a guess or fabrication.
Sit tight. A lot of people are going to die, and just as many people are going to lie or get lied to before this is over.
I believe that everyone has forgotten one of the big reasons 2600 has taken up the banner for Mitnick. Yes, he stole source code and credit card numbers; that's illegal, and there are punishments under law for that. The companies involved seem to be inflating numbers to make the case look "good". No one disputes that Mitnick has stolen anything or is guilty of something.
The issue that troubles 2600 and Mitnick supporters is the fact that he's been held in prison for over four years without a trial. Habeas corpus, a legal right, has been tossed out the window. Yes, there were periods where Mitnick's lawyers requested a delay in the trial date so they could gather evidence. It certainly doesn't help the defendant when they're prevented from viewing the gigabytes upon gigabytes evidence against them until two weeks before the supposed trial date. And it's even worse when the judge tells the defense team bail will not be granted before the bail hearing even begins. A man's constitutional rights have been trampled on; even rapists and murderers get fair trials before this. Mitnick could likely get time served by now, yet he'll get the book thrown at him.
His guilt on some charges isn't in question; he plead guilty to a few a long time ago. That the gov't held off for a couple more YEARS until he plead guilty to the rest is suspicious; that he never received a fair trial in a reasonable period of time is an infringement of his rights. I guess "innocent until proven guilty" means nothing when large companies are involved; Mitnick never even had a chance to prove his side in a court of law. What a joke.
I can't wait for the SEC, or even the IRS to get involved; I'd love to see what they say about these supposed "losses".
Today on TV I saw that there was another school shooting...In CANADA! Now explain to me how in Canada, a country with "Sane" and "Sensible" gun control laws.
But we do have sane and sensible gun laws. That doesn't mean we don't have guns, period, and it doesn't mean that someone who really, really wants to find a gun never will. This shooting has all the hallmarks of a copycat attack; perhaps someone else saw no way out, perhaps someone just wanted to be a jerk.
The province of Alberta has always been pretty right-wing, from moral to political issues. Gun control is one of 'em; some of the most vocal anti-gun control sentiment comes from Alberta, and it gave rise to Canada's largest conservative party, the Reform party.
Back to the subject at hand. Gun crimes do occur here; however, they occur far less often than in the States. Even when you adjust for our smaller population, the U.S. violent crime and gun crime rate comes out higher, much higher. Is this because the Constitution makes gun ownership a right? Is it because the U.S. is a more stressful country to live in? Is it because modern life sucks? I don't know. I don't claim to have answers. I do know that you shouldn't get all smug and holy about a homicide involving a gun at a school occurring here; in fact, you may want to think about what the real issue is in these school shootings before saying "nyah nyah, your laws suck and ours rule because people still got killed there."
The issues are alienation and despair, with some parental neglect thrown in for good measure. It happens here too; difference is, aside from the copycat shooting (may the shooter enjoy an eternity of jail time, changes to the Young Offenders Act willing), no one here has gone as far off the edge as the Littleton shooters, and if anyone tried, they'd have a much harder time trying to get weapons.
But when there's a will, there's a way...
At this point, it may be wise to lock politicians out of the discussion entirely. Legislative solutions are being marketed left, right, center, outside, inside, up, down, anyplace you can breathe. It is not legislative, or even political change that is necessary. It is mental and social change, something far more difficult to accomplish and get people to accept. The mindset that currently exists in American (and to some extent Canadian) schools must be changed to one where the concept of an "outcast" is removed, where it becomes unacceptable to reject someone for absolutely petty things to build oneself up (which is precisely what happens when the outcasts are attacked; the attackers are trying to justify themselves by marginalizing their victims). It's more difficult than just enacting a gun law or charging the parents, because it requires many people to change the way they look at school and the people around them. It will require parents to teach their children, really teach them, that it is wrong to judge people by their non-harmful behaviours and intrinsic characteristics. People claim it happens now. It doesn't, not to the extent necessary. Until it does, we will read and hear more sad stories of the Hellmouth like Katz has been reporting.
The Post was created after (fellow Canucks, correct me if I'm wrong) Conrad Black, a newspaper mogul up here, shut down a paper called the Financial Post. He folded it into his new National Post, but not before firing all the employees. He hired back the non-reporting staff. Things get weird here. He fired the journalists, but kept them under contract. Their contracts lasted, at the time, another three years. Black not only dumped them, he kept them unable to work for competitors, and thus unemployed, for three years.
Whether this is legal is questionable; it just might be, but Black has powerful friends on Parliament Hill (our equivalent of the Beltway). This stuff never hit the news (he'd sue the pants off any paper that dared mention it), but I have good connections.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank god for Canada's MuchMusic. I may hate most of the videos, but at least they play videos. They'll run the occasional documentary or music-related show (Monkees, Partridge Family, B+B - none of which counts toward Much's CanCon requirements), but those things are secondary to music programming and the occasional live performance.
Since we can't receive MTV in Canada unless we have a "grey market" U.S. DSS system, I don't know how much of its soul has been sold. I do know Much somehow combines music celebrity pandering with a surprising amount of populism.
The station's main studio floor is ringed by large windows along the corners of Queen and John streets in Toronto, out of which you can usually see a few people peeking in to see what's up. It's common to see VJs speaking to people outside the building, asking softball questions and having them introduce videos.
Whenever a musical act or celebrity shows up, there is usually a massive crowd outside said windows. Much even lets crowds of people inside the environment to be with the stars in an informal setting, whether for a simple interview or a full-blown concert.
Much, along with the rest of the ChumCity building (several cable channels and one major Toronto TV station operate from it), has at least one open house a year, allowing the public to walk right through and see what the inside is like. It's quite open, yet cozy. And then there's the obligatory dance show, Electric Circus, featuring decent dancers inside and crowds of wannabes outside, even in the dead of winter.
I could go on, fawning all over it. Yes, there are things that detract from it; the expected Canadian bias, the ads, the overabundance of R+B and lack of heavy metal (or maybe that's my own musical bias creeping in), but I'll take Much over MTV any day.
Three words:
:)
Don't tell OPEC.
the term "GNU/Linux" is offensive to people, but everyone's happy when Redhat calls their distribution "Redhat Linux"
From what little I understand of the Open Source movement, GNU, and related stuff, "Linux" is the proper name of the operating system started by Linus Torvalds and developed by hundreds of others. "GNU/Linux" is a misnomer inserted into the mainstream by a group (members of the GNU project?) trying to claim some control over Linux for virtue of it being developed using tools from the GNU project (am I way off here? correct me pwease.)
Red Hat Linux, on the other hand, is the name of a distribution of Linux. Like Debian, Linux Mandrake, Caldera OpenLinux, and the like, it's the name of a particular distribution/flavour of Linux. Red Hat isn't trying to usurp Linux's brand name with it's own version; it's simply the brand name for a particular distribution.
What gives them that right?"
The letter of the law, it seems. A similar concept is already in force; anyone suckered into buying a Divx player agreed to this cute little statement in the Divx contractual agreement...
"YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT YOU POSSESS ONLY A NONEXCLUSIVE, LIMITED LICENSE TO VIEW THE MATERIALS CONTAINED ON THE DIVX DISCS AND THAT YOU HAVE NO OWNERSHIP OR OTHER PROPRIETARY INTEREST IN SUCH MATERIALS."
This allows them to prevent a movie from being viewed, say, if you forget to pay your bill, or a company wishes to put a movie "on moratorium".
Yes, less than 300 000 people bought those infected DVD players. Yes, it will probably die in a year or so. The ideology that birthed Divx, the concept of complete corporate control over the use of software (including the data on certain DVDs), is being adopted throughout the software and entertainment industries. The rush to create a "pay-per-listen" music format is one example; this software license bill from hell is another.
More fun statements...
"...but your warranty says that I can return it if it doesn't work as it says it would." "Too bad. We've disclaimed that warranty."
And...
"[the bill] says manufacturers are not liable for the poor quality of their products,"
These statements, and the states of mind they represent, would be unacceptable to consumers in any other product. Somehow, software manufacturers can get away with substandard products; this legislation would give that dangerous mindset legal backing.
I get the sick feeling the software lobby can get laws like this passed because the current political establishment has no idea how software works, and are unable to draw important distinctions and similarities between software products and other products. Thus, large corporations and powerful lobbies with enough money can tell the aforementioned clueless politicians how a particular law should be written, which just happens to work in their favour. I think it's time for some hackers who know how to deal with software and the Internet to get political office, before it's too late.
Believe it or not the news you get from CNN is biased (yes it really is). I've been forced to stop going there for information on this situation. Even the BBC and Telegraph are biased. Not to say that www.serbia-info.com isn't biased[...]
A Vorlon once told me "Understanding is a three-edged sword" - your side, their side, and the truth.
Let them spew their propaganda, all of them. The truth will come out when the dust settles and the bodies are counted. I expect everyone to play the propaganda game while the battles rage; assume everything in the media is skewed in one way or another. Even the Internet isn't immune, as CNN and serbia-info.com demonstrate.
Now, more than ever, is media literacy important - knowing how to separate truth from fiction, how to correct for biases hidden and blatant, and knowing that a statistic or fact may be nothing more than a guess or fabrication.
Sit tight. A lot of people are going to die, and just as many people are going to lie or get lied to before this is over.
I believe that everyone has forgotten one of the big reasons 2600 has taken up the banner for Mitnick. Yes, he stole source code and credit card numbers; that's illegal, and there are punishments under law for that. The companies involved seem to be inflating numbers to make the case look "good". No one disputes that Mitnick has stolen anything or is guilty of something.
The issue that troubles 2600 and Mitnick supporters is the fact that he's been held in prison for over four years without a trial. Habeas corpus, a legal right, has been tossed out the window. Yes, there were periods where Mitnick's lawyers requested a delay in the trial date so they could gather evidence. It certainly doesn't help the defendant when they're prevented from viewing the gigabytes upon gigabytes evidence against them until two weeks before the supposed trial date. And it's even worse when the judge tells the defense team bail will not be granted before the bail hearing even begins. A man's constitutional rights have been trampled on; even rapists and murderers get fair trials before this. Mitnick could likely get time served by now, yet he'll get the book thrown at him.
His guilt on some charges isn't in question; he plead guilty to a few a long time ago. That the gov't held off for a couple more YEARS until he plead guilty to the rest is suspicious; that he never received a fair trial in a reasonable period of time is an infringement of his rights. I guess "innocent until proven guilty" means nothing when large companies are involved; Mitnick never even had a chance to prove his side in a court of law. What a joke.
I can't wait for the SEC, or even the IRS to get involved; I'd love to see what they say about these supposed "losses".
Today on TV I saw that there was another school shooting...In CANADA! Now explain to me how in Canada, a country with "Sane" and "Sensible" gun control laws.
But we do have sane and sensible gun laws. That doesn't mean we don't have guns, period, and it doesn't mean that someone who really, really wants to find a gun never will. This shooting has all the hallmarks of a copycat attack; perhaps someone else saw no way out, perhaps someone just wanted to be a jerk.
The province of Alberta has always been pretty right-wing, from moral to political issues. Gun control is one of 'em; some of the most vocal anti-gun control sentiment comes from Alberta, and it gave rise to Canada's largest conservative party, the Reform party.
Back to the subject at hand. Gun crimes do occur here; however, they occur far less often than in the States. Even when you adjust for our smaller population, the U.S. violent crime and gun crime rate comes out higher, much higher. Is this because the Constitution makes gun ownership a right? Is it because the U.S. is a more stressful country to live in? Is it because modern life sucks? I don't know. I don't claim to have answers. I do know that you shouldn't get all smug and holy about a homicide involving a gun at a school occurring here; in fact, you may want to think about what the real issue is in these school shootings before saying "nyah nyah, your laws suck and ours rule because people still got killed there."
The issues are alienation and despair, with some parental neglect thrown in for good measure. It happens here too; difference is, aside from the copycat shooting (may the shooter enjoy an eternity of jail time, changes to the Young Offenders Act willing), no one here has gone as far off the edge as the Littleton shooters, and if anyone tried, they'd have a much harder time trying to get weapons.
But when there's a will, there's a way...
At this point, it may be wise to lock politicians out of the discussion entirely. Legislative solutions are being marketed left, right, center, outside, inside, up, down, anyplace you can breathe. It is not legislative, or even political change that is necessary. It is mental and social change, something far more difficult to accomplish and get people to accept. The mindset that currently exists in American (and to some extent Canadian) schools must be changed to one where the concept of an "outcast" is removed, where it becomes unacceptable to reject someone for absolutely petty things to build oneself up (which is precisely what happens when the outcasts are attacked; the attackers are trying to justify themselves by marginalizing their victims). It's more difficult than just enacting a gun law or charging the parents, because it requires many people to change the way they look at school and the people around them. It will require parents to teach their children, really teach them, that it is wrong to judge people by their non-harmful behaviours and intrinsic characteristics. People claim it happens now. It doesn't, not to the extent necessary. Until it does, we will read and hear more sad stories of the Hellmouth like Katz has been reporting.
More National Joke info:
The Post was created after (fellow Canucks, correct me if I'm wrong) Conrad Black, a newspaper mogul up here, shut down a paper called the Financial Post. He folded it into his new National Post, but not before firing all the employees. He hired back the non-reporting staff. Things get weird here. He fired the journalists, but kept them under contract. Their contracts lasted, at the time, another three years. Black not only dumped them, he kept them unable to work for competitors, and thus unemployed, for three years.
Whether this is legal is questionable; it just might be, but Black has powerful friends on Parliament Hill (our equivalent of the Beltway). This stuff never hit the news (he'd sue the pants off any paper that dared mention it), but I have good connections.
Sleazy, eh?