I won't post a really long thread; suffice to say that my personal view is that guns on board an aircraft are a BAD idea.
I mean, you go to all this trouble to keep guns off the aircraft, then negate it all by allowing the "good guys" to come on board with them! Believe it or not I'm not THAT concerned with a bullet disrupting something vital (other than me of course!) to the airworthiness of the aircraft. I'd imagine the sky marshals would be using Glaser safety rounds in their weapons (frangible ammunition that is designed to break up instead of going through an aircraft hull) and explosive decompression isn't quite as severe as people imagine it to be.
Also, the front windscreens on aircraft are remarkably thick since they need to prevent a high speed bird strike from penetrating into the cockpit! Don't know how they'd fare with a bullet in them, but if it gets that far you've got bigger problems I'd say (like the soft, fleshy pilots between the door and the windscreen)!
Consider the worst case scenario - multiple terrorists WITH guns. Even in that scenario, they can STILL be mobbed, and given that the alternative would be death for all the passengers anyway, they don't have much to lose anymore by trying.
Finally, consider what happens if the terrorists decide to play fakes and have some (but not all) terrorists take over the aircraft, drawing out the sky marshals. Sure, the situation's no doubt been thought of by sky marshals, but it's not an exact science. Then consider terrorists dressing as sky marshals, using fake ID etc. Who is the real sky marshal? As you can see, it's far simpler to just keep them off aircraft in the first place.
....is that whilst a Ford costs hell of a lot of money to reproduce, a digital copy of a movie costs basically zero to reproduce (yes, I know that technically you take up hard drive space, put it on DVDR etc, but it's virtually zero).
When something can be essentially copied at zero cost, should it still require people to pay $xx for it?
I think we should start a campaign called "Ditch The Dots" (you heard it here first).
Movie review sites and other related areas should band together, design a logo or some such using the dot style, and paste it everywhere. Make flyers and post them near cinemas. Boycott movies. Whatever it takes to make the cretins that put them in there (burned in with a laser which is why anamorphic prints' dots look stretched) get rid of them, as they serve no purpose to the audience except to piss them off when they place them in the most conspicuous frames, often right on top of foreheads or other large, light coloured areas in a frame, pulling you right out of the immersive experience.
I personally am not going to the cinema this year until I know my experience is no longer going to be ruined by these dots. I'll wait the extra month or two until it reaches DVD, thanks.
Speaking as a pilot, your idea of locking the cockpit door at the beginning of the flight with crew inside is preposterous.
Sure, it may work for a quick city hopper flight of an hour or less. But anything more, and you'd have pilots going to the toilet IN the cockpit. They'd get no meals. No fluids that they didn't stash in there with them.
In short, at some point in most flights, the cockpit door will need to be opened for something.
About the ONLY real security measure you have on an aircraft post-9/11 is the passengers on that aircraft, who if they see a hijack about to start, should rush the hijackers and detain them (or worse - I wouldn't lose any sleep over the "accidental death" of a would be hijacker).
All this business about fingerprinting citizens entering the US, CAPPS, TIA, colour-coded threat levels etc - all of it is useless and simply a way to slowly strip away your rights, frog in boiling water style.
How can I say this, you ask? Because when they fingerprint THE PILOTS who have just arrived from overseas to determine they aren't a threat, it's TOO LATE. If they WERE a threat, they'd have complete control over the aircraft from the first engine start back in their starting country and ALREADY have carried out their attack!
It's all an illusion people. You are no safer now than you ever were, I assure you. Pilots know it - I can only hope the wider community ends up realising it.
Your post reminded me of something I wrote in my diary a while ago:
"Sometimes I feel I am accelerating in my thought processes. Sounds like a strange proposition, I'll grant you. But I'll try to explain. For quite a while now I have felt that the world seems to be slowing down ever so slightly around me, like The Matrix's bullet time concept. I feel more comfortable driving a car at higher speeds than slower speeds, as an example. Walking through crowds I can anticipate the patterns before they happen, so I can walk through them easily. Little things that can't be quantified. It's a feeling that comes and goes, but since I've noticed it consciously I have paid attention to it and therefore can begin to assess it."
Your description of transition sickness has just made me realise that what I felt wasn't unique! I am an avid video gamer, primarily first person shooters and driving simulations, so it makes perfect sense. Thanks for that excellent piece of information!
email me at quizo69@NO_SPAMhotmail.com if you want really in depth discussion, but basically, T3 for me, whilst undeniably eye candy, still managed to make you care for the characters and best of all, had a great ending that didn't sugar coat anything. The way in which they realised they weren't going to be able to stop the nuclear war was very poignantly done IMHO.
Anyway, to keep this short, email me if you want more discussion!
Kill Bill Volume 1 - Beautiful art cinema Lilja 4-Ever - Harrowing and one of the few movies to make me cry 28 Days Later - Brilliant low budget horror Terminator 3 - A sequel that lived up to its predecessors The Return Of The King - The entire trilogy is a masterpiece of modern cinema
As for the rest.... well I was severely disappointed by the Matrix sequels more than anything else. Those who respond that I "just don't get it" are missing the fact that while the IDEAS were sound, the EXECUTION left everything to be desired. A movie needs STORY, PLOT and AUDIENCE EMPATHY to be successful, not just eye candy, which while great doesn't keep you coming back over and over again.
I have begun forming an Australian political party which has as one of its aims the return of telecommunications INFRASTRUCTURE to the public while cutting Telstra (Retail) loose to fend for itself along with all the other telcos on an equal footing.
Along with this I propose having Australian ISPs come under the common carrier provision, such that they, like telephone companies, will NOT be held accountable for the data transmitted through their servers and network infrastructure.
I am sick of the bullying of the global media corps and their litigation happy nature, and intend to do something about it.
You can too - visit our nascent party website and get involved:
www.neteffect.org.au
We are aiming to elect one or more representatives to Federal Parliament next year, and will be implementing some radical new ways of conducting politics in the age of the Internet.
Stop and think about that quote for a minute. How does that apply to the current "war" on terrorism?
Now, if you really believe there's some worldwide network of super-terrorists (Al Qaeda, emminently led by Emmanuel Goldstein aka Osama bin Laden) then how do you expect the US government to defeat them? After all, they've already said they don't necessarily need to capture or kill Osama to win. Seems a little odd doesn't it?
Reminds me more and more of the eternal war as portrayed in George Orwell's "1984". In this case, it's Americans who seem willing to put up with ever increasing government oversight in exchange for the illusion that they're "winning" this "war".
It's amusing and simultaneously a little eerie to see more and more references to the John Titor story popping up when articles on government powers are published. Whether you believe the Titor story is irrelevant - the fact remains that fiction or not, it, like "1984", gives a vision of what may transpire should we do nothing and carry on down the path we are currently on.
Being an Australian, I was never in favour of wide gun ownership in the US, believing it to be the equivalent of sitting on a tinderbox. Now, however, I am beginning to understand the REASON the right to bear arms was put in the US Constitution. Scary to think that one day you may need to rise up against your own government through violent means. Let's just hope and work towards a revolution such as that recently carried out in Georgia - a bloodless one.
The problem with the US today is that there is no longer accountability. Checks and balances are being swept aside to make it easier for government to do whatever the hell they like, in the name of stopping terrorism.
What people too easily forget is that checks and balances exist FOR A REASON.
I'm currently in the process of drafting a political party constitution for a party I've started (www.neteffect.org.au, you can download the draft if you wish) and I can tell you my overriding concern is to have enough checks and balances built in to make it nigh on impossible to contravene the constitution and get away with it.
What the US (and probably many others) needs is laws enacted that provide MORE checks and balances, and common sense laws such as the example you give of making sure you can't sneak in a non-secret law as a rider to a secret budget bill.
What I don't see considered, is the idea that bringing loads of extra mass back to our planet could upset our solar orbit.
I know that small amounts of rock hit us all the time, but consider if we continually bring more and more back to Earth in the future. Could we inadvertently tip ourselves out of our present orbit somehow, if only by a tiny amount, but large enough to upset the state of life here?
I know it's probably a little far fetched, but any scenario that could possibly affect life on this planet of ours should bear thinking about, right?
I'm not normally pedantic about this sort of thing, but common convention has it that it's either the Northern or Southern hemisphere.
The reasons for this are varied, but among them - weather patterns are aligned this way, we have a North and South pole (no East or West Pole I know of unless you are referring to Polish people) and the lines of longitude are all of equal length, while latitudes vary, giving rise to a top and bottom so to speak.
This Eastern/Western hemisphere crap (whilst technically correct in a strict physics sense, and only if you use the Greenwich Line as the middle) is one which has its origins firmly in the United States, which obviously felt that the propaganda value of having themselves in the "Westernest" hemisphere (thanks Simpsons) outweighed international convention on these sorts of things.
OK, that said, nothing detracts from your post itself which is correctly marked IMHO as Insightful. I just felt the need to clarify an error I see being used more each day.
This is for Australia, but I plan on having a forum open to the world so everyone may contribute ideas on policy.
If you are Australian, think about becoming a member, and if you are anyone else, bookmark it and check back probably early next year when we should be up and running properly.
I'm starting a political party here, which will be largely based online. As such, I am grappling with how to implement secure, online voting (only for our own party members, not full on electoral voting which I think should remain a paper ballot for the foreseeable future).
I've come up with similar statements to yours in our draft Constitution:
An online vote must fulfil the following criteria to be considered valid: a. The Member must be able to cast his vote such that only he knows how he voted; b. The Member must be able to verify that his vote has been correctly registered, both at the time of casting the vote and at any other time after the event; c. The Member must only be able to vote once per issue; d. The vote must be correctly registered at the server; e. The server must be able to prove it has not been tampered with; f. The server's hardware and software must be open to scrutiny at any time and independently verifiable by a third party; g. The server must be able to check the authority of a Member to cast a vote, but not retain specific identifiable information on how a Member voted after the event without that Member providing a hash key of some sort for verification purposes.
Not easy to come up with a solution to this problem. In part a. I think having a mailed out card with five or more numbers on it, of which one is the key and the others false keys, is at least a way to ensure that the voter can vote from home free of coercion. As long as the vote goes through regardless of which key is inputted, the voter being coerced (say by their spouse) can dutifully say that they put in the correct key and the spouse cannot prove otherwise.
There's plenty more to do yet to implement the full system, but that's where I'm at right now.
If you'd like to contribute feel free to visit my website:
http://www.users.on.net/grypen/politics/
or read through the Yahoo Group posts (our first forum, temporary in nature until we get a real one):
http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/neteffect/
Doesn't matter what nationality you are, I intend for all world citizens to have a voice on our proper forum once it's up, although of course only party members will be able to vote on party issues when it's going.
I searched for the string: "George Orwell and media revisionism".
My reply:
No documents found for George Orwell and media revisionism
Kinda says it all doesn't it?:)
Quizo69
Proxomitron is still supported by others
on
IE To Block Pop-Ups
·
· Score: 1
Your statement is untrue. While the main application itself is currently not being updated, it is not the main program that is important, believe it or not.
What makes Proxomitron great is the third party filter sets. Proxomitron by itself is pretty good as a popup killer etc. I used it this way for a long time. Then one day someone pointed me to this site:
http://www.jd5000.net/
Can you say BEST FILTER SET EVER? I thought you could:)
JD's filters are absolutely fantastic. He continually refines them, and if you find a problem with them (or someone invents a new type of popup etc) just email him and he'll implement a fix. If he can't do it, go here:
http://asp.flaaten.dk/proxo/
That's the Proxomitron Forum (unofficial). There's a bunch of other developers who either write their own filters or work with each other to combine resources.
Lastly, you can write your own filters! I myself have taken JD's filter set and added a couple of customised filter options I prefer but which were not in his set.
THAT is the beauty of Proxomitron. The main program itself is simply a proxy using a set of rules based on a specific intruction set. You don't NEED to have constant updates of the main program. As long as you or I can write a filter set, it will live on forever.
Ridley Scott envisioned a darker, more ambivalent ending than the one the studio allowed him to do. The theatrical edition gives you no hints that Deckard may himself be a replicant. It also misses out on the unicorn dream which makes the little unicorn made by Gaff at the end seem out of place and without meaning. Add to that the voiceover (same thing was done with Dark City) to make the audience more able to understand the movie, and you have a different feel which is not what the director originally intended.
The Director's Cut fixes these issues, makes a darker, more sombre film, and is therefore easily the better for it.
I think (not having seen the Extended LotR editions yet) that Peter Jackson is doing the best he can for the fans, while keeping his corporate masters on side for the theatrical releases.
I personally haven't bought any LotR DVD yet, not because I don't consider them great movies, they are), but because I intend to buy only ONE version, and that will undoubtedly be a Trilogy Extended Box Set (even if it's just all three Extended Versions in one box).
Thanks for the link, but that one basically mirrors the official White House one in that it doesn't transcribe Senator Brown or Nettle's comments, it just lists them as interjections.
I'm after a link that shows what those two Senators said (I believe it was an anti-war commentary, but I didn't get a clear line from TV).
This is my point - nowhere does it give the Senators' actual remarks, thereby effectively censoring their speech (in parliament no less!). Thanks anyway.
You have just given me one of the best ideas for copyright reform I have ever seen.
I am in the process of forming a political party here in Australia, and whilst I personally don't believe in the ideals of copyright as they stand today, I think that your idea of making it illegal for publishers to "own" the rights to your work is a brilliant first step in changing the system.
I am going to put this forth for discussion once I get my policy platform together. I can assure you I am here to make changes to the corporatisation of government, not perpetuate it:
http://www.users.on.net/grypen/politics/
Hopefully I can inspire enough people to vote for me in the next twelve months to be elected and have a real shot at change for the better.
Feel free to write a short policy document and post it to our forum for discussion. You WILL have a voice regardless of your nationality.
When the common man can no longer defend himself against an accuser without forking out his life's savings to do so, the system we call justice has been eradicated, suborned to corporate interests.
Well RIAA, the more you tighten your grip, the more disillusioned the general public will become, until they openly revolt and literally burn down your golden palaces.
I will not stop them - for it will be a democratic majority decision that starts this.
Government inaction in stopping unchecked corporate greed will lead to their downfall as well.
All you need to do is tighten the screws that little bit more and you will have sealed your own destruction.
I followed your link, being an Australian. What I found there disturbed me greatly.
The speech transcript acccurately gives Bush's words on the day and lists in brackets the parliament's responses where said (eg. Hear, hear etc). However, what non-Australians may not know is that there were two outbursts from Senators Brown and Nettle (both from the Greens Party) during the speech.
The disturbing part of this self-censroship of the Whitehouse is that whilst the Speaker's comments on the outbursts are written verbatim, the Senators' comments are merely posted as "audience interruption" Not once, but twice (one for each Senator's comments). Bush's smart arse reply "I love free speech" is even included, but the reader has no context in which to place this remark as the comments that forced this remark are non-existent in this transcript.
This is, quite simply, unacceptable. Read the transcript as it stands in the parent poster's link.
I have tried to no avail to locate a full transcript of that speech INCLUDING the remarks by Senators Brown and Nettle. If anyone has such a link please post it here so that people may know what exactly was said.
Erasing comments because they don't suit the image you wish to portray is so Orwellian it beggars belief that we live in a society of free speech.
I plan to do something about this though - I'm running for election next year here in Australia, and if I get elected one of my aims will be to provide uncensored transcripts of everything said in parliament, not just that which suits the governent's agenda.
http://www.users.on.net/grypen/politics/
If you are Australian please peruse my site and support my effort if you like what I have to say.
Standardising on a DVD format (I assume you are taking about the writeable versions or next gen technology such as Blu-Ray) is difficult not for technical reasons, but for patent reasons (this applies to other ideas such as communications protocols too).
The company that wins the "standards war" gets to collect handsome royalties on that technology for a long time, which is why there are so many vying for control.
Note that this only applies to proprietary formats. Open formats are free of this commercialised bickering and hence are the true future of format cross-compatibility. Of course, an open format is by definition less likely to be used by commercial companies because of my first point (they seek to profit from THEIR format), which is why you have the current state of affairs. Open formats also have to contend with avoiding the use or derivation of patented processes which can be difficult to fight since an open format's advocates/developers rarely have financial backing to hire lawyers etc. This is just how the corporate sector wants it of course.
Slashdot Mirror
I won't post a really long thread; suffice to say that my personal view is that guns on board an aircraft are a BAD idea.
I mean, you go to all this trouble to keep guns off the aircraft, then negate it all by allowing the "good guys" to come on board with them! Believe it or not I'm not THAT concerned with a bullet disrupting something vital (other than me of course!) to the airworthiness of the aircraft. I'd imagine the sky marshals would be using Glaser safety rounds in their weapons (frangible ammunition that is designed to break up instead of going through an aircraft hull) and explosive decompression isn't quite as severe as people imagine it to be.
Also, the front windscreens on aircraft are remarkably thick since they need to prevent a high speed bird strike from penetrating into the cockpit! Don't know how they'd fare with a bullet in them, but if it gets that far you've got bigger problems I'd say (like the soft, fleshy pilots between the door and the windscreen)!
Consider the worst case scenario - multiple terrorists WITH guns. Even in that scenario, they can STILL be mobbed, and given that the alternative would be death for all the passengers anyway, they don't have much to lose anymore by trying.
Finally, consider what happens if the terrorists decide to play fakes and have some (but not all) terrorists take over the aircraft, drawing out the sky marshals. Sure, the situation's no doubt been thought of by sky marshals, but it's not an exact science. Then consider terrorists dressing as sky marshals, using fake ID etc. Who is the real sky marshal? As you can see, it's far simpler to just keep them off aircraft in the first place.
That's my personal view anyway.
....is that whilst a Ford costs hell of a lot of money to reproduce, a digital copy of a movie costs basically zero to reproduce (yes, I know that technically you take up hard drive space, put it on DVDR etc, but it's virtually zero).
When something can be essentially copied at zero cost, should it still require people to pay $xx for it?
Coded Anti-Piracy (CAP) Code.
See an example here:
http://static.vcdquality.com/sample/id18919.jpg
I think we should start a campaign called "Ditch The Dots" (you heard it here first).
Movie review sites and other related areas should band together, design a logo or some such using the dot style, and paste it everywhere. Make flyers and post them near cinemas. Boycott movies. Whatever it takes to make the cretins that put them in there (burned in with a laser which is why anamorphic prints' dots look stretched) get rid of them, as they serve no purpose to the audience except to piss them off when they place them in the most conspicuous frames, often right on top of foreheads or other large, light coloured areas in a frame, pulling you right out of the immersive experience.
I personally am not going to the cinema this year until I know my experience is no longer going to be ruined by these dots. I'll wait the extra month or two until it reaches DVD, thanks.
Speaking as a pilot, your idea of locking the cockpit door at the beginning of the flight with crew inside is preposterous.
Sure, it may work for a quick city hopper flight of an hour or less. But anything more, and you'd have pilots going to the toilet IN the cockpit. They'd get no meals. No fluids that they didn't stash in there with them.
In short, at some point in most flights, the cockpit door will need to be opened for something.
About the ONLY real security measure you have on an aircraft post-9/11 is the passengers on that aircraft, who if they see a hijack about to start, should rush the hijackers and detain them (or worse - I wouldn't lose any sleep over the "accidental death" of a would be hijacker).
All this business about fingerprinting citizens entering the US, CAPPS, TIA, colour-coded threat levels etc - all of it is useless and simply a way to slowly strip away your rights, frog in boiling water style.
How can I say this, you ask? Because when they fingerprint THE PILOTS who have just arrived from overseas to determine they aren't a threat, it's TOO LATE. If they WERE a threat, they'd have complete control over the aircraft from the first engine start back in their starting country and ALREADY have carried out their attack!
It's all an illusion people. You are no safer now than you ever were, I assure you. Pilots know it - I can only hope the wider community ends up realising it.
Your post reminded me of something I wrote in my diary a while ago:
"Sometimes I feel I am accelerating in my thought processes. Sounds like a strange proposition, I'll grant you. But I'll try to explain. For quite a while now I have felt that the world seems to be slowing down ever so slightly around me, like The Matrix's bullet time concept. I feel more comfortable driving a car at higher speeds than slower speeds, as an example. Walking through crowds I can anticipate the patterns before they happen, so I can walk through them easily. Little things that can't be quantified. It's a feeling that comes and goes, but since I've noticed it consciously I have paid attention to it and therefore can begin to assess it."
Your description of transition sickness has just made me realise that what I felt wasn't unique! I am an avid video gamer, primarily first person shooters and driving simulations, so it makes perfect sense. Thanks for that excellent piece of information!
email me at quizo69@NO_SPAMhotmail.com if you want really in depth discussion, but basically, T3 for me, whilst undeniably eye candy, still managed to make you care for the characters and best of all, had a great ending that didn't sugar coat anything. The way in which they realised they weren't going to be able to stop the nuclear war was very poignantly done IMHO.
Anyway, to keep this short, email me if you want more discussion!
http://spacekids.hq.nasa.gov/2003/details.htm
I put my name and those of my family on a DVD which was attached by metallic LEGO blocks to one side of the lander module.
It's nice to know that a tiny part of me just achieved a small measure of immortality on another planet in our solar system.
I wonder if in my lifetime I'll get to take a trip there and visit it in person?
Quizo69
Kill Bill Volume 1 - Beautiful art cinema
Lilja 4-Ever - Harrowing and one of the few movies to make me cry
28 Days Later - Brilliant low budget horror
Terminator 3 - A sequel that lived up to its predecessors
The Return Of The King - The entire trilogy is a masterpiece of modern cinema
As for the rest.... well I was severely disappointed by the Matrix sequels more than anything else. Those who respond that I "just don't get it" are missing the fact that while the IDEAS were sound, the EXECUTION left everything to be desired. A movie needs STORY, PLOT and AUDIENCE EMPATHY to be successful, not just eye candy, which while great doesn't keep you coming back over and over again.
Let's hope there's better fare in 2004.
I have begun forming an Australian political party which has as one of its aims the return of telecommunications INFRASTRUCTURE to the public while cutting Telstra (Retail) loose to fend for itself along with all the other telcos on an equal footing.
Along with this I propose having Australian ISPs come under the common carrier provision, such that they, like telephone companies, will NOT be held accountable for the data transmitted through their servers and network infrastructure.
I am sick of the bullying of the global media corps and their litigation happy nature, and intend to do something about it.
You can too - visit our nascent party website and get involved:
www.neteffect.org.au
We are aiming to elect one or more representatives to Federal Parliament next year, and will be implementing some radical new ways of conducting politics in the age of the Internet.
Quizo69
I am somewhat active in Abit's motherboard forums, and I posted a thread on this very topic some time ago stating pretty much the same thing:
3 1f 5cb1a26076ea27688a647dfa3&threadid=21826 (take out the Slashdot inserted spaces)
http://forum.abit-usa.com/showthread.php?s=c2cf
Whilst their reply was to the effect that they used AwardBIOS, the bootup screen does say Phoenix Technologies so I wonder...
Anyway, if you are concerned, let the companies know!
"You can't fight what you can't see."
Stop and think about that quote for a minute. How does that apply to the current "war" on terrorism?
Now, if you really believe there's some worldwide network of super-terrorists (Al Qaeda, emminently led by Emmanuel Goldstein aka Osama bin Laden) then how do you expect the US government to defeat them? After all, they've already said they don't necessarily need to capture or kill Osama to win. Seems a little odd doesn't it?
Reminds me more and more of the eternal war as portrayed in George Orwell's "1984". In this case, it's Americans who seem willing to put up with ever increasing government oversight in exchange for the illusion that they're "winning" this "war".
It's amusing and simultaneously a little eerie to see more and more references to the John Titor story popping up when articles on government powers are published. Whether you believe the Titor story is irrelevant - the fact remains that fiction or not, it, like "1984", gives a vision of what may transpire should we do nothing and carry on down the path we are currently on.
Being an Australian, I was never in favour of wide gun ownership in the US, believing it to be the equivalent of sitting on a tinderbox. Now, however, I am beginning to understand the REASON the right to bear arms was put in the US Constitution. Scary to think that one day you may need to rise up against your own government through violent means. Let's just hope and work towards a revolution such as that recently carried out in Georgia - a bloodless one.
If I had mod points, you'd get one.
The problem with the US today is that there is no longer accountability. Checks and balances are being swept aside to make it easier for government to do whatever the hell they like, in the name of stopping terrorism.
What people too easily forget is that checks and balances exist FOR A REASON.
I'm currently in the process of drafting a political party constitution for a party I've started (www.neteffect.org.au, you can download the draft if you wish) and I can tell you my overriding concern is to have enough checks and balances built in to make it nigh on impossible to contravene the constitution and get away with it.
What the US (and probably many others) needs is laws enacted that provide MORE checks and balances, and common sense laws such as the example you give of making sure you can't sneak in a non-secret law as a rider to a secret budget bill.
Quizo69
Is it perhaps possible to do a quick and dirty petition to a judge for a stay of execution on grounds of potentially destroying cultural heritage?
Seems everyone is doing that for old building etc - why should independent music be exempt from that ideal?
What I don't see considered, is the idea that bringing loads of extra mass back to our planet could upset our solar orbit.
I know that small amounts of rock hit us all the time, but consider if we continually bring more and more back to Earth in the future. Could we inadvertently tip ourselves out of our present orbit somehow, if only by a tiny amount, but large enough to upset the state of life here?
I know it's probably a little far fetched, but any scenario that could possibly affect life on this planet of ours should bear thinking about, right?
I'm not normally pedantic about this sort of thing, but common convention has it that it's either the Northern or Southern hemisphere.
The reasons for this are varied, but among them - weather patterns are aligned this way, we have a North and South pole (no East or West Pole I know of unless you are referring to Polish people) and the lines of longitude are all of equal length, while latitudes vary, giving rise to a top and bottom so to speak.
This Eastern/Western hemisphere crap (whilst technically correct in a strict physics sense, and only if you use the Greenwich Line as the middle) is one which has its origins firmly in the United States, which obviously felt that the propaganda value of having themselves in the "Westernest" hemisphere (thanks Simpsons) outweighed international convention on these sorts of things.
OK, that said, nothing detracts from your post itself which is correctly marked IMHO as Insightful. I just felt the need to clarify an error I see being used more each day.
Quizo69
http://www.users.on.net/grypen/politics/
This is for Australia, but I plan on having a forum open to the world so everyone may contribute ideas on policy.
If you are Australian, think about becoming a member, and if you are anyone else, bookmark it and check back probably early next year when we should be up and running properly.
Illegal becomes legal if YOU change it.
Gday from Australia!
I'm starting a political party here, which will be largely based online. As such, I am grappling with how to implement secure, online voting (only for our own party members, not full on electoral voting which I think should remain a paper ballot for the foreseeable future).
I've come up with similar statements to yours in our draft Constitution:
An online vote must fulfil the following criteria to be considered valid:
a. The Member must be able to cast his vote such that only he knows how he voted;
b. The Member must be able to verify that his vote has been correctly registered, both at the time of casting the vote and at any other time after the event;
c. The Member must only be able to vote once per issue;
d. The vote must be correctly registered at the server;
e. The server must be able to prove it has not been tampered with;
f. The server's hardware and software must be open to scrutiny at any time and independently verifiable by a third party;
g. The server must be able to check the authority of a Member to cast a vote, but not retain specific identifiable information on how a Member voted after the event without that Member providing a hash key of some sort for verification purposes.
Not easy to come up with a solution to this problem. In part a. I think having a mailed out card with five or more numbers on it, of which one is the key and the others false keys, is at least a way to ensure that the voter can vote from home free of coercion. As long as the vote goes through regardless of which key is inputted, the voter being coerced (say by their spouse) can dutifully say that they put in the correct key and the spouse cannot prove otherwise.
There's plenty more to do yet to implement the full system, but that's where I'm at right now.
If you'd like to contribute feel free to visit my website:
http://www.users.on.net/grypen/politics/
or read through the Yahoo Group posts (our first forum, temporary in nature until we get a real one):
http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/neteffect/
Doesn't matter what nationality you are, I intend for all world citizens to have a voice on our proper forum once it's up, although of course only party members will be able to vote on party issues when it's going.
I searched for the string: "George Orwell and media revisionism".
:)
My reply:
No documents found for George Orwell and media revisionism
Kinda says it all doesn't it?
Quizo69
Your statement is untrue. While the main application itself is currently not being updated, it is not the main program that is important, believe it or not.
:)
What makes Proxomitron great is the third party filter sets. Proxomitron by itself is pretty good as a popup killer etc. I used it this way for a long time. Then one day someone pointed me to this site:
http://www.jd5000.net/
Can you say BEST FILTER SET EVER? I thought you could
JD's filters are absolutely fantastic. He continually refines them, and if you find a problem with them (or someone invents a new type of popup etc) just email him and he'll implement a fix. If he can't do it, go here:
http://asp.flaaten.dk/proxo/
That's the Proxomitron Forum (unofficial). There's a bunch of other developers who either write their own filters or work with each other to combine resources.
Lastly, you can write your own filters! I myself have taken JD's filter set and added a couple of customised filter options I prefer but which were not in his set.
THAT is the beauty of Proxomitron. The main program itself is simply a proxy using a set of rules based on a specific intruction set. You don't NEED to have constant updates of the main program. As long as you or I can write a filter set, it will live on forever.
Quizo69
Ridley Scott envisioned a darker, more ambivalent ending than the one the studio allowed him to do. The theatrical edition gives you no hints that Deckard may himself be a replicant. It also misses out on the unicorn dream which makes the little unicorn made by Gaff at the end seem out of place and without meaning. Add to that the voiceover (same thing was done with Dark City) to make the audience more able to understand the movie, and you have a different feel which is not what the director originally intended.
The Director's Cut fixes these issues, makes a darker, more sombre film, and is therefore easily the better for it.
I think (not having seen the Extended LotR editions yet) that Peter Jackson is doing the best he can for the fans, while keeping his corporate masters on side for the theatrical releases.
I personally haven't bought any LotR DVD yet, not because I don't consider them great movies, they are), but because I intend to buy only ONE version, and that will undoubtedly be a Trilogy Extended Box Set (even if it's just all three Extended Versions in one box).
Quizo69
Thanks for the link, but that one basically mirrors the official White House one in that it doesn't transcribe Senator Brown or Nettle's comments, it just lists them as interjections.
I'm after a link that shows what those two Senators said (I believe it was an anti-war commentary, but I didn't get a clear line from TV).
This is my point - nowhere does it give the Senators' actual remarks, thereby effectively censoring their speech (in parliament no less!). Thanks anyway.
You have just given me one of the best ideas for copyright reform I have ever seen.
I am in the process of forming a political party here in Australia, and whilst I personally don't believe in the ideals of copyright as they stand today, I think that your idea of making it illegal for publishers to "own" the rights to your work is a brilliant first step in changing the system.
I am going to put this forth for discussion once I get my policy platform together. I can assure you I am here to make changes to the corporatisation of government, not perpetuate it:
http://www.users.on.net/grypen/politics/
Hopefully I can inspire enough people to vote for me in the next twelve months to be elected and have a real shot at change for the better.
Feel free to write a short policy document and post it to our forum for discussion. You WILL have a voice regardless of your nationality.
Quizo69
When the common man can no longer defend himself against an accuser without forking out his life's savings to do so, the system we call justice has been eradicated, suborned to corporate interests.
Well RIAA, the more you tighten your grip, the more disillusioned the general public will become, until they openly revolt and literally burn down your golden palaces.
I will not stop them - for it will be a democratic majority decision that starts this.
Government inaction in stopping unchecked corporate greed will lead to their downfall as well.
All you need to do is tighten the screws that little bit more and you will have sealed your own destruction.
Quizo69
I followed your link, being an Australian. What I found there disturbed me greatly.
The speech transcript acccurately gives Bush's words on the day and lists in brackets the parliament's responses where said (eg. Hear, hear etc). However, what non-Australians may not know is that there were two outbursts from Senators Brown and Nettle (both from the Greens Party) during the speech.
The disturbing part of this self-censroship of the Whitehouse is that whilst the Speaker's comments on the outbursts are written verbatim, the Senators' comments are merely posted as "audience interruption" Not once, but twice (one for each Senator's comments). Bush's smart arse reply "I love free speech" is even included, but the reader has no context in which to place this remark as the comments that forced this remark are non-existent in this transcript.
This is, quite simply, unacceptable. Read the transcript as it stands in the parent poster's link.
I have tried to no avail to locate a full transcript of that speech INCLUDING the remarks by Senators Brown and Nettle. If anyone has such a link please post it here so that people may know what exactly was said.
Erasing comments because they don't suit the image you wish to portray is so Orwellian it beggars belief that we live in a society of free speech.
I plan to do something about this though - I'm running for election next year here in Australia, and if I get elected one of my aims will be to provide uncensored transcripts of everything said in parliament, not just that which suits the governent's agenda.
http://www.users.on.net/grypen/politics/
If you are Australian please peruse my site and support my effort if you like what I have to say.
Standardising on a DVD format (I assume you are taking about the writeable versions or next gen technology such as Blu-Ray) is difficult not for technical reasons, but for patent reasons (this applies to other ideas such as communications protocols too).
The company that wins the "standards war" gets to collect handsome royalties on that technology for a long time, which is why there are so many vying for control.
Note that this only applies to proprietary formats. Open formats are free of this commercialised bickering and hence are the true future of format cross-compatibility. Of course, an open format is by definition less likely to be used by commercial companies because of my first point (they seek to profit from THEIR format), which is why you have the current state of affairs. Open formats also have to contend with avoiding the use or derivation of patented processes which can be difficult to fight since an open format's advocates/developers rarely have financial backing to hire lawyers etc. This is just how the corporate sector wants it of course.
Quizo69