One issue that I'm surprised hasn't been raised is the misrepresentation of the case for war.
Whlie it is acceptable to debate the pros and cons of invading for the sake of regime change, the publicly given reasons for war were based on Saddam being an imminent threat (and in the USA by repeated linking of Iraq with Sept. 11th).
The larger issue here in the UK is that there was a gross attempt to manipulate public belief. Whether it was right or wrong to intervene and overthrow the Iraqi government, it was wrong to deny people the chance to debate it by camouflaging it with garbage about Iraq being an imminent threat.
Of course, the British public would not have supported a war for economic-political reasons against someone who was not a threat, hence the manipulation. Still, democracy requires an informed electorate and that's the unnegotiable price you pay.
No, he stated that number 10 deliberately and knowingly included untrue information in the dossier, in his 6:07 broadcast.
This is that technicality. He said they deliberately included information that they knew to be false. All that was proved was that they deliberately included information that they didn't know wasn't true, i.e. they could not support it.
Yes, there is room in there for a laywer to wriggle through, but God it stinks.
There was a case for war. Saddam was a monster. But that case should have been made openly. Lying to garner public support for a war is abhorrent.
I did read the damn article as you so pleasantly put it. I'll keep my reply to your two main points.
Firstly, you say that I don't know that they are going to forbid commercial use. Well from the damn article, here is what led me to that conclusion:
By applying a CC-type license to the content, the BBC will enable individuals in the UK to download released content to their computers, share it, edit it and create new content. Commercial reuse of the content will not be allowed.
Now there may be room for a lawyer to wriggle through there and there is no guarantee that the BBC will hold to this, but the inference I drew seems a natural one.
Secondly, and more insultingly, you've quoted just one sentance out of the context of what I wrote and thus changed its meaning significantly. Yes, I said that people outside the UK will be able to get hold of the programs. I followed this by saying that at most there is likely to be some shoddy protection based on the users IP Address. Now if you aren't aware of at least one way around this then I'd be surprised. Particularly as what I said was in agreement with your own parent post where you wondered how they could restrict distribution technically. I am saying that they can't except for AOL users. This is clear if you'd read the damn post you are replying to.
I think they had to be objective with their self analysis. They risk losing the renewal of their charter if they upset enough people and I think they already feel like the ice is a bit thin in places.
I don't think the BBC can be faulted for their objectivity in the Gilligan case. Sadly, the same cannot be said for the current Government which took great advantage of the BBC's willingness to admit mistakes whilst playing dirty as they could themselves.
of course, to people like me, that does actually make the BBC look better.
And besides, whatever the technicalities, Gilligan was right.
Quite how the BBC will manage this technically is another question.
They don't have to manage this technically. They only ned to manage it legally. It is commercial use that they are forbidding with their Creative Commons based licensing.
If you want to get hold of Red Dwarf and watch it and you're not a British licence payer then you'll probably still be able to do so. At worst there will be some shoddy protection, such as checking your IP address or some such. The moment that you start making money on it however, you become traceable and open to prosecution. Unless you think there is a way that a US station could broadcast Red Dwarf without anyone being aware of it and without a business address for the station.
Perhaps only to that portion of the world that takes you seriously. Shirt combined with scowling hostility, perhaps, but shirt combined with smile and friendly demeanor can be easily seen as ironic.
Besides, those who know me will know it's meant to be humourous. And the strangers? Well without the shirt, how were they to know that I'm capable of fixing their computers? Maybe I should get one to drum up business. It's advertising.
And just to close on topic, one of the best barters I ever got for fixing a computer was an outstanding reference.
Estimates for remaining Helium supplies suggest we may run out in about 20 years. Here's a little more for those who don't know as much about Helium as CodeMonkey.
For most of this century the world's precious supply of helium has escaped from natural gas wells into the air. Only in 1958 did politicians heed the warnings of influential scientists including John Bardeen, the inventor of the transistor, that all our helium would be gone by 1980. Congress reacted by spending $1 billion--an astonishing sum in the 1950s--on a separation plant in Amarillo, Texas, and began stockpiling helium in empty gas wells.
As it happened, helium turned out to be crucial to the success of NASA's space--programme. The most powerful rocket motors are fueled by hydrogen and oxygen, both of which have to be carried in liquid form, and helium is the ideal refrigerant. In fact, it was helium carried to the Moon on the Apollo spacecraft that determined how long the astronauts could stay on the lunar surface. Once the helium had boiled off it would have been impossible to keep hydrogen and oxygen in liquid form and the spacecraft would have been stranded.
Thanks to the conservation measures, helium supplies were not exhausted by 1980. and other rich sources of the gas were discovered. however, sources of helium have remained few and far between because the geology of natural gas wells must be very special in order to hold onto it in commercial quantities.
Against this background, the worldwide consumption of helium has increased by between 5 and 10 percent a year in the past decade, which the biggest growth in its use as a coolant for the superconducting magnets in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) body scanners. Present helium consumption is estimated to be about 100 million cubic metres, and is predicted to continue rising by 4 to 5 percent a year.
No one is claiming that we are in imminent danger of running out of helium--there should be at least 20 years supply left. However, new sources of the gas will have to be found to meet the ever-growing demand. If not, God forbid, we may have to celebrate helium's 200th birthday in the year 2095--without any Mickey Mouse balloons.
Jokes really have to have an element of truth to them to be funny
While I didn't find it particularly funny, I have spotted the element of truth.
According to the article, one of the reasons why the US is backing Tokyo for the project is in retaliation for the French not supporting them in the invasion of Iraq. So it seems that the OP has skillfully and satirically illustrated one of the major influences on this project.
Heh! I used to go out with a girl from the Czech Republic. Believe me, the first time I accidentally called it Czechoslovakia was the last time I accidentally called it Czechoslovakia.
Not something Americans need to worry about. Everyone can tell where they're from. *Ahem*
I strongly suspect that a lot of others making similar remarks are also speaking with tongue in cheek.
You're probably right, after all - that was my point. Programmers et al are no different to the rest of the population in my experience as far as social skills, physique etc go. That's why I'm bored of the stereotype.
Having said all that though, I switched to browsing at -1 and the OP already has three marriage proposals, so maybe we're both wrong.;)
says more about your insecurity than the true intent of their statements
That's rich considering you don't know me. I personally think it says more about my boredom threshold. After wading through the same 'jokes' week after week, I have become very tired of them. In my experience they don't have a basis in reality.
Oh well, I'm not going to get into an argument about it. Make whatever jokes you like. Currently, I lack the ability to reach through the internet and throttle people.;)
I am a geek, a girl geek and my list of superpowers does NOT include the ability to repel the opposite sex.
At least as girl you are automatically distanced from all the people here who make jokes about being [male] lonely little weaklings.
I'm 6'1", weigh over 200lbs (not fat) and I ENJOY running and sports but I still have to put up with comments like the above. Every time I read another post here about "I'm a programmer so what do I know about hygiene/sex/popularity" it makes me want to reach through my monitor screen and down the internet, grab the guy by the throat and shake him.
These people should get some pride! If someone isn't the most preposessing individual in the world it DOESN'T MATTER! It's not against the law, yet and you don't have to make excuses. But if you want to boast about it then fine, just don't pretend that it goes hand in hand with IT skills because there is no reason why it should.
It is perfectly acceptable to be both mentally and physically fit. In fact, they complement each other.
Okay, rant over. That just builds up every now and again and I need to bash some (very stupid) stereotypes.
I mostly agree with MM's political stance, but I still don't find his work very satisfying. I prefer much more information content and supporting research. He's sort of Chomsky-Lite.
I've overheard techies tell a customer to make shure his computer was ON when installing new ram to make shure it worked.
I came across a guy trying to sell a Celeron 333MHz based computer to another and overheard him saying, "It's okay, you can overclock it to run at 1GHz."
I was feeling confrontational that day so I stuck my nose in and set the poor customer straight.
If it looks like a duck
Walks like a duck
and quacks like a duck
It must be a duck.
Seriously, did you think vonage WASN'T a phone company?
Vonage may or may not be a duck... I mean phone comapany, but what about less dedicated companies? What about an ISP that includes VoIP? What about a company that outsources their network management to a company that sets up VoIP for them internally to their company? What if some friends and I set up our own system, say about fifty of us? What if we've created a new animal that can quack when it wants to and bark the rest of the time?
The only clear cut off point is when we start connecting to the existing phone network. But I could set that up from my home network with a bit of fiddling. Would they come down on me?
If you don't use the connection to the existing phone network then do they want to monitor all internet traffic? Do they want to access encrypted traffic? Because that's the only way they can regulate VoIP.
And if they do use the connection to the existing phone network as their definition, then what happens 5-10 years down the line when VoIP dwarfs the old network. Do we just disconnect and saev ourselves a lot of money?
the state isn't going to let Vonage come in and undersell the market.
At this point the infamous analogy of horse and cart users protesting the unfairness of the motorcar undercutting them appears appropriate.
Whether that anaology is historically accurate or not I don't know, but this present situation is the same in principle. New technology is ready to change everything and increase society's wealth, and the entrenched powers are ready to cripple it in any way they can.
They do not care how big the pie gets, they just want to ensure that their slice looks larger then anyone elses. Is that a fair assessment?
This sort of behaviour can work as long as the US has no international competitors. But I think the international balance of power is shifting faster than most people realize.
I was going to moderate this funny, but no one seems to have caught the reference. Instead you've gone to +4 insightful and spawned a discussion on roaming authentication.
Better still, send unencrypted streams of data collected from a pure random source (white noise from a microphone placed next to the cooling fan is my favorite). Although, I'm sure they'll be able to decipher this, and find some meaningful message.
More likely, they just have some tools that flag up any encrypted emails and if it's not from someone who should obviously be using it (in their eyes) such as Joe Slashdot, then they may run a check on you. Doesn't matter if they can't read it, you will stand out and they will add you to THE LIST.
This will only become difficult when a lot more people use encryption.
I try to encourage my friends to use it on the general principle that it makes them aware that everything they are saying unencrypted is out there for strangers to read.
Unfortunately, most of them are too tech-ignorant to bother and the one who could do it without blinking says "No man! If I use encryption they will want to know what I'm saying."
Yep. Seems I was wrong about the flood. I agree that big military spending is not a good idea. Unless you happen to own a company that makes money from big military projects.
Also, if the cost of the Iraq war had been spent on builing schools and infrastructure abroad then the world (and the US) would currently be in a much better and stronger position.
Of course, that wouldn't assert the USA's status in quite the same way would it?
We've seen this before. Does this not remind anyone else of the end of Joseph Heller's novel where the police are rounding people up?
"Under what law," they are asked.
"Catch-22" they reply.
"And what is Catch-22?"
"Sorry, one of the clauses of Catch-22 states that you are not allowed to know the contents of Catch-22."
Anyone here who hasn't read Catch-22 might want to give it a try. The PATRIOT act is Catch-22.
Slashdot Mirror
One issue that I'm surprised hasn't been raised is the misrepresentation of the case for war.
Whlie it is acceptable to debate the pros and cons of invading for the sake of regime change, the publicly given reasons for war were based on Saddam being an imminent threat (and in the USA by repeated linking of Iraq with Sept. 11th).
The larger issue here in the UK is that there was a gross attempt to manipulate public belief. Whether it was right or wrong to intervene and overthrow the Iraqi government, it was wrong to deny people the chance to debate it by camouflaging it with garbage about Iraq being an imminent threat.
Of course, the British public would not have supported a war for economic-political reasons against someone who was not a threat, hence the manipulation. Still, democracy requires an informed electorate and that's the unnegotiable price you pay.
No, he stated that number 10 deliberately and knowingly included untrue information in the dossier, in his 6:07 broadcast.
This is that technicality. He said they deliberately included information that they knew to be false. All that was proved was that they deliberately included information that they didn't know wasn't true, i.e. they could not support it.
Yes, there is room in there for a laywer to wriggle through, but God it stinks.
There was a case for war. Saddam was a monster. But that case should have been made openly. Lying to garner public support for a war is abhorrent.
If you'd care to read the damn article
I did read the damn article as you so pleasantly put it. I'll keep my reply to your two main points.
Firstly, you say that I don't know that they are going to forbid commercial use. Well from the damn article, here is what led me to that conclusion:
By applying a CC-type license to the content, the BBC will enable individuals in the UK to download released content to their computers, share it, edit it and create new content. Commercial reuse of the content will not be allowed.
Now there may be room for a lawyer to wriggle through there and there is no guarantee that the BBC will hold to this, but the inference I drew seems a natural one.
Secondly, and more insultingly, you've quoted just one sentance out of the context of what I wrote and thus changed its meaning significantly. Yes, I said that people outside the UK will be able to get hold of the programs. I followed this by saying that at most there is likely to be some shoddy protection based on the users IP Address. Now if you aren't aware of at least one way around this then I'd be surprised. Particularly as what I said was in agreement with your own parent post where you wondered how they could restrict distribution technically. I am saying that they can't except for AOL users. This is clear if you'd read the damn post you are replying to.
You missed off who decide what you want to watch according to the ramblings of a group of mentally deficient people with the surname of Nielsen."
*Ahem*
I think they had to be objective with their self analysis. They risk losing the renewal of their charter if they upset enough people and I think they already feel like the ice is a bit thin in places.
I don't think the BBC can be faulted for their objectivity in the Gilligan case. Sadly, the same cannot be said for the current Government which took great advantage of the BBC's willingness to admit mistakes whilst playing dirty as they could themselves.
of course, to people like me, that does actually make the BBC look better.
And besides, whatever the technicalities, Gilligan was right.
Quite how the BBC will manage this technically is another question.
They don't have to manage this technically. They only ned to manage it legally. It is commercial use that they are forbidding with their Creative Commons based licensing.
If you want to get hold of Red Dwarf and watch it and you're not a British licence payer then you'll probably still be able to do so. At worst there will be some shoddy protection, such as checking your IP address or some such. The moment that you start making money on it however, you become traceable and open to prosecution. Unless you think there is a way that a US station could broadcast Red Dwarf without anyone being aware of it and without a business address for the station.
That shirt is a big fuck you to the world.
Perhaps only to that portion of the world that takes you seriously. Shirt combined with scowling hostility, perhaps, but shirt combined with smile and friendly demeanor can be easily seen as ironic.
Besides, those who know me will know it's meant to be humourous. And the strangers? Well without the shirt, how were they to know that I'm capable of fixing their computers? Maybe I should get one to drum up business. It's advertising.
And just to close on topic, one of the best barters I ever got for fixing a computer was an outstanding reference.
Estimates for remaining Helium supplies suggest we may run out in about 20 years. Here's a little more for those who don't know as much about Helium as CodeMonkey.
Taken from here:
For most of this century the world's precious supply of helium has escaped from natural gas wells into the air. Only in 1958 did politicians heed the warnings of influential scientists including John Bardeen, the inventor of the transistor, that all our helium would be gone by 1980. Congress reacted by spending $1 billion--an astonishing sum in the 1950s--on a separation plant in Amarillo, Texas, and began stockpiling helium in empty gas wells.
As it happened, helium turned out to be crucial to the success of NASA's space--programme. The most powerful rocket motors are fueled by hydrogen and oxygen, both of which have to be carried in liquid form, and helium is the ideal refrigerant. In fact, it was helium carried to the Moon on the Apollo spacecraft that determined how long the astronauts could stay on the lunar surface. Once the helium had boiled off it would have been impossible to keep hydrogen and oxygen in liquid form and the spacecraft would have been stranded.
Thanks to the conservation measures, helium supplies were not exhausted by 1980. and other rich sources of the gas were discovered. however, sources of helium have remained few and far between because the geology of natural gas wells must be very special in order to hold onto it in commercial quantities.
Against this background, the worldwide consumption of helium has increased by between 5 and 10 percent a year in the past decade, which the biggest growth in its use as a coolant for the superconducting magnets in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) body scanners. Present helium consumption is estimated to be about 100 million cubic metres, and is predicted to continue rising by 4 to 5 percent a year.
No one is claiming that we are in imminent danger of running out of helium--there should be at least 20 years supply left. However, new sources of the gas will have to be found to meet the ever-growing demand. If not, God forbid, we may have to celebrate helium's 200th birthday in the year 2095--without any Mickey Mouse balloons.
Jokes really have to have an element of truth to them to be funny
While I didn't find it particularly funny, I have spotted the element of truth.
According to the article, one of the reasons why the US is backing Tokyo for the project is in retaliation for the French not supporting them in the invasion of Iraq. So it seems that the OP has skillfully and satirically illustrated one of the major influences on this project.
Of course, I'm sure that it's deliberate.
At 6'4", 245lbs, 18" neck, strong back, and with massive arms and shoulders, I use my imposing physical presence with ardent fervor.
Okay - you win the non-stereotypical geek award. That beats me.
Now to shatter the last remaining stereotype and complete the set... Are you a girl?
Heh! I used to go out with a girl from the Czech Republic. Believe me, the first time I accidentally called it Czechoslovakia was the last time I accidentally called it Czechoslovakia.
Not something Americans need to worry about. Everyone can tell where they're from. *Ahem*
I strongly suspect that a lot of others making similar remarks are also speaking with tongue in cheek.
You're probably right, after all - that was my point. Programmers et al are no different to the rest of the population in my experience as far as social skills, physique etc go. That's why I'm bored of the stereotype.
Having said all that though, I switched to browsing at -1 and the OP already has three marriage proposals, so maybe we're both wrong.
says more about your insecurity than the true intent of their statements
That's rich considering you don't know me. I personally think it says more about my boredom threshold. After wading through the same 'jokes' week after week, I have become very tired of them. In my experience they don't have a basis in reality.
Oh well, I'm not going to get into an argument about it. Make whatever jokes you like. Currently, I lack the ability to reach through the internet and throttle people.
I am a geek, a girl geek and my list of superpowers does NOT include the ability to repel the opposite sex.
At least as girl you are automatically distanced from all the people here who make jokes about being [male] lonely little weaklings.
I'm 6'1", weigh over 200lbs (not fat) and I ENJOY running and sports but I still have to put up with comments like the above. Every time I read another post here about "I'm a programmer so what do I know about hygiene/sex/popularity" it makes me want to reach through my monitor screen and down the internet, grab the guy by the throat and shake him.
These people should get some pride! If someone isn't the most preposessing individual in the world it DOESN'T MATTER! It's not against the law, yet and you don't have to make excuses. But if you want to boast about it then fine, just don't pretend that it goes hand in hand with IT skills because there is no reason why it should.
It is perfectly acceptable to be both mentally and physically fit. In fact, they complement each other.
Okay, rant over. That just builds up every now and again and I need to bash some (very stupid) stereotypes.
They're not documentaries. They're commentaries.
Yep. Rambling, low-content commentaries.
I mostly agree with MM's political stance, but I still don't find his work very satisfying. I prefer much more information content and supporting research. He's sort of Chomsky-Lite.
I've overheard techies tell a customer to make shure his computer was ON when installing new ram to make shure it worked.
I came across a guy trying to sell a Celeron 333MHz based computer to another and overheard him saying, "It's okay, you can overclock it to run at 1GHz."
I was feeling confrontational that day so I stuck my nose in and set the poor customer straight.
Do I get good karma for that?
My problem with the new episodes is the dialoge.
"Annie? My goodness you've grown."
"And you've grown. More beautiful, I mean,"
"I'm praying that the kiss that you gave me does not become a scar upon my heart."
And finally.
If it looks like a duck
Walks like a duck
and quacks like a duck
It must be a duck.
Seriously, did you think vonage WASN'T a phone company?
Vonage may or may not be a duck... I mean phone comapany, but what about less dedicated companies? What about an ISP that includes VoIP? What about a company that outsources their network management to a company that sets up VoIP for them internally to their company? What if some friends and I set up our own system, say about fifty of us? What if we've created a new animal that can quack when it wants to and bark the rest of the time?
The only clear cut off point is when we start connecting to the existing phone network. But I could set that up from my home network with a bit of fiddling. Would they come down on me?
If you don't use the connection to the existing phone network then do they want to monitor all internet traffic? Do they want to access encrypted traffic? Because that's the only way they can regulate VoIP.
And if they do use the connection to the existing phone network as their definition, then what happens 5-10 years down the line when VoIP dwarfs the old network. Do we just disconnect and saev ourselves a lot of money?
the state isn't going to let Vonage come in and undersell the market.
At this point the infamous analogy of horse and cart users protesting the unfairness of the motorcar undercutting them appears appropriate.
Whether that anaology is historically accurate or not I don't know, but this present situation is the same in principle. New technology is ready to change everything and increase society's wealth, and the entrenched powers are ready to cripple it in any way they can.
They do not care how big the pie gets, they just want to ensure that their slice looks larger then anyone elses. Is that a fair assessment?
This sort of behaviour can work as long as the US has no international competitors. But I think the international balance of power is shifting faster than most people realize.
I was going to moderate this funny, but no one seems to have caught the reference. Instead you've gone to +4 insightful and spawned a discussion on roaming authentication.
Travelling salesman, anyone? Anyone?
Can't you just create a link to... oh, yes... sorry.
*ahem*
I love Linux.
Better still, send unencrypted streams of data collected from a pure random source (white noise from a microphone placed next to the cooling fan is my favorite). Although, I'm sure they'll be able to decipher this, and find some meaningful message.
More likely, they just have some tools that flag up any encrypted emails and if it's not from someone who should obviously be using it (in their eyes) such as Joe Slashdot, then they may run a check on you. Doesn't matter if they can't read it, you will stand out and they will add you to THE LIST.
This will only become difficult when a lot more people use encryption.
I try to encourage my friends to use it on the general principle that it makes them aware that everything they are saying unencrypted is out there for strangers to read.
Unfortunately, most of them are too tech-ignorant to bother and the one who could do it without blinking says "No man! If I use encryption they will want to know what I'm saying."
ARRKKK!
Yep. Seems I was wrong about the flood. I agree that big military spending is not a good idea. Unless you happen to own a company that makes money from big military projects.
Also, if the cost of the Iraq war had been spent on builing schools and infrastructure abroad then the world (and the US) would currently be in a much better and stronger position.
Of course, that wouldn't assert the USA's status in quite the same way would it?
Sorry pal, this isn't Civilization. You can't just improve relations with other countries by throwing money at them.
link
We've seen this before. Does this not remind anyone else of the end of Joseph Heller's novel where the police are rounding people up?
"Under what law," they are asked. "Catch-22" they reply. "And what is Catch-22?" "Sorry, one of the clauses of Catch-22 states that you are not allowed to know the contents of Catch-22."
Anyone here who hasn't read Catch-22 might want to give it a try. The PATRIOT act is Catch-22.