Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Too Lazy To Write
I'm too lazy to write about any of my favourite topics today, so I'll let others do it for me...
Caesar over at Ars Technica has some interesting and enlightening comments about the whole religion vs. reason thing. Specifically about two new cases that have cropped up in California. I especially liked this bit:
And the anti-piracy crusade has hit full swing in Canada. Just to be clear, what these guys were doing (or allegedly doing, I suppose) is NOT the same as what I was talking about. Downloading something for yourself is one thing. Making a few thousand copies and selling them (in a mall, for christ's sake) is very, very different.
And one of my favourite authors, Terry Pratchett, gives a glimpse at the man behind the Discworld over at SciFi.com.
Oh, and Classic Bloom County strips are available at Yahoo News, including some I've never seen before, and some that were never in any of the collections. Lord I miss that strip. "Opus" is fun, but it just isn't the same as the old days.
Enjoy.
Caesar over at Ars Technica has some interesting and enlightening comments about the whole religion vs. reason thing. Specifically about two new cases that have cropped up in California. I especially liked this bit:
"For one, it provides information to teachers, who then teach. One of the aftereffects of teaching is that, ideally, students learn. In the context of a science classroom, this could mean that students are taught evolution, and then they may understand it better. This is the fundament of pedagogy."Good point, Caesar. Let's hope the left-coast courts agree.
And the anti-piracy crusade has hit full swing in Canada. Just to be clear, what these guys were doing (or allegedly doing, I suppose) is NOT the same as what I was talking about. Downloading something for yourself is one thing. Making a few thousand copies and selling them (in a mall, for christ's sake) is very, very different.
And one of my favourite authors, Terry Pratchett, gives a glimpse at the man behind the Discworld over at SciFi.com.
Oh, and Classic Bloom County strips are available at Yahoo News, including some I've never seen before, and some that were never in any of the collections. Lord I miss that strip. "Opus" is fun, but it just isn't the same as the old days.
Enjoy.
Friday, November 25, 2005
Todd Fails Blog
Todd's a great writer. Check out his stuff at "Playing After Dark" (linked at left).
It won't take you long. He hardly ever posts.
You see, Todd is blog-impaired. This post is entirely for his benefit. As I write this, I am told, he is trying to reply to the previous post. Bet ya I can post an entirely new entry before Todd can post a simple response.
Nyah nyah.
It won't take you long. He hardly ever posts.
You see, Todd is blog-impaired. This post is entirely for his benefit. As I write this, I am told, he is trying to reply to the previous post. Bet ya I can post an entirely new entry before Todd can post a simple response.
Nyah nyah.
Lies My Parents Told Me
How old were you when you found out that Santa Clause was a lie?
For ditzy blonde heiresses, the age is apparently 17.
I don't remember finding out. Which seems odd to me, because you'd think it would be fairly traumatic. "Hey, Billy. You know that kind old gentleman who gives you a truckload of toys every year, apparently for no reason? Well he's fake. Your parents have been lying to you."
No memory of that at all.
Maybe it's because I always found the whole Santa Clause thing kind of creepy. My mother tells me that when I was a child, I never wanted to go visit Santa at the mall. At the most, I'd hang back and watch him from a distance.
And I was terrified at the idea of him coming in to our house in the middle of the night. When I was three or four, I suggested to my parents that Santa simply leave the presents at the front door, and my brother could carry them into the house come morning.
So maybe it wasn't that traumatic for me, because what I actually felt was relief. I mean, think of the legend. "A man you've never met is going to sneak into your house when you are all asleep, and fill your socks with candy and toys."
If that man was "Bob Wilson, from around the corner" there'd be a warrant out for his arrest. But it's Santa, so that's all good.
My thoughts? Tell your kid now. Get it over with. Or, if they're young enough, don't start in the first place. Take the credit for the presents. "No, Sally, Mommy and Daddy bought this for you. Not a stranger. Remember what we taught you about taking presents from strangers?"
Fight for truth.
For ditzy blonde heiresses, the age is apparently 17.
I don't remember finding out. Which seems odd to me, because you'd think it would be fairly traumatic. "Hey, Billy. You know that kind old gentleman who gives you a truckload of toys every year, apparently for no reason? Well he's fake. Your parents have been lying to you."
No memory of that at all.
Maybe it's because I always found the whole Santa Clause thing kind of creepy. My mother tells me that when I was a child, I never wanted to go visit Santa at the mall. At the most, I'd hang back and watch him from a distance.
And I was terrified at the idea of him coming in to our house in the middle of the night. When I was three or four, I suggested to my parents that Santa simply leave the presents at the front door, and my brother could carry them into the house come morning.
So maybe it wasn't that traumatic for me, because what I actually felt was relief. I mean, think of the legend. "A man you've never met is going to sneak into your house when you are all asleep, and fill your socks with candy and toys."
If that man was "Bob Wilson, from around the corner" there'd be a warrant out for his arrest. But it's Santa, so that's all good.
My thoughts? Tell your kid now. Get it over with. Or, if they're young enough, don't start in the first place. Take the credit for the presents. "No, Sally, Mommy and Daddy bought this for you. Not a stranger. Remember what we taught you about taking presents from strangers?"
Fight for truth.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
A History Of (non) Violence
Read a neat article in the NY Times this morning (free registration required.) It seems the Russian gov't has started keeping a Soviet-era style list of people who practise the Islamic faith outside of certain 'state sanctioned' mosques. In other words, you can be Islamic, but not on your own terms.
What really caught my eye was this pair of paragraphs:
What really caught my eye was this pair of paragraphs:
Mr. Golayev, 36, said the Islam he observes is opposed to violence, but he warned that the mistreatment of believers was driving men like him to desperation."They will pressure me enough," he said, "and then I will blow somebody's head off."
Maybe it's just me, but I don't think that statement is really helping his case...
And of course the big story of the day is the call for a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, including the rather specific omission in the new Iraqi establishment's definition of terrorism. According to CFRB radio this morning, terrorism is attacks against civilians, government officials, religious and community centres, and schools. But attacks against either US or Iraqi military personnel are fair game, apparently.
The statement, while condemning the wave of terrorism that has engulfed Iraq, also broadly acknowledged a general right to resist foreign occupation.I guess when it comes to non-violence, Islam really is just like Christianity.
- The NY Times
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Escape From Rhetundo Island!
Uh-oh, the people from Hapland are out for a walk...
Good thing I'm on vacation next week. I clearly wasn't going to be doing any work anyway.
Good thing I'm on vacation next week. I clearly wasn't going to be doing any work anyway.
Canadian Pirates. Arrrr, eh?
That bastion of journalistic integrity, the Toronto Star, has come out with a little opinion piece on downloading music off the internet. According to them, the downloaders are thieves. Let's look at that word, "thief". Webster's defines it as "one who steals". "Steal" has a whole pile of meanings but they all have one thing in common: you have to take something.
Let's make this perfectly clear: downloaders don't TAKE anything. The originals are still where they have always been.
When musicians or, more commonly, music labels say that they are 'losing' something due to downloads, they are talking about theoretical profits. The assumption is that someone who downloads a song would have bought it if they couldn't have found it for free.
This is just ridiculous. It's never been the case that people buy copies of every song they like off the radio. And a lot of the downloading that goes on is just sampling, with no actual archiving or keeping of the song in any way. "Ooh, Eminem has a new track. I think I'll check it out - nope, not a big fan of that one, won't buy the album." How is that different from the radio?
To be fair, the Star does mention the blank media levy in Canada. But when they say that the law was enacted in 1997, they leave out that it was re-written in March of 2002 - well into the P2P era - in an attempt to cover 'new' media such as MP3 players and falsh memory cards.
And since then, a federal judge in Canada has ruled that the levy should NOT apply to those additional forms of media, but left the original blank media levy unchanged.
In other words, it's still cool to copy.
Look, if you're really worried about supporting a struggling artist, go buy their CD. I do. I paid $50.00 last week for the new Tragically Hip Collection. In the last several years, I've probably bought more albums directly from artists at concerts or bar-shows then I have at record stores. And for artists I like, I've shelled out some pretty hefty wads of cash.
In fact, I've done more for struggling artists than the bloody levy tax has done. As of July of last year, at least, no money had been distributed form the levy coffers.
Attacking the downloaders is ridiculous anyway. In a very real sense, they ARE the market for music. The research is done, and they spend more money on media than non-downloaders.
Besides, it's clear who the actual criminals are. The RIAA is already being sued under RICO statutes in the US.
Oh, and I liked this line in the Star article:
Umm... of course Napster was primarily used for MP3 files. That's ALL NAPSTER DID. Later programs (Scour, Morpheus, KaZaa, etc) supported other file types, but Napster was strictly MP3. This kind of basic error just illustrates that the Star, like most major media outlets, don't understand the topic they're discussing.
Whew. /rant.
Let's make this perfectly clear: downloaders don't TAKE anything. The originals are still where they have always been.
When musicians or, more commonly, music labels say that they are 'losing' something due to downloads, they are talking about theoretical profits. The assumption is that someone who downloads a song would have bought it if they couldn't have found it for free.
This is just ridiculous. It's never been the case that people buy copies of every song they like off the radio. And a lot of the downloading that goes on is just sampling, with no actual archiving or keeping of the song in any way. "Ooh, Eminem has a new track. I think I'll check it out - nope, not a big fan of that one, won't buy the album." How is that different from the radio?
To be fair, the Star does mention the blank media levy in Canada. But when they say that the law was enacted in 1997, they leave out that it was re-written in March of 2002 - well into the P2P era - in an attempt to cover 'new' media such as MP3 players and falsh memory cards.
And since then, a federal judge in Canada has ruled that the levy should NOT apply to those additional forms of media, but left the original blank media levy unchanged.
In other words, it's still cool to copy.
Look, if you're really worried about supporting a struggling artist, go buy their CD. I do. I paid $50.00 last week for the new Tragically Hip Collection. In the last several years, I've probably bought more albums directly from artists at concerts or bar-shows then I have at record stores. And for artists I like, I've shelled out some pretty hefty wads of cash.
In fact, I've done more for struggling artists than the bloody levy tax has done. As of July of last year, at least, no money had been distributed form the levy coffers.
Attacking the downloaders is ridiculous anyway. In a very real sense, they ARE the market for music. The research is done, and they spend more money on media than non-downloaders.
Besides, it's clear who the actual criminals are. The RIAA is already being sued under RICO statutes in the US.
Oh, and I liked this line in the Star article:
Of course, what the overwhelming majority of Napster users were trading were MP3 music files, virtually all of which were in violation of copyright laws.
Umm... of course Napster was primarily used for MP3 files. That's ALL NAPSTER DID. Later programs (Scour, Morpheus, KaZaa, etc) supported other file types, but Napster was strictly MP3. This kind of basic error just illustrates that the Star, like most major media outlets, don't understand the topic they're discussing.
Whew. /rant.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
One Step Forward...
...and one step back.
As a karmic follow-up to yesterday's happy news, the Kansas School Board has decided to redefine science. Again. They've been down this road before, and backed off in the face of local outrage and international ridicule. This time, they're going ahead with it.
Sigh. And I was so hopeful this morning...
As a karmic follow-up to yesterday's happy news, the Kansas School Board has decided to redefine science. Again. They've been down this road before, and backed off in the face of local outrage and international ridicule. This time, they're going ahead with it.
Sigh. And I was so hopeful this morning...
The Revolution Is NOW!
...and it's probably being televised. But only on WLYH-TV.
The Schoolboard that is at the centre of the Dover Panda Trial has been almost entirely ousted, with eight challengers defeating incumbants in the recent election. Although they have stated that their issues are much more wide-ranging than just ID-in-schools, they did say "...the policy violated the constitutional requirement for separation of church and state..."
rAmen, brothers.
The Schoolboard that is at the centre of the Dover Panda Trial has been almost entirely ousted, with eight challengers defeating incumbants in the recent election. Although they have stated that their issues are much more wide-ranging than just ID-in-schools, they did say "...the policy violated the constitutional requirement for separation of church and state..."
rAmen, brothers.
Monday, November 07, 2005
Arrr, Matey. Piracy be the Scourge of the... Technology Industry.
When it comes to music, movies or TV shows these days, people have more options then ever on how, where and when to enjoy their chosen entertainment. There's a series of commercials on TV these days advertising a service that will let you watch NHL Hockey games on your cellphone. Apple's iPod and it's accompanying iTunes music store have revolutionized the way music is both sold and heard.And PVR services like TiVo make a good ole' VCR look positively restrictive.
Enjoy it while you can.
Ars Technica, an excellent tech-news and review site, has been following developments in US Congressional legislation, and the relationship those legislators have with the companies collectively referred to as "Big Content" (the makers/producers/distributors of most mainstream TV, music and movies). These two groups are getting together again to try and control what you can record, how you can record it, and what you can do with it once it's recorded.
And when I say 'control', what I really mean is 'stop'.
One of the more recent Ars articles is here. Follow some of the links within that article to get a bigger picture of the whole thing. It actually looks pretty ugly. Ken 'Caesar' Fisher, one of the main dudes over at Ars and the author of the linked article has this to say about it:
Enjoy it while you can.
Ars Technica, an excellent tech-news and review site, has been following developments in US Congressional legislation, and the relationship those legislators have with the companies collectively referred to as "Big Content" (the makers/producers/distributors of most mainstream TV, music and movies). These two groups are getting together again to try and control what you can record, how you can record it, and what you can do with it once it's recorded.
And when I say 'control', what I really mean is 'stop'.
One of the more recent Ars articles is here. Follow some of the links within that article to get a bigger picture of the whole thing. It actually looks pretty ugly. Ken 'Caesar' Fisher, one of the main dudes over at Ars and the author of the linked article has this to say about it:
"These laws aren't about piracy...
Someday, if the MPAA gets its way, you are going to pay for the right to timeshift (or for the right to placeshift). You are going to pay for the right to move videos to your iPod or to your PSP. No one cares if you spent US$20 on that Blu-ray disc. In 5 years, you'll be lucky if you can even play stuff you've purchased without relicensing it. Look at ringtones. Here we're talking about a related industry that wants to scare people into paying for ringtones, even if they already have an album with the song they want on it. Ringtones! Are you kidding me?"
So why should a Canadian care about this? Because the US dominates the technology industry. Say all you want about Japanese forms leading the way in innovation, the US is still the marketplace for consumer electronics, and the marketplace calls the shot. If the US congress dictates, as they are considering doing, that any recording device imported to the US have the ability to recognize a 'do not record' signal embedded in the source content and thus stop you from recording it, then the VCRs, PVRs and similar devices available to Canadians will have the exact same thing.
So you say, "But I don't pirate stuff. What do I care?" Ah, but under Big Content's definition, you DO pirate stuff. When you make a mix tape of songs from CDs you legally purchased, you're pirating. When you tape "Lost" on Wednesday night, so that you can watch it at the cottage on the weekend, you're pirating. And when you video tape your cousin dancing to "Unchained Melody" as the first song of her wedding, you pirate copyrighted material every time you duplicate that tape for a family member.
Ridiculous, you say? That's not what they're trying to do, you say? They're just trying to protect their rights, you say? Think again.
The RIAA is already suing people who did nothing more than download a couple of songs for personal use. They have already raided stores which sell perfectly legal, independantly produced content and had those stores shut down. And they have already arrested and charged a teenager who wanted nothing other than to be able to watch his legally purchased DVD on his own home PC.
This is not about rights, it's about control.
If you're American, write your congressman or senator, and tell them to stop this nonsense. If you're Canadian, keep your eyes peeled and your ears open. It's only a matter of time.
Friday, November 04, 2005
Extra Toppings... er... Topics
My friend V. had trouble with posting a comment (I've had trouble with Blogger's comment posting utility myself in the past) so emailed it to me instead...
And it turns out to be, at least partly, true. Thomas Monaghan is indeed a staunch Catholic and supports right-wing, fundamentalist groups and anti-abortion advocacy groups like Operation Rescue.
But, as is cleared up in this snopes.com article, Tommy himself isn't involved with Domino's anymore. He sold it off to some nameless, faceless, souless mega-corporation a few years ago. My pepperoni pennies no longer promote the papists.
Hooray! I'm ordering pizza tonight!
The I.D.ers haven't all retired, though. The Dover Panda Trial is in full swing, and my new personal hero Eric Rothschild toasted one of I.D.s chief goons on the stand this week. Randi's got a great bit about it in his commentary this week, and there's a cool series of articles on this ongoing affront to reason here.
You should know that it's alleged that the Domino's founder has fundedYikes! That's some serious accusin' there, V!
radical Right to Life groups for years (I mean the ones who send snipers
after doctors). That's why I have never and will never order Domino's.
And it turns out to be, at least partly, true. Thomas Monaghan is indeed a staunch Catholic and supports right-wing, fundamentalist groups and anti-abortion advocacy groups like Operation Rescue.
But, as is cleared up in this snopes.com article, Tommy himself isn't involved with Domino's anymore. He sold it off to some nameless, faceless, souless mega-corporation a few years ago. My pepperoni pennies no longer promote the papists.
Hooray! I'm ordering pizza tonight!
The I.D.ers haven't all retired, though. The Dover Panda Trial is in full swing, and my new personal hero Eric Rothschild toasted one of I.D.s chief goons on the stand this week. Randi's got a great bit about it in his commentary this week, and there's a cool series of articles on this ongoing affront to reason here.
Your Universe Created In 30 Minutes Or It's Free
I've ranted about ID before. Religion!= Science.
But now, the great evolution vs. intelligent design debate is starting to affect me, personally. Let me explain...
I've ordered pizza from Pizza Pizza for years. Then, this past summer, a truly atrocious incident of customer service caused me to flip over to Domino's. Although a tad more expensive, their pizza is tasty, and the service has been excellent.
But now I've read this article, which states that most of the financial support for the ID movement can be traced back to Thomas Monaghan, who founded Domino's Pizza.
That's right. The reason their pizza is so good is because they've got God on their side. You'd think, with the Italian influence on their food, that they'd rather have the help of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Now I seriously begin to question ordering from Domino's anymore. I really, really don't like to think that my dollars are, even indirectly, going on to support this cloth-headed, backwards thinking, misleading and even downright evil bunch of goons.
But... I love pizza. I mean, really. I order pizza about once a week, and usually order enough that I have leftovers and can enjoy pizza again within the next day or two. But Pizza Pizza is run by incompetents, and Domino's is trying to deny centuries of the advancement of reason and knowledge.
And I don't like 2-4-1. Or Pizza Hut.
What's a guy to do?
Regarding the title of this post: I am aware that Domino's no longer offers a time guarantee. They did for years, but stopped because, as I was told by a guy taking my order on the phone one evening, "some guy died in a car accident, trying to deliver his pizza on time."
But now, the great evolution vs. intelligent design debate is starting to affect me, personally. Let me explain...
I've ordered pizza from Pizza Pizza for years. Then, this past summer, a truly atrocious incident of customer service caused me to flip over to Domino's. Although a tad more expensive, their pizza is tasty, and the service has been excellent.
But now I've read this article, which states that most of the financial support for the ID movement can be traced back to Thomas Monaghan, who founded Domino's Pizza.
That's right. The reason their pizza is so good is because they've got God on their side. You'd think, with the Italian influence on their food, that they'd rather have the help of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Now I seriously begin to question ordering from Domino's anymore. I really, really don't like to think that my dollars are, even indirectly, going on to support this cloth-headed, backwards thinking, misleading and even downright evil bunch of goons.
But... I love pizza. I mean, really. I order pizza about once a week, and usually order enough that I have leftovers and can enjoy pizza again within the next day or two. But Pizza Pizza is run by incompetents, and Domino's is trying to deny centuries of the advancement of reason and knowledge.
And I don't like 2-4-1. Or Pizza Hut.
What's a guy to do?
Regarding the title of this post: I am aware that Domino's no longer offers a time guarantee. They did for years, but stopped because, as I was told by a guy taking my order on the phone one evening, "some guy died in a car accident, trying to deliver his pizza on time."
