Wednesday, January 21, 2004
Your conversation might be public domain
The following was originally published in The Gateway.
I take advantage of public transit to commute to and from school each day. Like any annoying person, I occasionally talk on my cell phone while I’m on the bus or train. Until recently, I never thought much of it; after all, I’m not a teenage girl who talks louder than necessary to make sure that everyone knows that yes, I have a cell phone and yes, I’m much cooler than you are. I generally restrict my calls to fewer than five minutes—mostly because I’m too damn poor to pay for long calls—and I use my phone for the sole purpose of locating people I’m trying to meet up with on campus.
The other day, however, after I finished a two-minute call, the woman sitting across from me on the train implied that I was “checking up on someone” and said she found it funny because “usually it’s girls that check up on guys.” While I have no idea what part of my conversation possibly led her to that conclusion, that isn’t my concern. What bothered me most was that this woman had invaded my privacy by commenting on a conversation that she wasn’t a part of. She even went so far as to “approve” of my conversation because I wasn’t doing the alleged checking up “in a yelling way.”
While I was, at first, mildly annoyed by this intrusion, I quickly came to realize that I had little right to be. I was in a public place and thus was engaged in a public conversation. The situation was really no different than if I had been talking to someone sitting beside me. I brought a private discussion into a public space and anyone around me was free to listen in.
This isn’t to say, however, that people shouldn’t be entitled to certain rights of privacy while in public spaces. For example, I believe a person has the right not to be violated by having “up-skirt” pictures taken without their knowledge, something which is apparently common practice for Internet fetish websites and is relatively difficult to prosecute in many American states, as most states have no law which explicitly forbids such violations. While I am unaware of the Canadian laws regarding this type of invasion of privacy, I doubt they are very different than the American legislation.
However, with the exception of such obvious breaches of personal space, if you choose to enter a public space, you are agreeing to give up a degree of your privacy. Things said and done in public should be considered part of the public realm rather than the private. Rather than being annoyed when people listen in on your “private” cell phone conversation, be annoyed at yourself for being stupid enough to talk about private things while you were in a public place.
Sounds like common sense, right? It should be, but some people can’t seem to make the distinction between public and private. Like the girl I used to work with who made comments about an abusive home life on the public phone in the staff break room and then had the nerve to accuse people of butting into her private business when they started gossiping about it. Or people who engage in excessively moist public displays of affection in CAB (note for those outside the U of A: CAB is the Central Academic Building).
Public spaces are, as the name implies, not private. If you don’t want your business hanging out where everyone can see it, use a little common sense and don’t discuss private matters in public. Either that, or when that old lady on the train inquires about your cell phone conversation, you can ask her a slew of inappropriate questions about her sex life until she gets the point and stops being so damn nosy.
I take advantage of public transit to commute to and from school each day. Like any annoying person, I occasionally talk on my cell phone while I’m on the bus or train. Until recently, I never thought much of it; after all, I’m not a teenage girl who talks louder than necessary to make sure that everyone knows that yes, I have a cell phone and yes, I’m much cooler than you are. I generally restrict my calls to fewer than five minutes—mostly because I’m too damn poor to pay for long calls—and I use my phone for the sole purpose of locating people I’m trying to meet up with on campus.
The other day, however, after I finished a two-minute call, the woman sitting across from me on the train implied that I was “checking up on someone” and said she found it funny because “usually it’s girls that check up on guys.” While I have no idea what part of my conversation possibly led her to that conclusion, that isn’t my concern. What bothered me most was that this woman had invaded my privacy by commenting on a conversation that she wasn’t a part of. She even went so far as to “approve” of my conversation because I wasn’t doing the alleged checking up “in a yelling way.”
While I was, at first, mildly annoyed by this intrusion, I quickly came to realize that I had little right to be. I was in a public place and thus was engaged in a public conversation. The situation was really no different than if I had been talking to someone sitting beside me. I brought a private discussion into a public space and anyone around me was free to listen in.
This isn’t to say, however, that people shouldn’t be entitled to certain rights of privacy while in public spaces. For example, I believe a person has the right not to be violated by having “up-skirt” pictures taken without their knowledge, something which is apparently common practice for Internet fetish websites and is relatively difficult to prosecute in many American states, as most states have no law which explicitly forbids such violations. While I am unaware of the Canadian laws regarding this type of invasion of privacy, I doubt they are very different than the American legislation.
However, with the exception of such obvious breaches of personal space, if you choose to enter a public space, you are agreeing to give up a degree of your privacy. Things said and done in public should be considered part of the public realm rather than the private. Rather than being annoyed when people listen in on your “private” cell phone conversation, be annoyed at yourself for being stupid enough to talk about private things while you were in a public place.
Sounds like common sense, right? It should be, but some people can’t seem to make the distinction between public and private. Like the girl I used to work with who made comments about an abusive home life on the public phone in the staff break room and then had the nerve to accuse people of butting into her private business when they started gossiping about it. Or people who engage in excessively moist public displays of affection in CAB (note for those outside the U of A: CAB is the Central Academic Building).
Public spaces are, as the name implies, not private. If you don’t want your business hanging out where everyone can see it, use a little common sense and don’t discuss private matters in public. Either that, or when that old lady on the train inquires about your cell phone conversation, you can ask her a slew of inappropriate questions about her sex life until she gets the point and stops being so damn nosy.
Monday, January 19, 2004
News = Propaganda
The idea that news is used as a source of nationalist propaganda is nothing new. The idea has been around since news media was invented and I'm sure that all but the least discerning reader realizes that they shouldn't take everything they read as absolute fact. Having said that, I'm still going to make this post.
I've noticed an interesting trend while reading middle-eastern news websites - primarily the Jerusalem Post and al-Jazeera. There is a huge bias on each of these sites in regards to the Israel-Palestine situation. The Jerusalem Post always gives the impression that Palestinian attackers are vile, murderous scum; al-Jazeera makes it seem as if the Israelis are the murders. This is supposed to be unbiased journalism folks. Clearly, the media is biased.
You may be wondering what the point of this post is. Is it to show that the middle-eastern media is biased and loaded with propaganda? To a certain extent, yes. However, the real point of this post is to draw your attention to something that you may not have noticed if it was in your own, western, media source. The media is biased, this site as much as any other I'm sure. The point then is not to show that foreign media is biased, but rather to illustrate a point, that all media is biased toward its own side of the issue at hand. Keep this in mind when you read the newspaper, watch TV news, or listen to the radio. Think critically about what you hear and you'll not only be better informed, but you'll be able to form your own opinions about what you hear instead of being led the way the "powers that be" want you to go.
I've noticed an interesting trend while reading middle-eastern news websites - primarily the Jerusalem Post and al-Jazeera. There is a huge bias on each of these sites in regards to the Israel-Palestine situation. The Jerusalem Post always gives the impression that Palestinian attackers are vile, murderous scum; al-Jazeera makes it seem as if the Israelis are the murders. This is supposed to be unbiased journalism folks. Clearly, the media is biased.
You may be wondering what the point of this post is. Is it to show that the middle-eastern media is biased and loaded with propaganda? To a certain extent, yes. However, the real point of this post is to draw your attention to something that you may not have noticed if it was in your own, western, media source. The media is biased, this site as much as any other I'm sure. The point then is not to show that foreign media is biased, but rather to illustrate a point, that all media is biased toward its own side of the issue at hand. Keep this in mind when you read the newspaper, watch TV news, or listen to the radio. Think critically about what you hear and you'll not only be better informed, but you'll be able to form your own opinions about what you hear instead of being led the way the "powers that be" want you to go.
Wednesday, January 14, 2004
Racism still a problem in 'tolerant' Canada
The following is an article that I wrote for the Opinion section of The Gateway: The Official Student Newspaper of the University of Alberta.
With the exception of wannabe cowboys who hang Confederate flags from the rear window of their F-150s, few of us would admit to being racist. A good majority of people who say they aren’t racist aren’t. But unfortunately, there is a fair amount who are. For many, their bigotry is so ingrained and subtle that they honestly don’t realize it is there.
In order to keep my tuition and other expenses under control, I work year-round stocking shelves in a department store. This job is great for two reasons: the first, as I said, is it helps pay for my tuition; the second is that I get to hear all kinds of racist comments.
All too often I hear stereotypical comments about “Lebs,” Chinese, and Native Canadians that are less than flattering. If the girls at the customer service desk have a bad customer they will complain about just that: a bad customer—unless, of course, that customer was of ethnic descent. Then they are not only a bad customer, but the reason for their behaviour is because they are Chinese, Lebanese, or Native.
Then there are the jokes. Have you ever found yourself starting a joke by saying, “I’m not racist, but did you hear the one about the ethnic minority?” Adding the “I’m not a racist” qualifier to the beginning of your weak attempt at humour doesn’t excuse your behaviour.
Of course, I’m not perfect. I’ve made those jokes. I’ve even said a few of those ignorant remarks at work in my less lucid moments, but I don’t make a habit of it and I realize that what I’m doing is wrong. Now, I’m sure I’m not the only person who has made a racist comment and subsequently realized that it was wrong. The problem is that too many people make these comments a habit and refuse to admit that it is wrong to do so. Like a Twelve Step Program, admitting there is a problem is the first step toward solving it. Unfortunately, few people in our country will admit that we have a problem. Typically, the problem is covered up by two comments: “Canada is a tolerant country,” and “At least we’re better than the States.”
While both of these comments are essentially true, any value they hold is diminished when they are used to cover a serious problem. When a group of university students gets turned away from a night club for not providing a ridiculous number of government issued picture ID (because of the colour of their skin) or an online acquaintance in Ontario does the Internet equivalent of shouting, “IS MY SCREEN FUCKED UP OR IS THAT AN INTERRACIAL RELATIONSHIP?” when I email him a picture of me and my girlfriend, I’d say we have a problem that needs to be solved. Canada is a tolerant country. For the most part racism isn’t a big problem. However, as long as it exists we can never really be the “True North strong and free.”
21 March is the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, but we don’t need to wait until spring to get started. Let’s start now; when people you know make racist comments, tell them why it’s wrong to do so. Hell, if you’ve got that special kind of courage that we could all benefit from, interject when you overhear racist remarks being made by strangers. Only by talking about the problem, making people aware of it and trying to educate future generations, can we make racism disappear once and for all.
With the exception of wannabe cowboys who hang Confederate flags from the rear window of their F-150s, few of us would admit to being racist. A good majority of people who say they aren’t racist aren’t. But unfortunately, there is a fair amount who are. For many, their bigotry is so ingrained and subtle that they honestly don’t realize it is there.
In order to keep my tuition and other expenses under control, I work year-round stocking shelves in a department store. This job is great for two reasons: the first, as I said, is it helps pay for my tuition; the second is that I get to hear all kinds of racist comments.
All too often I hear stereotypical comments about “Lebs,” Chinese, and Native Canadians that are less than flattering. If the girls at the customer service desk have a bad customer they will complain about just that: a bad customer—unless, of course, that customer was of ethnic descent. Then they are not only a bad customer, but the reason for their behaviour is because they are Chinese, Lebanese, or Native.
Then there are the jokes. Have you ever found yourself starting a joke by saying, “I’m not racist, but did you hear the one about the ethnic minority?” Adding the “I’m not a racist” qualifier to the beginning of your weak attempt at humour doesn’t excuse your behaviour.
Of course, I’m not perfect. I’ve made those jokes. I’ve even said a few of those ignorant remarks at work in my less lucid moments, but I don’t make a habit of it and I realize that what I’m doing is wrong. Now, I’m sure I’m not the only person who has made a racist comment and subsequently realized that it was wrong. The problem is that too many people make these comments a habit and refuse to admit that it is wrong to do so. Like a Twelve Step Program, admitting there is a problem is the first step toward solving it. Unfortunately, few people in our country will admit that we have a problem. Typically, the problem is covered up by two comments: “Canada is a tolerant country,” and “At least we’re better than the States.”
While both of these comments are essentially true, any value they hold is diminished when they are used to cover a serious problem. When a group of university students gets turned away from a night club for not providing a ridiculous number of government issued picture ID (because of the colour of their skin) or an online acquaintance in Ontario does the Internet equivalent of shouting, “IS MY SCREEN FUCKED UP OR IS THAT AN INTERRACIAL RELATIONSHIP?” when I email him a picture of me and my girlfriend, I’d say we have a problem that needs to be solved. Canada is a tolerant country. For the most part racism isn’t a big problem. However, as long as it exists we can never really be the “True North strong and free.”
21 March is the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, but we don’t need to wait until spring to get started. Let’s start now; when people you know make racist comments, tell them why it’s wrong to do so. Hell, if you’ve got that special kind of courage that we could all benefit from, interject when you overhear racist remarks being made by strangers. Only by talking about the problem, making people aware of it and trying to educate future generations, can we make racism disappear once and for all.
Tuesday, January 13, 2004
Democrats Are Too Noisy!
The president of the United States, George W. Bush, can bite my cock. I was just sitting here in my underwear, websurfing lazily, when I happened to stumble back upon the "Bush In 30 Seconds" website. A humorous collection of anti-Bush "propaganda", if you will. Don't get me wrong, I hate Bush as much as the next Democrat, but did you know, some people actually like Bush? I'm not joking, some people would actually like to see him re-elected. So I decided to check out our competition in the White House...
So I browse to google, type in something like "Re-Elect Bush", and find an advertisement video on the campaign website for his re-election... Oh sweet mother of Land O Lakes butter, my eyes were burning with agony! Here is what went down:
I see this video of a TV, and democratic candidates are screaming out things about Bush. At first, I thought Bush was behind them shoving a Dick Cheney up their ass because they were yelling so feverishly, but that is only metaphorical as to how Bush is fucking the country. The commercial's main point? Democrats... yell... too... much... So re-elect Bush!
What? That's PRO-BUSH? I don't think you can get any stupider. "Hey, let's vote for this guy! He makes every one else so angry that he has to be right!". How about... no. Let's not bother that this commercial airs several Democrats and valid opinions and points of views they have against Bush. Let's forget about the amazing man who turned the LARGEST SURPLUSS IN US HISTORY into the LARGEST DEFICIT IN US HISTORY. These other guys, they fucking yell too much.
Why are these guys yelling? Wait, I know, probably because some asshole stole the presidential office from their party in 2000 illegally, got away with it, and then shit-holed our country. That's why, it almost slipped my mind. Now they have to listen to us whine about how all those crumb-snatching poor kids are getting fucked out of an education. Can't they drown this out somehow? According to this ad, re-electing president Bush drowns us out pretty well.
Maybe I should inject your eye with a 17 inch needle that is foaming with COMMON SENSE. Common sense dictates that these guys are angry at the current situation, and not changing it (you know, re-electing Bush), would only make them angrier and yell more. So, Republicans, if you are so tired of us Democrats whining and yelling at you to stop parking your yacht on our children's education, elect a Democrat. We will probably shut up.
I don't care if the next person in office isn't a Democrat. Hell, I'll take a salty old Republican dick over Bush. Anyone that is NOT Bush should get elected. Let's look at this chart to prove my theory:
Holy crap, the only way to go is UP. No matter who we elect, things have to get better. Unless we re-elect bush. Then, I may need a new chart with the category "Bush Budget" added in below "debt" to signal how much of a moron this guy is.
Sources:
Bush In 30 Seconds Website
Angry Democrats Ad
An Angry Democrat (E-mail Me!)
So I browse to google, type in something like "Re-Elect Bush", and find an advertisement video on the campaign website for his re-election... Oh sweet mother of Land O Lakes butter, my eyes were burning with agony! Here is what went down:
I see this video of a TV, and democratic candidates are screaming out things about Bush. At first, I thought Bush was behind them shoving a Dick Cheney up their ass because they were yelling so feverishly, but that is only metaphorical as to how Bush is fucking the country. The commercial's main point? Democrats... yell... too... much... So re-elect Bush!
What? That's PRO-BUSH? I don't think you can get any stupider. "Hey, let's vote for this guy! He makes every one else so angry that he has to be right!". How about... no. Let's not bother that this commercial airs several Democrats and valid opinions and points of views they have against Bush. Let's forget about the amazing man who turned the LARGEST SURPLUSS IN US HISTORY into the LARGEST DEFICIT IN US HISTORY. These other guys, they fucking yell too much.
Why are these guys yelling? Wait, I know, probably because some asshole stole the presidential office from their party in 2000 illegally, got away with it, and then shit-holed our country. That's why, it almost slipped my mind. Now they have to listen to us whine about how all those crumb-snatching poor kids are getting fucked out of an education. Can't they drown this out somehow? According to this ad, re-electing president Bush drowns us out pretty well.
Maybe I should inject your eye with a 17 inch needle that is foaming with COMMON SENSE. Common sense dictates that these guys are angry at the current situation, and not changing it (you know, re-electing Bush), would only make them angrier and yell more. So, Republicans, if you are so tired of us Democrats whining and yelling at you to stop parking your yacht on our children's education, elect a Democrat. We will probably shut up.
I don't care if the next person in office isn't a Democrat. Hell, I'll take a salty old Republican dick over Bush. Anyone that is NOT Bush should get elected. Let's look at this chart to prove my theory:
Holy crap, the only way to go is UP. No matter who we elect, things have to get better. Unless we re-elect bush. Then, I may need a new chart with the category "Bush Budget" added in below "debt" to signal how much of a moron this guy is.
Sources:
Bush In 30 Seconds Website
Angry Democrats Ad
An Angry Democrat (E-mail Me!)
Pirate Everything!
Pirate everything. This is my new philosophy. I'd assume that, porn aside, Pirating of music, movies, games, etc., consumes well over 75% of the internet. 56k yielded the mp3, but now that we have moved on to more enlightened grounds, we see such formats as .avi and .tar coming more prevalent. Where once it took two hours to download a song, it takes two hours to download a high quality full length cinema released film. Where it once took two hours to download a song, we can download a .tar of the CD in less than 20 minutes.
It's alluring, isn't it? Imagine walking in to a really nice store, like, oh say, Best Buy. They have DVDs, Games, CDs, Software... What if I told you, you could grab anything you want there for free. One catch, it might take 20-30 minutes to get it out of the store, depending on how much you shell out a month to me. This is the magic of the internet. Read-Only media is just floating there in cyber space, and anyone with hands filthy, or smart enough, can grab at it. Plump, silicone filled software titties, and you can grab them, go ahead.
There are basically just two sides to this situation. One might THINK the sides consist of people with morals, and values, against pirating, and then the other side is a bunch of black-toothed hoodlums punching the shit out of your Windows box with their Linux machines until some software goodies fly out like a cyber piñata. In reality, there are two very different sides (not including a small 1% third party). First, we have the corporations. They have two things that start with M, money, and morals. Downloading is very wrong to them, they lose money. To replace that money, they develop morals.
Here we are, the other side of the fence. Far too long have we been raped for a $20 plastic disc that costs pennies to make. We now see the light of freedom at the end of the tunnel. The tunnel is really our coaxial cable streaming us in 500kbps or more to download new software, new games, new music, whatever the fuck we want. No programmer is going hungry, I can assure you of this. If he is going hungry, it's because he spent $20 on some new bullshit Elton John CD. He should have downloaded it instead, and fed his kids.
Probably much like many readers, I came from a family where money and shit was scarce. We didn't go splurge on a yacht every week. "Splurging" was getting Kool-aid instead of "Flava-Aid". Flava-Aid is like the cheap version of Kool-Aid. Over here, they consider Kool-Aid "Ghetto Water". I wonder what they hell they would consider Flava-Aid. It's like the piss of the ghetto, straight from the sandy packet to my mouth. Our country is faced with tons of unemployment and a huge deficit.
The least I can do is secure something for free. The other day, I had a rich aunt of mine over. My house looks like I'm stealing cable and funneling irrigation for "Columbian Crop" out back. This is really only a small investment $150 for decent TV Out (Nvidia GeForce 4), $50 for a 20 foot cable that carries left audio, right audio, and S-Video data, and a $5 audio converter to composite stream. What this births is my computer being displayed on my TV, along with sound being shot through my stereo.
My rich aunt has tons of luxuries, but her family must pay upwards of $50 for all of them to go see a theatrical release in comfort. My family made a one time investment of $200 or so dollars, and of course, pays for a broadband Cable internet connection (fuck DSL). We now, with the help of pirating, enjoy free movie releases. Not just free, but high DVD quality. You'd swear the lower resolution on the TV muddles the image enough for it to look EVEN BETTER than on a PC. The new Lord Of The Rings? I was sitting back enjoying it weeks before it's actual release in the comfort of my own home in high quality. Big Fish? Nearly a month before it's release, I had a VHS quality version pumping through my TV.
Let's just assume that each movie you see with you entire family costs $50. ($10 tickets, 4 members, drinks, popcorn, transportation, etc.). Now let's see how many movies I have to download to pay back my investment of $200... 4. I have well over 50 movies sitting on my hard drive, many of which are in DVD quality. I'd say after a few theater releases I've spared my family enough money to also pay the cable, electric, and water bill, with enough left over to pay off this computer.
Pirating doesn't end there, rich aunty. Come enjoy any new CD you choose. Before it even hits the shelves, pirates supply me with .tar compressions of the entire CD. I can download it in less than 20 minutes. The sound quality is disturbingly good being pressed through 300watt speakers and such a nice stereo system. Instead of spending countless hundreds on new cds every year, I funded a new stereo system by not purchasing my music legally. Fuck you RIAA, eat shit and die. Explain why a $0.05 piece of plastic must cost me at least $12 at the store. Especially when the artist is NOT getting $11.95 of that money, asshats.
What about software? I save tons of money by thwarting through CD Keys and registration of software. Hell, by switching to Linux you can save thousands of dollars. Never purchase another $xxx.xx priced operating system again. Linux is even legal, but as soon as you use it, internet myth assumes you are an ultimate hacker genius with 5 gold pirate teeth. Yarr, sail the 7 ISPS you do. Get this, Linux, and the software that runs on it, are open-source, another word for "free and better than Microsoft".
Face it though, you are too stupid not to piss on yourself when you go to the john. You have to stick with Windows. Time to break out the cracks and get rid of that nagging registration message. Exceed your free-trial-period by however the fuck long you want because you have the magic of "haxors" on your side. New version of Windows came out a while back called XP. Before it even hit the streets, pirates like you and me figured out ways to bypass all the BILLIONS of dollars Microsoft had poured into security so we couldn't. Who the hell can afford $500 for an operating system? I know I can afford to download a 5MB crack for it though.
I wont go into further detail. Just take it upon yourself to be all the pirate you can be. Never let a spare second tick by without downloading something illegally. Don't get caught by anyone, that's important, but besides that, become a member of my company. It's worth absolutely nothing and we can trade it on Nasdaq. All you have to do is start out piss ant poor with nothing, and download everything. Before you know it, you, Joe Schmoe, has a library of DVDs, BRAND NEW 2005 computer software, every billboard hit cd, and Half-Life 3. Quite a profit increase, if you ask me.
Like I said, us pirates sailed the 7 ISPS. We landed in a new land called the internet and called it ours. It's cut-throat. Everyone on the internet is either for us, or against us. Those trying to stop us having money on their minds. Those for us don't have money to be on their minds. Rise up, pirates, and let's kick some ass. If I don't see a pirating increase this month of at least 200%, you have failed as pirates! Save (wait, not save, because you wouldn't have spent the money in the first place), rather EARN thousands of dollars. I'm not trying to sell you a book or a video, I'm trying to interest you in more pirating.
Here is a rather simple analogy, you start with $0, and obtain a virtual $10 every time you download a CD, $50 every time you get a movie, $100 every time you warez software, $50 for every game you steal, $20 for every rom... etc. By the end of a working day, you could easily obtain nearly a thousand dollars worth of virtual goodies. For free. The RIAA will never offer you this. They will re-sell you a $0.05 hunk of plastic for $15. That is what I call profit loss. Not for them, for you.
So what if a corporation loses thousands, millions, or billions? The general consumer loses trillions to their insane price gouging. Over your history as a human being, you've been ripped off, gipped off, and all around pissed off by these corporations. Strike back at their throat by downloading the internet for all it's worth.
To show I'm not such a bad guy, here are things you can do with all of your "earned money" for the benefit.
1. You downloaded all of some obscure band's cds. They never made a penny. You are a fat ugly slob. You hear they are coming in concert next week. Buy a ticket, pay them, and mosh off 50 pounds you fucking beef patty.
2. You downloaded every new game that came out last year and they all sucked. Don't go buy the retail versions, they suck too. Show companies they just can't release shit games and have you buy them. They better buck and and be a man about creating real games. Maybe then you wont pirate it, but instead, buy it to support them.
3. You downloaded Red Hat 9.x and are in love. Linux is everything you ever dreamed of, and more. Red Hat is free, legally. You can still kick Microsoft right in the teeth by paying for it though, and even feel good for supporting such a movement.
4. You see a beautiful film like Lord Of The Rings, Return Of The King, in your home. Don't let it's majesty go to waste, go see it in the theaters how it was meant to be seen. This will also boost the box office sales. Maybe if we all go see it a fourth time it can topple Titanic as the box-office king. Either way, let's try and smuggle all three LotR into the top 10 box office sales slots.
5. Buy your daughter some clothes. She is fucking fat and disgusting. Every time I see her gloomy gut bounce out, I want to puke. Maybe if you spent more money on clothes, you would spend less money on ground hog-feed you dispense to her hourly and she would lose some god damn weight.
Until next time, just keep pirating. Pirate until your ship's testicles are blue from the ocean's waters. Any comments? Feel free to e-mail me at Kazeuri@Mail.com or keep them to yourself you half-wit.
It's alluring, isn't it? Imagine walking in to a really nice store, like, oh say, Best Buy. They have DVDs, Games, CDs, Software... What if I told you, you could grab anything you want there for free. One catch, it might take 20-30 minutes to get it out of the store, depending on how much you shell out a month to me. This is the magic of the internet. Read-Only media is just floating there in cyber space, and anyone with hands filthy, or smart enough, can grab at it. Plump, silicone filled software titties, and you can grab them, go ahead.
There are basically just two sides to this situation. One might THINK the sides consist of people with morals, and values, against pirating, and then the other side is a bunch of black-toothed hoodlums punching the shit out of your Windows box with their Linux machines until some software goodies fly out like a cyber piñata. In reality, there are two very different sides (not including a small 1% third party). First, we have the corporations. They have two things that start with M, money, and morals. Downloading is very wrong to them, they lose money. To replace that money, they develop morals.
Here we are, the other side of the fence. Far too long have we been raped for a $20 plastic disc that costs pennies to make. We now see the light of freedom at the end of the tunnel. The tunnel is really our coaxial cable streaming us in 500kbps or more to download new software, new games, new music, whatever the fuck we want. No programmer is going hungry, I can assure you of this. If he is going hungry, it's because he spent $20 on some new bullshit Elton John CD. He should have downloaded it instead, and fed his kids.
Probably much like many readers, I came from a family where money and shit was scarce. We didn't go splurge on a yacht every week. "Splurging" was getting Kool-aid instead of "Flava-Aid". Flava-Aid is like the cheap version of Kool-Aid. Over here, they consider Kool-Aid "Ghetto Water". I wonder what they hell they would consider Flava-Aid. It's like the piss of the ghetto, straight from the sandy packet to my mouth. Our country is faced with tons of unemployment and a huge deficit.
The least I can do is secure something for free. The other day, I had a rich aunt of mine over. My house looks like I'm stealing cable and funneling irrigation for "Columbian Crop" out back. This is really only a small investment $150 for decent TV Out (Nvidia GeForce 4), $50 for a 20 foot cable that carries left audio, right audio, and S-Video data, and a $5 audio converter to composite stream. What this births is my computer being displayed on my TV, along with sound being shot through my stereo.
My rich aunt has tons of luxuries, but her family must pay upwards of $50 for all of them to go see a theatrical release in comfort. My family made a one time investment of $200 or so dollars, and of course, pays for a broadband Cable internet connection (fuck DSL). We now, with the help of pirating, enjoy free movie releases. Not just free, but high DVD quality. You'd swear the lower resolution on the TV muddles the image enough for it to look EVEN BETTER than on a PC. The new Lord Of The Rings? I was sitting back enjoying it weeks before it's actual release in the comfort of my own home in high quality. Big Fish? Nearly a month before it's release, I had a VHS quality version pumping through my TV.
Let's just assume that each movie you see with you entire family costs $50. ($10 tickets, 4 members, drinks, popcorn, transportation, etc.). Now let's see how many movies I have to download to pay back my investment of $200... 4. I have well over 50 movies sitting on my hard drive, many of which are in DVD quality. I'd say after a few theater releases I've spared my family enough money to also pay the cable, electric, and water bill, with enough left over to pay off this computer.
Pirating doesn't end there, rich aunty. Come enjoy any new CD you choose. Before it even hits the shelves, pirates supply me with .tar compressions of the entire CD. I can download it in less than 20 minutes. The sound quality is disturbingly good being pressed through 300watt speakers and such a nice stereo system. Instead of spending countless hundreds on new cds every year, I funded a new stereo system by not purchasing my music legally. Fuck you RIAA, eat shit and die. Explain why a $0.05 piece of plastic must cost me at least $12 at the store. Especially when the artist is NOT getting $11.95 of that money, asshats.
What about software? I save tons of money by thwarting through CD Keys and registration of software. Hell, by switching to Linux you can save thousands of dollars. Never purchase another $xxx.xx priced operating system again. Linux is even legal, but as soon as you use it, internet myth assumes you are an ultimate hacker genius with 5 gold pirate teeth. Yarr, sail the 7 ISPS you do. Get this, Linux, and the software that runs on it, are open-source, another word for "free and better than Microsoft".
Face it though, you are too stupid not to piss on yourself when you go to the john. You have to stick with Windows. Time to break out the cracks and get rid of that nagging registration message. Exceed your free-trial-period by however the fuck long you want because you have the magic of "haxors" on your side. New version of Windows came out a while back called XP. Before it even hit the streets, pirates like you and me figured out ways to bypass all the BILLIONS of dollars Microsoft had poured into security so we couldn't. Who the hell can afford $500 for an operating system? I know I can afford to download a 5MB crack for it though.
I wont go into further detail. Just take it upon yourself to be all the pirate you can be. Never let a spare second tick by without downloading something illegally. Don't get caught by anyone, that's important, but besides that, become a member of my company. It's worth absolutely nothing and we can trade it on Nasdaq. All you have to do is start out piss ant poor with nothing, and download everything. Before you know it, you, Joe Schmoe, has a library of DVDs, BRAND NEW 2005 computer software, every billboard hit cd, and Half-Life 3. Quite a profit increase, if you ask me.
Like I said, us pirates sailed the 7 ISPS. We landed in a new land called the internet and called it ours. It's cut-throat. Everyone on the internet is either for us, or against us. Those trying to stop us having money on their minds. Those for us don't have money to be on their minds. Rise up, pirates, and let's kick some ass. If I don't see a pirating increase this month of at least 200%, you have failed as pirates! Save (wait, not save, because you wouldn't have spent the money in the first place), rather EARN thousands of dollars. I'm not trying to sell you a book or a video, I'm trying to interest you in more pirating.
Here is a rather simple analogy, you start with $0, and obtain a virtual $10 every time you download a CD, $50 every time you get a movie, $100 every time you warez software, $50 for every game you steal, $20 for every rom... etc. By the end of a working day, you could easily obtain nearly a thousand dollars worth of virtual goodies. For free. The RIAA will never offer you this. They will re-sell you a $0.05 hunk of plastic for $15. That is what I call profit loss. Not for them, for you.
So what if a corporation loses thousands, millions, or billions? The general consumer loses trillions to their insane price gouging. Over your history as a human being, you've been ripped off, gipped off, and all around pissed off by these corporations. Strike back at their throat by downloading the internet for all it's worth.
To show I'm not such a bad guy, here are things you can do with all of your "earned money" for the benefit.
1. You downloaded all of some obscure band's cds. They never made a penny. You are a fat ugly slob. You hear they are coming in concert next week. Buy a ticket, pay them, and mosh off 50 pounds you fucking beef patty.
2. You downloaded every new game that came out last year and they all sucked. Don't go buy the retail versions, they suck too. Show companies they just can't release shit games and have you buy them. They better buck and and be a man about creating real games. Maybe then you wont pirate it, but instead, buy it to support them.
3. You downloaded Red Hat 9.x and are in love. Linux is everything you ever dreamed of, and more. Red Hat is free, legally. You can still kick Microsoft right in the teeth by paying for it though, and even feel good for supporting such a movement.
4. You see a beautiful film like Lord Of The Rings, Return Of The King, in your home. Don't let it's majesty go to waste, go see it in the theaters how it was meant to be seen. This will also boost the box office sales. Maybe if we all go see it a fourth time it can topple Titanic as the box-office king. Either way, let's try and smuggle all three LotR into the top 10 box office sales slots.
5. Buy your daughter some clothes. She is fucking fat and disgusting. Every time I see her gloomy gut bounce out, I want to puke. Maybe if you spent more money on clothes, you would spend less money on ground hog-feed you dispense to her hourly and she would lose some god damn weight.
Until next time, just keep pirating. Pirate until your ship's testicles are blue from the ocean's waters. Any comments? Feel free to e-mail me at Kazeuri@Mail.com or keep them to yourself you half-wit.
Monday, January 12, 2004
Short (ha!) little article
So, now I'm back in court, my final hearing. Although I wont go into detail as to why I was in court, or what they made me go through Juvenile Arbitration (those are other stories altogether), I will tell you of a story one of my tasks prompted. First, we must rewind. One of my other punishments was to attend a "Conflict Resolution" course. This course is basically "Anger Management" and "Why you shouldn't become a Neo Nazi" all rolled into about 2 hours. I came there, dressed how I dress, and was alerted that SHORTS ARE NOT PERMITTED IN THE COURT HOUSE. Okay, what kind of bullshit joke is this?
I was forced to write a paper on appropriate dress in court. Well, not appropriate dress, but rather in a specific manner, WHY YOU MUST WEAR PANTS. The day before it was due, the little wheels in my head began turning. A one page essay, that's it. It plagued my sleep, not because I feared writing it, but because I didn't know what to write. Really, can you tell me why pants are so much more important than shorts?
Short (no pun intended) of immediately being recruited as a Contra to fight in the jungle, there aren't many reasons you should be wearing pants at all times. Perhaps they are afraid my legs will get cold while in court and I will have to ask to leave. My comfort is at risk! Such a matter, to me, should not concern the court.
Older generations, to my knowledge, do not frown upon shorts. It's not like you see a guy wearing shorts and go "Holy shit, a fucking Commie! Duck!" or relate shorts with hoodlums. If anything, I'd relate jogging suites to criminals, although they are perfectly accepted in court. I can suit up, attend my hearing, retreat to the parking lot where I proceed to break your window and steal your CD case, then safely jog away into the night.
Maybe if I was female and was wearing shorts that exposed 4/2 of my ass (Yes, that is an improper fraction), you could have a little fit. In fact, I'm not sure of this, but the entire rule may be in place because of hoochies who do that shit. No one wants to see your quivering girth, hence forth, no more shorts in court. It would be sexist, however, to allow guys to wear shorts in court. So, no more guys with shorts either. Doesn't that suck?
The end result is that I did write the paper (with much of the content above in there, even the contra stuff). I felt like a total ass being swindled out of my shorts (in the non-perverted way), but the real kicker to this story is that I handed the judge my paper on appropriate dress while wearing shorts. Long live shorts.
I was forced to write a paper on appropriate dress in court. Well, not appropriate dress, but rather in a specific manner, WHY YOU MUST WEAR PANTS. The day before it was due, the little wheels in my head began turning. A one page essay, that's it. It plagued my sleep, not because I feared writing it, but because I didn't know what to write. Really, can you tell me why pants are so much more important than shorts?
Short (no pun intended) of immediately being recruited as a Contra to fight in the jungle, there aren't many reasons you should be wearing pants at all times. Perhaps they are afraid my legs will get cold while in court and I will have to ask to leave. My comfort is at risk! Such a matter, to me, should not concern the court.
Older generations, to my knowledge, do not frown upon shorts. It's not like you see a guy wearing shorts and go "Holy shit, a fucking Commie! Duck!" or relate shorts with hoodlums. If anything, I'd relate jogging suites to criminals, although they are perfectly accepted in court. I can suit up, attend my hearing, retreat to the parking lot where I proceed to break your window and steal your CD case, then safely jog away into the night.
Maybe if I was female and was wearing shorts that exposed 4/2 of my ass (Yes, that is an improper fraction), you could have a little fit. In fact, I'm not sure of this, but the entire rule may be in place because of hoochies who do that shit. No one wants to see your quivering girth, hence forth, no more shorts in court. It would be sexist, however, to allow guys to wear shorts in court. So, no more guys with shorts either. Doesn't that suck?
The end result is that I did write the paper (with much of the content above in there, even the contra stuff). I felt like a total ass being swindled out of my shorts (in the non-perverted way), but the real kicker to this story is that I handed the judge my paper on appropriate dress while wearing shorts. Long live shorts.
Sunday, January 11, 2004
Let Legends Lie
What would you do for a piece of rock history? Would you try to reach out in a crowd of thousands for a brief grope of Kurt Cobain? Would you claw at the dress of Madonna in hopes of snagging a shred for your own? Or would you try and force a dying rock legend to autograph a guitar for you? Well, you may say you wouldn't. Surely you have more couth than that. But as for others, some don't know where to draw the line.
Sad to think, that not only would cancerous, weak, and exhausted George Harrison soon be playing Hey Jude in Heaven, but he was forced against his will to sign one last autograph. Dr. Gilbert Lederman coerced George in to signing a guitar for his son. This sickens me. One of the great Beatles, bedridden, is made out to be an amusement for some cheap doctor's son.
The world doesn't seem to get enough of them. Celebrities with their lavish lifestyles are always in the headlines of the papers. I don't ever remember seeing one of my hometown's couples marriage featured on the front page of a newspaper. Yet as soon as little Ms. Spears says "I do" it's all over the front pages. Also interesting, two days later the "'til death do us part" is over and Britney's a free spirit again.
Isn't it lovely how the nation "mourns" when a famous pop, rock, or country star passes away? Though every day, statistics estimate about 153 thousand people die. Every day, 153 thousand nobodies' pass away. Their faces never see the news. Their lives are never known except by their close, loved ones. Great people leave every day without proper recognition. But if a popular artist with a chart-topping hit gets the flu, you can bet it'll make the papers.
Celebrities are only people. It's said all the time but doesn't sink in. Their talent doesn't make us inferior to them. It doesn't even separate us as humans. But society has evolved and taught us otherwise. It's time we stop lavishing in the talents of others, and start appreciating each other. So next time the dying singer is laying there lifeless, let him die in the peace he still has.
Sad to think, that not only would cancerous, weak, and exhausted George Harrison soon be playing Hey Jude in Heaven, but he was forced against his will to sign one last autograph. Dr. Gilbert Lederman coerced George in to signing a guitar for his son. This sickens me. One of the great Beatles, bedridden, is made out to be an amusement for some cheap doctor's son.
The world doesn't seem to get enough of them. Celebrities with their lavish lifestyles are always in the headlines of the papers. I don't ever remember seeing one of my hometown's couples marriage featured on the front page of a newspaper. Yet as soon as little Ms. Spears says "I do" it's all over the front pages. Also interesting, two days later the "'til death do us part" is over and Britney's a free spirit again.
Isn't it lovely how the nation "mourns" when a famous pop, rock, or country star passes away? Though every day, statistics estimate about 153 thousand people die. Every day, 153 thousand nobodies' pass away. Their faces never see the news. Their lives are never known except by their close, loved ones. Great people leave every day without proper recognition. But if a popular artist with a chart-topping hit gets the flu, you can bet it'll make the papers.
Celebrities are only people. It's said all the time but doesn't sink in. Their talent doesn't make us inferior to them. It doesn't even separate us as humans. But society has evolved and taught us otherwise. It's time we stop lavishing in the talents of others, and start appreciating each other. So next time the dying singer is laying there lifeless, let him die in the peace he still has.
Saturday, January 10, 2004
Non-white UKites still consider themselves British? Take THAT BNP!
The BNP, a political party that split from the NF (National Front) here is unfortunately gaining a considerable amount of popularity here at present. Formerly they relied on songs such as "There Ain't No Black In The Union Jack (So send those pakis/niggers back)" to stir "White Pride" in people, but currently these thugs in suits are attempting to enter parliament legitimately. This unfortunately seems to be working in certain areas - and woe inducingly for me, it's working in the City I was born in and the City I currently inhabit (Birmingham, Stoke-on-Trent), where the BNP play a semi-significant role on local councils and are looking to win seats in parliament for these areas.
Now, the purpose of this update was to call the BNP on their main policy - that non-Brits can never be contributing members of this society, and are leeches and so on. Now, formerly under the NF the BNP only supported Anglo-Saxons - taking part in such sports as "Paddy-Bashing" (attacking Irishmen) and considering those from the Continent as vastly inferior to Englishmen. However, nowadays the BNP is attempting to forge alliances with other European right wing parties to establish a coallition for the European Union. Le Pen, the leader of France's extremist party "Le Front Nationale", has met with Nick Griffin (BNP leader) on a number of occasions and ties between them seem to have strengthened.
I digress from the initial point - that Non-White members of our golden isles shouldn't be allowed citizenship as they can never be British and have ties to their country of origin. If that is the case, Mr Griffin, then why has a recent survey produced much, much different evidence that you suggested? (For information concerning this survey and for results, please visit http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=479072).
Thankfully the BNP aren't able to form any alliances or ties with the three major parties of the isles due to their bigoted beliefs.
Firstly, Labour (the current majority party) has a substancial Jewish , including the Foreign Minister Jack Straw.
Secondly, the Conservatives - the party whom the BNP should have most in common with isolationalistly - have elected a Jewish member as their leader. Michael Howard - affectionately known as "Vlad" or "There's something of the night about him...".
Finally the Liberals. The BNP won't ally with them for reasons which should be obvious - their ideologies are almost polar opposites.
I will be convering the BNP at least once per week, as much for my own peace of mind as to report on them. This dangerous threat is being ignored by a great deal of newspapers as an attempt to block media attention to the BNP, thus reducing their influence. However, this policy - adopted by the press in the Weimar Republic vs the Nazi Party - is allowing the BNP to pursue their own publicity, therefore avoiding negative press altogether.
Britain for the British is indeed a great statement, as long as it applies to all British, not just the ones with white skin and anglo-saxon names.
Now, the purpose of this update was to call the BNP on their main policy - that non-Brits can never be contributing members of this society, and are leeches and so on. Now, formerly under the NF the BNP only supported Anglo-Saxons - taking part in such sports as "Paddy-Bashing" (attacking Irishmen) and considering those from the Continent as vastly inferior to Englishmen. However, nowadays the BNP is attempting to forge alliances with other European right wing parties to establish a coallition for the European Union. Le Pen, the leader of France's extremist party "Le Front Nationale", has met with Nick Griffin (BNP leader) on a number of occasions and ties between them seem to have strengthened.
I digress from the initial point - that Non-White members of our golden isles shouldn't be allowed citizenship as they can never be British and have ties to their country of origin. If that is the case, Mr Griffin, then why has a recent survey produced much, much different evidence that you suggested? (For information concerning this survey and for results, please visit http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=479072).
Thankfully the BNP aren't able to form any alliances or ties with the three major parties of the isles due to their bigoted beliefs.
Firstly, Labour (the current majority party) has a substancial Jewish , including the Foreign Minister Jack Straw.
Secondly, the Conservatives - the party whom the BNP should have most in common with isolationalistly - have elected a Jewish member as their leader. Michael Howard - affectionately known as "Vlad" or "There's something of the night about him...".
Finally the Liberals. The BNP won't ally with them for reasons which should be obvious - their ideologies are almost polar opposites.
I will be convering the BNP at least once per week, as much for my own peace of mind as to report on them. This dangerous threat is being ignored by a great deal of newspapers as an attempt to block media attention to the BNP, thus reducing their influence. However, this policy - adopted by the press in the Weimar Republic vs the Nazi Party - is allowing the BNP to pursue their own publicity, therefore avoiding negative press altogether.
Britain for the British is indeed a great statement, as long as it applies to all British, not just the ones with white skin and anglo-saxon names.
Thursday, January 08, 2004
News Round-up
Once again, a round-up of articles from around the world. Check them out and come to your own conclusions.
Colin Powell defends WDM claims.
US researchers state the obvious.
Latin America no longer submissive to US demands.
SARS back to haunt the Chinese?
Why is this the top story in a NATIONAL newspaper?
That last one isn't anything "important," it just doesn't make sense as the top story on the front page of a national newspaper. Why would something that matters only to one city (and a few suburbs) matter to the rest of the country? Sure, the guy is a dangerous criminal, but I live on the other end of the country and don't particularly care; save that story for Toronto's local newspapers. Stop trying to pretend that anyone outside of Toronto cares about what happens in Toronto. Oops...I guess I let some "Western Alienation" slip out.
P.S.: I am not actually "alienated" from Ottawa/"the east," I just think Toronto should stop trying to be New York.
Colin Powell defends WDM claims.
US researchers state the obvious.
Latin America no longer submissive to US demands.
SARS back to haunt the Chinese?
Why is this the top story in a NATIONAL newspaper?
That last one isn't anything "important," it just doesn't make sense as the top story on the front page of a national newspaper. Why would something that matters only to one city (and a few suburbs) matter to the rest of the country? Sure, the guy is a dangerous criminal, but I live on the other end of the country and don't particularly care; save that story for Toronto's local newspapers. Stop trying to pretend that anyone outside of Toronto cares about what happens in Toronto. Oops...I guess I let some "Western Alienation" slip out.
P.S.: I am not actually "alienated" from Ottawa/"the east," I just think Toronto should stop trying to be New York.
Are bloggers journalists?
I read this article this morning and thought I'd share it since it relates directly to what I'm trying to do with this blog. It's an interesting read so check it out if you have ten minutes to spare.
Wednesday, January 07, 2004
UK Mission to Mars: "Dude, where's my probe?"
Isn’t it extraordinary how different cultures can have totally dissimilar concerns about a certain topic, even if said cultures are as similar to each other as the United States and United Kingdom? I’m referring, of course, to the recent mars adventures that I would be saying “are all over the newspapers” if in fact they actually were.
The irony is that the British probe (Beagle 2) has actually received more media attention than if it would have successfully returned with photos and images from mars. The farcical nature of losing it in space has been enough to give a chuckle to the average van driver, and a quick laugh for him to take part in over his bacon cobs. If the contrary happened however, said van driver would have skipped through the section in the middle of the paper with the photos in (if a section would have even been awarded to them) in search of more important news – the recent Britney Spears marriage for example, or possibly the results of twenty two men kicking a spherical object around a grass field.
During the era of the Cold War, Space exploration appeared to be a key topic due to the fear of the “Commies” controlling space as well as the East. The fear of Nuclear devices being placed on the moon, able to target anywhere from orbit, has been a topic many spy movies have touched upon – even the famous James Bond goes to moon bases! Now, with no foe to compete with, international space exploration seems to have been neglected by all but Team USA.
Personally, I can see the point of the UK denizen’s apathy. Space travel and settlements used to excite us all as children, but people have to grasp the terrible truth about which kind of people would be living on different outposts in space. It is indeed nice to imagine huge domes on the moon – earthlike atmosphere, a paradise for the rich – but in reality, logically the truth would be much darker. Why would the elite of society move to an artificial environment when Earth already has everything they require? Liken the situation to the British rule of Australia in the Victorian era. Did the ruling members of society go and live on the sparse desert upon acquisition? No. They exiled convicted criminals there instead. Again, we can draw another comparison with the ideas expressed in the science-fiction pieces present in the “Alien Quadrilogy” (Alien, Aliens, Alien 3, Alien Resurrection) – the large and superpowerful company resides on Earth, while space is filled with small mining towns (Aliens), prisons (Alien 3) and bandits (Fourth film).
As much as I’d usually mock the idea of seeking enlightenment about the future from movies, these presented ideas are pretty much what any logical person who thought about the situation would see happening. Why waste an immense amount of resources attempting to build earthlike conditions on other rocks when Earth already has them? Wouldn’t it be simpler to just implant a dome with some form of air conversion and atmospheric pressure regulator rather than try to grow aesthetically pleasing surroundings? Plus – when has the Western World ever gone into anywhere and renovated the place? We prefer to leech everything that’s good about new areas we conquer and then leave the place for scrap. Why is the moon or Mars different? Oh, that’s right, space!
As for us expanding even further afield in the “near” future, there are two causes for dismissal of this idea. Firstly, from a religious viewpoint, G-d and the creation of this planet as a utopia for humanity. Abandoning it in its entirety would possible avoid the “end” of the world, therefore avoid his judgment in some way (logically). Secondly, if you go from a scientific viewpoint, the sun has another 500,000,000 years of life in it. As even the earliest civilisations of humanity weren’t in existence 6,000 years ago, it seems we have plenty of time to live out a good long run as a species. Therefore the need to expand into space is one that should take second place to solving crises already present on our planet – Aids, welfare, tyranny and despotism, the Middle Eastern conflict. Space exploration is an unnecessary drain on resources of country’s which have other priorities (Despite being the world’s fourth strongest economy, we really can’t afford to blow 500 million on a probe that gets lost in space Mr. Blair!). Therefore, bringing this full circle, I do agree with the indifference of the British citizens concerning the probe – it wouldn’t have really done anything for us in the long run anyway.
The irony is that the British probe (Beagle 2) has actually received more media attention than if it would have successfully returned with photos and images from mars. The farcical nature of losing it in space has been enough to give a chuckle to the average van driver, and a quick laugh for him to take part in over his bacon cobs. If the contrary happened however, said van driver would have skipped through the section in the middle of the paper with the photos in (if a section would have even been awarded to them) in search of more important news – the recent Britney Spears marriage for example, or possibly the results of twenty two men kicking a spherical object around a grass field.
During the era of the Cold War, Space exploration appeared to be a key topic due to the fear of the “Commies” controlling space as well as the East. The fear of Nuclear devices being placed on the moon, able to target anywhere from orbit, has been a topic many spy movies have touched upon – even the famous James Bond goes to moon bases! Now, with no foe to compete with, international space exploration seems to have been neglected by all but Team USA.
Personally, I can see the point of the UK denizen’s apathy. Space travel and settlements used to excite us all as children, but people have to grasp the terrible truth about which kind of people would be living on different outposts in space. It is indeed nice to imagine huge domes on the moon – earthlike atmosphere, a paradise for the rich – but in reality, logically the truth would be much darker. Why would the elite of society move to an artificial environment when Earth already has everything they require? Liken the situation to the British rule of Australia in the Victorian era. Did the ruling members of society go and live on the sparse desert upon acquisition? No. They exiled convicted criminals there instead. Again, we can draw another comparison with the ideas expressed in the science-fiction pieces present in the “Alien Quadrilogy” (Alien, Aliens, Alien 3, Alien Resurrection) – the large and superpowerful company resides on Earth, while space is filled with small mining towns (Aliens), prisons (Alien 3) and bandits (Fourth film).
As much as I’d usually mock the idea of seeking enlightenment about the future from movies, these presented ideas are pretty much what any logical person who thought about the situation would see happening. Why waste an immense amount of resources attempting to build earthlike conditions on other rocks when Earth already has them? Wouldn’t it be simpler to just implant a dome with some form of air conversion and atmospheric pressure regulator rather than try to grow aesthetically pleasing surroundings? Plus – when has the Western World ever gone into anywhere and renovated the place? We prefer to leech everything that’s good about new areas we conquer and then leave the place for scrap. Why is the moon or Mars different? Oh, that’s right, space!
As for us expanding even further afield in the “near” future, there are two causes for dismissal of this idea. Firstly, from a religious viewpoint, G-d and the creation of this planet as a utopia for humanity. Abandoning it in its entirety would possible avoid the “end” of the world, therefore avoid his judgment in some way (logically). Secondly, if you go from a scientific viewpoint, the sun has another 500,000,000 years of life in it. As even the earliest civilisations of humanity weren’t in existence 6,000 years ago, it seems we have plenty of time to live out a good long run as a species. Therefore the need to expand into space is one that should take second place to solving crises already present on our planet – Aids, welfare, tyranny and despotism, the Middle Eastern conflict. Space exploration is an unnecessary drain on resources of country’s which have other priorities (Despite being the world’s fourth strongest economy, we really can’t afford to blow 500 million on a probe that gets lost in space Mr. Blair!). Therefore, bringing this full circle, I do agree with the indifference of the British citizens concerning the probe – it wouldn’t have really done anything for us in the long run anyway.
Families of WTC Victims Angered by Memorial Design
According to an article in the Jerusalem Post some of the families of victims of the World Trade Centre attacks of 9/11 are angry over the design of a new memorial that will be built to honour the memory of those killed in the attack.
The outrage is due to the fact that the design is minimalist in nature and is seen as minimalizing the horror of the attacks and the memory of the victims. The memorial will be built along side the skyscraper known as the Freedom Tower that will also be built on the former site of the World Trade Centre.
The outrage is due to the fact that the design is minimalist in nature and is seen as minimalizing the horror of the attacks and the memory of the victims. The memorial will be built along side the skyscraper known as the Freedom Tower that will also be built on the former site of the World Trade Centre.
New bloggers
I hired two new writers today, Ian and Tim (or Faust and Kazeuri). Ian will be providing journalist with a view from the UK as well as the homosexual opinion. He is currectly a law student so I'm sure that will help bring something extra to his reports.
Tim will be providing an American voice as well as giving some humour to journalist.
That's all I have time to say right now. Hopefully, Ian will be making his first post (a great article about the recent mission to Mars) in the next few hours. In the meantime, click some of those handy links on the right hand side of the page.
Tim will be providing an American voice as well as giving some humour to journalist.
That's all I have time to say right now. Hopefully, Ian will be making his first post (a great article about the recent mission to Mars) in the next few hours. In the meantime, click some of those handy links on the right hand side of the page.
Sunday, January 04, 2004
Free media = freedom
I just finished doing the latest episode of my internet radio show "Kermit's Collections" on GW Radio and I got to thinking, should I stop playing rap on my show? After all, my listeners tend to hate rap music for some reason. Maybe, I should cater to the tastes of my audience and play something else instead. Then I thought, fuck it. I don't host this show to please people, I host it to please myself. That's the beauty of free media, it's FREE and therefore is a part of FREEDOM. Free and independant radio, literature, television (public access) and so on are the key to freedom. Without the freedom to communicate ideas that are not necessarily the same as those of the status quo, we are not truly free. Thankfully, at least for those of us in the West, these freedoms are still more or less intact. Thank you God, for the internet. Perhaps the idea of a patron saint of the internet isn't so stupid after all.
Sex sells
I'm sick and tired of sex being used to sell everything from cars, diets, to every other damn thing in the world. Yes, sex sells. I can't deny the lure of a shaply female, though I try not to allow myself those temptations what with being in a committed relationship and all, but why can't advertisers try something different for a change? Instead of just resorting to sex everytime, try something creative! Be inventive people! Or maybe they try to be inventive but aren't very good at it? I imagine a concept meeting at an advertising firm to be something like this:
Ad Guy: So, there's this robot, right? And the robot is holding the product and...
Boss: ...and?
Ad Guy: Well, I was hoping we could brainstorm some ideas. I'm not really sure where to go next.
Boss: Brainstorming? What, you want me to do your job for you? I want a concept and I want it now!
Ad Guy: Ok, why don't we just get a hot babe wearing a wet bikini to say something witty like, "Buy this product and you can have sex with me." Of course, they won't really be able to have sex with the girl if they buy the product but since the blood in their heads will have rushed elsewhere they won't think to sue for false advertising.
Boss: I love it. That idea never gets old.
Fucking wankers. Think of something original. I'm sick of being greeted by tits and ass every thirteen seconds. If I want sexual stimulation, I'll go looking for it. If you want me to buy your product, entertain me (proving that your product is worth my money would be a good thing too).
Ad Guy: So, there's this robot, right? And the robot is holding the product and...
Boss: ...and?
Ad Guy: Well, I was hoping we could brainstorm some ideas. I'm not really sure where to go next.
Boss: Brainstorming? What, you want me to do your job for you? I want a concept and I want it now!
Ad Guy: Ok, why don't we just get a hot babe wearing a wet bikini to say something witty like, "Buy this product and you can have sex with me." Of course, they won't really be able to have sex with the girl if they buy the product but since the blood in their heads will have rushed elsewhere they won't think to sue for false advertising.
Boss: I love it. That idea never gets old.
Fucking wankers. Think of something original. I'm sick of being greeted by tits and ass every thirteen seconds. If I want sexual stimulation, I'll go looking for it. If you want me to buy your product, entertain me (proving that your product is worth my money would be a good thing too).
Saturday, January 03, 2004
Rebels versus Terrorists
I've been scouring the net, as per usual, and I had a thought while reading various headlines both old and new. What's the difference between a rebel and a terrorist? Are rebels less terrifying than terrorists? Do we feel a certain amount of empathy toward their causes? Do they fly in X-Wings defending the universe from the Nazi-esque regime of the Galactic Empire? Hell if I know.
Dictionary.com defines rebel as: One who rebels or is in rebellion: “He is the perfect recruit for fascist movements: a rebel not a revolutionary, contemptuous yet envious of the rich and involved with them” (Stanley Hoffman).. Terrorist is defined as: One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism. Ok, so a rebel can be a terrorist, and vice versa, but is not necessarily so. Fine.
We've solved the problem then, right? Wrong. I have another question. Do journalists/"the media" use the words interchangably? Do they pick and choose which of the two terms to use depending on how they want their readers to respond to the article in question? I can say, with relative certainty, that the answer is yes. Since this is the case, we are back to the original question: what is the difference between a rebel and a terrorist? Who gets to define these terms? Generally, I suppose, it would be the journalist (or more likely his editor) who is writing about the rebel and/or terrorist. I've got a lot of questions and not a lot of answers. If I decide to be a "good journalist" instead of a lazy one, I just might do a bit of research and find out how these terms tend to be used in newspaper headlines and how the headline influences the reader's take on the article that follows. Most likely, however, I'll be lazy and just leave you with some unanswered questions.
Dictionary.com defines rebel as: One who rebels or is in rebellion: “He is the perfect recruit for fascist movements: a rebel not a revolutionary, contemptuous yet envious of the rich and involved with them” (Stanley Hoffman).. Terrorist is defined as: One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism. Ok, so a rebel can be a terrorist, and vice versa, but is not necessarily so. Fine.
We've solved the problem then, right? Wrong. I have another question. Do journalists/"the media" use the words interchangably? Do they pick and choose which of the two terms to use depending on how they want their readers to respond to the article in question? I can say, with relative certainty, that the answer is yes. Since this is the case, we are back to the original question: what is the difference between a rebel and a terrorist? Who gets to define these terms? Generally, I suppose, it would be the journalist (or more likely his editor) who is writing about the rebel and/or terrorist. I've got a lot of questions and not a lot of answers. If I decide to be a "good journalist" instead of a lazy one, I just might do a bit of research and find out how these terms tend to be used in newspaper headlines and how the headline influences the reader's take on the article that follows. Most likely, however, I'll be lazy and just leave you with some unanswered questions.
Required Reading
I've been surfing a wave of links that started on Dear Raed (Salam Pax's blog) and I've been learning. Rather than posting an opinionated rant, I'll just provide you with some links. Read these odds and ends and come to your own conclusions.
- Cluster bombs in Iraq
- Iraq Body Count
- Amnesty International*
- Racial Profiling in America
While some of these links are "old news" they are, nonetheless, worth reading. I'll continue to post worth while links like these ones as I find them.
*There is so much information at AI that I didn't bother trying to pick out a specific article to link to. In fact, I'm going to make it a permanent link on the sidebar.
- Cluster bombs in Iraq
- Iraq Body Count
- Amnesty International*
- Racial Profiling in America
While some of these links are "old news" they are, nonetheless, worth reading. I'll continue to post worth while links like these ones as I find them.
*There is so much information at AI that I didn't bother trying to pick out a specific article to link to. In fact, I'm going to make it a permanent link on the sidebar.
Friday, January 02, 2004
What's in the news today?
The top stories of most international news publications tend to be focusing on the middle-east today, as they do most days. In fact, for the most part it is only Canadian sources that are not focusing on the middle-east. Our top stories are all about our own politics - namely Paul Martin and his neo-conservative overthrow of the "Liberal" party - aren't we nice and self-centered?
Since this is what the Canadian papers are talking about, this is where I'll start today's posting. That Martin is the Prime Minister isn't necessarily an issue, though I do have my own personal problems with it. The issue is the lack of democracy involved here. Chretien stepped down and the new leader of the party took his place - fine. There is, technically, nothing wrong with that. That's the way it should work. Kind of like the Vice-President taking over if something happened to the President. However, there is just something slightly sinister about having a new leader installed rather than elected. Of course, in all likelihood an election will be called relatively soon and Martin will then be able to say that he was officially elected by the minority of Canadians who actually bother to vote.
Related news:
Globe and Mail
:: :: :: ::
International news is focused, as ever, on the Middle-East. The United States continues to suffer losses at the hands of Iraqi "resistance" forces and the Iraqis continue to become more and more disgruntled with American presence in their country.
North Korea may allow UN inspectors into the country, according to South Korean officials. This could be N. Korea's attempt at providing peace of mind to the Americans in order to prevent any hostile action against their nation for the time being. However, the situation does seem somewhat reminiscent of the lead up to the Iraq War. After refusing to allow UN inspectors in to the country, with no sign of changing their stance, both nations (Iraq and now N. Korea) suddenly change their position and agree to let inspectors investigate. In both cases it appears as though there is something being hidden, though it is, of course, impossible to confirm this. Regardless, if the United States chooses to go to war with North Korea it will happen regardless of the findings of UN weapons inspectors. Luckily, for the North Koreans, America seems more interested in the situation in the Middle-East to do anything about those Asian members of the "axis of evil."
Related news:
New York Times
Globe and Mail
Since this is what the Canadian papers are talking about, this is where I'll start today's posting. That Martin is the Prime Minister isn't necessarily an issue, though I do have my own personal problems with it. The issue is the lack of democracy involved here. Chretien stepped down and the new leader of the party took his place - fine. There is, technically, nothing wrong with that. That's the way it should work. Kind of like the Vice-President taking over if something happened to the President. However, there is just something slightly sinister about having a new leader installed rather than elected. Of course, in all likelihood an election will be called relatively soon and Martin will then be able to say that he was officially elected by the minority of Canadians who actually bother to vote.
Related news:
Globe and Mail
:: :: :: ::
International news is focused, as ever, on the Middle-East. The United States continues to suffer losses at the hands of Iraqi "resistance" forces and the Iraqis continue to become more and more disgruntled with American presence in their country.
North Korea may allow UN inspectors into the country, according to South Korean officials. This could be N. Korea's attempt at providing peace of mind to the Americans in order to prevent any hostile action against their nation for the time being. However, the situation does seem somewhat reminiscent of the lead up to the Iraq War. After refusing to allow UN inspectors in to the country, with no sign of changing their stance, both nations (Iraq and now N. Korea) suddenly change their position and agree to let inspectors investigate. In both cases it appears as though there is something being hidden, though it is, of course, impossible to confirm this. Regardless, if the United States chooses to go to war with North Korea it will happen regardless of the findings of UN weapons inspectors. Luckily, for the North Koreans, America seems more interested in the situation in the Middle-East to do anything about those Asian members of the "axis of evil."
Related news:
New York Times
Globe and Mail
Thursday, January 01, 2004
This is journalist without integrity
This is journalist without integrity. Are you tired of American propaganda warping your mind when you watch the nightly news? Do you find it damn near impossible to keep yourself informed because everytime you open the newspaper you are bombarded with sensationalism instead of cold hard facts? Are you hoping that this site will save you from the evils that are modern journalism? If so, you've come to the wrong place. Ladies and gentlemen, this is journalist without intergrity. I am not a professional journalist, I'm just a twenty year old kid in university who is going to attempt to bring you some alternative news. I have no journalistic integrity, nor do I pretend to. I have my own personal biases and they will very likely bleed into my reports. It's up to you, the reader, to sort out fact from opinion. I make no promises to tell "the truth." I promise only that I will do my best to keep you informed - even if the information I'm giving you has been skewed by my own personal biases. You have been warned.
This is journalist without integrity.
This is journalist without integrity.
