If you Love SUSHI!!!
And wish to know the appropriate methods of acting in a sushi restaurant, you must carefully review and learn the following:
« December 2005 | Main | February 2006 »
And wish to know the appropriate methods of acting in a sushi restaurant, you must carefully review and learn the following:
RIAA Actions "Not in Artists' Best Interest" (Alan Wexelblat):
Well, yeah. We knew that. But this time it's coming from someone inside the record industry - Canada's Nettwerk Music Group, that country's largest record label. Nettwerk are defending (and taking the financial risk of a loss for) one of the victims of the RIAA's jihad on its customers on the principle that the ongoing legal campaign is not helpful to the artists it represents. No kidding, eh?
Female-pilot and female-rew flies Pakistani passenger plane:
First Pakistani passenger plane with a female pilot and all-woman crew flew on a domestic flight this week, making aviation history in the Islamic nation, an airline official said Friday. Now the pilot, Ayesha Rabia Naveed, 48, who already has 6,000 hours' experience flying as a co-pilot with Pakistan International Airlines, aims to captain larger jet airliners for the national carrier
I very much doubt that John Gilmore was ever given the choice of show ID OR be searched in order to board a domestic bound aircraft. Instead the idea that there are "other ways to get around" is totally besides the point. Why should a democratic government have "secret" regulations? Why aren't these regulations up front so that all Americans can know precisely what the rules are, and WHY those rules are in place? When was there an NPRM regarding these rules? When were we given any comment period, or time to lobby our representatives?
This is a case about far more than being asked to "show your papers" before traveling within the US.
JURIST - Paper Chase: Federal appeals court upholds airport ID regulations:
[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] on Thursday dismissed [PDF opinion] a lawsuit challenging federal airport regulations that require passengers to show identification before boarding airplanes. Libertarian activist John Gilmore [advocacy website; case materials] had argued that the regulations, which have not been publicly disclosed, constituted an illegal search and violated his right to travel freely. The federal appeals court reviewed the regulations in private and rejected his arguments, saying that the regulations are not overly intrusive. The court noted that under the policy, passengers not wishing to show an ID can submit to searches and also said that the regulations didn't restrict Gilmore's right to travel freely because he had other ways of getting around. AP has more.
I'm not so certain about how I feel about this. On the one hand, it's a definite sell-out. On the other hand, is it better to give the Chinese people a little rather than none? I dunno.
Good Morning Silicon Valley: Google BS algorithm optimized for China backlash:
Google's sellout to Beijing (see "It's like watching little Anakin grow into Darth Vader") is an affront to the company's famed promise to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible, but to the company's founders, it's just the price of doing business in one of the world's most vital Internet markets. In an interview with Reuters yesterday, Google's Sergey Brin awkwardly defended the company's decision, saying offering Chinese users occluded search results (Google.cn search returns do indicate where censorship has occurred) is far better than offering them no results at all. "I didn't think I would come to this conclusion -- but eventually I came to the conclusion that more information is better, even if it is not as full as we would like to see," Brin told Reuters. "I know a lot of people are upset by our decision but it is something we have deliberated for a number of years. The practical matter is that over the last couple of years Google in China was censored -- not by us but by the government, via the 'Great Firewall.' It's not something I enjoy, but I think it was a reasonable decision." A reasonable decision particularly if your company's share of the Chinese search market is suffering a bit at the hands of some formidable new competitors.
And I got my drugs. Hooray!
What a good idea, given that we already know that overheated Teflon kills birds, as my friend Doug Humphrey found out with our beloved Shiro Tori. *sigh*
Government Moves To Curb Use Of Chemical In Teflon:
The federal government said today the science is still coming in, but that there are enough health concerns already to virtually eliminate continued exposure to the key chemical used to make Teflon.
Teflon is a $2 billion a year business and one of the country's best known products. DuPont once called it the housewife's best friend.
Today, the federal government said DuPont and had voluntari
So the pay off likely means that we'll NEVER find out who is on this list, and how to get OFF of it if you're put on it wrongly!
Feds Agree To Pay Aclu $200,000 Over No-Fly List Spat:
Two federal agencies agreed Tuesday to pay the American Civil Liberties Union $200,000 to settle a lawsuit brought to extract secret information about the no-fly list, which bars suspected terrorists from boarding commercial airlines.
In October 2004, documents that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Transportation Security Administration provided in the lawsuit revealed the government has
Nevada Court Rules Google Cache is Fair Use:
Important Milestone for Digital Copyright Law
San Francisco - A federal district court in Nevada has ruled that Google does not violate copyright law when it copies websites, stores the copies, and transmits them to Internet users as part of its Google Cache feature. The ruling clarifies the legal status of several common search engine practices and could influence future court cases, including the lawsuits brought by book publishers against the Google Library Project. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) was not involved in the case but applauds last week's ruling for clarifying that fair use covers new digital uses of copyrighted materials.
Blake Field, an author and attorney, brought the copyright infringement lawsuit against Google after the search engine automatically copied and cached a story he posted on his website. Google responded that its Google Cache feature, which allows Google users to link to an archival copy of websites indexed by Google, does not violate copyright law. The court agreed, holding that the Cache qualifies as a fair use of copyrighted material.
"This ruling makes it clear that the Google Cache is legal and clears away copyright questions that have troubled the entire search engine industry," said Fred von Lohmann, EFF senior staff attorney. "The ruling should also help Google in defending against the lawsuit brought by book publishers over its Google Library Project, as well as assisting organizations like the Internet Archive that rely on caching."
Field v. Google ruling:
http://www.eff.org/IP/blake_v_google/google_nevada_order.pdf
Contact:
Fred von Lohmann
Senior Intellectual Property Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
fred@eff.org
So, when the lovely husband's company changed health plans, I thought that perhaps we would have better luck with prescriptions. WRONG! I've been on various protease pump inhibitors for over 15 years for erosive reflux esophogitis. Suddenly, they've decided that I no longer need them and they won't pay for it because I should be using over the counter medication that I've tried before and it doesn't work. So that's 155.00 per month, cha ching. Of course I'm fighting it, but really, how much proof do you have to show an insurance company before they'll provide you with the service you're paying for? 15 years of history isn't enough? The word of the doctor who went to school for at least 8 years and has a license and years of experience isn't enough? When did we let insurance companies decide what treatment we would be allowed? *ARGH*
The harsh boot of censorship has crashed down upon the unwitting subjects of the British Crown. They will be DENIED the opportunity to view one of the funniest Southparks ever. Oh the HUMANITY!
From The Register:
UK TV viewers will not get to see an episode of South Park which shows Nicole Kidman and fellow Scientologist John Travolta attempting to coax a fictional Tom Cruise character out of a closet, with Kidman saying: "Don't you think this has gone on long enough? It's time for you to come out of the closet. You're not fooling anyone."
Naturally, the robustly heterosexual Top Gun star took exception to this when Trapped in the Closet aired in the US. The episode also showed Stan - believed by the Cruise character to be the reincarnation of Scientology founder L Ron Hubbard - having a pop at Cruise's acting abilities, and Cruise reportedly waved the legal big stick at Paramount and threatened to sue if the offending programme was ever shown again.
An insider said: "Tom is famously very litigious and will go to great lengths to protect his reputation. Tom was said not to like the episode and Paramount just didn't dare risk showing it again. It's a shame that UK audiences will never see it because it's very funny." ®
EFF Applauds Google Resistance to Government Subpoena:
But Broader Privacy Concerns Remain
San Francisco - Yesterday, the Justice Department asked a federal court in San Jose, California to force Google to turn over search records for use as evidence in a case where the government is defending the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). Google has refused to comply with a subpoena for those records, based in part on its concern for its users' privacy.
COPA is a federal law that requires those who publish non-obscene, constitutionally protected sexual material online to take difficult and expensive steps to prevent access by minors, steps that would chill publishers of sexual material as well as the adults who want to access such material anonymously. EFF is one of the plaintiffs in the First Amendment challenge to COPA.
The subpoena to Google currently asks for a random sampling of one million URLs from Google's database of web sites on the Internet. More importantly, the DOJ is also subpoenaing the text of each search string entered into Google's search engine over a one-week period, absent any information identifying the people who entered the search terms.
"The government is overreaching here, asking Google to do its dirty work and collect information about the Internet speech activities of Google users," said EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl. "Last month, the federal court rejected many of the government's over broad discovery requests to its opposing parties. Rather than learn its lesson, the DOJ continues to push for overreaching discovery, this time from a company that isn't even a party to the case."
Google has cited its concern for user privacy as a reason for not complying with the subpoena, in addition to the unreasonable burden that compliance would place on Google and the proprietary nature of its query database. In particular, Google is rightly concerned that many of the randomly selected search queries would contain personal information about Google users.
While EFF applauds Google for defending its users' privacy in this case, the current controversy only highlights the broader privacy problem: Google logs all of the searches you make, and most if not all of those queries are personally identifiable via cookies, IP addresses, and Google account information.
"The only way Google can reasonably protect the privacy of its users from such legal demands now and in the future is to stop collecting so much information about its users, delete information that it does collect as soon as possible, and take real steps to minimize how much of the information it collects is traceable back to individual Google users," said EFF Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. "If Google continues to gather and keep so much information about its users, government and private attorneys will continue to try and get it."
Importantly, users can also take steps to protect their privacy from Google, the government, and others, by using anonymizing technologies such as Tor when surfing the web. Tor helps hide your IP address from Google so that even if the lawyers come knocking, Google cannot identify you by your searches.
More about Tor:
http://tor.eff.org/
Contacts:
Kevin Bankston
Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
bankston@eff.org
Kurt Opsahl
Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
kurt@eff.org
Lee Tien
Senior Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
tien@eff.org
I had long desired an automatic tea maker, as it has become quite clear that I am incapable of sitting still long enough to properly steep a pot of tea for the desired time period. So I had done research trying to find such an item, thinking that it CERTAINLY must exist somewhere, only to have been thwarted by finding only crummy models that used tea bags, didn't have a timer to choose steeping times, or was otherwise useless.
Imagine my surprise when I stumbled upon Adagio's TriniTEA. It's a really cool looking product, that looks like a space age coffee maker, with one chamber for water, a pot for steeping, and a pot for pouring. I put in the water, added the marvelously yummy Enchanted Works Jasmine Pearl tea into the steeping chamber, set the timer for 3 minutes, and went away.
When I came back, there was a fabulous pot of Jasmine Pearls tea happily warming in the TriniTEA. It tastes WONDERFUL. The little Jasmine Pearls had unfurled beautifully in the steeping pot, all ready to make another pot for iced tea (since you can reuse the leaves once).
The only little problem I have with the unit is that the tea pot on the bottom dribbles when you pour. Perhaps they need to remake the pot to prevent that somehow. But besides that, this unit has made me quite happy now that I've had to give up diet Pepsi.
Well, the time had come. The time had actually MORE than come, but more about that later. Anyway, the time had come to pack 6 dogs into the car, drive them for an hour to the vet we trust most in the world, and get 4 spays and two neuters done. Then the insanity began. We didn't have 6 crates that would fit in the truck. Hmmm. The logistics of 6 squirming doggies were going to be formidable. Thank the Gods that Wes has the day off and could help with this nightmare. He got a large piece of cardboard and used it to line the back of my truck, we then covered it with towels, loaded in the pups, and off we went.
Almost immediately, the trip became a contest for "who can try to slam into the arms trying to restrict us from the back seat and climb into the laps of the driver and right seater?" This rather persistent game quickly resulted in everyone involved becoming quite tired of the whole affair. So they changed tactics. The smell wafted quickly from back to front, necessitating a quick pit stop by the side of the road, where the happy fun airsick bag came in handy.
Unfortunately for us, there was another 45 minutes or so to go in the lovely trip, The attempts to bash through the restraining limbs continued, soon punctuated with unmistakable sounds of stomach contents being switched from inside to outside, as well as other wafting scents happily permeating the car, despite opened windows, etc.
Finally, we arrived at the happy fun vet, then tried to get all 6 of the monsters OUT of the car and into the facility. They are not used to walking on leashes, so they decided they would not budge, despite being "encouraged." So we had to carry them 2 at a time. We also had to do X Rays on Luppy before her spaying to ensure she wasn't already "with pups" because she had a heat long before we thought she would.
Luckily, the house will now be completely free of fertile animals except for the birds, as everyone has been happily (or not so happily) dealt with. We should pick them up at some point tomorrow.
Gee, so if someone wearing a mask annoys me on the street, what happens to them? Uh.... NOTHING. Why is the Internet again being treated differently by inflicting yet more stupid laws on us.
Reader-Submitted: Annoying anonymously now illegal:
Very vague wording has been signed into law that prohibits
anonymously posting annoying things to the internet.
What is it with dangerously vague new phrases with no legal
definition? According to this article, Senator Arlen Specter
used the typical congressional tactic of slipping this idiotic
provision (known as 113) into another bill that would be...
Legal Criticism Grows of Warrantless NSA Snooping:
Fourteen of the nation's leading experts on constitutional law today issued an analysis concluding that "the Justice Department's defense of what it concedes was secret and warrantless electronic surveillance of persons within the United States fails to identify any plausible legal authority for such surveillance. Accordingly the program appears on its face to violate existing law." The letter, signed by law professors and former senior government officials, comes to the same conclusion, but in stronger terms, as an analysis issued last week by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service. Signers of today's letter include former federal judge and FBI Director William S. Sessions, former Deputy Attorney General Philip Heymann, lawyers who worked in the executive branch under President George W. Bush, and Richard Epstein, a prominent conservative scholar and fellow at the Hoover Institution.
In this age where every terrorist action seems to be met by politicians and the public rushing to clamp down on the liberty of people who had nothing to do with it,
my mantra is Benjamin Franklin's comment:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Well, recent research demonstrates old Ben was more right than that statement
would indicate:
One method to attenuate [suicide bombers], then, is to target dangerous
groups that influence individuals, such as Al Qaeda. Another method,
says Princeton University economist Alan B. Krueger, is to increase
the civil liberties of the countries that breed terrorist groups. In
an analysis of State Department data on terrorism, Krueger discovered
that “countries like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, which have spawned
relatively many terrorists, are economically well off yet lacking in
civil liberties. Poor countries with a tradition of protecting civil
liberties are unlikely to spawn suicide terrorists. Evidently, the
freedom to assemble and protest peacefully without interference from the
government goes a long way to providing an alternative to terrorism.”
Let freedom ring!
-- Murdercide Science unravels the myth of suicide bombers By Michael Shermer, Scientific American January 2006.
Not only does curtailing civil liberties not assist much in the short term with catching terrorists, in the long term it actually breeds terrorists. After all, terrorism isn't about religion, or poverty, or even nationalism: it is about politics. The politics of civil liberties.
Thanks to Lambert for spotting this article.
It also might be worth remembering this point about civil liberties in relation to the Internet. An Internet reverted to the old style of telecommunication network controled by the telecommunications companies and governments, as so many corporate and government forces are trying to implement, would be an Internet that did not promote civil liberties, and an Internet that would no longer be a breeding ground for emergent applications and uses that facilitate civil liberties. Freedom is security.
-jsq
Ok, ok...I'll write about the DMV. I've had several queries about what happened at the evil DMV so I'll tell you.
It was a dark and stormy night, well actually it was a bright and sunny day with highs around 65 and quite pleasant. This was a good thing because the line at the DMV at Tysons Corner went out the door. Literally. We got to wait for quite some time outside, as the bottleneck was located relatively close to the door. It is not a wise thing to put your "triage desk" in a place that effectively blocks the flow of people and necessitating a wait before you even got into the door. I can't imagine enduring that on a typical January day. Perhaps it would also be a good idea if there were more than two people working this triage, when neither of them seemed to speak Spanish and quite a number of those in line clearly would have done better with a Spanish speaking clerk.
Ok, so through the triage line I finally went, where I told them I needed to renew my driver's license, received my little letter and number coded bit of paper, appropriate application, and sat down to fill it out. It didn't take too long to finish the form and begin the wait. The good news was that I had my Treo and could play Galaga while waiting :-).
50 minutes or so later, I got called up and gave the nice man $10.00 and he went off to get my form "signed" I guess by some supervisor or something. The Australian man next to me was becoming clearly agitated by the clerk he was dealing with, and she was not to pleased with him. It was rather interesting to hear the Australian accent "now look here" followed with the Chinese accent of the clerk "you have too many things. Go away now. Too many things!" The Australian followed with "I was told I could do five now, then get back in line and do five more." Apparently he had MANY registrations to deal with for some reason. The Chinese clerk just kept repeating "TOO MANY THINGS!" Luckily, I got my form back and was told to go sit somewhere else "for two minutes".
So I sat and waited to be called at the happy fun picture place, and watched an African couple yelling at another clerk for some unknown reason, while only catching snippets like "We could do this in New York" and "what is wrong with you in Virginia?" The nice security man with the gun moved a bit closer to that one. About 20 minutes later, another happy woman then called me over, took my picture, then told me to go sit down again and wait for my license.
About 10 minutes later, I got my license, the picture wasn't horrific, I got out a side door so I wouldn't have to worry about Angry Australians or Aggravated Africans, and slithered home. Thank the gods that I don't have to do THAT again until 2010.
I knew in my heart of hearts that there was no way around it. One day, despite my attempts to avoid it, I would have to file a lawsuit on behalf of a client in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County. Then I found out that all state officers are closed tomorrow for something called "Lee/Jackson Day," and again on Monday for Martin Luther King Day. This made our already happy state offices, so much more happy one could hardly stand it.
So, I get to the courthouse, bringing quarters for the nice parking lot that isn't too far a walk from the building. When I got to the area where the parking lot used to be, I found a rather different sight. The whole Judicial Center was surrounded by fences behind which were huge mounds of virginia clay, coupled with deep holes in the ground. It then took me several circles of the area to find the teeny tiny signs telling mere members of the public where they could put their cars. The new public parking lot likely has a different zip code from the Judicial Center, it being seeming miles and miles away.
Once through the maze of parking garage to sky bridge to other parking garage to elevator, to maze around the mud to the actual entrance, I was greeted with a smiling Deputy holding a hand wander who just KNEW I would set off the metal detector. She was right. I guess that the airport isn't the ONLY place where one should not wear an underwire bra. Then the other happy deputy asked to go through my purse, confiscating my cell phone because it had a camera in it. They gave me a little red disc with a number to get it back.
The line for filing was quite deep, many people wanting to file things prior to the 4 day holiday. Silly me then stopped into the Fairfax Bar Association offices to pick up a new procedural manual, not realizing that the book is HEAVY, especially when walking uphill both ways back to the parking garage. While I was in the office, I found that it was possible to fill out a form and be exempted from searches by virtue of one being a lawyer. Huh? A mere bar card is enough to get you around searches, and then you can bring a phone/camera into the court? The mind boggles! While it is clear that in most cases, courthouse shootings and the such like are almost always committed by defendants or parties to suits (including divorce suits), what's the point of having a rule stipulating "NO CAMERAS" if lawyers can bring them in? While, of course, I'll fill out the form and stop worrying about what bra I'm wearing, I have to wonder what kind of security that is.
In any case, I got back through the maze carrying the Encyclopedia Court Manual, my regained Treo, and my date stamped filing copy, made it to my car where I had to take the ticket back to a happy fun payment kiosk then get back to the car to use the newly validated ticket to get out of the place, and then on to the next challenge - the DMV!
CNN.com - Chained artist forced to hop it - Jan 5, 2006:
BAKER, California (AP) -- An artist who chained his legs together to draw a picture of his legs wrapped in chains hopped 12 hours through the desert after realizing he lost the key and couldn't unlock the restraints, authorities said.
Trevor Corneliusien, 26, wrapped and locked a chain around his bare ankles Tuesday while camping in an abandoned mine shaft about 5 miles north of Baker, San Bernardino County sheriff's Deputy Ryan Ford said.
Corneliusien often sketches inside mines in the Southwest.
When he finished his chain drawing, he realized he would have to seek help in Baker, the deputy said Wednesday.
"It took him over 12 hours because he had to hop through boulders and sand," Ford said. "He did put on his shoes before hopping."
Corneliusien finally made it to a gas station on the edge of Baker. He called the sheriff's department, which sent paramedics and deputies with bolt cutters.
Corneliusien's legs were bruised, but he was otherwise in good health, Ford said. The artist did not have a listed phone number and could not be reached for comment.
And the drawing?
"He brought it down with him," Ford said. "It was a pretty good depiction of how a chain would look wrapped around your legs."
At what point does the idea of "Internet Bullying" become ridiculous? At the point where the person being "bullied" fails to SHUT OFF THE COMPUTER! Yes, this pisses me off, and here's why: I have been involved with BBS "rooms," usenet, IRC, and occasionally AOL chat rooms etc. and, just like in real life, personalities often clash. When this happens in real life, what do you do if you know that a substantial group of people does not LIKE you for whatever reason? Do you keep forcing your presence on them and then whine, cry or SUE if they tell you you're a pain in the butt or call you names? I don't think so. You find OTHER friends. At least you do if you have a brain.
There is a big difference between what you CAN do and what you SHOULD do. I CAN go into an IRC channel entitled something like "#woman_hating_right_wing_vegetarian_hunters_for_Jesus" but SHOULD I? And if I finally decide to, should I be outraged if I get "picked on" or kicked and banned from the room? Should I call a lawyer? Or should I open my own channel called "#men_hating_left_wing_carnivore_nonhunters_for_Cuthulu?" Even better, should I shut off the computer and get a life?
Of course, if the abuse turns to stalking, or to real-life problems, then it becomes harassment or another type of crime, and the police should be called. But damn, the kind of nonsense referred to from what I can see here (besides the allegation that someone travelled all the way across the country just to change someone's US Mail, which I find rather unlikely) is much more akin to suing for your sister looking at you in the back seat of the car. "Judge, she's LOOKING AT ME." Get over it. Grow up. Get a life. Get a clue. Turn off the computer. Go watch some nice violent TV or something.
law.com - Chat Room Chatter Draws Lawsuit:
Do the courts have jurisdiction over what people say in Internet chat rooms?
That question is being played out in what some lawyers claim is a first-of-its-kind lawsuit in Ohio, where a man claims he was humiliated online in an Internet chat room, and has filed a lawsuit over the incident.
The plaintiff, George Gillespie of Medina County, Ohio, is suing America Online for allegedly failing to do anything about the abuse he endured in the chat room, and the two chat room participants who allegedly caused him emotional distress by teasing him. Gillespie v. America Online, No. 05CIV1255 (Medina Co., Ohio, Ct. C.P.).
According to court documents, the chat room participants "acted in an outrageous manner, which they knew or should have known would cause serious emotional distress to the plaintiff ... The Defendants' conduct was so extreme and contemptible as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency."
EFF and Sony BMG Reach Settlement over Flawed DRM:
“The proposed settlement will provide significant benefits for consumers who bought the flawed CDs,” said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn. "Under the terms, those consumers will get what they thought they were buying--music that will play on their computers without restriction or security risk. EFF is continuing discussions with Sony BMG, however, and believes that there is more they can do to protect music lovers in the future.”
"Sony agreed to stop production of these flawed and ineffective DRM technologies,” noted EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl. “We hope that other record labels will learn from Sony’s hard experience and focus more on the carrot of quality music and less on the stick of copy protection.”
So... Kat MacMorgan was over at the house last night, and mentioned that she thought that Boo Gold was doing an "egg dance." Yeah yeah yeah, I thought. Boo gold is male.
Guess what we found this morning? ANOTHER EGG! What IS this nonsense going on in the vortex called my dining room? I am QUITE confused.