Napster trial twist: Labels 'smell bad'.
Or, "Oops! They did it again!"
Perhaps it's not the best idea to engage in cartel activities of dubious legality when you're trying to sue someone for violating your rights.
However, I would expect that the judge will decide that independent cartel activities, driven by Napster's simple existence though they may be, are ultimately irrelevant to the issue of whether or not Napster has violated the record companies' and copyright holders' rights.
@ 01:15 AM CST [Link]
I will admit, I've always wondered why on earth we have troops in Saudi Arabia. As a response to the immediate crisis when Iraq invaded Kuwait, it made sense, but after that ... And now, in order to maintain a tenuous internal peace, the Saudi theocracy and monarchy are declining to actively support the US. They're not doing anything against us, of course; they're just not doing most of what we'd like them to do.
Now, the situation being what it is, we can't pull the troops from Arabia, useless as they are dangling out there. They don't deter Iraq, they aggravate everyone else, and they're sitting duck targets. But if we pull them, we're knuckling under to terrorists. If all they'd done was to attack the soldiers themselves, we could justify pulling them both for their own safety (ignoring the fact that soldiering isn't inherently safe) and because they weren't serving any useful purpose. Since they've attacked and killed within the US itself in order to get us to pull the soldiers, we can't. (And, of course, the attack also puts Saudi Arabia in a position where they can't ask us to remove the soldiers, much as they might like it. First, it would make them look like they were knuckling under. Second -- and most importantly -- they're probably afraid we'd say "no". And then what would we all do?)
@ 12:40 AM CST [Link]
FBI AGENTS said they saw no evidence immediately linking the New York case to the anthrax found in Florida -- or to the Sept. 11 terror attacks that killed thousands in New York, Pennsylvania and at the Pentagon.
OK.
I can accept that these anthrax cases aren't necessarily linked to September 11. A little odd, but I can actually buy that.
But not linked to each other? What, we've got SEVERAL people wandering around mailing anthrax spores of various types?
Well, isn't that a comfort?
I know they'd be accused of keeping secrets or interfering with "people's right to know", but I swear, if the FBI can't say something genuinely informative and useful, they ought to just shut the hell up. I mean, just take, for example, the ever so wonderfully (if briefly) named "Skyfall" warning they sent out yesterday. (And you just know some harried news office person got yelled at over that name, don't you? And so they should.) I can understand that, just maybe, it might have been useful to say something to police departments if you actually had specific information. But every police department in the country has been on high alert since the attacks on Afghanistan started; they can't go any higher without arresting every person in the country. (And, you know, completely neurotic police is just what we need right now, isn't it?) Telling them to "watch out" without telling them to watch out for is completely pointless. Even more pointless is telling the public, "Well, we think something's going to happen. We don't know what, we don't know when, but ... something. Watch out!" That, combined with anthrax popping up in media organizations here and there (well, there must be SOMETHING linking NBC and American Media Inc, and that's all I can see) ... nothing like just making an entire country even twitchier than they already are.
(I've promised myself that I'm not going to talk about Dubya's speech exhorting children to send dollar bills through the mail to the White House. Not going to talk about using children for propaganda purposes. Not going to talk about the government dunning children. Not going to talk about the inadvisability of sending actual money through the mail. Nope nope nope. Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent. Wouldn't be in the spirit of national unity and not criticising the president's actions because it makes a tough job tougher. So not doin' it. Nope.)
(But can we import Tony Blair for a while? Or at least his speechwriters and dramatic coaches? Please?)
@ 11:24 PM CST [Link]
You know, the incidents cited in this article simply are not equivalent. It is reasonable to argue, for example, that publishing the travel schedules of the president and cabinet would now constitute an actual security risk. (Debatable, but reasonable.) The rest of it is simply war hysteria. Should Maher and Sontag have said what they did? Well, they certainly had the right to; the value of the content was in the eyes of the reader. Was Ari Fleischer's response to Maher's remarks reasonable? It's certainly understandable that the administration would have objected to the military being called "cowards" at any time. It's understandable that people would object to terrorist actions against thousands of civilians not being considered cowardly. Beyond that ... no, requests for unquestioning support by the administration are NOT reasonable.
Frankly, I don't think Maher should have apologized. He fully intended to provoke and give offense. (Also, I think Fleischer is a yutz, but that's another issue.) I certainly don't think the Administration is within its rights to call for the sorts of curbs it's generally been asking for. (Where on earth does Dan Rather pull a figure of 13,000 dead, missing and injured from?)
It will be fascinating to see what happens in the long term with all of this.
@ 05:40 PM CST [Link]
@ 02:51 PM CST [Link]
Maybe the idea of unknown terrorist cells plotting murderous acts of violence is a chilling thought for you. For many who live in the central city, that's nothing compared with all the knuckleheads with guns who can pop up on any corner. [...] You say you're afraid to ride a plane since Sept. 11? For many young men and boys in the central city, it's more dangerous to step outside their front door. [...] Just as many middle-class Americans fear the very real possibility of future terrorist attacks, low-income Americans trapped in bad neighborhoods have been going to sleep with one eye open for decades.
... how can black people ignore that the same leaders who through welfare reform took bread out of the mouths of American children because their parents were poor, uneducated and too dependent upon the government for their survival, would now drop millions of dollars of food into the mouths of a people who live in the country ruled by a sworn enemy? [...] When black people think of terrorists, they don't immediately think of the Taliban or Osama bin Laden. They think of the Ku Klux Klan, the Ayran [sic] Nation, Southern slaveholders and the first settlers, including Christopher Columbus, who is honored as the discoverer of America, a land that already was occupied by an indigenous people.
Regarding the second piece ... interesting article, although I think Mr Scott's actions are quite foolish. I don't think it would occur to most people that American blacks are in general less patriotic than any other Americans.
But between them, these articles do point out a certain ... ambiguity in those things that America is willing to tolerate and those that it will not.
@ 02:15 PM CST [Link]
And this surprises ... whom, exactly? Certainly not anyone who's lived in this country and has, like, eyes and a brain. And much of that just parallels real life, no matter what various activists may choose to emphasize.
Really, the things people choose to research sometimes....
@ 02:03 PM CST [Link]
You know ... sometimes I wonder about Dubya's sense of timing. I mean, yes, the Arabs do need to know that at some point the US would be willing to support a Palestinian state under certain conditions. But, you know, perhaps the week in which you've already said that once and been accused of offering a long-time ally up as an appeasement entrée would not be the time to state that again. Politically, it gains you nothing with the Arabs -- after all, you've made your position clear -- and simply aggravates Israel. And let's face it; Israel has some right on its side. There's no point in negotiating with Arafat until and unless he's shown that he's willing and able to exercise at least some control over various Palestinian factions.
In any event, Israel's own government is so badly divided at the moment that it couldn't hope to negotiate in anything like good faith. Sharon is trying to show that the Palestinian terror attacks are increasing, and Peres is trying to demonstrate that they've dropped. One hopes that Sharon's upcoming indictment really will cause a no-confidence vote from the Knesset; that government badly needs to pull itself onto the same page, whatever that page may be.
@ 12:45 PM CST [Link]
Inspections in the past week at seven of the nation's 20 highest-risk airports found most airlines are not complying with new federal orders to scan all checked baggage for explosives, the Transportation Department's inspector general said Thursday. The Federal Aviation Administration directed the airlines in a previously undisclosed order after the Sept. 11 airliner hijackings to make continuous rather than part-time use of their high-tech bomb-detection machines. [...] At the FAA's request, Mead would not disclose which airports or airlines were inspected. [...] "We need to know more about it," [FAA Administrator Jane Garvey] said. "There's also a question . . . if the term 'continuous' is too ambiguous. We have required that it be continuous and we are enforcing it." [...] "Air carriers' reluctance to increase the use is centered in their belief that passengers would not accept the inconvenience," [Transportation Inspector General Kenneth M. Mead] said.
Um ... OK.
So what's ambiguous about the word "continuous"? Is there some part of the concept of "Scan everything all the time" that airlines just aren't hearing?
Now that the report is out, it will be interesting to see which way air travelers go. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I think passengers have shown -- in tolerating the amazingly long security lines at some airports -- that they're willing to accept a bit more inconvenience for a bit more surety that their plane won't go boom. (Of course, the plane going boom was never the issue, but ... whatever.)
Mind, there clearly aren't enough machines out there. O'Hare alone could probably use 30-40 of them. Heck, United could probably use that many; I'm sure they have -- or had -- 10-20 flights per hour leaving O'Hare, at least. 164 machines is clearly nowhere near enough. Unfortunately, it's probably like the voting machines issue. (Say, whatever happened with that, anyway?) There are only certain manufacturers certified to make the machines, they have only one or two plants, so they can only make so many machines. But still ... if they have the machines, they ought to at least try to use them.
I wonder if the machines are used more at the other 13 high-risk airports? In any event, the decision not to publicise the names of the airports -- and I do understand why they wouldnt -- may have the unintended side effect of further depressing travel at all 20. After all, it's not hard to figure out what some of them would be; just figure out which are the busiest airports and run with it. (I'm terribly impressed with one airport's reported reason for not installing, though: it clashed with their lobby decor. Oh, and in that second article, note the firm that provides security for 40% of the country's airports has not only been found guilty of hiring felons for security positions in the airports -- which is illegal -- but continued to do so after being found guilty. Mind, during the boom years, finding someone to take a minimum wage level job that was boring to boot was incredibly difficult, but still ...)
@ 11:57 AM CST [Link]
@ 05:21 PM CST [Link]
Reagan's longevity is one for the record books.
You know ... I don't imagine that anybody close to him really considers this something to quite celebrate. Probably feel a certain ambivalence, at best. Normally, yes, if he were healthy, but with what is reportedly fast-progressing Alzheimer's? Why would you want him to live longer? I loathe the man's policies and many of their results, and I wouldn't wish that on him.
@ 04:43 PM CST [Link]
Rehnquist defined the term "strict constructionist" for [President Nixon's] edification: A judge who is a "strict constructionist" in constitutional matters will generally not be favorably inclined toward claims of either criminal defendants or civil rights plaintiffs—the latter two groups having been the principal beneficiaries of the Supreme Court's "broad constructionist" reading of the Constitution.
I see.
Well, that explains much about the Rehnquist Court, doesn't it? It doesn't matter if a criminal defendant or civil rights plaintiff should win based on the merits of a case; it only matters that, under strict constructionist views, they don't win.
That also explains the questioning that goes on in the case discussed in this article, in which the actual case is entirely irrelevant to anything the justices are thinking. It's slmost certainly going to be a 5-4 decision, and at this point, it looks to be in favor of Waffle House, decided on principles that have nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of the case at hand.
@ 04:12 PM CST [Link]
Designer ... GRAVES? I just don't know ....
On the other hand ... a family dies out, then the grave does become abandoned. I suppose it's something of an issue over here, only since land is comparatively plentiful, it's not a major issue. (Does rather argue for cremation and dispersal, though, don't it?)
Actually, the interesting part is watching people realize how dramatically their culture has changed, even within their lives. It's changed here, of course, as well, but maybe because this is a comparatively young culture, change is expected. (Mind, it has been sprinting along these days, hasn't it?)
@ 01:01 PM CST [Link]
You know ... strikes me that someone really ought to get a GRIP.
Especially if, you know ... this whole curse thing actually works. (Hey, I'm just speculating. Don't throw none o' them curses my way, thanks; life is weird enough already.)
@ 12:53 PM CST [Link]
Good heavens. I'm a pamphleteer! (But one with little chance of enduring for 200 years. Ah, well, them's the breaks.)
@ 12:09 PM CST [Link]
Back to the future, in posters.
Some of them read today's world so well it's creepy, frankly. Although the rationing ones are a hoot. Pity you couldn't sell rationing today; it was an easy way to get people to feel they were doing something. Sacrificing for the cause, as it were.
And there's the whole Civilian Defense concept that will no doubt need to start bubbling to the surface sometime soon; we seem to already have the Civil Air Patrol going, sort of. Wonder how they'll get all of that working?
On the other hand, some of them are decidedly not appropriate for the day. For example, at the time, the ones discouraging travel would not be viewed in a good light, although it really does seem sensible, doesn't it? You don't need to travel, then don't. Unfortunately, since WWII, we've built up this whole domestic tourism and travel industry, and it kind of goes CLUNK! when people stay home. "Don't Travel -- unless your trip helps win the war" has somehow become "Travel! Your trip will help the economy and that will help win the war!" Which is freakin' weird, really.
Any road, it's an interesting collection.
@ 12:03 PM CST [Link]
An ... interesting idea. Although ... well, maybe it'll work. It feels somewhat like you'd have ghost buildings, which I guess is the intent. It's just that people have visceral responses to ghosts -- or the idea of ghosts -- which may not be at all what the designers intend. It may be different for people actually living in New York, though; maybe it'll be what they need.
@ 11:15 AM CST [Link]
You know ... CBS and ATAS ought to just give up for this year. Clearly, this year's Emmys just weren't meant to be.
As for the military base idea ... oh, yeah, watching people accept awards in person sounds like something that would really translate well to a USO show type format, doesn't it?
@ 01:55 PM CST [Link]
You know, the plain fact is, we can afford to piss off Israel ... up to a point. (That point being where they take their intelligence data and go home in a huff.) They are considerably less able to cheese us off, which means that we can generally afford to ignore most of their huffier pronouncements. (Rather, we can afford the luxury of not responding to them. Ignoring them altogether would be unwise.) But you do wonder why they're so upset at being asked to stand on the sidelines for the moment. They are not, in fact, being attacked by the terrorist organization we're after, at least not at the moment. They know perfectly well that their mere presence in the coalition in any form would be enough to make it dissolve, and they know perfectly well that the Arab countries are more necessary for this than they are. (Which may be the real rub.) We didn't block Syria from a spot on the UN Security Council because nobody else wanted the seat -- and who can blame them at this moment in time? Israel is also perfectly well aware -- although they try to ignore the fact -- that some sort of Palestinian state is ultimately going to be required if they are ever to have anything resembling peace. (Mind, I sometimes think that real peace is impossible in that particular patch of land. After all, they've been going at each other through most of recorded history; why should the present be any different?) Israel also refuses to recognize that in order to have peace, at some point, they will be forced to negotiate with terrorist organizations that have killed Israelis. There's no point in making peace with Arafat -- by some measures now leading the weakest of the Palestinian factions and a weak leader regardless -- and having Hamas and Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad pounding away at you even more.
It's also very clear that at the moment, many of the Israeli people don't want peace; they seem to want all the Palestinians (or at least the ones around them) to die.
And now Sharon is about to be severely distracted. (What is it with countries putting their sitting leaders on trial lately? For that matter, why are so many of them misbehaving -- or getting caught doing it, which isn't entirely the same thing. First Clinton, then Chirac and now Sharon. It's a weird little Western meme going around.) It will be interesting -- in one of those Chinese curse ways -- to see how his government functions with him involved in such things. Logically, under a Parliamentary system, it should lead to an immediate "no confidence" vote in the government, pushing him out of office and leading to new elections, but these aren't remotely normal times -- yet -- and they may not be willing to do that in the current world situation.
@ 11:28 AM CST [Link]
Yes ... yes, I dare say that WOULD be a different type of punishment. Somehow, I don't think that most governments would approve. Mind, I'm not entirely sure they'd know what to say ....
@ 09:19 PM CST [Link]
Good heavens. A BeerLog. Whoda thunk?
@ 03:38 PM CST [Link]
You know ... I'm pretty sure they mean "potted plant" and not POT plant. But it did kind of just give a little pause, there ....
@ 03:31 PM CST [Link]
The NBA is planning to allow zone defenses. Um ... what? they've been complaining that scoring averages have been dropping over the past decade, and they're allowing zones?
(Mind, I'd like to see "the Bulls actually win a game scoring 49 points this year". Heck, I'd settle for the plain "win a game" part.)
(And purely as a side note: when did MSN take over and cobrand the ESPN web site? Surely Disney/ABC/ESPN isn't terribly happy about being in bed with the MSN/NBC conglomo? Is NBC planning to buy ESPN away from Disney?)
@ 12:00 PM CST [Link]
Heh. Cool ...
@ 11:36 PM CST [Link]
Well, after The A.N.T.I.P.O.I.N.T., I'm definitely looking forward to The Case of the Curious Codpiece. (Who knew they could look in different directions like that? For that matter, who knew they could look anywhere?)
@ 10:07 PM CST [Link]
The Taliban are threatening to attack Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan is apparently extraordinarily unstable. And Russia is apparently secretly (secretly?) attacking Taliban forward positions to keep them out of Tajikistan. (If that's true, Russia must be having a nightmare "deja vu" sensation. "Military advisors" indeed.)
You'd think that the Taliban would have enough to cope with, having their country getting pummelled on a daily basis at the moment. Russia may not be able to afford a second front -- they're certainly not making any headway in Chechnya -- but the Taliban can't afford to have another two fronts. They're not equipped to manage a three front war; they'll never hold their own country against the Northern Alliance if they try. (On the other hand, if Uzbekistan collapses, what happens to the forward bases we're using?)
@ 09:49 PM CST [Link]
Bush is trying to plug leaks from Congress to the media. His attempt to plug the leaks -- including a memo addressed only to Cabinet department heads -- was leaked to CNN.
Beware Irony, for she carries Big Anvils.
(Of course, he intended for that memo to be leaked. Cabinet heads themselves are not known for their inability to keep secrets; he was sending a rather pointed message to Congress. You'd think he'd choose a better way to say, "Don't leak important information" other than leaking important information, though.)
@ 09:18 PM CST [Link]
Feds look for possible criminal link to anthrax cases.
I know it was inevitable that such things might happen ... I just didn't expect "inevitable" to be "now". (And it may not actually be "now". Maybe it's just a disgruntled former employee with unusual access to weapons grade bioengineered anthrax from the former Soviet Union ... um. Yes. Well.)
At the same time ... what on earth can you do? Sterilize all mail coming in to each and every single solitary building in the country? Sterilize everything coming into post offices and package shipping outfits? (I'm sure that medical research labs would be a tad perturbed about that.) Wear gas masks with biofilters whenever you open your mail? I mean, let's face it: of all the things that The Sun and The National Enquirer might be the targets of, biological attack would be far down on the list.
(Purely as a side note: I didn't realize that all those tabloids were owned by the same company. You'd think that one label would be enough, and then some.)
@ 09:14 PM CST [Link]
You know, I will admit, I'd wondered what was behind "Homeland" as a name. I mean, even the teensiest look at its recent historical use would make most people think, "Hmm. South Africa. Oppression. Really nasty security forces. Nope, don't want to go there. Nope nope nope." (Good land, there's a JOURNAL? Eeek.) But there they did indeed go.
And now it seems as if Ridge may be nothing more than a paper tiger. I don't understand why you would create the position and then not give him the authority to do what he needs to do. Everyone, I suspect, would agree that the intelligence agencies need to share information better now that we can expect more frequent attacks. It will be interesting to see what happens with the various bills in congress; I would expect that the various intelligence agencies, despite the need for cooperation, will defend their turf vigorously. (For all that Ridge said, in his acceptance speech, that "the only turf that needs defending is the United States," I can't imagine that any federal agency actually believes that, even now.)
(And purely as an aside, Salon's decision to put almost everything into its Premium section seems to be backfiring in relentlessly interesting ways. Quite apart from anything else, I'd imagine that they're hemorrhaging readers, which can't help the ads. [Interestingly, I haven't yet run into the forced ads that caused so much controversy. Wonder why?] It also appears that some of their articles are being quoted elsewhere, so you may not need to get behind the Premium wall to see them. This article on the finally-completed Florida recount, for example, is somewhere inside Salon, but I couldn't actually find the thing, for all that it was apparently published only today; even the index information must be entirely behind the Premium pay shield. But I get it for free at Working for Change. That can't be precisely what they intended.)
@ 12:39 PM CST [Link]
Israel is in no danger and there is no threat to the country as a result of yesterday's US-led attack on Afghanistan, government officials said last night, calling on Israelis to remain calm and continue with their everyday lives. ... [Minister without Portfolio Tzipi Livni, responsible for the government's information efforts, said at a news conference last night] that since the US attack was on Afghanistan, and not Iraq, "it is not a war that Israel is involved in."
What a very ... odd reaction. Do they think that the terrorists distinguish quite that finely? After having lived side by side with terrorists for so long, I can't imagine that Israel would be quite that deceived. (If nothing else, there are simply more terrorists over there -- proportionately speaking, that is -- and ... well, they're there.) And if it's an attempt to reassure the public, it seems a peculiarly misguided one; at the least, it would not be unreasonable to expect Hamas and the other local groups to step up their attacks in response.
On the other hand, if all they mean is that Afghanistan isn't going to shoot missiles at them, then, really, that's a perfectly silly thing even to consider. Afghanistan doesn't have any long range missiles in any event.
(I'm also mildly baffled as to why the beginning of a shooting war isn't a good time to conduct high-level strategic talks: Sharon decided last night not to send Strategic Planning Minister Dan Meridor, National Security Council head Uzi Dayan, and former ambassador to the US Zalman Shoval to Washington for high-level talks. Shoval said the meetings were postponed, because "this is not the time. All eyes need to be focused on the operation, and the Americans are now busy waging a war." Wouldn't you want to be involved in these sorts of talks at the beginning of a war?)
@ 11:48 AM CST [Link]
You know, life is just weird enough these days that this law might actually pass ... once they figure out what it is they're trying to pass. Of course, figuring out what they're trying to pass would actually require them to think about it, and there's apparently precious little of that happening.
I mean ... what sane person thinks it's a good idea to leave a loaded weapon in a locked car? What brand of lunacy would say, "Hey! Cars get stolen a lot! Let's leave fully loaded semi-automatic pistols in them!" How do they intend to enforce a ban on weapons on a college campus, or in private establishments that ban them? The only people they'll catch are those whom are being arrested for something entirely different, or those people who say, "Hey, I'm bringing in a gun no matter what you say," at which point it ceases to be a concealed weapon, technically, and brings in all sorts of other criminal offenses.
And what has recording "not more than four fingerprints" got to do with anything? If you're going to fingerprint, why not do all of them? Once you've done one, what does the quantity, of all things, matter?
@ 10:51 AM CST [Link]
He patented the wheel! Oh, how .... he patented what?
Well, I guess you'd deserve an award for that, wouldn't you?
(Actually, I want to see what the underwear looks like. And these days, studying glee would be quite nice, really.)
@ 11:48 PM CST [Link]
Copyright © 2001, Iain Jackson, after-words.org
[Archives: 2001 and after]
Archives before February 5, 2001
Search entries:
12/19/2001: vive la france
12/19/2001: princess, redux
12/19/2001: yemen and rumsfeld
12/18/2001: you're NOT in the army now
12/18/2001: interesting donation
12/18/2001: shame on winn dixie, indeed
12/18/2001: saudi princess
12/17/2001: new resolve
12/17/2001: a victim of the attack ... yeah, right
12/17/2001: polluters ho!