What else is new?

Apparently, a memo went out with Georgia state Rep. Ben Bridges's signature claiming that "Indisputable evidence — long hidden but now available to everyone — demonstrates conclusively that so-called ‘secular evolution science’ is the Big-Bang 15-billion-year alternate ‘creation scenario’ of the Pharisee Religion... This scenario is derived concept-for-concept from Rabbinic writings in the mystic ‘holy book’ Kabbala dating back at least two millennia." The Anti-Defamation League is demanding that Bridges apologize. He says that he didn't write the memo and didn't personally issue it. Rather, it was penned by his former campaign manager's husband, Marshall Hall. From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
The memo calls on lawmakers to introduce legislation that would end the teaching of evolution in public schools because it is “a deception that is causing incalculable harm to every student and every truth-loving citizen.”

It also directs readers to a Web site www.fixedearth.com, which includes model legislation that calls the Kabbala “a mystic, anti-Christ ‘holy book’ of the Pharisee Sect of Judaism.” The Web site also declares “the earth is not rotating … nor is it going around the sun...."

Bridges acknowledged that he talked to Hall about filing legislation this year that would end the teaching of evolution in Georgia’s public schools. Bridges said the views in the memo belong to Hall, though Bridges said he doesn’t necessarily disagree with them.

“I agree with it more than I would the Big Bang Theory or the Darwin Theory,” Bridges said. “I am convinced that rather than risk teaching a lie why teach anything?”

Link to Atlanta-Journal Constitution, Link to more at Talking Points Memo, Link to Scientific American's "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense"

Actually, it's an abstract post-digital conceptual art project *disguised* as a video download service (this page on the site renders like this in Firefox). After a few deep bong hits, the rich layers of overlapping text probably make sense, as would the notion of paying $20 for a 240X320 movie in a DRM-laden Windows Media file that won't play on Zune, PSP, iPod, or computers running Mac or Linux.

Viacom did a general search on YouTube for any term related to any of its shows, and then spammed YouTube with 100,000 DMCA take-down notices alleging that all of these clips infringed its copyright and demanding that they be censored off the Internet. YouTube made thousands of clips vanish, and sent warning notices to the people who'd posted them, warning them that they were now on a list of potential copyright infringers and telling them that repeat offenses could lead to having their accounts terminated.

This is shockingly bad behaviour on the part of both Viacom and Google, YouTube's owner. Viacom's indiscriminate spamigation is incredibly negligent and evil. They certainly know that a search for a term like "Redbones" will catch videos like Jim Moore's Sunday nite dinner at Redbones in Somerville, Mass (a 30 second clip of Moore and several friends "having dinner in a ribs place in Somerville"). The idea that they have members of the bar -- officers of the court! -- signing affidavits swearing that they have a good-faith belief that these clips infringe their copyrights is disgraceful. Practicing law is a privilege, not a right. The law societies should be holding these attorneys to account for this kind of behaviour.

But Google's lawyers should have known better, too. The DMCA says that if a web-hoster ignores a takedown request, it's liable for copyright damages if the material in question is found to be infringing. YouTube can't afford to just let any lunatic -- including the savage pricks at Viacom -- indiscriminately censor the content it hosts. That's not fair to its customers.

It would cost a lot in lawyer-hours to investigate takedown requests and pick out the ones worth paying attention to, but that's part of the cost of doing business as YouTube. It costs a lot to provide the bandwidth for the files, but YouTube/Google wouldn't dream of skimping on connectivity. Lawyer-letters are just another load that GooTube needs to provision for.

And Google can take steps now to reduce that load: sue the living shit out of Viacom. We've got precedent -- the Diebold debacle -- for the idea that abusing the DMCA takedown process is illegal. Courts have been willing to punish this kind of excess by awarding fees and damages.

If Google sued every company that used indiscriminate takedown notices to remove material that it hosted -- on Blogger, YouTube, and elsewhere -- they'd put the fear of god into bullies like Viacom. They'd change the landscape so that DMCA notices were only used by people who were genuinely being ripped off, and not firehosed by idiots to every site that matches a search-term.

Big companies can sometimes make the world a better place by using the courts to set clear precedents that work for all of us. Sony gave us the Betamax decision. Verizon gave us RIAA v Verizon. Google could save us from takedown spammers.

I just got off the phone with Citibank after noticing a bunch of "Foreign Transaction Fees" on my bank statement -- turns out that when you use your credit or debit card outside of the US, Visa and Mastercard charge three percent in transaction fees on the spend. It doesn't matter if you use an ATM, buy over the Internet/phone, or walk into a store -- the credit-card companies always dip their beaks. When you pay your hotel bill, when you buy a plane ticket, every time you use Amazon.uk to order a British release (Citibank told me that they even charge the fee when I withdraw from my Citibank US account while at a Citibank UK ATM, using Citibank's own network!).

What makes this such a rip-off is that the credit-card companies already charge a fee -- up to five percent! -- to the merchants for processing the transaction. So Mastercard and Visa are getting a slice from the store, and a slice from the customer. In a global marketplace, Mastercard and Visa are acting like letting you spend your own money is a special service deserving its own fee.

The Citibank rep I spoke to told me that the fee used to be one percent, and that it was hidden on the credit-card bills, but that in 2006, the fees tripled and Citi started to break them out on the bill so you could see how badly you're getting hosed.

I called up Citibank UK and asked them if I was charged any fees when I used my Citibank UK debit card outside of Britain that they told me that no, Citibank UK customers are spared this particular screw-job from the credit-card companies.

When you add it all up, the credit-card companies must be making billions off of American customers -- and all the while they're double-dipping, charging the merchants, too.

Most UK banks will tax you if you take money out of a foreign ATM or use the card abroad (Lloyds, Bank of Scotland, Barclays). Barclays does something truly bad: if you buy foreign currency or travellers cheques *in the UK* they hit you with the handling fee, even though they are not even converting the money. Take the money out of the ATM outside the post office and pay in cash, and you save. Not only is there no moral justification for this, its an odd trend. Imagine if banks started charging you more for alchol or eating out compared to supermarket purchases.

Nationwide and Citibank are the unusual banks in that they don't make up a bogus fee and stick it on your cards when you go abroad.

This shows that:
1. its a bank thing, not a Visa fee
2. its entirely optional
3. they do it, because they can get away with it.

Osama bin Laden Wins Nobel Peace Prize

Well, it makes as much sense as this prediction:



Former US vice president Al Gore is seen as a possible winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to save the planet from global warming, the head of the Oslo Peace Research Institute has said.

His efforts to save the planet include (from the same article)…

The former US vice president is currently criss-crossing the globe with his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”, a hard-hitting rallying cry against global environmental catastrophe.

Is he doing it on a bike? Hand-powered scooter? Electric glider?

Of course not, he’s “criss-crossing the globe” in “one of the most wasteful uses of fossil-based fuels imaginable,” a private jet.

Gore is the same guy that warned us that global warming was more dangerous than terrorism, while simultaneously maintaining a toxic waste dump on his own property.

At Sierra Club meetings, he advises Americans to conserve, then promptly leaves in a gas-guzzling Cadillac Escalade.

And while he “lectures Americans on excessive consumption,” he lives “in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.)… none of which use “green energy” offered by the local utility companies.

This is like saying Osama bin Laden is “saving the planet” from terrorism.

In addition to news of Gore’s lead in the polls, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded in 2002 to a man who supports Palestinian terrorists and Nazis, so bin Laden could apparently win it also, for paying lip service to the “religion of peace” while terrorizing the world.

Apparently lip service to a cause is the more important attribute.