tigerfort: the Stripey Captain, with a bat friend perched on her head keeping her ears warm (Default)
I'm aware that the man in question is now largely serving a different constituency[1], but I'm still more than a little surprised to hear a major political figure admit that their policy was wrong in any way. Especially given that the specific example at hand involves first-world food subsidies; it's practically impossible to get a politician to admit that these lead to problems (in their own country - obviously everyone else is bad for doing it).

But, according to Oxfam and the BBC:

"It may have been good for some of my farmers in Arkansas, but it has not worked," said Mr Clinton, a frequent visitor to Haiti.

"I have to live every day with the consequences of the lost capacity to produce a rice crop in Haiti to feed those people, because of what I did."

[1] of course, he still has a wife and friends who are involved in US-national politics, and I can't help suspecting that unpleasant hay will be made of this by their opponents
tigerfort: the Stripey Captain, with a bat friend perched on her head keeping her ears warm (Default)
The appalling "Digital Economy Bill" I've expressed my concerns about previously is now moving rapidly through the Commons. The current joint proposal from the Labour and Conservative front benches[1] is to shove the bill through next Tuesday basically without any discussion in Parliament, in order to get it passed. I was going to say "get it passed before the election", but frankly, the concern of the parties appears rather close to that of the BPI, who want the bill passed without discussion (an internal BPI memo "cites an expert on legislation as saying that the bill will likely die if MPs insist on their right and responsibility to examine this legislation in detail before voting on it".

That is, the powers behind the bill don't think that MPs would pass it if they looked at it, so the two main parties have agreed to deny MPs the chance to look at it. What can you do about this? Well, before it can go into the "wash-up" (which ex-MP Martin Bell reckons is better described as a stitch-up), it has to pass a vote in the Commons.

38 Degrees is raising money for adverts opposing the bill to be published/broadcast on the morning of the vote; if you feel able, donate.

More important, though, you can write to your MP. Explain that the bill is bad law (there are plenty of detailed links in my previous posts on the subject), and that if it is to be passed at all it must be subject to proper Parliamentary process, not pushed through on the nod. There's also an Early Day Motion opposing the bill and asking for it to undergo proper scrutiny after the election, proposed by two Labour back-benchers, which you can ask your MP to support.

Last but very much not least, please pass the message on and ask other people to do the same things. This bill gives big media companies the power to cut people off from the net on a whim, without evidence; it puts huge burdens on small publishers of all kinds; it creates a power for a member of the government (or anyone they choose to appoint) to introduce basically unlimited secondary legislation; it has no upside (except for existing big media groups).

[1] the Lib Dem front bench had originally agreed to go along with this, but have now changed their minds following pressure from members and back-bench MPs.
tigerfort: the Stripey Captain, with a bat friend perched on her head keeping her ears warm (Default)
Incidentally, for those who think that there's no need to worry because this year's Queen's speech is "all posturing for the election", you do know that this bill is being fast-tracked and has already had its second reading in the Lords, yes?

Further to my last two posts, more information on the appalling "digital economy bill" keeps coming to light. There's a nice post at booktrade.info describing how the bill "inadvertantly" imposes potentially huge new costs on small publishers of pretty much anything (books, games, photographs... anything with copyright potential). (Specifically, it creates new registration and licensing requirements for any 'organisation' which licences any copyright material created by more than one different individual, or acts as agent for any such owners. So of course, that applies to authors' agents as well as small creative companies.) The Open Rights Group has a post up from a specialist lawyer, giving chapter and verse on what's wrong with the bill. It's long, and fairly detailed, and well worth reading. One simple point of particular note, though, is that the so-called 'three-strikes rule' is nothing of the kind - not only is there no requirement for such disconnections to relate to a number of "strikes" there is no need for disconnection to be linked to infringement of copyright. Nor is there any requirement for evidence of any wrongdoing, or any allowance for an appeal. (Although I believe the EU is hastily passing some legislation to insist on something resembling a fair judicial process; somehow this seems likely to be the one piece of EU law that the UK gov't doesn't insist on applying over strenuously. Sigh.)

Tell everyone you know, and complain to your MP, please. The bill is very nasty indeed (for everyone except big media, natch), and needs to be stopped.
tigerfort: the Stripey Captain, with a bat friend perched on her head keeping her ears warm (Default)
There's now a Number 10 petition against a small part of the proposed law; please go and sign it. Petitions don't mean much, and there are a lot of other things wrong with the proposed bill, but every little helps.
tigerfort: the Stripey Captain, with a bat friend perched on her head keeping her ears warm (Default)
In case anyone has missed the BBC's round-the-clock coverage of absolutely no articles at all, or the slightly better information in the papers (being this 'we support big media' piece in the Torygraph and this slightly better one in the Gruaniad), our beloved leaders have published a "Digital Economy Bill" as part of this year's legislative program.

The proposed law scares me, and not just me. It scares everyone who actually has an interest in constructing (rather than preventing) some kind of useful digital economy; it scares every serious creative worker who knows anything about the subject (I imagine the record companies will wheel out the usual collection of hugely rich tools who know nothing about computing to support the insanity, but...); if you know about it and it doesn't scare you, then it should. Why? I think I'll let Cory Doctorow at Boingboing express some of the problems:

It consists almost entirely of penalties for people who do things that upset the entertainment industry (including the "three-strikes" rule that allows your entire family to be cut off from the net if anyone who lives in your house is accused of copyright infringement, without proof or evidence or trial), as well as a plan to beat the hell out of the video-game industry with a new, even dumber rating system

In addition to which,
These changes will give the Secretary of State (Mandelson -- or his successor in the next government) the power to make "secondary legislation" (legislation that is passed without debate) - including creating new remedies for online infringements, the ability to "confer rights" for the purposes of protecting rightsholders and also the authority to impose such duties, powers or functions on any person as may be specified in connection with facilitating online infringement.

There's a good deal of additional discussion elsewhere (see, for example, Charlie Stross, Talk-Talk's understandably unhappy response to a proposed law requiring them to spend vast amounts of money spying on their customers for the benefit of another industry, and the thoughts of the Open Rights Group. [ETA: I'm pleased to see that at least one UK political party appear to have their communal head screwed on correctly about this; can't say I'm surprised which of the three main parties it is, either....]

Join the ORG, write to your MP, express to someone somewhere what a really bad idea this is. Either that, or move to Sweden.
tigerfort: the Stripey Captain, with a bat friend perched on her head keeping her ears warm (Default)
Further to previous reports, the bridge connecting Wilkins ice shelf to Charcot Island has finally snapped. But you must understand that there's absolutely no evidence for anthropogenic global warming, and no need to do anything about carbon dioxide emissions or anything like that. Absolutely not.
tigerfort: the Stripey Captain, with a bat friend perched on her head keeping her ears warm (Default)
The BBC has some fantastic footage of Narwhals travelling through cracks in Arctic sea-ice, while one of their reporters has blogged about the government's scientific drugs advisor's frustration with the way figures are taken out of context - both by the government and by the press.

In other news, current extinction risk models may be excessively cautious in their assumptions - the actual risks may be a hundred times greater, or even higher. The periodic reports that the Earth's magnetic field is just about to flip poles would seem to be rather overstating the risk of it happening soon, otoh. (nb: to a geologist, 'soon' means 'in the next four thousand years' :) Meanwhile, Ed Yong has posted summaries of a whole range of stuff, including rapid speciation in insects and their parasites, butterflies evolving resistance to bacteria that killed only the males, and the (unsurprising[1]) research suggesting that if people learn to distinguish better between members of another cultural group, their implicit bias against that group diminishes. Of course, if they're consciously bigoted, there's not much you can do for them.

[1] to me, at least. Pigeonholing people leads to stereotypes and bias; recognising that members of $GROUP all look different will make it harder to assume they're all the same inside (even for a determined bigot, I suspect, but certainly for anyone who wants to think of people as individuals rather than as $PROPERTY-people).
tigerfort: the Stripey Captain, with a bat friend perched on her head keeping her ears warm (Default)
Some interesting research done recently, and usefully summarised on the Effect Measure scienceblog, suggests that in fact a significant proportion of "microwave safe" plastic containers may actually be rather less safe than ideal. Many of these containers turn out to leak potentially-toxic chemicals left over from the manufacturing process into their contents when heated. Storing food in them at room temperature (or below) seems to be fine, but heating them in a microwave or oven may not be.

In even more alarming news, which I missed until recently, ESA satellite images show that the bridge connecting the Wilkins Ice Shelf to one of the islands that anchor has almost completely disappeared since February this year. The most recent data show new rifts in the main body of the shelf, suggesting it may now be on the verge of collapse.

Finally, on a lighter note, a Canadian police video camera captured some impressive footage of a meteor coming in low across the night sky:
tigerfort: the Stripey Captain, with a bat friend perched on her head keeping her ears warm (Default)
I've recently read various discussions of the Bechdel test. For those who've not encountered it, the test was originally proposed in "Dykes to watch out for", and a film passes the test if it meets the following conditions:

1) it contains at least two female characters
2) who talk to each other
3) about something other than men. (One reasonable extension also excludes marriage, babies, etc, as sole topics of conversation.)

Most Hollywood output still fails this test, and a large number of books do too.

But I've not yet seen a discussion that considers the way in which the rule potentially falls down when faced with some of science fiction's most interesting - and thoughtful - studies of gender issues. (Fundamentally, the rule is a good one, and it's notable that I can't think of a single major film that includes any of the issues I'm about to note, never mind gives them serious consideration.) I should probably say before I start that the text under the cut is quite long, and potentially contains minor spoilers for a couple of books )
tigerfort: the Stripey Captain, with a bat friend perched on her head keeping her ears warm (Default)
Someone elsewhere pointed me at this page, which collects together photographs from the half-dozen assorted probes currently orbiting round/sitting on Mars. It's actually about a month old, but there are quite a few images I'd not seen before there.

Profile

tigerfort: the Stripey Captain, with a bat friend perched on her head keeping her ears warm (Default)
tigerfort

June 2023

S M T W T F S
    123
4 5678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930 

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags