Wednesday 28 April 2010

Behind M.I.A.'s 'Born Free'

Echo Chamber: Behind M.I.A.'s "Born Free" "It was a royal mess of all our good buds- Switch, John Hill, and Diplo plus Iggor Cavalera (1/2 Mixhell, ex-Sepultura)! All those dudes in a room, a generous sample of Suicide, sick sick drumming from Iggor (and here's another tidbit for u - it was recorded on POPO's shitty ass drumset at the mausoleum!) --- and you got it."
-- The blog for Diplo's Mad Decent label fills us in on how M.I.A.'s gurgling fuzz fuck of a new single, "Born Free", was created. Somehow, we're not surprised that a guy who used to be in Sepultura was involved. (via Mad Decent)

Apple asked for 'lost' iPhone criminal probe

paul__lewis Insp Alan Murray and Sgt Tony Lake questioned over Blair Peach death in 1979. Tomorrow's paper story: http://bit.ly/beyigk

RapidShare Targets Sites Over Trademark Abuse

RapidShare has been sending out legal threats to link sites and search engines that use its trademark to encourage users to download copyrighted material. The company is demanding that these sites cease their operations and hand over their domain names to RapidShare, voluntarily or through domain disputes.
rapidshareA few weeks ago we revealed that Rapidshare was looking forward to collaborating with the entertainment industry, and that it would increasingly terminate the accounts of persistent copyright infringers.
This move is part of a new strategy for the file-hoster, which will also see it go after third party sites who use the RapidShare trademark to ‘promote’ or encourage copyright infringement.
“We are extending our efforts to proceed against linking-sites, against so called RapidShare search engines and against individuals who abuse our trademark to distribute copyright protected content,” RapidShare’s departing CEO Bobby Chang wrote to the entertainment industry.
Several weeks later it seems that RapidShare is indeed keeping its word. The company has recently sent out requests to a slew of site owners demanding that they stop abusing the RapidShare trademark for nefarious purposes. In addition, RapidShare has filed several domain disputes against similar sites, hoping to scoop their domains.
Among the targets are Rapidshare.net, Rapid.org (formerly Rapidfind) and Rapidshare4movies.com, all sites that allow users to find content available on RapidShare.
In the letters sent by RapidShare’s lawyers, site owners are asked to stop encouraging people to use RapidShare for copyright infringement (i.e. close their sites) and transfer the domain to RapidShare within two weeks. Among other things, the lawyers cite trademark abuse and unfair competition as the reasons why RapidShare is taking these actions.
Whether this strategy is in the best interests of its users has to be doubted. TorrentFreak spoke to several site owners who were targeted by RapidShare and none of them are planning to capitulate.
“We find it amazing, considering the amount of traffic and inevitably premium memberships we drive towards Rapidshare, that they target us in such an aggressive manner and turn on their own customers,” the founder of Rapid.org told TorrentFreak.
“We will not comply with ludicrous threats, such as to hand over the domain, and we will continue building our already large community. If at any point it becomes necessary for us to support alternative filehosts and/or create our own, we are capable and willing to do just that,” he added.
Aside from legal pressure, the file-hoster has also filed several WIPO domain disputes in the last week against sites that use the word ‘RapidShare’ in their domain names. If successful, these disputes could shutter many popular sites that were built on the RapidShare brand.
In the legal paperwork RapidShare clearly states that it does not want its site to be used for copyright infringement. By closing the linking sites and search engines they most likely hope to improve their relationship with the entertainment industry and avoid being shut down themselves.

Stephen Fry Speaks Out Against the Catholic Church


IFPI’s child porn strategy

”Child pornography is great,” the speaker at the podium declared enthusiastically. ”It is great because politicians understand child pornography. By playing that card, we can get them to act, and start blocking sites. And once they have done that, we can get them to start blocking file sharing sites”.

The venue was a seminar organized by the American Chamber of Commerce in Stockholm on May 27, 2007, under the title ”Sweden — A Safe Haven for Pirates?”. The speaker was Johan Schlüter from the Danish Anti-Piracy Group, a lobby organization for the music and film industry associations, like IFPI and others.

I was there together with two other pirates, Pirate Party leader Rick Falkvinge, and veteran Internet activist Oscar Swartz. Oscar wrote a column about the seminar in Computer Sweden just after it had happened. Rick blogged about it later, and so did I. (All links in Swedish.)

”One day we will have a giant filter that we develop in close cooperation with IFPI and MPA. We continuously monitor the child porn on the net, to show the politicians that filtering works. Child porn is an issue they understand,” Johan Schlüter said with a grin, his whole being radiating pride and enthusiasm from the podium.

And seen from the perspective of IFPI and the rest of the copyright lobby, he of course had every reason to feel both proud and enthusiastic, after the success he had had with this strategy in Denmark.

Today, the file sharing site The Pirate Bay is blocked by all major Internet service providers in Denmark. The strategy explained by Mr. Schlüter worked like clockwork.

Start with child porn, which everybody agrees is revolting, and find some politicians who want to appear like they are doing something. Never mind that the blocking as such is ridiculously easy to circumvent in less than 10 seconds. The purpose at this stage is only to get the politicians and the general public to accept the principle that censorship in the form of ”filters” is okay. Once that principle has been established, it is easy to extend it to other areas, such as illegal file sharing. And once censorship of the Internet has been accepted in principle, they can start looking at ways to make it more technically difficult to circumvent.

In Sweden, the copyright lobby tried exactly the same tactic a couple of months after the seminar where Johan Schlüter had been speaking. In July 2007, the Swedish police was planning to add The Pirate Bay to the Swedish list of alleged child pornography sites, that are blocked by most major Swedish ISPs.

The police made no attempt whatsoever at contacting anybody from The Pirate Bay, which they of course should have done if they had actually found any links to illegal pictures of sexual child abuse. The plan was to just censor the site, and at the same time create a guilt-by-association link between file sharing and child porn.

In the Swedish case, the plan backfired when the updated censorship list leaked before it was put into effect. After an uproar in the bloggosphere, the Swedish police was eventually forced to back down from the claim that they had found illegal child abuse pictures, or had any other legal basis for censoring the file sharing site. Unlike in Denmark, The Pirate Bay is not censored in Sweden today.

But the copyright lobby never gives up. If they are unable to get what they want on the national level, they will try through the EU, and vice versa.
The big film and record companies want censorship of the net, and they are perfectly willing to cynically use child porn as an excuse to get it. All they needed was a politician who was prepared to do their bidding, without spending too much effort on checking facts, or reflecting on the wisdom of introducing censorship on the net.

Unfortunately they found one in the newly appointed Swedish EU commissioner Cecilia Malmström. In March 2010 she presented an EU directive to introduce filtering of the net, exactly along to the lines that Johan Schlüter was advocating in his speech at the seminar in 2007.

I assume that commissioner Malmströms’s motives are honourable, and that she genuinely believes she is doing something good that will prevent sexual child abuse. But sweeping a problem under the carpet, or hiding it behind filters, can never be the proper solution. If there actually are sites distributing pictures of sexual child abuse openly on the net, the sites should be shut down and the people behind them should be put in prison (after a proper trial).

But Cecilia Malmström's Internet censorship directive will have no effect at all on sexual child abuse in the world. All she will have achieved if she is successful with this directive, will be to legitimize the principle of Internet censorship in Europe, just like the copyright lobby wanted her to.

It would be very sad if she succeeds.

from the webpage of Christian Engström, Member of the European Parliament for Piratpartiet, Sweden (the Swedish Pirate Party)

(And of course this is exactly the strategy employed by Stephen Conroy and the Labor Party here in Australia regarding their imminent net filter! - Mona)

The financial industry is "supposed to serve our economy, not become our economy."

Well, now that the money has all moved out of the USA and is enjoying tropical weather at offshore accounts, America's middle class is stuck with the overdrafts. 20/20 hindsight can be a painful thing.

"Imagine if the Tea Party Was Black" - Tim Wise

Let’s play a game, shall we? The name of the game is called “Imagine.” The way it’s played is simple: we’ll envision recent happenings in the news, but then change them up a bit. Instead of envisioning white people as the main actors in the scenes we’ll conjure - the ones who are driving the action - we’ll envision black folks or other people of color instead. The object of the game is to imagine the public reaction to the events or incidents, if the main actors were of color, rather than white. Whoever gains the most insight into the workings of race in America, at the end of the game, wins.

So let’s begin.

Imagine that hundreds of black protesters were to descend upon Washington DC and Northern Virginia, just a few miles from the Capitol and White House, armed with AK-47s, assorted handguns, and ammunition. And imagine that some of these protesters —the black protesters — spoke of the need for political revolution, and possibly even armed conflict in the event that laws they didn’t like were enforced by the government? Would these protester — these black protesters with guns — be seen as brave defenders of the Second Amendment, or would they be viewed by most whites as a danger to the republic? What if they were Arab-Americans? Because, after all, that’s what happened recently when white gun enthusiasts descended upon the nation’s capital, arms in hand, and verbally announced their readiness to make war on the country’s political leaders if the need arose.

Imagine that white members of Congress, while walking to work, were surrounded by thousands of angry black people, one of whom proceeded to spit on one of those congressmen for not voting the way the black demonstrators desired. Would the protesters be seen as merely patriotic Americans voicing their opinions, or as an angry, potentially violent, and even insurrectionary mob? After all, this is what white Tea Party protesters did recently in Washington.

Imagine that a rap artist were to say, in reference to a white president: “He’s a piece of shit and I told him to suck on my machine gun.” Because that’s what rocker Ted Nugent said recently about President Obama.

Imagine that a prominent mainstream black political commentator had long employed an overt bigot as Executive Director of his organization, and that this bigot regularly participated in black separatist conferences, and once assaulted a white person while calling them by a racial slur. When that prominent black commentator and his sister — who also works for the organization — defended the bigot as a good guy who was misunderstood and “going through a tough time in his life” would anyone accept their excuse-making? Would that commentator still have a place on a mainstream network? Because that’s what happened in the real world, when Pat Buchanan employed as Executive Director of his group, America’s Cause, a blatant racist who did all these things, or at least their white equivalents: attending white separatist conferences and attacking a black woman while calling her the n-word.

Imagine that a black radio host were to suggest that the only way to get promoted in the administration of a white president is by “hating black people,” or that a prominent white person had only endorsed a white presidential candidate as an act of racial bonding, or blamed a white president for a fight on a school bus in which a black kid was jumped by two white kids, or said that he wouldn’t want to kill all conservatives, but rather, would like to leave just enough—“living fossils” as he called them—“so we will never forget what these people stood for.” After all, these are things that Rush Limbaugh has said, about Barack Obama’s administration, Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama, a fight on a school bus in Belleville, Illinois in which two black kids beat up a white kid, and about liberals, generally.

Imagine that a black pastor, formerly a member of the U.S. military, were to declare, as part of his opposition to a white president’s policies, that he was ready to “suit up, get my gun, go to Washington, and do what they trained me to do.” This is, after all, what Pastor Stan Craig said recently at a Tea Party rally in Greenville, South Carolina.

Imagine a black radio talk show host gleefully predicting a revolution by people of color if the government continues to be dominated by the rich white men who have been “destroying” the country, or if said radio personality were to call Christians or Jews non-humans, or say that when it came to conservatives, the best solution would be to “hang ‘em high.” And what would happen to any congressional representative who praised that commentator for “speaking common sense” and likened his hate talk to “American values?” After all, those are among the things said by radio host and best-selling author Michael Savage, predicting white revolution in the face of multiculturalism, or said by Savage about Muslims and liberals, respectively. And it was Congressman Culbertson, from Texas, who praised Savage in that way, despite his hateful rhetoric.

Imagine a black political commentator suggesting that the only thing the guy who flew his plane into the Austin, Texas IRS building did wrong was not blowing up Fox News instead. This is, after all, what Anne Coulter said about Tim McVeigh, when she noted that his only mistake was not blowing up the New York Times.

Imagine that a popular black liberal website posted comments about the daughter of a white president, calling her “typical redneck trash,” or a “whore” whose mother entertains her by “making monkey sounds.” After all that’s comparable to what conservatives posted about Malia Obama on freerepublic.com last year, when they referred to her as “ghetto trash.”

Imagine that black protesters at a large political rally were walking around with signs calling for the lynching of their congressional enemies. Because that’s what white conservatives did last year, in reference to Democratic party leaders in Congress.

In other words, imagine that even one-third of the anger and vitriol currently being hurled at President Obama, by folks who are almost exclusively white, were being aimed, instead, at a white president, by people of color. How many whites viewing the anger, the hatred, the contempt for that white president would then wax eloquent about free speech, and the glories of democracy? And how many would be calling for further crackdowns on thuggish behavior, and investigations into the radical agendas of those same people of color?

To ask any of these questions is to answer them. Protest is only seen as fundamentally American when those who have long had the luxury of seeing themselves as prototypically American engage in it. When the dangerous and dark “other” does so, however, it isn’t viewed as normal or natural, let alone patriotic. Which is why Rush Limbaugh could say, this past week, that the Tea Parties are the first time since the Civil War that ordinary, common Americans stood up for their rights: a statement that erases the normalcy and “American-ness” of blacks in the civil rights struggle, not to mention women in the fight for suffrage and equality, working people in the fight for better working conditions, and LGBT folks as they struggle to be treated as full and equal human beings.

And this, my friends, is what white privilege is all about. The ability to threaten others, to engage in violent and incendiary rhetoric without consequence, to be viewed as patriotic and normal no matter what you do, and never to be feared and despised as people of color would be, if they tried to get away with half the shit we do, on a daily basis.

Game Over.

Tim Wise is among the most prominent anti-racist writers and activists in the U.S. Wise has spoken in 48 states, on over 400 college campuses, and to community groups around the nation. Wise has provided anti-racism training to teachers nationwide, and has trained physicians and medical industry professionals on how to combat racial inequities in health care. His latest book is called Between Barack and a Hard Place.
 
  @'Ephphatha Poetry' 

Andrew Sullivan's myopia is becoming embarrasing

The Daily Dish just posted this: "Been Heckled By A Couple Of Smack Heads In A Stairwell :-("
And other things you really shouldn't tweet when you're the wife of the Speaker of the House of Commons and running for office.'
If you follow the link there is also this paragraph in the same Telegraph article...

"1526 The Tory party has just announced that Philip Lardner, its candidate for the North Ayrshire and Arran constituency, has been suspended for making "deeply offensive and unacceptable" comments about homosexuality. According to the Pink News website, the words appeared on his personal website but were removed this afternoon. Here's what he wrote:
"I will always support the rights of homosexuals to be treated within concepts of (common-sense) equality and respect, and defend their rights to choose to live the way they want in private, but I will not accept that their behaviour is 'normal' or encourage children to indulge in it.
"The promotion of homosexuality by public bodies (as per 'clause 28′/section 2a in Scotland,) was correctly outlawed by Mrs Thatcher's government. Toleration and understanding is one thing, but state-promotion of homosexuality is quite another.
"Why should Christian churches be forced by the government to employ homosexuals as 'ministers' against all that the Bible teaches? They are being forced by the government to betray their mission – would the Equality and Human Rights Commission be fined for refusing a job to Nick Griffin?
"Christians (and most of the population) believe homosexuality to be somewhere between 'unfortunate' and simply 'wrong' and they should not be penalised for politely saying so – good manners count too, of course.
"The current 'law' is wrong and must be overturned in the interests of freedom as well as Christian values."

I do feel that it is very strange that someone who stands up for gay rights in so many of his posts should choose to ignore this showing of the real thinking in the current Conservative party and while I understand that the person in question was suspended, why do I feel that it would be begrudgingly.
I had to send him an e/mail with the quoted text above followed by:

"...and yet no comment from yourself.
Very strange Andrew, your myopia is becoming a little embarrassing!
Regards/"

The Who's Who Racket

So, I get this email today:
Tom,

It is my honor to inform you that as of April 27, 2010 you are being considered for
inclusion in our forethcoming edition of the 2010 directory representing
the WHO'S WHO of Worldclass Professionals.

Our alliance is recognized by talented individuals who hold knowledge and experience in a particular industry, demonstrate a commitment to excellence, and seek career advancement or enhancement.

On behalf of the CEO and our esteemed staff, we wish you continued success.


How exciting, huh? Well I've been down this road before. These companies are basically a racket. You're buttered up with the prestige of such an honor and asked to proof the directory information about yourself. Once that's done, for the low, low price of $69.95 (plus S&H of course) you can buy a copy of this prestigious book. So WHO else is reading it besides the folks printed inside? I'm thinking nobody.

DJ Stingray interview at The Wire

A teabagger wants to shut VA hospitals as they are 'socializd' medicine too...

RGB wallpaper by Carnovsky

 Cool or what...
These RGB wallpapers by Carnovsky, which debuted at Milan Design Week, consist of three separate patterns printed over each other. By shining red, green, or blue light on them, you can isolate and hide the different images. 

At least they are honest!

UK Daily Star pulled from airports over volcano ash splash

Daily Star - 21 April 2010

Today's Daily Star splash headline. The accompanying picture is taken from a TV reconstruction of an incident 28 years ago. Click for full front page
Copies of today's Daily Star have been removed from airport newsagent shelves today over fears that its splash, headlined "Terror as plane hits ash cloud" with an image of a 747 with engines ablaze, could cause panic among travellers.
Richard Desmond's red top was removed from shops at Gatwick and Manchester airports after today's edition was published, with a front-page story claiming to feature "dramatic pictures as jets get OK to defy volcano".
However, the image used in the splash was taken from a TV reconstruction of an incident 28 years ago in which a BA 747's engines were knocked out by a volcanic ash cloud. The documentary, previously broadcast on the National Geographic channel, is to be shown on Channel Five tonight.
Gatwick airport's director of communications, Andrew McCallum, said: "We thought it was inappropriate at this point in time after six days of disruption and as people were anxious to get to their holiday destination or to return home to have these sort of computer-generated images on the front page.
"We had a discussion with other airports having seen the Daily Star's front page today and decided to remove it. It was in our view not appropriate."
Gatwick bosses also asked a Daily Star reporter and photographer to leave the premises today. The airport said it was unrelated to the paper's front-page story and was part of its management of media coverage of the travel disruption story.
The Star story, which featured four images from the documentary, described how a "stricken British Airways jumbo jet is engulfed by 'flames' after flying into a deadly cloud of volcanic ash".
"The dramatic pictures show the horrifying reason why flights were grounded for five days. The images are part of a gripping TV reconstruction tonight of a near disaster when BA Flight 009 flew into volcanic dust in 1982," the story continued.
"Last night the TV show's images were given a new relevance. Planes finally got the go-ahead to fly into ALL of Britain's airports from 10pm last night, despite the ash still being present."
A source at Gatwick airport said the story was "outrageous and irresponsible" as the ban on flights was lifted after the volcanic ash cloud was no longer judged to be a danger to air travel.
"There was no explanation on the front that this was a TV mock-up of an incident from 1982," added the source.
"Anyone who saw that front page would have naturally assumed these were images from a flight that had gone thrown a volcanic cloud after the restrictions were lifted last night. It was clearly designed to sell papers by inducing panic which is the last thing any of us need right now."
Russell Craig, head of communications for Manchester Airport, said the Daily Star splash had the potential to cause "absolute panic" among passengers and said the airport was considering a permanent ban on the paper.
"We felt that having spent an awfully long time in this airport over the last six days with some very frightened people, publishing something like that whether intentional or not would cause absolute panic among our passengers," he said.
"We didn't feel it was appropriate to have that on display in an airport full of people who were very happy that they were able to fly again.
"We have had so much negative feedback from passengers that we are considering whether the Daily Star will remain off the shelves on a permanent basis."
The Daily Star had not responded to a request for comment at the time of publication.
(Maybe Mick Jogger had it pulled so people wouldn't read about the size of his dick LOL!)