Here’s a site with details about the $97.8 Billion dollar RIAA lawsuit. The President of Michigan Tech wrote a response to the RIAA suit last week.

Went to the Bright Eyes show last night. Really enjoyed the set, a lot of new songs (including the ones he sang last time, and a song from the Post Parlo split as well as some really old ones). Here’s a link to a 60s [9MB AVI] clip of a song I hadn’t heard before:

While the camera microphone doesn’t really get it cross, the sound was great. A night and day difference being up in the balcony vs down in the floor.

Cultural Gulf Separates Forces, Iraqis

“I say we just — nuke this place and make it into a parking lot,” seethed Lance Cpl. Ryan Eman, 22, of Michigan.

U.S. forces invading this country make frequent reference to “nuking” Iraqis, whom they call “ragheads” and “camel jockeys,” often without appearing to distinguish between civilians and enemy forces. The extent to which such remarks are part of the daily vernacular underscores the cultural and political challenges the United States faces as it becomes a major military presence in a post-Saddam Iraq.

Asked later about his remark, Eman said he hadn’t sincerely wished to drop a nuclear bomb on the people he was sent to liberate from Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein. “I was frustrated and tired,” he said. “I don’t wish nukes on anybody, because anything we throw like that at somebody could come back at us.”

See kids? That’s why you don’t want to nuke other people. They might fight back. Speaking of kids:

“Raghead, raghead, can’t you see? This old war ain’t — to me,” sang Lance Cpl. Christopher Akins, 21, of Louisville, Ky., sweat running down his face in rivulets as he dug a fighting trench one recent afternoon under a blazing sun.

Asked whom he considered a raghead, Akins said: “Anybody who actively opposes the United States of America’s way … If a little kid actively opposes my way of life, I’d call him a raghead, too.”

As for non-hostile Iraqis, “I think they can be brought up intellectually, but it’ll take some work because they’re still in the Stone Age,” Akins said. He appeared startled to hear that Iraqis are descendants of ancient Mesopotamia, a thriving civilization that created the world’s first known system of writing and body of law, and that until the havoc of Hussein’s regime, Iraq also enjoyed a substantial and highly educated middle class.

A long writeup on some of the recent events in Warblogging.com, including a questioning of how US forces have been conducting themselves, not just with regards to journalists, but with civilians and allies (err, ally.. the British).

US Army Colonel David Perkins of the 3^rd Infantry Division said that Iraqis in front of

the hotel fired rocket propelled grenades across the Tigris River at

main battle tanks quite a way away (reporters say that the tanks were

“more than a half-mile away”). Colonel Perkins said that soldiers

fired a 120mm ruond at the hotel after seeing enemy “binoculars” in the

hotel. The shell hit the 15^th floor of the building, killing two journalists and injuring five.

According to reporters there were dozens upon dozens of cameras

arrayed on the balconies of the hotel. “How can they spot someone with

binoculars and not [see] cameras?” asked AP photographer Jerome Delay

who was in the hotel.

Journalists, according to the AP insist that they “heard no

gunfire coming from the hotel or its immediate environs.” They say

that they were watching two US tanks operating across the al-Jumhuriya

bridge — more than a half-mile away — and that at some point one of the

tanks simply rotated its turret towards the hotel and fired.

One of the journalists killed was a Reuters camerman. Reuters responded:

“Clearly the war, and all its confusion, has

come to the heart of Baghdad,” said Reuters Editor in Chief Geert

Linnebank. “But the incident nonetheless raises questions about the

judgment of the advancing U.S. troops who have known all along that

this hotel is the main base for almost all foreign journalists in

Baghdad.”

In Belgium, the International Federation of Journalists said it

appeared noted that on the same day US bombs hit al-Jazeera offices,

Abu Dhabi TV offices and the Palestine Hotel. They said it “appeared

Tuesday’s attacks may have deliberately targeted journalists,” says the AP. Secretary-General Aidan White of the IFJ said “If so, they are grave and serious violations of international law.”

The Committee to Protect Journalists went even further than the IFJ,

saying “We believe these attacks violate the Geenva Conventions. The

evidence suggests that the response of US forces was disproportionate

and therefore violated international humanitarian law,” Reuters reports.

​​​​​

The Arab Journalists Union also “condemned the Anglo-American attack on journalists while in Baghdad to cover the aggression.”

The Pentagon has responded simply by saying that Baghdad is “not a safe place” and that journalists “should not be there.”

Good thing the DMCA wasn’t around when Compaq reverse engineered the the IBM PC: Federal Judge Rules Against Reverse-engineering.

Wow, I had no idea that there were developers who aren’t aware of Jesse’s awesome bookmarklets, especially surprising that Eric, who works at Netscape didn’t. (see bugzilla)

Anyway, thought I’d give it a little googlejuice, for the good of developers everywhere. It’s step 3 on my intermediate web development check list (step 1 is installing Mozilla).

Related: gemal.dk: Using Mozilla in testing and debugging web sites, Brad’s Mozilla resource page, List of Mozilla links from September 2002, old post from January 2002)

Republicans Want Terror Law Made Permanent

In completely unrelated news, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says Syria has been ignoring a warning he gave last week about giving military assistance to Iraq and that some senior Iraqis were fleeing to Syria.

Salon on Jon Stewart’s Daily Show. Not getting cable, the only Daily Show I occasionally watch are the clips on Lisa’s site. [speaking of which, looks like this media analysis piece is on there]

After the war started, Stewart had the following conversations with Colbert, who was wearing his “senior media analyst” hat:

Stewart: What should the media’s role be in covering the war?

Colbert: Very simply, the media’s role should be the accurate and objective description of the hellacious ass-whomping we’re handing the Iraqis.

Stewart: Hellacious ass-whomping? Now to me, that sounds pretty subjective.

Colbert: Are you saying it’s not an ass-whomping, Jon? I suppose you could call it an ass-kicking or an ass-handing-to. Unless, of course, you love Hitler.

Stewart [stammering]: I don’t love Hitler.

Colbert: Spoken like a true Hitler-lover.

Stewart: Look, even some American generals have said that the Iraqis have put up more resistance than they were expected to.

Colbert: First rule of journalism, Jon, is to know your sources. Sounds like these “generals” of yours may be a little light in the combat boots, if you know what I’m saying.

Stewart: I don’t think I know what you’re saying.

Colbert: I’m saying they’re queers, Jon. They’re Hitler-loving queers.

Stewart: I’m perplexed. Is your position that there’s no place for negative words or even thoughts in the media?

Colbert: Not at all, Jon. Doubts can happen to everyone, including me, but as a responsible journalist, I’ve taken my doubts, fears, moral compass, conscience and all-pervading skepticism about the very nature of this war and simply placed them in this empty Altoids box. [Produces box.] That’s where they’ll stay, safe and sound, until Iraq is liberated.

Stewart: Isn’t it the media’s responsibility in wartime …

Colbert: That’s my point, Jon! The media has no responsibility in wartime. The government’s on top of it. The media can sit this one out.

Stewart: And do what?

Colbert: Everything it’s always wanted to do but had no time for: travel, see the world, write that novel. I know the media has always wanted to try yoga. This is a great time to take it up. It’s very stressful out there — huge war going on. Jon, hear me out, it was Thomas Jefferson who said, “Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach.”

Stewart: Stephen, Stalin said that. That was Stalin. Jefferson said he’d rather have a free press and no government than a government and no free press.

Colbert: Well, what do you expect from a slave-banging, Hitler-loving queer?

WP is reporting that Wireless Firms Still Fight Portable Phone Numbers. To anyone following the situation this, it should be no surprise (for anyone interested, I wrote a rant on this last year). What’s been interesting was seeing a recent spate of coverage/posts that acted as if another forbearance wouldn’t be requested. It looks like now, they’re going to play the 9/11 card:

“I would rather see our resources devoted to safety of life and protection of property rather than addressing regulations of convenience,” said Brian Fontes, vice president for federal regulations for Cingular Wireless.

Despicable. (Although my current disgust is more with the spinelessness of the FCC, whom every single mobile subscriber continues to pay at least a buck or two in taxes/fees every month [several hundred million dollars cum.] – where’s that going to Mr. Powell?)

dangerousmeta comments on the latest NYT Paul Krugman Op-Ed. From the piece:

Last week John Kerry told an audience that “what we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States.” Republicans immediately sought to portray this remark as little short of treason. “Senator Kerry crossed a grave line when he dared to suggest the replacement of America’s commander in chief at a time when America is at war,” declared Marc Racicot, chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Notice that Mr. Racicot wasn’t criticizing Mr. Kerry’s choice of words. Instead, he denounced Mr. Kerry because he “dared to suggest the replacement of America’s commander in chief” — knowing full well that Mr. Kerry was simply talking about the next election. Mr. Racicot, not Mr. Kerry, is the one who crossed a grave line; never in our nation’s history has it been considered unpatriotic to oppose an incumbent’s re-election.