The only alternative fuel that I can think would hurt Doritos is…well…Tostitos?
Israel says it has learned that the Lebanese-based Hizballah intends to transfer the two Israeli soldiers it abducted on Wednesday to Iran. That word came today from a senior official in Israel’s Foreign Ministry.
Israel is now sounding downright Bush-esque.
Israel is now linking Iran, Syria, Hizballah and Hamas all together in what it calls an “axis of terror and hate” that threatens the entire world.
This collusion seems to be working smoothly, as though it was already arranged. This should surprise no one.
Initially, Israel said it was holding Lebanon responsible for the Hizballah attack that opened a new front in the war on Wednesday. Hizballah fired rockets at Israel, killed eight Israeli soldiers in cross-border attacks, and abducted two other soldiers.
Now Israeli officials are saying that Lebanon is not the only responsible party – Syria and Iran are also involved.
Is this part of a widening Mideast war? There are a number of wars against Israel that are sometimes just referred to by the year they happened. Will “2006” be added to this list?
A man paralysed from the neck down by knife injuries sustained five years ago can now check his email, control a robot arm and even play computer games using the power of thought alone.
Matt Nagle’s extraordinary abilities were first reported in March 2005. Now details of the technology that lets him perform these tasks are published in the journal Nature. Another study in the same issue reveals a technique that could dramatically improve the speed with which such implants work.
Electrodes implanted in Nagle’s brain measure the neural signals generated when he concentrates on trying to move one of his paralysed limbs. Software trained to recognise different patterns of neural activity then translates imagined gestures into the movement of an on-screen cursor or a robotic arm at Nagle’s side.
“The fundamental findings are that you can record activity from the brain years after injury, that thinking about movement is sufficient to activate the brain, and that we can decode the signal,” says John Donoghue of Brown University in New York, who led the work.
“Even though only one person was studied, the findings are impressive, especially as you can use the system while talking,” says Maria Stokes a neurologist at the University of Southampton, UK.
Truly amazing. Read the article for how it’s done.
Boyd-MacMillan talks mostly about what it’s like for Christians in North Korea in this interview and some of the challenges in doing evangelism there. Very informative
The real news, and where the policy credit belongs, is with the 2003 tax cuts. They’ve succeeded even beyond Art Laffer’s dreams, if that’s possible. In the nine quarters preceding that cut on dividend and capital gains rates and in marginal income-tax rates, economic growth averaged an annual 1.1%. In the 12 quarters–three full years–since the tax cut passed, growth has averaged a remarkable 4%. Monetary policy has also fueled this expansion, but the tax cuts were perfectly targeted to improve the incentives to take risks among businesses shell-shocked by the dot-com collapse, 9/11 and Sarbanes-Oxley.
This growth in turn has produced a record flood of tax revenues, just as the most ebullient supply-siders predicted. In the first nine months of fiscal 2006, tax revenues have climbed by $206 billion, or nearly 13%. As the Congressional Budget Office recently noted, “That increase represents the second-highest rate of growth for that nine-month period in the past 25 years”–exceeded only by the year before. For all of fiscal 2005, revenues rose by $274 billion, or 15%. We should add that CBO itself failed to anticipate this revenue boom, as the nearby table shows. Maybe its economists should rethink their models.
Indeed they should. Or a least learn from history, especially from the Reagan tax cuts. Predictably, liberals are looking for the cloud in the silver lining.
This would all seem to be good news, but some folks are never happy. The same crowd that said the tax cuts wouldn’t work, and predicted fiscal doom, are now harrumphing that the revenues reflect a windfall for “the rich.” We suppose that’s right if by rich they mean the millions of Americans moving into higher tax brackets because their paychecks are increasing.
Individual income tax payments are up 14.1% this year, and “nonwithheld” individual tax payments (reflecting capital gains, among other things) are up 20%. Because of the tax cuts, the still highly progressive U.S. tax code is soaking the rich. Since when do liberals object to a windfall for the government?
When a Republican is sitting in the Oval Office, of course!
Because of tax cuts for the rich, perhaps? Bill O’Reilly makes the case.
A federal judge in Colorado has handed the entertainment industry a big win in its protracted legal battle against a handful of small companies that offer sanitized versions of theatrical releases on DVD.
The case encompasses two of Hollywood’s biggest headaches these days: the culture wars and the disruptive influence of digital technologies.
Senior U.S. District Court Judge Richard Matsch came down squarely on the side of the Directors Guild of America and the major studios in his ruling that the companies must immediately cease all production, sale and rentals of edited videos. The summary judgment issued Thursday requires the companies — Utah-based CleanFlicks, CleanFilms and Play It Clean Video, Arizona-based Family Flix USA and the separate entity CleanFlicks of Colorado — to turn over all existing copies of their edited movies to lawyers for the studios for destruction within five days of the ruling.
Utah’s CleanFlicks, which describes itself as the largest distributor of edited movies, through online sales and rentals and sales to video stores in Utah, Arizona and other states in the region, said it would continue its fight against the guild and the studios. CleanFlicks and the others make copies of official DVD releases and then edit them for sex, nudity, violence and profanity.
Yes, I know you could spend the time yourself recording the DVD to video tape and try to hit pause/play at just the right times (though the point was not to have to view the objectionable material, even once). Yes, I know you could possibly load up the movie on your computer and, with some expensive DVD editing software cuts out all the parts you want, down to the words. Yes, I know you could spend all that time and/or money doing that yourself.
Or you could pay someone else to. Well, not according to the courts. No, all the gratuitous sex and violence is, not just artistically, but legally required for the story to be told. And no, the studios don’t lose a single penny, and yes you can view the original if you really want to.
The mainstreaming of sophisticated digital editing technologies has fueled the cottage industry of movie sanitizers. CleanFlicks and others purchase an official DVD copy of a film on DVD for each edited version of the title they produce through the use of editing systems and software. The official release disc is included alongside the edited copy in every sale or rental transaction conducted. As such, the companies argued that they had the right on First Amendment and fair use grounds to offer consumers the alternative of an edited version for private viewing, so long as they maintained that “one-to-one” ratio to ensure that copyright holders got their due from the transactions. Matsch disagreed.
“Their business is illegitimate,” the judge wrote in his 16-page ruling. “The right to control the content of the copyrighted work … is the essence of the law of copyright.”
Careful now, because this statement makes it sound like I can’t make my own, edited copy of a movie that I legitimately purchased. If I can’t have someone else do it for me, can I legally do it myself? Even if, in both the court case any my hypothetical, an original copy of the movie was legally purchased and is available with the edited version? Don’t I have a choice what part of a purchased movie I choose to see? This ruling teeters on the edge of making me a law-breaker for essentially hitting the Fast Forward button on my remote.
This sort of mentality almost occurred with DVD hardware, in the ClearPlay situation. This is a device that allows you to play your DVD and it takes care of filtering it as you watch the movie. What parts to skip are download to the player, and you just hit play.
Early on, the legal sparring involved Salt Lake City-based ClearPlay, which offers video filtering software that allows for home viewing of cleaned-up versions of Hollywood titles.
ClearPlay offers software programs developed for specific titles that users can run on their computer or ClearPlay’s proprietary DVD player along with an official copy of the DVD. With this technology, a nude shot of an actor can be altered to show a silhouette, or profanity can be bleeped out. Because ClearPlay’s technology does not involve making an altered DVD copy, it has been shielded from the copyright infringement claims. The debate over movie content filtering activities made its way into Congress, which passed the 2005 Family Movie Act that protects ClearPlay and other software-based filtering companies. Matsch noted that Congress at that time had the opportunity to also carve out legal protections for CleanFlicks and its ilk, but chose not to.
The result is exactly the same as watching a pre-edited movie; you own the original, and you watch what you want to. It took an act of Congress to protect your right to skip parts of a movie via a hardware device. It looks like it’ll take another one to protect your right to allow a 3rd party to edit it for you (or possibly to protect you from doing it yourself), even though the results of the two technologies result in exactly the same output. The fact that you can obtain a permanent copy of that output shouldn’t matter and is a transparent fig leaf to hide behind.
(Cross-posted on Stones Cry Out, Blogger News Network and Redstate. Comments welcome.)
