In the news today

[masamuneehs]

On Tony Blair, soon-to-be-former Prime Minister of Britain
international herald tribune - Blair announces he will step down as Prime Minister of Britain

CNN -Tony Blair's Legacy marred by war

Maybe the next guy won't be such a bitch who does whatever the UK's economic trading partners demand of him... obviously I never cared for this guy and am glad to see him go, although I can't yet say whether his replacement will be any better...

also
George W. Bush promises to veto new Iraq war spending bill, but open to working with Democrats on 'benchmarks'

wow, just wow. Funding for the war in Iraq is about to run out and the Congress is supposed to pass new funding for it, which they did. However, because that bill attached a timeline to withdraw troops from Iraq, Bush vetoed it. He then went on to say that the Democrats were undermining the troops, not supporting them properly by not giving them the funding they need... The newest bill has NO timetable for withdrawal and offers brief funding for the war until the end of July, but Bush says he'll veto that one as well...

so then he comes out and says that he's open to working with the Democrats on the spending bill? That 'benchmarks' (measures of success resulting in military readjustments, but obviously unattached to any time constraints) are "a good idea"? It's fairly obviously that he wants to take the credit for whatever bill is ultimately passed and is refusing Congress the only control over military affairs that they have in this day (power of the purse).

[Yukimura]

You've gotta love how Bush is highlighting the way checks and balances were meant to be used by abusing the fact that they don't fully work in this day and age. The original point of a veto was as a measure against having bills that only had a small majority support from becoming laws for everyone. However since the Congress is almost always split 55/45 or less down party lines nowadays a veto is pretty much impossible to overturn as long as the president and his party are in agreement. With the seemingly total inability for politicians to compromise between parties (which the structure of the US government is supposed to promote/ensure) legislation basically has to go through the president and thus he is a much more powerful lawmaker than an opposing party controlled congress.

I think Bush is planning to force the Democrats into a situation where the troops have no money and they look like the bad guys for cutting the strings. He knows that the Democrats have to give him the money he wants or else it'll be spun as them abandoning the troops (that the Commander-in-Chief choose to put in harms way)

If the Dems have any balls they'll actually do what the founding fathers hoped would never happen, stall the government completely in order to avoid compromise. I'm not sure what would go down if they just let the funding expire and told Bush to shove it but it'd sure put some respect for them for actually taking a stand when it might look bad to people.

[Kraco]

I think Bush is planning to force the Democrats into a situation where the troops have no money and they look like the bad guys for cutting the strings. He knows that the Democrats have to give him the money he wants or else it'll be spun as them abandoning the troops (that the Commander-in-Chief choose to put in harms way).

Hard to imagine there would be such a black and white situation, considering everything would be reported in the news as it is. While Bush can't have any more terms as a president, I doubt it would help the republican candidates if the current president would use so dirty tricks. But then again, I'm no expert at American politics...

[masamuneehs]

I don't think it's so much that he wants Democrats to look bad as he wants the Republicans to control every facet of the war, even though they don't control Congress any more. Yuki's got some nice points in there, although i don't think leaving thousands of troops without funding in the middle of a war-torn wasteland would help any politician's career (and remember, that's what they really care about), and the cost is not worth any political message.

However, it seems the Democrats might not be the only ones pushing to establish a timetable from removing U.S. troops...

a majority of Iraqi lawmakers have signed a draft bill opposed by the government that requires a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq
This story is still unfolding, and the details shaky, seem to point to this bill originating in the camp of radical Shiite cleric al-Sadr. Even though al-Sadr has many militant Islamic groups claim loyalty to him, groups which are also responsible for attacks on U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians, the fact that a bill coming from his camp can earn a majority approval of Iraqi lawmakers should go to show just how much they freakin' hate us.

and, also, for Terra and all those who like to give
Study: Oral Sex Linked to Throat Cancer

[XanBcoo]

3-D Printers being designed for home-use

PASADENA, Calif. — Sometimes a particular piece of plastic is just what you need. You have lost the battery cover to your cellphone, perhaps. Or your daughter needs to have the golden princess doll she saw on television. Now.

In a few years, it will be possible to make these items yourself. You will be able to download three-dimensional plans online, then push Print. Hours later, a solid object will be ready to remove from your printer.

Stuff like this gets me excited. We're steadily inching closer to the reality that many Sci-fi movies of the past few decades had envisioned.

[Assassin]

oh man...thats gonna cause a lot of shit with the copyright lawyers. they'll copyright geometric shapes, so it'll be illegal to "print" circles or triangles without being sued.

[Kraco]

oh man...thats gonna cause a lot of shit with the copyright lawyers. they'll copyright geometric shapes, so it'll be illegal to "print" circles or triangles without being sued.

I might be totally wrong, but I'm under the impression a home-user would be able to print any forms as long as he doesn't try to commercially exploit them. For example, if he breaks the plastic handle of his joystick, he would be able to print a new one, despite the form being owned by the joystick manufacturer. However, some street corner shop wouldn't be able to print that joystick part, because for it it would be illegal business to print it and then to sell it to the unlucky customer.

[Lefty]

You are correct Kraco, but it wouldn't mean that companies would not try and sue people in a back asswards kind of way the lawyer types do. It's a wonderful time of ever expanding copy right laws

[6Zabuza9]

soooo with 3-d printers we can make our own anime figurines?

[Assertn]

I might be totally wrong, but I'm under the impression a home-user would be able to print any forms as long as he doesn't try to commercially exploit them. For example, if he breaks the plastic handle of his joystick, he would be able to print a new one, despite the form being owned by the joystick manufacturer. However, some street corner shop wouldn't be able to print that joystick part, because for it it would be illegal business to print it and then to sell it to the unlucky customer.

That's like saying its ok to torrent a copy of a movie that you already bought on DVD.

is it??

[Kraco]

That's like saying its ok to torrent a copy of a movie that you already bought on DVD.

is it??

No, actually that's not at all the same thing. You misunderstood the part of the process that is ok. The same thing would be to buy (or rent or watch in a theater) a movie, and then gather a bunch of friends and direct and film the same movie anew, including playing and recording the music, rendering the cgi and all that jazz. In the end, theoretically (but not realistically) you would have the same story filmed, but you couldn't sell it to anywhere nor screen it for money, because the story, lines, designs, and concept isn't yours.

Edit: Actually here the concept of parody comes into play, if you don't film the same story and not quite the general concept but instead parody it. I'm sure there are plenty of examples, but one closest to me (geographically) would be the Star Wreck movie. Have a look at it to get a bit vague and controversial idea of what can and cannot be done in terms of movies.

[Yukimura]

That's like saying its ok to torrent a copy of a movie that you already bought on DVD.

is it??

The torrenting part is illegal since it involves providing to others, but I'm pretty sure you are allowed to have personal copies of media you've purchased (assuming they were created by you, though this aspect can't feasibly be tested). What's illegal in the media case is providing them to others. As to recreating something that you'd bought that was a product, instead of media that would be a whole new issue. Instead of just copyright infringement you'd potentially be committing a patent violation as well. If I buy a nifty TV stand from some store study it's design thoroughly and then go to my woodshed and start cranking out copies and selling them to my neighbors I'd be violating a copyright. But even if I just filled my house with dresser copies i'd still technically be violating the patent on the item.

[Kraco]

But even if I just filled my house with dresser copies i'd still technically be violating the patent on the item.

This was a foggy part for me, but from what I gathered by reading wikipedia it looks like it could indeed be so. If it is true, then what I said in my first post about replacing a broken joystick handle would also be potentially illegal.

However, it seems like initiating a lawsuit for an infringement is horribly expensive, so I doubt the joystick manufacturer would bother as long as nobody is trying to sell the spare parts (because the manufacturer would then lose money as people would otherwise buy the whole product anew (at least I haven't ever seen official joystick replacement parts on sale...)).

[complich8]

In general, furniture is not copyrightable. The exceptions to this would be particularly novel, artistic pieces of furniture. But for the most part, you can make knockoffs of your dresser and it's legal. You can sell them, and it's legal. Copyright applies only to literary and artistic works. (There's some grey area there, furniture is copyrightable to the extent that furniture is art, but I don't believe most furniture, particularly the stuff a layman would be able to and want to make copies of, falls under the category of art)

Most furniture is also not patentable, because the basic design and implementation of furniture in general is well-known and obvious. Now, if you come up with a novel way to connect two pieces of wood, that would be patentable if nobody's ever done it before. Things like recliner mechanisms are also patentable, if they're new ideas. However, consider that the term of patents (including renewal terms) for most furniture ideas would have expired quite a while ago. Most of the ideas in most furniture would now be in the public domain.

The joystick is probably trademarked. Trademarks only really apply within the marketplace, so as long as you're not marketing them, you can pretty much infringe on them with impunity.

[Yukimura]

More Punishment for speaking 'out of line'

Coming so soon after the Imus incident I suspect they were suspended quickly to avoid letting the situation reach that level of notoriety. However since this was Satellite radio I'm starting to worry that there may be no haven left for people who say things that may make others uncomfortable. While I understand that they said some messed up stuff, it's not like people who listen to their show aren't expecting 'shock radio' they're listening to shock jocks. So in that case what grounds were there for punishing them, other than they made jokes about powerful people? If they'd made those same jokes about some girl on the street (which I heard them do many times back before they were kicked off of broadcast radio the first time) it wouldn't be important. Are Condoleeza Rice and Queen Elizabeth somehow too good to be the butt of sex jokes? And if so, why them and not everyone?

[complich8]

just sad...

[Deadfire]

Does virtual reality need a sheriff?

This again shows the which-hunt like skills of the media in order to try and prove that games are evil

[Animeniax]

Too much evil stuff in the news, so I only read the Onion and watch the Daily News on Comedy Central for anything the Onion doesn't cover:

http://www.theonion.com

Oh, and stuff like this:

New Hotdog Eating Champ

[The Heretic Azazel]

Holy shit, I thought Kobayashi was unbeatable.

[Animeniax]

Yeah me too, he was my hero. But it just goes to show, Americans' skill at fatassery is unparalleled!