... that 'decay' was used to make some of the music effects. Here.
And, in case you are wondering, the fungus is a real world creepy thing that attacks ants and a few other insects. It is called "cordyceps campanotus" and there are several varieties of it.
I was recently watching an episode of Life On Earth where it was featured. It is a fungus found in the forest canopy that, at a certain point in its life, drops to the forest/jungle floor. Apparently, an ant then eats it or it gets on their body. It then invades their brain and causes the ant to go crazy. The specific ant is normally a ground dweller but, having been attacked by the fungus, it climbs to the roof canopy where it dies. And the whole cycle begins again with that weird stem coming out of its head. Yummy!
Here is the Wikipedia article.
Here is a photo.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Law and Disorder - disgraceful
I recently posted regarding the Climate Camp and the way the police used excessive force and creative reasons to stop, detain, and attack people.
The mainstream media has not really covered the protest events and incidents taking place around the G20 meeting with true openness and impartiality. A simple check will show how little of the real protest was covered. the main focus was on a true minority who committed acts of vandalism. These few provided the 'reason' for the police to act against the predominantly peaceful protesters.
Unfortunately, in the same manner as the behaviour at the Climate Camp, the police can be seen to use excessive force and plain violence without clear excuse. It is important to watch this video before commenting...
There is a distinct difference between upholding and maintaining law and order and the use of violent force to quell a peaceful demonstration. Note the use of the edge of a riot shield to strike someone who is holding their arms in the air.
This is simple violent thuggery to repress a democratic right to protest. Good grief.
The mainstream media has not really covered the protest events and incidents taking place around the G20 meeting with true openness and impartiality. A simple check will show how little of the real protest was covered. the main focus was on a true minority who committed acts of vandalism. These few provided the 'reason' for the police to act against the predominantly peaceful protesters.
Unfortunately, in the same manner as the behaviour at the Climate Camp, the police can be seen to use excessive force and plain violence without clear excuse. It is important to watch this video before commenting...
There is a distinct difference between upholding and maintaining law and order and the use of violent force to quell a peaceful demonstration. Note the use of the edge of a riot shield to strike someone who is holding their arms in the air.
This is simple violent thuggery to repress a democratic right to protest. Good grief.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
When in Boston (or Vienna)
Here is a tourist tip. Watch the photo-slides. Incredible to believe these are made from glass...
What IS 'wrong' with porn?
The BBC website has an article regarding the reporting that the husband of Jacqui Smith (UK Home Secretary) claimed expenses for a television viewing package. Apart from actually justifying watching TV as a valid expense, there is (or appears to be) a lot of outcry due to his watching a couple of porn movies. Whatever. If the guy wants to do this then fine. No problem.
The article is incredibly 'loaded' in its comments:
"Richard Timney's humiliation is one many other men will identify with - to have been caught by one's partner watching pornography."
"Mr Timney's late-night surreptitious viewing of two pornographic films has caused his wife severe embarrassment."
"the suspicion cast over Mr Timney shows it's by no means a mainstream pursuit".
Despite the general message that the real outcry was over the charging of the movies (regardless of nature or content) to expenses, the comments above and the general tone of the article seem indicative of judgment having been made. It is presumptive in stating that Timney is suffering 'humiliation', Ms. Smith is suffering 'severe embarrassment', and draws the rather dodgy and almost puritanical conclusion that these were watched 'surreptitiously', late at night.
This sort of reporting 'elevates' the BBC to that of 'The Sun' or 'News of the World'.
Charging for the TV package could be construed as not justifiable. Making an issue over the content while passing judgment on an individual is another matter entirely. Making blanket, unqualified statements regarding either an individual or pornography is not journalism. It is prurient tittle-tattle of the lowest order.
One of the problems with British society is that people have a tendency to be overly judgmental and to form opinions without basis in fact. Add to that the salacious subject matter and you very soon have a stoning mob gathering at someones door.
If porn is not a 'mainstream pursuit', how come it has been so profitable for so long.
Glass houses and stones anyone?
The article is incredibly 'loaded' in its comments:
"Richard Timney's humiliation is one many other men will identify with - to have been caught by one's partner watching pornography."
"Mr Timney's late-night surreptitious viewing of two pornographic films has caused his wife severe embarrassment."
"the suspicion cast over Mr Timney shows it's by no means a mainstream pursuit".
Despite the general message that the real outcry was over the charging of the movies (regardless of nature or content) to expenses, the comments above and the general tone of the article seem indicative of judgment having been made. It is presumptive in stating that Timney is suffering 'humiliation', Ms. Smith is suffering 'severe embarrassment', and draws the rather dodgy and almost puritanical conclusion that these were watched 'surreptitiously', late at night.
This sort of reporting 'elevates' the BBC to that of 'The Sun' or 'News of the World'.
Charging for the TV package could be construed as not justifiable. Making an issue over the content while passing judgment on an individual is another matter entirely. Making blanket, unqualified statements regarding either an individual or pornography is not journalism. It is prurient tittle-tattle of the lowest order.
One of the problems with British society is that people have a tendency to be overly judgmental and to form opinions without basis in fact. Add to that the salacious subject matter and you very soon have a stoning mob gathering at someones door.
If porn is not a 'mainstream pursuit', how come it has been so profitable for so long.
Glass houses and stones anyone?
Monday, March 30, 2009
Anti-spam NOT
This morning I received an automated email from "0Spam". Here is the text:
============================
ATTENTION!
A message you recently sent to a 0Spam.com user with the subject "- none -" was not delivered because they are using the 0Spam.com anti-spam service. Please click the link below to confirm that this is not spam. When you confirm, this message and all future messages you send will automatically be accepted.
http://www.0spam.com/v.cgi?user=123xxxxxxx
This is an automated message from 0Spam.com.
Please do not reply to this Email.
============================
IF this is genuine , then this has to be the dumbest method of implementing anti-spam I have encountered. A simple search of the intewebnettubes shows that I am not the only one who considers this rather dubious. How effective is an anti-spam system if it generates an email for every 'dodgy' piece of email? It would simply make web traffic matters worse. If you are using this software then your 'netiquette' is very low. You are passing the responsibility of checking an email as being valid back to any genuine user and increasing overall net traffic.
Yeh! I am really going to click on the link (I've chopped it out but it contained a longer user-id string.) to advise the user. IF it were genuine it should have included a proper subject matter and should have identified the recipient in a better way. There is no way I would click on the link 'blindly'. Additionally, one of the principles of an effective approach to spam is to not respond to the email sent and simply deleting the email. Responding just identifies the address as an active account.
A simple search of the interwebnettubes shows that I am ont the only person with this view.
Should you be someone who is blinded by their logo that claims "A Virtually 100% effective Free Anti-Spam Service" then you are certainly not getting all of your emails as people are going to go "Hmm. Looks rather dodgy to me" as they click the 'Delete' button or, as I did, simply marked it as spam
============================
ATTENTION!
A message you recently sent to a 0Spam.com user with the subject "- none -" was not delivered because they are using the 0Spam.com anti-spam service. Please click the link below to confirm that this is not spam. When you confirm, this message and all future messages you send will automatically be accepted.
http://www.0spam.com/v.cgi?user=123xxxxxxx
This is an automated message from 0Spam.com.
Please do not reply to this Email.
============================
IF this is genuine , then this has to be the dumbest method of implementing anti-spam I have encountered. A simple search of the intewebnettubes shows that I am not the only one who considers this rather dubious. How effective is an anti-spam system if it generates an email for every 'dodgy' piece of email? It would simply make web traffic matters worse. If you are using this software then your 'netiquette' is very low. You are passing the responsibility of checking an email as being valid back to any genuine user and increasing overall net traffic.
Yeh! I am really going to click on the link (I've chopped it out but it contained a longer user-id string.) to advise the user. IF it were genuine it should have included a proper subject matter and should have identified the recipient in a better way. There is no way I would click on the link 'blindly'. Additionally, one of the principles of an effective approach to spam is to not respond to the email sent and simply deleting the email. Responding just identifies the address as an active account.
A simple search of the interwebnettubes shows that I am ont the only person with this view.
Should you be someone who is blinded by their logo that claims "A Virtually 100% effective Free Anti-Spam Service" then you are certainly not getting all of your emails as people are going to go "Hmm. Looks rather dodgy to me" as they click the 'Delete' button or, as I did, simply marked it as spam
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Maggots in your nose...
... that is what is considered a possibility of the fad in the US for 'smoking' Smarties.
The media is all over it with the obligatory scare stories and 'outrage'. Here is one take. Here is another.
1. Is there nothing better to report?
2. Parents. Let it go. It's a relatively harmless fad (except for citric acid up the nose causing maggots that is!!! - Be afraid, very afraid).
Note to children in the UK. Do NOT try it with UK Smarties. The USA ones are totally different.
The media is all over it with the obligatory scare stories and 'outrage'. Here is one take. Here is another.
1. Is there nothing better to report?
2. Parents. Let it go. It's a relatively harmless fad (except for citric acid up the nose causing maggots that is!!! - Be afraid, very afraid).
Note to children in the UK. Do NOT try it with UK Smarties. The USA ones are totally different.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
