Yo, Guy Fawkes Day - 05 November 2007

[silveradept]

Yep, it’s one of the original days where you celebrate a terrorist and show the love for your country by blowing up a part of it, possibly attached to some effigy of the man who tried unsuccessfully to bring about a regime change. Learn more about the Gunpowder Plot from the Gunpowder Plot Society.

Yet Another Beef Recall - it’s getting downright dangerous to eat anything these days.

On one hand, Kurdish rebels free Turkish soldiers, not wanting to escalate tensions into actual conflict. This may not have the placating effect desired, however. On the other hand, With the assistance of the United States, Iraq voids a Russian oil contract, no doubt very likely to increase tensions between the Untied States and Russia, and possibly with Iraq.

In Pakistan, the reaction expected to the announcement of emergency conditions right before a vote has occurred. Mass demonstrations have police using tear gas and their crowd control weapons as the populace protests Musharraf's interference with the democratic process. The United States’ response to the matter has been tepid to say the least.

I think I’m missing something significant in the further discussion, which seems to be focused on whether or not trademarks registered under one interpretation of the law are subject to cancellation if that interpretation changes, but what strikes me as odd from the beginning is that Deutsche Telecom and Red Bull appear to have trademarked colors. Is there any way at all that is even possible? Designs, I can see, but the colors themselves? Next thing you know, people will transform Rubix Cubes into Weighted Companion Cubes or create luminescent shrimp, or such things.

Al Gore wants the media to show some sense and not go out of their way to find someone to contradict views in the interests of “equal time”, when the person on the opposition is clearly outside the bounds of scientific consensus. So I suppose nobody really wants a “Fairness Doctrine” if it rigidly required equal time for everything - including young-earth creationists, those who believe the earth is flat, and the like. Anthropogenic climate change is still up in the air, of course. But, at least according to NASA, matters such as extraterrestrial visits are settled firmly in the negative.

A Clear Channel subsidiary, Premiere, seems to have a thing for trying to keep listeners, regardless of their reputations and viewpoints. Glenn Beck's getting a big contract and Don Imus has been rehired, all because they bring in listeners to radio. Fair enough. Rush isn’t getting off the air any time soon, although Howard Stern was banished to satellite radio. Still seems like at the end of the day, the dollar outweighs all other considerations. Considering what I remember of Clear Channel’s music lineup, it probably extends beyond their talk shows, as well.

Television entertainment is likely to be stagnant for a while, as the Writer's Guild in Hollywood has gone on strike. To see some of the impacts, the Los Angeles Times has a grid rundown on affected shows.

Technologically speaking, wouldn’t it be nice if you didn't have to boot an Operating System to access a select suite of applications? Well, Phoenix is trying to make that a reality, by putting applications in don’t need the entire OS to do the work. Might help with laptop battery life, too, if not a whole lot is loaded.

Philip Klein at The American Spectator thinks that liberals are being a touch harsh on Mayor 9/11, and that this will drive him straight to the Republican nomination, and possibly the presidency, just because every liberal hates him so much, every conservative will vote for him. Riiight. Oh, and the part where Klein says that Keith Olbemann didn’t correct his remarks made when he thought Mayor 9/11 has commented about inviting Osama bin Laden to the presidential inaugral ball? Bullshit. Olbermann corrected his remarks on-air last week, right before firmly thrashing Mayor 9/11 by making him the bronze, silver, and gold medal winner on his Worst Persons in the World segment, all on things that Mayor 9/11 had said that were, well, erroneous. So, hopefully, with another look at the transcripts, Klein will correct himself, as well. While not needing corrections, all the papers that ran that Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth had scientific errors in it neglected to mention that despite those errors, it was "substantially founded upon scientific fact". Even seven years after the campaign, the media still seems to find great delight in picking apart Al Gore. Perhaps in revenge for not being able to trash him sufficiently that he gave up back then.

For a bit, Pat Buchanan almost looked ready to give a logical argument. In Sinking Country, Sinking Currency, he starts well - the dollar’s declining because Americans are borrowing and buying beyond their means. His partial absolution of the Bush regime doesn’t sit well, but trade deficits are more than just one man. It looked nice and logical, and then there was going to be the encouragement to save, cut back on spending, and strengthen the currency. Instead, Pat points fingers and says “See those round-eyes? They’re willing to take that cut in dollar strength so they can take over our markets and keep sucking us dry in technology! And those darker-skinned oil people there are buying up our land and banks!” In the face of a widening trade deficit, wouldn’t the sensible thing to do be to encourage one’s own people to save money, retard spending and credit, and invest in producing goods that are of sufficient quality inexpensively enough to have domestic markets? And then to pay down some of the outstanding debts that are there? You know, pay off the credit card and not suffer the interest rates.

And to tweak Pat before moving on, I wonder what he thinks of tutor services that recruit and train tutors worldwide - maybe he’ll rail about how much we all need to put more time and effort into American education. And if he meant it in a way that actually did good, he’d probably find a lot of support. This might just be the carrot to dangle in front of him...

Speaking of lots of spending going on, Michael Pollen dissects the growing opposition to unhealthy subsidization in farm bills. Or, if one were in a more zingy mood, people don't like pork in the grain bills (Link to Time’s coverage of the same bill package). However, if the idea that sugar-filled liquids make decent small-appliance batteries, maybe there will be a reason to grow all the corn that gets turned into high-fructose corn syrup.

And one more spending-related column for the road - Suzanne Fields frets that the country idolizes adolescence now, with the boomers trying to regress, and to get everyone to pay for their second childhoods. With everyone living longer, the prospects of being able to have a second childhood are much increased. All we have to do is figure out how to pay for it.

Empathy may be a hardwired characteristic of humans, through the use of "mirror neurons". Not to say that everyone uses them in that kind of faculty. They might also help us understand abstractions such as maps and language. Of course, this may be jumping to conclusions, and the mirrors aren’t really as important as we think they are. Might explain subtle shifts in speech patterns to match the person you’re talking with. On the other side of that coin, though, even the existence of usable empathy neurons doesn’t mean that everyone’s on board with the conclusions they might draw. bellatrys examines the idea that humanity has made leaps of progress compared to history, and finds it more likely to be repeating the same track over and over, with a couple new riffs here and there. It being 5 November, she took her example from the case of Guy Fawkes. History really is cyclical at times, isn’t it?

Working in the similar sort of “play one track, repeat ad nauseam” vein, The Slacktivist produces Part Six of the Gay-Hatin' Gospel series, revisiting the backlash theory and discussing the idea that plenty of the GHG’s devotees really do think that if they let the homosexuals have equal rights, then it gives license for every other abominable sin to claim equal rights as a lifestyle choice, and then the country goes to hell as God is utterly removed from American life entirely. The Slacktivist points out the obvious - just about all of the Seven Deadlies have lobbies or advertising on their side - Lust, Avarice, Envy, Sloth, Pride, and Gluttony all have advertisers working for them, and then there’s television culture and “Action Heroes” who take Wrath to new levels. Beyond that, though, the Slacktivist chides someone whose faith is so weak that they require it to be the law of the land and enforced on everyone, and that reduces their faith to being merely a tool with which to try and win the law over to their preferred interpretation of reality. It’s the same interpretation of faith that people like the Taliban have.

There’s a voting thing going on tomorrow, and the polls stay open late, so I’ll probably go out and vote, on the referenda and proposals at the very least, if not the candidacy races, not having been here long enough to make accurate comment on whether I want candidate A, B, or X in the various offices. Assuming that it is possible to fill out some sections and not others without the entirety of the ballot being scrapped or otherwise rendered unused. Got to go to bed anyway, so that I can get up in time and be energetic and storytelling.

Comments

[shenalia.livejournal.com]

"When the person is clearly out of bounds of scientific consensus." Upon reading that, and the link given, I can only think one thing of it:

Al Gore says: Don't give any air time to people who disagree with me!

The entire global warming alarmism saga has reeked of scam and fraud from the earliest days. Gore's movie, that has won him all these awards, has been debunked countless times. The UN's "scientific consensus" has come from a group that has repeatedly released studies that do not mirror the actual information that went into them. And now they're calling once again for their critics to be silenced? What, calling for all meteorologists in the US that disagree with them to have their licenses taken away and their careers destroyed wasn't enough?

All I hear from them is, "The world is in danger! The only thing that can save you is giving us your money!" And that is one of the oldest scams in history: "the sky is falling".

[2dlife.livejournal.com]

Ah, climate data, the eternal debate.

A few facts are not disputed: Since late 19th century, there has been a steady rise in global mean temperatures. Certain glaciers in certain areas of the world are shrinking. Atmospheric CO2 levels and other pollutant levels trend upwards. Worldwide distributions of various plant and animal species has shifted.

What's being disputed: whether any of this is the work of mankind or not, whether we can do anything about it now, whether there's a causal link between any of the above or is it merely correlation, whether any of this will lead to consequences as severe as projected.

And what I'm sure goes through the minds of many of the scientific minds is that it's better to do something about it now and be wrong than it is to not and be screwed. Therefore it's conservative to speculate that the sky is falling and have everyone take cover than to warn no one and have everyone die. Especially because in this case, you'll need the cooperation of a vast majority of the population to stop the sky from falling. Scientists weigh cost-benefit differently from economists.

I have no problem with people spouting theories that are out of bounds with scientific consensus, it's a huge part of what makes science, science. However, the American public isn't well educated on the academic scientific process, they learn science as fact. I'd argue that they're even less educated on the different kinds of cost-benefit analyses. Which means I don't think that the media should be presenting multiple theories because the audience doesn't have the basis for processing the facts. In situations where scientists need to present data to a mass public, I argue that majority rule SHOULD be the policy or at least it be stated clearly which is the majority opinion. (That said, Gore's "movie" which did NOT represent the scientific consensus shouldn't have been shown as fact.)

[shenalia.livejournal.com]

I've just had problems with the concept that environmentalists have to give an "alarmist" projection of science to get any kind of reaction out of the populace. Doing things that is good for the environment is one thing; telling people they'd better do it or the world as we know it will end is another. And there is a middle ground between "doing nothing" and "telling the world they need to do this - or else".

(I'm really trying not to take a ranting tone at you here. I appreciate what you've said, in fact.)

[silveradept]

On the other side of that, if the environmentalists weren't giving it an Apocalypse Doom sort of mentality, would anyone be listening, and would there be any news coverage of it at all? The American populace seems to be profoundly disinterested in anything excepting that which threatens their being in a semi-immediate way.

[2dlife.livejournal.com]

I agree with you that being alarmist isn't science. In fact, I agree that "An Inconvenient Truth" is way past the scope of science. I just also agree with Mr Gore that presenting both sides of the issue is inappropriate at times.

(I don't think you're ranting at me, in fact, I think you make a very important point.)

[redrab.livejournal.com]

Could you provide some links to the countless debunkings of "An Inconvenient Truth"? Also for the UN group that has released studies not mirroring actual information that went into them? Please don't point to Richard Lindzen, the MIT professor who has been in the pocket of ExxonMobil since 1988 and whose speech "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC. Talk about a scam.

I've been looking for credible sources and I can't find them. Given the treatment of Al Gore by the press, I thought that finding countless scientists who've proven him wrong would be easy. Even when the Doubter-in Chief, himself, asked the National Academy of Sciences to undertake a special review of global climate change they concluded that the planet is warming and we are largely responsible.

I don't pretend to have any knowledge of the Nobel Prize committee but I believe, perhaps wrongly, that they don't give out those medals to just anybody. And who knew Chicken Little started one of the oldest scams in history?

[shenalia.livejournal.com]

Try the results of a recent court case in the UK that found the scientific backing of Gore's movie to be, for better words, completely lacking. That's a good example.

Excuse me for cutting myself short; I've been trying to rant less. The scam is simple: a group claims that unless someone gives them power / money right away, something drastic is going to happen that only they can stop! Hence, "The sky is falling".

[silveradept]

Is that the same court case that the Media Matters article is making mention of? If it is, while the judge found errors in the movie, he considered it to be grounded in scientific fact. And the papers and news outlets neglected to mention that part of it.

[redrab.livejournal.com]

I did see the articles about the UK court case. I'm disappointed that this is the best example you can come up with. The judge in this case in fact found that the key arguments in the documentary are supported by scientific opinion. Out of thousands of assertions made in the film, the judge found only 9 to be problematic. The plaintiff in the case has motives that are seriously suspect. According to the Observer this gentleman "was funded by a Scottish quarrying magnate who established a controversial lobbying group to attack environmentalists' claims about global warming." And the High Court ruling was hardly a death blow to "An Inconvenient Truth." It will still be shown in British secondary schools.

With all science, it's always possible to exploit the inevitable gap between scientific consensus and the available evidence. This is particularly evident when consumer products such as food additives, etc., are deemed to be carcinogenic. The point is, those whose profits would be affected as a result of policy changes dictated by scientific consensus will always hold the science affecting them to a higher standard of proof than they would the research done in their favor.

Who, exactly, is saying "unless someone gives them power/money right away, something drastic is going to happen that only they can stop!" That sounds like an unoriginal comic book scenario. I suggest that, on the contrary, it's the people behind the industries that stand to lose money if global warming is taken seriously who are being called on the scam they've been perpetrating for decades.

[2dlife.livejournal.com]

Regardless of whether any of the individual pieces of science hold up (I haven't had a chance to source them), it's actually impossible to prove conclusively that global warming is a result of the actions of mankind and also that it will result in or has resulted in many of the effects (especially the doomydoomdoom ones) in the movie. It's quite simply not how science works.

Right now, the best evidence (and I would argue only evidence) supporting the theory that global warming is caused by CO2 emissions is climate models. In addition to those, we have some hypotheses which are not inconsistent with the existing data.

Why each of the effects that Gore so painstakingly describes in his movie may indeed be happening, in no way could any of those scientists (if they were any good) claim that they were all conclusively the work of global warming. Instead, what Mr Gore did was present a whole bunch of evidence that the world was changing and evidence that the world was warming and very unscientifically (and it could be argued deceitfully) try to strongly imply a connection between the dots. Then he did the scientifically unthinkable, he tried to predict the future. He argued that if the world were to continue warming at some rate, certain extreme consequences will occur. That's not a scientific claim in the least bit as all the connections are conjecture.

No one doubts that over certainly the last 40 years or so that the temperature is increasing, or even that a link between manmade pollution and climate effects is a very compelling theory. However, the danger is equating scientific theory with proven scientific fact. What Shen is arguing (a fair point) is that dealing with global warming in the extreme way that is supported by some of the advocates has some very real economic costs. Not considering those when chasing after a scientific theory (no matter how compelling) is not a very wise move and using scare tactics to make a weak case seem more pressing is downright fraud.

[redrab.livejournal.com]

Wander over to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change and straighten those frauds out, will you? I take it then, you "source" the science whenever you hear claims about the links between cholesterol and heart disease, HIV and AIDS? Because some scientists believe the science on those are inconclusive. By the way, the "very real economic costs" that you're so fearful of are based on models that purport to predict the future.

[2dlife.livejournal.com]

Yes, as a scientist, I actually read the papers that establish links. (And HIV to AIDS has been scientifically proven, we've had at least three cases where a researcher working with HIV has suffered a needle stick, contracted and subsequently developed AIDS. Cholesterol to heart disease is a statistical link but climate models that link pollution to global warming don't even have that. We don't have thousands of similar planets with various levels of pollution to base a statistical model around.) Plus, I think that people should accept that global warming is actually happening, it's beyond dispute. This doesn't mean that I don't think that Gore went way overboard. I agree that people who don't think global warming is actually happening shouldn't get any facetime. It doesn't mean we have to resort to graphics of drowning polar bears.

Economic models don't predict the future, they measure costs that can be controlled and accounted for. If I choose to pay $10 for a movie ticket, it will cost me $10 today. If I choose to pay $10 instead to reduce my carbon footprint, I won't have $10 for a movie. (Oh, yeah, before you ask, I also managed to get straight A's in the half-dozen economics classes I took in college.) I'm not afraid of models that try to predict the future when we can control all the elements and all the relationships are established. I can predict that when I flip a switch that the light will turn on. But I don't agree with people who make exaggerated claims about the future when we have no evidence that shows such a theory can be extrapolated into the future.

[jordanis.livejournal.com]

I am vaguely bemused at the people treating the trademarked color thing like it's news. Coca-Cola trademarked their shade of red fifty or more years ago.

[2dlife.livejournal.com]

What's wrong with trademarked colors? Trademarks are there to protect the company in cases where a single visual image is so strongly associated with the brand that it's essentially a brand identity. If every time you see the specific color combination you associate it with Redbull (or T mobile) then it's a valid trademark.

Way back when, Nutrasweet sued Equal because the latter was using pink "sugar" packets, even though the shade of pink was slightly different and the logo and design was entirely different. It was a successful suit because the pink sugar packet was strongly associated with Nutrasweet who had built the brand and Equal was forced to use pale blue.

[silveradept]

Okay, so people can take entire colors out of the domain because they happened to make a catchy logo with them? That seems extraordinarily unfair. I can understand the color in conjunction with the logo, but this article makes it seem like the colors themselves are what's being trademarked. Will one of the ribbon magnet people start suing the others for trademark infringement because they have a yellow ribbon?

[2dlife.livejournal.com]

The yellow ribbon is already trademarked of sorts: it's strongly associated with bringing people home. I'd even argue that it's a specific shade of pale yellow. Taxicab yellow ribbons would feel off.

I'd argue that not all colors can be trademarked, but colors that strongly associated with their respective brands should be. They're not being taken entirely off the domain, they can be used in other logos, just not with the other color part of the trademark.

Here's a better example, Maize and Blue. Do you think you can identify UM by those two colors, what about those specific shades of yellow and blue? Now what if Ohio State wanted to switch school colors to those specific maize and blue colors, even with an entirely different logo. What if, they decide that when their football team is doing well, they'll wear the scarlet and grey and when they're losing they'll wear maize and blue (not that I'd mind :P). Should UM have the right to protect their use of that color combination?

[silveradept]

I don't know if they have the right to protect their colors, but they do, that much I know. I suppose that dilution of a name or product, or intent to cause confusion between products is good grounds for trademarking ("Wibsters?"). I just wonder whether those colors can/should only be trademarked within the boundaries of the logos or designs that they are a part of. Whether accurate or not, this still gives off the idea that a particular shade of the spectrum is off-limits for anyone else to use.

[2dlife.livejournal.com]

But branding extends well beyond the scope of where the logos rest. You can identify a Michigan football player by his uniform even if the logo were removed. Thus those colors are fair game for branding and thus arguably for trademark.

[silveradept]

Well, the helmet, maybe, which is probably another trademarked design. The uniform itself, if you removed all the fonts and lettering and presented a logoless jersey... maybe. The color helps to make it unique, but it's not the whole thing. If you were talking about medical professionals, though, I can see where the idea of the color being integral to the identification holds up. So yeah, there are reasons to trademark particular colors, I guess. I just never really thought that a concept like "this wavelength of the visible light spectrum" was a trademarkable thing.

[2dlife.livejournal.com]

The analogy is better served with a team with a blank helmet... Navy, perhaps?

[silveradept]

Does Navy have a golden dome? If they do, doesn't Notre Dame do the same?

[annaonthemoon.livejournal.com]

I don't think Ohio State would be able to say "Maize and Blue", as I'm pretty sure the phrase is trademarked to U-M, at least, the stickers I have that say "Maize and Blue" on them have the trademark note on them.

[2dlife.livejournal.com]

Fair enough, but those exact colors. (Not a generic yellow, but the specific shade of yellow that Michigan uses.)

Also, heck, if you can trademark words, why are you so concerned about colors? (Everything is generalizable.)

[greyweirdo.livejournal.com]

It's got a lot to do with not wanting someone to mistake your product for another companies product or even worse mistake another companies product for yours.

With the sugar packets it's a matter of what and where things are being used. If you reach for a pink packet, you have the expectation of getting Nutrasweet. If you reach for a pale blue packet you have the expectation of getting Equal. If someone else came along and started using a different shade of blue, you might still expect the blue packet to be Equal even though it's a different shade, grab some packets and use them. Then, when your coffee tastes bad, you'd think there was something wrong with Equal and stop using it (in their minds) and never really check the packet to be sure you got the right stuff.

It's about the color in conjunction with the product in most places.

Yellow ribbons would be very hard to try and copyright and it would be very likely that they'd get denied because it would be almost impossible to enforce such a restriction.

[silveradept]

Color in conjunction with something, like a logo or design, makes much more sense than the color itself, which seems to be what the implication is. Maybe I'm just reading it wrong.

[greyweirdo.livejournal.com]

It's all about reasonable expectation. Can a person reasonably be expected to think that a light blue packet would contain Equal? If yes, then Equal can copyright the light blue packet for use in their sweeteners. Can a person reasonably be expected to know that Red Bull has a specific shade of red and blue? Can a person reasonably be expected to know that an all red can with a swoop on it should contain Coca Cola and should it be resonably expected that if a person saw a can that wasn't coke but was red with the swoop that they would confuse it with a can of Coca Cola? If the answer is yes to the last question, then Coke can have a copyright. even though it's just a color and a swoop, which isn't even really a logo.

[2dlife.livejournal.com]

That's what a trademark is, design in conjunction with product. Trademarking brown (as UPS has done) doesn't mean you can't use it when selling coffee, it just means you can't use it when selling shipping or copying services.

Trademarks are only valid in the appropriate sector.

[annaonthemoon.livejournal.com]

I thought Equal was the nutrasweet company. Sweet and Low is the pink packets.

[2dlife.livejournal.com]

Oh right, I get them mixed up.

[annaonthemoon.livejournal.com]

So who sued who?

[2dlife.livejournal.com]

Pink was first, I think.

[urbankotq.livejournal.com]

A writers' strike?! Oh no! Now all the sitcoms won't be funny or engaging at all!

Oh, wait.

[greyweirdo.livejournal.com]

My thoughts exactly.

[annaonthemoon.livejournal.com]

The thing with booting up a program without the computer would be great. My old Toshiba could play CDs that way through controls on the front, but it was sort of a pointless feature. I'd love to be able to just get into Firefox to check mail at an airport, or load up the dvd player to watch a dvd on an airplane.

[redrab.livejournal.com]

I'd say your blog had an exceptionally good day ;)

[silveradept]

Only because I linked to something that people ahve strong feelings about.