Fonte:HDblogMobile

If you have a Last.fm account (music lovers, check out what it's all about here), just plug it into this site and watch it bring up YouTube videos that correlate with your fave tunes!  Love it!

It was awesome. I have to honestly say it was the best of all of the batman movies. Heath ledger gives an amazing performance. Most of the movie I forgot it was him. Seeing this movie and the absolutely amazing performance he gave makes me that much more sad that he died. He could have had a long and insanely successful career.

Christian Bale (batman) on the other hand bothers me. He talks like a drunk person when he's wearing the batman suit. He whispers very loudly and and it sounds as if his mouth is full of spit. It's distracting and bothersome. But he's a hottie so it's ok. And the movie is mostly about Harvey Dent. They really don't show him too much in the trailers. The trailers make it seem like the entire movie is about the joker. He really isn't in the movie much. Maybe 30-35 minutes of the 2hr and 20min. movie but when he is you can't take your eyes off of him. He's that great.There are definitely some surprises and some insanely cool scenes.

Oh and all of you who are familiar with Chicago have fun spotting landmarks! There are a ton of them. I was living there when they were filming but I unfortunately was not able to make it downtown to be an extra. It would've been awesome. I did get to see pieces of the movie on the local news as they were filming. They made the Brachs Candy building into Gotham hospital and blew it up! It was pretty funny to see it on the news made to look like Gotham hospital. They also changed signs and turned the old Chicago post office building into Gotham National Bank. There were Gotham city police and swat vehicles around town. In march there were people campaigning for Harvey Dent downtown. They handed out buttons and stickers as if he was a real politician until the police stopped them. You can clearly make out upper and lower wacker drive, the Chicago river and LaSalle street. There is also a clear shot of what appears to be a Illinois license plate.

Well if you can go see it. It is well worth the $9.50! If you've been living under a rock and have no idea what i'm rambling on about here is one of the trailers. Awesome. Seriously.

]]> http://crookedspoke.wordpress.com/?p=326 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 04:51:05 +0000 Tom http://crookedspoke.wordpress.com/?p=326 I've ranted against IP in the past. I'd imagine most of my left-libbin' agree with the general thrust of my anti-IP position, so I am most likely preaching to the choir. But, this one is sick:

Lenz, whose case reached a critical stage Friday, finds herself at the heart of an epic copyright fight over Universal Music's attempt to force her to take down a YouTube video of her toddler learning to walk with the Prince song "Let's Go Crazy" blaring in the background.

Now, it's easy to joke that the only crime is making the poor toddler listen to Prince. All kidding aside, though, I watched the video, and I don't see what the fuss is about. It's clear that the video doesn't step on any IP Baron's toes. People aren't going to rip the audio from this video as a proxy for buying some shitty Prince album. So you can immediately throw any royalties argument you may be tempted to make.

It's not as if Prince and, for that matter, Universal's head muckety-mucks are going to be unable to eat because of this low-quality 30-second video. To be honest, had it not been for this story and the title of the video, I doubt I could have identified the static-laden song in the background.

Now, on to the macro picture. The music industry is getting closer and closer to jumping the shark. Piracy is rampant, and customers are demanding a change in the business model. Namely, they want one that entails downloading a few songs one likes rather than purchase of $20 CDs (CDs are increasingly an inconvenience these days, especially for people of my generation).

Facing declining record sales and a threat to its income stream that is difficult to fight (that is, the internet), the RIAA, MPAA, and the record labels are rolling out the litigation gun and clanking their sabers. The purpose? It is not exactly to recoup royalties caused by piracy in the past. No, the purpose of the displays of power by the RIAA, MPAA, and similar associations is to scare enough people out of piracy that the royalty gravy train stays running.

The biggest problem, though, is that - as much as the Industry is looking like a bunch of spoiled pricks - most people still defend at least the notion of intellectual property, even if they openly hold contempt for the gunboat tactics of the recording industry kingpins. All in all, take-down requests like these are the logical outgrowth of granting intellectual property.

Dick Hoyt would.  Together they've completed 224 Triathlons (including six Ironmans),  65 marathons, including 25 Boston marathons, and many other events for a total of 958 events as of January 31, 2008.

Here is my collection of Dick and Rick Hoyt, Team Hoyt, videos on YouTube.  An absolutely amazing story of true, divine love.  I'm a musician, I've chosen the videos set to my favorite Christian songs.

I Know That My Redeemer Lives

I CAN Only Imagine

When God Ran

Their story, from the Ironman DVD

http://www.teamhoyt.com/

Seu último post me fez lembrar de um stand up show da Ellen Degeneres.

Eu tenho um sério problema de procrastinação. My former shrink likes to call it ADD. So I gave up on therapy.

Eu até podia colocar todos os vídeos aqui (a big joke só acontece se você assistir o show todo)... but I'd stall you 'till God knows when...

Ok, a segunda parte é boa (she REALLY should have a word with that shrink). Just crazy people.

I'm kinda addicted to stand up shows lately...

And why the hell I write in English when drunk?

(via quomodocumque)

At YouTube, this video is labelled, "Sex Talk - For Girls Like Jamie Lynn Spears".

Tana Ganeva at AlterNet:

PETA has always caught flak for its publicity campaigns, which often seem to elevate the wellbeing of animals above the wellbeing of women. In the eighties the organization got tons of media attention by flinging blood at women in fur coats; they also earned criticisms from feminist groups for not dishing out the same treatment to men wearing leather. More recently PETA has earned the ire of feminists for using pornographic images of women to push their agenda as well as for their recurrent and ever-tasteful campaigns comparing women to livestock.

The animal rights group is certain to grab headlines with their new ad, which calls attention to the importance of neutering pets by parodying the parental sex talk. The ad opens with a surly teen girl sighing loudly as her parents plant themselves on her bed wearing "We need to talk about sex" expressions.

Mom: Honey, we need to talk ...

Dad: ... about sex. We think you should be having it sweetie.

Mom: A lot of it.

Dad: Get out there and nail everything you can!

[ ... ]

Teen girl: What if I get pregnant?"

Dad: So what? You should pop out all the kids you want! We can leave them in the shelter, dump them out in the street ... it's really not important.

The ad closes with, "Parents shouldn't act this way. Neither should people with dogs and cats."

The ad is really well-made and funny; it also does a great job skewering our weird, schizophrenic discomfort with teen sexuality. Another plus is that at no point is the girl entrapped, naked, in a cage, a la previous PETA efforts to shed light on animal cruelty. All in all it is not as offensive as it could be: way to go PETA, for putting out an ad that doesn't involve the symbolic slaughter of women.

So I don't think the ad is blatantly or egregiously misogynistic.

But in light of PETA's history and the feminist criticisms leveled at the organization, is it really necessary for them to equate teen girls with animals, even though they do it in a tongue-in-cheek way? The joke still works with a boy, so why did they opt to use a girl?

It's also pretty clear that PETA is capitalizing on the recent media frenzy over teen pregnancy (see Jamie Lynn Spears/Gloucester pregnancy "pact"/ etc.) And part of the reason the ad is funny and effective, is because the sexuality of teen girls is the object of societal freak-outs in a way that male sexuality is not. (In the Gloucester teen pregnancy story, there wasn't too much media discussion about all those boys dumb and fucked-up enough to have unprotected sex with girls who weren't on birth control).  [This is me: if anybody saw any discussion of boys having unprotected sex on that Gloucester story, please drop a link in the comments]

The figure of the pregnant teen elicits all sorts of screwed-up reactions (paternalism, derision, moralizing, to name a few) that are rooted in larger messed-up assumptions about female sexuality. And the PETA ad certainly doesn't contribute much to the very difficult and complex topic of teen pregnancy. Here's a small but telling case-in-point: The top result for the ad on YouTube is titled "PETA sex talk -- For girls like Jamie Lynn Spears." What kind of girls? Slutty girls?

What do you think? Is the ad another example of PETA trafficking in sexist assumptions to push their agenda? Or is it a funny, harmless way to get an important point across?

I think the add is blatantly and egregiously misogynist.  For all the reasons above.  And because the ad moves directly from a discussion with a young woman to the message "Always Spay or Neuter".  I don't think it would be saved if it said "Always Spay or Neuter Your Cats and Dogs".   But it doesn't even say that.  So parents, just spay those girls and everything will work out fine?  Lovely.

I'm sure most of you will already have figured this out, but the ad just wouldn't work if the young woman was replaced with a young man, as Ganeva suggests.  Although some young men and their families accept the responbility of a teen pregnancy, many more do not.  The very fact that young men have a "choice" would suggest an alternative to neutering them (no, I can't believe I said that).

I realize that the ad is trying to create a "ridiculous" analogy.  The problem is, the analogy grabs its power from its misogyny - fear of women's reproductivity, fertility and myths about the general sluttishness of young women who are not controlled by authority.  As YouTubers have clearly figured out - the "Jamie Lynn Spears" tag. 

Just as egregious is the fact that the ad ignores the fact that the use of protective measures is not necessary only to prevent pregnancy, but also, and just as importantly, to prevent  people from getting and spreading sexually transmitted diseases.  Of course, the whole thing wouldn't work if the advertiser took that into account.  See?  Spaying young women just wouldn't ...  really  ... work.  Did I say that?

 So yeah, I find it "blatantly and egregiously" misogynist and I find it difficult to see why Tana Ganeva doesn't, since she gets most of the problems.

Oh yeah, and the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy would be the only reason a parent might not tell a child to go out and "nail everything you can".

Just to let you know that I did not pwn my phone because it was pwned before.

My iPhone was:

1) On customized firmware 1.1.4

2) Unlocked with Rogers (In Canada)

Special thanks to the iPhone Dev Team. I would never have an iPhone if it wasn't for you guys!

It's exactly the same except with different players.

Even Project Runway Canada isn't as much of a clone as Project Runway Australia is...but I don't really care. I like it better this way.

Mimicking the original Project Runway very closely, the designers are asked to meet host, Kristy Hinze, and mentor, Henry Roth, up on the roof.

"I want to see the passion in your fashion," Henry tells them -- which seems a smidge corny.

I mean, I know all Project Runway mentors must feel like they need some sort of catch phrase that rivals, "Make it work!", but "I want to see the passion in your fashion" just makes me want to squeeze the bridge of my nose, close my eyes and say, "Please don't."

Kristy announces that the first challenge is at the Whitehouse Institute of Design, where the desingers will be working.

Draped all along the four-storey staircase in the entrance of the Whitehouse is fabric that the designers must choose from to create a glamorous gown that represents their style.

Since the Whitehouse is only three kilometres away from their new home, the designers are told that the first designer to get to the Whitehouse will get the best pick of the fabrics.

"First in is best dressed," Henry tells them.

I'm sure this is a ploy to have an Amazing Race-style sprint -- a few people even got lost on the way there and wound up tottering through the doors in their crazy heels just as Henry yelled there was only five minutes left.

It was pretty crazy.

Mark tells the camera that he felt like an Asian lady haggling for bananas in Vietnam -- and I just really hope that he winds up staying in the competition for as long as possible....even if his clothes wind up looking like shit.

He just reminds me of Christian Siriano, the winner of Project Runway Season 4 -- weird ass hair and everything!

Helen, a "frocker", causes some serious claws to come out when she sweeps up her stuff and announces she's heading off to the sewing room and that when she's done, she's going to lie on the couch and catch up on some sleep.

"Maybe it wasn't her intention, but she came off as gloating like some gloaty-gloatressen," Deborah, the fashion lecturer, says.

(Had another moment where I had to breathe and pinch the bridge of my nose. Why does the Asian chick have to come off sounding like a royal beeyotch who doesn't know English, making up stupid words like that? It just makes me embarrassed for our people.)

"You know, for someone who clams to be the 'frocker', I think Helen's dress is seriously not runway-worthy," Leigh cattily comments.

When Henry enters the workroom, I sit up a little straighter in interest because this is really our first chance to see him in action as a mentor.

You know what?

I think I really like Henry.

Like Brian Bailey from Project Runway Canada, Henry really guides instead of taking over and actually redesigning or helping designers to do their work. (Hello, Ben de Lisi, anyone?)

When Allison starts talking about doing a short little dress, he simply asks her, "What about that says evening wear to you?"

It's not exactly criticism, but Allison deflates and "jokes" about how he's shot her down and broke her down.

"No more shutting down. Pick yourself up -- don't be so dramatic," he tells her.

And just like that, I think, "I love you."

"Make the reality happen!" he tells another designer, after looking at his sketch.

See? Practical advice.

Leigh outright admits he was pissed off after hearing Henry's comments, but I'm glad he actually considered what Henry had to tell him.

He even realizes that Henry might have been right and admits that he is now eating humble pie as a result.

He was on point, though, when he commented that Helen was out-of-her-mind for helping Brent with his sewing because she noticed that he was behind.

I mean, yes, it's a nice thing to do, but why do people forget they're in a competition?

Allison, like Stella in the US version, comments on how the worst thing in the world would be getting kicked off first. And every time I hear something like that, I always wonder if it'll be slightly prophetic.

When the runway show starts, though, and I see her model appear in a hot pink mess of clashing fabrics thrown together in what is clearly not a glamourous evening gown, I can't help but think that she's probably the most obvious choice to go home.

"To me, this looks like an old dress -- like a retiree in Miami," judge Jayson Brunsdon says.

He's right. You've got an awful bold floral print with two huge floaty sleeves made of pink sheer fabric ("Elderly pink", Jayson calls it) attached to it and then an odd little vest made out of yet another design.

The poor model looks bored and uncomfortable in the dress she's been forced to wear.

Judge Sarah Gale proves to be a fair and knowledgable critic, applauding Shane for his grecian design, but questioning his use of velvet, since it's a heavy fabric that's not exactly made for draping.

The dress, however, is gorgeous.

Leigh's gown is also gorgeous -- the judges quickly pick up on his bodice and he can't help but laugh sheepishly and admit that it was Henry's suggestion to bone the bodice and pick it apart to reconstruct it.

I have to say -- his model, Yumika, looks exquisite. She's perfectly styled in this dress which the judges feel is very reminiscent of Vivienne Westwood.

And the thing is, I have to admit: I hate 95% of Vivienne Westwood's designs, so I'm a little shocked that I'm actually liking an outfit that the judges deem Vivienne Westwood-esque.

The judges, however, really impress me -- they provide extremely constructive criticism that the designers will be able to take away and work on...whereas, as much as I love Michael Kors and to a much lesser degree, Nina Garcia, I do feel that they're sort of moving into snobbish territory where they'll criticize but don't back up their comments with real feedback.

When Jayson tells Oren that, with the time constraints that the desingers are working under, it's best to focus on something that's working and tailor it to perfection as opposed to adding more bells and whistles.

Another designer's dress receives kudos but Sarah mentions that the hem isn't completely finished and that as a result, she would not buy that garment if she saw it in the store.

"An unfinished hem is unacceptable," she tells yet another designer.

In the end, Leigh wins the challenge and Allison is booted out.

My apologies for not having any pictures -- while Arena's siteis nicely laid out, it is not as in-depth or good as that of Project Runway or Project Runway Canada.

In place of the pictures, I give you the episode via Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7PCHp1fWoI

-Jack

hier noch zwei textbeispiele, die sicherlich auch für bibliothekar_innen von besonderer bedeutung sein können. den kompletten text zum nachlesen gibt es beim chaosradio ctv125.

Rache für die gebrochenen Versprechen von IT
Eure Dinger funktionieren nie, nie funktionieren die, nie!
Rache für die gebrochenen Versprechen von IT
Für jede Minute die ein User verliert um rauszukriegen wie
Eure vermurkste Menüführung nicht funktioniert
Heißt nein, nicht er ist zu blöd, Ihr habt es nicht kapiert!
[...]
Rache für die gebrochenen Versprechen von IT
Die Daten der DD-Disketten der 80er sind nicht mehr zu retten wie?
Rache für die gebrochenen Versprechen von IT
Ein Fall für die digitale Archäologie! Mein geliebter Atari! 

Doch der vermeintlich unaufhaltsame Verfall veralteter Daten
allenthalben ist nicht fatal
Er ist kein Naturgesetz
Er ist menschliches Machwerk merkantil durchdachtes
Knallhartes Killerkalkül Kill Kill Kill Killer kalkül
Koll Koll Koll Kollateralschaden dabei ist:
Die millionenfache Vernichtung von Individualgeschichte

At some time in that game, you may find a camera - not one of those security video cameras, I mean "camera" as small photographic device. It's a hidden feature, and it has no particular "usage" on the game, you have no objectives to accomplish using the camera, you can't really use it to make your life as a spy easier, it's really just for fun.
I used to just take shots from soldiers asleep on the job but the guy from the video goes totally overboard with this thing, and creates really different situations just to take a neat shot.

TRANSLATION TO PORTUGUESE | TRADUÇÃO PARA O PORTUGUÊS

Metal Gear é uma série famosa de jogos de espionagem-tática aonde você controla um super-espião infiltrando uma base inimiga. O jogo é bem divertido, e o Metal gear 3 é um dos jogos mails legais que eu joguei no PlayStation 2.

Em algum ponto do jogo, você encontra uma câmera - não uma daquelas de segurança, quero dizer um aparelho fotográfico portátil. É uma daquelas coisas escondidas que não tem muita utilidade para o jogo - não existe nenhum objetivo a ser completado usando essa câmera, não existe jeito de facilitar suas missões usando ela, é simplesmente só por diversão.

Eu costumava tirar fotos de soldados dormindo no serviço, mas o cara desse vídeo vai muito além, e cria umas situações realmente diferentes só para tirar uma boa foto.

Panky!

She says "Delicious! A new brand of chocolate"

Sus sobrinos se lo agradeceran :)

According to legal experts, YouTube's response is likely to go something like this: "How are we supposed to know what's copyright material and what isn't?" The site is a promotional tool for scores of TV networks and movie studios, which often post their own videos.

The battle royal began in early 2007 when Viacom accused Google, YouTube's parent company, of violating copyright law. Soon after, Viacom hit Google with a $1 billion lawsuit.

The case could now become a landmark and answer a major question in online video, said Mark Litvack, an entertainment lawyer with Los Angeles-based Manatt, Phelps & Phillips.

"Who has the obligation of monitoring Web sites for copyright violations," Litvack said. "Is it the copyright owner who must police sites and be required to send takedown notices, or should Web sites be forced to filter for copyright material?"

Employee data easier to get than users'
The two companies are in the discovery phase of their litigation, when each is supposed to turn over relevant information to the other. On Monday night, the two sides announced they had finally agreed that YouTube would mask YouTube's user information, such as usernames and IP addresses, before handing it over to Viacom. Now, a new disagreement looms on the horizon.
The two sides have been sparring over whether Google must give up information on which videos YouTube employees watch and upload to the site, two sources told CNET News this weekend. Google will unlikely succeed at blocking Viacom from obtaining at least some of this information, said Wendy Seltzer, a fellow with Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society.

"It's arguably more relevant to the litigation (than the user records) because it would be part of what Viacom is trying to prove," Seltzer said. "If the records show that YouTube had knowledge, or the records fail to show that knowledge, then that would be relevant to Viacom's case."

From Google's perspective, what's at stake here is YouTube's protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The DMCA's Safe Harbor provision shields Internet service providers from being held responsible for illegal acts committed by users. But to qualify for the harbor, a company can't have knowledge of copyright violations and must quickly remove infringing material when notified by a copyright owner.

Viacom has maintained that YouTube's pirate treasure isn't buried. The copyright material is impossible to miss, the media conglomerate maintains. The parent company of MTV and Comedy Central will no doubt argue it's inconceivable that YouTube is unaware of the infringing content on its site.

Who can argue that YouTube isn't home to countless clips from feature films and TV shows?

In April, I tooled around YouTube for a half hour and found clips from the last five Academy Award winners in the best picture category, including Million Dollar Baby, No Country For Old Men and a 10-minute clip from the opening of The Departed. As of Tuesday, the clip still appears on the site.

Could YouTube lose DMCA protection?
But just knowing that the videos exist at YouTube may not qualify as infringement. How can YouTube managers be expected to determine which clips are unauthorized?

It's simple to argue that everybody knows The Godfather is owned by Paramount, a Viacom company. But what about the unlimited number of lesser-known works?
How would YouTube determine the ownership of a small independent film or Ecuadorian soap opera?

"This is why the burden of finding (copyright violations) should be on the (copyright owners)," Seltzer said. "We really don't want to put the service providers in the middle. Viacom and rights holders are in the best position to determine what they own."

As for the costs of monitoring YouTube, Seltzer said that whatever it is, "it's just the cost of our intellectual property system...I don't think that copyright owners should be able to outsource the enforcement burden to service providers."

As for what kind of damage to YouTube's case may occur if employees are found to have watched pirated videos, the answer is that it could be very minimal. The judge is likely to look at how much illegal video was viewed by how many employees and ask whether it was bad faith or not, said Seltzer.

What could prove much more damaging, however, is if Viacom uncovers proof that YouTube's employees uploaded unauthorized clips as part of their duties. To those copyright holders, who have wondered for years whether YouTube's workers were violating copyright, this would be a smoking gun.

Direct copyright infringement could undermine YouTube's DMCA claims, according to Litvack.

"Red-flag knowledge"
Here's another scenario that could drastically change the color of the case. What if YouTube finds that Philippe Dauman, Viacom's CEO or Stephen Colbert, host of Viacom's The Colbert Report uploaded clips to YouTube?

YouTube has always said that big media corporations have split personalities when it comes to YouTube. Their marketing departments might beg YouTube to promote their shows or movies one day and the next day the same company's lawyers might demand YouTube pull them down.

If it's determined that Viacom employees uploaded videos, then those clips were authorized and there's no copyright violation, Seltzer said. She added that in such a scenario, YouTube could argue Viacom prevented YouTube from discerning between authorized and unauthorized clips.

"YouTube is going to say that (Viacom's uploading) was an implied license," she said. "YouTube might argue that it couldn't have had red-flag knowledge about (all the other Viacom videos) because it knew to the contrary that the copyright holder wanted some of them posted."

It should be noted here that employees from neither YouTube nor Viacom have ever been accused of uploading clips to video-sharing sites.

At this point, there's no telling who has the upper hand in this case. Nobody knows whether the DMCA covers a user-generated video site like YouTube. Is it really a service provider or an entertainment site wrongfully profiting from the work of copyright owners?

Google's YouTube did get some good news this week. Internet auctioneer eBay fended off a trademark infringement lawsuit filed by Tiffany & Co.

Trademark is different from copyright law but the arguments are surprisingly similar. The jeweler accused eBay of profiting from sales of counterfeit Tiffany goods, but the judge in the case found that it's up to brand owners to police for phony products.

Will the courts determine the same for copyright holders?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-9992191-93.html?tag=nefd.lede

Yours,
Jack

I don't even have anything to write about now.  I just feel like I should.  I'm listening to Journey, talking to friends on AIM, and trying to get the cat to stop stepping all over my keyboard.  A very exciting existence.

I guess the reason I can't seem to get myself to write on this thing is because I don't really care to share my opinions about things.  I always feel like I'm not informed enough to talk about the things I feel.

I'm an Obama supporter, but I don't think I know enough about politics to support my choice.  I always find myself getting caught in conversations about who I do and do not support and I can never give a reason why, and I get eaten alive by whoever I'm talking to.

I'm pro-choice, but don't like getting in arguments about it.  A baby is a huge life changer, and if a woman isn't ready for that change, or got pregnant in a situation that was against her will, she should have the right to terminate the pregnancy.

I'm a celebrity gossip whore.  I visit PerezHilton.com every day.

I'm obsessed with YouTube.  But, I don't think it's a good way to get "discovered."  People who open YouTube accounts solely to get a recording contract or a big acting deal should probably actually try to make a living in that field first.  It's a cop-out way to "make it big."

I hate MySpace but I love Facebook.  I just wish they hadn't opened up Facebook to anyone other than college students.

I hate people that are considered to be "awesome" because they play the guitar.  But I wish I could play.  Pianos just aren't as portable.

I go to PostSecret.com every week.  Reading other people's secrets makes me feel better about my own.

I guess that's enough for now.  This is probably what my blog will end up being.  Little list-like installments of my thoughts and opinions.  I guess it could be worse...right?

A documentary about a man-boy with Down (UP!) Syndrome, made by his childhood friend, Duane Graves. Sooo funny & enlightening! Watch this:

[[http://www.trisomyfilms.com/upsyndrome.html]]

[[http://www.duanegraves.com]]