‘Star Trek’ terrorists killed bin Laden

via Wikipedia

German TV: ‘Star Trek’ terrorists killed bin Laden | Technically Incorrect – CNET News
[Via cnet]

Sometimes our eyes are wide shut. In moments when we think we see one thing, we see quite another.

This often happens when our emotions are high and our thinking faculties subdued.

Sympathy, therefore, must be ladled toward the German news station N24, which was extremely keen to tell the world about last week’s killing of Osama bin Laden by the U.S. Navy’s SEAL Team Six.

Unfortunately, in its haste to offer a SEAL logo, someone at the station actually mustered the logo of the “Star Trek” Maquis Special Operations Seals Team VI–a bunch of nasty little 24th century terrorists.

[More]

That is what a German news show said and the article shows a picture to go with this.

The actual insignia looks like simply the SEAL Trident above the Roman numeral 6. The eagle is holding a trident and a flintlock pistol.

The Star Trek mistake they made inserts a phaser for the flintlock.

In one day we have connections between both Star Wars and Star Trek to the same recent event. It says something about the mythic aspects of those to works of fiction and to their continuing impact on the global mind.

In 1000 years, all this will be confabulated like the Trojan War was with Homer.

Good parody almost writes itself – Obi- Wan is Dead

Star Wars-Osama Bin Laden-New York Times parody/mashup
[Via Boing Boing]

Galactic Empire Times.

[More]

Thanks goodness for Fair Use. Read the whole thing. It is just delicious. The writing is just a rank and turgid as the original.

This sentence for instance, which could serve as a possible Bulwer-Lytton entry,:

In a late-night appearance in the East Room of the Imperial Palace, Lord Vader declared that “justice has been done” as he disclosed that agents of the Imperial Army and stormtroopers of the 501st Legion had finally cornered Kenobi, one of the leaders of the Jedi rebellion, who had eluded the Empire for nearly two decades.

Just try to diagram that sentence.

And it is  followed by this Hemingwayesque one:

Imperial officials said Kenobi resisted and was cut down by Lord Vader’s own lightsaber.

It’s actually more like they just took a NYT article and simply did a search and replace.

But the comments are where the real effort is. There are the “where’s the body conspiracy people.” The cry to bring home the stormtrooper’s from the Outer Rim. The old stuff about Vader’s birth certificate and who his father really was. Complaints about the new paywall. Vader taking all the credit instead of it going rightly to Palpatine. Why hasn’t Vader lowered the price to fill up a landspeeder.

And I really think the comments are some added by real people. I might give them a try.

 

As we become China, some win while the rest of us lose

by Elsie esq.

Revised ‘Net censorship bill requires search engines to block sites, too
[Via Ars Technica]

Surprise! After months in the oven, the soon-to-be-released new version of a major US Internet censorship bill didn’t shrink in scope—it got much broader. Under the new proposal, search engines, Internet providers, credit card companies, and ad networks would all have cut off access to foreign “rogue sites”—and such court orders would not be limited to the government. Private rightsholders could go to court and target foreign domains, too.

As for sites which simply change their domain name slightly after being targeted, the new bill will let the government and private parties bring quick action against each new variation.

Get ready for the “PROTECT IP Act.”

[More]

We will be censoring the Internet, prohibiting access to websites possibly based simply on the claims of a single business. There have already been instances of our own government shutting down access to sites for just linking to what they determine are offending sites – often without any judicial oversight .

Now companies might be able to accomplish the same sort of thing through only their own say-so. Imagine if searching for a site online was fruitless due solely to the words of a record company.

It seems to me that this is a possibility of this law. Better for the intermediaries to be safe than sorry. You have only to look at Facebook’s response to a complaint against Ars Technica – the very site I am quoting. Facebook erased the page of one of the largest tech publishers on the Internet solely based on an anonymous entity. Nothing else but someone’s word.

Ars Technica was able to use its bully pulpit to get a remedy. Not so for so many other groups that are just screwed by this procedure.

Facebook apparently never did reveal why someone complained about copyright infringement.

Now think about what could have happened if a similar complainant was able to not only shut down access to Ars Technica – or even my site – but also erase their presence from search engine.

Because this law ‘protects’ agencies that take pre-emptive action, being safe is what will likely happen. Search engines will just remove the sites and then let the courts deal with it, rather than the other way around. Guilty until proven innocent would be the rules..

Whereas China often censors the Internet to protect its political interests, the US may now be in the process of censoring the Internet purely for a few of its business interests. I guess we will know who really runs the country if this passes.

Over 100 years ago, we created  the Copyright Act to protect musicians from piano music rolls for player pianos.

Laws were used 100 years ago in an attempt to protect interests threatened by a new technology. We see this again today. 100 years ago the threat was the mechanical reproduction of music. Today it is the digital reproduction of music.

Business models were threatened then and new laws were used to bolster these models rather than adapting. They lost then and they will lose now. But their efforts live on and can often harm society.

Even after the threat of piano music rolls disappeared,  copyright laws are finally finishing what was started  100 years ago – destroying the ability of people to listen to the music from piano music rolls. Some live performances may be lost forever to society because of what was done 100 years ago to protect just a few.

I wonder what we will lose in the future because a few are allowed to create new laws to protect themselves at the cost to society?

Hold it a minute on the salt study

by Alicia Nijdam

Confusion over new salt research
[Via Health News from NHS Choices]

“Salt is GOOD for you,” according to claims in the Daily Mail, which challenged conventional health advice by suggesting that “eating more could even lower the chances of heart disease”.

However, these claims are somewhat unjustified as they are based on a study that actually looked at a one-off measure of salt in people’s urine rather than in their diet. The research looked at 3,700 people’s urinary salt levels and then followed them for nearly eight years to look at their risk of high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease (CVD) and related deaths.

[More]

There are many things about this study to be concerned about. For most people in the study, their salt levels were determined by a single measure of salt in the urine – not their blood and only a single day.

They were then followed for several years. The small number of cardiovascular deaths (84) were matched with the salt levels seen on a single day up to 7 years earlier.

That is where the hype from the media comes in. The low salt group had more deaths. The high salt group has less.

But, is urinary salt levels from one day actually a useful measure of blood salt levels over a lifetime?  Could urinary salt levels have more to do with hydration or kidney function than blood salt levels? Was there any change in the urinary salt levels as time when on – perhaps those who died and started low actually went high over the time period? That it was a change in salt excretion levels that is a hallmark.

And, at best this work only applies to white Europeans and cannot be applied to anyone else.

This is an interesting result but still preliminary enough to wait for better data. But media headlines pronounce certainty that salt is good for you. No wonder people get confused.