Edit: Corrected a typo just in case anyone thinks I'm alleging Google unleashes the lawyers on 100,000 people a day (thanks to Dave for the spot)
Last night Mr Bloom denied indulging in any sexual harassment, specifically rejecting the claim that he touched the student's leg, and said he would consult lawyers on the issue. He added: "I was not sitting at her table. My wife was at the dinner, there was no impropriety. The whole thing is complete and total nonsense. It has been concocted. She is following a political agenda. It was a grotesque abuse of hospitality."
However he did not deny making all the comments cited and, when asked if he had said "big tits, very feisty", Mr Bloom replied: "Possibly".
By collecting flocks of pigeons in dense clusters, Google is able to process search queries at speeds superior to traditional search engines, which typically rely on birds of prey, brooding hens or slow-moving waterfowl to do their relevance rankings.And the only possible punchline is: I salute our new pigeon overlords.
When a search query is submitted to Google, it is routed to a data coop where monitors flash result pages at blazing speeds. When a relevant result is observed by one of the pigeons in the cluster, it strikes a rubber-coated steel bar with its beak, which assigns the page a PigeonRank value of one. For each peck, the PigeonRank increases. Those pages receiving the most pecks, are returned at the top of the user's results page with the other results displayed in pecking order.
When you enter the Forum, it's like leaping into all the demos in the world. Every well meaning little .org you can imagine and some more have camped. There's a Palm Court but, littered with thin people sleeping, extremist leaflets and beer cans, it looks like the revolution just happened and failed. Despite all, though, I couldn't help but feel that slowly rising edge of angry campaigning. Here are a swag of ideals and a world of banners. Here is friendly warm chaos. Here is optimism, and extremely poor translation.You should, as they say in the more erudite blogging circles, peruse it in its totality.
It lasted until we got into the action.
We had a couple of ideas of what we wanted to see, and maybe take part in - after all the wristbands say DELEGATE, not TOURIST. The mob at the "plenary" on Palestine was so huge and the podium yelling so offputting, though, that we ditched that one. We took a while to trace a seminar on "Ending the Occupation: Liberating Iraq". When we found it, it was in the grip of a string of manic ranters. First came a woman who turned on the panel with the mike, turning her back on the "DELEGATES!" who weren't among the initiate of her own grievance and yelling. Then, a succession of three SWP boys. No coincidence there. One railed wildly at the failings of a movement based on mass demonstrations. Strikes were the thing. His union? The National Union of Journalists. One can see the situation conference in Northwood. "..and the NUJ has refused to handle any war-related stories, sir. [Long, defeated pause] ....Well, Charlesworth, I suppose...this is the end...I think I shall telephone the Prime Minister and inform him that we must ask for an armistice."
STEWART: Yes. "How are you holding up?" is a real suck-up. And I actually giving him a hot stone massage as we were doing it.And despite not being an American, I think I know who his running mate should be:
CARLSON: It sounded that way. It did.
STEWART: You know, it's interesting to hear you talk about my responsibility.
CARLSON: I felt the sparks between you.
STEWART: I didn't realize that -- and maybe this explains quite a bit.
CARLSON: No, the opportunity to...
STEWART: ... is that the news organizations look to Comedy Central for their cues on integrity.
My only suggestions are that, if you do, don’t mention soccer (football). Also, resist the urge to include gratuitous insults about American beer (dishwater). This is a common cultural misunderstanding. Foreigners often assume that when Americans say “football” (“American football”) they mean “soccer” (“football”), and, similarly, when they say “beer” (“diluted old lady pee”) they mean “beer” (“beer”). This is a cultural misunderstanding which arises because foreigners are stupid. The American term “beer” (“tincture of ass milk”) refers to a completely different beverage than what other people call “beer,” which Americans call “yuppie beer”. If one approaches American beer (essence of Dennis Rodman’s gym socks) on its own terms, without the expectation that it has some relation to beer beer, it really isn’t that bad. And Canadian beer (distilled ichors of moose nads) is worse.Stewart/Editors in 2012!
: KILROY THREATENS TO SUEI can't help but laugh and wonder just what the permatanned fool thinks he's doing - the video on the site is from Chris Morris' Jam and thus, has been seen on national TV and available to buy in the shops for a good year or so - I have a copy sitting on my shelf right now. Now, I'm not a lawyer, but surely the person they should be threatening with legal action is the originator of this (Morris) or the broadcasting comany that put it on the air (Channel 4)? Or have they realised that would be messing with the big boys, so they're just threatening website owners instead?
Over silly web gag
A few months back we brought you Mystery Bob's
little bit of mischief. He'd taken a bit of
footage from a comedy DVD and stuck it online
with a domain name suspiciously similar to
the UK Independence Party.
They've got in touch. And they're not happy.
Tony Bennett, Research Assistant to Robert
"I represent Mr Kilroy-Silk and the U.K.
Independence Party. You are advised that your
site will be reported to the Police and we are
currently taking the advice of a libel barrister
as to its contents. I am a Solicitor as well as
a research assistant.
"You may wish to consider removing the site
So the battle is on. Should Mystery Bob
capitulate to legal threats? Or should he
stand strong and proud - free to mock silly
old fools who spout racist crap against Arabs?
The world is a weird, weird place -- full of psychotics who may or may not mean us harm. We need a President who can help us make our way through this maze of insanity. But, how do we pick such a person? That is the purpose of the Walken debate. The stage is a living room set with the candidates on a soft, uncomfortable couch. The lights are dim. Christopher Walken sits across from the candidates in a straight-backed chair.
I have lost count of the number of times I watched him hypnotise a Liberal Democrat Conference with his wisdom, his erudition and his radicalism.The Times recalls his interesting directions for visitors:
I served with him for six months on the Party's Public Services Policy Working Group and saw him at work first hand. Part of his magic was that no matter how much he outclassed us in the intelligence stakes, he was always willing to acknowledge a valid point of view and take it on board. He was never stuffy and never arrogant. He was a humane caring man and the world will be poorer for having lost him.
And his directions to his office in the House were unique. “Turn right before you reach the statue of my great-grandfather,” he advised visitors, “then walk down the corridor past the rather sentimental Victorian painting of the parting of Lord and Lady Russell.”The Guardian reminds us of how he appeared in the Lords:
To describe Conrad as an eccentric is inadequate, though there was plenty of that about him. Those observing him speaking in the chamber from the Lords' visitors gallery might easily have been transported back to 1850: the courtesy of his manner and his honed, elegant use of English being of a piece with his hawkish, distinguished stoop. Anyone seeing him coming or going from the House in a crumpled suit carrying supermarket bags bulging with papers would have been forgiven for not recognising the same man...While the Telegraph reminds us of his antipathy to Blair:
already ill, he dragged himself into the House on May 4 last spring to continue the good fight against what he saw as inhumane provisions of the asylum and immigration bill. His contribution that day was studded with quotes from the MP for Knaresborough in the 17th-century Long Parliament, from Sir Thomas Wentworth ("God deliver us from this arbitrary government") and, to balance the verbal feast, a quote from Goldfinger rebuking James Bond.
The following year, after Tony Blair claimed that he never gave money to beggars, Russell suggested in a letter to The Daily Telegraph that "he should remember that need may happen to anyone. Belisarius in his day was the best general in the Roman Empire, but ended up sitting at the gates of Rome chanting 'give a ha'penny to Belisarius'. If, after Mr Blair has reformed the welfare state and gone out of office at the moment his pension fund goes broke, I find him at King's Cross chanting 'give a tenner to Tony', I will give to him, even if my gorge rises at it".
According to this poll tracker, you (yes, you!) are on track to get almost as many votes as Ralph Nader in the Presidential race. As of this posting, you're only 1% behind Nader with three weeks to go. Taking into account the margin of error, you may actually be ahead of him (unless you're Alan Keyes, in which case you probably way behind). That's pretty good for someone who hasn't made it onto any ballots.I can't remember where I saw it (it was in a comments thread last night, I think) but someone pointed out that Nader is in with a good chance of coming fourth, behind Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik, who's actually on the ballot in more states (maybe all of them?) and is polling close to the Nader figure.
Better start working on that speech...
I believe his father, who was previously in the Ministry of Defence, is at present travelling between Vienna and Berlin, offering for sale bottles of a substance he professes to be red mercury to agents of countries whose names seem little more than the excreta of a romantic imaginationAnd then it turns out that red mercury - and, it seems, its non-existence - will be featured in next week's episode of Spooks.
in a large, pluralistic information society democracy will not work unless electronic media distribute reasonably accurate information and also competing opinions about political candidates to the entire population. Certainly, for the overwhelming number of voters this year, controlling impressions of the candidates for President are obtained from television.But then again, you could start trying some black-is-white, ignorance-is-strength rubbish about how questioning this decision makes you the equivalent of a Holocaust denier:
In all countries, candidates for public office governments aspire to have favorable information and a chorus of favorable opinion disseminated through mass media to the citizenry. In a democracy, on the eve of a quadrennial election, the incumbent government plainly has a motive to encourage the media to report positively on its record but also negatively on the rival. But its role instead is to make sure that broadcast television promote democracy by conveying reasonably accurate reflections of where the candidates stand and what they are like.
Sinclair, based in the Baltimore suburb of Hunt Valley, decided to air the film after it was rejected for airing by the major broadcast networks, vice president Mark Hyman said. "This is a powerful story," Hyman said. "The networks are acting like Holocaust deniers and pretending [the POWs] don't exist. It would be irresponsible to ignore them."Still, at least the US isn't Russia:
But the price of that stronger leadership, despite Putin's rhetoric about "people's natural striving for democracy," has been a Kremlin reasserting control over key elements of civil society. Critics and rival candidates charge that, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, never have the odds been so stacked against them.Free airtime for candidates? Why, that's almost communistic and treats them as though they're all equal.
The Kremlin controls television broadcasting, and while Putin gave up his free allotment of TV time - just as he refused to take part in debates among candidates - the free airtime set aside for Putin's rivals is dwarfed by "news" coverage of every presidential activity.
Observers also decry the wide use of "administrative resources" by the Kremlin and local officials, to ensure a high voter turnout, or to make trouble for rivals on the campaign trail.
At least 11 al-Qaeda suspects have “disappeared” in U.S. custody, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. U.S. officials are holding the detainees in undisclosed locations, where some have reportedly been tortured.(via Crooked Timber)
The 46-page report, “The United States’ ‘Disappeared’: The CIA’s Long-Term ‘Ghost Detainees,’” describes how the Central Intelligence Agency is holding al-Qaeda suspects in “secret locations,” reportedly outside the United States, with no notification to their families, no access to the International Committee of the Red Cross or oversight of any sort of their treatment, and in some cases, no acknowledgement that they are even being held.
Don't worry, though, I'm sure someone will be along soon to tell us that these were all bad bad men, who thus deserved bad bad things to happen to them, and it's well known that all the rules, regulations, common decency and everything else we throw together and call 'civilisation' only apply to those of us who aren't defined as bad bad men, and so there's nothing for any of us to worry about, because we'll never become bad bad men as there are currently no plans to redefine 'bad' to include us, so we're all perfectly safe. Anyway, you can't be mistaken for any of these bad bad men, for it's scientific fact that they're all brown and you're not, so you won't ever be mistaken for one of them by accident. Not that we ever have any accidents, of course. Oh no, we're the good guys (we must be, it says so on our t-shirts) so everything we do is good and we can make no mistakes.
Pay no attention to the bad bad men and what happens to them. We're keeping you safe. You do want to be safe, don't you citizen? Because if you stop us from protecting you from bad bad men however we see fit, you must want us to be less safe, so maybe you are one of the bad bad men yourself...
For comparison, the old page view can still be seen on some of the older archive pages as Blogger's publishing keeps breaking down before it gets to them - here, for instance. Voting will go on until I get round to doing something about it.
When Bush made reference to "Dred Scott" he was assuring his anti-choice constituents that he would indeed only appoint Supreme Court justices who would remove abortion rights.