Showing posts with label iPod. Show all posts
Showing posts with label iPod. Show all posts

Thursday, November 12, 2015

Treasures of Thankfulness

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about Thankfulness. This follows this post about war. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
Please follow me here for continued posts.


 

Treasures of Thankfulness

Thursday of next week is Thanksgiving Day here in the U.S.A. Originally established to thank God for the blessings received in this country, yet as a nation we seem to have forgotten the meaning of Thanksgiving Day. Consequently it has morphed into the opening bell for the Christmas buying season. Retailers have been feeling the economic pinch in recent years, and so have become even more aggressive in luring potential customers into their stores on Thanksgiving or even before that day.
Some years ago I was interested in getting a new computer for my wife and decided that I would go out early on Black Friday hoping to get a great deal. I arrived at the computer store shortly before 5 a.m. and witnessed a mob of people already there. Literally, standing room only. The line for the checkout stretched half-way around the interior of the store. Needless to say, the computer bargain I was looking for was long gone. This scenario has not improved over the years. People now camp out in front of retail stores days before Thanksgiving so that they can be one of the first in the store on Black Friday.
Remembering my experience, some questions come to my mind:
- Are we as zealous for what God has given us? What does Christ tell us to set as our priority in Matthew 6:33? God wants us to desire His way actively, not passively – desiring what God desires should come first in our lives. Do we value the calling God has given to us now, more than all of those shoppers giving up their sleep on a day off from work in order to get the greatest bargains?
- If you had to purchase the truth of God, what would you be willing to pay? What if you had the treasure in your back yard to purchase such a truth and didn’t even know it? Read Matthew 13:44-46.
Do we value the truth God gives us that much? Are we deeply thankful for the calling God has given to us now – to be part of the firstfruits? Are we thankful to have the hope of His Kingdom – to know that there are solutions to the problems mankind has created in this world? Are we thankful to be called to serve, and be able to practice that in this lifetime and see the blessings that come from living God’s way of life?
- Perhaps on this Sabbath day, before the holiday of Thanksgiving you could make a personal list of what you are thankful for – both physical and spiritually – that God has given to you.
It’s easy to see what the world values during this time of year. Very few celebrate Thanksgiving with true thankfulness. Few are seeking something bigger than the latest gadget in their life. And few are willing to invest in changing themselves so that they can be part of changing the world for the better.
Having been called out of that world, we need to constantly remind ourselves what God has given us to value. Let us be thankful for the physical and spiritual blessings of God. And let’s remember to be thankful for the knowledge that our God is loving, merciful, patient, and giving.

Friday, October 11, 2013

Music Discussions Lost +

A timely post about from www.TheSource4yM.com about a popular current song. This follows this post about the group “Tigres Del Norte” that was in the D.C. mall amnesty rally. In the meantime, you can get more involved if you like here and read an interesting book HERE.

Music Discussions Lost +



09/20/2013



Main Point of Discussion: In this life, we should live for the approval of God, rather than for the approval from men.



The Song: Lost +

This duet features two titans of the music industry, Coldplay and Jay Z. Jay Z has sold 50 million records worldwide throughout his career and holds the record for most number one albums by a solo artist. He’s been back on the airwaves recently with the new release of his album Magna Carta…Holy Grail. The title track and the album have both spent the last several weeks in the top ten on the Billboard Hot 100 charts and the ITunes top downloads.



Coldplay may not have been as active within the past year or so, but they have still sold around 60 million records during their career and their 2012 Mylo Xyloto tour was the 4th highest-grossing tour that year. They are set to release a new album soon, as well as a song that will be a part of the sound track for the second Hunger Games movie. So although this song is a few years old (2009), it combines two artists who most students are probably familiar with.



Lost+ is a song that reflects on the fleeting nature and pitfalls of success as the world defines it. It shows the elusive nature of living for things like fame, fortune, or the approval of others. It comes from two artists who have seemingly achieved all those things, yet they say that once they arrive where they thought they wanted to be, “the shine wears off.” They encounter attacks and criticism from others, or someone “bigger” and better comes along.



There isn’t really much to the video, although it does provide something interesting to look at. It’s a flashy video of the duo performing the song in concert. Yet alongside the images of Chris Martin singing to thousands of adoring fans, are some surprising reflections about the trappings of fame and the criticism that success invites.



Introducing the Song:

Jay-Z has been everywhere recently, especially since he released his new album Magna Carta in July. He’s been on TV, in advertisements, on the radio, and at the top of the charts. The song is a duet featuring Jay-Z and another superstar music group, Coldplay. These two artists are two of the most successful artists of our time. Together they have sold well over 100 million records and made untold amounts of money. They are the definition of success in the way that the world defines it. In light of that though, I think this song has some interesting and surprising things to say about fame and success. Let’s watch together.



Important Note for Leaders: True to form, Jay-Z uses some profanity in his rap. He uses the word s**t and ni**a in the music video, which can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGl6KK90kbc.



Please use wise judgment in deciding whether you are comfortable showing the original to your youth or not. When I did this with our youth, I edited the two curse words out. If you would rather use the edited version, you can find it here: https://vimeo.com/72363565



Edited from bmcvideoproductions on Vimeo.







Song Lyrics:



Just because I’m losing

Doesn’t mean I’m lost!

Doesn’t mean I’ll stop

Doesn’t mean I'm across



Just because I’m hurting

Doesn’t mean I’m hurt

Doesn’t mean I don’t get what I deserved

No better and no worse



I just got lost

Every river that I tried to cross

Every door I ever tried was locked

Oh and I’m just waiting ‘til the shine wears off



You might be a big fish

In a little pond

Doesn’t mean you’ve won

‘Cause a long may come

A bigger one



And you’ll be lost

Every river that you tried to cross

Every gun you ever held went off

Oh and I’m just waiting until the firing stopped

Oh and I’m just waiting ‘til the shine wears off



[Jay-Z]

Aha, I gotcha, uh...

With the same sword they knight you, they gon' good night you with

Sh*t, That's only half if they like you

That ain't even the half what they might do

Don't believe me, ask Michael

See Martin, see Malcolm

See Biggie, see Pac, see success and its outcome

See Jesus, see Judas

See Caesar, see Brutus, see success is like suicide

Suicide, it's a suicide

If you succeed, prepare to be crucified

Media meddles, ni**az sue you, you settle

Every step you take, they remind you you're ghetto

So it's tough being Bobby Brown

To be Bobby then, you have to be Bobby now

And the question is, "Is to have had and lost

Better than not having at all?"

Because I'm...



Oh and I’m, just waiting ‘til the shine wears off

Oh and I’m, just waiting ‘til the shine wears off



Transitional Statement:

From listening to this song, it sounds like being famous and popular may not be as great as it is made out to be. In fact, if you look at the lyrics handout you have in front of you, Jay-Z even likens success to suicide. Wow! That’s probably not what you and I would have called it. But we should probably listen to him; after all, he’s had plenty of success. He should know exactly how fleeting it is to try and stay at the top. Coldplay says it’s tough; a bigger fish is always bound to come along. So, let’s not adopt the mindset of the world when it comes to success. In this life, we should live for the approval of God, rather than for the approval from men. Let’s discuss this some more in our small groups.



Divide into Small Groups:

Let’s go ahead and split up into our discussion groups, and then afterward we’ll come back together for a final word.



CLICK HERE for a quick training article on how to maximize your small groups using our small group format—a great resource to equip your small group leaders.



Discussion Questions:





1.AROUND THE CIRCLE: Before we dive in, tell everybody your name and a time that you were lost somewhere.





2.ASK A FEW: What were some phrases that stuck out to you from this song? What did they mean to you?





3.ASK A FEW: In particular, I found the lyrics to Jay Z’s rap to be very interesting. What do you think Jay Z was trying to say during his part?





4.ASK A FEW: Do you think this idea is true—that our society tries to tear down people who are successful? Why or why not?





5.ASK A FEW: Do you know someone who is really successful or good at what they do, for example, a doctor, a teacher, an athlete, an artist, a parent, etc.? If so, do you know if they are plagued with always trying to be better to please others?





6.ASK A FEW: Can you think of a time where you were criticized or made fun of for doing something well?



Read the following passage from the Bible:



1 Thessalonians 2:1-7



You know, brothers and sisters, that our visit to you was not without results. 2 We had previously suffered and been treated outrageously in Philippi, as you know, but with the help of our God we dared to tell you his gospel in the face of strong opposition. 3 For the appeal we make does not spring from error or impure motives, nor are we trying to trick you. 4 On the contrary, we speak as those approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel. We are not trying to please people but God, who tests our hearts. 5 You know we never used flattery, nor did we put on a mask to cover up greed—God is our witness. 6 We were not looking for praise from people, not from you or anyone else, even though as apostles of Christ we could have asserted our authority. 7 Instead, we were like young children among you.



NOTE: At this point, Paul had travelled to numerous cities, preaching the message of Christ and ministering to the Churches. Paul had certainly reached a lot of people for Christ and had seen a lot of success in ministry, but he had also faced a lot of opposition.





7.ASK A FEW: From reading this passage, what kinds of things did people accuse Paul of? (Leaders – He was accused of being deceitful, that his message “sprung from error,” that he was seeking praise from others, that he was using the church for his own greed, etc.)





8.ASK A FEW: How does Paul respond to these accusations? (HINT: Pay close attention to verses 4 and 6.)





9.ASK A FEW: Why does Paul say He seeks to please God rather than people?





10.ASK A FEW: What are some ways in which people seek the praise of others today?





11.ASK A FEW: What are some examples of ways we can please God?





12.AROUND THE CIRCLE: Do you think most of the decisions you make are for the approval of God or for the approval of other people? Why or why not?





13.ASK A FEW: How different would your life look if you cared more about what God thought of you than you did about what other people thought of you?





14.AROUND THE CIRCLE: How will you seek to please God more than people in the coming week?



Wrap Up:

The reality is that people can be really fickle sometimes. It’s very interesting that Jay Z, possibly one of the most popular musicians in all of history, is talking about how easily people turn against you and how you can be attacked for being successful.



Most of you probably have a few really good friends in your life who would stick by you no matter what, but there are many people who may claim to be our friends one day and then turn on us the next, and they may even tear us down for doing what’s right.



Many of you may be living for popularity above all else, you really want other people to like you at you your school. It may be that you want for a certain group to accept you, or maybe you long above all else for a certain person (maybe a particular boy or girl) to like you. It’s normal to want people to like you, so that isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but if we start to live for the acceptance of others above the acceptance of God, it can lead us to make some really bad choices.



This song and the Bible passage we read warn us is that if we are living for things like popularity or others’ acceptance, it’s like chasing after the wind. Even if you are successful for a moment in gaining these things, some of these people may turn on you, betray you, or hurt you.



That’s why Chris Martin, the Coldplay singer, says he’s “just waiting for the shine to wear off.” He is someone who has achieved fame, riches, and popularity, but he knows that one day the allure will wear off. He knows that eventually, people may turn against him, or attack him, or they may just forget about him altogether.



We can spend our lives chasing things like popularity, success, or money, but if we live for anything or anyone other than Jesus Christ, eventually the shine will wear off. People will come and go in our lives but the one thing that remains—the one thing that is eternal—is your relationship with God.



This doesn’t mean that it is wrong to care about other people’s opinions or that we should have no regard for others. What it means though, is that you will face criticism in this life at some point. If you are going to face it, you should face it for doing good rather than for doing evil. It also means we should never compromise our values in order to please other people.



It means we should live our life with the goal of pleasing God, who judges men’s hearts, above all else. If you need help doing that, hang around after we pray and speak with one of our adult leaders. You’ll be glad you did.



Close in Prayer



Written by Brandon McCarroll

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

SF law forces disclosure of phone radiation levels

An interesting post from www.cnet.com that covers a very underreported topic and that is Cell Phone Radiation. This article tries to cover all angles of the story and concludes that more studies are needed to confirm safety without ANY DOUBT For more interesting posts like this click here and I would love anyone to comment on this story!!!


SF law forces disclosure of phone radiation levels

San Francisco appears poised to become the first city in the U.S. to require a cell phone makers to publicly display how much radiation their products emit.
On Tuesday, the city's board of supervisors voted 10-1 in favor of a new law that requires handset makers to post in stores their products' specific absorption rate (SAR), which is a measure of the amount of radio waves absorbed by the user's body. (See also: CNET's Quick Guide: Cell phone radiation levels)
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is expected to sign the measure into law.
There's no scientific consensus on the dangers of cell phone radiation. Scientists know that humans absorb radiation from cell phones, but it's not known if that absorbed radiation causes health risks, such as cancer. Some studies suggest that it does, while others do not. Scientists concur that more data is needed.
That said, the Federal Communications Commission has set exposure limits for radiation. And the agency requires that all phones emit a SAR that is less than 1.6 watts per kilogram.
Some advocates say cell phones should have warning labels on them. But the wireless industry has fought this type of action. The CTIA, the trade association that lobbies in Washington, D.C., on behalf of wireless operators and cell phone manufacturers, said that it's against the San Francisco ordinance.
"Rather than inform, the ordinance will potentially mislead consumers with point-of-sale requirements suggesting that some phones are 'safer' than others, based on radio frequency emissions," John Walls, a spokesman for the CTIA told the San Francisco Chronicle.
While the dangers of using a cell phone are still unknown, groups such as the Environmental Working Group, a private government watchdog group, believe that consumers can take measures to protect against radiation exposure. The group suggests that cell phone users text rather than talk on their cell phones, and that they use a headset or speaker phone to keep the device away from the head. Other suggestions include turning off the cell phone when it's not being used.

Marguerite Reardon has been a CNET News reporter since 2004, covering cell phone services, broadband, citywide Wi-Fi, the Net neutrality debate, as well as the ongoing consolidation of the phone companies. E-mail Maggie.

Monday, April 12, 2010

Cell phone radiation? There's no easy answer

An interesting post from www.cnet.com that covers a very underreported topic and that is Cell Phone Radiation. This article tries to cover all angles of the story and concludes that more studies are needed to confirm safety without ANY DOUBT For more interesting posts like this click here and I would love anyone to comment on this story!!!

Cell phone radiation? There's no easy answer
by Kent German

Last December, just as I returned from covering the first flight of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner in Seattle, I learned that a longtime friend was diagnosed with brain cancer. He had collapsed that day at work and was in the hospital awaiting immediate removal of his tumor. Needless to say, it was a distressing few days, but the surgery was successful and he was back home by Christmas.
About a month later he called me with a question. He hesitated before asking and, frankly, I felt a lump in my throat, because I knew what was coming. "So, do you think there really is a connection between cell phones and brain cancer?" he asked. "I figured that you'd know more about this than I do." Unfortunately, I couldn't answer him, and I may never be able to do so.
For background on cell phone radiation, see CNET's cell phone radiation charts
Though he was hardly the first person to ask that question, this time it came from someone who really cared about the answer. He was searching for an explanation for what had happened to him; he wanted to make sense of it and understand how cancer had come into his otherwise carefully organized life. I felt bad that I couldn't reply, but I just don't know if there is any link between cell phone radiation and cancer risk. Though studies on the subject abound, none can tell us conclusively whether mobile radiation does or does not adversely affect your health.
I realize that may not be what you want to hear, but science can't conform to human emotion and our desire to find an answer quickly. Single scientific studies (the good ones, at least) investigate and often suggest causal relationships between one thing and another based on their findings, but it can take years of exhaustive research before studies actually prove anything (if they do at all). And when you throw in a bunch of studies that seem to contradict each other, you wind up with a lot of confusion.
Perhaps?Just take the Interphone study, for example. Started in 2000 by a group of 13 countries, to date the study remains the largest body of work on the subject. Many hoped that it would offer some solid guidance, but that hasn't been the case. Not only did researchers disagree on how to interpret the data, some health advocacy groups decried that the mobile industry had partially funded the effort. Some participating have reported that the study found a link between long-term cell phone use (10 years or more) and increased brain cancer risk, but the final results have yet to be published.
Consider also Dr. Ronald B. Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, who published a controversial memo in 2008 that cautioned his staff against frequent cell phone use. Herberman acknowledged that the ongoing research remained controversial, but said there was sufficient data to be concerned. He was criticized, however, for basing his conclusions on unpublished data from the Interphone study.
Perhaps notThe cell phone industry continues to point to other studies that show no risk. According to the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA), the industry's lobbying group in Washington, "impartial groups, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the World Health Organization (WHO), the American Cancer Society, and the National Institute of Health, have all concluded that the scientific evidence to date does not demonstrate any adverse health effects associated with the use of wireless phones."
That may sound better, but keep in mind that the industry has an interest in assuring you that cell phones are safe. Similarly, studies can be flawed and can be published by someone eager to get their name in print. So again, think about the issue carefully; we don't know with certainty that there is a risk, but we don't know that there isn't one. So don't panic and don't bury your head in the sand. You may scoff that I'm even writing this column, but I'd be irresponsible not to. Research has to continue, and I hope that we get it from impartial sources (if they exist).
In WashingtonThe federal government has largely stayed outside the issue, though Congress held hearings and participated in an intentional conference last year. The Federal Communications Commission, which tests cell phones sold in the United States for their specific absorption rates (SAR), maintains that results have been inconclusive so far. According to the agency's Web site, "while some experimental data have suggested a possible link between exposure and tumor formation in animals exposed under certain specific conditions, the results have not been independently replicated...Many other studies have failed to find evidence for a link to cancer or any related condition."
What you can doIn the absence of an answer--and I wish I could give you one--I urge you to decide for yourself how you feel about cell phone radiation. I'm not a trained scientist, but if you're not concerned, I recommend only that keep yourself informed of ongoing developments. If you are concerned, here a few steps you can take to limit exposure. Just remember that we encounter many things in modern urban life--pollution, food additives, and stress, to name a few--that may or may not be harmful to your health. So don't think about cell phones alone.
Buy a phone with a low SAR. The FCC's limit is 1.6 watts per kilogram, and the lower the number, the better. A phone's SAR will be listed in its user manual, but the information may not be available at the sales counter, depending on the carrier. The Environmental Working Group and some local and state governments have called for carriers and manufacturers to list SARs at the time point of purchase, but they're still not required to do so. In the meantime, CNET lists the SAR for all current phones in our radiation charts.
Limit cell phone use in young children, who may be more susceptible to any adverse effects.
Don't sleep with your cell phone next to your head when it's powered on.
Text when you can since it uses less power than a voice call.
Keep your phone away from your body when on a call by using the speakerphone or a headset. Though debate exists on whether Bluetooth headsets are safe, they use much less power than cell phones and have a range of only 30 feet.
Don't bother with anti-radiation shields or cases.
Kent German is a senior editor for cell phone reviews at CNET. When he's not testing the newest handsets on the market, he's blogging about cell phone news for Crave. In his On Call column, he answers reader questions and gives his take on the rapidly changing mobile industry. E-mail Kent.

Monday, February 8, 2010

Internet Filters—Private Sector First Amendment Workaround, or Gov't Censorship In Disguise?

A timely article from James Fulford of www.vdare.com about internet censorship, particularly from corporate places of work. Most businesses will allow news media in that they deem fit while filtering out what they don't want and of course this is something that is hard to complain about because, even if you are getting your work done, they seem to view internet viewing as time wasting as opposed to radio listening or water cooler chatting. The article below shows the bias that some places are allowing. For the consequences of bias click here and for more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog

Internet Filters—Private Sector First Amendment Workaround, or Gov't Censorship In Disguise?
[See also The Fulford File: VDARE.COM Censored by Corporate Software]
If you're reading this, you're lucky enough to live in a free country, but also lucky enough to have a free computer. A lot of people are not that lucky.
Internet filtering has become a problem for us, because our heterodox opinions, frequently on subjects where any opinion at all can get you in trouble, have led us to be classed by our enemies as "haters." (We are not “haters”, and do not advocate or commit anti-immigrant violence, which tends to be committed by the same people who commit violence against non-immigrants.)
However, some people seem to have gotten the impression that we're "Not safe for work."
Here's a typical, but fairly stupid reaction:
“[VDARE.com Contributor]: did you look at the site?
“Answer: I called it up at work and up popped this white head, sort of like a Nazi site. I got off right away because I didn't want to get into trouble at work.”
That "white head" is picture of a doe (a deer—a female deer.)
There is also the problem that Southern Poverty Law Center insists we're a hate group. The SPLC is best thought of as a fundraising organization; the more "hate" they find, the more money they can raise.
The same goes for George Soros's Media Matters—they make their living finding politically incorrect thought, and they are as likely to find it as a tort lawyer is to find negligence.
As a result, several internet filtering companies have classed us as a "hate site."
Hate means practically anything disapproved of in the 21st century, but perfectly normal in even the second half of the twentieth. For example, Bob Jones University was accused of hate for extreme Protestantism—but Protestantism is sort of supposed to be anti-Catholic. Pope Benedict, on the other hand, was considered hateful for saying that Buddhism was wrong. Again, the Pope is supposed to be in the business of preaching what the Church teaches to be the truth.
And as far as accusations of racism are concerned, I once pointed out that Mahatma Gandhi and Frosty the Snowman have been accused of being racist, along with a surprising number of others.
Internet filtering of "hate" in the workplace is usually part of the corporate desire to avoid any controversy, because of possible bad publicity, and because of a desire to avoid being sued for "Hostile Work Environment" harassment.
H. L. Mencken once defined Puritanism as "The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." The crusade against "hate" is a similar strain of Puritanism.
Or reverse Puritanism—a site called Jesus-is-Lord.com, whose owners actually are Puritans (in the same sense that Oliver Cromwell was) was banned by Google, apparently for their anti-abortion stance.
There's nothing that can't be called hate—by someone who hates it. But even if we were guilty of "hate," of course, that wouldn't affect the freedom of speech issue—"hate speech" is as much a Constitutional right as any other speech, as First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh points out. ["Hate Speech", Eugene Volokh, Volokh.com, June 7, 2008]
So as result of corporate and government filtering there are a lot of places in America, that block us. The same as they do in the Arab world.
When we find that a particular company is blocking us, we have a lawyer write them a letter. That usually causes them to back down.
Here's a letter we got from a company that is no longer blocking us. (Name withheld because they were nice about it, and besides, if I mention that they unblocked us, they'll get flak from the other side.)
“I am writing, as …General Counsel, to confirm the decision of my client, [withheld] with regard to its designation of VDARE.com, published by your client VDare Foundation. Initially, please let me remind you that [our client] does not “block” any URL. [Our client] categorizes the various URL’s it reviews, and [our client]’s customers make their independent decision how to treat them on the customer’s own internet access.
“After review of further research and your explanatory letter, [our client] will, as I stated in our conversation, categorize VDARE.com as ‘social opinion’. You may be sure that [our client's] actions were inadvertent and not the result of negligence or malice. With this letter and my client’s recategorization of VDARE.com as “social opinion”, we consider the matter closed.”
Which it is…but there are a lot of censorware companies out there. Here are some of the players in the censorware game:
www.8e6.com , a California company, so called because they "86" bad stuff on the web. They used to classify us as something bad, but they don’t' anymore. You can contact them here, and if you feel we or another site has been mischaracterized, you can "submit a site" here.
Provisio GMBH of Germany. They had a program called SiteKiosk that hotels in the US use. (And K-Mart, for some reason.) I did a blog about them here, when we found that they'd announced that their goal was to filter "pornographic content and content glorifying violence, as well as right-wing and other so-called forbidden content ( but not, of course, left wing content). Let's just say that Germany has never had a history of supporting free speech.
Websense—a large multinational, with offices all over, including the Republic of Ireland. Their site lookup tool is here, and you can phone them at 1 800.723.1166, or email them here. We had to write them a letter at one point, and also submit a change request to their website. Anti=censorware activist Bennett Haselton found in when he checked in 2006 that they classified us as something innocuous—and immediately tried to change that, see my blog And This Is How We Repay Them.
Secure Computing/Smartfilter—an American company with headquarters in San Jose and Reston, Virginia, where they deal with the Federal Government. Their URL checker is here, (they're classifying us as Extreme at the moment, which I think is a step down from hate speech, but still…) and you can contact them here. [Phone 1-800-379-4944, email ] They say "If you believe that the category should be changed you can either fill out the category suggestion form from our website (http://www.securecomputing.com/index.cfm?sKey=234) or you can submit your request by sending an email to sites@securecomputing.com."

So it's important for you to contact us with details if you see that we're blocked at your place of work, library or whatever, so we can fight back.
You can usually tell who's doing the filtering because the name of the filter will pop up on your screen. If it doesn't, please send us the exact text of the message, since each message is unique to a particular company. "Access to this web page is restricted at this time", for example, is what you get when you're blocked by Websense.
One of the strangest and most worrisome things about the prevalence of filtering is that it even affects the computers of journalists, who are supposed to be getting the facts, some of which are only available on filtered sites. It's possible that some facts, even if not exclusive to VDARE.com, will themselves be automatically filtered. (Examples—relative crime rates among races, Martin Luther King's private life, political associations, and plagiarism, the standard scientific position on differences in IQ.)
One radio host interviewed Steve Sailer on the radio, discussing Sailer's book America's Half Blood Prince: Barack Obama's "Story of Race and Inheritance", which can be downloaded for free—an easy way for journalists to find out what's in it—or bought in hard copy for a mere $29.95. But the host reported that he couldn't access it from his station's computer!

What will it do to journalism when a MainStream Media writer isn't allowed to know what everyone with an unfiltered internet connection can find out?

Of course, the writer could finish his work at home—but future censorship laws may make content considered hateful unavailable in your own computer in your own home, as is the case in China. The OpenNet Initiative publishes a map of countries like Iran that filter all internet access . America isn't on that map—yet. But there are filtered computers all across the country.
I was discussing this with an IT Professional who supported, for example, the Army's right to censor internet access for the purpose of maintaining good order and discipline:
IT Professional: The military is very much justified in restricting any access in time of war. Some things that you can look at on line will get you killed in other countries our soldiers may be serving in.
Me: You mean you'll be offending Muslims looking over your shoulder?
IT Professional: Something like that.
My feeling is that if Muslims in a war zone are looking over your shoulder, you've got worse problems than internet censorship can solve.
But the rest of us are not in a war zone—we're trying to use the internet for research, and blocking any part of it diminishes its usefulness. Furthermore, the campaign against "hate" on the internet is similar Janet Murguia's attempt to get Lou Dobbs, and all patriotic immigration reformers, off the air waves, or David Brock's attempt to silence Sam Francis—an attempt to drive people like both VDARE.COM's writers and our readers out of public life.
What can be done about this situation?
As an individual victim of filtering, there are a number of things you can do to bypass filters. You can read on your personally owned Blackberry, et cetera, or run portable programs from a thumb drive. (If the words "running portable programs from a thumb drive" mean absolutely nothing to you, then you may not be computer literate enough to use this kind of advice. ) If you are computer literate, then see Lifehacker's post Geek to Live: Survive IT lockdown for some ideas. (Some of these are covered in my earlier article.)
If you're in a position of responsibility, owning your own business, head of an IT department, or otherwise in charge of computer policies, you can refuse to use the filters, or at least refuse to let them block political sites.
As a citizen, you can engage in anti-filter activism, doing what you can to prevent these things being required by law.

And finally, of course, because we're on the front line of the filter wars, because we're both fighting against the censors, and being censored by them, you can fight censorware by supporting VDARE.COM.

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

iPod & Ethics *BUMPED*


iPod & Ethics
I wanted to send this article below which talks about how flippant some people are about stealing from others. In our own magazine, Vertical Thought http://www.verticalthought.org/issues/vt19/music_legal.htm , this issue came up and shows that the commandment against stealing applies to this topic and yet a significant amount of iPod users are either ignorant or don't care about this issue. Anyway, I hope you find this interesting.
See also here

Average teenager's iPod has 800 illegal music tracks
Dan Sabbagh, Media Editor.
Teenagers and students have an average of more than 800 illegally copied songs each on their digital music players, the largest academic survey of young people's music ownership has found. The research also showed that half of 14 to 24-year-olds were happy to share all the music on their hard drive, enabling others to copy hundreds, or thousands, of songs at any one time. Although illegal copying has become widespread, the scale of the problem uncovered by the University of Hertfordshire left the music industry surprised. On average every iPod or digital music player contained 842 illegally copied songs. Fergal Sharkey, former lead singer of the Undertones and now chief executive of British Music Rights, said: “I was one of those people who went around the back of the bike shed with songs I had taped off the radio the night before. But this totally dwarfs that, and anything we expected.”
Related Links
Buyers rush for the iPod of ebooks
U2 boss: cut off illegal downloaders from web
The average digital music player carries 1,770 songs, meaning that 48 per cent of the collection is copied illegally. The proportion of illegally downloaded tracks rises to 61 per cent among 14 to 17-year-olds. In addition, 14 per cent of CDs (one in seven) in a young person's collection are copied. Illegal copying in some form is undertaken by 96 per cent of 18 to 24-year-olds surveyed, falling to 89 per cent of those aged 14-17. Nearly two thirds copy CDs from friends, and similar proportions share songs by e-mail and copy all the music held on another person's hard drive, acquiring up to 10,000 songs in one go. British Music Rights argues that the solution partly lies in developing new legal services that make breaking copyright unappealing. Mr Sharkey said: “The positive message is that 80 per cent of downloaders said they would pay for a legal subscription-based service, and they told us they would be willing to pay more than a few pounds a month.” British Music Rights declined to release the exact amount but it is believed to be about £10 a month. The organisation is trying to help the record companies to persuade internet service providers to sign up to a new type of music service, in which vast catalogues of songs are available for an add-on fee to a broadband package. Agreements with providers such as Virgin Media are expected in the next few weeks. In France last week, Orange, France Telecom's mobile arm, reached agreement with all four main record companies to provide downloads of more than a million songs to mobile phones and home computers for €12 (£9.40) a month. Music sales have been falling steadily and the big companies are desperate to strike subscription-based agreements rather than rely on one-off CD and download sales. http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/personal_tech/article4144585.ece

Thursday, June 19, 2008

iPod & Ethics

I wanted to send this article below which talks about how flippant some people are about stealing from others. In this magazine, Vertical Thought http://www.verticalthought.org/issues/vt19/music_legal.htm , this issue came up and shows that the commandment against stealing applies to this topic and yet a significant amount of iPod users are either ignorant or don't care about this issue.
Anyway, I hope you find this interesting and you should definitely subsribe to this blog by clicking here for more interesting issues like this. Leave a comment at the end if you'd like!!

Average teenager's iPod has 800 illegal music tracks
Dan Sabbagh, Media Editor
.ExternalClass EC_div#related-article-links p a, .ExternalClass EC_div#related-article-links p a:visited
{color:#06c;}
Teenagers and students have an average of more than 800 illegally copied songs each on their digital music players, the largest academic survey of young people's music ownership has found. The research also showed that half of 14 to 24-year-olds were happy to share all the music on their hard drive, enabling others to copy hundreds, or thousands, of songs at any one time. Although illegal copying has become widespread, the scale of the problem uncovered by the University of Hertfordshire left the music industry surprised. On average every iPod or digital music player contained 842 illegally copied songs. Fergal Sharkey, former lead singer of the Undertones and now chief executive of British Music Rights, said: “I was one of those people who went around the back of the bike shed with songs I had taped off the radio the night before. But this totally dwarfs that, and anything we expected.”
Related Links
Buyers rush for the iPod of ebooks
U2 boss: cut off illegal downloaders from web
The average digital music player carries 1,770 songs, meaning that 48 per cent of the collection is copied illegally. The proportion of illegally downloaded tracks rises to 61 per cent among 14 to 17-year-olds. In addition, 14 per cent of CDs (one in seven) in a young person's collection are copied. Illegal copying in some form is undertaken by 96 per cent of 18 to 24-year-olds surveyed, falling to 89 per cent of those aged 14-17. Nearly two thirds copy CDs from friends, and similar proportions share songs by e-mail and copy all the music held on another person's hard drive, acquiring up to 10,000 songs in one go. British Music Rights argues that the solution partly lies in developing new legal services that make breaking copyright unappealing. Mr Sharkey said: “The positive message is that 80 per cent of downloaders said they would pay for a legal subscription-based service, and they told us they would be willing to pay more than a few pounds a month.” British Music Rights declined to release the exact amount but it is believed to be about £10 a month. The organisation is trying to help the record companies to persuade internet service providers to sign up to a new type of music service, in which vast catalogues of songs are available for an add-on fee to a broadband package. Agreements with providers such as Virgin Media are expected in the next few weeks. In France last week, Orange, France Telecom's mobile arm, reached agreement with all four main record companies to provide downloads of more than a million songs to mobile phones and home computers for €12 (£9.40) a month. Music sales have been falling steadily and the big companies are desperate to strike subscription-based agreements rather than rely on one-off CD and download sales. http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/personal_tech/article4144585.ece