What is a "voice-second"? A measurement of time, or of distance? What's wrong with using light-seconds?

The easiest way is to connect to a manual IP/port is to use the 'favourites' tab of the server browser. Just hit 'add a favourite' and it'll prompt you for the server details. That way, you don't have to enable the developer console.

@33: VAC uses (delayed) bans against steam accounts. But because of the free weekend, any new account can play TF2. So, there's nothing to stop cheaters replacing their banned accounts with temporary ones. And they did exactly that every time Valve held a free Day of Defeat Source weekend.

Aha! I feel vindicated - http://preview.tinyurl.com/4s3hok .

Thanks for the update, Cory. It's pretty awesome to see someone issue a retraction with dignity.

The MP who proposed the act is my local MP, Judith Tizard (New Zealand has MMP), so I followed the bill pretty closely as it went through its readings. A good critique of the remaining flaws it had (at the second reading stage) was given in a speech by Greens MP Nandor Tanczos, and is available at http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/speech11325.html . For example, it doesn't legalise format shifting for video, thanks to the select committee's suggestion that that it isn't widely used.

In general, though, New Zealand copyright law remains pretty damn awesome. So says I, with a shy and desperate smile, as I offer up a dozen copies of Bridge on the River Kwai, for all my friends, legally. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1957_in_film )

Aha! I feel vindicated - http://preview.tinyurl.com/4s3hok .

Thanks for the update, Cory. It's pretty awesome to see someone issue a retraction with dignity.

The MP who proposed the act is my local MP, Judith Tizard (New Zealand has MMP), so I followed the bill pretty closely as it went through its readings. A good critique of the remaining flaws it had (at the second reading stage) was given in a speech by Greens MP Nandor Tanczos, and is available at http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/speech11325.html . For example, it doesn't legalise format shifting for video, thanks to the select committee's suggestion that that it isn't widely used.

In general, though, New Zealand copyright law remains pretty damn awesome. So says I, with a shy and desperate smile, as I offer up a dozen copies of Bridge on the River Kwai, for all my friends, legally. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1957_in_film )

I don't understand how the Copyright Amendment Bill has anything to do with America. Americans don't have a copyright on really stupid laws - even if they did implement them first - and we New Zealanders can't use them as a scapegoat. I mean, it's not like we changed our copyright laws at the request of the US, unlike our antipodean neighbours (who did so to get a free trade agreement).

And quite beside that, this bill isn't that bad. The safe-harbour part of the bill, providing a copyright infringement notice procedure, isn't a bad idea, and provides ISPs and sites like Youtube some refuge from litigious content owners. Plus, you know, up until the bill passed any and all format shifting was illegal in New Zealand, even for purposes such as accessibility to people with disabilities or archiving in libraries. And (don't know if the DMCA has this) there are specific provisions that force the copyright holder to provide a DRM-free copy of the work to libraries, teachers, etc. - and if they refuse, or they're non-responsive, the use of TPM (read: DRM) circumvention devices and techniques is specifically allowed.

One other thing to consider: New Zealand has never had a concept of fair use. So, the usual argument used against the DMCA (that the act reduces access to material by disallowing DRM-breaking for fair use) just doesn't apply.

Finally, at least we still have short copyright terms. For instance, it's publishing date plus fifty years for sound recordings and films. Which is certainly something worth celebrating (http://party.dubdot.com/).

@#5: In this case, it's neither surveillance nor privacy invasion.

And I'm not sure what you're asking, because something being empirically bad would imply it would depend on the circumstances. (Because the consequences - what you'd be studying empirically - certainly do depend on the circumstances.) So, your question doesn't pose a dilemma.

I suspect you meant to ask if we think they're intrinsically bad.

Personally, I don't think they are. I think that, provided checks and balances are met, warrants are requested, granted on the basis of evidence, etc. etc., then surveillance can often be a force for good. There are plenty of organised crime trials that show exactly that.

And the very fact that surveillance _can_ be good automatically means it's not intrinsically bad.

National treasures indeed. New Zealand is still mourning its loss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Dagg).

I'd like to link to the aforementioned Graham Linehan's blog, "Why That's Delightful". It really is.

http://whythatsdelightful.wordpress.com/

Good news everyone!

Farnsworth rocks.

What is with the lolcats language on that first poster?

I think you're supposed to finish the sentence with "a posse" when you read it.

Is it British usage?

Very common in New Zealand, by my account, and quite common in Britain according to Oxford. "Oriented", to my addled Kiwi brain, sounds like it should mean Asiafied.

@#4 New Zealand's arms, meanwhile, seem to have been dumped in the ocean a few hundred kilometres off the East coast.

FTA: "Is the shape of your life as revealed publicly part of the commonwealth, and in the public domain?"

Yes. And so it should be. The idea that what's public is public is the same one that gives us photographers' rights, for example.

That's not to say this isn't creepy. But I don't think you can have it both ways; you can't enjoy the right to be a public observer, then get offended when other people use that right in a way you don't like.

Best way to deal with it is probably ridicule. Or find public details about the company directors, and create them a profile on your favourite social networking site.

You know, in the Southern Hemisphere, Tesla coils are wound the other way due to the coriolis effect! That's what makes an Australian Tesla coil different from a North American one.

The garden path sure is a fun one.

@Fnarf: I sure do have a citation. How about the legislation itself (Copyright Act 1994), which states:

"Copyright in a sound recording or film expires:

(a)At the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work is made;

or:

(b)If it is made available to the public by an authorised act before the end of that period, 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is so made available,

whichever is the later."

As you can see here: http://preview.tinyurl.com/22jwft

I know, I know. Too good to be true, isn't it!

Should be fun in an earthquake.

@Devophill: Nope, nine years. As in 2017. As in, fifty years after 1967.

Where I live, sound recordings (and films, photographs) enter the public domain fifty years after the recording was made, or made available (the latter of the two). The author's death has nothing to do with it. Nor does the copyright term in the country that produced the work.

Come to New Zealand in a decade's time. We'll have a party. And probably play some sweet, sweet PD music.

Only 9 years until it's public domain. That will be a day to celebrate.

#2: "This is no longer coincidence and crosses over into irony, right?"

No, it's certainly not irony. It may be "just deserts", a fitting punishment, funny, appropriate, incongruous, surprising, or all of the above. But it's not ironic.

Ask yourself: where is the double meaning?

I'm lucky enough to live in a life+50 country (and, also fun; a plain ol' 50 for film and photography).

Is there anywhere that gives a neat countdown to which works are becoming available in the public domain in the life+50 and life+70 countries? Is there someone putting together a database or wiki?

I know, in a lot of jurisdictions, the works don't become public domain until the end of the year in which the copyright expires. But I think such a database would really help to raise awareness of which works are passing into the public domain, and from that how valuable the public domain really is.

I don't think he can, Sensual Otter. That's "just" a blockquote, and so you only get one CSS background-image. To add another, you'd need to wrap the blockquote in a non-semantic tag (yuck) or use javascript (bleugh).

You want a refund, I want a french verse. Tomaeto, tomahto.

Man On Pink Corner:

It's always sounded completely ridiculous to me, considering how little energy a camera flash puts out compared to the room lights.

Which is why such paintings aren't displayed or stored under room lights. Many museum exhibits, for instance, are displayed in very dim lighting, with special (blue, often) spot lights on the exhibits themselves.

Regarding the use of "Bush" for "the president", it's also worth noticing that this story was produced in the specific context of Bush's visit to Sydney for the APEC summit. That's what's mentioned in NZ Herald story, and it's presumably what's mentioned in the AAP source.

So, using a more encompassing title ("A president's travelling entourage") would be confusing and inappropriate in context. How many other US presidents (admittedly, who would have all had similar entourages) were visiting Sydney at the time?

@Glugenwog: Such a tone ("Bush" for "The President") would be fairly typical of the NZ Herald, if we're still going for that as a typical source.

Besides which, using "Bush" or "The President" has the same level of accuracy. It's just that the first of those is overly precise.

It's nice to live in a country where service staff are paid adequately for the job they do.

No 20% pending charge, no check-sum totals, no fraudulent wait-staff, no ass-hats playing on the expectation of a larger tip, and you can still tip if you want to. And if, because nobody does, the cost of the tip is just subsumed into the price of the food, well, I can live with that to get these advantages.

A more impressive (IMO) reaction, as Crash said, is (strong) sulfuric acid and sugar. The acid rips the water from the sugar molecules, leaving a mass of carbon, heating water to steam, and making the carbon extrude out of the reaction area as a big, black mass. It's the perfect mix of toilet humour and chemistry.

How does it interdict the existing tags? Through some sort of jamming? Or does it rewrite the content of the tags? (Is that possible?)

I did try checking out their hardware specs, but everything seems to be in PDF files that I don't want to trawl through. Anyone know off-hand?

Because the CDs have been rearranged into "digipack" cases, I think you'll also miss out on some of the original (awesome Stanley Donwood) artwork - I'm particularly thinking of the 'hidden' booklet that came with Amnesiac.

@s75: I would absolutely vote for someone with such a "serious authority problem". Wouldn't you?

Last time I considered this, the beige overalls were by far the hardest ingredient to come by.

I too was having trouble with the order confirmation screen - specifically, with the captcha. "Enter these letters" it said, alongside a big black image that contained no letters. I must be a replicant.

Fail.

After re-adding the download to the cart three times I eventually got it to work.

@Naturenet: There were no references to Firefox extension nor RAM in this episode. I think you might be thinking of Season 2, Episode 3. The URL for this page is munged because of the length, and looks like it's referring to episode 3, but we're actually talking about episode 5.

The major geek references revolved around Google.