In response to The Edge Radio Station's 'Hug a Ginga Day' promotion for this Friday one Father in Christchurch was quite vocal in his protests - supporting his two red-haired kids who get heckles enough as it is, he says.
CloseUp@7 picked it up on behalf of TVNZ and interviewed Dom Harvey (The Edge DJ) along with the Father concerned, and his kids, and a Social Psychologist.
The interview was a whole bunch of Fail. I've just attempted to submit this to their website comment list: Sainsbury failed to keep control of the Interview. The 'concerned Dad' doesn't seem to 'get it'. All those attacking Dom Harvey need to get a grip.
The Edge is taking a light hearted view of the 'discrimination' that red-heads are all familiar with and deal with all the time - esp in school. Why not turn a negative around and make it positive? Mountain. Out. Of. Molehill.
CloseUp@7 didn't exactly score itself another fan tonight. /me back to Campbell Live...
Wonder if it'll get past their censor :-)
Seriously though, I see this as fully turning a negative (general crap that Redheads cop is really not all that fair) around and making it a positive. If we're going to single them out, lets make it for positive reasons, not negative ones.
Fact is, folks are going to discriminate. Instead of trying to focus on futilte attempts to stop it, why not simply provide an avenue to turn the whole thing 180 degrees?
Good intentioned as the Dad above was, he didn't help his case tonight, especially when he wouldn't let Mark Sainsbury get a word in edgewise. He was still ranting as they cut to commercial...
Ironically despite my time working for the NZDF, that's the closest i've been to an operating Iroquois in many years... will be a little sad to see them go, good ol' workhorses that they are. Interesting to note that despite originating from the Vietnam War era, variants are still manufactured and sold. And there are hoards of variants...
But yeah, despite only being able to attend the SAREX on the Sunday I managed to get a lot out of it; it helped me make sure I hadn't forgotton any of the key skills required to run comms in a situation like that, got me up-close to an Iroquois and presented an opportunity to talk to the flight crew for several minutes, and also got me some exposure to some of the latest in comms equipment being deployed by SAR. Much thanks to ZL4JY for the opportunity, and to ZL2HD and the others who made me welcome.
By all accounts the PublicACTA event held in Wellington on Saturday was a roaring success. Sadly, I was unable to attend, and it sounds like I missed a great event. That said, we now have a bunch of smart folks who've had opportunity to discuss at length the issues that the so-called Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is generating, and to produce the 'Wellington Declaration'. This is to be presented to the Government in less than 2 days - and hopefully made available to the ACTA negotiators.
Everyone who cares about the ongoing rights and freedoms of citizens of NZ - in particular regarding the Internet but also regarding the ways Government creates law - should be paying careful attention to ACTA. If the contents of the declaration ring true with you, show your support and Sign the Petition.
I Plugged it on NZLUG, and AuckLUG as well. It goes a little way toward explaining the background of this, largely ripped directly from the PublicACTA website.
Big Kudos to InternetNZ (hat-tip Jordan Carter), Nat Torkington, Don Christie, Peter Harrison and all of those who've been involved in both PublicACTA and from my personal perspective, the NZOSS's arguments against ACTA - NZOSS have been very proactive in responding to ACTA's potential risk to the FLOSS community and i'm proud to be involved with such upstanding folks.
So yeah, anyway, get signing! And stay tuned, I have no doubt we've in no way heard the end of this.
I had a recent epiphany as I was reflecting on ACTA, the Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. To want to block counterfeit items - that is, genuine fakes, is admirable and I support it fully.
I'm not sure that piracy - which is illegitimate replicas of an original, sure, but a soft original (such that in essence, there's no difference between the original and the copy, except the media across which it is delivered) is not quite the same. For one, the scale is entirely different (and the above article illustrates this well). For another, you are infact getting 'the real deal' (most of the time). The software (or media) is infact exactly the same, as the original shipped from the factory. The physical media on which it is delivered ceases to be very relevant once it's installed / copied onto disk, for the most part!
Obviously the technical details vary between software, and media (movies/music).
I don't support media piracy either, but ACTA - a Trade Agreement - is not the place to implement totalitarian policies - and to plan this in secret!
Interesting to read recent comments that comment on how the European Union almost unanimously voted to open up ACTA negotiations and not carry them out in secret (with the holdouts, apparently, being the United Kingdom!!) - and simultaneously, Obama vocally supporting the secret approach. So two of the largest 'western' governments appear to be under the thumb of 'rights holders' - aka the big-money media companies.
Firstly my personal viewpoint is that it was private property, invaded, and vandalised, plain and simple. No 'Higher Power' and no immediate danger to others, should be usable as an excuse for this sort of behavior (yet it was, and successfully too). Utterly dissapointed, I am.
But TVNZ, seriously. Last I checked Satellites were the things that fly around the earth in orbit. Not the Sattelite DISHES pointed at them.
[Edit: Kiwiblog has an interesting take on the situation, and indeed, the ramifications of this decision - notwithstanding the comments I saw on 3 News last night where the Jury were specifically instructed to disregard any precedent the crime might set!]
Initially when the idea of the DIA Internet Filter (targeted specifically at Child Pornography) was floated I didn't have too many problems with it; their method of implementation (BGP against the IP, and then content filter for HTTP only) is pretty low-impact and the risk of collateral damage is about as low as you could reasonably expect.
However recent media coverage notes that several ISPs are against the filter - which has been launched, but only with Maxnet and Watchdog (others pending) - and some of the reasons identified are pretty damn reasonable.
We have a Single-Point-of-Failure - a single Denial of Service target - and a blocklist which is hidden from public view, so we're trusting our friends at the DIA's Censorship Shop to 'get it right' and to never, ever add content that extends beyond the filters mandate.
So the questions then are,
Do we want another SPOF situation, and
Do we trust the government not to extend the scope of the filter?
In the end, the simple answer is the best; The only people responsible for web content are its creators and publishers. The win over child porn would be to identify and lock up / castrate those who create the content in the first place, and those who make it available. If you need to then nab folks, go for the consumers (the ones who create the market in the first place) who're actually the ones guilty of handling objectionable material.