Here's the word. Get ready for taxes, the ultimate virus, to attack stuff like Second Life.

Wonderful.

I would feel much better about this if the government actually knew what the hell it was doing with the money it already collects instead of trying to find more.

And for those of you who think this is reasonable, then you're obviously not being taxed enough. Feel free to donate the amount that will make you feel better about yourselves. I'm sure a call to any government agency, local or federal, will get you all the info you need about how to make a donation that will soothe your aching conscience.

Just leave the rest of us the fuck out of it.

P.S. Although this commenter on Digg where I found the article, may actually have the right of it.

Kudos to Slashfood for presenting a problem, then presenting the solution.

Problem: kids watch too much advertising on television targeting them for stuff that's bad for them.

Solution: let them watch less television.

I know that sounds blindingly obvious, but it escapes many. Limiting the amount of television a kid can watch involves parenting, and that actually takes effort. So.

Oh, and here's what I love about the article they link to:

Advocates said the study adds to mounting evidence that food marketers are trying to hook the youngest children as lifelong customers.

Okay, hold up there, Sherlock. Let me keep anybody from straining themselves. Food marketers–whose job it is to market–trying to hook young children as lifelong customers? Um, fuck yes they're trying to do this. With every fiber of their being, you dumbshits. I'll take whatever leftover funding you had for your ridiculous study now. You're welcome.

Previous studies have found that kids as young as 3 who see TV ads are more likely to request and eat advertised foods high in fat, sodium and sugar.

Request? Yes, I can see that. So wait…they requested it from whom? God? The Maker machine in their kitchen? The dog? No, last time I checked, three-year-olds can't drive out to the store and pick up a pack of Twinkies or whatever stuff kids are eating these days. They have to have adults to do that for them. Usually adults that spend the majority of time with kids that age are parents, but if they're just giving kids whatever they want, with no regard for nutrition or anything else, then they're not really parenting, are they?

Diane Levin, of Wheelock College who is also a co-founder of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, criticized Disney and PBS for breaching viewers' trust.

You know, there's a really simple way to have a Commercial-Free Childhood, Diane. It's called Turn the Fucking Television Off. Last I checked, there weren't any advertisements in the best children's books. Nor do I remember in my childhood there being a bunch of billboards that followed me around while I was running about the neighborhood. Whose responsibility is it to protect kids from things? Right. That pesky P-word again. And what is "viewers' trust"? Who the hell trusts a channel on television, anyway? What exactly are you trusting them to do?

Now, it's not clear in here that anybody's looking to restrict ads through legislation–they don't mention the G word explicitly–but when we've got studies that are still searching for evidence that kids are being marketed to (which, in my mind, is like 60 Minutes doing investigative reporting about that fishy heliocentric theory) and this entire conversation happening without parents being mentioned (except here and on Slashfood–another blog), then I get worried. It's much easier to abdicate responsibility to Nanny Government than to actually tell your kid, no, you can't have a cupcake.

Trying to get a book about burning books banned during Banned Books Week. Priceless.

"The book had a bunch of very bad language in it. It shouldn't be in there because it's offending people. … If they can't find a book that uses clean words, they shouldn't have a book at all."

But check it out: the father "looked through the book and found the following things wrong with the book: discussion of being drunk, smoking cigarettes, violence, "dirty talk," references to the Bible and using God's name in vain. He said the book's material goes against their religions [sic] beliefs."

So no real profanity for the most part, just stuff that they don't do. That's offensive. Things different than what they believe = offensive. Are you getting this? If you can't have a book without drinking, smoking, violence, and using the Lord's name in vain–then you shouldn't have a book. At all.

Can we just put all of these people in a walled community somewhere where they can be safe from…you know, real life?

Honestly, think about it: who's going to be the first people to retreat into cyberspace and establish their own version of Second Life where they can be free to interact with one another in a godly fashion? The religious whackjobs. There's a short story in there for somebody. I don't feel like writing it, but somebody run with it, would you?

Found via Boing Boing.

This is the silliest goddamn thing I have read all week.

Check out the list. Where do they go first? Legislation. That's right. They want you to go to Parliament. And for my fellow Americans who have no clue, I'd like to point out that this has nothing to do with George Clinton.

Think about this for a second: they want you to get government to tell the people who own these properties that they can only provide these properties to you in a certain way. Why is this bad? Because this is government. Any power you can give them can be perverted and twisted for their own benefit. Don't believe me? Here in the States we just got rid of a phone tax that was implemented to pay for the Spanish-American War. There actually had to be a fight to get rid of it. It's not like the government was going to go, "Whoops! Guess what? I'll be damned. We missed that one. Our bad. Here, let's take care of this for you." No, they were willing to keep taxing and taxing away.

Look at it another way: here in the States, they think the Net is made of tubes. And not the band from the 80s, I mean actual tubes. Do you really want people who are that technologically backward passing laws about technology?

And finally: it's not the government's job to protect you from DRM. They can barely protect you from [insert name of actual threat here].

You want to know how to deal with DRM? Here's Widgett Walls' handy guide for how to deal with DRM:

1. Stop fucking buying stuff with fucking DRM on it.

That's it. One step. If you want to convince an industry to do something, hurt them at their wallet.

They have the right to provide this stuff in any form they want. And you have the right to tell them to go fuck themselves.

Show them how you're buying nothing but non-DRM shit from now on, and they will come around. Or they'll die. If you're willing to do that, great. If not, then you're showboating and you're wasting everybody's time. Sorry, but that's the way of it.

Found via Boing Boing. And it's probably posts like this that keep me from getting linked on there, he said, smiling.

Jonathan Miller hosted a most excellent series on the BBC entitled A Rough History of Disbelief. In it, he interviewed a who's who of deep thinkers about religion and the lack thereof. It was such a kickass series that they came back with The Atheism Tapes, which featured expanded versions of the interviews they only took snippets of for Rough History. In this one, Miller sits down with physicist Steven Weinberg. Excellent stuff.

Something Else is about to go down for maintenance. Stand by.

Update: Okay, I think we're back. If anything looks wonky, yell at me.

Crude but excellent video detailing prayer and why it's equivalent to a lucky horseshoe.

Direct link for the feedreaders.

Found via VideoSift.