![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Dec. 10th, 2007
Well, we know why the Democrats aren't going to do anything about torture in the United States, and why impeachment is off the table; it's because the Washington Post, in what one can pray is a sign they may have some journalists under their banner, revealed that the Democratic leadership signed off. Nobody is denying the story.
Let's put this simply: the Democratic party is complicit. The counter-argument heard in some quarters that they couldn't do anything about it is a lie. They just didn't want to, were too afraid to, or, in some cases, were big supporters (Senator Rockefeller, I'm looking in your direction), which are different things. And, of course, Republicans have been overwhelmingly for it, and many continue to argue that it doesn't go far enough.
Amusingly, I got a letter back from Rep. Inslee today. It was, of course, a form letter, and talked mostly about the Military Commissions Act, and, of course, did not address my letters specific content at all. It talks about the "implicit" signoff by the Justice Department, and the "stretching" of the Geneva Conventions, and says that he will "always be vigilant in the protection of civil liberties." Given the actions of his party's leadership on these issues, and the inactions of the body as a whole, I cannot begin to take him seriously.
Still, I suppose it's better than his response to my letter on the ENDA fiasco (he voted for the unequal ENDA, falling into line), wherein apparently his office could only be bothered to craft two form letters, one to supporters and one to fundamentalist opponents of the bill in any form. I got the one they send to the fundamentalists. Very nice.
And at least they didn't have any yellow post-its on top saying that my "no-email-please@murkworks.net" address bounced.
Let's put this simply: the Democratic party is complicit. The counter-argument heard in some quarters that they couldn't do anything about it is a lie. They just didn't want to, were too afraid to, or, in some cases, were big supporters (Senator Rockefeller, I'm looking in your direction), which are different things. And, of course, Republicans have been overwhelmingly for it, and many continue to argue that it doesn't go far enough.
Amusingly, I got a letter back from Rep. Inslee today. It was, of course, a form letter, and talked mostly about the Military Commissions Act, and, of course, did not address my letters specific content at all. It talks about the "implicit" signoff by the Justice Department, and the "stretching" of the Geneva Conventions, and says that he will "always be vigilant in the protection of civil liberties." Given the actions of his party's leadership on these issues, and the inactions of the body as a whole, I cannot begin to take him seriously.
Still, I suppose it's better than his response to my letter on the ENDA fiasco (he voted for the unequal ENDA, falling into line), wherein apparently his office could only be bothered to craft two form letters, one to supporters and one to fundamentalist opponents of the bill in any form. I got the one they send to the fundamentalists. Very nice.
And at least they didn't have any yellow post-its on top saying that my "no-email-please@murkworks.net" address bounced.
on that audio spotlight thing
Dec. 10th, 2007 09:41 pmGawker headlines its story, "Schizophrenia is The New Ad Gimmick." Advertising Age's headline is Hear Voices? It May Be an Ad. Basically, it's a speaker, but it's a small speaker that emits ultrasonic sound that sets up resonance in the air to turn a section of air column into a speaker. This is not the same as some people are saying (that it bounces off your skull to create voices in your cranium. It's not.
The spooky weird effect comes from the sound seeming to appear from the void (more or less - it kind of is) instead of from a physical and identifiable source. This is extremely counterintuitive as all animals past the sponge have evolved to identify sound sources, and in this case, the actual direct sound source is invisible. It's also strange in that it's low-distortion, unlike what you'd get from a speaker set up somewhere above you turned 'way up, and isn't echoing off much of anything else (say, other buildings) because it's highly focused and directional. All of this is highly counter-intuitive, and, basically, strange.
My important takeaways - or at least as many as I can have not having actually played with one: 1) It's not actually beaming things directly into your head. Calm down. But 2) it's still creepy, and it'll feel kinda like it's in your head because there's no observable sound source, and all your instinctive sound-processing cues will be broken. And 3) I don't like it, any more than I'd like ads with bullhorns, even if it is a smaller area of effect. There's too much damn noise already. I could see some good uses (active noise cancellation) but I already hate and despise the TVs (and in particular their sound - you can't just not hear it the same way you can turn around and not see it) in places like Albertsons, which is why I don't go there if I can avoid it. So the ad uses make me think, "Feck off, assholes" and that I'm likely to boycott products advertised with it.
The spooky weird effect comes from the sound seeming to appear from the void (more or less - it kind of is) instead of from a physical and identifiable source. This is extremely counterintuitive as all animals past the sponge have evolved to identify sound sources, and in this case, the actual direct sound source is invisible. It's also strange in that it's low-distortion, unlike what you'd get from a speaker set up somewhere above you turned 'way up, and isn't echoing off much of anything else (say, other buildings) because it's highly focused and directional. All of this is highly counter-intuitive, and, basically, strange.
My important takeaways - or at least as many as I can have not having actually played with one: 1) It's not actually beaming things directly into your head. Calm down. But 2) it's still creepy, and it'll feel kinda like it's in your head because there's no observable sound source, and all your instinctive sound-processing cues will be broken. And 3) I don't like it, any more than I'd like ads with bullhorns, even if it is a smaller area of effect. There's too much damn noise already. I could see some good uses (active noise cancellation) but I already hate and despise the TVs (and in particular their sound - you can't just not hear it the same way you can turn around and not see it) in places like Albertsons, which is why I don't go there if I can avoid it. So the ad uses make me think, "Feck off, assholes" and that I'm likely to boycott products advertised with it.
