Day: March 4, 2005

The Broadcast Flag Comes to the Web

Here’s the obvious endpoint for all of the hand wringing over the Google Toolbar — a broadcast flag for web pages.

First things first – we’ve just made up this meta tag. It’s actually not supported by anything yet! So why, I hear you ask, might you implement it? The answer is easy: because there should be one that programs such as the Google Toolbar listen to. People like Google aren’t going to invent one for us, their reps have practically said as much. If, as webmasters, we all start using the same one then pretty soon honourable software developers will start to use it and then, hopefully, some of the rest will follow.

The very presence of such a tag on webmaster’s pages makes a point. It says to developers such as Google “Hey! You should be paying attention to this. This is what we want. This is what we want to allow you to do here and this is what you shouldn’t”.

. . .

{restrictions} is replaced with text representing restrictions on content changing of the page. The possibilities are:

* none – the web page author requests no client side content altering

* links – the web page author requests that client side applications may only alter links or add links to the page

* content – the web page author requests that client side applications may only alter content but not modify links or produce links to other sites

* all – the web page author allows client side applications to alter anything

Thus the following requests no client side altering of the page:

You have to wonder if “none” is meant to be taken literally (and if not, why it’s an option) — should the option not to load images be unavailable in the browser if the page’s publisher sets restrictions to none? Is a serious content modification like automatic translation to be blocked? Is my favorite extension that inserts graphics after PDFs and MP3s forbidden?

Its amazing how quickly so many web publisher’s have turned into RIAA/MPAA-wannabes, locking down their wares and complaining about the users who dare to remix or modify content in their browser in ways that the user finds helpful.

Tennessee Lawmakers Consider Constitutional Amendment to Protect Hunting, Fishing

A number of Tennessee lawmakers are lending their support for a constitutional amendment that would protect hunting and fishing in the state.

A joint resolution introduced into the Tennessee State House proposes amending the Tennessee Constitution to read,

The people have a right to hunt, fish, and harvest game, subject to such regulations and restrictions as prescribed by this constitution and general law. When reviewing such restrictions, a state court shall utilize a rational basis standard, as such standard has been defined by the courts through case law.

State Sen. Doug Jackson is supporting the same wording in the state Senate. Jackson told the Associated Press that the amendment is needed to protect hunting and fishing from well-funded anti-hunting groups such as the Humane Society of the United States,

There are very organized, very well-funded efforts to take away the right of citizens to hunt, fish and trap. I think it’s time we place in our constitution a guarantee for the citizen that they will be able to continue in that heritage.

Tennessee’s Wildlife Resources Agency supports the amendment in principle. TWRA assistant director Allen Gebhardt told the Associated Press that the agency would have to examine the wording, but that “It sounds, from our standpoint, like a wonderful idea.”

The full text of the resolution proposing to amend Tennessee’s constitution to protect hunting and fishing can be read here.

Sources:

Tennessee joins states seeking ‘right to hunt’ legislation. WHNT-TV, February 2005.

Lawmakers want amendment shielding hunting rights. Matt Gouras, February 21, 2005.

PETA Doesn’t Target Children . . . Except When It Does!

Back in January, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals’ Ray Hinkle repeated Ingrid Newkirk’s lie that PETA doesn’t target children. Hinkle was quoted by the Roanoake Times as saying,

[PETA] never hands out things to children under the age of 13 without parents’ permission.

Hmmm, so why did activists show up at Central Middle School in Waterloo, Iowa, to hand out PETA’s Chicken Chumps cards to the students there. Most of the students at Central Middle School are going to be under 13. Was PETA going to ask for permission slips or identification before handing out its cards? Of course not.

On the other hand, someone at the staff of Central Middle School was on the ball (emphasis added),

[PETA activist Chris] Link contacted school officials ahead of time. They let Link’s three-person team come on school property to distribute the cards and talk to the children.

Apparently the fact that Wednesday is early dismissal for Waterloo students didn’t come up in the conversation. At least not until Link showed up at Central at 1 p.m. to scope out the situation in advance of the 2:25 p.m. event.

That’s when he was told the children would be leaving for the day in about a minute.

Sounds like he needs to be handing out Chris Link Chump cards. Apparently Link did rush back to his car, grabbed the cards, and managed to hand out about 100 of them. No word on how he managed to obtain the parent’s permission for all those kids under 13.

Anyways, the freaks activists then headed to KFC to picket along with a person dressed in a chicken costume holding a sign saying, “I’m not a nugget.” (Not that anyone was going to mistake an idiot in a chicken costume for something as delicious as a chicken nugget).

Finally, lets take a look at PETA’s Elizabeth Cooper’s effort to explain the Chicken Chumps cards, which feature characters like “Sickly Sally” and “Tubby Tammy.” Cooper told The Waterloo Cedar-Falls Courier,

They’re not gross, but they are icky.

Sort of like PETA’s claim that they don’t condone terrorism, they just think it’d be great if animal enterprises were sent on fire while they hire individuals who think it’d be great if people working in animal enterprises were murdered.

PETA — they’re not terrorists, but they are gross and icky.

Source:

PETA demonstration moves to fast-food restaurant. Jeff Reinitz, Waterloo Cedar-Falls Courier, February 24, 2005.

Sarah Gisborne Receives 6 1/2 Years for UK Animal Rights Attacks

Animal rights extremist Sarah Gisborne was sentenced in February to six-and-a-half years in jail after pleading guilty to causing criminal damage.

Gisborne caused an estimated Pound 40,000 in damages in five attacks on the automobiles and homes of individuals associated in one way or another with Huntingdon Life Sciences in the July 2004.

Gisborne was caught after one of her attacks was captured on a security camera which police used to identify the rental car she used.

This is not Gisborne’s first arrest or time spent in jail. She has been arrested 9 times for animal rights-related offenses, and spent time in jail twice, including for an attack on the home of Huntingdon Life Sciences’ director Brian Cass.

At least one of the homes was spray painted with “ALF,” but Grisborne has been very active in another group — Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty. As Brian Cass noted in commenting on the verdict, this is yet more evidence that SHAC engages in violent extremism. Cass told The Hunts Post,

I’m delighted that the court treated this offence with the seriousness which it deserves and I hope that this will serve as a lesson to other people who are similarly conspiring to harm the medical research community. Sarah Gisborne has been a very close associate to the leaders of SHAC for many years – they surely now cannot expect anyone to believe that they have nothing to do with criminal damage.

Along with the jail time, Gisborne is banned from coming within 500 meters of Huntingdon Life Sciences or Yamanouchi or contacting any of its staff for two years after her release, and is also banned from driving for three years after her arrest.

Source:

Animal protester jailed for attacks. February 26, 2005.

HLS activist gets six years. Amanda Breen, The Hunts Post, March 2, 2005.

Tennessee House Joint Resolution 35 – Constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish

Filed for intro on 02/02/2005

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 35

By Casada

A RESOLUTION to propose an amendment to Article I of the Constitution of Tennessee relative to the right to hunt, fish, and harvest game.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ONE HUNDRED FOURTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE, THE SENATE CONCURRING, That a majority of all the members of each house concurring, as shown by the yeas and nays entered on their journals, that it is proposed that Article I, of the Constitution of Tennessee be amended by adding the following language as a new, appropriately designated section:

The people have a right to hunt, fish, and harvest game, subject to such regulations and restrictions as prescribed by this constitution and general law. When reviewing such restrictions, a state court shall utilize a rational basis standard, as such standard has been defined by the courts through case law.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the foregoing amendment be referred to the One Hundred Fifth General Assembly and that this resolution proposing such amendment be published by the Secretary of State in accordance with Article XI, Section 3, of the Constitution of Tennessee.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Clerk of the House of Representatives is directed to deliver a copy of this resolution to the Secretary of State.