All those tracks - the Church, Midnight Oil, Icehouse, etc are awesome. And chalk me up for another who loved that Do Re Mi anthem. :-)
Just to respond to Simon Grigg's diatribe against Prince Charles' more outre views up-thread (and no, I'm not endorsing the monarchy - I like the Irish model myself, if we can't have actual direct democracy, such as being able to recall elected MPs when we choose) ...As if "democratically elected" presidents of various countries (like the US) don't have their own bizarre views and seek to impose them where they can - quite directly in some cases; look at the abstinence-based "sex education" Bush and his ilk came up with.
I have more respect for Charles discussing his views - fully knowing that he has absolutely no constitutional way of getting any of them implemented, even when he does become king - than the studied-but-unconvincing "neutrality" of Her Maj. One thing the Poms do well is harmless eccentricity - and if we put Charles in that category, fine. Just as valid as the mouthings of most of the slebs we hear from in the media. And quite often a lot less stridently assertive - he seems to be fully aware of the lack of actual power he has, other than that of celebrity in giving his opinions a greater audience in some areas.
No thanks, I won't buy anything Apple-branded. Often way over-hyped for the actual feature set. I don't deny the design is often fabulous, but design is not everything (although it obviously helps raise the bar of how the technology is used).
I don't know why more people aren't up in arms about the "milk you to you drop" approach that Apple have of drip-feeding sexy technology. There was no technical reason for the first iPad not to have USB or SD or HDMI slots, cameras of a reasonable resolution, etc etc right from the outset. But no, you buy the first device, and in a year or so, upgrade to the next with one or two new features, ad infinitum. This is not the same as technology being released with new features as they become available in general.
If it's HTML-5 that has this functionality, then surely it's available to any class of device/media player with the right hooks? (I'm not going to delve into what "Airplay" does right now at work). But Apple have a habit of branding up common technologies in a certain way - for example, an Airport is not a better router, despite what many people seem to believe. Why should you have to jailbreak a device to enable a simple feature, such as playing the media content you want to?
Certainly with you on the functionality this seems to give, but let's please make use of open or ubiquitous standards (I've given up on MP3) without the proprietary branding exercise. If your device doesn't have the "play and go" standard (or whatever the technology ends up being labelled as generically) available, then obviously the consumers can lobby for that, no matter what kind of device they own.
Whether it is consciously acknowledged or not, civilised society (i.e. the rule of law) absolutely requires such threats as police beatings and prison rape to function.
Wow, I've totally missed the part in any court sentencing where "rape twice a day" and "get assaulted by cops 5 times before being incarcerated" are handed out as part of the penalty. That "rule of LAW" is an interesting thing, isn't it?
Yeah, this sniping at the PM is a bit ridiculous, frankly. Imagine the outcry if he DIDN'T turn up. I'm no fan of the man, but he's doing his job.
...Not that I seriously believe that those proposals would ever gain traction. Did I mention I'm an anarchist, philosophically? :-} (In terms of wild and unrealistic idealism - still pay taxes and vote though)
Yes, going right back to the beginning of the thread, I was also kindly advised by I/S that if I don't want to get married, I shouldn't. Thanks so much for that observation, not that I have any choice anyway. Both from the queer side and from the poly side.
And I love how many people here are all happy to get me one set of rights, but are all about implying multiple relationships are SOMETHING ELSE that CAN'T POSSIBLY be wanted by sane people. Thanks for that too.
What pisses me off, now that we come down to it, is this automatic privileging of one relationship paradigm over any other. To insist that these days it's entirely free of religious connotation seems pretty disingenuous. Why are so many people so against this right being extended across the board except if not because of their religious hang-ups? (Oh, ok, you can get people who are anti-gay out of pure bigotry, but the "protect holy matrimony at all costs" kind seem to be mainly the Christian moderate to right-wing).
To be totally honest, I think it should all be civil contracts, because legal marriage entails a whole bunch of property and inheritance rights, guardianship of children, powers of attorney (healthwise) etc etc etc. To enact these things individually costs a bomb and requires a lawyer. So why not make the Public Trust Office the registrar of such things at a nominal sum, and if you want to do the whole package with one person only, and call it "marriage", great, go to it.
I'm not in favour of marriage at all, personally - I think it should ALL be civil unions. You want to have a ceremony under the auspices of your god, great, go to it - I just don't think that should have any legal relevance.
That being said, as has been observed, us queers ARE still second-class citizens when it comes to relationship recognition. Also, I don't think they've sorted the adoption issue either, have they? Can a gay COUPLE adopt children? (A gay individual can.)
And actually, being polyamorous, I'm in favour of having some kind of legal recognition of multiple relationships (can we please not use the word "polygamy", ugh. It's correct in terms of multiple marriage, but the connotations...), rather than the current bodge job of financial contracts, powers of attorney and the like that people currently cobble together.
Tweeting by leaving a voicemail will be somewhat limited if the mobile networks are down. What's the penetration of landlines in Egypt - especially amongst the poor - vs mobile phones that everyone seems to have?
One more request. Can you bring back the font size widget? It's ok when I read PA at work, because I have a relatively low-res monitor, but my nice lappie at home has a high resolution. I have my Firefox font size set well for the vast majority of sites for the screen resolution, but this one hurts my eyes. It'd be nice not to have to CTRL-+ and just have a cookie set instead.