Biolizard89: What Should Be Esperanto III

Team Twiizers has released the first publicly available Wii hack that does not require any hardware modifications. The hack uses a buffer overflow exploit found in the save game loading function in Zelda: Twilight Princess. The buffer overflow was not enough to hack the Wii, however, since game saves are encrypted with three different keys. However, the hackers were able to take advantage of a vulnerability in the Wii hardware (using a huge amount of soldering) to get access to the Wii’s RAM, and found the keys sitting unencrypted in memory. Using this, they were able to encrypt and sign the save game file with the proper keys and thus get Zelda to load it.

The currently released demo does not load arbitrary code from an SD card or USB Gecko, but adding this feature would not be difficult. The demo displays enough information to prove that homebrew is running, and names the hackers (Tmbinc, Segher, and Bushing) and their website (Wiibrew.org).

Congrats to Team Twiizers for pulling this off! Looks like Wii homebrew will soon be a reality!

With all this talk of a recession, you’d think that businesses would be hurting.  And they are.  Unless those businesses happen to be buddies with the White House, like the oil companies.  The 5 largest oil companies have had their profits skyrocket since 2001.  Hmm, let’s see, what political events happened in 2001?  Maybe… Bush coming into office?

But wait.  Maybe they’re playing fair and are just really good at business management.  This sounds slightly possible, until you check the gas prices for the same time period.  That’s right, gas prices seem to have a statistically good correlation with the oil giants’ profits.  Hmm, let’s see here.  They’re charging more, and making more profit… does this sound like the higher prices are necessary for the companies, or does it sound like they’re ripping off the consumer so that they can get rich?

This is why the government is supposed to prosecute companies like this.  And this is also why we need a Democratic president.

In yet more news regarding the Bush Administration’s impeachable offenses, now they have acknowledged recycling computer backup tapes from before October 2003.  Among other things that were on those tapes were e-mails regarding the CIA leak case.

This would violate at least two laws requiring the preservation of government and presidential records.  Not to mention, it is probably also obstruction of the CIA leak investigation.  Obstruction of justice is what made Nixon resign facing certain impeachment.  But Nixon was just a crook.  Bush has tried to turn America into a Fascist state which kidnaps citizens of foreign countries, tortures them, and invades more foreign countries to settle a personal vendetta.  If we could impeach Nixon, why have we not impeached Bush and Cheney?

Mike Huckabee has hired James Pinkerton, a general loony who has supported “a cop in front of every mosque,” as a “senior adviser.” Pinkerton has also supported genocide in Iraq against the Sunnis, has said of Bush’s violation of the Constitution, “I’d rather lose our civil liberties than lose the war,” has claimed that corruptionin Texas is due to its “proximity to Mexico,” and warned that America is falling to “Muslimization” and that we must “separate” our civilization from the Muslim community.

It seems that suddenly, Huckabee has become very openly far-right-wing, whereas he was previously quite good at at least sounding reasonable.  While this does make me wish that he had waited until after getting the Republican nomination before opening his big mouth, I am reminded that he is still doing quite well in the primary polls, so we may yet have an easy-to-beat Huckabee Republican ticket.  Keep your fingers crossed….

Mike Huckabee’s true colors are starting to become more obvious.  The generally loony creationist, who tried to keep sodomy illegal and compared homosexuality to necrophilia, is now saying that we need to “amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards.”

Never mind that none of the Founding Fathers would have had the same idea of exactly what “God’s standards” were.  Never mind that a large portion of Americans would disagree with Huckabee about exactly what “God’s standards” are.  Never mind that we’re trying to repair our image in the Muslim world after the disaster that was the Bush Administration. Never mind that the most famous instance in history in which the church and the government were the same entity was the Spanish Inquisition.   Never mind that to do what Huckabee says would undermine the foundation of our nation, which is not religion, as Huckabee says, but freedom.

Huckabee’s views on religion and state are dangerous.  If he had his way,  America would become the new Taliban.  Lucikily, these statements make him completely unelectable.  Which begs the question: why couldn’t he have waited until after he got the Republican nomination before he started self-destructing?

It never fails. Bush is abusing power for the who-knows-how-many-th time, Congress is letting him do it, and someone at Newsweek actually wastes a quarter of a page complaining about the offensiveness of Halloween costumes.

The article quotes the author of a book called “Stop Dressing Your Six-Year-Old Like a Skank,” which is of course already a tip-off that the article will be a pain to read. Apparently, some terminally sensitive old people have just now noticed that more skin is now shown in common culture in the 1990’s and 2000’s than in the 19th century, and were offended. Yeah. Virtually everything I write or say offends some old and/or terminally sensitive people. But it doesn’t offend the mainstream. Same with this. I don’t have any friends who freak out when they see someone wearing standard 21st-century clothing; most people don’t care.

As for Halloween allegedly being more “skimpy” than average days, I’m not entirely sure that’s true. I certainly didn’t see many more-skimpy-than-usual outfits on Halloween. Sure, I’ve cumulatively seen a few of them (I’d say less than 5) on Halloweens since I can remember.  I would agree with the assertion that people are likely to wear “different” clothing from average on Halloween.  That, of course, is the whole point of Halloween.  As always, people will wear what suits their personality, and I’m sure that some of those people will show more skin on Halloween than average as a result.  Some will also probably show less.  That’s a direct result of being in a free country; people will have different tastes.  But I have not seen any Halloween costumes that I find offensive.  Even if I did, would I have a legitimate basis for complaining?  Not really; I find stuff everywhere which I personally am not a big fan of.  I am straight, and therefore am not a big fan of homosexuality myself.  Do you see me complaining about homosexuals?  Heck no, because they’re doing what suits them, and I’m doing what suits me.  Are they violating my rights?  Nope.  Do Halloween costumes which show a bit of skin violate anyone’s rights?  That’s right, no, they don’t.

Of course, there is still some legal basis for restricting Halloween costumes.  It’s called public decency laws.  These laws govern what you can wear in public at all times, without making exceptions for Halloween.  After all, why should Halloween be subject to different standards in terms of what is harmful to wear?  But do the costumes which the Newsweek article complains about (miniskirts, bare midriffs, etc.) violate those laws?  Of course not.  If someone wore those in public on any day of the year, they’d be within the law.  So why is anyone singling out Halloween?

What it all comes down to is that the old and terminally sensitive population has a major problem with virtually everything about modern culture and society: “godless” science, “violent” video games, legal gambling, legal homosexuality, civil liberties, and, of course, a bit of skin.  Let’s hope they don’t get any more control over the government and media than they already have.

J.K. Rowling recently announced when taking questions from Harry Potter fans that Albus Dumbledore was gay, and that he was in love with Gellert Grindelwald.  I was very surprised to hear this, but I think it’s a good thing.

For one thing, just in terms of tying in the story, it elaborates on why Dumbledore never went after Grindelwald for so long following his rise to power.  But more importantly, it makes the world of Harry Potter seem genuinely real.  Like many fans, I assumed that Rowling wasn’t planning to insert a gay character into the book, simply because it would offend fans and/or detract from the story.  I wasn’t remotely worried about fans being offended, but I did think that a gay character should only be in the books if it fit with the story.  And Dumbledore and Grindelwald fit perfectly into the story, and make the story seem realistic — there are gay persons in real life, why not in the magical world?

Of course, I’m also impressed by this just because it will piss off the Religious Right again, which is always fun to watch.  I’m looking forward to some news coverage of Laura Mallory going mental over this.  Looks to be a lot of fun to watch!

Newsweek’s article regarding the rape conviction of Warren Jeffs was very good.  They were certainly better than most of the mass media, which was more interested in the fact that Jeffs was polygamist than in the fact that he was forcing nonconsenting 14-year-olds into marriages with people they hated.  Newsweek’s article did a good job of pointing out that people like Jeffs are a minority of polygamists.

Pointing out that Jeffs was a polygamist, as the media is fond of doing, is pretty much like pointing out that Larry Craig and the Catholic priests who abused children were gay, or that the Communists in the U.S.S.R. who murdered countless people were atheist – completely irrelavant, and demeaning to the groups mentioned.  Anyone who seriously hates Jeffs because he was a polygamist, or hates Craig or the priests for being gay, or hates Communists for being atheist, seriously needs to (a) reexamine their priorities and (b) learn a bit more about polygamists, gays, or atheists.

Most polygamists, gays, and atheists are perfectly nice, good people, and do not endorse rape, soliciting sex in a public restroom, or murder.  They happen to differ from the average American on minor issues of personal preference.  Remember one of the standard rules for a free society?  Consenting, legally competent adults may do whatever the heck they want so long as they do not violate anyone else’s rights.  I ask the people who hate polygamists, gays, and atheists: how are they violating your rights?  If their those people’s answer is along the lines of “it’s immoral,” I have news for them: morality is not legal to legislate.  Ever.  Because whose moral values are going to be enforced?  Yours?  Mine?  Hitler’s?

In conclusion, people need to stop acting as though it’s significant that Jeffs was polygamist.  The problem is rape, not polygamy.  Don’t insult a whole class of people just because one of them is a rapist.

A recent Newsweek story discussed horse-drawn carriages in New York City, and the controversy over whether the horses are being abused.  At issue are several problems, most of which are centered on the question of whether horses are safe in a 21st-century large city.   The biggest problem involves loud noises spooking the horses, causing them to randomly decide to run away in a random direction, often into cars.  Other problems include temperature conditions, air pollution, and overworking.

Now, I’m not an expert on horses.  However, it is relatively common knowledge that horses, when scared, run away.  This is common for prey animals.  Combine that with a noisy environment like New York City, and what do you get?  Horses frequently getting freaked out by random noises, and running away.  Now combine that with motorized vehicles sharing the street with the horses, and not always being able to stop if a horse randomly darts out in front of them.  Hence the problem.

Now, I’m not saying that the situation can’t be made safe.  I’m just saying that I have not seen such a proposal, and until an effective proposal is put forward, the only option is to stop the carriages.  Which is more important, a lame tourist attraction, or animal cruelty laws?  Stop the carriages.

Looks like there was a funky formatting problem with my most recent post.  It’s fixed now, so if you couldn’t read it before, try now.