Tag Archives: James Woods

Retracing steps

That is the mood I am in, I am retracing certain steps from the last 12 hour. You see, I came up with a new idea for a movie, but I get so many of them, now I am in that state of mind on what I was thinking of. You see, it matters, because even as one thought does not, it tends to move in a direction that my mind was ignoring, and with that, the train of thought was creating a station that could matter a great deal. I know I was in the mindset of quests in TES-VII, then I was remembering the path of Hades, the path of the dead (I was in a stage of setting missions for the storyline of the Necromancers, and it is good to remember the classics (Hades is as classic as it gets), so my mind wavered. It wavered for a moment to the movie ‘How it Ends’ (because of the fires in the US. And then I remembered something, what if the world is saved, not for people, but for all the others? What happens when the path of Hades is a disease so devastating that it deletes 98.7% of all people at present?

This entire world remains with a mere 101,000,000 on the entire planet. I remember an idea for a DNA based disease. You see DNA is used to create proteins, they  are required for a person to function, but what happens when a specific DNA is created, almost shaped like a ‘Y’, the letter can be seen as 3 parts (see image), the included, the excluded and the  method of transformation. It does not matter which colour is what, it was the idea that counts. With a world now at 110 million, nature could repair itself, we have lost many animals, but those who remain would have a setting to survive and this time around, mankind is not as trusted as much and nature will be much harsher to overcome, of course but that is if we can brave the elements, the couch potatoes won’t get to much of a chance. Yet that is the setting we will talk about another time, for now, the idea of a setting of survival, this wouldn’t be a survival story, we have seen plenty of those, it will be about the setting stage of spreading a disease like that, that is why it is a DNA disease, the people become the carriers and the rats setting the plague on their fellow human beings. 

Each person becomes a carrier, every community a lighthouse of more and new sick people. And when the disease surpasses certain percentages, we see governments fold, we see the greed driven run in panic and we see the caring in a stage when there is nothing more to care for and no one left to care for. So why Hades? Hades was the fist born of Cronos, he is not as high regard as Zeus or Poseidon, but in all this Hades as god of the underworld has more options, all those who die serve him, in the end we all end up serving Hades, no exceptions. Also according to myth, he was the most displeased with mankind, so he gets to end most of us. 

And in this, what if Olympian DNA is part of the disease, if the method of transformation is Olympian, the gods and Demi gods are automatically immune. Yet that would not be enough, the stage is not merely what they could do, but the stage that they arrived here gives more rise to the place where their ship now is (in the Peru-Chile Trench) at roughly 7,600 metres depth. So when we consider the first hurdle, it is not Hades giving us the DNA finger, it will be Hades convincing Poseidon to allow it to happen, which gives us the stage of vengeance of what man did to the oceans and Poseidon was on board, in this Zeus is made useless as Poseidon and Hades united in their disappointment of mankind. There is more, but that is where I got in about an hour, the (optional) mini series would be about how we flaunted and spitted on what we have and when nature is in a stage where it does not care where we end, we see a consumer driven population that cannot fend for itself. It would result in a slightly less optimistic view on the world in 10 parts of about an hour. 

There is a nice symmetry here, we denied the Greek gods, the Italians overrun them and now the Greek gods get to overrun all of us, it merely a matter of perspective, and the DNA virus? I forgot where I left the Genome Compiler, you see, the idea was set not on the station of merely DNA, but the setting of what happens when we add two new elements to the stream, we see the two elements as merely a stage, but what happens when the two new ones interact with the four known ones and connect? That is why I came up with the ‘Y’ shape and no DNA has any defence against the two parts it never met before, in this the stage where a mere 1.013171122% gets to have an actual immune response, and when you consider COVID-19 where only 4% is deadly, it should be enough to pretty much scare you to death, if not that, then consider the city of New York, with a mere 109,187 left alive, it will be a case where those left alive will ponder the setting of ‘the deafening silence’ not for a moment, but in EVERYTHING you do, it should be an unnerving experience for all. 

Anyway, I was merely playing with ideas and as I create new settings, I also set new idea’s for whatever is in front of me, in this case it is a mission for the Necromancer guild, a station where we see an optional new challenge for those in need in Cyrodiil, in this case a temple that needs to get erected, in this case, either the Niben Bay or the Panther River, I haven’t decided yet. But I am decently sure that I will set a very different altar near Anvil, a set stage that allows for much more entertainment, especially if you need to get there from Elden Root, ahh, so much to do, so little hard drive space. Life remains full of challenges (for those still around in a year or so), fate is a fickle thing, so let’s be marry and enjoy an Irish Stew, optionally with a red ale.

Retracing my steps was a little more entertaining then I thought, but I will accept that 7,683,000,000 might disagree with me, so go complain to Hades, or Ralph Fiennes, or Cheyenne Jackson, or James Woods, or whatever he calls himself now. I am happily a non caring person at present (because I am hungry). 

Have fun!


Leave a comment

Filed under Media, movies, Science

That joke called the First Amendment

Well, the quick way is to wait on a bridge, but the reality of that approach is likely to be less successful! This all starts with an article in the LA Times today (at http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-james-woods-twitter-lawsuit-20150730-htmlstory.html). The object of trolling is James Wood, the actor. He has had many successes and in most of those moves he plays the badass opponent you don’t want to cross, not even when you have the Rock at your side. I had to take a little look at what I first saw that included him. Raid on Entebbe was the first movie, yet I did not realise it at that moment as it was a ‘Charles Bronson movie’ (the mind of a teenager tends to be super focussed). So James as the Captain with the glasses was not the focus of the viewer (me). I started to watch movies because James Woods was in them around the time ‘Best Seller’ was released. He had already drawn attention through Videodrome, Against all odds and Cat’s Eye. All this matters, because the way we perceive an actor (especially outside of America) is when we watch his work, not the gossip page, not some glossy magazine where dubious statements drenched in non-liability grammar. It is possible that the generation after me will form an opinion of him from his starring role as Hades in Hercules (you get the concept). So did he have issues? I am pretty sure that he has issues, which does not mean he dove into the narcotics, which several actors from the 80’s did. The fact that glossy magazines got away accusing people of murder ‘due to unnamed sources’ adds to the stress here. But what is the case? Actor James Woods filed a $10-million lawsuit this week against an anonymous Twitter user, alleging defamation and invasion of privacy. In my view there are two options, either that person is an American, or not. If not it basically becomes an FBI case (I will get back to this). Leila Knox, an attorney with the San Rafael-based First Amendment Coalition gives us some of the goods. As she states “You have to go straight after the individual”. Which is all fine and good, yet since its official adoption of December 15th 1791, the text: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances“, has become a bit of a joke. There is no doubt in my mind that the originators had the best intentions in mind, yet for no less than 30 years the 1st amendment can be regarded as an international joke. (I will get back to this too). The next part in the article is “The next step is to subpoena the ISP, which must alert the user that he or she is being sued and that there is a request for the user’s identity to be revealed“, not just that, but the ISP can actually start a case of defence for the troll and file for quashing the subpoena. Mark Lemley, director of Stanford Law School gives us in addition the following: ““The hardest part is proving that the statements were made with bad intent” and were not accidental, said Lemley, who spoke in general and not in reference to the Woods case. “It also depends on how careful the poster has been to cover their tracks.”” in this we see the first issue and as to answering this, I will also get back on the two previous points. You see, I am all for ‘freedom of speech’, yet in that light, this freedom also needs to show a form of accountability. When we see that there is a need ‘to cover their tracks’, whilst there is supposedly freedom of speech, you know that something is wrong. So the fact becomes, should the ISP be allowed to act in the way it can? I agree that to some extent it should be protective, but when a person is hiding behind anonymity so that this person can lash out, I have to see the situation that the victim of this lashing has a right to face his/her accuser. Is that not a direct right too? In the second, when we consider the 1st amendment in another way we get the following: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances“, let’s take this one step at a time. ‘Or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press‘ I believe in the spirit of this, but are we not allowed to know the speaker? You see in those days, freedom of speech was done in writing or in words. In words meant that the person did this in view of others. That means that this person was a known person, even if that person was a stranger and was viewed for speaking his/her mind. The aggrieved person could face the speaker and defend the presentation. When in writing it was harder but overall we would know who spoke, because the true speaker would sign their view, if this person did not, than it was either a question the writer would ask people to answer for themselves or it could be rejected all together. The press has become an even more debatable joke. The Daily Mail for example with “source close to the family” (MH370 disaster), this is not the only case, what is also important is that we saw an issue in 2014 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) decided to investigate a case whilst using only 1 of 83 plaintiffs. These are UK cases, and they are aligned to this issue. You see, when we look at The Atlantic, we see an issue in the article ‘Why Newspapers Often Don’t Call Out Politicians for Lying’, it states that it is a complicated controversy, which on the surface it is not. You see a statement is either true or false. Now, we must allow for a view that is regarded as ‘the eye of the beholder’, which is fair enough. A Republican will see matters differently from a Democrat and if that person explains his/her view that should not matter and the truth is still told. So the issue now becomes is it the truth or is it flaccid? That issue comes to mind when we consider the quote “diminish their perceived objectivity, especially among unsophisticated news consumers“, from there we get ‘there is no truth, there is just a flaccid context because the reader could be regarded as stupid’, that would make you feel loads better wouldn’t it? So we now have a little bit of an issue, in one part the press needs to get a lot more leeway, so that it can bearing a point of view across, which is still informing the public, yet, we cannot allow for the press to continue to the extent it had for too long a time. In all this the 1st amendment is as I regard it a joke in today’s society, yet altering it is equally dangerous, because I believe in an accounted freedom of speech. In that view, the anonymous person is not a person perse, this person is a mere fabrication of nothing. Now, this is a dangerous statement from my side and I realise that. There is a clear need for anonymity, especially as there is a need to truly protect a person from prosecution, but such a person does not go out and states “James Woods is a cocaine addict”, which more than malicious. You see, as we regard a person with issues on alcohol and narcotics, the view of him is altered. In his case it will affect his ability to gain jobs. In a world where he relies on public opinion (even more than a politician), there is the need to make sure that people cannot make claims against others unless they can back this up. As far as I have been able to tell, James Woods has never been in court for any criminal transgression, and he seems to keep a decently healthy lifestyle, the fact that he has been in two relationships with women 40 years younger than him seems to vouch for that part. In all this I still have a partial issue with the quote by Leila Knox. She speaks the truth, but is she correct? The quote “One has the right to go out and speak and not be identified”, is truthful, but was it speaking? Basically James Woods fell under psychic assault, moreover, the assault can be regarded as intentional malicious assault. It is malicious as there is no evidence and no publications that James Woods has been addicted to drugs. the fact that this could be the statement of a person who does not know James Woods, making the claim malicious, an intentional act to do harm, at which point the victim (James Woods) has every right to face his accuser (Abe List), so now we get to the point how to solve this. Now for the case, there is little chance of James Woods to get a decent chance of confronting his attacker. The law seems too flaccid to do anything and in defence of the FBI, if they have to track down every defamation case they will never get to do the things they need to actually get done. You see, I am over some of these trolls, as we see how they just attack for the mere fun of it. Wouldn’t it be great if there was some anonymous hackers group that could give aid to these victims, a group that would retweet the accusation, but now with the added identity and address of that person, would that not be great? An approach that is enlightening and dangerous at the same time, because at times there are people who must be able to rely on anonymity, those people who do not attack, but speak out for their own hardship, they need protection, I do not deny it, making the first amendment a dangerous thing, because the more it protects the oppressors, the less it regards the victims, which was never the intent of the first amendment. So has the first amendment truly become a joke? The fact that people hide behind it whilst the location of the transgressor (read troll) is not a given is one side to this statement, the fact that the press can insinuate with impunity for mere profit is another part. Twitter seems to do whatever it can, to remain the ‘innocent disseminator’. When we look at this we legally get “The defence of innocent dissemination is intended to protect people such as newsagents, booksellers, librarians and internet service providers (ISP) who unwittingly publish defamatory matter without negligence on their part“, which is Australian Law, but the US has something very similar. And in all this, Twitter for the most has left interactions to almost zero, which gives strength to their ‘innocent dissemination’ even though the Troll has been removed, it is relatively easy to create a new profile, so that the troll can strike again. I think that on a case to case basis Twitter needs to re-evaluate its choices. It is not impossible that Twitter becomes another reddit through the bashing by trolls, which means that Twitter people will seek another venue at some point. For now Twitter is highly accepted in the business community. If that changes and trolls take over, the loss of accounts could spell long term hardship for Twitter, taking into account how quickly social media evolves, hanging onto the community as they have, Twitter did a fine choice in remaining the innocent disseminator. Yet the future is slightly altered. I personally believe that losing thousands of accounts due to a few trolls is a bad choice, not intensely protecting them would also send a stronger message to the people at large. So when in the speculated scenario where the people in a street learn that someone’s 15 year old kid has been trolling the hell out of some could be a revelation, especially for the troll. If a troll is nothing more than a cyber-bully, why do we give them protection? Aren’t we supposed to be united against bullies?

1 Comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Politics