text:
Parent: SoylentNews Site Policy
Soylent News Policy In Compliance With The Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA)
As a corporation established in the United States, Soylent News PBC is subject to US law. This includes the DMCA, whose provisions govern how we must handle content posted publicly by our users that is known to be, or suspected to be, in violation of a US copyright held by another entity.
In order to take advantage of what is called the 'Safe Harbor' provisions of the DMCA, which limit monetary damages to us in case one of our users posts copyrighted material, we have followed the provisions of that law and registered the required information with the copyright office. A copy of that registration and the contact information it contains (our 'designated DMCA Agent') may be found on the US Copyright Office site here (pdf).
The next section describes how we will handle such cases. For a deeper understanding of why we have found it necessary to adopt these policies, please read the section below titled #Rationale.
User Policy
There are two slightly different situations where action is required by the DMCA in regards to possible copyright violations which come to our attention.
1. We receive a formal DMCA Notice
In this case our actions are almost completely dictated by the law itself.
- If you are a registered user
- We will try to contact you through the email address you are registered under and ask you to remove the material
- If this is not done within 24 hours of when we receive the DMCA notice, we will remove the material ourselves, using any expedient means, which may include a direct database edit, resetting the password on your account so we can edit it and sending you a password reset email, or other means as required.
- If appropriate, or needed as a place holder, the offending material will be replaced with a notice indicating that some material has been removed as a possible copyright violation, due to a formal DMCA request.
- If you are not a registered user
- We will remove the material as soon as is practically possible, and leave in its place a note indicating material has been removed as a possible copyright violation, due to a formal DMCA request.
- In the event of a dispute, the user is required by law to follow the formal DMCA provisions and file a DMCA compliant 'Counter Notification'
- The form of a counter notification is described below, as directly quoted from the law.
- (3) CONTENTS OF COUNTER NOTIFICATION.—To be effective under this subsection, a counter notification must be a written communication provided to the service provider's designated agent that includes substantially the following:
- (A) A physical or electronic signature of the subscriber.
- (B) Identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled.
- (C) A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.
- (D) The subscriber's name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if the subscriber's address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which the service provider may be found, and that the subscriber will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person.
- (3) CONTENTS OF COUNTER NOTIFICATION.—To be effective under this subsection, a counter notification must be a written communication provided to the service provider's designated agent that includes substantially the following:
- In the event a properly written counter notification is received, staff will evaluate it on its merits and decide whether to restore the material, (no sooner than 10 days nor later than 14 days as required by law) and send a copy to the entity which filed the DMCA complaint (as required by law) OR, to not restore it.
- Please understand that the next step in the event of a restoration is likely a legal case brought by the DMCA filer. Due to our extremely limited means, we are likely to take a very cautious approach at such times, and are specifically protected in this by the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA itself.
2. A possible copyright violation is brought to our attention by any other means
In this case we have somewhat more flexibility. We are not required to actively seek knowledge of copyright violations by our users, and do not have any practical technical means to do so. However, the law does require that if we become aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent we must act expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material.
In this case:
- If you are a registered user
- We will try to contact you through the email address you are registered under and ask you to remove the material, establish that it is a clear 'fair use' of the material, that it is in fact not in copyright, or that you hold the copyright.
- No more than 7 days will be allowed for a reply.
- If no reply is received within several days, we MAY but are not required to, try to contact you through other means such as a comment left on your journal or in the main site comments.
- After receipt of your reply, or no later than 7 days if attempts to contact you or receive a reply have been unsuccessful, staff will evaluate the likelihood that the material is infringing, and either decide it is likely not, or remove the material ourselves, using any expedient means, which may include a direct database edit, resetting the password on your account so we can edit it and sending you a password reset email, or by other means as required.
- If appropriate, or needed as a place holder, the offending material will be replaced with a notice indicating that some material has been removed as a possible copyright violation, due to staff concerns.
- If you are not a registered user
- Staff will do its best to evaluate whether the material is likely to be infringing, based upon available information, within 72 hours.
- If the material is considered likely infringing, it will be removed using any expedient means,
- If appropriate, or needed as a place holder, the offending material will be replaced with a notice indicating that some material has been removed as a possible copyright violation, due to staff concerns.
In exceptional cases, flagrant repeated violations may lead to termination of a users account, at the discretion of staff.
Some Things Our Users Need To Be Aware Of
- It is not always obvious, but just about everything submitted to our site (with the exception of some user information, and articles submitted but not yet edited) is completely public and can be found by the searches of copyright holders looking to enforce their copyrights. So please be careful. If in doubt, leave it out.
- We are not required by law to actively seek out copyright enfringement. We do not do so, and have no practical technical means to do so. However if we become aware of a possible copyright infringement, we are required by law - with or without an actual formal DMCA notice - to investigate it, in order to maintain our safe harbor status.
- It is very important that we can contact you should there be a problem, or potential problem. In the event of an actual DMCA notice we have a relatively short time to respond (read the time limits above). Please make sure the email address you are registered under is current, and is actually monitored. There may well be edge cases when some input from you would be invaluable, but we cannot hear it if we cannot contact you within the time frames mentioned above.
- In view of our circumstances, we must take a very straightforward reading of the law, and cannot afford to dispute edge cases. This is quite likely to be unfair at times. Please understand our position. The law is rather heavily weighted toward the copyright holders. There is nothing we can do about that at present.
We (Soylent News, PBC) are an entirely volunteer run operation with no paid staff. Members of our community volunteer to edit articles and perform other duties. Our only expenses are those needed to provide servers and access and pay minimal taxes and bookeeping expenses related to our status as a PBC. These, in total, amount to only a few thousand dollars per year.
Our only source of income is voluntary contributions from our users. While they have been generous, their numbers are small.
In view of this, it is clear there is no practical way for us to fund the level of legal expenses required for legal challenges related to copyright issues, or any other serious legal challenges.
Our primary operation is as a user forum where our community can submit articles and freely comment on them. A particular feature of our system, modified from one created in the 1990s by another entity, is that we do not delete or otherwise modify user submitted comments, instead using a moderation system that allows users to assign numeric scores to submitted comments. This was adopted to allow a high level of free speech while still allowing users to be selective in the quality of comments they read. Undesirable comments are normally simply down-rated to a level where few readers will actually see it.
Due to this somewhat unusual system, there are no easily accessible means to completely remove or delete user submitted material, in the hands of staff. Users have the ability to edit and remove material in their journals, but have no ability to modify their own public comments or articles after submisssion. The only option available to staff is a direct, command line sql database edit, which requires root level privileges only available to a few staff tasked with system maintenance. The system as originated was designed specifically to NOT encourage this type of editing.
The DMCA puts us in an awkward position because of the situation described above. Prior to the passage of the DMCA, we relied for our protection on the idea, by law and common usage going back centuries, if not millenia, that entities which provide services for all, freely and indiscriminately, are 'common carriers' and cannot be held responsible for individual acts of the people they serve. In plain language, this means that if someone robs you and escapes in a Ford automobile, the manufacturer or seller of that automobile cannot be held legally responsible for the actions of the robber.
The DMCA violates this long held principle for specific uses. It has been strongly criticised for this. However, despite the controversy surrounding it, it is at present the law of the land in the United States and since we are incorporated in the United States we must comply with it.
In view of this, several staff have gone through the law to determine exactly how it affected us and what our responsibilities are. The approach taken is that, again in view of our limited means, we must strive for the most straighforward, plain interpretation of what is written and avoid attempting to second guess possible future legal challeges to the law, or interpreting language in ways that might be more favorable to our circumstances but require 'alternate' interpretations other than the most obvious one.
The most signficant item coming out of our read of the law is that there is what is called a 'safe harbor' provision in it. This provision very specfically exempts entities who follow some strict requirements in the law from legal responsibility for the actions of their users, including:
- Monetary damages resulting from copyright violations
- Monetary relief includes 'damages, costs, attorneys fees, and any other form of monetary payment'
- Damages that might result from a disputed or mistaken interpretation of whether material is infringing
- Various other situations where damages might otherwise result
This 'safe harbor' provision was determined to be very desirable for us to qualify for, in view of our circumstances.
To qualify, there are a number of conditions that must be met, notably including (with some others):
- A *Designated Agent* to receive DMCA notices must be created
- Specific information about that agent must be filed with the US Copyright Office which makes it publicly available
- We must act 'expeditiously' to remove suspected infringing material upon receipt of a DMCA notice
- The user must be notified and has the opportunity to file a counter notice. Upon receipt we can restore the material in not less than 10 days nor more than 14 days after receipt of the notice
- If we receive a counter notice, we must provide a copy to the entitity who filed the DMCA notice
- Both DMCA notices and counter notices must follow a specific format outlined in the DMCA
- We are not held responsible for any infringing materials our users submit we are unaware of, but
- If we are made aware, by any means, of such materials, or suspected materials, even in the absence of a formal notice, we must act 'expeditiously' to remove them.
- We are not held responsible if we wrongly determine materials are infringing
- A copyright owner may obtain a subpoena asking us to identify to them an 'alleged infringer' for purposes (only) of 'protecting rights under' the DMCA. (Which we must comply with)
- We must have a DMCA policy, and must 'inform' 'subscribers and account holders' of it, which must
- Provide for the termination of users who are repeat offenders.
- Be in accordance with 'standard technical means' used by copyright holders provided they 'do not impose substantial costs' on us.
Most of the provisions of the law are very clear and precise.
There are, however, a few areas somewhat open to interpretation, or whose meaning is somewhat unclear. Our interpretation of those items is covered below.
The last bullet point above referring to 'standard technical means' we are interpreting as the use of automated systems tied to copyright holders systems, such as used by very large service providers such as Google to automate the takedown process, to save staff time. Our system is so small and the expected frequency of violations so low that such a system would be an absurdity, and well beyond our technical and financial means in any case.
The necessity of terminating a users account access is also expected to be extremely low and will be dealt with on a case by case basis, the final decision will be made by current staff.
Our DMCA policy is this page on our public wiki.
The interpretation of the word 'expeditiously' in reference to how soon we remove alleged infringing materials is somehwat hazy. The courts have not yet clarified this, so we are relying on the analysis provided on this Wikipedia page.
Since Wikipedia pages may change from time to time, the relevant paragraph is quoted here:
Meaning of "expeditious"
The law provides for "expeditious" action. The meaning of "expeditious" in the context of this law has not yet been determined by the courts. Black's Law Dictionary defines "expeditious" as "performed with, or acting with, expedition; quick; speedy." In the common law, the term "expeditious" has been interpreted according to the circumstances, allowing more time than "immediate" but not undue delay. Some suggest that the most prudent courses are to comply "immediately" or to seek immediate legal advice from qualified legal counsel. In the commercial online world, taking more than 24 hours may well be viewed as undue delay. However, when legal advice is factored into the equation it is reasonable to give counsel time to review all the facts, verify the necessary elements of the notice and conduct minimal research to ascertain the current state of the law. This may reasonably occur when the material posted appears likely to be covered by a fair use, for fair use is not copyright infringement. So, in some situations it may be reasonable to determine that "expeditious" would take more than 24 hours, and if the ISP was a small not-for-profit provider, or a server run by volunteers, it may not have the resources to obtain a legal opinion with the same speed that a large multinational corporation may have resources at its disposal to comply immediately. There may not even be a person immediately available who is qualified to determine if the notice complies with the standards set forth in the act. Perhaps a reasonable court would take these factors into consideration. The courts in the United States have yet to rule on these issues.
For a commercially run on-line provider taking action within the hour to tell a customer that a takedown notice has been received and informing them that they must immediately remove the content and confirm removal, giving them six to twelve hours to comply; and otherwise informing them that the content will be taken down or their Internet connection terminated, may be considered reasonable. Some courts may find this to be too great a burden on an ISP if it receives a large number of communications at the same time or has limited resources to review § 512 notices for substantial compliance. It may also depend on how the notice is sent. If the notice is sent via regular mail or via fax, there may be a lag between the sending of the notice and its reception by those who are able to act upon it. If the notification is received by a mail delivery on a Saturday when the ISPs offices are closed and not acted upon until Monday, that may be considered reasonable.
Our interpretation of this is somewhat affected by our specific circumstances, which we believe might be reasonably taken into account. The most significant factor affecting this is that our site is a leisure time activity, and in many cases users may only be able to be contacted by us on weekends, or whenever their leisure time brings them to a condition that they read email or internal messages sent to them.
In the case of recieving an actual DMCA notice, the safest time period seems to be somewhere around 24 hours. For purposes of our policy we have therefore used that. It is very ikely however that it could take us longer to establish contact.
In the instances where no DMCA notice has been received we have used a somewhat longer time period, which takes into account something closer to the time frames we actually expect that will be required to contact a user.
In the case of anonymous users, we really have no means at all to contact them, and do not store any information that could even identify them. In that case it is most practical to simply remove suspected material as soon as discovered and our resources permit.
Reference Materials
- Direct link to a pdf of the DMCA - The safe harbor provisions are in TITLE II—ONLINE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LIABILITY LIMITATION (skip down page)
- Link to US Copyright Office - List of registered DMCA Agents
- DMCA - General article on DMCA at Wikipedia
- Expeditious - Link to Wikipedia article on the Safe Harbor provisions and interpretation of 'expeditious'.


text:
The increasingly popular UK Firefighters Sailing Challenge will be run for the 7th consecutive year on 27th, 28th and 29th April in the testing waters of the Solent.
To mark the dedicated and continuing support of their Gold sponsor the event this year will be named The telent UK Fire Fighters Sailing Challenge 2010. As the event has become better known and respected invitations have been extended to the other emergency services and there are now police, ambulance and mountain rescue service entries as well as from the UK fire service. This may be the only 999 inclusive sports event in the country.
Apart from the benefits of the emergency services competing in a single event, having the opportunity of meeting with colleagues and making friends in a non emergency situation and fostering better relations, it provides a platform to raise money for charity. This year the charities benefiting from the event will be The Fire Fighters Charity and Help for Heroes. The event committee are very grateful to the many local and national companies who have generously donated prizes for the raffles and auctions that raise much of the money that will be donated.
Event dinners will be held at the Cowes Event Centre on the nights of the 27th and 28th and we are delighted that TV presenter and comedian Miles Crawford will be entertaining competitors on our first night.
For more details of the event check out www.ukfsc.org.uk

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Related Content
Press Release
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today announced a Clean Water Act settlement requiring the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and seven East Bay communities to conduct extensive system repairs aimed at eliminating millions of gallons of sewage discharges into San Francisco Bay. Under today's agreement, EBMUD and the communities will assess and upgrade their 1,500 mile-long sewer system infrastructure over a 21-year period. The work is expected to cost approximately $1.5 billion. The entities will pay civil penalties of $1.5 million for past sewage discharges that violated federal environmental law.
Since 2009, EPA, state and local regulators and environmental groups have worked to reduce sewage discharges from East Bay communities. During that period, interim actions required EBMUD and the East Bay communities to improve their sewer maintenance practices and gather information to identify priorities for investment.
The San Francisco Bay covers 1,600 square miles and is the largest Pacific estuary in the Americas, a host for millions of migratory birds and a hub of commerce and recreation for more than 7 million Bay Area residents. Unfortunately, the bay is under threat from many sources of pollution, including crumbling wastewater infrastructure that allows sewage to escape from the system. During rainstorms, in particular, older sewer systems can be overwhelmed, releasing rivers of sewage before fully treated.
In addition to polluting waterways , raw and partially treated sewage can spread disease-causing organisms, metals, and nutrients that threaten public health. Sewage can also deplete oxygen in the bay, threatening fish, seals and other wildlife.
"For many years, the health of San Francisco Bay has been imperiled by ongoing pollution, including enormous discharges of raw and partially treated sewage from communities in the East Bay," said Jared Blumenfeld, EPA's Regional Administrator for the Pacific Southwest. "Many of these discharges are the result of aging, deteriorated sewer infrastructure that will be fixed under the EPA order."
Today's settlement is the result of a Clean Water Act enforcement action brought by the EPA, U.S. Department of Justice, State Water Resources Control Board, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board, San Francisco Baykeeper and Our Children's Earth Foundation.
"This settlement will result in major reductions of sewage discharges into the San Francisco Bay," said W. Benjamin Fisherow, Chief of Environmental Enforcement in the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division. "These improvements will help reach our goal of eliminating pollution in the neighborhoods in these cities and in the bay so that citizens may rest assured that they reside in a safe, clean environment."
The seven East Bay communities in the EBMUD settlement are:
- City of Alameda
- City of Albany
- City of Berkeley
- City of Emeryville
- City of Oakland
- City of Piedmont
- Stege Sanitary District (serving El Cerrito, Kensington, and a portion of Richmond)
"The public has been required to repair their own sewer laterals for over two years now, so it is past time that the local agencies aggressively repair their sewer systems," said Bruce Wolfe, Executive Officer of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board. "This settlement spells out how the agencies will work with the public over the next 21 years to do just that and protect the bay."
"Baykeeper will be watching the progress of these repairs closely to ensure that pollution of San Francisco Bay is reduced and eventually eliminated, and we will take action if the repairs fall short," said Baykeeper Executive Director Deb Self.
On an annual basis, hundreds of millions of gallons of raw and partially treated sewage are discharged directly to San Francisco Bay. Also, as much as 600,000 gallons of raw sewage from community sewer systems is first discharged onto streets and other public areas—through outlets such as manhole covers—before it drains to the bay.
As part of the agreement, EBMUD and the seven communities will:
- repair and rehabilitate old and cracked sewer pipes;
- regularly clean and inspect sewer pipes to prevent overflows of raw sewage;
- identify and eliminate illegal sewer connections;
- continue to enforce private sewer lateral ordinances; and
- ensure proactive renewal of existing sanitary sewer infrastructure.
EBMUD will also immediately begin work to offset the environmental harm caused by the sewage discharges, which are expected to continue until these sewer upgrades are completed, by capturing and treating urban runoff and contaminated water that currently flows to the bay untreated during dry weather.
Keeping raw sewage and contaminated storm water out of the waters of the United States is one of EPA's National Enforcement Initiatives. The proposed settlement is subject to a 30-day public comment period and final court approval. Read the settlement at: www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html
Learn more about EPA's national wastewater enforcement initiative at: http://go.usa.gov/5pak
EPA is working to restore San Francisco Bay, learn more at: http://www2.epa.gov/sfbay-delta


text:
DJ David Heidwex Creates A Super Soaker Mash-Up With Bombs Away, Cazzette, And Avicii
DJ David Heidwex brings a new flavor to Super Soaker with his mash-up remix. This new mix combines Cazzette's remix of Avicii's Levels with the summer banger Super Soaker from Bombs Away. Check out mash-up below and for additional remixes or to purchase Super Soaker, click here.


text:
The Pacific—HBO's fine sideways sequel to Band of Brothers—didn't nab the same affection and ratings as its predecessor, and it's not hard to see why. Band of Brothers, set in the European Theater of WWII, premiered on September 9, 2001. The majority of its ten episodes unfolded just after 9/11, at a time of swelling patriotism and before the current quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan. By executive producer Steven Spielberg's admission, The Pacific's jungle setting becomes "a Hieronymus Bosch landscape," and an audience weary of war (and looking for relief of work-week stress) is less inclined these days to commit to a story rife with war horrors. I confess: my first sampling of The Pacific didn't sufficiently grab me to commit to following the run on TV. But now The Pacific has arrived on home video, fresh for (re)discovery as a highly skillful piece of historical drama.
A marathon viewing benefits the ten-part series, which becomes more engrossing with each episode as the characters and the war develop. Executive producers Spielberg and Tom Hanks say they were inundated with requests by veterans of the Pacific theater to tell their story, and it's likely not just PR. The somewhat less familiar, somewhat less glamorous circumstances that played out in Guadalcanal, Peleliu and Iwo Jima were nightmarish tests of character for American and Japanese fighters. Of course, The Pacific benefits from a more nuanced perspective than the rah-rah films of the '40s, and from a nine-hour run time that allows greater depth and detail. Head writer and co-executive producer Bruce McKenna (Band of Brothers) shepherds a team—including Pulitzer-Prize-winning playwright Robert Schenkkan, Graham Yost (Band of Brothers, Boomtown) and novelist George Pelecanos (The Wire)—that takes inspiration from the autobiographical books Helmet for My Pillow by Robert Leckie and With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa by Eugene B. Sledge, as well as Chuck Tatum's Red Blood, Black Sand, Sledge's China Marine, and original interview material.
As played by James Badge Dale (24, Rubicon) and Joseph Mazzello (The Social Network, Jurassic Park), US Marines Leckie and Sledge share the spotlight with Medal of Honor-winning Marine John Basilone, played by Jon Seda (Homicide: Life on the Street). The discrete stories of each interweave to create the complex fabric of The Pacific, which tells the story of the Pacific Theater from their unique but representative perspectives. The series first two hours cover enlistment drama and the hell of Guadalcanal, experienced by Leckie and Basilone. In Melbourne, Australia, Leckie and the 1st Marine Division get some R&R, including relationships with women who end up as either "passing ships in the night" or wives; meanwhile, Basilone reluctantly ships home to collect the Medal of Honor and do the crucial but safe duty of drumming up sales of war bonds. After basic training, Sledge sees his first action in Peleliu, where an increasingly battered Leckie tries to hold it together. A frustrated Basilone begins to make noise about getting closer to the action as the series makes its way to Iwo Jima, Okinawa and a final homecoming.
And so The Pacific has breadth, dealing with homefront drama and wartime romance as well as battles. Even in the jungle, the story takes care to find grace notes to counter the harshness of the setting—or vice versa: the complexity of a war-stressed personality may best be represented by Cpl. Merriell "Snafu" Shelton (Rami Malek), who makes a gesture of goodwill to a brother in arms, then turns around and digs gold teeth from a "Jap"'s mouth. The demonization of "Japs" is an unavoidable part of the Marines' character, somewhat daringly explored as part of the education of Private Sledge, an innocent gradually hardened by action (that he's played by former child star Mazzello, still a potent actor, heightens the emotional impact on the audience). Madness, too, pervades the landscape: out-of-commission Marines are either dead or "gone," so crazed as to be a danger to themselves and others. Naturally, The Pacific also excels in its grueling, literally breathtaking battles scenes, which—like Band of Brothers—evoke the "you are there" style of Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan.
The Pacific succeeds in giving a vivid impression of the nature of this theater's combat, creating a venue for both powerful emotions and thoughtful consideration of provocative questions about what constitutes heroism or a just cause, battlefield conduct under extreme mental duress, and the lingering effects of war horrors. Flashes of humor and sweet love stories in miniature add texture to the narrative, which culminates in a curtain call for the Marines by way of historical photos and biographical updates. With its feature-quality production and sharp acting, this ten-part miniseries lives up to the HBO motto; The Pacific hardly seems like TV.
HBO brings The Pacific to home video in twin Blu-ray and DVD editions. The hi-def Blu-ray features staggeringly life-like transfers that accurately recreate the filmmakers' intentions in every respect: color and skin-tones are spot-on, and detail and texture sharply put every production dollar into focus. The spectacular image is wedded to DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 surround mixes built to blow you away. The battle scenes burst with sonic intensity and discrete detail; prioritization and directionality are outstanding, resulting in pin-drop clarity and a wholly immersive effect, even in subtler scenes.
Like other HBO Blu-ray sets, The Pacific includes an Enhanced Viewing Experience (HD) playback option, here available on all ten episodes. The tracks feature Picture-in-Picture interviews with surviving veterans (as well as family members of those deceased Marines) and analysis from a team of historians, headed up by series historical consultant Hugh Ambrose. You'll also find pop-up factoids, character bios and still photos.
All ten episodes also get a Field Guide. This interactive feature offers all manner of historical context: animated maps; more interviews with veterans, family and historians; archive footage; photographs; biographies and more. It's a terrific way to enhance the educational experience of the historical miniseries.
"Profiles of The Pacific" provides profiles of John Basilone (9:55, HD), Eugene Sledge (10:11, HD), Robert Leckie (8:57, HD), Sidney Phillips (6:09, HD), R.V. Burgin (7:20, HD) and Chuck Tatum (5:57, HD). Interview footage, some of it archival, with the Marines and their families make up each segment.
The compact behind-the-scenes doc "Making The Pacific" (22:36, HD) may leave viewers hungry for more, but we get a solid overview of the miniseries' subject matter, production, and relationship to Band of Brothers, as explained by cast and crew (and famous executive producers) and illustrated in set footage.
"Anatomy of the Pacific War" (9:59, HD) gives a quick historical context for those too busy to delve into the BD's enhanced viewing options.
There's no better way to experience The Pacific than in HBO's enhanced six-disc Blu-ray set, with its perfect A/V credentials and encyclopedia bonus features about the WWII experience of Pacific Theater veterans and their families.
Review gear: |
Panasonic Viera TC-P55VT30 55" Plasma 1080p 3D HDTV
Oppo BDP-93 Universal Network 3D Blu-ray Disc Player
Denon AVR2112CI Integrated Network A/V Surround Receiver
Pioneer SP-BS41-LR Bookshelf Speaker (2)
Pioneer SP-C21 Center Speaker
Pioneer SW-8 Subwoofer


text:
For several years, I've received a wonderful e-newsletter from Debra Schmidt, "The Loyalty Leader." The ongoing theme of the communique is how to provide outstanding customer service.
I especially enjoy the newsletter in that it's not only practical, down-to-earth and free, it always ends with a story about Debra's son, Dave. Those nuggets of youthful insight from Dave add that personal touch that, you guessed it, builds loyalty.
Well, it seems The Loyalty Leader likes the idea of our "What Our Guests Are Saying" blog. She touts it in one of her articles this week.
As an aside, young James and I just returned from our annual trip to Connecticut to spend Halloween with my folks. Unfortunately, I got to witness how one airline handles difficult situations with their soon-not-to-be loyal customers. At one point, a supervisor hollered, "I've got an Irate for you to handle over here." Please note, I was not the customer she was referring to; it was somewhat horrifying and a tiny bit amusing, though, to hear their not-so-secret code word for a problem customer is "An Irate." That was heading out. Returning yesterday, I was downright disgusted to hear (again a supervisor) bellow, "Who wants to get the wheelchair?" The bad part is that there was a perfectly able-eared woman sitting in the wheelchair waiting for help. A bit later, when someone came to help, he didn't even say hello to the lady, but just came up behind the wheelchair and pushed. What a difference just a few kind words would have made…


text:
In the Garden MB190
0 comments
Hi, I'm Jaime!
Nice to meet you!
Hello, my fellow curious souls, bookworms, and daydreamers! I love to connect with others who take the time to dwell in a place of wonder and curiosity, have meaningful conversations, and desire to make a difference in the lives of others in their families, communities, and the whole, wide, world.


text:
Nuclear Power's Green Mountain Grassroots Demise
Mar 16, 2012
Nuclear Power's Green Mountain Grassroots Demise
In the wake of Fukushima, grassroots citizen action is shutting the worldwide nuclear power industry.
A Solartopian tipping point is upon us in the US, Europe and Japan which will re-define how the human race gets its energy.
States rights and local democracy are at the core of the battle.
The definitive breaking point looms in Vermont.
By mid-March a state board is likely to deny the Yankee reactor licenses to operate or to create radioactive waste.
If that happens, a Vermont shutdown could mark a critical moment in establishing state power over an atomic reactor. A critical domino would fall---as it has in Japan and Europe---and we will begin taking down old reactors all across the US. Four new reactors barely under construction will go down with them, making inevitable the end America's age of atomic power.
In Vermont, the New Orleans-based Entergy bought the Yankee reactor in 2002. Entergy agreed to shut it if the state's Public Service Board denied it a Certificate of Public Good to continue to operate and generate radioactive waste.
That decision is due by March 21, the forty-year anniversary of the reactor's 1972 opening.
Entergy has horrified many of its staunchest Green Mountain supporters. One of its cooling towers has simply collapsed from ancient rot and basic negligence. It has leaked tritium and other radioactive isotopes from pipes the company has said---under oath---do not exist.
Entergy sued Vermont after the legislature voted (26 to 4) to shut the reactor. When its lawyers won in federal court, Entergy demanded the public pay it $4 million in legal fees.
But the company miscalculated. It welcomed federal Judge Garvin Murtha's ruling that the legislature could not shut Yankee (the state is appealing). But Murtha also upheld the right of the Public Service Board to deny Entergy those operating and waste production permits.
So after lauding the decision, Entergy's lawyers now want Murtha to change it. Entergy has also asked the Public Service Board for a stay in its expected denial of the permits.
The case is clearly headed to the corporate-owned US Supreme Court. But for Entergy to win, the Roberts majority would have to rule that the company was temporarily insane when signed its agreements with the state, and that a state agency can be forced (against its will) to issue reactor operating and waste creating permits.
The history of US courts denying states the right to shut reactors dates back to the 1954 Atomic Energy Act. But deferral to the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission's bent for keeping rush-bucket reactors on line is rapidly eroding. The Commission granted Vermont Yankee a license extension one day before the Fukushima disaster. A state-mandated shut down could seriously impact the political calculus for an industry whose grassroots opposition has become a full-on tsunami.
New York's Indian Point reactors are under assault from Governor Andrew Cuomo, whose father cut the 1988 deal that forced Long Island's Shoreham reactor to shut without ever achieving commercial operation.
Cuomo is being pushed by a fierce grassroots anti-nuke groundswell. Entergy does need state permits that would let two remaining reactors at Indian Point (Unit One went down long ago) continue heating and irradiating the Hudson River. New York could demand Entergy build extremely expensive cooling towers,which may force it to shut down for economic reasons. Similar forces are at work in New Jersey and other states.
In Florida, botched multi-billion-dollar repairs to the Crystal River reactor near Tampa have forced a brutal grassroots battle over soaring electric rates which must be approved by increasingly beleaguered state regulators. It is highly likely that reactor will never operate again.
At Pilgrim, Massachusetts is strongly intervening against a license extension. Both remaining reactors are currently shut at California's San Onofre (Unit One there also went down long ago), where grassroots activists---including local surfers---are in pitched battle against re-opening. Ohio's Davis-Besse is having its containment dome sliced for the fourth time. Two reactors in Nebraska are still recovering from major flooding.
All across the country, dozens of rust-bucket nukes stagger on their last legs even as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission hands them extended licenses in the face of escalating state and local opposition. Once the firewall against recourse from the states is breached, a flood of shutdowns could well follow.
In Japan, utilities must have permits from a host prefecture to re-open after refueling or repairs. Of 54 licensed reactors nationwide, only two now operate. Both could be shut soon, rendering Japan nuke-free for the first time in four decades.
Germany has shut 8 reactors and will take down 11 more by 2012. Except for Great Britain and a number of eastern holdouts, the "nuclear renaissance" has been all but abandoned in Europe, with an escalating cascade of elderly nukes going cold and proposed new projects being abandoned.
The accelerating revolution in renewables has allowed solar, wind and other green sources to outstrip atomic reactors in cost, time to build, ecological impact and safety. As billions pour into Solartopian sources, private investment in atomic energy has all but disappeared---except where there are massive taxpayer subsidies.
Even that's not enough. In 2011, President Obama handed $8.33 billion in federal loan guarantees to the builders of two reactors at Georgia's Vogtle. But Peach State ratepayers are already being soaked for billions more in pre-payments, and the cost of the project is soaring. A parallel financial disaster looms at the Robinson site in neighboring South Carolina. Though the industry assumes these four reactors will eventually be finished, economic realities may say otherwise.
Cost estimates for new nukes have been soaring even before construction begins. Even with federal money, the builders still demand that state ratepayers foot the bill as the process proceeds, meaning consumers are on the hook for multiple billions even if the reactors never open. Pitched battles over this Construction Work in Progress scam have already been won by consumers in Missouri and are being fought in Iowa and elsewhere. As the years of building drag on, costs will escalate while renewables continue to become cheaper. Sooner or later, construction is likely to stop, as it did at numerous projects in the 1970s and 1980s which were never finished.
Today the Department of Energy still sits on some $10 billion in available guarantees without a recipient ready to build a new nuke. For the first time since early in the George W. Bush years, there has been no executive request for additional reactor construction loan guarantees.
In Finland and Flamanville, France, new reactor projects are years behind schedule and billions over budget.
With new construction virtually abandoned, and the continued operation of old reactors under intense attack in Japan, Europe and the US, only China and India remain as likely sites for large numbers of new nukes. Russia is doing its best to peddle them throughout the Third World. South Korea wants to sell reactors to the United Arab Emirates.
But grassroots resistance in India has been fierce. China is still mulling a post-Fukushima decision on whether to proceed with reactors already under construction. Signs of a popular uprising against rampant pollution---including nuclear reactors---indicate growing public opposition.
But here in the US, we are at the fall-off-the-cliff moment for atomic energy, new and old.
Entergy, says Deb Katz of the Citizens Awareness Network, has been "blinded by its arrogance and contempt for the state of Vermont." The company, she says, "is attempting to establish that corporations are more powerful than the states they operate in."
If the citizens of Vermont can shut Yankee, a dam will be breached and the post Fukushima power of a rising grassroots tsunami will be made tangible.
Solartopia will be that much closer. And the grassroots No Nukes campaign will begin to take its place as one of history's most successful popular movements.
Let's just make sure these shut-downs happen before the next Fukushima irradiates us all.


text:
PHILADELPHIA – The Philadelphia Eagles have released wide receiver Jason Avant.
The Eagles cut ties with Avant on Tuesday. He played his first eight NFL seasons in Philadelphia and ranks 11th in team history with 297 receptions for 3,646 yards and 12 touchdowns. He was drafted in the fourth round in 2006 from the University of Michigan. In 2010, Avant was chosen by his teammates as the Ed Block Courage Award recipient in recognition of the adversity he overcame in his youth.
The Eagles re-signed free agent wide receivers Jeremy Maclin and Riley Cooper last week. Their return made Avant more expendable.
Avant had 38 receptions for 447 yards and two touchdowns last season. He had a career-high 53 catches in 2012.


text:
By Siegfried S. Hecker | December 20, 2010
When my Stanford University colleagues and I were taken to the construction site of a small, experimental light water reactor (LWR) and to a new centrifuge facility in North Korea on November 12, it marked my seventh visit to North Korea and my fourth to the Yongbyon nuclear complex. I was not surprised that Pyongyang finally admitted to having a uranium enrichment program; however, I was stunned by the size and sophistication of the 2,000 centrifuges in the cascade hall visible from the ultra-modern second-floor control room.
This advancement in Pyongyang's program raises troubling questions about how North Korea's program got this far and the nature of the threat it poses. Moreover, in the wake of the recent military altercations between the two Koreas, our findings highlight the necessity to carefully review what we know about the nation's nuclear program — and what we don't know — so that we can prevent a further nuclear buildup and forestall the potential export of fissile materials and technology.
The small, experimental LWR. We visited the LWR construction site adjacent to the existing 5 megawatt electric (MWe) gas-graphite reactor (see Figure 1). The chief engineer told us the target date for operations is 2012; the design is complete, but many of the details are still being refined. With that in mind, I was surprised by how little information he was able to give me about the design parameters and materials. Still, I was able to determine some of the basic parameters: The reinforced-concrete containment structure is taking shape in a 7.1-meter deep pit on a reinforced-concrete pad that measures roughly 25 by 28 meters. It is 22 meters in diameter, 0.9 meters thick, and about 1 meter high on its way to 40 meters when complete. The power level is a modest 100 MW-thermal (likely to deliver 25 to 30 MWe power). The pressure vessel will be fabricated off site with high-strength steel, possibly with a stainless steel liner, transported by rail and welded on site. All components will be manufactured indigenously. The reactor will require 4 tons of uranium oxide fuel, enriched to 3.5 percent, typical for LWRs. The chief engineer acknowledged that they expect to have difficulty fabricating the oxide fuel since it is different from the metal fuel used in the gas-graphite reactor. They had not yet decided whether to use stainless steel or zircaloy cladding, neither of which they have used before.
Figure 1
Based on these observations, Pyongyang has chosen what appears to be a logical approach to develop LWR reactors. The experimental reactor is small enough that all components may well be produced and assembled indigenously. As it was explained to us, once North Korea's engineers gain experience with the experimental reactor, they plan to build larger power reactors. The anticipated 2012 completion date, however, is unrealistic.
Pyongyang's desire for nuclear electricity with LWRs is likely genuine since it has pursued acquisition of LWRs since 1985, first from the Soviet Union, then from the United States, and now on its own. Though it is technically possible that the LWR will be used to produce bomb-grade plutonium, I consider it unlikely because North Korea's existing gas-graphite reactor is more suitable for the production of bomb materials than Pyongyang's LWR.
I am more concerned about reactor safety. From what little we saw, it also appears that construction practices are not commensurate with international reactor safety standards and practices. The international reactor community has found that a strong, independent and well-informed regulatory agency is critical to assure safe construction and operations. It is unlikely that Pyongyang's nuclear regulatory body meets these requirements. Finally, LWRs represent a new technology for North Korea, designed by a new team of young engineers trained in North Korea, to an unrealistic time schedule — all of which gives us reason to be concerned about safe reactor operations once it comes online.
The new centrifuge facility. From the second-floor control room, my colleagues and I could see into the high-bay hall, and our jaws dropped: Three rows of pairs of centrifuges extended 50 meters in both directions from the central observation deck. The modern control room had blinking LEDs and flat-panel monitors featuring numerous diagrams and flashing numbers. We were told that 2,000 centrifuges in six cascades were operating, producing low-enriched uranium (LEU) for the LWR under construction. We were hurried past the control room and through what they called the recovery room — the product withdrawal area, which allowed us to see some of the gas handling systems and tanks. Because of the hurried pace and limited access, we are not certain that the centrifuges were operational, but what we saw was not inconsistent with a partially or fully operational facility.
In response to my questions, the chief process engineer told us the capacity is 8,000 kilograms separative work units (SWU) per year, consistent with the fuel requirements for the experimental LWR. This also implies that what we saw were second-generation or so-called P2 centrifuges. Upon further questioning, he said that the rotors were iron alloys (likely maraging steel), with one bellows, designed indigenously, but modeled after the European URENCO designs and Japanese designs at Rokkasho-mura. Our rough estimate from the second-floor observation window was that the outer dimensions of the centrifuges were roughly 20 centimeters in diameter by 1.8 meters tall. Their enrichment target, we were told, is 2.2 to 4 percent, with an average level of 3.5 percent and tails of 0.27 percent.
An operational facility requires the production of uranium tetrafluoride and uranium hexafluoride. Between 1994 and 2002, when plutonium operations were frozen as a result of the US-North Korean Agreed Framework, Yongbyon lost the ability to make uranium tetrafluoride because of excessive corrosion of the hydrofluorination equipment.
The process engineer told me that they re-established the capability by building a new anhydrous line to make uranium tetrafluoride, which in turn is fluorinated to produce uranium hexafluoride, the feed gas for centrifuges. Yongbyon had never admitted having made uranium hexafluoride previously because it is not required for gas-graphite reactor fuel. Yet, now they claim they have this capability on site; however I was not allowed to see it. Nevertheless, my hosts made the case that they have everything they need to run the centrifuge facility. We also know that North Korea has ample uranium ore deposits for a domestic reactor program.
How did North Korea get this far? In April 2009, following North Korea's third long-range rocket launch and the predictable UN condemnation that followed, Pyongyang announced that it would build its own LWR and begin an enrichment program to fuel the reactor. At Yongbyon, we were told that construction of the centrifuge facility began in April 2009 and that it was completed days before we arrived. But what we saw in Yongbyon demonstrates without a doubt that Pyongyang has pursued enrichment for many years. It has taken Iran more than 20 years without as much to show for its effort. For 15 years Tehran pursued uranium enrichment clandestinely. Once the Natanz facility was exposed by an Iranian resistance group, Tehran justified continued development as necessary for its commercial nuclear power aspirations. Pyongyang also appears to have pursued enrichment clandestinely for a long time, and now it has voluntarily shown us its progress, also justifying its existence for its new LWR aspirations. In both cases, it appears that pursuit of uranium enrichment was primarily for military reasons, or at best for dual use.
There has been plenty of evidence of Pyongyang's uranium enrichment efforts over the years, but no smoking gun. Former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf claimed in his memoir that A.Q. Khan delivered 20 P1 and four P2 centrifuges to North Korea around the year 2000. In late 2001, the CIA reported to Congress that North Korea attempted to acquire "centrifuge related materials in large quantities to support a uranium enrichment program." The CIA's December 2002 public estimate stated that North Korea could produce two atomic bombs annually through uranium enrichment beginning in mid-decade. By 2007, the CIA had downgraded its assessment.
During my first trip in January 2004, I was shown Pyongyang's plutonium bomb fuel, and a Yongbyon official told my colleague that they had a uranium centrifuge program in the 1980s, but gave it up in favor of plutonium in the early 1990s once they demonstrated success in extracting plutonium in their reprocessing facility. This statement was later retracted with a staunch defense of no enrichment program and a denial of the US assertion that Pyongyang admitted a uranium enrichment program when US negotiators presented evidence of such a program.
In a comprehensive October 2010 review of Pyongyang's enrichment program, David Albright and Paul Brannan, of the Institute for Science and International Security, conclude that North Korea's procurement history indicates that it "has moved beyond laboratory-scale work and has the capability to build, at the very least, a pilot-scale gas centrifuge plant," but doubted that the data indicated the construction of a 3,000-centrifuge plant, large enough for about two weapons per year. I was more skeptical and expected to find only an R&D level facility. Now that we have seen a 2,000-centrifuge smoking gun, we must re-analyze the data and dig deeper to see how they got this far.
In spite of Yongbyon's claims to the contrary, I do not believe North Korea can produce many key specialty materials and components for the enrichment facility indigenously. According to Albright and Brannan, North Korea has an extraordinarily far-reaching illicit international network through which it procures specialty materials such as high-strength aluminum, maraging steel, and specialty epoxy, along with components such as ring magnets, bearings, vacuum pumps, valves, and flow meters. I believe that North Korean specialists built the centrifuges and successfully incorporated them into working cascades once they procured many of the requisite materials and components.
The extent of cooperation with A.Q. Khan prior to his 2004 house arrest in Pakistan is particularly troubling. Kahn not only supplied North Korea with a centrifuge starter kit, centrifuge controls, and software, but also trained some of the country's technical specialists at the Khan Research Laboratories. Combined with Pyongyang's own experience in the 1980s, the reciprocal visits of Khan's specialists to North Korea facilities may have provided the hands-on training and coaching that later allowed Pyongyang to master centrifuge operations in a relatively short time.
Although exposure and termination of Libya's enrichment program took A.Q. Khan out of the export business, it did not necessarily eradicate his network, which had transformed from a single-node import network to a more complex, multi-node export network. Pyongyang had also developed its own import nodes such as the Nam Chongang Trading Company, an arm of the General Bureau of Atomic Energy, which bought and sold a wide range of legitimate and illicit goods, including many with dual-use nuclear potential and which was recently sanctioned by the UN.
Recent reports by the Congressional Research Service and the UN Security Council Panel of Experts show how Pyongyang has been able to circumvent many of the sanctions imposed by UN Security Council Resolutions 1718 and 1874. Pyongyang successfully uses intermediaries, such as China, in which many of its companies operate to procure dual-use equipment. It uses transshipment countries such as Singapore, Malaysia, and the United Arab Emirates. Pyongyang also uses air and land routes through China with little risk of inspection. Recent increases in financial and business connections in China represent a particular vulnerability for dual-use transactions.
In a detailed analysis of global proliferation networks, Chaim Braun and Christopher Chyba linked a centrifuge for missiles deal between Pakistan and North Korea to the resurgence of Pyongyang's centrifuge program in the 1990s. Close cooperation during the past few years between North Korea and Burma in missile technologies and possibly in nuclear technologies, along with long-standing cooperation with Iran open the possibility that Pyongyang is operating an A.Q. Khan-like proliferation network that has procurement, manufacturing, assembly, and transshipment nodes in countries with little transparency and suspected illegal commerce. Now that Pyongyang has apparently demonstrated its ability to acquire materials and components, as well as build and operate centrifuge facilities, it also greatly increases the risk of financially lucrative nuclear exports.
Why did Pyongyang show us these facilities? It wanted the world to know. We were credible messengers to verify that North Korea not only has uranium centrifuges, but they are modern and sophisticated. Pyongyang surely knows that its claim of having begun the program in 2009 is not credible, so by going public it may also be sending a not-so-subtle message that it has a second route to bomb fuel, namely the ability to produce HEU.
Although Pyongyang could have continued to hide its existing enrichment facilities, the announcement of its LWR program allowed it to justify having its own uranium enrichment program. Since UN sanctions prohibit nuclear assistance, even for ostensibly peaceful purposes, Pyongyang claims it has to do the enrichment itself. The centrifuge facility we saw will be able to produce about 2 tons of LEU per year, adequate for the small LWR. Although it also can be reconfigured to produce 30 to 40 kilograms of bomb-grade HEU fuel per year (sufficient for roughly one bomb), their willingness to show it to us and the obvious blue roof (see Figure 2) over the facility, which does nothing to hide it, suggests that it will indeed be used to produce reactor fuel.
Figure 2
Still, it is likely that Pyongyang has another undisclosed facility that may be dedicated to HEU production. The centrifuge cascades we saw, or some subset of them, were likely built and demonstrated at an undisclosed facility and then duplicated at Yongbyon once the building was renovated. The possibility that North Korea had previously produced HEU was raised when minute traces of HEU were found on samples of aluminum tubes and copies of Yongbyon production records that Pyongyang reluctantly gave the United States in 2008 as a goodwill verification gesture.
How does the revelation of uranium enrichment change the security risk? Pyongyang already had the bomb, but not much of a nuclear arsenal. A 25-year pursuit of the plutonium route to the bomb, interrupted by the Agreed Framework and some of the Six-Party agreements, yielded a plutonium inventory of only 24 to 42 kilograms, sufficient for four to eight bombs. Given its limited and less-than-successful nuclear test history, these are likely primitive, rather than miniaturized for missile delivery.
During my 2007 visit to Yongbyon, I was given unprecedented access to its plutonium facilities, which convinced me that Pyongyang was prepared to give up the plutonium production complex. Subsequent actions have confirmed it: The 5 MWe gas-graphite reactor is shut down, no plutonium is being produced, and there is no plutonium in the pipeline to be reprocessed. The fact that the metal fuel rod fabrication facility was gutted and turned into a centrifuge hall and the cooling tower has not been rebuilt will make future plutonium production more time-consuming. Pyongyang has also expressed renewed interest in selling its remaining fresh uranium metal fuel rods, which it requires to restart its reactor, to South Korea if the price is right.
Although I cannot claim that I understand Pyongyang's nuclear motivations, I can venture some observations based on my visits. Before the most recent visit, I believed that Pyongyang would settle for its handful of simple plutonium bombs for its deterrent. It would have to test again to miniaturize the bomb for missile delivery for a more potent deterrent. But it had a limited supply of plutonium and even if it restarted the reactor, it could produce only one bomb's worth per year. Pyongyang appeared ready to give up the plutonium complex for appropriate diplomatic and economic gains while keeping its nuclear weapons, which it has repeatedly said are necessary in what it views as today's hostile environment.
If Pyongyang now uses the new centrifuge facility to make one bomb's worth of HEU per year or augments it with another bomb per year in a similar undisclosed facility, it provides a hedge, but does not dramatically change the security calculus. If, for any reason, Pyongyang has difficulties with its plutonium bombs, it could easily turn to HEU for a simpler, more assured path to a primitive bomb — one it may be able to field without nuclear testing. In terms of a miniaturized, missile-capable bomb, HEU has greater limitations than plutonium; and in either case, it would have to test again.
One risk of the now-disclosed uranium enrichment program is that Pyongyang will mount a stepwise campaign for large-scale HEU production. If North Korea is able to produce a much larger nuclear arsenal and conducts additional nuclear tests, it not only strengthens its deterrent, but becomes a much greater security threat. The HEU route to missile-capable bombs may have some attraction for North Korea if it received the same warhead design that A.Q. Khan sold to Libya. It was an HEU implosion device, believed to be based on a tested Chinese device, which is small enough to fit on some of Pyongyang's missiles.
Whereas it appears likely that Pyongyang has a hidden centrifuge facility, one that may well be dedicated to HEU production, I consider large-scale HEU production unlikely at this time. North Korea cannot expand its centrifuge capacity at will, in my opinion, because they are still not able to produce most of the key materials and components indigenously. Thus, as Albright and Brannan pointed out, it is now imperative that the international community does more to shut down Pyongyang's continuing illicit nuclear procurements.
More troubling is the possibility that North Korea could begin to export fissile materials or the means of producing them. Prior export of uranium hexafluoride to Libya and Pyongyang's cooperation with Syria to build a plutonium production reactor give us reasons for concern. It has now expanded its export potential by demonstrating its ability to bring a modern centrifuge facility online. It may help Iran solve some of the difficulties it has experienced with its centrifuge program. Pyongyang's success demonstrates how difficult it is to stop centrifuge procurement activities and how difficult facilities are to find. Moreover, should Pyongyang produce large quantities of HEU, the threat of export of fissile materials, either by the state or factions within the state, increases substantially. The market for HEU may be much more lucrative than that for plutonium because it is easier to fashion into simple bombs and it is more difficult to detect in transport.
So, where do we go from here? Pyongyang can ratchet up the current nuclear threat if it greatly expands HEU production at undisclosed sites, increases the size of its nuclear arsenal substantially, or conducts more tests to enhance its sophistication. Increased centrifuge capacity also heightens the export threat. Hence, the immediate response by the international community should be to limit Pyongyang's nuclear buildup.
By unveiling the LWR and enrichment facility, Pyongyang has also complicated the diplomatic process by in effect redefining what is meant by denuclearization. Not only is it unlikely that Pyongyang will give up its nuclear arsenal anytime soon, but it will almost certainly insist on keeping its LWR program and centrifuges because the justification for its peaceful nature is more credible than for the plutonium program — of course, no less problematic as the Iranian situation has demonstrated.
It is time for the United States to conduct a thorough review of its policies on Northeast Asia security. Much has happened in the past 10 years, yet the US government continues to view North Korea primarily through nuclear lenses, while Pyongyang sees normalization of political and economic relations as imperative. Whereas our Foreign Ministry host told us that Pyongyang continues to support denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula as agreed to in the September 2005 Six-Party joint statement, he quickly added that Washington could begin the normalization process by reaffirming part of the October 2000 US-DPRK joint communiqué, which stated that neither government would have hostile intent toward the other and confirmed the commitment of both to make every effort to build a new relationship free from past enmity. In the meantime, we must take steps to prevent an expansion of North Korea's nuclear program and de-escalate the mounting tensions between the two Koreas. The fundamental and enduring goal as agreed to in the joint statement must be denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
However, since that will take time, we must quickly press for what I call the three no's: No more bombs, no better bombs (which means preventing further nuclear testing), and no export, in return for one yes — our willingness to seriously address North Korea's fundamental insecurity. Based on our discussions with Pyongyang officials, we can begin to address North Korea's security concerns along the lines of the joint communiqué. The greatest current vulnerabilities in enforcement appear to be in China. Beijing has not been willing to tighten sanctions on Pyongyang to denuclearize now, but it may support the three no's and one yes policy as a necessary first step, one that it views consistent with its desire to preserve peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula. This approach may just be enough to get Beijing to take a much more aggressive stance to help shut down Pyongyang's nuclear import and export networks.
The Bulletin elevates expert voices above the noise. But as an independent nonprofit organization, our operations depend on the support of readers like you. Help us continue to deliver quality journalism that holds leaders accountable. Your support of our work at any level is important. In return, we promise our coverage will be understandable, influential, vigilant, solution-oriented, and fair-minded. Together we can make a difference.
Topics: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Weapons, Opinion


text:
Mount & Blade: With Fire & Sword - Captain Smith, Part 1
From The Archive
Every Sunday, we reach deep into Rock, Paper, Shotgun's 142-year history to pull out one of the best moments from the archive. This week, part one of Quintin's Mount & Blade diary, originally published May 2011.
I've been meaning to take a stab at free-form medieval RPG series Mount & Blade for years. YEARS. So it thrills me to say that I'm currently having an incredible time with Mount & Blade: With Fire & Sword, the latest game in the series which came out last week.
Join me for the adventures of Captain Smith, the worst mercenary leader to ever roam Eastern Europe.
The Mount & Blade games are all about getting involved in the warfare and violent politics of medieval Europe in a very real way. The end game sees you leading your grubby band forth to siege cities, instigate rebellions, and even work with rightful (or pretend) heirs to out various kings and leaders to slot your boss in their place.
To start with, though, you're placed at the very bottom of the ladder. You are a dude with a shirt and a sword. And I'm going even lower.
For starters, there's an option in the menu, on by default, which causes your hero to take half damage in combat. I quickly correct that. Also, in character creation, I shunt all of my points into Intelligence and Charisma rather than Strength and Agility. I want to see just how bad a fighter I can take to the top.
If I listen very closely, I think I can hear the game laughing in my face.
As for looks, I spend some time wondering whether to give Captain Smith a haircut that looks like the world's most terrifying leech-
- but eventually settle for something more scholarly. This, my friends, is the man who will come to be feared throughout Eastern Europe, where Fire & Sword is set. Men will learn to tremble under his milky gaze.
The game's tutorial kicks off with your character arriving in a town beset by looters. A decrepid man wearing a dressing gown comes jogging up and starts beating Captain Smith like a carpet.
A dreadful turn of events! This is NO WAY TO TREAT A HERO and will not be tolerated. I begin waving my sword around in semaphore until the elderly criminal accidentally gets in the way of it and concertinas to the ground. A noble kill!
Down the road a band of French "adventurers" are preparing for an assault by even more looters, and ask for my aid.
This is going to be messy. Or is it? Captain Smith has a plan.
Once the melee begins, I boldly step away and circle round to the rear, where I can poke holes in the looters from behind, not unlike a man trying to hit a light switch with a broom, but I emerge from the fight unscathed. I am a man of wit and foresight, it is true.
Modest, too! I am destined for greatness. Is there somewhere I have to register for a castle? Because that should happen.
The Frenchmen hand me a pistol and instruct me to shoot a lock off the stable door, despite the fact we're meant to be protecting the town from looters. Nevermind. Now, firearms is actually what I put all of my (few) weapon skillpoints into during character creation. They're a new feature of Fire & Sword. "Watch this!" I think to myself, take aim and... miss.
With my new bloodstained French friends watching, I painstakingly reload the gun (it takes some eight seconds) and fire again. And miss again. For my third shot I walk right up to the padlock and shoot the lock off at point blank range.
This does not bode well.
The Frenchmen and I commandeer ourselves a horse each, ride out and slay the rest of the looters in a battle across a shallow river that probably would have looked really cinematic had I not been off to the side, taking potshots with my pistol. I think I hit somebody at one point but it's hard to tell because when I'm holding down the aim button and my screenshot button at the sime time I expand the game's console, unintentionally blinding and paralysing myself.
Oddly, there doesn't seem to be an option to join up with the Frenchmen after the battle. Pfft! As if I would have asked them, if, you know, it had been an option. Sorry lads, but I've got this whole manifest destiny thing to take care of. The Frenchmen do, however, give me some tips, and I listen carefully. Apparently this whole region is rife with conflict between the Moscovites, the Polish, the Crimean somethingorother, the Swedish and somebody else. They also tell me that I might find work in the nearby town of Zamoshye, and the nearby castle of somethingsomething.
I bid them farewell and ride off on my stolen horse, impatient to become a legend.
The queasy-looking village elder of Zamoshye has a couple of things a man of future wealth and taste such as myself might help him with. First, the Mayor of the nearby castle of somethingsomething is taxing his village too much, and someone must persuade him to go easy on the peasants. Second, there are some bandits in the forest that need taking care of. No problem, guy, I tell him. This? This is easy. This is no problem.
My plans are threefold- (1) ride to the castle and have a word with the mayor, (2) hire some mercenaries while I'm there with my small pouch of change, and (3) profit.
(1) goes wrong because it turns out the "mayor" will not be persuaded, thanks to my persuasion skill of 2. I elect to pay off the villagers' taxes myself, in secret.
(2) goes wrong because I no longer have enough money to hire a large amount of dudes. I only have enough to hire five bearded drunks who call themselves "pikemen".
(3) goes wrong because when I return to the mayor he gives me 100 thaler as a reward for getting the taxes lowered. I paid the mayor 200 thaler to make it happen.
Still, early days yet! I head into the forest to find the bandits. And I find them!
Oof, six of us versus six bandits. This one could be close... but you don't go down in history for not taking risks, says Captain Smith. CHAARGE!
This time around I do an excellent job of fighting, almost certainly killing a man. Basically with my pikemen in the fray, I'm free to sit high on my horse and oversee the proceedings like Hell's own tennis umpire, and instead of calling shots I'm taking shots. BANG! Reloadreloadreloadreload BANG! Miss! Swear. Reloadreloadreloadreload
The final tally when the smoke clears is six dead bandits and three dead pikemen. My first proper battle is a success. Nothing for it but to ride back to Zamoshye and collect my reward in oh wait shit hang on what
About two hours into the six hour ride back to Zamoshye my party is ambushed by bandits. Specifically, the "Zamoshye Bandits" who I was sent to get rid off. I'm left wondering who in the shit I just ordered my men to kill.
The Zamoshye bandits ask for money. I have none. I say this hoping my men don't overhear as it's payday in a week.
Three of us versus seven bandits. This one could be close... but you don't go down in history for not taking risks, command Captain Smith. CHAARG-- OH JESUS MY NECK
I haven't even loosed my first pistol shot when one of the Zamoshye bandits, who it turns out are marginally better equipped than the paupers I just brutalised, pegs me in the chest with a musket shot. Captain Smith goes tumbling off his horse like a sack of potatoes.
...my... my men... you must fight... for... me.. you don't go down in history... for... oh, balls.
Oh, this can't be good.
The remaining three parts of the Captain Smith saga can be read here.


text:
All images used on this web site remain the copyright of the original photographer. Use or reproduction of each image is strictly prohibited without prior permission.
If you wish to use any image that appears on this web site, for any purpose, please fill in the Habitas Image Request Form and email it to:


text:
Great new Interview with Henry by Collider.com, you can listen to the audio interview on their website:
I've done a lot of interviews over the past eight years, so you can put it in perspective when I say getting to talk to Henry Cavill on the set of Man of Steel was one of the highlights of working for Collider. It wasn't only because he was super cool and generous with his time when he'd spent all day filming a complicated action scene. The main reason this was one of the best interviews I've ever been part of was due to Cavill wearing his Superman costume during the interview! As a lifelong Superman fan, getting to be on the set and talking to the person playing the Man of Steel was literally a dream come true.
During the group interview, Cavill talked about the daunting nature of the role and project, his training, the wire work, perfecting an American accent, what it's been like filming on location, working with the rest of the cast, which comics he's enjoyed reading, his interpretation of Clark Kent, the action scenes, and so much more. Hit the jump to either read or listen to what he had to say.
Question: So I gotta start by asking about the suit. That does not look comfortable.
HENRY CAVILL: It's not so bad.
CAVILL: No, but I've got a harness on underneath it, so I'm moving quite stiffly, but it's really not so bad.
We really appreciate you taking the time.
CAVILL: Oh, an absolute pleasure. We appreciate you guys coming and asking a few questions.
We heard you guys are shooting some six day weeks. We've heard that it involves you waking up at four in the morning, working some very long hours. Is this even more challenging of a role than you anticipated? Talk a little bit about just the daunting nature of this role and this project.
CAVILL: As far as anticipation? No. It's exactly as hard as I anticipated, so I'm okay. It's not like I suddenly stopped and went, "Oh my God, this is impossible." I was expecting very early mornings, so I've got to get up, train in the mornings and then go to work for a 12 hour day. That's all expected and fine. As far as the sheer scope of it, it's wonderful. The more the days go on, the more I'm enjoying it.
So have you flown around on wires yet?CAVILL: There's been no flying around on wires just yet. There has been an awful — well, it's a little bit I suppose — of being, you know, heaved about the place.
What have you sort of learned about the character that's sort of surprised you since you've been playing him? Or maybe that you've gotten to understand better?
CAVILL: Nothing, really. I had a pretty good grip on what was going to happen. Let me think about that for two seconds. I may have a better answer for you. [Pauses] No, nothing.
It's certainly very rich in terms of coming to terms with two identities — Kal-El and Clark, and having to reconcile that. So, talk a little bit about what's involved with that dramatically and what it allows you to do.
CAVILL: I can't really answer that. I'm going to have to invoke the Nolan Clause because I may give away essential things.
Even as a strategy?
CAVILL: Even as a strategy, yeah.
What's something that a lot of us are really happy to hear is it's very realistic. Talk a little bit about when you first heard that it was going to be so realistic based and just the way you guys are playing it?
CAVILL: The realism, I liked the idea immediately because the traditional Superman fans know what it's all about and they will hopefully love and associate with the character anyway, because they've grown up with him and been there through his various stages of development. But, the people who aren't die-hard Superman fans still need to be able to associate with the character and that needs to have a sense of realism in today's world, certainly a sense of science as opposed to mythology attached to it as well. So, people, as I say, can associate and have an emotional connection with him.
You are shooting here in Plano and when we were driving by we saw one of the hardware stores had Superman painted on the glass.
CAVILL: [Laughs] Yeah.
Would you say how community's really embraced the shoot so far?
CAVILL: From what I've heard, there's Superman stuff everywhere. I've heard about Superman ice cream, Superman cookies, a welcome sign to Superman cast and crew outside banks, that kind of stuff. I think that's really cool.
Have you had any scenes with Amy Adams yet?
CAVILL: I have had a couple of scenes, yes.
What's the key to making the relationship between Superman, Clark and Lois work?
CAVILL: Superman, Clark and Lois, the key to making it work? Hm… let me think about that so I can give you a decent answer [pauses].
Sorry, I didn't mean to stump you.
CAVILL: No, it's just I want to answer that properly because I mean, the easy answer is acting, but there's a fine balance between — again, I've gotta be careful what I say here. There's an honesty to Clark, Kal-El — Kal-El's the better way of saying it because he is both Superman and Clark — there's an honesty to him which crosses over on both—I don't like to use the word identities, but I will because I can't think of a better one. So, it is not that tough to make that swap and change.
I understand that you've been reading some Superman comic books lately. I'm wondering what's some of your favorites, and possibly even what some of your least favorites?
CAVILL: Least favorites is a new one. Favorites — I'll start with that. Recently, my most recent favorites, the New Krypton saga and otherwise, Death of Superman, Return and I quite like Red Son, very different and that was great for character study because it gave me an entirely different perspective on the character, and therefore, gave me a couple of nuances on that. I won't tell you what they are. [Laughs] Least favorite? I don't really know. I haven't thought about that one.
Fair enough. I do want to recommend Kal. It's from 1996.
CAVILL: Kal, okay.
It's an Elseworlds story and it's where Superman lands in medieval England.
CAVILL: Really?
How is it portraying such an American icon?
CAVILL: Hmm… How is it? It's a lot of fun.
Is it intimidating?
CAVILL: I don't think there's an intimidation to it as such. Certainly if I really thought about it and concentrated, there's been a couple of phases where people have said, they've been explaining to me all the Superman cookies and the ice creams and I saw organic kryptonite next to organic corn sign on the way down here. There was a second where I went, "Wow, this is massive." You gotta ignore that and not let it get to you otherwise you'll be focusing so much on the pressure as opposed to actually dealing with the important thing which is doing justice to the character.
What is that costume actually made of? How long does it take to get in and out of that thing?
CAVILL: I have no idea, and anywhere from 15 to 20 minutes, 25 minutes depending.
Which side is a little bit more difficult for you to play? Do you connect more with the Clark side or with the Kal-El side?
CAVILL: I connect with both equally. I really want to explain why because I've got a great answer, but I'm going to give away plot points.
Now we know that Zack is shooting a lot in handheld with a lot of intimacy in the way he was shooting the scenes we saw earlier today.
CAVILL: Yeah.
What are the advantages of that method been for you in your character?
CAVILL: I mean, it's intimate for the watcher, but it's no different for the actor. John's very good — the cameraman — he's fantastic because he's not an obtrusive person. He's not in your way and in your space. He's there and you got a camera right here moving forward and backwards and side to side, but it's easy to phase him out in your head. But as far as ease of acting goes, it doesn't really make much of a difference. I mean, it'll seem more intimate to you guys, but it's exactly the same for us.
David Goyer said that Superman has to make some terrible choices in this story. Again, without going into detail, which he didn't of course, does that make it more interesting? I mean, even when you were in the running to play this, is it just more interesting as an actor to play a flawed Superman as opposed to a sort of god-like being that's invulnerable?
CAVILL: My instinctual answer will be yes, however, a flawed being is closer to human, and therefore, potentially less interesting to play than something further away from human. I think it certainly adds an interesting touch to a character which we've become so used to being god-like, to use your word. It makes it more fun to play because there's more choice in reactions to everything as opposed to, "Oh yeah, well, I'm god-like, so therefore this. Oh, I can actually do this, this, this, this, this or this." It allows me to add more of my own flavor to this character.
How long did it take you to pick out the glasses you may or may not be wearing in this film?
CAVILL: [Laughs] It may or may not have.
You said that you're obviously able to bring some of your own personality…
CAVILL: Yeah. When I said my own flavor, I'm didn't necessarily mean my own personality. I mean, as an actor, to leave an imprint upon a role which is so iconic is a wonderful opportunity. It's not necessarily my personality I'm putting in, it's the choices I make as an actor to add a different — now don't take this the wrong way, it's still very much what the source material is — but my own way of interpreting what the character is.
In several movies, the interpretation of Clark has been way more extreme, maybe less so in the comics where he's bumbling and really kind of goofy. Where does Clark fall for you, the way you're playing him?
CAVILL: I'm sorry man. I'd love to answer that because I've put a lot of work into it, but I can't.
Do you carry yourself physically different? I mean, when Christopher Reeve played the character he kind of slumped over.
CAVILL: Yes and no.
Obviously everyone's been talking about the scope of the action, really big. What is the most you guys are going to be spending on one particular sequence, how many days shooting?
CAVILL: They haven't given me a schedule, so I wouldn't know.
You have a couple of really well known dads in this — Kevin Costner and Russell Crowe.
CAVILL: Yeah.
Have you had any scenes with him yet?
CAVILL: I've had some scenes with Kevin, yes, but not Russell yet — a great experience, to answer the next question.
The things you can't tell us about the process you're in now, were there any particularly memorable moments in the audition process, in the casting process leading up to this — things that happened already?
CAVILL: Naturally, screen testing for this was memorable, but not in the sense that a lot of people seemed to assume, which is, "What was it like putting the suit on and being Superman and being there and being shot as Superman?" It was more of a nerve wracking, am I doing it right? Am I going to get the role? How do I look? Is it okay? I haven't prepared, I haven't had a chance to prepare nearly enough for this — yeah, all of the above. So, it was definitely a nerve-wracking experience. As soon as it had finished, as I always do after you finish a screen test, I just forgot about it because in case I didn't get the role, you don't want to be disappointed because if you do that in every role you get then you'll end up throwing yourself off a building.
How long did you know that you were Superman before everyone else did?
CAVILL: A few hours, wasn't it?
So it was real sudden?
CAVILL: Yeah.
Did you test for Superman Returns as well?
CAVILL: Not Superman Returns, no. I don't know what it was called at the time, but it was the McG movie.
CAVILL: Yeah, the McG movie and then when Bryan [Singer] came on he had his own script and his own idea and I wasn't a part of that process.
What was your first reaction to seeing the changes in the suit?
CAVILL: My first reaction? I honestly thought it was really cool. There's something about the suit which you don't know what to expect. You come onto a project like this and you hear about modernization and you hear about bringing everything forward and to today. All you can do is hope that it's going to look cool and different from anything else you've seen before. I'm pretty sure it does. I love putting it on. I love going through all the different phases of how the suit developed. Yeah, it was really exciting.
Do you miss the red underpants on the outside?
CAVILL: Do I miss them? [Laughs]
[Publicist: Who says he doesn't have them?]
CAVILL: You can't see them?
I'm not going to look. The first concern as soon as you were cast among fans was, can he do the accent? Would you mind letting us just hear your American accent?
CAVILL: Under normal circumstances, if you came in on a day where I was doing dialogue, I'd be more than happy to. But because I have not warmed it up at all — it's like, doing an accent is like going into the gym for a workout. If you pick up the heaviest weight possible and try and clean and press it, you're going to pull something. So, you need to warm it up and then you can go into doing all the heavy weight exercises. You'll see the movie. So, I would not do it justice — I might do it justice, but it's a risk. If it comes out all squiffy and funny then it's going to be not good.
Can you tell us what the accent is?
CAVILL: Midwest.
How did you sort of develop it?
CAVILL: How you develop it? Drill, drill, drill, drill, practice, practice, practice. Like gym training, you just gotta build up those muscles so they're used to doing that kind of movement.
Easy or hard?
CAVILL: I had done American accents before, and I'd worked with this coach before as well. Some bits, initially tricky because you're rusty, but then they got easier as time went on and it does become quite natural. I often find during a day of shooting I will speak in an American accent all day long when I'm doing dialogue. At the end of the day, it often takes an effort when I'm talking to my fiancée to bring my English back just because you're so used to speaking that way.
Can we hear your Kryptonian accent?
CAVILL: No.
Did you hear Superman's voice? Did you have in your head the idea of the voice you wanted to do for the character, whether it's Superman or Clark, different timbres?
CAVILL: I did. I do. And I am doing so.
How much research did you do into playing a quote unquote "reporter"? Do you have new respect for all of us sitting here?
CAVILL: [Laughs]
Nolan Clause.
CAVILL: Thank you. Nolan Clause.
I actually did not think that was a loaded question like, The Daily Planet?
CAVILL: Wait, so you've been deliberately asking loaded questions? [Laughs]
At some point, possibly, but not on that one. I mean, talk a little bit about the stuff that you prepared for besides the action stuff besides getting training for the role physically?
CAVILL: Okay, physical training for the role has been extraordinary intense. Mark Twight, the chap from Gym Jones, has been putting me through the ringer big time. Two hours a day on a mix of calories depending on what sort of work we're doing. We started off at about 3,000 a day plus shake. That's about 3,500. But, two hours of work and then we moved up to 4,000 and then up to 5,000 calories. Now, we've dropped down to about 3,500 while we're doing an hour's training every morning because if I keep that high calorie intake I'm going to start putting on fat weight, but if I drop too low I'm going to start losing all the new muscle I've gained. But, an example of the sort of workouts we've been doing recently? A couple of weeks ago it was 100 front squats in body weight. We've been quite fond of doing the 100 repetition stuff recently and heavy as well. I'm trying to think of the other good stuff. But generally, the guys work out with me now. And so, we all have a bit of fun doing it as well. For example, if Mike Levins, who's the assistant trainer, Mark Twight, and myself are training, we'll just do 10 reps of a weight and then someone drops out, they do 10, someone drops out, they do 10. By the time the third person's finished their set, you come in and do your 10, up to 100. Otherwise, training stuff, I mean, it's huge amounts of kettle bell workouts. Does anyone know, has anyone sort of been through a strict training program before?
As you can tell by my physique, absolutely.
CAVILL: [Laughs]
I'm allergic to exercise.
CAVILL: Okay. Basically, it's hard work. I'd love to have Mark here so he could actually run you through some of the stuff we do. But, prep wise, the most intensive has been the physical.
Compared to Immortals, how is your regimen?
CAVILL: Immortals was very much a martial arts based training program, a lot of body weight stuff, very little in the way of actually lifting heavy weights and a very, very low calorie diet. This is the opposite in the sense that it's a very high calorie diet, and been lifting very, very heavy weights.
Does it change you as a person? Do you feel you carry yourself differently, in normal every day life, do you feel differently? Do you feel that you walk differently, you move differently, think differently?
CAVILL: You definitely do walk and move differently just because if you're training is good, your muscles are all equally balanced, a lot more so than for example, what I had been. I feel stronger and more able in everything I do. As a person, does it change me? I hope not. But, I mean, no one said it has so far. I'm really getting quite big now.
You're working out with your mind even?
CAVILL: A large amount of constant activity will get things going. For example, training in the morning will have everything, all the juices flowing by the time you actually get to work. So, when you're at work, you've been already up for an hour or so or two hours, and you're raring to go where everyone else is still wiping sleep out of their eyes.
What's it like seeing kids and people react to you in the costume?
CAVILL: That is the biggest of effects so far. Everyone else, you know, when people say, "Oh, it's Superman," and all sorts, you just sort of ignore the pressure. But when it comes to seeing a kid who actually believes you're Superman, doesn't see Henry Cavill, the actor playing Superman, it's, "Daddy, it's Superman," and he's hiding his face. He's scared and then he wants to — little babies reaching out for you. That is nuts because the responsibility attached to that… They're going to have that experience for the rest of their life when they met Superman, not when they met Henry Cavill who is an actor playing Superman. I think that's really important, for such an incredible icon to do that just right. If you mess that up, you're the wrong guy for the role.
Talk a little bit about, obviously Warner Bros. wants to make this — they're hoping it'll turn into a big franchise for them. Was it a little weird for you to sign onto something where you're signing on for multiple pictures, a character that you could be playing again and again? Or is it sort of like you're only going to want to do this if the film is successful?
CAVILL: It's pretty much standard procedure these days to sign a three picture option deal, so you get the first job. In fact, it's a pre-screen test half the time these days, so you do the screen test and if they say they want you, you have to take the job. Then, they get to choose whether you're hired for the second and third. So that's something I've really gotten quite used to over the years because you just never know.
It's great that we're able to get closer to these iconic characters. But do you hope that we will come away with in this new experience of Superman, that maybe we didn't know before and love?
CAVILL: I've got a really good answer for that. It really bugs me that I can't answer half these questions. Would I be giving away too much?
David mentioned it's a very difficult take on it, but very human as well.
CAVILL: I can't. I can't mate, I'm sorry.
I have to ask you about the "Superman curse," you've probably heard of the "Superman curse.'
CAVILL: No!
Oh no! Then I won't jinx you.
CAVILL: No one's mentioned that to me ever.
Then I'm not going to say anything.
CAVILL: I have indeed heard of the curse. Well, I mean, I honestly don't believe there's a curse. I think there's been some bad luck in the past, especially when it comes to horses, and I don't mean that as a joke. My fiancée is an international show jumper and I know all the risk attached to that. You can fall off 1,000 times and be fired through fences and then the one time you're home out in the yard, all it takes is something to startle the horse and you're off and you fall the wrong way. There's bad luck, but I don't think it's any curse.
The Red Sox beat the thing after 80 years.
CAVILL: That's right, yes.
Curses are meant to be broken.
CAVILL: Yes, when I'm 80 years old, it'll be grand. [Laughs] Thank you very much everybody.
Thank you.
CAVILL: I'm sorry I couldn't answer half the questions. Maybe in 2013.


text:
This article is more than 1 year old
France votes for DRM interop
And new fines for breaking it
It's the "dawn of an equitable internet", says French culture minister Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres. The nation's parliament has backed a bill to mandate interoperability between competing lock-down software restrictions on digital media.
The lower house voted 296 to 193 in favor of a draft law that would force, for example, Apple to open its iPod to songs restricted with Microsoft's flavor of DRM, and Windows Media devices to play songs bought from Apple's iTunes Music Store.
It's something of a sop to French MPs, as it comes as part of raft of legislation that institutes new fines and custodial sentences for copyright infringement, and circumventing copyright restrictions.
Disable the locks on a song and you'll face a fine of €3,750 ($4,600). Distribute the file, and you'll be looking at a fine of €300,000 ($365,000), and jail.
Last week a bill which would have introduced a blanket license for digital media, financed by a small surcharge on internet access with the pot of money going to artists and rights holders. This would have made DRM unnecessary, and would have obliged online stores to compete on their range of their stock, their quality of service, and their know-how - rather than artificial technical restrictions.
As it is, digital music consumers may in the future enjoy the privilege of being mugged in a consistent manner.
The upper house is expected to vote in May, and if the bill is approved, will take effect in 2007. ®