Desire

Yes­ter­day, whilst sat hav­ing a cof­fee in my local (to the office) Java Cafe Bar, they were play­ing Desire by Bob Dylan. Wow! It must be more than 20 years since I’d heard that album. I real­ised I still knew all the lyr­ics too (I used to listen to it a lot). Or at least the lyr­ics to the three or four tracks I heard whilst drink­ing my cof­fee. I also remembered, even­tu­ally, that the haunt­ing violin work was by Scar­let Rivi­era, and back­ing vocals by Emmylou Har­ris!
After I found myself still singing snatches of the songs today, I real­ised two things: One, I rarely hear songs which tell a story these days, and pretty much every song on that album tells a story; and two, I really need to go buy a copy!
Desire was the first con­tem­por­ary album I listened too. Back in 1975 (I think) when it was a new release, my sis­ter Carole’s boy­friend, Mike, left a copy at our house. I listened to it over and over again. Prior to that the only LPs (12 inch vinyl records to you young­sters) I had access to were Carole’s Elvis albums, my Mum’s Perry Como, Andy Wil­li­ams, and Frank Sinatra albums, and my Dad’s John Den­ver col­lec­tion. All good ground­ing for appre­ci­at­ing tal­en­ted sing­ers, but Desire was some­thing else entirely. Later Mike also left a copy of Cat Stevens’ Tea for the Tiller­man, another great album I no longer own.

‘Super-DMCA’ fears suppress security research

Hav­ing your country’s legis­la­tion driven by big busi­ness is a very bad thing:
’Super-DMCA’ fears sup­press secur­ity research

“A Uni­ver­sity of Michigan gradu­ate stu­dent noted for his research into stegano­graphy and hon­ey­pots — tech­niques for con­ceal­ing mes­sages and detect­ing hack­ers, respect­ively — says he’s been forced to move his research papers and soft­ware off­shore and pro­hibit U.S. res­id­ents from access­ing it, in response to a con­tro­ver­sial new state law that makes it a felony to pos­sess soft­ware cap­able of con­ceal­ing the exist­ence or source of any elec­tronic communication.”

“Taken lit­er­ally, the law is bad news for busi­nesses like Anonymizer.com and Hush­mail — both ser­vices cater to privacy-conscious Inter­net users determ­ined to con­ceal their place of ori­gin from mar­keters, or to com­mu­nic­ate anonym­ously. Crit­ics say it would also ban fire­walls and NAT boxes, deal­ing a blow to Inter­net secur­ity. “This stat­ute essen­tially crim­in­al­izes the mere pos­ses­sion of tech­no­logy,” says Fred von Lohmann, senior staff attor­ney at the Elec­tronic Fron­tier Found­a­tion, which opposes the legislation. ”

““It’s very dif­fi­cult, read­ing the law, it makes basic­ally everything that I do illegal,” says Provos.”

Link from slash­dot