I've created a build of J-Pilot 0.99.3 for Red Hat 8.0 systems.  See my Linux software page for downloads.  It is built against pilot-link version 0.11.5-2 from Red Hat's Rawhide.  (I get my Rawhide packages from Planet Mirror.) 

Question: Where would you expect to see questions like the following?

To the best of your knowledge have you: Ever thought you could be infected with HIV or have AIDS? Ever had a test which showed you had Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, HIV or HTLV? Engaged in sexual activity with someone you might think would answer "yes" to any of the above questions? Had male to male sex? Had sexual activity with a male who you think might be bisexual? Been a male or female sex worker (e.g. received payment for sex in money, gifts or drugs)? Engaged in sexual activity with a male or female sex worker?

Answer:

1. An application form for an administrative position at your local Roman Catholic or Anglican parish
2. An employment agreement for a teaching position at private religious school
3. A Red Cross blood donation questionnaire

If you answered A or B, under the Queensland Government's proposed changes to the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (the Discrimination Law Amendment Bill 2002), you would be incorrect, and potentially liable for investigation by the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal.

What the Red Cross could ask you for reasons of public safety (section 107 of the Act), a religious organisation could not ask due to religious convictions (sections 29 and 42 are to be deleted, and section 109 modified).  If this is not a considerable erosion of civil liberties in our country, what is?  Please consider writing or phoning your local member of parliament to voice your objection to this bill.  Feel free to point out to him or her that this bill is in conflict with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 18.

(The questionnaire information above comes from the Australian Red Cross Blood Service, where you can find a copy of the Donor Questionnaire and information about donating blood.  Please consider giving blood regularly.)

I'm not usually one for a conspiracy theory, but consider this article by biochemist Joel Brind.  Check out the different opinions, and ask yourself, "Who stands to gain by suppressing this information from the general public, and who stands to gain by spreading it?"  I think you'll agree that there is far more to lose (in monetary and political terms) for those who are pro-death rather than pro-life.

(Apologies in advance to those of you who are offended by my politically-incorrect tag for those who promote abortion, but it's indisputably correct: all abortions promote the death of a baby.)

There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't.

- Anonymous (quoted by Craig Billado on the SecurityFocus incidents mailing list)

- Me

- Sam Trenholme (on the SecurityFocus incidents mailing list, after cleaning up a friend's compromised system.)

Let me state from the outset that i am a huge fan of the original book.  In my mind, Tolkien was one of the great literary geniuses of the 20th century.  As is expected, many of my complaints about the movie come in its departures from the book:

• Frodo: Elijah Woods' acting skills lived up to his name (they were a little wooden), and no number of close-ups on his blue eyes looking worried can make up for it.
• The casting of Aragorn: Viggo Mortensen is a fine actor, but i'm not convinced that he has the screen presence required to do justice to Tolkien's Aragorn.  (Then again, i can't think of anyone who does.)
• Music: In a well-done movie, you shouldn't notice the music unless it's a core part of the content.  In LotR it was so loud and there for such a large portion of the movie that it was oppressive, and you felt like you should have been in a classical music concert instead of a fantasy movie.
• Little details changed for no reason:
  • Glorfindel took Frodo across the fords, not Arwen.
  • It was Gandalf's idea to go into Moria, not Gimli's.  Additionally, Gimli already knew Balin was missing and suspected dead.
  • Pippin didn't knock a suit of armor into the well (accidentally), he dropped a stone into it (intentionally).  And it wasn't until some time later that the goblins found them.
  • Frodo was picked up, presumed dead, by Aragorn and carried out of Moria.  It wasn't until they escaped that it was discovered that he had the mithril mail and was still alive.  It is difficult to understand why this was left out - it would have added real tragedy value which would have given the film more impact.
  • At the Falls of Rauros, Samwise guessed what Frodo's plan was and went specifically to find him.
  • Frodo never mentioned that he had seen Gollum until after he and Samwise had left the main party.
• Lothlorien was too mysterious and not joyful enough.  The skipping of the blindfolding of the party and Gimli's request of Galadriel means that the basis for core parts of Gimli's character (his friendship with Legolas and his regard for Galadriel) are lost.
• Singing, a core part of the Elves' culture was not portrayed in any significant measure.  A friend remarked to me that this was consistently maintained for all "culture" in the film - most of the bloodthirstiness of the book was portrayed, but none of the redeeming cultural features, such as singing, poetry, language, and art.  It could be argued (rightly) that these things would have made the film too long (and perhaps boring for some viewers), but this is one of the book's key features.  I recognise that in any film portrayal information is going to be lost, but in this case, the price to pay is too high.

• The casting of Legolas, Gimli, Boromir (presumably Sean Bean will play Faramir in the later episodes as well?), Elrond, Gandalf, Bilbo, and to a lesser extent, the younger hobbits.
• The goblin, orc, and rock troll portrayals, especially in Moria (although the 'orc-forge' and the whole zooming around with the camera thingy in Isengard was a bit over the top).
• The technique of swapping from Gandalf's story to Frodo's during the early part of the movie, whereas in the book you don't find out until much later.
• The scenery was fantastic, and the location shots of the Shire were well-chosen.
• Bilbo's home and the cleverness of the camera work making Gandalf appear so large and Bilbo so small.
• "Fly, you fools!"
• "The dwarf breathes so loud i could have shot him in the dark!"

Maybe one of these days i'll go to see it again and give it another chance.

I've asked myself several times, "Is there any way i could be satisfied with a film version of Lord of the Rings?  (I haven't seen the cartoon version, but i hear it was similarly abbreviated.)  I can't in all honesty say that i could be, but i think it would help if the whole book were portrayed, word for word, with no omissions or changes of detail.  I recognise that this would make a three-part movie into a 20 (?) part series, but i think that is what would be necessary to do justice to the book.  If you've seen "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within", i think you'll admit that animation technology is nearly at the stage where this could be achieved on a realistic budget. 

When a pastor was asked if a person could go to heaven if he smoked, the pastor replied, "Sure... you probably will get there a lot sooner." Another pastor was asked if a person would go to hell if he smoked. The pastor replied, "No, you just smell like it!" Whether smoking is a sin or not, with all the information we now have, it is at the very least one of the dumber things we can do.

-- Matt Evans, Harvard Law Student