Great Wall of China disappearing

This was a little distressing to read about: the Great Wall of China is falling apart.

Dong Yaohui, secretary-general of the Great Wall Society of China, delivers the wake-up call. “Believe it or not, the Great Wall is crumbling, unable to withstand natural deterioration and calamities caused by people.”

Dong, who has personally surveyed huge sections of the structure originally built as a defensive barrier against marauding invaders, says he believes that of the portion built during the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644), less than 20 percent is still intact.

A probe of 100 sections drew the alarming conclusion that a third of the structure has already vanished, subject to the natural ravages of the weather and the encroaching Gobi Desert, as well as the attention of peasants and farmers living in its shadow.

The Great Wall is just one of the many, many places I’d like a chance to visit someday. While it’s not likely that the entire wall is going to suddenly up and disappear overnight, it’s a shame that we’re in danger of losing major portions of such an astounding monument.

Supreme Court Tries Sodomy…and likes it!

Sorry, I couldn’t help the title — especially after Slate magazine’s unfortunate choice of headline (‘Supreme Court tries sodomy’) from the beginning of this trial.

The Supreme Court struck down a ban on gay sex Thursday, ruling that the law was an unconstitutional violation of privacy.

The 6-3 ruling reverses course from a ruling 17 years ago that states could punish homosexuals for what such laws historically called deviant sex.

Laws forbidding homosexual sex, once universal, now are rare. Those on the books are rarely enforced but underpin other kinds of discrimination, lawyers for two Texas men had argued to the court.

The men “are entitled to respect for their private lives,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote.

“The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime,” he said.

[…]

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.

What a wonderful ruling heading into this year’s pride weekend!

(via ‘Michael Savage Weiner’, Daily Kos, and Mathew Gross)

IntyOS

Just something very geek-cool: someone is working on coding — in assembly language, no less — an OS for the old Intellivision gaming platform!

IntyOS is not a port of Contiki and does not have the same desktop environment, nor the same built-in tools. It was written from scratch in CP-1600 assembly language in order to fit exactly to the hardware specificities of the Intellivision. Its main goal is now to see how far it’s possible to go with today’s technologies on such a limited system from the early 80’s…

(via /.)

'Hands-free' isn't accident free

I’ve got a habit of hanging up on people if I know that they’re calling me from a cell phone in their car. I’ve been grumbled at this on more than a few occasions, especially lately when they can use the excuse that they’re using a ‘hands free’ headset, so they don’t have to have one hand on the phone. I’ll still get off the phone — I’ve never believed that jabbering on a cell phone while driving, with or without a headset, is safe.

Looks like researchers agree with me.

Talking on a mobile phone while driving your car is just as dangerous when using hands-free equipment as when holding the phone in your hand, according to a Swedish study published on Monday.

The National Road Administration (SNRA) tested 48 people in driving simulators, dividing them into two groups — one with and the one without hands-free mobile phone devices.

The drivers in both groups received about 10 phone calls each during 1.5 hours of simulated driving in different conditions. The test revealed almost no difference in reaction time between the two groups.

“It is the distraction of the phone conversation that is the problem,” Ingemar Skogo, the SNRA director general, told Reuters.

So, please — if you’re going to call me — get out of the damn car first.

Russian to English?

Can anyone out there give me a better translation of this page (a Russian-language LiveJournal that links to a post of mine) than Babelfish’s translation?

I’d kind of like to know what the discussion is about, but Babelfish’s translation leaves a bit to be desired.

The wind brings down snow and howls after the window.The transformation of America into the scoop is accompanied by sharp climate variation.So it must be.

Roe vs. Wade…vs. McCorvey?

Prairie sent me a somewhat distressing link today — it seems that Norma McCorvey, the ‘Roe’ of Roe vs. Wade, has filed a motion to overturn the Roe vs. Wade decision.

The former plaintiff known as “Jane Roe” in the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case that legalized abortion sought to have the case overturned in a motion filed Tuesday that asks the courts to consider new evidence that abortion hurts women.

Norma McCorvey, who joined the anti-abortion fight nearly 10 years ago and says she regrets her role in Roe v. Wade, said the Supreme Court’s decision is no longer valid because scientific and anecdotal evidence that has come to light in the last 30 years has shown the negative effects of abortion.

“We’re getting our babies back,” a jubilant McCorvey said at a news conference while flanked by about 60 women, some who sobbed and held signs that read “I regret my abortion.'”

Without meaning to belittle Ms. McCorvey in the slightest, I find it sad that such a landmark decision is being challenged by no less of a person than the original defendant. With all due respect, I really hope that this motion doesn’t carry through — I feel that the ability to have option to have safe abortions when necessary is far too important to too many women in too many different circumstances for it to become illegal again.