Quote from: MeltingMan on April 15, 2024, 12:47:29So if I understand Simon correctly, the new album is basically ready for publication.

No, that's not how I understood his comment. He basically says these things take time and unless they're completely happy with how it turns out, it won't be released yet. (More mixing, more tweaking?)

So if I understand Simon correctly, the new album is basically ready for publication.  
In ten to fifteen years, some dream islands no longer exist ... I was informed.

Last week I watched "Dream Scenario", a small film with Nicolas Cage, which wasn't bad at all.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt21942866/


Next I want to see "Civil War" by Alex Garland (all the movies I saw directed by him, were good). Let's just hope this scenario won't be too real all too soon!

Found this book by coincidence in a store I hadn't been to before (it was filled with books almost to the ceiling, piles of books on the floor and the book shelves full):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theatre_for_Dreamers

It was written by David Gilmour's wife (he wrote a song for the audiobook).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polly_Samson

Guess I'll read this when summer comes closer. 

Quote from: dsanchez on April 14, 2024, 10:44:22who was skeptical about the new album being made at all

Wonder how that did happen after all the "it will be released later this year" almost every year since 2019 or so! 
(Robert said it will be out before the 2022 touring starts, now we have 2024!)

But I myself never had a doubt there had been recordings (and maybe after the songs being played live, there were some re-recordings too?), also it is known that Robert can be quite a perfectionist when it comes to mixing and stuff... All we can do is wait and see. 

Quote from: dsanchez on April 14, 2024, 11:06:22Fair enough, but probably they could have banned this person (which I think they did) and leave the congress continue.

No, I'll try & translate the sentence for you, the Inner Senator of Berlin had said:
"there are clear conditions the congress has to comply with, otherwise it will be ended".

They had a banned person make a video speech - hence the consequences.

Good article about yesterday's events:

QuoteThis weekend's air raids in the Middle East set a lot of records. Iran carried out its first ever direct attack on Israel from Iranian territory, launching an unprecedentedly large swarm of drones and missiles against Israeli military bases. And for the first time in history, U.S. troops engaged in direct combat in defense of Israeli territory.

https://reason.com/2024/04/14/biden-sends-u-s-forces-to-protect-israels-borders-for-the-first-time-ever/

Parsi on Iran's response to Israel attack to their consulate:

QuoteThere is a historical example that shows that the Iranian retaliation against Israel could perhaps have been evaded.

The US, UK, and France prevented the UN Security Council from condemning the Israeli attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus despite it being a flagrant violation of international law. The Iranians have hinted that had the UNSC strongly condemned Israel, Iran might have refrained from retaliating against it. Most observers have dismissed the Iranian claim, assessing that Tehran would have acted anyway.

But there is a historical example involving Iran and an attack on an Iranian consulate in which the UNSC acted swiftly and prevented an Iranian retaliation.

It was September 1998. The Taliban had just taken Mazar-e Sharif in Afghanistan and attacked the Iranian consulate there, executing several Iranian diplomats. I was working for the Swedish Permanent UN Mission at the time and Sweden was not only in the UNSC, it held the presidency of the Council that month.

The Iranian demand on Sweden was clear: Although Iran had mobilized on the border to Afghanistan and was ready to attack, a strong condemnation by the UNSC and its presidency could provide Iran with a face-saving exit and the larger war could be avoided.
Sweden ensured that the attack on the consulate - a flagrant violation of the Vienna Convention - was appropriately condemned, and Iran never retaliated against the Taliban militarily, despite the Taliban's clear aggression.

In both cases, an Iranian consulate had been attacked and several Iranian officials had been killed. In both cases, Iran did not want to go to war. But in one case, the UNSC condemned the aggression and Iranian retaliation was evaded. On the other, the US, UK, and France put their support for Israel above international law and prevented the UNSC from condemning the attack, and we are now in the middle of the Iranian retaliation.

Certainly, the 1998 episode does not prove that Iran's retaliation against Israel today could have been prevented. But it does suggest that there was an opportunity to de-escalate that the US/UK/FR ignored or dismissed.

Then again, that fits perfectly with Biden's record of the past 7 months as opportunity after opportunity to de-escalate and end the war in Gaza has been actively dismissed by him.

Quote from: Ulrich on April 14, 2024, 09:35:20

Quote from: dsanchez on April 13, 2024, 15:57:07the German police broke up the congress

The reason for this was very clear, by the way. One bloke who supports Hamas terrorists, is not allowed any political activity within Germany:

Fair enough, but probably they could have banned this person (which I think they did) and leave the congress continue. For instance, there was no reason to ban Yanis' speech.