Slashdot Mirror

http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=mg2utilities&L=1&sid=m assgov2&U=utility_contactus
Bethann Pepoli is the Acting CIO in charge of this decision.
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=itdmodulechunk&L=1&L0= Home&sid=Aitd&b=terminalcontent&f=organization_adm inistration&csid=Aitd

(thanks in no small part to .ma.us)

Hmm, no. First off, Google finds no ODT documents in .ma.us at all (although plenty of .doc).

Secondly, even if we were to go to the Massachusetts government website, you'd also find practically no ODT (29 total) compared with about 208,000 .DOC files.

Interestingly enough, all the ODT files Google finds are discussing the use of ODT in Massachusetts.

Keep in mind that Massachusetts originally claimed that they would switch over to all ODF at the start of 2007. Well, we're four months in to 2007 - and there's nothing.

Microsoft already won that battle.

Police, fire trucks, and ambulances are all legal to run red lights under the condition that they run their lights and/or siren to indicate their intent.

At least here in Massachusetts, this is true only if they are responding to an emergency and they are on duty. If they do it for any other reason, it's illegal. Link

I posted this elsewhere, but here's a game for you: find an instance of ODF on the Massachusetts website without reverting to Google. For an added bonus, see how many times you can find pages where Microsoft Office documents are the only version supplied.

The ODF switch-over was supposed to happen January 1st, 2007.

It's not even close to starting, and I personally doubt it ever will.

Might want to scratch Massachusetts off that list. Supposedly they moved to open formats starting in 2007 - but just try and find any on the Massachusetts website.

Or, given that navigating that site is a disaster, try this:

Search for files of type 'ods' - 0 results
Search for files of type 'xls' - 3,230 results

That's not to say there's nothing there:

Search for files of type 'odt' - 27 results
Search for files of type 'doc' - 31,400 results

Given that the state was going to completely switch by 2007, and we're now in March of 2007, it's safe to say that the move hasn't quite happened. At all.

As an example, try this page of employment stats presented by the Mass state government. But only if you're using Excel - it's not available in any other format.

It's also worth noting that despite all the talk a couple of years ago, Massachusetts isn't.

Take a peak at the upcoming Tax Fairness Bill - but only if you use Microsoft Word, as no other version is provided.

Massachusetts was going to implement an ODF-only policy at the start of 2007. I guess not!

If you look at the United States in Google Earth, you'll notice that Massachusetts stands right out on the globe as a high-resolution patch. This is because the Massachusetts Office of Geographic and Environmental Information (MassGIS) maintains high-resolution images of the entire state, and Google Maps/Google Earth obtains its data for Massachusetts from MassGIS. I can't find anything specific about why these sites are pixelated (the UMass/Lowell one is almost certainly not a sensitive site), but I would imagine that it would be an effect of state or federal homeland security legislation.

If you look at the United States in Google Earth, you'll notice that Massachusetts stands right out on the globe as a high-resolution patch. This is because the Massachusetts Office of Geographic and Environmental Information (MassGIS) maintains high-resolution images of the entire state, and Google Maps/Google Earth obtains its data for Massachusetts from MassGIS. I can't find anything specific about why these sites are pixelated (the UMass/Lowell one is almost certainly not a sensitive site), but I would imagine that it would be an effect of state or federal homeland security legislation.

Google Maps gets the Massachusetts aerial photos from MassGIS http://www.mass.gov/mgis

I believe you will find they are the blurring culprits if you download the latest aerial photos done by a 2005 fly by.

There are two issues here, not one.

Google has done an excellent job of making high resolution aerial photography readily available. Obviously they recognized the need for discretion over sensitive areas. The article does mention the "pixel-out" effect that can be used. For example, until a year or so ago, the roof of the white house was precisely erased and replaced with a solid white overlay. I assume this was done for national security, and has been deemed no longer needed. The same for Area 51, which use to be a very very grainy low resolution image overlaid at the location (not so any more). Clearly there are mechanisms in place to allow for obfuscation of small areas. I would think it was the job of the military to tell Google what areas it thinks are sensitive. Such areas could be replaced by out of date, but still interesting images of how the bases use to look.

The second issue in play is far more serious. Consider that Google has not launched a satellite into geosynchronous orbit as of yet. The image data it has is gathered from many third-party providers including state GIS services, and the NAVTEQ and TeleAtlas companies. Those companies sell the data in question as their business. Even if Google dismantled its Earth/Maps services, the data would still be available to moderately funded terrorist groups. Ultra-high res image data, infrastructure maps and 3D building data on almost every square foot of Massachusetts is available for free here: MassGIS. The military should be aware of this by now and should be taking action to minimize the threat. Google Maps is far less accurate than flying a spy plane over a base because the images are likely months out of date. Flying spy plane has been possible for decades. It would be much more difficult to determine where the lavatories are located and where the light armor is parked if those areas had some light tent's or shrouds around them. The cost to do that in a base is probably less than the cost of one of the heavy tanks it would protect.

urrently, sex offenders in many states have to disclose publically their actual physical address, including Virginia.
True, but this information is not allowed to be used to keep an offender from using public facilities.

Your argument seems to be that if we can't completely solve a problem, don't do anything about it at all!
No, if you read my arguement, you will see that it is that this solution doesn't fix the problem any better than adding duct tape to a leaking dam will fix the dam. My arguement is that it will restrict the rights of too many people and do too little to actually solve the problem for a total net loss in effectiveness.

Not the case. They would probably be prevented from using sites that are extremely kid-friendly.
You mean kid friendly sites like Yahoo? Or kid friendly messaging systems like AOL? And where do you draw the line of kid friendliness? Most of the sites pedophiles seem to be cruising are used by anyone (claiming to be) 13 to who knows how old.

I'm not seeing much monetary costs, since we're not talking about a monitoring system, just a database.
Here is a link to the current budget for MS's current sex offender registry maintenance budget. It costs them nearly 4 million dollars a year to make sure it is up to date. And that is for one maybe two addresses per offender. Imagine if they also had to maintain an untold number of emails as well. A database does no good if it is not maintained. It will quickly become just a random bunch of data that is unreliable. At the very least you will have to pay for the servers to maintain it, technicians to keep it running, developers to create interfaces for it, and bandwidth so it is accessible. Not to mention security measures to keep the wrong people from accessing the data and all sorts of other things.

As for liberties, the right to live without big brother watching you evaporated when they molested a kid. Same for the ability to interact with kids in the future.
Since when do sex offender registries only hold lists of pedophiles, any sex offender gets added to it. This would include pedophiles, yes, but also statitory rape convicts (22 yo has sex with a consenting 17 yo without his knowledge, wrong but not pedophelia, at least not intentionally) and other rape convictions (guy gets a girl drunk and takes advantage of her, still wrong, but still not pedophelia). These people don't have the same rate of repeat that pedophiles do, but they lose all the same rights.

Like I said in a previous post, there needs to be legal reforms, but this is the wrong way to do it. There needs to be better ways to try and sentence these people before you try and remove all their rights. This is the very reason there is an amendment protecting people from cruel and unusual punishment. Unfortunately, in these cases, it is more often ignored.

You'd be surprised how many state legislatures never bothered authorizing their respective DMVs to archive the photographs (which is a huge change from the days of the original photo licenses, where only negative was produced and no photograph maintained.)

I just took a look at the MA code and couldn't find anything allowing the photographs to be archived by the registry of motor vehicles. Maybe someone else with a better knoweledge of MA law can find such a law.

This is not an insignificant issue...the archival of the photographs and sharing them to law enforcement, basically without limit and without warrant to access the database, is the practical equivalent of requiring every citizen above the age of 16 to show up at the local police station and be photographed.

I consider the photograph archival of US license pictures to be one of the biggest and least known/understood privacy invasions in the last 10-15 years.

Ah, but in Taxachusetts, we don't.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/member/mrp0.htm

his e-mail address is:

Marc.Pacheco@state.ma.us

let this corrupt little vermin know what you think of him.

Let him know.

Make him understand.

The text of the law appears to be in Section 322 of the Senate budget ... go to

http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/st02/st0250 0.htm

and scroll way down. Here is what is says:

SECTION 322. Said chapter 7 is hereby further amended by adding the
following section:

Section 57. (a) There shall be a commonwealth information technology
expert task force, referred to in this section as the task force,
consisting of the chief information officer of the information
technology division, the supervisor of records, the state archivist, 2
members to be appointed by the governor (1 of whom shall be a
representative of the business community with experience in the
telecommunications industry, and 1 of whom shall be a representative
of the business community with experience in information technology),
the state treasurer or his designee, the state secretary or his
designee, and the state auditor or his designee. Citizen members of
the task force shall be appointed for terms of 3 years or until a
successor is appointed. Citizen members shall be eligible to be
reappointed and shall serve without compensation. The supervisor of
records shall act as the chair of the task force. The state archivist
shall act as the task force secretary.

(b) The task force shall make recommendations concerning government
information technology policy and practices. The task force shall
issue an annual report to the governor, the general court, each
constitutional officer and to the chief information officers of each
city and town if requested and may issue additional reports from time
to time. The task force recommendations shall address, but not be
limited to, the following matters: (1) procurement policies by
commonwealth agencies, constitutional offices, and other government
entities concerning computer hardware and software, cellular
telephones, personal data accessories, and other information
technology devices; (2) format and content of web pages maintained by
commonwealth agencies, constitutional offices, and other government
entities; and (3) software standards governing commonwealth agencies,
constitutional offices, and other government entities.

In offering recommendations, the task force's analysis shall include,
but not be limited to, the following considerations:

(1) cost-benefit analysis of proposed policies or practices;
(2) security of proposed policies or practices from viruses, hacking,
and other breaches; (3) the extent to which the proposed policy or
practice results in user-friendly applications for commonwealth
employees, business entities, and members of the public; and (4)
proposals and options to facilitate more efficient transactions
between commonwealth entities and the public, including on-line
transactions.

No agency, department or municipality shall adopt or implement any
technology policy, practice or standard concerning information
technology standards or systems or the procurement or use of hardware,
software, and cellular phones and other electronic devices, without
the affirmative approval of the task force by majority vote. Any
policy, practice or standard concerning the creation, storage or
archiving of documents or materials shall also be approved by the
supervisor of public records and the records conservation board, and
shall be certified by the state auditor as maintaining or enhancing
the commonwealth's compliance with Section 508 of the federal
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1973.

"By comparison, every time I get into an argument with a law-geek and they play the "but that word doesn't mean the same legally as it does in English" card, I just want to serve up some serious hurting."

Sorry, but that is, in fact, a major legal issue that many of us non-lawyers just don't understand. Laws and precendent often define words to have specific meanings. Those meanings often have little to do with their meaning in normal usage.

For example, in most parts of Massachusetts law, the word "firearm" means what most of us think of as a handgun. Which is why you will often see the phrase "firearms, rifles, and shotguns" in Massachusetts law. When Massachusetts law just refers to firearms, that section generally applies solely to handguns, not to rifles or shotguns. Does that make sense? No. But that's how the idiots in the MA legislature defined the word "firearm" when they wrote the law. See MA General Law, Chapter 140 Section 121:

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/140-121.htm

"opened discs may only be exchanged for another copy of the same disc"

Virtually every state has a law saying that return policy is illegal.

In Massachusetts, for example:

A store [...] cannot use its disclosed policy to refuse the return of defective merchandise. When the item purchased is defective, you can choose a repair, replacement or refund. This right is contained in the Implied Warranty of Merchantability law. Under that law, merchants cannot limit your remedies.

Are you a librarian in Massachusetts? If not, you may want to do some research before you start spouting off like you did ... it's not as cut and dry as you made it seem. If you are, well ...

Here's what I found:

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/78-7.htm

CHAPTER 78. LIBRARIES

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

Chapter 78: Section 7. Establishment by cities and towns; records

Section 7. A town may establish and maintain public libraries for its inhabitants under regulations prescribed by the city council or by the town, and may receive, hold and manage any gift, bequest or devise therefor. The city council of a city or the selectmen of a town may place in such library the books, reports and laws which may be received from the commonwealth. That part of the records of a public library which reveals the identity and intellectual pursuits of a person using such library shall not be a public record as defined by clause Twenty-sixth of section seven of chapter four. Library authorities may disclose or exchange information relating to library users for the purposes of inter-library cooperation and coordination, including but not limited to, the purposes of facilitating the sharing of resources among library jurisdictions as authorized by clause (1) of section nineteen E or enforcing the provisions of sections ninety-nine and one hundred of chapter two hundred and sixty-six.

So the question becomes, is a public computer in a Massachusetts public library that any person can use considered part of the records of a public library? You see, it's not specified here and IMHO, I don't think it is ...

Even the American Library Association site that discusses this directs folks to the MA statute above and says for them to "adopt a policy that specifically recognizes the confidentiality of information sought or received, and materials consulted borrowed or acquired by a library user." Does emailing a bomb threat count as "materials consulted borrowed or acquired"?

I'm just talking about laws concerning this in MA, not your state. I'm sure your state has its stuff together.

No, the story was not proven wrong. The original article stated that Quinn went to those conferences without filling out the official Travel Authorization Form and by not doing so he is in violation of the state's Travel Guidelines and state regulations. These regulations are in place so that state employees prove that the conferences they are about to go to are real conferences and not wine and dine junkets. The story was very slanted. It could be described as sensationalistic or yellow journalism. The story itself explains how poorly researched it was (why publish to say that he couldn't get in touch with Quinn's boss Eric Kriss rather than waiting for Thanksgiving weekend to be over and actually talking to Kriss.) but I don't think you could point out any particular incorrect fact.

The later article explained how Quinn's new boss requested that he supply the missing paperwork, that it was turned in and that it was determined that all of the conference were legitimate conferences. It didn't retract anything expressed in the original article, but filled in the information after the first story. (saying that Quinn filed the missing paperwork; Kriss said that he knew about all the conferences and had no problem with them; and all the conferences looked legit to the governor's budget chief.

I wouldn't exactly call it "buried". It was on page B1, the front of the City and Regional News section. (stories that are buried start on page B6 or so. )

Now some people will use the fact that Quinn's boss Eric Kriss says that he knew about and verbally approved all of the conferences as if the Travel Authorization paperwork wasn't necessary in the first place, or that since Quinn paid for some of the expenses out of his own pocket that the state has no reason for having any interest in the matter at all. What I don't understand of these points why people feel that Kriss had any authority to override state regulations. (Would Kriss have the authority to tell Quinn he could double park on Beacon Street if he wanted to). The out-of-pocket costs that Quinn absorbed ignore the fact that the travel and conference regulations are anti-influence-peddling regulations, not cost restrictions. The travel form (a one page form, for goodness sakes, not very burdensome for paperwork) simply asks "how much are you paying", "how much does the state need to pay", and "how much is the conference shelling out for you to be here, and are they involved in any current state contracts".

Some of the biggest influence peddling scandals in the state of Massachusetts have come from companies using phony conferences to whisk state officials to exotic locations. They have a duty to find out which conferences are legit in order to protect itself.

No, the story was not proven wrong. The original article stated that Quinn went to those conferences without filling out the official Travel Authorization Form and by not doing so he is in violation of the state's Travel Guidelines and state regulations. These regulations are in place so that state employees prove that the conferences they are about to go to are real conferences and not wine and dine junkets. The story was very slanted. It could be described as sensationalistic or yellow journalism. The story itself explains how poorly researched it was (why publish to say that he couldn't get in touch with Quinn's boss Eric Kriss rather than waiting for Thanksgiving weekend to be over and actually talking to Kriss.) but I don't think you could point out any particular incorrect fact.

The later article explained how Quinn's new boss requested that he supply the missing paperwork, that it was turned in and that it was determined that all of the conference were legitimate conferences. It didn't retract anything expressed in the original article, but filled in the information after the first story. (saying that Quinn filed the missing paperwork; Kriss said that he knew about all the conferences and had no problem with them; and all the conferences looked legit to the governor's budget chief.

I wouldn't exactly call it "buried". It was on page B1, the front of the City and Regional News section. (stories that are buried start on page B6 or so. )

Now some people will use the fact that Quinn's boss Eric Kriss says that he knew about and verbally approved all of the conferences as if the Travel Authorization paperwork wasn't necessary in the first place, or that since Quinn paid for some of the expenses out of his own pocket that the state has no reason for having any interest in the matter at all. What I don't understand of these points why people feel that Kriss had any authority to override state regulations. (Would Kriss have the authority to tell Quinn he could double park on Beacon Street if he wanted to). The out-of-pocket costs that Quinn absorbed ignore the fact that the travel and conference regulations are anti-influence-peddling regulations, not cost restrictions. The travel form (a one page form, for goodness sakes, not very burdensome for paperwork) simply asks "how much are you paying", "how much does the state need to pay", and "how much is the conference shelling out for you to be here, and are they involved in any current state contracts".

Some of the biggest influence peddling scandals in the state of Massachusetts have come from companies using phony conferences to whisk state officials to exotic locations. They have a duty to find out which conferences are legit in order to protect itself.

AC: Um, no. What he's saying is that the PEOPLE should decide what format they use, not some asshole in an appointed position who the people never elected or chose.

He was appointed by an ELECTED executive. That means the PEOPLE entrusted him to make various decisions on their behalf, particularly in regards to details of government operation. Whether or not they approve of this particular choice shall be a factor in Romney's next election campaign.

Your complaint applies equally well to any kind of representative democracy (and of course, nonrepresentative democracy is too cumbersome to be workable with modern technology)

If you're a resident of MA- please take the time to write your Senator and Representative to express your support for Mr. Quinn and the ODF. You can look up your representatives here: http://www.mass.gov/legis/citytown.htm

Here's what I've sent to my Senator. The letter to my Rep added that as one of the few Republicans in the House he might want to take this opportunity to distinquish himself....

Hon Steven Panagiotakos
Room 218
Boston, MA 02133

Dear Senator,

I am writing to express my support for the recent efforts of the Massachusetts CIO, Peter Quinn in his drive to ensure accessibility for the citizens of Massachusetts. I'm very disappointed the Senate would consider ignoring or altering the recommendations of Mr. Quinn and his staff. The citizens of Massachusetts deserve to have unfettered access to the electronic records of the state. Our state has an opportunity to step out and obtain widespread recognition for leadership; we should not succumb to backroom deals or crooked politics- it is vital we follow the recommendations of Mr. Quinn and adopt the Open Document Format for all documents and publications. I value our freedom to choose and do not wish to be subject to the whims of a monopoly. The adoption of the Open Document Format is an important step in taking back the information paid for by our tax dollars. What is paid for by all should be accessible to all and no alternative is acceptable.

Respectfully,

however in MA the law says we must drive at speeds which are "safe and proper"

Actually, what the General Laws of Massachusetts, Title XIV "Public Ways and Works", Chaper 90 "Motor Vehicles And Aircraft", Section 17 "Speed limits" says is:

Section 17. No person operating a motor vehicle on any way shall run it at a rate of speed greater than is reasonable and proper, having regard to traffic and the use of the way and the safety of the public. Unless a way is otherwise posted in accordance with the provisions of section eighteen, it shall be prima facie evidence of a rate of speed greater than is reasonable and proper as aforesaid (1) if a motor vehicle is operated on a divided highway outside a thickly settled or business district at a rate of speed exceeding fifty miles per hour for a distance of a quarter of a mile, or (2) on any other way outside a thickly settled or business district at a rate of speed exceeding forty miles per hour for a distance of a quarter of a mile, or (3) inside a thickly settled or business district at a rate of speed exceeding thirty miles per hour for a distance of one-eighth of a mile, or (4) within a school zone which may be established by a city or town as provided in section two of chapter eighty-five at a rate of speed exceeding twenty miles per hour. Operation of a motor vehicle at a speed in excess of fifteen miles per hour within one-tenth of a mile of a vehicle used in hawking or peddling merchandise and which displays flashing amber lights shall likewise be prima facie evidence of a rate of speed greater than is reasonable and proper. If a speed limit has been duly established upon any way, in accordance with the provisions of said section, operation of a motor vehicle at a rate of speed in excess of such limit shall be prima facie evidence that such speed is greater than is reasonable and proper; but, notwithstanding such establishment of a speed limit, every person operating a motor vehicle shall decrease the speed of the same when a special hazard exists with respect to pedestrians or other traffic, or by reason of weather or highway conditions. Any person in violation of this section, while operating a motor vehicle through the parameters of a marked construction zone or construction area, at a speed which exceeds the posted limit, or at a speed that is greater than is reasonable and proper, shall be subject to a fine of 2 times the amount currently in effect for the violation issued. Except on a limited access highway, no person shall operate a school bus at a rate of speed exceeding forty miles per hour, while actually engaged in carrying school children.

and adds in Section 17A "Speed limit; Massachusetts Turnpike":

Section 17A. Unless otherwise prohibited by federal law, the maximum speed for motor vehicles traveling on interstate highway route 90, the Massachusetts Turnpike, between the New York state border and the Westfield interchange, and from the Ludlow interchange to the Auburn interchange, interstate highway route 91 from the Vermont border to Northampton, Exit 21, and interstate 95 from the Newbury interchange 56 to the Danvers interchange 50, shall be sixty-five miles per hour.

(section 17B talks about drag racing, but we won't deal with the issues of racing while dressed in clothing generally considered more appropriate for the opposite sex here), with Section 18 "Special regulations, speed and use of vehicles" talking mainly about Bahston.

So, yeah, you have to drive at "safe and proper" speeds, but if you drive more than 1/4 or 1/8 mile (depending on where you're driving) at speeds above the posted speed (hmm, 1/4 mile, see previous comment about putting on women's clothing and hanging around in bars^W^W^W^Wracing) that's prima facie evidence of driving at an unreasonable or improper speed.

however in MA the law says we must drive at speeds which are "safe and proper"

Actually, what the General Laws of Massachusetts, Title XIV "Public Ways and Works", Chaper 90 "Motor Vehicles And Aircraft", Section 17 "Speed limits" says is:

Section 17. No person operating a motor vehicle on any way shall run it at a rate of speed greater than is reasonable and proper, having regard to traffic and the use of the way and the safety of the public. Unless a way is otherwise posted in accordance with the provisions of section eighteen, it shall be prima facie evidence of a rate of speed greater than is reasonable and proper as aforesaid (1) if a motor vehicle is operated on a divided highway outside a thickly settled or business district at a rate of speed exceeding fifty miles per hour for a distance of a quarter of a mile, or (2) on any other way outside a thickly settled or business district at a rate of speed exceeding forty miles per hour for a distance of a quarter of a mile, or (3) inside a thickly settled or business district at a rate of speed exceeding thirty miles per hour for a distance of one-eighth of a mile, or (4) within a school zone which may be established by a city or town as provided in section two of chapter eighty-five at a rate of speed exceeding twenty miles per hour. Operation of a motor vehicle at a speed in excess of fifteen miles per hour within one-tenth of a mile of a vehicle used in hawking or peddling merchandise and which displays flashing amber lights shall likewise be prima facie evidence of a rate of speed greater than is reasonable and proper. If a speed limit has been duly established upon any way, in accordance with the provisions of said section, operation of a motor vehicle at a rate of speed in excess of such limit shall be prima facie evidence that such speed is greater than is reasonable and proper; but, notwithstanding such establishment of a speed limit, every person operating a motor vehicle shall decrease the speed of the same when a special hazard exists with respect to pedestrians or other traffic, or by reason of weather or highway conditions. Any person in violation of this section, while operating a motor vehicle through the parameters of a marked construction zone or construction area, at a speed which exceeds the posted limit, or at a speed that is greater than is reasonable and proper, shall be subject to a fine of 2 times the amount currently in effect for the violation issued. Except on a limited access highway, no person shall operate a school bus at a rate of speed exceeding forty miles per hour, while actually engaged in carrying school children.

and adds in Section 17A "Speed limit; Massachusetts Turnpike":

Section 17A. Unless otherwise prohibited by federal law, the maximum speed for motor vehicles traveling on interstate highway route 90, the Massachusetts Turnpike, between the New York state border and the Westfield interchange, and from the Ludlow interchange to the Auburn interchange, interstate highway route 91 from the Vermont border to Northampton, Exit 21, and interstate 95 from the Newbury interchange 56 to the Danvers interchange 50, shall be sixty-five miles per hour.

(section 17B talks about drag racing, but we won't deal with the issues of racing while dressed in clothing generally considered more appropriate for the opposite sex here), with Section 18 "Special regulations, speed and use of vehicles" talking mainly about Bahston.

So, yeah, you have to drive at "safe and proper" speeds, but if you drive more than 1/4 or 1/8 mile (depending on where you're driving) at speeds above the posted speed (hmm, 1/4 mile, see previous comment about putting on women's clothing and hanging around in bars^W^W^W^Wracing) that's prima facie evidence of driving at an unreasonable or improper speed.

however in MA the law says we must drive at speeds which are "safe and proper"

Actually, what the General Laws of Massachusetts, Title XIV "Public Ways and Works", Chaper 90 "Motor Vehicles And Aircraft", Section 17 "Speed limits" says is:

Section 17. No person operating a motor vehicle on any way shall run it at a rate of speed greater than is reasonable and proper, having regard to traffic and the use of the way and the safety of the public. Unless a way is otherwise posted in accordance with the provisions of section eighteen, it shall be prima facie evidence of a rate of speed greater than is reasonable and proper as aforesaid (1) if a motor vehicle is operated on a divided highway outside a thickly settled or business district at a rate of speed exceeding fifty miles per hour for a distance of a quarter of a mile, or (2) on any other way outside a thickly settled or business district at a rate of speed exceeding forty miles per hour for a distance of a quarter of a mile, or (3) inside a thickly settled or business district at a rate of speed exceeding thirty miles per hour for a distance of one-eighth of a mile, or (4) within a school zone which may be established by a city or town as provided in section two of chapter eighty-five at a rate of speed exceeding twenty miles per hour. Operation of a motor vehicle at a speed in excess of fifteen miles per hour within one-tenth of a mile of a vehicle used in hawking or peddling merchandise and which displays flashing amber lights shall likewise be prima facie evidence of a rate of speed greater than is reasonable and proper. If a speed limit has been duly established upon any way, in accordance with the provisions of said section, operation of a motor vehicle at a rate of speed in excess of such limit shall be prima facie evidence that such speed is greater than is reasonable and proper; but, notwithstanding such establishment of a speed limit, every person operating a motor vehicle shall decrease the speed of the same when a special hazard exists with respect to pedestrians or other traffic, or by reason of weather or highway conditions. Any person in violation of this section, while operating a motor vehicle through the parameters of a marked construction zone or construction area, at a speed which exceeds the posted limit, or at a speed that is greater than is reasonable and proper, shall be subject to a fine of 2 times the amount currently in effect for the violation issued. Except on a limited access highway, no person shall operate a school bus at a rate of speed exceeding forty miles per hour, while actually engaged in carrying school children.

and adds in Section 17A "Speed limit; Massachusetts Turnpike":

Section 17A. Unless otherwise prohibited by federal law, the maximum speed for motor vehicles traveling on interstate highway route 90, the Massachusetts Turnpike, between the New York state border and the Westfield interchange, and from the Ludlow interchange to the Auburn interchange, interstate highway route 91 from the Vermont border to Northampton, Exit 21, and interstate 95 from the Newbury interchange 56 to the Danvers interchange 50, shall be sixty-five miles per hour.

(section 17B talks about drag racing, but we won't deal with the issues of racing while dressed in clothing generally considered more appropriate for the opposite sex here), with Section 18 "Special regulations, speed and use of vehicles" talking mainly about Bahston.

So, yeah, you have to drive at "safe and proper" speeds, but if you drive more than 1/4 or 1/8 mile (depending on where you're driving) at speeds above the posted speed (hmm, 1/4 mile, see previous comment about putting on women's clothing and hanging around in bars^W^W^W^Wracing) that's prima facie evidence of driving at an unreasonable or improper speed.

the chief information officer for the commonwealth of massachusetts.

Duh! ;-)

The link is already getting slow so here's the info:
Peter Quinn has served as Chief Information Officer (CIO) for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts since September of 2002 and Director of the Commonwealth's Information Technology Division (ITD). Mr. Quinn is also Founding Chair of the Government Open Code Collaborative (GOCC). As ITD Director and CIO, under the Executive Office for Administration and Finance, Mr. Quinn is responsible for setting information technology standards in the Commonwealth. Mr. Quinn came to public service following a successful career in private sector IT, most recently as the CIO for Boston Financial Data Services

http://www.mass.gov/portal/site/massgovportal/menu item.2231afa58be831c14db4a11030468a0c/?pageID=itdu tilities&L=1&sid=Aitd&U=quinn_bio_publicsite

Let me guess: you're in sales or management?
Not at all. I'm a Microsoft certified, self-employed, IT consultant to small businesses. I make a significant part of my income installing and supporting Microsoft products. That old and tired saw about the customer being always right, has worked pretty well for me. I'm not rich, but apparently I'm doing well enough to recognize that the price of the bare product is not the only compelling argument in an IT plan. Anybody who plays along with the state of Massachusetts is going to make millions of dollars.

This is apparently an effort that comes from within the Massachussetts ITD. The people who proposed it won't make more money-- it's a state agency, not a corporation. So what do they get out of this? Maybe they get to have conversations with vendors about meeting their actual needs. And if they spend less money on licenses, maybe that means they have more money for implementation or technical support. My guess is they will actually spend more money in the short term than they will if things stay as they are.

Massachusetts government is trying to force open standards so they don't have to pay for software. We know it's true. Don't come across as one of those "it's because open source is better" when the truth is because open source is free.
Open source and open standard aren't the same thing. If the only thing preventing millions of people from abandoning MS Office is the proprietary file formats, then it's already a dead company. Microsoft Office products support a few "openish" standards --.TXT, .CSV, .RTF, and soon PDF. why not one more?

MS already has readers for it's office documents that are free thus it has NOTHING to do with accessability.
Single user accessibility is only part of the picture. I refer you to this linkhttp://www.mass.gov/Aitd/docs/policies_standar ds/etrm3dot5/ETRM_v3dot5draft_information.pdf for more on the ITD's plan.

Maybe you should write a letter to some of the folks involved. The article mentions at least these three:

Mass. Commission for the Blind

MATP Massachusetts Assistive Technology Partnership

The National Council on Disability

There may be others that should be included as well, but that would be a start.

Mass is fighting the good fight on this one. I'm not sure who exactly is behind it, but, as a resident, I decided it would be best for me to contact them and let them know how much I approved. I just contacted the ITD (Information Technology Division) and let them know what I thought, and asked if there was someone better to whom I could send my thank yous. Our leaders need to hear from us when they're doing a good job.

Corel WordPerfect and, to a lesser extent, Lotus SmartSuite, are both mature products that are already being using by blind and visually impaired users. Corel supports the transition to OpenDocument. IBM/Lotus supports the transition too. Now is the time to actual implement OpenDocument. Both suites already have XML support & using a new schema shouldn't be a hard feature to add. Either or both companies could then contest the claims (and increase sales of their product(s) to boot).

I do realize that Sun's StarOffice and OpenOffice both support various 3rd-party tools to aid the visually impared (including some of those which ship with MS Windows), but Corel's support is almost as strong as MS Office's support. Having a few more companies pushing this would help against the Redmond political wing. It is ridiculous that MS is the only major office suite vendor that has no plans to give OpenDocument support.

http://www.mass.gov/portal/site/massgovportal/menu item.2231afa58be831c14db4a11030468a0c/?pageID=itdu tilities&L=1&sid=Aitd&U=itd_contact_information

if you're to lazy to click the link:

Email: Web.ITD@ITD.State.Ma.US
Please provide as much detail as possible in your e-mail.
Telephone: Mon.- Fri. 7:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m.
Toll-free
Nationwide: 1-866-888-2808
FAX: 617-626-4516
Attn: ITD Web Services Group
Mail:
Information Technology Division
200 Arlington Street OR
Chelsea, MA 02150

        Information Technology Division
1 Ashburton Place,
Room 1601
Boston, MA 02108

If you really want to get involved, according to Groklaw the meeting Monday, October 31, in Boston, at the State House, room A1, from 1 to 5 that's open to the public. If you can't make that kind of commitment, Mass.gov. One useful page is this one which lets you type in your city and find out which state congress critters are yours. They're the ones who want your vote next time around. We also already know that Romney is in favor of ODF and Galvin (who wants to run for Romney's job) is against it, so writing them won't hurt either.

As for what to write I'd suggest you be nice, be brief and use your own words. That's more effective than just cranking out form letters. Let them know what you think and that you're paying attention.

The Massachusetts IT Department has a FAQ about the decision.

The Massachusetts decision doesn't apply to anything other than documents produced by the Executive Department. Citizens can do whatever they want. Other departments can do whatever they want. Your customers can do whatever they want. The only burden on anybody else is that, if they want to read documents produced by the Executive Department, they'll need some way to read them. But this is always true, and you'll certainly have more choices for ways to read these documents in OpenDocument format than, for example, the new Microsoft XML format. For example, with OpenDocument and a free converter, you can read them in practically any version of Word; with Microsoft's, you need the latest Office to do anything with it.

Surely if you think that citizens and agencies should be free to use whatever format they want, the State shouldn't be restricted in what format it uses. It's decided that OpenDocument is what it wants to use.

So, if the state chooses to install OOo Writer, they can read and output not only the Open Document format, but all the legacy documents written in MSWord. For $0 per workstation. Seems like a no-brainer to this MA resident.

In this case, it would appear that someone in Massachusetts state government is trying to do the "right thing".

For another example of someone in MA state government with a clue, surf on over to http://www.mass.gov/mgis/mapping.htm and check out the free online mapping resources. I can't believe it. Usually you have to pay through the nose for current high resolution geo-referenced aerial photography. Here, MA has put it all online for free. Nice going!

Section 117. (a) The department of telecommunications and energy shall promulgate regulations requiring that any publication, including publication on the internet, of a wireless telephone service provider concerning the terms of its plans or contracts for wireless telephone service shall set forth, in a plain and conspicuous manner, the following information:

...

(4) Information on taxes to be collected by the carrier for, and paid to, a state, local, or other governmental agency.

(5) Information on surcharges imposed by the carrier for the costs of compliance with regulations or for other purposes.

here is the faq directly from Mass http://www.mass.gov/portal/site/massgovportal/menu item.59254d74c0e831c14db4a11030468a0c/?pageID=itdt erminal&L=4&L0=Home&L1=Policies%2C+Standards+%26+L egal&L2=Open+Standards&L3=Open+Formats&sid=Aitd&b= terminalcontent&f=policies_standards_opendocformfa qs&csid=Aitd Scroll down to L. Implementation Issues 2. QUESTION: If the Final ETRM V. 3.5 is adopted, won't state agencies need to work with private sector organizations and citizens on a case-by-case basis to work out ways to convert documents back and forth and to troubleshoot problems? The impact of this process on critical agencies like those within the Executive Office of Human Services who depend on the interoperability of their respective IT systems with other branches of state government, particularly the judicial and public safety sectors, will be unacceptable. ANSWER: The Final ETRM V. 3.5 does not apply to documents that the Executive Department receives from external entities. Agencies outside the Executive Department with which EOHHS does business are not subject to Final ETRM V. 3.5. Current data exchanges between EOHHS and its partners outside of EOHHS will not be affected by the Final ETRM 3.5 Data Formats section because the Open Document Format standard applies only to office documents, not to pure data exchange between systems. To the extent to which agencies exchange documents created using office applications with outside agencies, ITD understands that there can be no cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all approach to implementing the Final ETRM Version 3.5. Each agency will create its own implementation plan taking into account the possibilities and limitations of its communications with outside parties.

http://www.mass.gov/portal/index.jsp?pageID=itdsub topic&L=4&L0=Home&L1=Policies%2C+Standards+%26+Leg al&L2=Open+Standards&L3=Open+Formats&sid=Aitd

The govt web site is not well organized. Here is a separate url that briefly describes the proposed standard.

http://www.mass.gov/eoaf/open_formats_comments.htm l

To see the draft of the "data format" standard, and to send comments to the Massachusetts government agency, go to this url and follow the links:

http://www.mass.gov/Aitd/

"Why is this State wasting so much taxpayers' money by investing in the cost to change systems?"

The articles cited here seem to be confused about what Massachusetts is really requiring. So alook at the state's own website reveals this:
http://www.mass.gov/portal/index.jsp?pageID=itdter minal&L=3&L0=Home&L1=Policies%2C+Standards+%26+Leg al&L2=Drafts+for+Review&sid=Aitd&b=terminalcontent &f=policies_standards_ETRM_v3dot5draft_information &csid=Aitd
If I read it correctly they are only requiring that state documents be available in standardized open formats, thus avoiding proprietary vendor lock for both offices of the state and for the citizens of the state who desire to view such documents. This is in the long term a money saver for Massachusetts' taxpayers. I would hope that other state and local governments follow suit. Actually, they are following somewhat what you outlined in your post regarding XML and PDF formats. Microsoft Office will still be usable for state employees. But Microsoft will have to compete on a level playing field with other software providers. The move will also assure that state data will not be lost, in the event that proprietary formats change without backward compatibility.
The state positioning itself to have vendors compete to provide the software will more than offset the training costs or temporary loss in productivity. These costs are no more when switching from Microsoft Office to Star Office or Open Office, than when upgrading to newer versions of Microsoft Office.

It's worth pointing out that Massachusetts was one of the last states (the last?) to drop the anti-trust suit against Microsoft. There's very little love lost between Massachusetts and Microsoft at this point.

I'm sure Microsoft will try and pull something, but I'm not as sure that the state will actually fall for it. They've gone against Microsoft before, and I expect they're willing to do it again.

Besides, they've already transitioned the Massachusetts government website from IIS to Netscape Enterprise Server. Doesn't really have anything to do with this, really, but some part of the state government's done it before. (The site appears to be written using Java servlet and Java Server Page technology, which is arguably an open standard and has an open source solution available, so there's that, too.)

Massachusetts is brown because Google is showing the 0.5 meter 2001/2003 aerial photos (orhtophotos) instead of the alternative sattelite imagery for adjacent states. The photos were taken in 2001 for the mainland and 2003 for the islands. Previous black and white 0.5 meter photos were taken 1992-1999, and this spring the entire state was reflown and that 0.5 meter imagery will start to become available in September. The photos are taken after snow melt and before leaf-out so that more building details are available. For more information on the photos see the metadata page at the MassGIS web site: http://www.mass.gov/mgis/colororthos2001.htm

In addition, various online mapping viewers are available at the MassGIS web site: http://www.mass.gov/mgis/mapping.htm including OLIVER, a Java Web Start application. These applications don't allow 3D flying, but they do offer the ability to add and subtract hundreds of map layers, such as zoning, landuse, openspace, roads, wetlands - anything in the MassGIS catalog: http://www.mass.gov/mgis/database.htm

Massachusetts is brown because Google is showing the 0.5 meter 2001/2003 aerial photos (orhtophotos) instead of the alternative sattelite imagery for adjacent states. The photos were taken in 2001 for the mainland and 2003 for the islands. Previous black and white 0.5 meter photos were taken 1992-1999, and this spring the entire state was reflown and that 0.5 meter imagery will start to become available in September. The photos are taken after snow melt and before leaf-out so that more building details are available. For more information on the photos see the metadata page at the MassGIS web site: http://www.mass.gov/mgis/colororthos2001.htm

In addition, various online mapping viewers are available at the MassGIS web site: http://www.mass.gov/mgis/mapping.htm including OLIVER, a Java Web Start application. These applications don't allow 3D flying, but they do offer the ability to add and subtract hundreds of map layers, such as zoning, landuse, openspace, roads, wetlands - anything in the MassGIS catalog: http://www.mass.gov/mgis/database.htm

Massachusetts is brown because Google is showing the 0.5 meter 2001/2003 aerial photos (orhtophotos) instead of the alternative sattelite imagery for adjacent states. The photos were taken in 2001 for the mainland and 2003 for the islands. Previous black and white 0.5 meter photos were taken 1992-1999, and this spring the entire state was reflown and that 0.5 meter imagery will start to become available in September. The photos are taken after snow melt and before leaf-out so that more building details are available. For more information on the photos see the metadata page at the MassGIS web site: http://www.mass.gov/mgis/colororthos2001.htm

In addition, various online mapping viewers are available at the MassGIS web site: http://www.mass.gov/mgis/mapping.htm including OLIVER, a Java Web Start application. These applications don't allow 3D flying, but they do offer the ability to add and subtract hundreds of map layers, such as zoning, landuse, openspace, roads, wetlands - anything in the MassGIS catalog: http://www.mass.gov/mgis/database.htm

In case you're wondering who's in your neighborhood...

Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Alabama [state.al.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Alaska [state.ak.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Arizona [az.gov]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Arkansas [megans-law.net]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of California [ca.gov]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Colorado [state.co.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Connecticut [state.ct.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Delaware [state.de.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Florida [state.fl.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Georgia [ganet.org]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Hawaii [megans-law.net]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Idaho [state.id.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Illinois [state.il.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Indiana [in.gov]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Iowa [iowasexoffender.com]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Kansas [accesskansas.org]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Kentucky [state.ky.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Louisiana [lsp.org]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Maine [megans-law.net]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Maryland [state.md.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Massachusetts [mass.gov]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Michigan [state.mi.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Minnesota [state.mn.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Mississippi [state.ms.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Missouri [missouri.gov]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Montana [state.mt.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Nebraska [state.ne.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of Nevada [nvsexoffenders.gov]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of New Hampshire [nh.gov]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of New Jersey [njsp.org]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of New Mexico [state.nm.us]
Registered Sex Offenders In The State Of New York [sta

Isnt just downright amazing how out of sync sentencing is for certain crimes?

Take for example Massachusetts Sentencing Guidlines. And compare it to this new federal law that was signed.
Larceny on a scale of $10,000-$50,000 can get an offender 36 months (in some cases, less!) than someone breaking copyright on a *single file*. This means that Person A can walk into a physical record store and almost wipe the store clean via theft, and get sentenced the same as Person B who shares one copyrighted song online.

That is just amazing to me.

Ivan256, the original poster, used this one incident to imply that Electronics Boutique has a corporate directive to break the law.

Many states disallow waiver of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. When a game shop sells, for example, a PC game with system requirements listed on the side of the box, it's implied that the software contained in that box is fit to run on the specified hardware. In the past EB would accept returns of games. If you bought a game that was buggy and crashed frequently you could simply return the game to the store.

I live in Massachusetts. It's one of the states that disallows the waiver of implied warranties. Under EB's new return policy, you can't return software that has been open unless you're exchanging it for another copy of the same title. If the game doesn't work, then that policy is against the law.

What makes this worse is that they falsely claim that this policy exists to prevent piracy. If this were the case, they wouldn't let you sell the game back to them for trade-in credit... The policy change, illegally, in order to prop up their high margin used games business.