just keep your head down and look for a better job
While the "look for a better job" part is probably sound advice at some point, I wouldn't say "keep your head down" is the best thing to do...not in the ethical sense in this situation and not as a means to success in general. People who always just "keep their heads down" don't stand out in a crowd, aren't recognised for their achievements (and achieve less overall) and don't advance very fast in their career.
If you make a stink, the first time something goes wrong, you'll be the first guy they blame.
Guess what? That is exactly WRONG. If you DON'T make a stink and something goes wrong, the buck could stop with YOU! The key is to make the "right kind of stink". Do not be insulting to you boss, follow professional practices and protocol (don't go over anyone's head until/if you are stonewalled, make an intelligent argument, etc) and DOCUMENT THE HELL out of the whole situation. Then...WHEN something goes wrong and your boss tries to pass the buck you have documented proof of your boss' negligence.
Keep your head down and keep your job (or maybe find a similar job elsewhere). Speak out and gain respect, and perhaps you could even end up replacing your boss. This will also keep your company in compliance with regulations like Sarbanes-Oxley. But above all, you will make sure that as much is done as possible to prevent your employer's customers from becoming fraud victims.
It seems that IT people aren't as thoroughly regulated as other professions such as doctors, lawyers and engineers. In such professions there is mandatory participation in professional bodies (the bar, medical board, engineering council/professional association). In the light of increased scrutiny of corporate governance and major security incidents such as that with TJX (TJMaxx/TKMaxx, HomeSense, Winners stores having credit card info stolen by hackers) such regulation should be seriously examined for those in MIS or senior systems analyst positions. Part of being registered with a professional body involves ethics training, including just the kind of situation as described by this article poster. In the end everyone would benefit from increased professionalism in IT.
If vista is so damn configurable, it surely is possible to make it look sufficiently like Win2k or WinXP so no training required, and this would be a custom install so that trivial to rollout systems.
Vista is very theme-able to be sure. My experience with Vista is limited to pre-release versions but employing the "Windows Classic" theme was (and apparently still is) VERY FAR from a complete emulation of the REAL classic interface. How do you make explorer go back that way? What about IE7? I've heard that the newest Office is about less similar to the old MS office as OpenOffice is, and that any means to switch back to "classic" mode don't do a full job either. I still think there would be a period of adjustment in an upgrade to Vista--unless you waited a year or two until enough users were used to using Vista at home.
and this would be a custom install so that trivial to rollout systems.
Well, being that Vista is an "image-based" install right out of the box, making a custom install image might indeed be improved over XP (like where you try to put a ghost image of XP on different hardware and more often than not id blue-screens on bootup...). Product Activation still seems to me like it would be burdonsome--has anyone got experience with the creation and deployment of such an image (can you still get corporate editions without activation issues with Vista?) I've only installed an individual, non-custom Vista straight from MSDN media.
Perhaps not hard, but I still think more than trivial...and it also begs the question of "what's the point"--pay big bucks to get Vista everywhere just to make it function as much as possible as the OLD stuff, except it'll be just different and incompatible enough to confuse people. If you are going out of your way to avoid much of what Vista has to offer (its pretty face) then why not stick with XP and save your money?
My first step would be to migrate existing users to OpenOffice, and thus break the MS Office cycle. Most users should need no more than half an hour to get up to speed.
This is along the lines of what the FAA must be looking to do, except with Google's applications. I'd like to see something truly Free used over Google, however the online-nature AND platform-independent nature of Google's applications may make migration that much easier. I'd have to say that it isn't entirely unreasonable to expect users to adjust to OO.o faster than MS Office 2007 or even Google Apps though.
the biggest problem in converting staff were the senior managers who love their Outlook/Exchange/calendaring
There are enough alternatives to MS out there to fulfill the needs of PHBs...our PHBs happily get along with Lotus Notes for example, though new people coming in that are used to Outlook grumble about the Notes UI being a step back. The thing about PHBs is that they are creatures of habit, and if it looks or feels any different AT ALL from Outlook then it must not do what outlook does. Once they actually find out you CAN do what outlook and Exchange do then they dive right in and (ab)use those tools to the greatest extent possible (using meeting invites prolifically, inserting their presence into your calendar, etc etc).
As for Google Apps, the central deployment and management of them would be a micro-manager's wet dream--I really think for them that the days of the old IBM mainframe and 3270 sessions were the glory days.
training staff to use an entirely new system takes a lot of time and money.
Technical similarities to XP aside, Vista basically IS an "entirely new system" as well, from an end-user and administrative perspective. The UI has been messed with. Security, right from the user prompts down to alterations in driver architecture, has been altered significantly. Applications released roughly in conjunction with Vista (IE7 and Office 2007) have significant changes (new XML file formats in office, more strict compliance with XHTML and CSS in IE7...). Compounding that the benefits to business are minimal compared to XP in its current state. The business case to upgrade vs migrate is less convincing than ever before.
It is nearly that case with my employer as well--we almost might as well move to macs or Linux vs. XP--the impact of Vista on the enterprise thereis nearly that big. Almost all of the intranet apps are designed and tested against IE6. Running them on Firefox is glitchy but it works, but using IE7 often completely BREAKS the app. Over three quarters of the products we sell will not function under Vista and never will ("next generation" replacements are being developed for release over the next couple of years). Fully half of the hardware we have is not "Vista capable". We have XP and it (mostly) works (good enough anyways). Why risk breaking what is essentially unbroken? Do we really need eye candy? We are already firewalled and antivirused to high heaven so is there any REAL benefit to Vista's largely unproven security enhancements? Which brings up the fact that our corporate antivirus stuff apparently breaks in Vista...
FAA's serious consideration of Google's apps really looks VERY compelling and makes a lot of sense, even if adoption would be over a couple of years. The architecture of Linux is more proven and more secure by far than Windows XP OR Vista. The price per client is significantly less. Google's application-server-thin-client model is much less burdensome. Open and Free systems have much better "real" support (MS makes the argument that closed software gets better support because it is backed by a big, rich vendor but I think most people in the know realise that in practice thereis WAY MORE help and support for Linux because of backing by many vendors and a huge developer community, whereas only MS can offer certain levelsof support).
I do thing that Vista is STILL very much on the FAA's horizon though. Government agencies as well as big corporations are coming under more scrutiny and are being more compelled to do due diligence and put as much up for competitive bid as possible--and get the best deal possible. MS' standard prices and offerings are VERY FAR from competitive since they've gone a long time without competing. Governmental agencies around the world are, as often as not, playing low cost Linux-based alternatives against Microsoft to "force Bill's hand" as it were. Even if Google's software suite falls short of requirements in the end, the FAA could very likely get a special sub-$100-per-user offer from Microsoft for Office upgrades.
I'd hate to seeit turnout that way, but anything that cuts down MS (either inmarket share or insane profit margins) is good in my book.
...then shouldn't the whole continent shift their schedules 1 hour ahead and keep them there?
I like DST. I know how to set what clocks I have that still need to be changed. I enjoy the extra light at the end of the day.
Well then we should have that hour all year 'round then. DST is totally perverted up here in Canada--we "fall back" in the fall and so the sun sets earlier...just in time so that the short days of winter are even shorter! DST is totally backwards..if anything we should "fall ahead" and "spring back".
I HATE the extra hour of daylight in the summer...where I live that means I have to close all the blinds in my house to go to sleep because it stays light outside until after 10 PM! I HATE early evenings in the winter--it means that by the time I can leave work it's been dark for an hour already!
Also, I live in a city that spans state lines, so having one state opt out would be a real hassle.
No it wouldn't. The city of Lloydminster, Canada not only spans a provincial border (Alberta and Saskatchewan) it also straddles time zones (Mountain and Central)...AND one province does DST (Alberta) and the other does not (Saskatchewan). Solution? The city officially does all business on Alberta time (IIRC--that being the physical location of city all..or perhaps because more of the population resides on the Alberta side).
All in all though, is one stupid our of daylight really worth the trouble? If it is so great, lets forget about "saving" our daylight and spend it all now by turning ahead an hour and STAYING there. I've already learned to live with closing all the blinds in my house so I can fall asleep at 10PM so I'll live with that...and furthermore though it'll be dusk, at least it won't be PITCH BLACK at 5 or 5:30 PM when I leave the office in December.
Any other Albertans (especially those in and around Lloyminster) care to start up a petition to send to Mr. Stelmach to universally adopt Saskatchewan time in Alberta? I'm sure there has to be a "green" argument for that.
The US is a huge net exporter of copyrighted materials.
And Canada is a huge net exporter of TALENT to the US. Without Canadian talent there would be noticeably less decent material from the US to copyright (the likes of Tom Green notwithstanding). There has to be some discretion and tact used here...there is an unfortunate amount of anti-American sentiment in Canada, and those in the Canadian entertainment industry tend to posses more than their share of that sentiment.
If all that American money starts using foul, offensive language than emotions may talk even louder than money.
Of course they're going to put the screws to other countries to tighten up copyright laws.
The crucial thing here is who you are referring to when you say "they". "They" the American people? Copyright law isn't even on the political radar for the vast majority of American citizens (for those who even have a political radar, seeing that the US has among the lowest voter participation rates in the free world). If told about some of the provisions of the DMCA and how they could impact on their consumer rights I'm quite certain most Americans would not only support Canada's position but would also want something more like the Canadian situation for themselves (even if Canadian copyright law is flawed in its own ways too).
The US being a representative democracy, by extension the government should defer to the wishes of the people, and so "they" truly isn't the government either. "They" are no more and no less than a cartel of media producers and the government is being (ab)used as a tool to protect and enlarge their cartel. The US ambassador to Canada and various US senators are merely hired mouthpieces in this situation. Apparently the Hollywood cartels do not think CRIA (the Toronto media cartel) is powerful enough. Ultimately it is a bunch of US media companies trying to strong-arm the world--they'd love to be like OPEC.
Welcome to the real world.
And reality is that strong arm tactics only get you so far. The current Canadian government's approach is pretty straightforward and methodical at the moment--much more so than it has been for decades: Gauge public opinion (through polling or whatever), take the top handful of concerns and make them "The Priorities". These priorities might be addressed with fairly blunt, right-wing (for Canada anyways) solutions, but they have been carried out quite decisively. If it isn't a priority then it languishes. Copyright is not a priority, and it WON'T be a priority because the ONLY people REALLY concerned with copyright law in Canada are American corporate lobbyists (and their politician mouthpieces), and they cannot vote in a Canadian election. What would Harper rather do, antagonise voters or appease Americans (and appeasing Americans is one thing that will NOT help Harper stay on as PM--his traditional support base wouldn't care much but new supporters sure would).
My bet is that nothing will happen to copyright until after the election, and even then there will be frustratingly little movement. Harper will make another 5 or 6 priorities and none of them will relate to intellectual property (hmmm...tax reduction, environment, "fiscal imbalance" again, this time with municipalities perhaps, something to do with healthcare and something to do with organised crime/terrorism...that sounds about right). US money doesn't talk THAT loud in Canada so it'll take more money than required to buy a few US senators and congressmen.
To become a "priority" would require an economic impact in the 8-to-ten-digit range. THAT kind of US money talks loud enough in Canada. If the Hollywood cartel were actually to make good on its threats to hold back new movie releases (which they already do a little bit so that wouldn't matter much) or get some kind of economic sanctions imposed that triggered a GATT or NAFTA complaint THEN it would be a "priority" (the was softwood lumber tariffs were last year).
The Hollywood cartel has been full of whiny, bitchy little babies for as long as I can remember (boo hoo we can't eat caviar at lunch and make our Porche payments because you keep luring our productions to Toronto and Vancouver...boo hoo!). This is more of the same.
If Microsoft had adopted ODF, they either would have had to remove features from their products [...] I love how Slashdot makes it sound like a big Microsoft conspiracy when, in reality, the reason they don't use ODF is practicality.
This argument doesn't wash AT ALL. Firstly, OO.o manages to be pretty full-featured using ODF as its native format and nobody has produced a list of MS Office features that could not be represented in an ODF-structured document. Being that MS is supposedly a participant in the OASIS organisation that oversees ODF the LEAST it could do is provide the standards authors a set of requirements to accommodate its products' functionality.
Second, what is stopping MS from implementing and supporting bundled ODF import/export in its office suite even if only a subset of features are supported? They don't need to make it the NATIVE format after all. To say otherwise is crap--MS already allows opening and saving RTF in Word and simple comma-delimited text files in Excel and Access and handles the down-conversion relatively gracefully (and warns the user of potential loss of information).
You're right--it isn't a big MS conspiracy, however it isn't a simple practicality issue either. To be sure, OOXML is a brain-dead specification thrown together with no thought at all by what appears to be the dimmest bulbs MS has to offer. It isn't unreasonable to conclude that MS ran its core-dump-binary formats through some thrown-together disassembly tool, then put angle brackets in the structs and called it an XML format. If they stopped at using this work-free activity then you might argue practicality. However MS then proceeded to DOCUMENT this nasty monster and submit the thousands of pages of junk to standards bodies for ratification. That had to be a HUGE amount of work!
It seems to me that simply embracing ODF as an alternate file format by way of bolting on inport/export filters would've been easier than the route they took from a technical practicality standpoint. This is purely a shrewd business decision. Windows and Office are MS' ONLY dependable revenue generators and MS knows that the only way to keep these products in a market-leading position is to put barriers in place to limit interoperability. Microsoft nearly missed the boat when it let HTML and related standards get established, however they succeeded in quashing that threat by bundling a browser with its OS to shut down serious competition, then putting in non-portable extensions like ActiveX and nonstandard implementations like its javascript-like VBScript and broken and/or confusing CSS behaviour to limit interoperability. This has been a tough battle for MS and they haven't even one the war yet (they tried to declare victory by discontinuing IE at version 6 but had to succumb to pressure and produce another major release).
It seems to me that MS is trying to head-off the competition before it gets established when it comes to ODF. Sure, MS could have embraced-and-extended ODF to some degree, however that would only limit competition not kill it (witness the persistence of competing web browsers) and MS couldn't "own" the format--it would have to put as much effort into implementing ODF as its competitors have to (and one competitor already has done so and uses it as a native format). OOXML lets MS have an advantage in that the format is tailored for its own products, being that it appears that it's merely a thin cellophane wrapper around the internal binary structures within MS Office applications.
Furthermore, success of OOXML would be of greater benefit to MS Office than the success of ODF would be to OO.o because it is an order of magnitude more difficult for third-parties to implement OOXML. ODF is freely available, easier to read and much shorter and the source code to implement it is pretty easy to obtain giventhe most mature implementation is Free software. OOXML is a HUGE spec and difficult to read or interpret (with countless references to un-described behaviou
The proposed Australian legislation is based on efficiency requirements - it does *not* mandate a specific technology.
Apparently you are right...and California is the one following Australia in this case, not the other way around--California isn't as far along in its development of such a law.
And no states in Australia are stupid enough to require an electrician to replace a *general-purpose* light bulb.
After talking to an Australian friend you are in fact wrong and my fuzzy recollection was right. I have kin who live in Melbourne and apparently the state of Victoria IS that stupid: According to the law if you change ANY mains-powered light bulb--even one in your own house--and you are not a licensed electrician you can be fined up to ten dollars per bulb. I do not believe it is a law that is all that thoroughly enforced if at all--after all they have had not problems BUYING light bulbs and they are not licensed electricians (kind of the opposite of the smoking laws in parts of Australia and elsewhere, where it is illegal for minors to BUY cigarettes but legal for them to USE them).
...where best intentions meet ill-conceived ideas--at least where legislation is concerned (social security, education funding, and many many more areas come to mind). Now they've mandated the use of a specific technology (fluorescent lighting) to address a general concern (reducing energy consumption). I know that in general politicians tend to be short-sighted but the good people of California seem to actively search out the most short-sighted and generally dense people on the planet to install into government. "The Governator" has been fairly capable in office however he doesn't have to achieve much to stand out amongst the rest of the mental midgets surrounding him.
It would've been much better to craft a law mandating WATTAGE LIMITS on residential and commercial lighting (per fixture, or per-square footage to meet minimum brightness requirements within that space) such that it would be impossible for traditional incandescent bulbs to pass regulation. Without naming specific technologies the law would allow other technologies such as this new "high-efficiency" incandescent technology, LEDs and so on to be more easily adopted.
So what makes Fluorescents a poor choice for mandated low-energy lighting? How about:
1. Fluorescent bulbs require relatively complex circuitry to be dimable. There are a lot of places that use dimmer switches on lighting that are not compatible with CF bulbs. Not only do these people have to buy expensive CF bulbs but they also have to buy and install significantly more expensive dimmer switches as well.
2. Fluorescent ballasts can be noisy--they can buzz like large power transformers. CFs, especially newer ones, are very quiet but in a large area where many are on at once there still can be a perceptible noise.
3. Fluorescent bulbs flicker--much the same way as CRT monitors and televisions do. Some people can actually perceive the flicker of fluorescent lights and CRTs and extended exposure can cause eye fatigue and headaches. The technology is better now to reduce the human perception of this flicker but it is still far from acceptable in many applications--most notably in film and video production. The flicker is nearly impossible to reduce to a point where video and film equipment will not pick up at least some interference.
4. Fluorescents cannot put out very "pure" light--this is again a problem in film and video work. Regular fluorescents make everything look green and new "warm" bulbs are just as unbalanced--just in a different part of the spectrum. Incandescents are much superior for such work as the light from them is more "wide spectrum" and can be made more balanced.
5. Other technologies that are emerging seem to have more long-term potential. LEDs do not need a ballast and are even more efficient than CFs, and now incandescents are being made to consume much less energy and also require no expensive components like the ballast of a fluorescent bulb.
Australia competes with California for having the densest politicians as well it seems--they want to mandate the use of fluorescents as well. I've heard somewhere that there is a state in Australia that requires you to get a permit to change a light bulb, or else have a licensed electrician do it for you. Is that really true? Perhaps it was the same dim-wits that came up with that idea who are at it again.
If you could scientifically (key word) demonstrate that humans made no significant contribution to global warming (within a certain margin of error, of course), you'd have no problem getting grants
If you are a climatologist and get a grant to study the effects of human-produced CO2 on climate, and you found that the effects were negligible and that reducing emissions wouldn't have an impact, then you WOULD most certainly have trouble getting grants. If there was nothing more we could do, why would the government spend money on even more research?
At the very least the evidence would be inconclusive...that would be justification for further funding and hence job security. Don't tell me scientists are so far above everyone else that there isn't a single one who wouldn't consider that because there are for sure. If there IS conclusive evidence about climate change due to human activity (and the absolutely IS that evidence--though specific conclusions about the magnitude or nature of such change is far from certain) then it is even better--even LARGER grants for even MORE research in order to come up with solutions. Despite the general consensus there is certainly resistance to skepticism and a bit of "religion" involved on this subject from both sides.
Based on your comment, you must know that even if research is funded non-corporately it doesn't mean it is automatically untainted government grants are most certainly politically motivated to some degree and can be used to direct research in one direction or another...witness stem cell research in the US, or the fate of so many non-patentable pharmaceutical discoveries for example.
Exchange compatibility is a non-negotiable, non-finesseable, titanium-clad, gotta-have-it-no-kidding, requirement.
Not true. I work for a very large, multi-national corporation and as part of the strategy to rationalise IT infrastructure it was made a goal to COMPLETELY ERADICATE Microsoft Exchange from the business. The main business has never been an Exchange shop (I believe it went from Novell Groupwise to IBM/Lotus), and some divisions were acquisitions that were all-Windows shops and the damn Exchange servers were just annoying headaches to maintain...thus there was a big final push and out they went. Yes, Lotus Notes client is not as slick as Outlook but the back end was very robust and capable of handling tens of thousands of accounts reliably...and it handled the fast majority of email and group-ware functions already.
Come to think of it, I've actually never had an employer that relied on Exchange. Obviously it isn't a "gotta-have-it-no-kidding requirement" as a lot of businesses get by very well without it. There is NO technical reason whatsoever that a company has to rely on Exchange. The reason it is a requirement is SOLELY political and emotional...and eventually economic as eventually a business gets so hopelessly mired in proprietary lock-in that escape would be a huge expense.
I've tried many times to get a working Linux system, but I've always found something not working, and I don't mean Microsoft software not working. I mean sound not working or USB ports not working. Yes, I can hear everybody crying out "check the hardware compatibility lists first", and they right.
I've tried many times to get a working Windows Vista system, but I've always found something not working, and I don't mean Microsoft software not working. I mean Aero-glass not working or my old peripherals not working. Yes, I can hear everybody crying out "check the hardware compatibility lists first", and they're right.
If Microsoft can't make migration seamless from one version of their OS to the next, how can you expect a non-commercial, third-party effort do do any better?
There's more at work here than just the OS--it's the whole environment. Linux is already proven to work in a business environment--it has been capable of doing so for years. Same goes for Apple (hell, Macs even run a "genuine" edition of MS Office!). However, "a" business environment isn't ALL business environments. Enterprises with IT infrastructure based on proprietary, single-vendor platforms with no published interfaces for interoperability obviously are NOT the business environments where you'd expect to have Linux work seamlessly. It's a testament to the talents of Free software developers they can make anything work at all in such an environment!
Remember, MS is almost completely proprietary--when the folks who toil away developing Samba or Evolution have to make their software talk to Microsoft stuff (the main goal, or at least a major goal, of each of those projects) they can't just download or purchase a nice, neat spec document as if it was an IETF RFC. If MS has any spec to offer at all, it is only available under some encumbering legal condition such as an NDA or obligation to pay royalties or to not release under some or all Free software licenses. The only option they have in most cases is to pour over data from protocol analysers and other reverse-engineering tools. How can anyone expect the situation to EVER improve, much less within the space of a decade, when not only the spec is secret but it keeps changing dramatically with each generation of MS software?
MS further raises the barrier by making their interfaces and protocols DELIBERATELY COMPLEX so as to be harder to reverse engineer. This is the only explanation I can come up with for why MS does some of what they do in Exchange and Active Directory. Even more perverse is their penchant for taking open technologies like LDAP and Kerberos and obfuscating them enough to break them. This borders on criminal, as not only does this affect interoperability, it makes their own software less stable and more bloated than it needs to be.
This article offers nothing to support the contention that Linux or other Free software cannot be used to run a business--it very much can and does do this. His approach is just totally backwards--the high-level infrastructures need migrating first--get rid of Exchange and you'll be a great deal ahead of the game in more ways than one. If you are not in the position to carry that out, well then you'll be waiting for longer than two years unfortunately.
Perhaps 6-12 months is enough time for homes and very small businesses to make the move and deal with the resulting issues but that is a tight schedule for a larger enterprise. It could be up to 24 months (beginning of 2009) before Vista is commonplace in office environments and another year after that in more specialised environments such as industrial automation, engineering and so on (which happens to be my line of work). The software I'd use the most in my job crashes Vista before it is even finished installing. Those who develop this software have a time-line of some time in mid (maybe late) 2008 before the full line of software will work and be supported in Vista.
Wide adoption of this software by established customers can sometimes take 1 to 2 years after release, which means Vista won't see the light of day on the plant floor and on engineering workstations in great numbers until 2010--three full years after its release. With every successive release of Windows this cycle seems to be getting longer--The uptake of Windows 2000 in these same market segments was nearly twice as fast (1.5 to 2 years after release), and even XP was adopted more quickly (about 2 to 2.5 years).
I figure that Windows upgrades are a case of diminishing returns as the years pass. Windows 2000 was a significant upgrade in terms of stability and features over NT 4, and coupled with this the application software designed for NT 4 almost always ran without alteration--support for Windows 2000 meant simply doing testing and at most some driver modifications. The investment was relatively small and returns were very good. XP took longer to adopt because from our standpoint all you got was a fisher-price theme, but at least XP support was a relatively small effort as well. In this case, the ONLY reasons industrial users specifically gave for going to XP were to keep in line with corporate IT standards/support and/or because the hardware came pre-installed with XP and/or the timeframe for full support from MS was longer. In other words there were no compelling technical advantages to XP over 2000.
Now we have Vista, and there have been pretty much ZERO compelling practical arguments why Vista is superior in an industrial or technical scenario, coupled with the fact that Vista breaks SO much compatibility and requires so much more computing power than XP to perform well. From an applications standpoint, Vista is the biggest disconnect since the transition from DOS/Win16 to NT/Win32. Although the move away from DOS-era architecture is still by far the biggest revolutionary change in the MS environment it came with HUGE benefits and potential. With Vista arrives some fairly disruptive changes and though they are needed/welcome technically speaking there is little to offer in return from a typical user's perspective.
This is about an inside job since that's the only way those files would have made it to YouTube.
You don't have to be an insider to pull this stunt--you only need equipment that is no longer commonly available. TV programming is sent from network HQ to affiliate stations electronically via satellite, sometimes hours to several days before scheduled broadcast. You do not need to be an employee of either the station or the network to receive a satellite signal. I used to regularly watch episodes of Star Trek DS9 up to three days before they aired on "real" TV.
Wild feeds, or "occasional video transponders" are still commonly sent in unencrypted form so anyone can get them. However nobody knows when they are broadcasting or what the content is unless you are an employee. Sometimes if you watch the feeds you can pick out a pattern that seems like a regular schedule, but sometimes it shifts around. Also, episodes may be broadcast in wild feeds out of sequence. Furthermore, they are not broadcast in the same way as the most commonplace digital satellite systems--they are typically analogue and in a different frequency band--in the US they are on C band satellites. Most people who want satellite TV want the little dish hanging off the eaves, not a ten-foot C-band dish that obscures half of your yard (and you'd have to be in a rural setting for it to even be permitted). Wild feeds in Canada are commonly in Ku band as well, which permits a slightly smaller dish but still not appealing to anyone but enthusiasts.
Fox has a larger hunt on their hands and it IS a typical copyright violation case. Hence, the subpoena of Google/YouTube.
Stupid of broadcasters to still broadcast in the clear like that, but there is some technological inertia in every industry...
The article stated approximately 50% of movies are cammed here, and that the movie industry will likely delay the releases of new films here.
Sounds like you get it more than the article poster. "Whining" and dining the heritage minister every month has been happening since Copps was the minister in the Liberal government, and we managed to avoid our own DMCA to this point. The current political environment has provided the opportunity for much more public input and consideration that the previous government:
* The current Canadian parliament is a minority government and since copyright law reform is a low priority it is probably further back on the order paper than, say, environment or "fiscal re-balancing". If the government falls in a confidence motion on such higher-priority issues then the copyright bill will once again die on the order paper and it's back to square one. Unfortunately, the Liberals (official opposition) are the most "pro-DMCA" party in parliament so if the governing Conservatives can be convinced to support it such a motion might pass easily if it does come before a vote.
* The heritage ministry is not solely responsible for copyright law--it must seek agreement with the industry ministry which is the final authority on copyright. The industry minister, Maxime Bernier, has been pretty critical about measures that would restrict fair use or compromise privacy. If a new copyright bill IS passed it would be significantly less restrictive than that which died on the order paper of the previous Liberal government (still bad, but less of a bad thing).
I believe that in the US you can be punished legally for bringing photographic devices into theatres or other performance venues against the proprietor's wishes, but that there is no such law in Canada. In any case such law doesn't fall directly in with copyright--It is still illegal in Canada, under current copyright law, to duplicate/distribute/broadcast the cammed movies. It is only legal to cam them and view them privately (it is equivalent to using your VCR to record a TV programme for private viewing in terms of Canadian copyright law).
Obviously, the pressure of potential economic loss be the delay of movie releases in Canada may force the government's hand. Restricting or removing the fair dealing provisions of copyright is one way to solve the camming problem, and I'm sure the industry will fight to have the most broadest brush possible used to paint over this issue...however a law much narrower in scope could (and should) be applied. There is some hope that Bernier will be the moderating force here since Oda is a bit of a pushover.
Face it, if the schools can censor students' posts to prevent bullying (and censorship is what we're talking about, let's not mince words) then they can use exactly that same principle to censor students' posts on any other subject, including legitimate criticism of teachers and administrators
Firstly, trying to do something about cyber-bullying can in some ways not be censorship because the school does not have to limit a student's ability to express themselves (and in fact they CANNOT legally control the online conduct of a student when outside the school). I figure if a student has the luxury to "express themselves" however they want then the schools should be given latitude to respond at least partly in kind. Is a student harassing or threatening another student and reducing the quality of the learning environment for that student? Well, then the offending student should be able to handle the responsibilities that go with that freedom of expression.
Second, at least in grade school, these students are minors and are not afforded the same rights and freedoms as adults anyways. Thirteen-year-olds cannot legally drive, vote, drink alcohol, posses, distribute or participate in any sort of pornography or be employed in many occupations. These rights and freedoms are granted when society feels a person has become responsible and mature enough. Why do you expect that children should be afforded the full, unrestricted freedom of expression when they are not responsible enough with that right? All this talk about protecting all kids self-esteem at all costs with very adult "freedoms and rights" granted to immature students does nothing more than breed a society of sociopaths.
I figure a period of "supervised custody" would be appropriate (in middle or high school anyways). By that I don't mean in the same sense EXACTLY as prison--I mean that the student must arrive at the school at first bell (whether or not they have to be in a class first thing in the morning) and stay in the building the entire time. When not attending a class (on breaks or at lunch) the student must be supervised by staff and separated from the other students (ie. they must spend all breaks and lunch alone in the principle's office). Also, the student should be banned from unsupervised use of all computers in the school. Such a punishment would surely be more of a deterrent than suspension or expulsion (the latter of which would happen for repeat offenses). After all, many students would see suspension as a vacation, and would be loathe to lose the ability to socialise in school. Furthermore, the offending student can still enjoy unrestricted freedom to express himself (or herself) outside of school, knowing full well that there are consequences for your actions.
if it comes down to a choice between free speech vs. protecting kids from things that happen off campus on the other, I'll choose free speech every time
See, this is the beauty of it--the school doesn't have to censor anyone at all if they took actions as I described above. In fact, it is part of a child's education to learn that there are responsibilities and consequences for every right and freedom we have. If the student wishes to continue enjoying their "freedom to slander" they can go right on doing so--if they can live with the consequences at school.
As I remember vividly from my own high school days, speaking out honestly off-campus about incompetent and/or malicious faculty is about the only chance smart, committed kids have to make a difference in the quality of their education.
RIGHT ON. I believe that as well--the best way that bullying and other issues hampering the effectiveness of education can be addressed is by COMMUNICATING. In the above case I'd fully expect the parents of both offenders and victims to be fully informed and involved in the process. In the situation you mention "speaking out honestly" is not slander or harassment, and if your grades or your treatment are negatively affected b
Since when does "one blogger"'s view qualify as "news"?
Since when was "one blogger's view" the subject of this "news" in the first place? The links are just supplementary to the main story which was that MS THEMSELVES have acknowledged that Vista has shortcomings..to the point that they are already starting beta-testing of a service pack even before Vista is in wide public release!
"One bloggers opinion"? Sure that is more of a curiosity than news. The company that MADE the friggin thing? I think that constitutes news.
My experience with Vista is still limited--My only serious look to this point was with Longhorn right arounf the time MS announced the release name of Vista. Being far from release at that point, I was willing to forgine its shortcomings but it sounds like the final release s still pretty rough around the edges from a usability perspective.
So MS tried to move to another paradigm (am I using this properly?) to help more non-technical people understand how to find "basic" information.
While it's admirable that MS would put so much effort towards this problem it clearly looks to me that they've employed a scatter-shot approach in applying that effort and the result is actually a step backward. Is there NOBODY at Microsoft who took into account the mindset of new users? When an inexperienced user wants to free up drive space and remove a program the Win95-to-XP interface was cumbersome but at least it was intuitive: "Hmmm...I wanna get rid of this big game...uhhh, well start then...uhhh well this control panel thingy must be where you do systemy stuff....oh there it is...add and remove programs".
The "new and improved" Vista? Well, we'd better generalise the name to something meaningless so we can add more functionality there in the future...but how are the uninitiated supposed to know this? What about changing your graphics settings? It's buried in the catch-all "personalisation" category. What the hell is that? The LAST think Windows needs is MORE layers to sift through to find crap. What about the drop-downs that show items that when selected say you can't do that! This frustrates the author of the article who is a computer expert! These sort of things make computers even more intimidating and confusing to beginners.
The only thing that is going to save MS Windows from a slow, agonizing death is an extreme makeover (reliance on monopoly status will not work forever whether or not it holds off the antitrust hounds). The UI is much too fat with layers and gadgets and wizards and MS has to stop adding and start changing and removing. Make intuitiveness AND clutter reduction TOP priorities.
Here is an example: Add/Remove programs seems too cumbersome? Then don't just rename it and mess with it...GET RID OF IT COMPLETELY. You already have a menu of programs in the start menu...just put at the bottom of the list "Install new program...". To remove programs, make it an option on a context-sensitive menu when you right-click on a program, and when a user hits the "delete" key upon selecting the executable for an installed application (or its associated shortcut) have it launch the uninstaller (or give the user that option anyways). This shrinks the control panel by one item and makes navigation to the task of adding or removing programs quicker by removing a level of menus.
For how long we've all waited for Vista I'd have thought these sort of things would've been done. Sadly it seems that in the avalanche of work done in the name of security ands stability that usability suffered a complete lack of attention and was relegated to modernised desktop themes and piecemeal fiddling.
If this were to continue, well... completely undeserving people could get one!
At least the British Upper House is funny...Canada's is sad. As far as I can tell, in Canada not only to "completely undeserving people" get senate appointments from time to time, as far as I can tell it wouldn't even be illegal for someone to buy a seat in the senate from the PM. At the very least the ability to use old-school hereditary peers in Britian for political manipulation is a BIT limited. Canada has never had hereditary peers in our upper house and many (most?) of them are still not deserving.
I wasn't aware of this "cash for peerage" scandal until I saw this story. The parallels between the old Liberal government' situation in Canada and the current Labour gov't in Britain are intriguing (both seem scandal-plagued and both have law enforcement digging around in their affairs). IIRC I think the RCMP still need a warrant to perform such searches though.
...why an individual recording music from XM radio to MP3s should be legally differentiated from recording music from FM radio to cassettes--for personal use only on both cases.
The case might be made that by providing the means of making the copy, XM played a more active role in the process -- they were both distrbuting, and aiding the copying by the user. That might be why the judge indicated that ruling may not be applicable here.
That case CANNOT be made. Big conglomerates like Sony and GE both distribute media content (they own publishing, broadcasting, etc. businesses) and manufacture/sell recording devices that aid in the copying of content that is owned both by themselves and their competitors. The act applies to them...so why can't it apply to XM Radio?
XM gave the consumer a device which could have the technology to grab any broadcast music directly from the receiver and store it in MP3. In effect, they are essentially handing you MP3s of the songs they broadcast
GE gives the consumer a device which could have the technology to grab any broadcast television signal directly from a receiver and store it in VHS tapes. In effect, they are essentially handing you videotapes of the shows they broadcast. Sony is the same thing. I fail to see the legal difference that makes GE more special than XM.
So, I'd be curious to hear the REAL reason the judge thinks this is different from a legal standpoint...or perhaps money is talking?
Does the OO mean "Object Orientated" or "Open Office"?
It means neither. OOXML is shorthand for Opaque and Obfuscated eXception-based Markup Language. However, Marketing rejected the longhand name for the format because it didn't test well in developer focus groups. However, marketing found the shorthand OOXML appealing because psychologists have said the roundness of the O's induces a sense of calmness. BillG liked it because legislators could make an (incorrect) association between OOXML and OpenOffice.org (often abbreviated OO.o), and he hopes the confusion could lead to the inadvertent acceptance of MS' pseudo-open file format in government.
So OOXML stays but it officially stands for about as much as DVD does, which is nothing (or whatever you want it to stand for--it is all about "personal freedom" after all, so OOXML stands for what means the most to you;-).
Remember, if the Liberals, are, as you say, "for" this type of legistlation, what will it help to get the NDP against it?
Because the Conservatives aren't blindly "for" such legislation--the only party that was was the Liberal party. Furthermore, the Liberals WERE finally goaded by lobbyists into doing something. If the Liberals managed to hold onto majority gov't then bill C60 wouldn't have died with the non-confidence vote a year ago. If bill C60 didn't die on the order paper with the election of a new government then in last spring's session it would've passed into law and Canada would've had even less fair dealing protections than the US has now.
The political attitude towards a bill like C60 is much cooler within the Conservative ranks. Bev Oda was raked over the coals for her fundraising activities with broadcasting big-wigs--both by some opposition members (the Liberals criticism was quite muted IIRC) and internally by the PMO (Harper runs a pretty tight ship to put it mildly). Maxime Bernier is a stronger cabinet minister and his portfolio ultimately trumps Oda's. Though they are far from perfect, the Conservative gov't is much more receptive to public input on this matter (the problem with this gov't is being open with their OUTPUT--they are cold and distant from a PR perspective--but when it comes to being responsive to the concerns of Canadians they have been much better than the Liberals).
Your best bet to have your voice heard on this matter would be by making your concerns known to Bernier (Industry Minister) or James Rajotte (Chair of the Industry Committee). Both are "free-enterprisers" who have a record for defending individual rights (Rajotte was critical of C60's "TPM" provisions because of the potential violation of privacy and has introduced private member's bills concerning the protection of individual's privacy and information rights in the past). These legislators will play an important role in reforming Canadian copyright law and have shown signs of being sympathetic to our concerns.
You could also voice your concerns with the NDP Industry (Brian Masse) and Heritage critics (Charlie Angus)--the latter in particular seems to have taken a less Liberal-like stance to the portfolio than past NDP critics--but I suspect your distaste of socialist ideology would make that route less likely.
Feinstein needs to be doing stuff for me, a Californian. I want her to get us off of using Oil, not worrying about Podcasts.
Unfortunately for you, a good number of big-time entertainment execs and mega-superstar performers are also Californians. Such people don't truly give a rat's arse about oil dependency--they are very much a self-interested lot and care very dearly about being able to make their Ferarri payments using income from Podcasts. Also, unfortunately for you, they can donate (or withhold for that matter) much larger campaign contributions.
Until there is some meaningful campaign and lobby reform in the US, voters shouldn't worry about a pregnant-chad-laden paper cards or the touch screens on a glitchy computer terminals...because the REAL US election ballot is the dollar bill.
O2007 isn't all that different, aside from some GUI changes.
Pears aren't all that different from apples either--except for the shape, colour and taste. Win95 wasn't all that different from Win3.11 with the Win32 add-on--except for some UI changes. Have you seriously even given the new office a quick test drive? My impression is that power-users will catch on quick enough, but the majority of typical users will be frustrated for days or weeks. The new (enabled by default) interface is quite a departure.
And I'll bet they can be disabled back to a 'classic' view, just like Vista can.
MS (to their credit) has ALWAYS put in such operational modes to help ease users into a new product--right back to the initial Windows version of MS Word with help files and keyboard shortcuts to assist WordPerfect and WordStar users. The same with Windows--you could run 3.x-style Program Manager and File Manager instead of the start-button-and-taskbar explorer if the transition was too jarring. However in the effort to nudge users forward MS NEVER makes such settings default, and doesn't explain front-and-centre how to enable such legacy modes. Furthermore the illusion is shattered when you delve deeper into the system because emulation of the old UI is never complete. Windows XP can be made to look very much like NT4 on the surface, but it doesn't take long to find some navigation path or altered UI that is just different enough to trip over.
Sadly, once again, the Slashdot community is on the wrong side of progress. I guess that's why their darlings, Lunix and Open Office, will always be chasing MS's tail lights.
Once again some ignorant/. poster makes an incendiary comment that completely lacks any supporting evidence. MS Office is the one chasing tail lights here. MS is only now migrating to leaner, more transparent XML-based file formats, whereas the Free alternatives made open formats a priority for years before. Alternatives like Gnumeric have outclassed Excel on some functionality as well (larger spreadsheet sizes though "65K rows ought to be enough for anyone" when you think about it, better statistical analysis functions, etc). MS has been chasing not only Mac OSX but also open source efforts on the desktop as well.
I find that Free software tends to progress at a faster rate by quite a margin when compared to MS. Thankfully, such progress is more incremental and consistent (minor to moderate changes happening more frequently). MS has this massive house of cards built on a sand foundation to support which impedes progress, and when progress is made it tends to be drastic but infrequent. If you take a good look at the state of things, the competition is only behind MS in market share, not in actual quality of the software, so the chance of gaining ground is good for Free software.
The ability to open large datasets in Excel, instead of having to use vim to figure out what the structure is.
Aren't you supposed to use DATABASE software to open and manipulate large DATA sets? Furthermore, isn't using a text editor to open such a large file even more cumbersome?
I'd think that if you were dealing with 65000+ records of data in some kind of text format (suggested by the fact that you resort ti vim) that a spreadsheet by its very nature would be an awkward tool for the task. What about importing such a file into a database for analysis? If you figure there is structure at fault why not pass the raw data through a Perl script (or sed, awk, grep, etc) to try to search/parse/manipulate the file?
Finally, if text editors and spreadsheets are all you are comfortable with why not try Gnumeric or OO.o's spreadsheet? IIRC, they've supported larger datasets than MS Excel for a long time.
I sincerely do hope that this post was not the author's sincere belief because it indicates severe ignorance about federal politics in Canada and the policies of each of the respective parties.
Both the current policies and past track record of the Liberal party indicate that the Liberal party would be the ABSOLUTE WORST in protecting individual's rights in this particular matter. For decades (since Trudeau became prime minister and it hasn't changed since) the Liberal party has been the biggest proponent of content production and delivery in the telecommunication industry. It was Liberals who came up with "Canadian content" quotas. It was Liberals who instituted large, hidden taxes on recording media and funneled the proceeds to their buddies in broadcasting and publishing in the name of "supporting Canadian artists", and it was under the Liberals that the CRTC gained most of its power. It is important to note that the most prominent owners of broadcasting and publishing companies (and supporters of US-style copyright) at present are very loyal liberal supporters, and VERY generous financial supporters (the influence of this money, thankfully, has been reduced by new contribution regulations but it still plays a part). Essentially if the CRIA tells a Liberal to bend over the liberal would very happily do it.
Contrast this with the history of the Conservatives which is to push for DE-regulation and the streamlining and reform of the CRTC. The current Conservative industry minister Maxime Bernier is known to be a "libertarian-style" Conservative (the Canadian Conservative party is an amalgamation of mostly two groups--"libertarian-style" and "social" conservatives). He would probably be personally averse to such overly-draconian copyright legislation as the US DMCA. I think that given a convincing argument he would support the inclusion of proper fair-dealing provisions in any new copyright legislation.
If you find the conservative ideology distasteful, I would lobby your nearest NDP (or perhaps Bloc MP). The NDP is the Canadian socialist party federally so has generally supported heavy regulation, however they are also "anti-corporate" and draconian copyright legislation that appears to give most benefit to big multimedia publishing and broadcasting corporations would not be supported by the NDP. Furthermore, right now the NDP hold the balance of power in the minority gov't (the Conservatives need NDP support to pass legislation--they could get the backing of the separatist Bloc Quebecois as well but working with a separatist party would be a bad move politically). On this issue in particular (it is not really part of the "top priorities" and there may be some common ground with the Conservatives and NDP) there could be a very reasonable chance that the gov't with give PROPER consideration to voter's concerns. I figure that if we had a majority Liberal gov't that they'd just sleepwalk through its passing if they did anything at all.
Slashdot Mirror
just keep your head down and look for a better job
While the "look for a better job" part is probably sound advice at some point, I wouldn't say "keep your head down" is the best thing to do...not in the ethical sense in this situation and not as a means to success in general. People who always just "keep their heads down" don't stand out in a crowd, aren't recognised for their achievements (and achieve less overall) and don't advance very fast in their career.
If you make a stink, the first time something goes wrong, you'll be the first guy they blame.
Guess what? That is exactly WRONG. If you DON'T make a stink and something goes wrong, the buck could stop with YOU! The key is to make the "right kind of stink". Do not be insulting to you boss, follow professional practices and protocol (don't go over anyone's head until/if you are stonewalled, make an intelligent argument, etc) and DOCUMENT THE HELL out of the whole situation. Then...WHEN something goes wrong and your boss tries to pass the buck you have documented proof of your boss' negligence.
Keep your head down and keep your job (or maybe find a similar job elsewhere). Speak out and gain respect, and perhaps you could even end up replacing your boss. This will also keep your company in compliance with regulations like Sarbanes-Oxley. But above all, you will make sure that as much is done as possible to prevent your employer's customers from becoming fraud victims.
It seems that IT people aren't as thoroughly regulated as other professions such as doctors, lawyers and engineers. In such professions there is mandatory participation in professional bodies (the bar, medical board, engineering council/professional association). In the light of increased scrutiny of corporate governance and major security incidents such as that with TJX (TJMaxx/TKMaxx, HomeSense, Winners stores having credit card info stolen by hackers) such regulation should be seriously examined for those in MIS or senior systems analyst positions. Part of being registered with a professional body involves ethics training, including just the kind of situation as described by this article poster. In the end everyone would benefit from increased professionalism in IT.
If vista is so damn configurable, it surely is possible to make it look sufficiently like Win2k or WinXP so no training required, and this would be a custom install so that trivial to rollout systems.
Vista is very theme-able to be sure. My experience with Vista is limited to pre-release versions but employing the "Windows Classic" theme was (and apparently still is) VERY FAR from a complete emulation of the REAL classic interface. How do you make explorer go back that way? What about IE7? I've heard that the newest Office is about less similar to the old MS office as OpenOffice is, and that any means to switch back to "classic" mode don't do a full job either. I still think there would be a period of adjustment in an upgrade to Vista--unless you waited a year or two until enough users were used to using Vista at home.
and this would be a custom install so that trivial to rollout systems.
Well, being that Vista is an "image-based" install right out of the box, making a custom install image might indeed be improved over XP (like where you try to put a ghost image of XP on different hardware and more often than not id blue-screens on bootup...). Product Activation still seems to me like it would be burdonsome--has anyone got experience with the creation and deployment of such an image (can you still get corporate editions without activation issues with Vista?) I've only installed an individual, non-custom Vista straight from MSDN media.
Perhaps not hard, but I still think more than trivial...and it also begs the question of "what's the point"--pay big bucks to get Vista everywhere just to make it function as much as possible as the OLD stuff, except it'll be just different and incompatible enough to confuse people. If you are going out of your way to avoid much of what Vista has to offer (its pretty face) then why not stick with XP and save your money?
My first step would be to migrate existing users to OpenOffice, and thus break the MS Office cycle. Most users should need no more than half an hour to get up to speed.
This is along the lines of what the FAA must be looking to do, except with Google's applications. I'd like to see something truly Free used over Google, however the online-nature AND platform-independent nature of Google's applications may make migration that much easier. I'd have to say that it isn't entirely unreasonable to expect users to adjust to OO.o faster than MS Office 2007 or even Google Apps though.
the biggest problem in converting staff were the senior managers who love their Outlook/Exchange/calendaring
There are enough alternatives to MS out there to fulfill the needs of PHBs...our PHBs happily get along with Lotus Notes for example, though new people coming in that are used to Outlook grumble about the Notes UI being a step back. The thing about PHBs is that they are creatures of habit, and if it looks or feels any different AT ALL from Outlook then it must not do what outlook does. Once they actually find out you CAN do what outlook and Exchange do then they dive right in and (ab)use those tools to the greatest extent possible (using meeting invites prolifically, inserting their presence into your calendar, etc etc).
As for Google Apps, the central deployment and management of them would be a micro-manager's wet dream--I really think for them that the days of the old IBM mainframe and 3270 sessions were the glory days.
training staff to use an entirely new system takes a lot of time and money.
Technical similarities to XP aside, Vista basically IS an "entirely new system" as well, from an end-user and administrative perspective. The UI has been messed with. Security, right from the user prompts down to alterations in driver architecture, has been altered significantly. Applications released roughly in conjunction with Vista (IE7 and Office 2007) have significant changes (new XML file formats in office, more strict compliance with XHTML and CSS in IE7...). Compounding that the benefits to business are minimal compared to XP in its current state. The business case to upgrade vs migrate is less convincing than ever before.
It is nearly that case with my employer as well--we almost might as well move to macs or Linux vs. XP--the impact of Vista on the enterprise thereis nearly that big. Almost all of the intranet apps are designed and tested against IE6. Running them on Firefox is glitchy but it works, but using IE7 often completely BREAKS the app. Over three quarters of the products we sell will not function under Vista and never will ("next generation" replacements are being developed for release over the next couple of years). Fully half of the hardware we have is not "Vista capable". We have XP and it (mostly) works (good enough anyways). Why risk breaking what is essentially unbroken? Do we really need eye candy? We are already firewalled and antivirused to high heaven so is there any REAL benefit to Vista's largely unproven security enhancements? Which brings up the fact that our corporate antivirus stuff apparently breaks in Vista...
FAA's serious consideration of Google's apps really looks VERY compelling and makes a lot of sense, even if adoption would be over a couple of years. The architecture of Linux is more proven and more secure by far than Windows XP OR Vista. The price per client is significantly less. Google's application-server-thin-client model is much less burdensome. Open and Free systems have much better "real" support (MS makes the argument that closed software gets better support because it is backed by a big, rich vendor but I think most people in the know realise that in practice thereis WAY MORE help and support for Linux because of backing by many vendors and a huge developer community, whereas only MS can offer certain levelsof support).
I do thing that Vista is STILL very much on the FAA's horizon though. Government agencies as well as big corporations are coming under more scrutiny and are being more compelled to do due diligence and put as much up for competitive bid as possible--and get the best deal possible. MS' standard prices and offerings are VERY FAR from competitive since they've gone a long time without competing. Governmental agencies around the world are, as often as not, playing low cost Linux-based alternatives against Microsoft to "force Bill's hand" as it were. Even if Google's software suite falls short of requirements in the end, the FAA could very likely get a special sub-$100-per-user offer from Microsoft for Office upgrades.
I'd hate to seeit turnout that way, but anything that cuts down MS (either inmarket share or insane profit margins) is good in my book.
...then shouldn't the whole continent shift their schedules 1 hour ahead and keep them there?
I like DST. I know how to set what clocks I have that still need to be changed. I enjoy the extra light at the end of the day.
Well then we should have that hour all year 'round then. DST is totally perverted up here in Canada--we "fall back" in the fall and so the sun sets earlier...just in time so that the short days of winter are even shorter! DST is totally backwards..if anything we should "fall ahead" and "spring back".
I HATE the extra hour of daylight in the summer...where I live that means I have to close all the blinds in my house to go to sleep because it stays light outside until after 10 PM! I HATE early evenings in the winter--it means that by the time I can leave work it's been dark for an hour already!
Also, I live in a city that spans state lines, so having one state opt out would be a real hassle.
No it wouldn't. The city of Lloydminster, Canada not only spans a provincial border (Alberta and Saskatchewan) it also straddles time zones (Mountain and Central)...AND one province does DST (Alberta) and the other does not (Saskatchewan). Solution? The city officially does all business on Alberta time (IIRC--that being the physical location of city all..or perhaps because more of the population resides on the Alberta side).
All in all though, is one stupid our of daylight really worth the trouble? If it is so great, lets forget about "saving" our daylight and spend it all now by turning ahead an hour and STAYING there. I've already learned to live with closing all the blinds in my house so I can fall asleep at 10PM so I'll live with that...and furthermore though it'll be dusk, at least it won't be PITCH BLACK at 5 or 5:30 PM when I leave the office in December.
Any other Albertans (especially those in and around Lloyminster) care to start up a petition to send to Mr. Stelmach to universally adopt Saskatchewan time in Alberta? I'm sure there has to be a "green" argument for that.
The US is a huge net exporter of copyrighted materials.
And Canada is a huge net exporter of TALENT to the US. Without Canadian talent there would be noticeably less decent material from the US to copyright (the likes of Tom Green notwithstanding). There has to be some discretion and tact used here...there is an unfortunate amount of anti-American sentiment in Canada, and those in the Canadian entertainment industry tend to posses more than their share of that sentiment.
If all that American money starts using foul, offensive language than emotions may talk even louder than money.
Of course they're going to put the screws to other countries to tighten up copyright laws.
The crucial thing here is who you are referring to when you say "they". "They" the American people? Copyright law isn't even on the political radar for the vast majority of American citizens (for those who even have a political radar, seeing that the US has among the lowest voter participation rates in the free world). If told about some of the provisions of the DMCA and how they could impact on their consumer rights I'm quite certain most Americans would not only support Canada's position but would also want something more like the Canadian situation for themselves (even if Canadian copyright law is flawed in its own ways too).
The US being a representative democracy, by extension the government should defer to the wishes of the people, and so "they" truly isn't the government either. "They" are no more and no less than a cartel of media producers and the government is being (ab)used as a tool to protect and enlarge their cartel. The US ambassador to Canada and various US senators are merely hired mouthpieces in this situation. Apparently the Hollywood cartels do not think CRIA (the Toronto media cartel) is powerful enough. Ultimately it is a bunch of US media companies trying to strong-arm the world--they'd love to be like OPEC.
Welcome to the real world.
And reality is that strong arm tactics only get you so far. The current Canadian government's approach is pretty straightforward and methodical at the moment--much more so than it has been for decades: Gauge public opinion (through polling or whatever), take the top handful of concerns and make them "The Priorities". These priorities might be addressed with fairly blunt, right-wing (for Canada anyways) solutions, but they have been carried out quite decisively. If it isn't a priority then it languishes. Copyright is not a priority, and it WON'T be a priority because the ONLY people REALLY concerned with copyright law in Canada are American corporate lobbyists (and their politician mouthpieces), and they cannot vote in a Canadian election. What would Harper rather do, antagonise voters or appease Americans (and appeasing Americans is one thing that will NOT help Harper stay on as PM--his traditional support base wouldn't care much but new supporters sure would).
My bet is that nothing will happen to copyright until after the election, and even then there will be frustratingly little movement. Harper will make another 5 or 6 priorities and none of them will relate to intellectual property (hmmm...tax reduction, environment, "fiscal imbalance" again, this time with municipalities perhaps, something to do with healthcare and something to do with organised crime/terrorism...that sounds about right). US money doesn't talk THAT loud in Canada so it'll take more money than required to buy a few US senators and congressmen.
To become a "priority" would require an economic impact in the 8-to-ten-digit range. THAT kind of US money talks loud enough in Canada. If the Hollywood cartel were actually to make good on its threats to hold back new movie releases (which they already do a little bit so that wouldn't matter much) or get some kind of economic sanctions imposed that triggered a GATT or NAFTA complaint THEN it would be a "priority" (the was softwood lumber tariffs were last year).
The Hollywood cartel has been full of whiny, bitchy little babies for as long as I can remember (boo hoo we can't eat caviar at lunch and make our Porche payments because you keep luring our productions to Toronto and Vancouver...boo hoo!). This is more of the same.
If Microsoft had adopted ODF, they either would have had to remove features from their products [...] I love how Slashdot makes it sound like a big Microsoft conspiracy when, in reality, the reason they don't use ODF is practicality.
This argument doesn't wash AT ALL. Firstly, OO.o manages to be pretty full-featured using ODF as its native format and nobody has produced a list of MS Office features that could not be represented in an ODF-structured document. Being that MS is supposedly a participant in the OASIS organisation that oversees ODF the LEAST it could do is provide the standards authors a set of requirements to accommodate its products' functionality.
Second, what is stopping MS from implementing and supporting bundled ODF import/export in its office suite even if only a subset of features are supported? They don't need to make it the NATIVE format after all. To say otherwise is crap--MS already allows opening and saving RTF in Word and simple comma-delimited text files in Excel and Access and handles the down-conversion relatively gracefully (and warns the user of potential loss of information).
You're right--it isn't a big MS conspiracy, however it isn't a simple practicality issue either. To be sure, OOXML is a brain-dead specification thrown together with no thought at all by what appears to be the dimmest bulbs MS has to offer. It isn't unreasonable to conclude that MS ran its core-dump-binary formats through some thrown-together disassembly tool, then put angle brackets in the structs and called it an XML format. If they stopped at using this work-free activity then you might argue practicality. However MS then proceeded to DOCUMENT this nasty monster and submit the thousands of pages of junk to standards bodies for ratification. That had to be a HUGE amount of work!
It seems to me that simply embracing ODF as an alternate file format by way of bolting on inport/export filters would've been easier than the route they took from a technical practicality standpoint. This is purely a shrewd business decision. Windows and Office are MS' ONLY dependable revenue generators and MS knows that the only way to keep these products in a market-leading position is to put barriers in place to limit interoperability. Microsoft nearly missed the boat when it let HTML and related standards get established, however they succeeded in quashing that threat by bundling a browser with its OS to shut down serious competition, then putting in non-portable extensions like ActiveX and nonstandard implementations like its javascript-like VBScript and broken and/or confusing CSS behaviour to limit interoperability. This has been a tough battle for MS and they haven't even one the war yet (they tried to declare victory by discontinuing IE at version 6 but had to succumb to pressure and produce another major release).
It seems to me that MS is trying to head-off the competition before it gets established when it comes to ODF. Sure, MS could have embraced-and-extended ODF to some degree, however that would only limit competition not kill it (witness the persistence of competing web browsers) and MS couldn't "own" the format--it would have to put as much effort into implementing ODF as its competitors have to (and one competitor already has done so and uses it as a native format). OOXML lets MS have an advantage in that the format is tailored for its own products, being that it appears that it's merely a thin cellophane wrapper around the internal binary structures within MS Office applications.
Furthermore, success of OOXML would be of greater benefit to MS Office than the success of ODF would be to OO.o because it is an order of magnitude more difficult for third-parties to implement OOXML. ODF is freely available, easier to read and much shorter and the source code to implement it is pretty easy to obtain giventhe most mature implementation is Free software. OOXML is a HUGE spec and difficult to read or interpret (with countless references to un-described behaviou
The proposed Australian legislation is based on efficiency requirements - it does *not* mandate a specific technology.
Apparently you are right...and California is the one following Australia in this case, not the other way around--California isn't as far along in its development of such a law.
And no states in Australia are stupid enough to require an electrician to replace a *general-purpose* light bulb.
After talking to an Australian friend you are in fact wrong and my fuzzy recollection was right. I have kin who live in Melbourne and apparently the state of Victoria IS that stupid: According to the law if you change ANY mains-powered light bulb--even one in your own house--and you are not a licensed electrician you can be fined up to ten dollars per bulb. I do not believe it is a law that is all that thoroughly enforced if at all--after all they have had not problems BUYING light bulbs and they are not licensed electricians (kind of the opposite of the smoking laws in parts of Australia and elsewhere, where it is illegal for minors to BUY cigarettes but legal for them to USE them).
...where best intentions meet ill-conceived ideas--at least where legislation is concerned (social security, education funding, and many many more areas come to mind). Now they've mandated the use of a specific technology (fluorescent lighting) to address a general concern (reducing energy consumption). I know that in general politicians tend to be short-sighted but the good people of California seem to actively search out the most short-sighted and generally dense people on the planet to install into government. "The Governator" has been fairly capable in office however he doesn't have to achieve much to stand out amongst the rest of the mental midgets surrounding him.
It would've been much better to craft a law mandating WATTAGE LIMITS on residential and commercial lighting (per fixture, or per-square footage to meet minimum brightness requirements within that space) such that it would be impossible for traditional incandescent bulbs to pass regulation. Without naming specific technologies the law would allow other technologies such as this new "high-efficiency" incandescent technology, LEDs and so on to be more easily adopted.
So what makes Fluorescents a poor choice for mandated low-energy lighting? How about:
1. Fluorescent bulbs require relatively complex circuitry to be dimable. There are a lot of places that use dimmer switches on lighting that are not compatible with CF bulbs. Not only do these people have to buy expensive CF bulbs but they also have to buy and install significantly more expensive dimmer switches as well.
2. Fluorescent ballasts can be noisy--they can buzz like large power transformers. CFs, especially newer ones, are very quiet but in a large area where many are on at once there still can be a perceptible noise.
3. Fluorescent bulbs flicker--much the same way as CRT monitors and televisions do. Some people can actually perceive the flicker of fluorescent lights and CRTs and extended exposure can cause eye fatigue and headaches. The technology is better now to reduce the human perception of this flicker but it is still far from acceptable in many applications--most notably in film and video production. The flicker is nearly impossible to reduce to a point where video and film equipment will not pick up at least some interference.
4. Fluorescents cannot put out very "pure" light--this is again a problem in film and video work. Regular fluorescents make everything look green and new "warm" bulbs are just as unbalanced--just in a different part of the spectrum. Incandescents are much superior for such work as the light from them is more "wide spectrum" and can be made more balanced.
5. Other technologies that are emerging seem to have more long-term potential. LEDs do not need a ballast and are even more efficient than CFs, and now incandescents are being made to consume much less energy and also require no expensive components like the ballast of a fluorescent bulb.
Australia competes with California for having the densest politicians as well it seems--they want to mandate the use of fluorescents as well. I've heard somewhere that there is a state in Australia that requires you to get a permit to change a light bulb, or else have a licensed electrician do it for you. Is that really true? Perhaps it was the same dim-wits that came up with that idea who are at it again.
If you could scientifically (key word) demonstrate that humans made no significant contribution to global warming (within a certain margin of error, of course), you'd have no problem getting grants
If you are a climatologist and get a grant to study the effects of human-produced CO2 on climate, and you found that the effects were negligible and that reducing emissions wouldn't have an impact, then you WOULD most certainly have trouble getting grants. If there was nothing more we could do, why would the government spend money on even more research?
At the very least the evidence would be inconclusive...that would be justification for further funding and hence job security. Don't tell me scientists are so far above everyone else that there isn't a single one who wouldn't consider that because there are for sure. If there IS conclusive evidence about climate change due to human activity (and the absolutely IS that evidence--though specific conclusions about the magnitude or nature of such change is far from certain) then it is even better--even LARGER grants for even MORE research in order to come up with solutions. Despite the general consensus there is certainly resistance to skepticism and a bit of "religion" involved on this subject from both sides.
Based on your comment, you must know that even if research is funded non-corporately it doesn't mean it is automatically untainted government grants are most certainly politically motivated to some degree and can be used to direct research in one direction or another...witness stem cell research in the US, or the fate of so many non-patentable pharmaceutical discoveries for example.
Exchange compatibility is a non-negotiable, non-finesseable, titanium-clad, gotta-have-it-no-kidding, requirement.
Not true. I work for a very large, multi-national corporation and as part of the strategy to rationalise IT infrastructure it was made a goal to COMPLETELY ERADICATE Microsoft Exchange from the business. The main business has never been an Exchange shop (I believe it went from Novell Groupwise to IBM/Lotus), and some divisions were acquisitions that were all-Windows shops and the damn Exchange servers were just annoying headaches to maintain...thus there was a big final push and out they went. Yes, Lotus Notes client is not as slick as Outlook but the back end was very robust and capable of handling tens of thousands of accounts reliably...and it handled the fast majority of email and group-ware functions already.
Come to think of it, I've actually never had an employer that relied on Exchange. Obviously it isn't a "gotta-have-it-no-kidding requirement" as a lot of businesses get by very well without it. There is NO technical reason whatsoever that a company has to rely on Exchange. The reason it is a requirement is SOLELY political and emotional...and eventually economic as eventually a business gets so hopelessly mired in proprietary lock-in that escape would be a huge expense.
I've tried many times to get a working Linux system, but I've always found something not working, and I don't mean Microsoft software not working. I mean sound not working or USB ports not working. Yes, I can hear everybody crying out "check the hardware compatibility lists first", and they right.
I've tried many times to get a working Windows Vista system, but I've always found something not working, and I don't mean Microsoft software not working. I mean Aero-glass not working or my old peripherals not working. Yes, I can hear everybody crying out "check the hardware compatibility lists first", and they're right.
If Microsoft can't make migration seamless from one version of their OS to the next, how can you expect a non-commercial, third-party effort do do any better?
There's more at work here than just the OS--it's the whole environment. Linux is already proven to work in a business environment--it has been capable of doing so for years. Same goes for Apple (hell, Macs even run a "genuine" edition of MS Office!). However, "a" business environment isn't ALL business environments. Enterprises with IT infrastructure based on proprietary, single-vendor platforms with no published interfaces for interoperability obviously are NOT the business environments where you'd expect to have Linux work seamlessly. It's a testament to the talents of Free software developers they can make anything work at all in such an environment!
Remember, MS is almost completely proprietary--when the folks who toil away developing Samba or Evolution have to make their software talk to Microsoft stuff (the main goal, or at least a major goal, of each of those projects) they can't just download or purchase a nice, neat spec document as if it was an IETF RFC. If MS has any spec to offer at all, it is only available under some encumbering legal condition such as an NDA or obligation to pay royalties or to not release under some or all Free software licenses. The only option they have in most cases is to pour over data from protocol analysers and other reverse-engineering tools. How can anyone expect the situation to EVER improve, much less within the space of a decade, when not only the spec is secret but it keeps changing dramatically with each generation of MS software?
MS further raises the barrier by making their interfaces and protocols DELIBERATELY COMPLEX so as to be harder to reverse engineer. This is the only explanation I can come up with for why MS does some of what they do in Exchange and Active Directory. Even more perverse is their penchant for taking open technologies like LDAP and Kerberos and obfuscating them enough to break them. This borders on criminal, as not only does this affect interoperability, it makes their own software less stable and more bloated than it needs to be.
This article offers nothing to support the contention that Linux or other Free software cannot be used to run a business--it very much can and does do this. His approach is just totally backwards--the high-level infrastructures need migrating first--get rid of Exchange and you'll be a great deal ahead of the game in more ways than one. If you are not in the position to carry that out, well then you'll be waiting for longer than two years unfortunately.
...for a corporate deployment time-line.
Perhaps 6-12 months is enough time for homes and very small businesses to make the move and deal with the resulting issues but that is a tight schedule for a larger enterprise. It could be up to 24 months (beginning of 2009) before Vista is commonplace in office environments and another year after that in more specialised environments such as industrial automation, engineering and so on (which happens to be my line of work). The software I'd use the most in my job crashes Vista before it is even finished installing. Those who develop this software have a time-line of some time in mid (maybe late) 2008 before the full line of software will work and be supported in Vista.
Wide adoption of this software by established customers can sometimes take 1 to 2 years after release, which means Vista won't see the light of day on the plant floor and on engineering workstations in great numbers until 2010--three full years after its release. With every successive release of Windows this cycle seems to be getting longer--The uptake of Windows 2000 in these same market segments was nearly twice as fast (1.5 to 2 years after release), and even XP was adopted more quickly (about 2 to 2.5 years).
I figure that Windows upgrades are a case of diminishing returns as the years pass. Windows 2000 was a significant upgrade in terms of stability and features over NT 4, and coupled with this the application software designed for NT 4 almost always ran without alteration--support for Windows 2000 meant simply doing testing and at most some driver modifications. The investment was relatively small and returns were very good. XP took longer to adopt because from our standpoint all you got was a fisher-price theme, but at least XP support was a relatively small effort as well. In this case, the ONLY reasons industrial users specifically gave for going to XP were to keep in line with corporate IT standards/support and/or because the hardware came pre-installed with XP and/or the timeframe for full support from MS was longer. In other words there were no compelling technical advantages to XP over 2000.
Now we have Vista, and there have been pretty much ZERO compelling practical arguments why Vista is superior in an industrial or technical scenario, coupled with the fact that Vista breaks SO much compatibility and requires so much more computing power than XP to perform well. From an applications standpoint, Vista is the biggest disconnect since the transition from DOS/Win16 to NT/Win32. Although the move away from DOS-era architecture is still by far the biggest revolutionary change in the MS environment it came with HUGE benefits and potential. With Vista arrives some fairly disruptive changes and though they are needed/welcome technically speaking there is little to offer in return from a typical user's perspective.
This is about an inside job since that's the only way those files would have made it to YouTube.
You don't have to be an insider to pull this stunt--you only need equipment that is no longer commonly available. TV programming is sent from network HQ to affiliate stations electronically via satellite, sometimes hours to several days before scheduled broadcast. You do not need to be an employee of either the station or the network to receive a satellite signal. I used to regularly watch episodes of Star Trek DS9 up to three days before they aired on "real" TV.
Wild feeds, or "occasional video transponders" are still commonly sent in unencrypted form so anyone can get them. However nobody knows when they are broadcasting or what the content is unless you are an employee. Sometimes if you watch the feeds you can pick out a pattern that seems like a regular schedule, but sometimes it shifts around. Also, episodes may be broadcast in wild feeds out of sequence. Furthermore, they are not broadcast in the same way as the most commonplace digital satellite systems--they are typically analogue and in a different frequency band--in the US they are on C band satellites. Most people who want satellite TV want the little dish hanging off the eaves, not a ten-foot C-band dish that obscures half of your yard (and you'd have to be in a rural setting for it to even be permitted). Wild feeds in Canada are commonly in Ku band as well, which permits a slightly smaller dish but still not appealing to anyone but enthusiasts.
Fox has a larger hunt on their hands and it IS a typical copyright violation case. Hence, the subpoena of Google/YouTube.
Stupid of broadcasters to still broadcast in the clear like that, but there is some technological inertia in every industry...
The article stated approximately 50% of movies are cammed here, and that the movie industry will likely delay the releases of new films here.
Sounds like you get it more than the article poster. "Whining" and dining the heritage minister every month has been happening since Copps was the minister in the Liberal government, and we managed to avoid our own DMCA to this point. The current political environment has provided the opportunity for much more public input and consideration that the previous government:
* The current Canadian parliament is a minority government and since copyright law reform is a low priority it is probably further back on the order paper than, say, environment or "fiscal re-balancing". If the government falls in a confidence motion on such higher-priority issues then the copyright bill will once again die on the order paper and it's back to square one. Unfortunately, the Liberals (official opposition) are the most "pro-DMCA" party in parliament so if the governing Conservatives can be convinced to support it such a motion might pass easily if it does come before a vote.
* The heritage ministry is not solely responsible for copyright law--it must seek agreement with the industry ministry which is the final authority on copyright. The industry minister, Maxime Bernier, has been pretty critical about measures that would restrict fair use or compromise privacy. If a new copyright bill IS passed it would be significantly less restrictive than that which died on the order paper of the previous Liberal government (still bad, but less of a bad thing).
I believe that in the US you can be punished legally for bringing photographic devices into theatres or other performance venues against the proprietor's wishes, but that there is no such law in Canada. In any case such law doesn't fall directly in with copyright--It is still illegal in Canada, under current copyright law, to duplicate/distribute/broadcast the cammed movies. It is only legal to cam them and view them privately (it is equivalent to using your VCR to record a TV programme for private viewing in terms of Canadian copyright law).
Obviously, the pressure of potential economic loss be the delay of movie releases in Canada may force the government's hand. Restricting or removing the fair dealing provisions of copyright is one way to solve the camming problem, and I'm sure the industry will fight to have the most broadest brush possible used to paint over this issue...however a law much narrower in scope could (and should) be applied. There is some hope that Bernier will be the moderating force here since Oda is a bit of a pushover.
Face it, if the schools can censor students' posts to prevent bullying (and censorship is what we're talking about, let's not mince words) then they can use exactly that same principle to censor students' posts on any other subject, including legitimate criticism of teachers and administrators
Firstly, trying to do something about cyber-bullying can in some ways not be censorship because the school does not have to limit a student's ability to express themselves (and in fact they CANNOT legally control the online conduct of a student when outside the school). I figure if a student has the luxury to "express themselves" however they want then the schools should be given latitude to respond at least partly in kind. Is a student harassing or threatening another student and reducing the quality of the learning environment for that student? Well, then the offending student should be able to handle the responsibilities that go with that freedom of expression.
Second, at least in grade school, these students are minors and are not afforded the same rights and freedoms as adults anyways. Thirteen-year-olds cannot legally drive, vote, drink alcohol, posses, distribute or participate in any sort of pornography or be employed in many occupations. These rights and freedoms are granted when society feels a person has become responsible and mature enough. Why do you expect that children should be afforded the full, unrestricted freedom of expression when they are not responsible enough with that right? All this talk about protecting all kids self-esteem at all costs with very adult "freedoms and rights" granted to immature students does nothing more than breed a society of sociopaths.
I figure a period of "supervised custody" would be appropriate (in middle or high school anyways). By that I don't mean in the same sense EXACTLY as prison--I mean that the student must arrive at the school at first bell (whether or not they have to be in a class first thing in the morning) and stay in the building the entire time. When not attending a class (on breaks or at lunch) the student must be supervised by staff and separated from the other students (ie. they must spend all breaks and lunch alone in the principle's office). Also, the student should be banned from unsupervised use of all computers in the school. Such a punishment would surely be more of a deterrent than suspension or expulsion (the latter of which would happen for repeat offenses). After all, many students would see suspension as a vacation, and would be loathe to lose the ability to socialise in school. Furthermore, the offending student can still enjoy unrestricted freedom to express himself (or herself) outside of school, knowing full well that there are consequences for your actions.
if it comes down to a choice between free speech vs. protecting kids from things that happen off campus on the other, I'll choose free speech every time
See, this is the beauty of it--the school doesn't have to censor anyone at all if they took actions as I described above. In fact, it is part of a child's education to learn that there are responsibilities and consequences for every right and freedom we have. If the student wishes to continue enjoying their "freedom to slander" they can go right on doing so--if they can live with the consequences at school.
As I remember vividly from my own high school days, speaking out honestly off-campus about incompetent and/or malicious faculty is about the only chance smart, committed kids have to make a difference in the quality of their education.
RIGHT ON. I believe that as well--the best way that bullying and other issues hampering the effectiveness of education can be addressed is by COMMUNICATING. In the above case I'd fully expect the parents of both offenders and victims to be fully informed and involved in the process. In the situation you mention "speaking out honestly" is not slander or harassment, and if your grades or your treatment are negatively affected b
Since when does "one blogger"'s view qualify as "news"?
Since when was "one blogger's view" the subject of this "news" in the first place? The links are just supplementary to the main story which was that MS THEMSELVES have acknowledged that Vista has shortcomings..to the point that they are already starting beta-testing of a service pack even before Vista is in wide public release!
"One bloggers opinion"? Sure that is more of a curiosity than news. The company that MADE the friggin thing? I think that constitutes news.
My experience with Vista is still limited--My only serious look to this point was with Longhorn right arounf the time MS announced the release name of Vista. Being far from release at that point, I was willing to forgine its shortcomings but it sounds like the final release s still pretty rough around the edges from a usability perspective.
So MS tried to move to another paradigm (am I using this properly?) to help more non-technical people understand how to find "basic" information.
While it's admirable that MS would put so much effort towards this problem it clearly looks to me that they've employed a scatter-shot approach in applying that effort and the result is actually a step backward. Is there NOBODY at Microsoft who took into account the mindset of new users? When an inexperienced user wants to free up drive space and remove a program the Win95-to-XP interface was cumbersome but at least it was intuitive: "Hmmm...I wanna get rid of this big game...uhhh, well start then...uhhh well this control panel thingy must be where you do systemy stuff....oh there it is...add and remove programs".
The "new and improved" Vista? Well, we'd better generalise the name to something meaningless so we can add more functionality there in the future...but how are the uninitiated supposed to know this? What about changing your graphics settings? It's buried in the catch-all "personalisation" category. What the hell is that? The LAST think Windows needs is MORE layers to sift through to find crap. What about the drop-downs that show items that when selected say you can't do that! This frustrates the author of the article who is a computer expert! These sort of things make computers even more intimidating and confusing to beginners.
The only thing that is going to save MS Windows from a slow, agonizing death is an extreme makeover (reliance on monopoly status will not work forever whether or not it holds off the antitrust hounds). The UI is much too fat with layers and gadgets and wizards and MS has to stop adding and start changing and removing. Make intuitiveness AND clutter reduction TOP priorities.
Here is an example: Add/Remove programs seems too cumbersome? Then don't just rename it and mess with it...GET RID OF IT COMPLETELY. You already have a menu of programs in the start menu...just put at the bottom of the list "Install new program...". To remove programs, make it an option on a context-sensitive menu when you right-click on a program, and when a user hits the "delete" key upon selecting the executable for an installed application (or its associated shortcut) have it launch the uninstaller (or give the user that option anyways). This shrinks the control panel by one item and makes navigation to the task of adding or removing programs quicker by removing a level of menus.
For how long we've all waited for Vista I'd have thought these sort of things would've been done. Sadly it seems that in the avalanche of work done in the name of security ands stability that usability suffered a complete lack of attention and was relegated to modernised desktop themes and piecemeal fiddling.
If this were to continue, well ... completely undeserving people could get one!
At least the British Upper House is funny...Canada's is sad. As far as I can tell, in Canada not only to "completely undeserving people" get senate appointments from time to time, as far as I can tell it wouldn't even be illegal for someone to buy a seat in the senate from the PM. At the very least the ability to use old-school hereditary peers in Britian for political manipulation is a BIT limited. Canada has never had hereditary peers in our upper house and many (most?) of them are still not deserving.
I wasn't aware of this "cash for peerage" scandal until I saw this story. The parallels between the old Liberal government' situation in Canada and the current Labour gov't in Britain are intriguing (both seem scandal-plagued and both have law enforcement digging around in their affairs). IIRC I think the RCMP still need a warrant to perform such searches though.
...why an individual recording music from XM radio to MP3s should be legally differentiated from recording music from FM radio to cassettes--for personal use only on both cases.
The case might be made that by providing the means of making the copy, XM played a more active role in the process -- they were both distrbuting, and aiding the copying by the user. That might be why the judge indicated that ruling may not be applicable here.
That case CANNOT be made. Big conglomerates like Sony and GE both distribute media content (they own publishing, broadcasting, etc. businesses) and manufacture/sell recording devices that aid in the copying of content that is owned both by themselves and their competitors. The act applies to them...so why can't it apply to XM Radio?
XM gave the consumer a device which could have the technology to grab any broadcast music directly from the receiver and store it in MP3. In effect, they are essentially handing you MP3s of the songs they broadcast
GE gives the consumer a device which could have the technology to grab any broadcast television signal directly from a receiver and store it in VHS tapes. In effect, they are essentially handing you videotapes of the shows they broadcast. Sony is the same thing. I fail to see the legal difference that makes GE more special than XM.
So, I'd be curious to hear the REAL reason the judge thinks this is different from a legal standpoint...or perhaps money is talking?
Does the OO mean "Object Orientated" or "Open Office"?
;-).
It means neither. OOXML is shorthand for Opaque and Obfuscated eXception-based Markup Language. However, Marketing rejected the longhand name for the format because it didn't test well in developer focus groups. However, marketing found the shorthand OOXML appealing because psychologists have said the roundness of the O's induces a sense of calmness. BillG liked it because legislators could make an (incorrect) association between OOXML and OpenOffice.org (often abbreviated OO.o), and he hopes the confusion could lead to the inadvertent acceptance of MS' pseudo-open file format in government.
So OOXML stays but it officially stands for about as much as DVD does, which is nothing (or whatever you want it to stand for--it is all about "personal freedom" after all, so OOXML stands for what means the most to you
Remember, if the Liberals, are, as you say, "for" this type of legistlation, what will it help to get the NDP against it?
Because the Conservatives aren't blindly "for" such legislation--the only party that was was the Liberal party. Furthermore, the Liberals WERE finally goaded by lobbyists into doing something. If the Liberals managed to hold onto majority gov't then bill C60 wouldn't have died with the non-confidence vote a year ago. If bill C60 didn't die on the order paper with the election of a new government then in last spring's session it would've passed into law and Canada would've had even less fair dealing protections than the US has now.
The political attitude towards a bill like C60 is much cooler within the Conservative ranks. Bev Oda was raked over the coals for her fundraising activities with broadcasting big-wigs--both by some opposition members (the Liberals criticism was quite muted IIRC) and internally by the PMO (Harper runs a pretty tight ship to put it mildly). Maxime Bernier is a stronger cabinet minister and his portfolio ultimately trumps Oda's. Though they are far from perfect, the Conservative gov't is much more receptive to public input on this matter (the problem with this gov't is being open with their OUTPUT--they are cold and distant from a PR perspective--but when it comes to being responsive to the concerns of Canadians they have been much better than the Liberals).
Your best bet to have your voice heard on this matter would be by making your concerns known to Bernier (Industry Minister) or James Rajotte (Chair of the Industry Committee). Both are "free-enterprisers" who have a record for defending individual rights (Rajotte was critical of C60's "TPM" provisions because of the potential violation of privacy and has introduced private member's bills concerning the protection of individual's privacy and information rights in the past). These legislators will play an important role in reforming Canadian copyright law and have shown signs of being sympathetic to our concerns.
You could also voice your concerns with the NDP Industry (Brian Masse) and Heritage critics (Charlie Angus)--the latter in particular seems to have taken a less Liberal-like stance to the portfolio than past NDP critics--but I suspect your distaste of socialist ideology would make that route less likely.
Feinstein needs to be doing stuff for me, a Californian. I want her to get us off of using Oil, not worrying about Podcasts.
Unfortunately for you, a good number of big-time entertainment execs and mega-superstar performers are also Californians. Such people don't truly give a rat's arse about oil dependency--they are very much a self-interested lot and care very dearly about being able to make their Ferarri payments using income from Podcasts. Also, unfortunately for you, they can donate (or withhold for that matter) much larger campaign contributions.
Until there is some meaningful campaign and lobby reform in the US, voters shouldn't worry about a pregnant-chad-laden paper cards or the touch screens on a glitchy computer terminals...because the REAL US election ballot is the dollar bill.
O2007 isn't all that different, aside from some GUI changes.
/. poster makes an incendiary comment that completely lacks any supporting evidence. MS Office is the one chasing tail lights here. MS is only now migrating to leaner, more transparent XML-based file formats, whereas the Free alternatives made open formats a priority for years before. Alternatives like Gnumeric have outclassed Excel on some functionality as well (larger spreadsheet sizes though "65K rows ought to be enough for anyone" when you think about it, better statistical analysis functions, etc). MS has been chasing not only Mac OSX but also open source efforts on the desktop as well.
Pears aren't all that different from apples either--except for the shape, colour and taste. Win95 wasn't all that different from Win3.11 with the Win32 add-on--except for some UI changes. Have you seriously even given the new office a quick test drive? My impression is that power-users will catch on quick enough, but the majority of typical users will be frustrated for days or weeks. The new (enabled by default) interface is quite a departure.
And I'll bet they can be disabled back to a 'classic' view, just like Vista can.
MS (to their credit) has ALWAYS put in such operational modes to help ease users into a new product--right back to the initial Windows version of MS Word with help files and keyboard shortcuts to assist WordPerfect and WordStar users. The same with Windows--you could run 3.x-style Program Manager and File Manager instead of the start-button-and-taskbar explorer if the transition was too jarring. However in the effort to nudge users forward MS NEVER makes such settings default, and doesn't explain front-and-centre how to enable such legacy modes. Furthermore the illusion is shattered when you delve deeper into the system because emulation of the old UI is never complete. Windows XP can be made to look very much like NT4 on the surface, but it doesn't take long to find some navigation path or altered UI that is just different enough to trip over.
Sadly, once again, the Slashdot community is on the wrong side of progress. I guess that's why their darlings, Lunix and Open Office, will always be chasing MS's tail lights.
Once again some ignorant
I find that Free software tends to progress at a faster rate by quite a margin when compared to MS. Thankfully, such progress is more incremental and consistent (minor to moderate changes happening more frequently). MS has this massive house of cards built on a sand foundation to support which impedes progress, and when progress is made it tends to be drastic but infrequent. If you take a good look at the state of things, the competition is only behind MS in market share, not in actual quality of the software, so the chance of gaining ground is good for Free software.
The ability to open large datasets in Excel, instead of having to use vim to figure out what the structure is.
Aren't you supposed to use DATABASE software to open and manipulate large DATA sets? Furthermore, isn't using a text editor to open such a large file even more cumbersome?
I'd think that if you were dealing with 65000+ records of data in some kind of text format (suggested by the fact that you resort ti vim) that a spreadsheet by its very nature would be an awkward tool for the task. What about importing such a file into a database for analysis? If you figure there is structure at fault why not pass the raw data through a Perl script (or sed, awk, grep, etc) to try to search/parse/manipulate the file?
Finally, if text editors and spreadsheets are all you are comfortable with why not try Gnumeric or OO.o's spreadsheet? IIRC, they've supported larger datasets than MS Excel for a long time.
We need the Liberals back, now
I sincerely do hope that this post was not the author's sincere belief because it indicates severe ignorance about federal politics in Canada and the policies of each of the respective parties.
Both the current policies and past track record of the Liberal party indicate that the Liberal party would be the ABSOLUTE WORST in protecting individual's rights in this particular matter. For decades (since Trudeau became prime minister and it hasn't changed since) the Liberal party has been the biggest proponent of content production and delivery in the telecommunication industry. It was Liberals who came up with "Canadian content" quotas. It was Liberals who instituted large, hidden taxes on recording media and funneled the proceeds to their buddies in broadcasting and publishing in the name of "supporting Canadian artists", and it was under the Liberals that the CRTC gained most of its power. It is important to note that the most prominent owners of broadcasting and publishing companies (and supporters of US-style copyright) at present are very loyal liberal supporters, and VERY generous financial supporters (the influence of this money, thankfully, has been reduced by new contribution regulations but it still plays a part). Essentially if the CRIA tells a Liberal to bend over the liberal would very happily do it.
Contrast this with the history of the Conservatives which is to push for DE-regulation and the streamlining and reform of the CRTC. The current Conservative industry minister Maxime Bernier is known to be a "libertarian-style" Conservative (the Canadian Conservative party is an amalgamation of mostly two groups--"libertarian-style" and "social" conservatives). He would probably be personally averse to such overly-draconian copyright legislation as the US DMCA. I think that given a convincing argument he would support the inclusion of proper fair-dealing provisions in any new copyright legislation.
If you find the conservative ideology distasteful, I would lobby your nearest NDP (or perhaps Bloc MP). The NDP is the Canadian socialist party federally so has generally supported heavy regulation, however they are also "anti-corporate" and draconian copyright legislation that appears to give most benefit to big multimedia publishing and broadcasting corporations would not be supported by the NDP. Furthermore, right now the NDP hold the balance of power in the minority gov't (the Conservatives need NDP support to pass legislation--they could get the backing of the separatist Bloc Quebecois as well but working with a separatist party would be a bad move politically). On this issue in particular (it is not really part of the "top priorities" and there may be some common ground with the Conservatives and NDP) there could be a very reasonable chance that the gov't with give PROPER consideration to voter's concerns. I figure that if we had a majority Liberal gov't that they'd just sleepwalk through its passing if they did anything at all.