Stupid things like this make people lose respect for copyright law. They're doing more harm to their cause than good.
Law isn't an absolute--it's just a way of expressing what is generally considered "right" in society. When everyone decides a law is stupid and openly disobeys it, it becomes harder to justify that law's existence. (They certainly can't arrest everyone for taking a picture in a public space. Obviously, from the reaction to this story, pretty much everyone thinks it's ridiculous.)
Considering all the things going on in the world, you'd think the police would have better things to do than stop people from taking pictures of some sculpture.
It's only necessary to reboot once, not after each update. (The only time you need to reboot more than once is when installing a major update, such as a new version of Internet Explorer.)
INSTEAD, what I think will happen is that the US will force Canada to sign the WIPO
Speaking of which, this is an excellent opportunity to direct people to Digital Copyright Canada and their Petition for Users' Rights.:) (That's a paper petition that will be delivered to parlaiment.) Of course, it never hurts to write to your MP or the appropriate minister as well.
On the great list of Television Computer Cliches, "enhancing" photos is definitely #1...
#2 must be visualised searching. If you're trying to match fingerprints (faces, shoes, tire treads, etc), the computer must show each on the screen for a fraction of a second. Like how Google flashes each of its 8,058,044,651 pages every time you do a search... oh wait, real computers don't do that.
#3 is the sound effects computers make. Any event must be accompanied by a beep. When it's searching through those fingerprints, it will beep on each one. CSI:NY has to be the worst offender here. Dwedledledledledle..whip!.. dwedledledle.. whip!..dwedledle...WHOOOOSH! beep beep beep beep! (Well, at least NY's inkjets don't sound like dot matrix printers, as they do in Vegas.) Who was it who decided that TV computers need to make so much noise?
Google found my site before there was a link to it anywhere. I registered a domain, and before the site was even complete, Google showed up. Google itself didn't reveal any reverse links, and I couldn't come up with any other explanation. (Unless someone is monitoring new domain registrations.) Another time, Google found a link to a file that had only been posted on a subscription-only site. The point is, it's not always obvious where search engines get their links from. That makes the conspiracy theory even less likely.
If enough Canadians can convince their government to stand up to U.S. pressure to implement the broadcast flag, you may be able to import them from there. It can't hurt that ATI is a Canadian company.
[Industry Minister David] Emerson's strong backbone will be tested in the months ahead as he faces unrelenting U.S. pressure on two initiatives that would, if adopted, provide broadcasters with unprecedented control over television signals and severely curtail consumers' expectations with regard to their rights and personal privacy....
Given the controversy associated with the broadcast flag in the U.S., one would think that Canada would be wary about embarking on the same route. Accordingly, it came as a shock to many when an Industry Canada official recently indicated that Canada was likely to follow the U.S. lead by quickly implementing a similar system by July 2005. The official suggested that there was broadcaster support for the measure and that since the U.S. had adopted it, Canadians had little alternative but to follow suit.
While Canadian broadcasters may or may not support the broadcast flag (they have in fact been rather publicly silent on the matter), it is essential Canada craft its own policy by considering the privacy and copyright policies associated with the proposal.
Pre-judging the issue, as some in Minister Emerson's department appear to have done, is a dangerous course of action, that should be replaced immediately by a working group of all stakeholders, including the broader public interest, intent on studying the Canadian options. The suggestion Canada faces a Y2K-like deadline with respect to the broadcast flag appears as overblown as was the Y2K threat itself.
In light of the importance of the issues raised by the broadcast flag, it is heartening that Canada's new Industry Minister is a veteran of supporting Canadian interests in the face of U.S. pressure. When David Emerson salutes the flag on Canada Day 2005, one hopes that it is one with a maple leaf, not a broadcast flag emblazoned with red, white, and blue.
The Honourable David Emerson, Minister of Industry, can be contacted by email or by regular mail.
What about industry claims that Kyoto will cost Canada 450,000 jobs?
There are no studies to support this number. Industry lobby groups continue to use it for scare purposes.
There may be a drop in total employment in conventional energy production in Canada, but this is a trend that has been underway for several years. According to Natural Resources Canada, the energy sector employed almost 81,000 fewer workers in 1998 than it did in 1990.
However, a shift of investment away conventional energy production into other activities is likely to create more jobs. With 20 per cent of capital investment by Canadian businesses, the oil, gas and electricity industries produce just 2 per cent of the jobs. The Communications Energy & Paperworkers Union, the Alberta Federation of Labour, the Canadian Auto Workers, and the Canadian Labour Congress all publicly support the Kyoto Protocol.
In other sectors, many analysts see a net gain in employment. In fact, the Canadian economy is projected to grow by 30.4 per cent by 2012, from $1 trillion to $1.315 trillion if we meet out Kyoto targets. For more information, read the Tellus Institute's report, The Bottom Line on Kyoto.
What about industry claims that Kyoto will cost Canada tens of billions of dollars?
Most of the so-called "costs" of Kyoto will be related to investments in energy efficiency, with payback times of a few years or even months. These investments will be made when it is normal to make them - that is, when it is time to purchase new and better industrial equipment, motor vehicles or home furnaces.
Such investments in energy efficiency since 1970 have produced net cost savings for Canadian consumers of more than $50 billion, and the annual savings amount is rising.
A well-executed emissions reduction program can provide all kinds of benefits to industry. These include
* energy savings;
* reduced energy dependency;
* a better competitive position through efficiency;
* an improved capacity to innovate, and a chance to market new processes and technologies in a global market;
* better relations with local communities as industries clean up the air and show leadership on the environment..
Further, any discussion of costs and benefits needs to consider the costs of doing nothing about climate change and air pollution. We are already absorbing the high costs of inaction - including droughts, floods, more extreme weather events, and impacts on natural resource industries. As well, fossil fuel air pollution imposes immense human and financial costs related health impacts. In other words, taking action to reduce energy use has substantial economic benefits in many areas of our lives.
Why is the U.S. opposed to Kyoto?
The U.S. has opposed or opted out of many international initiatives in recent years. The convention on land mines and the international war crimes tribunal are prominent examples.
With Kyoto in particular, the current U.S. administration has expressed fears similar to those of Alberta: that reducing the burning of fossil fuels will reduce the incomes of oil and coal companies. In its energy plan, the Bush administration continues to rely on fossil fuels. It is not seriously challenging the status quo despite the costs of climate change and air pollution.
The Bush administration has adopted a weak plan to encourage industries to reduce emissions, assuming an 18 per cent increase in emissions by 2012. The good news in the U.S. is that many states are taking steps to cut emissions, including California, New York, Michigan and Massachusetts. Read a releated report from the Pembina Institute called How Ratifying the Kyoto Protocol will Benefit Canada's Competiti
If I remember correctly, developing countries are only exempt from reducing emmissions during the first phase of the protocol. A few years from now, a new set of targets will be negotiated, and countries such as China will no longer be exempt.
When they were discussing Kyoto in Canada, some people suggested that there might actually be an overall economic benefit. Of course, big polluters were vocal in their opposition to Kyoto (as they are in the U.S.), but theirs is only half the story. For example, jobs may get lost in one area, but jobs would be created somewhere else. They could also export their advanced techical knowledge to other countries. (I'm not saying this is the case, it's just an example. I don't remember what the actual reasoning was. Perhaps someone else can give the other side of the story.)
More generally, it's data mining. Take a database, apply a few formulas, get some interesting information. Will every data mining application be patented?
It's not a standard course in any university computer science program, but lots of people learn this stuff. Once you learn the theory, lots of applications become obvious--and recommendation systems are probably at the top of the list.
O Canada! Land of our forefathers
Thy brow is wreathed with a glorious garland of flowers.
As in thy arm ready to wield the sword,
So also is it ready to carry the cross.
Thy history is an epic of the most brilliant exploits.
Thy valour steeped in faith
Will protect our homes and our rights
Will protect our homes and our rights.
I really don't understand what's so difficult about a paper receipt. A little receipt printer has to be cheap compared to those fancy touch screens. Why do they act like it's a big hardship?
"Congratulations! You have voted for: John Kerry! (ballot id: 1234.)" Verify, fold, place in box. Instant backup. No spoiled ballots.
Why force people to support multiple formats? I already have software that supports RSS. Pretty much everyone uses it, so it's basically become the de-facto standard. I've never seen Atom-only feeds outside of Google. I don't want to write additional libraries just beacuse Google wants to force us to use their own format. It's a waste of my time as a developer, since RSS is already there.
That seems like a Microsoft tactic. "We're big, so we don't care what everyone else is doing--we're going to do it our own way, and you have to put up with it." Why is it always developers who have to suffer in these petty format wars?
As for the different versions, that's never been an issue for me. Everyone seems to use RSS 2.0 or 0.92 these days, and the basic elements are identical. It's a pretty simple format.
Who needs a ring tone that long, anyway? It only takes 1 second to announce the fact that your phone is ringing; the other 29 seconds serve no useful purpose.
It's apparently true that vowels are pronnounced slightly differently. Although Canadians don't actually say "aboot", it gets misheard that way to American ears.
There was an interesting show called "Talking Canadian" that talked about some of these things. It's on Newsworld May 26th.
Slashdot Mirror
And now they're back in the news today!
:)
Next week's headline:
"Was the story about the New Dr. Who being leaked on purpose... leaked on purpose?"
Or, maybe whoever leaked that episode also leaked this story, to take the focus off.
Maybe someone wanted to see how the episode would be received. If something didn't "work", they'd have 3 weeks to make some re-edits.
It's possible to turn off the nag in IE, although it's not as easy as flashblock...
0 0}]
t Explorer\ActiveX Compatibility\{D27CDB6E-AE6D-11CF-96B8-44455354000 0}]
Flash-Disable.reg
Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX Compatibility\{D27CDB6E-AE6D-11CF-96B8-4445535400
"Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
Flash-Enable.reg
Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00
[-HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Interne
"Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
Stupid things like this make people lose respect for copyright law. They're doing more harm to their cause than good.
Law isn't an absolute--it's just a way of expressing what is generally considered "right" in society. When everyone decides a law is stupid and openly disobeys it, it becomes harder to justify that law's existence. (They certainly can't arrest everyone for taking a picture in a public space. Obviously, from the reaction to this story, pretty much everyone thinks it's ridiculous.)
Considering all the things going on in the world, you'd think the police would have better things to do than stop people from taking pictures of some sculpture.
There is a "link to this page" link in the upper-right corner of the results screen. You can grab the page link from that.
Weren't iframes originally a Microsoft-only feature as well? :)
And here's method #3:
Put the following line in your userContent.css file (it goes in your profile directory -- create the file if it doesn't exist.)
a[href$=".pdf"]:after { content: " [PDF]" }
It's only necessary to reboot once, not after each update. (The only time you need to reboot more than once is when installing a major update, such as a new version of Internet Explorer.)
Daily Planet is only on Discovery Canada, so it doesn't count. :) It's the best show on there, though.
A couple of the engineering type shows are Canadian-only as well.
Actually, some of your money goes to every channel in the cable lineup. I can't find the URL anymore, though..
Really? Guess which country buys a quarter of your exports? :)
To its credit, Windows XP now sorts "properly" as well. (At least in simple cases like this., and even the A1, A2, A10 example Tog describes.)
On the great list of Television Computer Cliches, "enhancing" photos is definitely #1...
#2 must be visualised searching. If you're trying to match fingerprints (faces, shoes, tire treads, etc), the computer must show each on the screen for a fraction of a second. Like how Google flashes each of its 8,058,044,651 pages every time you do a search... oh wait, real computers don't do that.
#3 is the sound effects computers make. Any event must be accompanied by a beep. When it's searching through those fingerprints, it will beep on each one. CSI:NY has to be the worst offender here. Dwedledledledledle..whip!.. dwedledledle.. whip!..dwedledle...WHOOOOSH! beep beep beep beep! (Well, at least NY's inkjets don't sound like dot matrix printers, as they do in Vegas.) Who was it who decided that TV computers need to make so much noise?
I do use the Google toolbar, so that could very well be the reason.
Google found my site before there was a link to it anywhere. I registered a domain, and before the site was even complete, Google showed up. Google itself didn't reveal any reverse links, and I couldn't come up with any other explanation. (Unless someone is monitoring new domain registrations.) Another time, Google found a link to a file that had only been posted on a subscription-only site. The point is, it's not always obvious where search engines get their links from. That makes the conspiracy theory even less likely.
If enough Canadians can convince their government to stand up to U.S. pressure to implement the broadcast flag, you may be able to import them from there. It can't hurt that ATI is a Canadian company.
...
There's an article about it in the Toronto Star: Mr. Minister, please protect the public interest.
Here are a few interesting parts:
[Industry Minister David] Emerson's strong backbone will be tested in the months ahead as he faces unrelenting U.S. pressure on two initiatives that would, if adopted, provide broadcasters with unprecedented control over television signals and severely curtail consumers' expectations with regard to their rights and personal privacy.
Given the controversy associated with the broadcast flag in the U.S., one would think that Canada would be wary about embarking on the same route. Accordingly, it came as a shock to many when an Industry Canada official recently indicated that Canada was likely to follow the U.S. lead by quickly implementing a similar system by July 2005. The official suggested that there was broadcaster support for the measure and that since the U.S. had adopted it, Canadians had little alternative but to follow suit.
While Canadian broadcasters may or may not support the broadcast flag (they have in fact been rather publicly silent on the matter), it is essential Canada craft its own policy by considering the privacy and copyright policies associated with the proposal.
Pre-judging the issue, as some in Minister Emerson's department appear to have done, is a dangerous course of action, that should be replaced immediately by a working group of all stakeholders, including the broader public interest, intent on studying the Canadian options. The suggestion Canada faces a Y2K-like deadline with respect to the broadcast flag appears as overblown as was the Y2K threat itself.
In light of the importance of the issues raised by the broadcast flag, it is heartening that Canada's new Industry Minister is a veteran of supporting Canadian interests in the face of U.S. pressure. When David Emerson salutes the flag on Canada Day 2005, one hopes that it is one with a maple leaf, not a broadcast flag emblazoned with red, white, and blue.
The Honourable David Emerson, Minister of Industry, can be contacted by email or by regular mail.
Found something on this topic... the following is from David Suzuki's FAQ on the Kyoto Protocol:
What about industry claims that Kyoto will cost Canada 450,000 jobs?
There are no studies to support this number. Industry lobby groups continue to use it for scare purposes.
There may be a drop in total employment in conventional energy production in Canada, but this is a trend that has been underway for several years. According to Natural Resources Canada, the energy sector employed almost 81,000 fewer workers in 1998 than it did in 1990.
However, a shift of investment away conventional energy production into other activities is likely to create more jobs. With 20 per cent of capital investment by Canadian businesses, the oil, gas and electricity industries produce just 2 per cent of the jobs. The Communications Energy & Paperworkers Union, the Alberta Federation of Labour, the Canadian Auto Workers, and the Canadian Labour Congress all publicly support the Kyoto Protocol.
In other sectors, many analysts see a net gain in employment. In fact, the Canadian economy is projected to grow by 30.4 per cent by 2012, from $1 trillion to $1.315 trillion if we meet out Kyoto targets. For more information, read the Tellus Institute's report, The Bottom Line on Kyoto.
What about industry claims that Kyoto will cost Canada tens of billions of dollars?
Most of the so-called "costs" of Kyoto will be related to investments in energy efficiency, with payback times of a few years or even months. These investments will be made when it is normal to make them - that is, when it is time to purchase new and better industrial equipment, motor vehicles or home furnaces.
Such investments in energy efficiency since 1970 have produced net cost savings for Canadian consumers of more than $50 billion, and the annual savings amount is rising.
A well-executed emissions reduction program can provide all kinds of benefits to industry. These include
* energy savings;
* reduced energy dependency;
* a better competitive position through efficiency;
* an improved capacity to innovate, and a chance to market new processes and technologies in a global market;
* better relations with local communities as industries clean up the air and show leadership on the environment..
Further, any discussion of costs and benefits needs to consider the costs of doing nothing about climate change and air pollution. We are already absorbing the high costs of inaction - including droughts, floods, more extreme weather events, and impacts on natural resource industries. As well, fossil fuel air pollution imposes immense human and financial costs related health impacts. In other words, taking action to reduce energy use has substantial economic benefits in many areas of our lives.
Why is the U.S. opposed to Kyoto?
The U.S. has opposed or opted out of many international initiatives in recent years. The convention on land mines and the international war crimes tribunal are prominent examples.
With Kyoto in particular, the current U.S. administration has expressed fears similar to those of Alberta: that reducing the burning of fossil fuels will reduce the incomes of oil and coal companies. In its energy plan, the Bush administration continues to rely on fossil fuels. It is not seriously challenging the status quo despite the costs of climate change and air pollution.
The Bush administration has adopted a weak plan to encourage industries to reduce emissions, assuming an 18 per cent increase in emissions by 2012. The good news in the U.S. is that many states are taking steps to cut emissions, including California, New York, Michigan and Massachusetts. Read a releated report from the Pembina Institute called How Ratifying the Kyoto Protocol will Benefit Canada's Competiti
If I remember correctly, developing countries are only exempt from reducing emmissions during the first phase of the protocol. A few years from now, a new set of targets will be negotiated, and countries such as China will no longer be exempt.
When they were discussing Kyoto in Canada, some people suggested that there might actually be an overall economic benefit. Of course, big polluters were vocal in their opposition to Kyoto (as they are in the U.S.), but theirs is only half the story. For example, jobs may get lost in one area, but jobs would be created somewhere else. They could also export their advanced techical knowledge to other countries. (I'm not saying this is the case, it's just an example. I don't remember what the actual reasoning was. Perhaps someone else can give the other side of the story.)
More generally, it's data mining. Take a database, apply a few formulas, get some interesting information. Will every data mining application be patented?
It's not a standard course in any university computer science program, but lots of people learn this stuff. Once you learn the theory, lots of applications become obvious--and recommendation systems are probably at the top of the list.
English Translation of the French Version of the National Anthem
O Canada! Land of our forefathers
Thy brow is wreathed with a glorious garland of flowers.
As in thy arm ready to wield the sword,
So also is it ready to carry the cross.
Thy history is an epic of the most brilliant exploits.
Thy valour steeped in faith
Will protect our homes and our rights
Will protect our homes and our rights.
I really don't understand what's so difficult about a paper receipt. A little receipt printer has to be cheap compared to those fancy touch screens. Why do they act like it's a big hardship?
"Congratulations! You have voted for: John Kerry! (ballot id: 1234.)" Verify, fold, place in box. Instant backup. No spoiled ballots.
Why force people to support multiple formats? I already have software that supports RSS. Pretty much everyone uses it, so it's basically become the de-facto standard. I've never seen Atom-only feeds outside of Google. I don't want to write additional libraries just beacuse Google wants to force us to use their own format. It's a waste of my time as a developer, since RSS is already there.
That seems like a Microsoft tactic. "We're big, so we don't care what everyone else is doing--we're going to do it our own way, and you have to put up with it." Why is it always developers who have to suffer in these petty format wars?
As for the different versions, that's never been an issue for me. Everyone seems to use RSS 2.0 or 0.92 these days, and the basic elements are identical. It's a pretty simple format.
Who needs a ring tone that long, anyway? It only takes 1 second to announce the fact that your phone is ringing; the other 29 seconds serve no useful purpose.
It's apparently true that vowels are pronnounced slightly differently. Although Canadians don't actually say "aboot", it gets misheard that way to American ears.
There was an interesting show called "Talking Canadian" that talked about some of these things. It's on Newsworld May 26th.