No, firearms are not illegal in the UK - that's a common misconception.. Some specific types of firearms are illegal (e.g. handguns), the rest require the owner to hold a firearms licence.
"in academia, the issue of attribution and citation is very important" - true, but strictly speaking it's the attribution and citation of other research, not the research tools. After all, you don't find many research papers citing that they were typed on Microsoft Word with tables created in Microsoft Excel.
However, you've tried to convince them of this and they still want to go ahead, and it's your job to sort it out to their specifications. So...
The ideal solution would be to make the software so damn good that citing the use of your software in their publications is a good way for the external researchers to prove the integrity of their data analysis.
I might even suggest a reverse-psychology strategy with something along the lines of:
"You may only cite the use of {SOFTWARE} to guarantee the integrity of your data analysis if all data analysis has been done with {SOFTWARE}."
...and then provide a few suitable icons like this one:
these are all possibilities, but since none of these are mentioned in the teacher's letter linked to in TFA then we can dismiss them.
If the kid had a history of infractions then the teacher should have mentioned it in the letter. Likewise if the kid was being a smart-arse in his explanation the teacher should have (and would have) mentioned it. And the same applies to the other 3 points you made.
However the teacher made none of these points in his letter - judging by the teacher's side of the argument (given in the letter) the teacher just didn't know what he was talking about.
...which is a shame in some ways: in the UK a criminal case must be proved 'beyond reasonable doubt'. A civil case only has to be proved on the 'balance of probabilities'. If the Record Industry has to prove 'beyond reasonable doubt' then they'd have a much more difficult time.
Like you IANAL, but I couldn't see anything in there that stated implied that if non-commercial (i.e. individual) copyright infringement was illegal in a member state then it would remain so.
In fact, the first sentence of the EU Press Release would seem to imply otherwise when it say "The first EU directive aiming at harmonising national criminal law" - if they're harmonising national criminal law then they're making it the same in all member states, surely?
I think it depends on whether you read the sentence "Piracy committed by private users for personal, non-profit purposes are therefore also excluded." as referring to piracy by individuals being excluded from the legislation (and therefore defaulting to the member state's national laws), or piracy by individuals being excluded from criminal sanctions. Given that "criminal sanctions" was the subject in the previous sentence:
They excluded patent rights from the scope of the Directive, and decided that criminal sanctions should only apply to those infringements deliberately carried out to obtain a commercial advantage. Piracy committed by private users for personal, non-profit purposes are therefore also excluded.
... legally that's fair enough - if you're a business and you pirate software to run on your PCs then you've got to expect that there's a chance that you'll get caught.
Whether Microsoft legally can fulfill all the threats of auditing etc is irrelevant: PHBs of businesses with ~250 PCs don't consult lawyers that frequently - they ask the IT guy "Are we running any pirate copies of Windows?". If the answer is yes then they know they're breaking the law and they don't have a legal department to deal with a legal onslaught from Microsoft.
Now, in commercial terms Microsoft are gambling on this threat convincing businesses to decide to pay up for the extra x% of licences to make sure all of their ~250 PCs are legally licenced.
In some cases this might backfire and cause a business to re-examine its reliance on Windows and decide that the I.T. budget for 2007 doesn't cover buying the extra licences and paying for upgrading the entire company to Vista (which PHBs know they must do because Microsoft's adverts tell them so). At this point the PHB might suddenly start listening to the IT guy who says "Of course, there is another option which won't hurt the budget so much...".
A threat to the company's 2007 budget of that size (buying all the licences and upgrading to Vista) can be the catalyst that brings Linux to company desktops. Or am I just being overly optimistic?
Wikipedia is a great starting point for any research, but it should never be cited in a university-level term paper (and the same applies to any encyclopedia, online or paper)! The best wikipedia articles link to the original sources for their information and a good researcher should always be using original sources.
I think that's it - unless Firefox works properly on Vista then the x% of W2K/XP users who use Firefox are unlikely to buy Vista, which will reduce sales for Microsoft.
Microsoft don't lose any money if a Windows user decides to use Firefox - but if the Firefox user decides not to upgrade from XP to Vista because they won't be able to use their favourite browser, then it hits MS in the wallet. Hell, the user might even decide to switch to a different OS and leave the Microsoft upgrade (income) path completely.
I don't doubt that one bit, but it's good to know that web standards are now seen as important enough to make MS make some effort to move in that direction, whether that move is token or otherwise.
We now know that pressure works, and while I'll probably never use IE as my personal browser of choice, MS's move towards eradicating these common CSS bugs and implementing (some) CSS standards makes my job a hell of a lot easier.
Much as I (as a web developer) frequently curse Microsoft for the css-hack-hell that IE6's lack of support for CSS forces me into, the list of CSS fixes in the IE Blog (link in post above) is great news as it mends a lot of the common everyday problems. The fixing of the peekaboo bug alone makes my life easier.
AJAX is neither a good nor a bad thing - it's just a tool. I've seen it used both well and badly.
Yes, it needs browser-specific hacks on the developer's side (just like CSS does if you're trying to do something with the box model and you want to let IE 5.x display it correctly, for example) but that's the fault of certain browsers not fully implementing standards - it's not an inherent feature of AJAX.
Yes, it breaks some familiar conventions on the user's side - some of these should be re-coded back in by good developers (e.g. scripting to allow your browser's 'back' button to work in a familiar manner) and some, like having to wait for page refresh after page refresh while you complete a complicated 'multi-page' form, are 'familiar conventions' that I could certainly do without.
Because AJAX is the 'new big thing' I'm sure we'll see some terrible examples of it being used as people try to get to grips with it. But as with all new things, conventions will emerge about how to use it wisely, and standards will be drafted, debated and published.
this should make it easier for terrorists to target Americans - just put a little wireless device on the bomb to scan for genuine RFID-passport-carrying US tourists before detonating...
I don't know what your legal obligations are for disabled access to this public resource, but be aware that with thin clients your choice of accessibility software is limited - the usual selection of freeware (screen readers, etc) can't be installed because you're using a thin client.
Similarly, a disabled user can't simply change the default settings (screen magnification etc) because these are based on the server, and should be sensibly out of reach of your library users.
There are thin-client accessibility solutions available, but I don't know if any are free of charge, so remember to cost these into your (enviably unrestricted!) budget, as well as sound cards and headphones if you install any screen reader software on the system.
It comes in remarkably useful when you design a poster at A4 size. You can then enlarge it on a photocopier to exactly fit A3 size for larger posters, and also reduce it to exactly fit two A5 (or 4 A6) hand flyers on a sheet of A4 paper: a real-world example that I've used many times.
Slashdot Mirror
No, firearms are not illegal in the UK - that's a common misconception.. Some specific types of firearms are illegal (e.g. handguns), the rest require the owner to hold a firearms licence.
As an Englishman I may be biased, but I think the BBC counts as a major news company.
Considering PR and marketing is one of Apple's strongest areas and which pushes everything they do forward, they did some incredibly stupid decisions
Marketing is Apple's strongest area, but PR has never been been their forté.
"in academia, the issue of attribution and citation is very important" - true, but strictly speaking it's the attribution and citation of other research, not the research tools. After all, you don't find many research papers citing that they were typed on Microsoft Word with tables created in Microsoft Excel.
However, you've tried to convince them of this and they still want to go ahead, and it's your job to sort it out to their specifications. So...
The ideal solution would be to make the software so damn good that citing the use of your software in their publications is a good way for the external researchers to prove the integrity of their data analysis.
I might even suggest a reverse-psychology strategy with something along the lines of:
"You may only cite the use of {SOFTWARE} to guarantee the integrity of your data analysis if all data analysis has been done with {SOFTWARE}."
...and then provide a few suitable icons like this one:
http://validator.w3.org/images/valid_icons/valid-xhtml10
upload them onto some free webspace interspersed with some embarrassing photos/footage of yourself - they're sure to still be circulating in 20 years.
these are all possibilities, but since none of these are mentioned in the teacher's letter linked to in TFA then we can dismiss them.
If the kid had a history of infractions then the teacher should have mentioned it in the letter. Likewise if the kid was being a smart-arse in his explanation the teacher should have (and would have) mentioned it. And the same applies to the other 3 points you made.
However the teacher made none of these points in his letter - judging by the teacher's side of the argument (given in the letter) the teacher just didn't know what he was talking about.
...which is a shame in some ways: in the UK a criminal case must be proved 'beyond reasonable doubt'. A civil case only has to be proved on the 'balance of probabilities'. If the Record Industry has to prove 'beyond reasonable doubt' then they'd have a much more difficult time.
Like you IANAL, but I couldn't see anything in there that stated implied that if non-commercial (i.e. individual) copyright infringement was illegal in a member state then it would remain so.
In fact, the first sentence of the EU Press Release would seem to imply otherwise when it say "The first EU directive aiming at harmonising national criminal law" - if they're harmonising national criminal law then they're making it the same in all member states, surely?
I think it depends on whether you read the sentence "Piracy committed by private users for personal, non-profit purposes are therefore also excluded." as referring to piracy by individuals being excluded from the legislation (and therefore defaulting to the member state's national laws), or piracy by individuals being excluded from criminal sanctions. Given that "criminal sanctions" was the subject in the previous sentence:
...then I'm guessing they mean the latter.
But then I always was an optimist.
Correct, so long as you're only talking about the US and not about Europe, where software patents don't restrict innovation (yet).
... legally that's fair enough - if you're a business and you pirate software to run on your PCs then you've got to expect that there's a chance that you'll get caught.
Whether Microsoft legally can fulfill all the threats of auditing etc is irrelevant: PHBs of businesses with ~250 PCs don't consult lawyers that frequently - they ask the IT guy "Are we running any pirate copies of Windows?". If the answer is yes then they know they're breaking the law and they don't have a legal department to deal with a legal onslaught from Microsoft.
Now, in commercial terms Microsoft are gambling on this threat convincing businesses to decide to pay up for the extra x% of licences to make sure all of their ~250 PCs are legally licenced.
In some cases this might backfire and cause a business to re-examine its reliance on Windows and decide that the I.T. budget for 2007 doesn't cover buying the extra licences and paying for upgrading the entire company to Vista (which PHBs know they must do because Microsoft's adverts tell them so). At this point the PHB might suddenly start listening to the IT guy who says "Of course, there is another option which won't hurt the budget so much...".
A threat to the company's 2007 budget of that size (buying all the licences and upgrading to Vista) can be the catalyst that brings Linux to company desktops. Or am I just being overly optimistic?
Wikipedia is a great starting point for any research, but it should never be cited in a university-level term paper (and the same applies to any encyclopedia, online or paper)! The best wikipedia articles link to the original sources for their information and a good researcher should always be using original sources.
I think that's it - unless Firefox works properly on Vista then the x% of W2K/XP users who use Firefox are unlikely to buy Vista, which will reduce sales for Microsoft.
Microsoft don't lose any money if a Windows user decides to use Firefox - but if the Firefox user decides not to upgrade from XP to Vista because they won't be able to use their favourite browser, then it hits MS in the wallet. Hell, the user might even decide to switch to a different OS and leave the Microsoft upgrade (income) path completely.
I don't doubt that one bit, but it's good to know that web standards are now seen as important enough to make MS make some effort to move in that direction, whether that move is token or otherwise.
We now know that pressure works, and while I'll probably never use IE as my personal browser of choice, MS's move towards eradicating these common CSS bugs and implementing (some) CSS standards makes my job a hell of a lot easier.
Much as I (as a web developer) frequently curse Microsoft for the css-hack-hell that IE6's lack of support for CSS forces me into, the list of CSS fixes in the IE Blog (link in post above) is great news as it mends a lot of the common everyday problems. The fixing of the peekaboo bug alone makes my life easier.
And the news that the ":hover Pseudo-class can be applied to any element, not merely links" means that Suckerfish-style drop-down menus will work in IE7 with pure CSS and (X)HTML, without the javascript that was necessary to make them work in IE6.
AJAX is neither a good nor a bad thing - it's just a tool. I've seen it used both well and badly.
Yes, it needs browser-specific hacks on the developer's side (just like CSS does if you're trying to do something with the box model and you want to let IE 5.x display it correctly, for example) but that's the fault of certain browsers not fully implementing standards - it's not an inherent feature of AJAX.
Yes, it breaks some familiar conventions on the user's side - some of these should be re-coded back in by good developers (e.g. scripting to allow your browser's 'back' button to work in a familiar manner) and some, like having to wait for page refresh after page refresh while you complete a complicated 'multi-page' form, are 'familiar conventions' that I could certainly do without.
Because AJAX is the 'new big thing' I'm sure we'll see some terrible examples of it being used as people try to get to grips with it. But as with all new things, conventions will emerge about how to use it wisely, and standards will be drafted, debated and published.
And yes, some developers will still ignore them.
The World Affairs section shows that searchers have given up looking for Weapons of Mass Destruction on Google - is that because there aren't any?
this should make it easier for terrorists to target Americans - just put a little wireless device on the bomb to scan for genuine RFID-passport-carrying US tourists before detonating...
There's also a Google PageRank Status extension for Firefox which shows the Google PR of a page discreetly in the bottom statusbar.
Not that the toolbar PR is accurate, being about 4-6 months out of date...
I don't know what your legal obligations are for disabled access to this public resource, but be aware that with thin clients your choice of accessibility software is limited - the usual selection of freeware (screen readers, etc) can't be installed because you're using a thin client.
Similarly, a disabled user can't simply change the default settings (screen magnification etc) because these are based on the server, and should be sensibly out of reach of your library users.
There are thin-client accessibility solutions available, but I don't know if any are free of charge, so remember to cost these into your (enviably unrestricted!) budget, as well as sound cards and headphones if you install any screen reader software on the system.
It comes in remarkably useful when you design a poster at A4 size. You can then enlarge it on a photocopier to exactly fit A3 size for larger posters, and also reduce it to exactly fit two A5 (or 4 A6) hand flyers on a sheet of A4 paper: a real-world example that I've used many times.