I rode a URAL (Russian copy of the BMW) with a side-car for about 2 years as the only vehicle I and my (at that time future) wife had. I can honestly say that I wished it had had a reverse.
I've only used the reverse on my 'Wing a couple of times - mostly when I've parked it and some idiot has blocked my exit with a 4-wheeled tin-can.
At almost 1000 lbs with bags and baggage (not including wife;) you'd want a reverse too. Just remember, I can actually get off it after 1000 miles of riding and walk;>
At least I can get off the 'Wing after 1000 miles and still walk.;>
Not all of us who own 'Wings need or want training wheels or something to tell us where we've been. At some point I might get a GPS unit just so I have a log of the whole trip - but getting real-time updates on my retina would put me in the ditch. I can't conceive of actually wanting/needing such a system.
Love the Duffy Lake road - and agree with your post in most ways.
I (also) ride a 'Wing and have ridden various road bikes for 30+ years (including side-car) and have several million miles under my belt in all types of vehicles from my first (English) Morris Minor to tractor-trailer units.
Riding bikes falls into two categories - commuting (which I do on the 'Wing sometimes) and recreational (which is why I bought it in the first place)
Only in commuting is there any need or time to use a HUD as described. Even then, the fact is that others on the road (in the tin-cans that have 4 wheels) are either oblivious or actually out to get anything and particularly those of us on 2 wheels, to the point where doing anything but defensive driving (watch everything in all directions and develop situational awareness of an X-wing fighter pilot) is all you can do.
When recreational riding, just the joy of being "out there" is all you need to concentrate on. If you can't feel when the bike needs to shift (up or down) then you should be on a closed circuit practicing. If you feel the need to know where you are, you should be in a tin-can. The only question is not where you are, but where are the good, twisting paths?
AKA 7AM PST - and I expect to be up and reading it as soon as it is available since I was one of the 100 "official" objectors this round.
Background
The levy started in 1999, based on a change to the Canadian copyright act in 1995, and is up for changes every 2 years. This round is for the years 2003-2004, and yes, it is actually a year late.
The previous round had a whole 3 objectors - all consortiums - retailers, importers, hardware creators - no private individuals.
This round started out with 100 objectors - winnowed down to about 30 by the time the actual submissions and legalities got going. The hearings were to take place around October of 2002 with the ruling by the end of 2002.
In reality, the hearings didn't start until the end of January, 2003 and ran to the middle of February - and the ruling is only now coming out.
Having lived through this period, written much and run a (closed) mail list for the objectors, you might expect me to have some idea of what the outcome will be - but truthfully I don't. All bets are off since this round there was a lot more information presented as well as some interesting twists - new ideas as opposed to just countering the CPCC's presentation and ideas.
The article that started this thread is quoting information that was available over a year ago - some of which was changed during the hearings. CPCC started out asking for CDN$21/Gig for "non-removeable hard drive" in each MP3 player but ended up proposing a sliding scale starting at (all figures in Canadian $) $11.10/Gig for first down to $1.99/Gig for anything over 20 Gigs. Note that this would apply to any media - FLASH, RAM, or "micro-hard disk" but doesn't apply to "full-size" hard disks used in non-portable devices such as PCs (they intimate that these are reserved for a future round)
Rather than detail all of the things that went on during the 18+ months since I started (due to my blood boiling while hearing a couple of coleagues discuss this at a Comdex show) I'll point you at the pages on my web site at my Media Levy pages
I'll post a summary of the actual levy as soon as I can in the morning.
In response to some of the postings here:
The current Canadian Copyright Act allows "private individuals" to make copies of music from wherever they can for their own private use. This means that my friend can loan me their retail-purchased music CD and I can make my own copy of it and give them back their original - or I can make a copy of my own retail-purchased CD for my self and give my friend the original - or I can make a copy of music I receive from whatever other medium (radio, TV, Internet) for my own use.
What I can't do is make a copy of my retail-purchased CD and give the copy to my friend
It also does not allow me to publish music I "own" to the Internet or make bulk copies and sell them - that is still "piracy".
The levy is only on products imported or manufactured for resale. This means that a private individual may import (for example) a tube of 100 CD-Rs for their own use from the US and not have to pay the levy. The Canadian Customs people at the border don't care and are not empowered to collect the levy (although they'll collect the GST and provincial sales tax). Currently it is just about a wash to order a tube of 100 CD-Rs from the US, pay the shipping and tax - but if the levy is doubled this will make the difference up to about $25 for 100 CD-Rs - well worth it for the average Canadian to learn how to use the Internet for e-commerce. This is what the retailers are upset about. With things like the Apple iPOD, the potential gain from ordering from outside of Canada is even greater!
CPCC (Canadian Private Copying Consortium) has graciously allowed for "zero-rating" for those who wish to register ($50 annual fee) as an importer/manufacturer of blank audio media that is not used to record music (i.e. is used to record data
Follow up re the stuff at the bottom - I was the original and intended recipient and since the information in the reply simply confirms information already in the public domain I don't see any harm in my posting this message. If the moderators disagree, please remove it and I'll post only my original message to the bank with suitable comment
Thank you for your recent correspondence. We at RBC Financial Group appreciate feedback and welcome the opportunity to address your concerns about recent reports about RBC's purchase of shares in SCO.
Due to regulatory constraints and issues of client confidentiality, we are limited to what information may be disclosed in our response. The purchase of SCO preferred shares for US $30 MM by RBC was disclosed in a routine US Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) filing and is a matter of public record. The investment was made to hedge economic exposure resulting from client related transactions.
Thank you for taking the time to write and for sharing your comments with us.
RBC Royal Bank Customer Relations Centre
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
-----------------
From: richard @pacdat.net
Posted At: 00:58:44.540 10/18/2003
Posted To: RDMNTIBG @rbc.com
Subject: Other
Date : Sat Oct 18 00:52:28 2003
Comments: ------- Please pass this on to the highest level of management. I understand that the bank has invested money in SCO. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1356718 ,00.as p I have been a SCO reseller - prior to its sale to Novell I used to work for a company also owned in part by the Canopy Group I work with the Linux operating system and am very conversant with the ongoing dispute between SCO and "the rest of the world" and am of the opinion that SCO's management are doing what they are doing for personal gain (note the amount of insider trading that has been done by them in recent weeks) This investment by Royal Bank is one of the most stupid things I have ever heard of you doing. The tactics being used by SCO in their quest for publicity (I can't conceive of them actually gaining anything in the way of licensing and/or penalties from their suits with IBM and/or SGI and others) are grandstanding of the first order. I have been a loyal customer of Royal Bank for almost 20 years but am strongly considering moving my business just over this one stupid act. For my background, please see: http://richard.pacdat.net richard --
-- This e-mail may be privileged and/or confidential, and the sender does not waive any related rights and obligations. Any distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it contains by other than an intended recipient is unauthorized. If you received this e-mail in error, please advise me (by return e-mail or otherwise) immediately.
Ce courrier electronique est confidentiel et protege. L'expediteur ne renonce pas aux droits et obligations qui s'y rapportent. Toute diffusion, utilisation ou copie de ce message ou des renseignements qu'il contient par une personne autre que le (les) destinataire(s) designe(s) est interdite. Si vous recevez ce courrier electronique par erreur, veuillez m'en aviser immediatement, par retour de courrier electronique ou par un autre moyen.
If you're talking about UL and/or CSA or whatever then you're probably designing things wrong - this is why many such systems use a "wall-wart" power brick since that is all that needs to be certified if the power it puts out is less than 48Volts.
If you are trying to get liability insurance, that's another thing - you can spend as much money as you have and it may not help.
So... give us a fer instance on what you're trying to do - your box looks pretty innocuous.
Cold? Well, sometimes - but right now we here in Vancouver are warmer than Seattle (150 miles South) and sure as heck warmer than the guys in the American North East.
I was out on the motorcycle yesterday and ride all year round. There have been few months when I havn't ridden at least once and enjoyed it.
The other thing I've noticed recently (lived here all my life) is that the forecasts are getting much better - easily 90% accurate 3 days out and almost as good 5 days out (and no cracks about just forecasting rain and being right 75% of the time eh?;)
Actually, I think each of us should go out and get 1 share (some time before it is de-listed - certainly not while the price is above $1) as that will allow us all to participate in the class action suit against the directors and executive of SCO after they've raped and pillaged the company to death and lost the suit.
A file system is a convention for where the "real" information is placed in the morass of the whole area.
In the case of FLASH in particular, it is also the way that the system "wear-levels" the medium since flash has a life-cycle for each bit. I know the life-cycle is getting far longer than most people are likely to run up against (100,000+ cycles) but the other part is that flash does not just flop bits one at a time back and forth between 1 and 0 - it does this in blocks at a time - writing all 1s to a block to erase it. This needs to be managed somehow - and it needs to be done in a manner that can survive power and "finger" problems (with removeable cards) - and that's what JFFS is all about.
Suggesting TAR as a file system for something like FLASH is crazy!
Re:Use tech to enforce rules, not punishment!
on
Real Security?
·
· Score: 1
You anticipated my further reply - exactly what I would have done
Re:Missing the point of the article
on
Real Security?
·
· Score: 1
I stand by what I said - but will weasle out a bit by saying that I likely wouldn't have put anywhere near the type of human-onerous security described in the hospital case.
The point I was making is that in the stated case (and I expect in a lot of other cases) the authority does not go along with the responsibility, so those responsible fall back on brute force and when the shit hits the fan, blame it on the vendors or the users but certainly not on themselves since they did everything right.
There is no excuse for subjecting any employee to absurd security systems while you ignore the fact they are subverting them. Any time an employee ends up in front of you (or their direct superior as is my suggested policy for first-time punishment) YOU (the IT person) have failed too. You've failed to educate them, failed to understand their potential failings, failed to anticipate. Each such failing needs to be a reason for introspection - and in fact the potential for such failings needs to be considered before implementing any security policies or procedures - in light of the types of employees the employer hires, the typical profile they present, etc. These would indicate (in the realm of securing info in a hospital for instance) the use of something that would allow the high-priced hired help to do their jobs with as little interruption and hassle as possible - things like proximity-based authorization mechanisms, etc; certainly not 4 levels of mandatorily aged/changed complex passwords. While you're at it, use the same or similar methods for the rest of the folks since they are already justified and there is no use in doing the same thing two different ways.
Missing the point of the article
on
Real Security?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
It appears to me that the point of the article is that many times (most times?) the technical security tools/techniques are too much of a hassle for the employees so are subverted in many (not so) subtle ways to the point where in fact the system ends up with less real security than might have been achieved with less onerous tools/techniques.
All the responses about how/why to select passwords miss the point that if the user doesn't have an incentive to remember them without the use of sticky notes, the password complexity is useless. Same if the rest of the system allows the passwords to be sniffed on the network, sent in clear somehow (by return e-mail for example) or any other weak link in the chain.
The example in the article of the hospital (and note that all in the US are under the same gun) points up the fact to me that either the IT person didn't understand the problem or was trying to cover their butt because they lacked the authority to put in place the policies that would make the users actually follow the policies and I'm betting that it was the latter!
If I'm in charge of security (not just the IT portion of it) and management won't let me put in place a policy that spells out what will happen to employees that subvert the security implementation and back me up when I have to apply the policy's warning and penalty portions, then I'm out of there!
1 - Anyone caught writing their password down on anything will suffer punishment
2 - Anyone allowing anybody else to use their account/password will suffer punishment
3 - Anyone leaving their workstation logged in and not protected with the approved screensave/password will suffer punishment
etc.
Punishment to be:
first offence - note in personnel file and severe dressing down including things to the effect that if they can't remember the passwords then they obviously don't have the necessary skills for the job
second offence - time off without pay or outright firing
if allowed to get to a third offence, it is either them or me - and I'm betting it is them, and damn the unions and labour relations - they're unfit for the job.
And the response to the post about it being a matter of managing the liability - if the employee is still an employee and the above policies are not in place and followed through on, then the liability is on the company/HMO or whatever. The penalties are enough to bankrupt an HMO and nobody will take "it was the employee's fault" as an excuse no matter how onerous the security techniques look on the surface. It is the follow through that proves that the policies are what they need to be - enforced.
I'm just glad that (so far - but Jan 1 is coming) Canada doesn't have the laws that the US has currently.
Reading the interview leaves me feeling that maybe the Blank Media Levy here in Canada as well as the Proposed levy on ISPs are not all that bad an idea. Don't get me wrong - in their current, narrowly defined and administered fashion they tilt things as you point out, not paying the little guys at all.
But if you added a better enumeration system for what actually got played, noting that the computer systems and network today make this almost trivial compared to the current sampling system and estimation based solely upon air-play (which is itself pushed and pulled by what amounts to payolla but isn't called that anymore), then it may in fact be fair.
The other thing to note is that there doesn't seem to be any movement to make this (levy) payment the only way an artist can get paid. I expect that many (more) will resort to self-publishing and doing e-commerce in the same fashion that Janis Ian is doing, adding value in the form of physical articles that go along with the purchase of the (digital) art in question.
Collectors, fans, wanabees and all sorts will pay for exclusivity - either first access, unique extras, etc.
The other thing that will continue to make the artists money is appearances - live music gigs for example.
What the whole change is doing is cutting out the middle men - the publishers - and I for one am glad they're going. Today, they add nothing and take much. They are the ones that want to implement DRM - so they can get paid to do what they no longer need to do - distribute.
Nope - not flame bate (well, maybe just a little bit;)
call it my ongoing "call to arms" when somebody says they've put together something that they think works well for them. Many people forget that the number of people now dealing with these technologies is such that the chances are excellent that somebody else has the same problem looking for a solution - but maybe not the same talent at cobbling something together.
The other side of that is that when you let others take a look, (even anonymously) you can sometimes learn a lot.
On the other hand, I'll (kind of) echo your sentiment about FP. Today it is nowhere near many others in terms of power and flexibility. The point to remember is that the question was about something for family (with no or minimal web/computer skills), not for an experienced and creative professional.
FP has the advantage of being 2 pieces - the client and the host - and they conspire to make some things that should be simple actually simple!
Setting (and changing) an overall theme.
Drag and drop navigation
Work "directly" with pages on the net (try to explain the fact of a copy "here" and a copy "there" to grandma)
templates for subsections that are protected and easy add/change for access rights
templates for other mainstream functions - feedback forms, discussion forums, etc.
Drawbacks are mostly to do with things that grandma doesn't care about - flash, animations, etc. but the one that some of my "pet" sites have run up against is slow response to major (all page) changes (such as themes) when the site gets large.
Anyway - MS is bound to screw it up at some point. Personally I think that FP2000 was just capable enough to be useful without being pretentious;)
Hmmm... for those of us who don't have a day to waste -er spend - maybe you could publish the recipe for this wonderful solution somewhere.
Otherwise, I expect I'd revert to my tried and true solution - FrontPage (with a Linux Apache server with the FrontPage extensions and no "root" web administration)
I've crafted web pages using damned near everything from VI through to the latest and greatest versions of very expensive programs, including WIKIs and java-server systems with Oracle (and other DBMs) back ends that would be the envy of all, and for sheer ease of use and fun, I've never seen anything that can match FrontPage straight out of the box.
I started with FP97 just because it had drag and drop navigation - then ran sed on all the files to delete the extra stuff that MS put in to announce to the world what it was doing.
I've brought housewives with no computer skills up to the point where they are now successful web entrepreneurs using FP to do all their site - and not sweated the time since there was practically none on my part.
The nice thing is that if they screw up, I can fix it from whereever I am (OK, I run the server and do backups - but rarely have to actually restore something they've lost)
They can drag and drop - it is secure enough (the way I've set it up as per above - no root server) that none of the sites I've set up have had a problem (and some are now very large)
BTW - I am a died in the wool UNIX/Linux person. I didn't use anything from MS for anything except preparing a hard disk for Unix/Xenix installation prior to 1996 (then ended up MIS director for a firm with MAC, Windows and UNIX people - what a time;) but I am also a tool junkie - I hate using a screwdriver where a hammer is best and vice versa. FrontPage just works well, and if your family members are already running Windoze, why not?
SCO seems to only be going after 2.4 and later kernels - so, deploy older versions if you can or feel you have to.
I know this leaves those with multi-processor boxen in the lurch, but in the mean time the single processor stuff is getting faster and there may be other options for many/most now.
As a former sysadmin (and CEO, and MIS director and...) of an ISP I can tell you that any ISP larger than a mom&pop in a town of 10 people has far more to do than monitor what people look at in general, let alone figure out that the looking involved mom showing junior the seamier side of life as a life lesson.
I expect that if it ever got to court because Mrs. Grundy was peaking in the window (with binoculars from across the street so she wasn't actually trespassing) and saw and reported this "crime" the judge would congratulate the parent on being responsible and doing a good job - provided the incident was shown to be part of the ongoing education of junior, not just done for purient reasons.
I showed my sons (at about age 12-14) stuff that would turn Mrs. Grundy's hair whiter than it already is and they (now 19 and 20) have turned out pretty well IMHO.
My children (2 boys, now 19 and 20+) have had access to the Internet and its predecessor UseNet (via UUCP) since they were 8 and 9.
During the first years, as I was part owner of Canada's first commercial ISP, I had full-time connection to the net from home and always had a Unix and later Linux box connected and active. I'd worked from home most of the boys' lives and continue to this day to do much from home.
During their upbringing, my wife and I had one major rule for their education - answer their questions with the truth to the limit of their endurance (and sometimes beyond). Nothing was held back if they asked the question - but they had to ask, we just lead them to the topics if we could.
About the time they became teenagers I took each of them in turn for a (daylight) walk through some of the worst parts of town - ostensibly to shop for a guitar at all the pawn shops found there. We discussed the various pitfalls of life and the trip set up for even more frank discussions shortly afterward.
Both boys were interested in what the Internet was all about, but alas, neither became programmers or web gods:(
On the other hand, both were interested enough in all things that the Internet became a magnet, especially for games. This lead to them wanting to sample warz which lead to the discussion of copyright.
Their access to the (at that time brand new) web starting in 1993 lead them to some of the seamier sides of life and I spent time purposely showing them about the worst things I could find - at that time mostly from UseNet news but today you'll find it directly in the web. The purpose was not to shock them but to innoculate them - and it seems to have worked. I don't believe that a person is truly educated until they have seen some examples of what the human animal can do if allowed to degenerate. I'm purposely not giving examples even of categories as there are as many devils as there are people to fear them - choose your own way - just keep the courage of your convictions.
When they were smaller, I helped them learn compassion by showing them how to treat those who were less able than they - mostly animals and birds, but they also have a cousin in a wheelchair. I never allowed them to be cruel but showed them what cruelty meant through examples from others. I wished that there were no examples but they are unfortunately not hard to come by.
When they reached 12, we enrolled them in the Canadian Air Cadets. They have stood watch at the local cenotaph several times on November 11th, and have a deep appreciation for war veterans and patriotism.
Both have had their own Internet connected computer for the past 4 years and prior to that they shared one in the downstairs rec-room. Their connection went via my firewall and I randomly (when I was bored, or when I noticed lots of traffic and knew it wasn't me) looked at the logs. The web was proxied and their e-mail host was my server so I had access to their communications.
The fact is, the number of times I checked over the 7+ years I can count on one hand. I only once came downstairs with a print-out of what they were looking at - and at that time it was because they were letting one of their (younger) friends look, something I'd specifically forbidden as that was up to their parents, not me.
Several times, when they were in their early teens, they asked me about some of the stuff poping up (even then) in advertising and in spam e-mails - again, they got answers to the limits of their endurance.
Today they are both loving and caring individuals. One has taken up Buddhism - but is not rabid about it. Both have full-time partners and jobs and are continuing their education with their own money.
Both use the Internet for education and entertainment and neither eschew the sexual side; but neither participate in unhealthy activities either.
Both of them talk to us about anything that comes into their lives; talk with no shame and with no obvious bou
You're right - I should probably ask a lawyer - maybe some are lurking here so I don't have to spend my valuable CDN$.
The question was asked in the light of the public's (you and me) somewhat stilted ability to affect the law that lawyers eventually try to pervert in favour of their particular client of the time. The article I wrote is about the FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas) proposed treaty and in part was meant to be inflamatory (although I don't seem to do that very well) to Canadians in particular and others in general about the continued erosion of the social contract that was struck back in the 1710 Statute of Anne whereby the public grant to the copyright holder some exclusivity in return for eventual unburdened public access.
I, along with many other/. people, work in the field of Open Source software and I expect the government to uphold its end of the bargain by going after those who would claim my works as their own and try to profit by that.
What I object to is government distorting the playing field in favour of those with money to lobby.
In the daily grind I also am subject to non-disclosure agreements and all manner of legal machinations to protect what amounts to trade secrets - things that have not been published and which here in Canada (and in some other parts of the world but it appears not in the US) are not yet covered by copyright protections.
This discussion may degenerate into "mine is better/worse than yours" rhetoric but I hope it will either cause some people to put their oar in the water in defense of current (or past) rights against the erosion typified by DMCA and the FTAA or at least make some constructive comments to those of us who do want to be part of the process.
The indentation on this is not the original. There was actually a line break in (b) after the comma and the words "but does not include" are on a separate line - which to me means that (c) and (d) are not included as "publishing" in Canada.
Slashdot Mirror
I've only used the reverse on my 'Wing a couple of times - mostly when I've parked it and some idiot has blocked my exit with a 4-wheeled tin-can.
At almost 1000 lbs with bags and baggage (not including wife ;) you'd want a reverse too. Just remember, I can actually get off it after 1000 miles of riding and walk ;>
Not all of us who own 'Wings need or want training wheels or something to tell us where we've been. At some point I might get a GPS unit just so I have a log of the whole trip - but getting real-time updates on my retina would put me in the ditch. I can't conceive of actually wanting/needing such a system.
I (also) ride a 'Wing and have ridden various road bikes for 30+ years (including side-car) and have several million miles under my belt in all types of vehicles from my first (English) Morris Minor to tractor-trailer units.
Riding bikes falls into two categories - commuting (which I do on the 'Wing sometimes) and recreational (which is why I bought it in the first place)
Only in commuting is there any need or time to use a HUD as described. Even then, the fact is that others on the road (in the tin-cans that have 4 wheels) are either oblivious or actually out to get anything and particularly those of us on 2 wheels, to the point where doing anything but defensive driving (watch everything in all directions and develop situational awareness of an X-wing fighter pilot) is all you can do.
When recreational riding, just the joy of being "out there" is all you need to concentrate on. If you can't feel when the bike needs to shift (up or down) then you should be on a closed circuit practicing. If you feel the need to know where you are, you should be in a tin-can. The only question is not where you are, but where are the good, twisting paths?
Background
The levy started in 1999, based on a change to the Canadian copyright act in 1995, and is up for changes every 2 years. This round is for the years 2003-2004, and yes, it is actually a year late.
The previous round had a whole 3 objectors - all consortiums - retailers, importers, hardware creators - no private individuals.
This round started out with 100 objectors - winnowed down to about 30 by the time the actual submissions and legalities got going. The hearings were to take place around October of 2002 with the ruling by the end of 2002.
In reality, the hearings didn't start until the end of January, 2003 and ran to the middle of February - and the ruling is only now coming out.
Having lived through this period, written much and run a (closed) mail list for the objectors, you might expect me to have some idea of what the outcome will be - but truthfully I don't. All bets are off since this round there was a lot more information presented as well as some interesting twists - new ideas as opposed to just countering the CPCC's presentation and ideas.
The article that started this thread is quoting information that was available over a year ago - some of which was changed during the hearings. CPCC started out asking for CDN$21/Gig for "non-removeable hard drive" in each MP3 player but ended up proposing a sliding scale starting at (all figures in Canadian $) $11.10/Gig for first down to $1.99/Gig for anything over 20 Gigs. Note that this would apply to any media - FLASH, RAM, or "micro-hard disk" but doesn't apply to "full-size" hard disks used in non-portable devices such as PCs (they intimate that these are reserved for a future round)
Rather than detail all of the things that went on during the 18+ months since I started (due to my blood boiling while hearing a couple of coleagues discuss this at a Comdex show) I'll point you at the pages on my web site at my Media Levy pages
I'll post a summary of the actual levy as soon as I can in the morning.
In response to some of the postings here:
The current Canadian Copyright Act allows "private individuals" to make copies of music from wherever they can for their own private use. This means that my friend can loan me their retail-purchased music CD and I can make my own copy of it and give them back their original - or I can make a copy of my own retail-purchased CD for my self and give my friend the original - or I can make a copy of music I receive from whatever other medium (radio, TV, Internet) for my own use.
What I can't do is make a copy of my retail-purchased CD and give the copy to my friend
It also does not allow me to publish music I "own" to the Internet or make bulk copies and sell them - that is still "piracy".
The levy is only on products imported or manufactured for resale. This means that a private individual may import (for example) a tube of 100 CD-Rs for their own use from the US and not have to pay the levy. The Canadian Customs people at the border don't care and are not empowered to collect the levy (although they'll collect the GST and provincial sales tax). Currently it is just about a wash to order a tube of 100 CD-Rs from the US, pay the shipping and tax - but if the levy is doubled this will make the difference up to about $25 for 100 CD-Rs - well worth it for the average Canadian to learn how to use the Internet for e-commerce. This is what the retailers are upset about. With things like the Apple iPOD, the potential gain from ordering from outside of Canada is even greater!
CPCC (Canadian Private Copying Consortium) has graciously allowed for "zero-rating" for those who wish to register ($50 annual fee) as an importer/manufacturer of blank audio media that is not used to record music (i.e. is used to record data
Follow up re the stuff at the bottom - I was the original and intended recipient and since the information in the reply simply confirms information already in the public domain I don't see any harm in my posting this message. If the moderators disagree, please remove it and I'll post only my original message to the bank with suitable comment
Dear Mr. Pitt:
:8 ,00.as p I have been a SCO
Thank you for your recent correspondence. We at RBC Financial Group
appreciate feedback and welcome the opportunity to address your concerns
about recent reports about RBC's purchase of shares in SCO.
Due to regulatory constraints and issues of client confidentiality, we are
limited to what information may be disclosed in our response. The purchase
of SCO preferred shares for US $30 MM by RBC was disclosed in a routine US
Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) filing and is a matter of public
record. The investment was made to hedge economic exposure resulting from
client related transactions.
Thank you for taking the time to write and for sharing your comments with
us.
RBC Royal Bank
Customer Relations Centre
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
-----------------
From: richard @pacdat.net
Posted At: 00:58:44.540 10/18/2003
Posted To: RDMNTIBG @rbc.com
Subject: Other
Date : Sat Oct 18 00:52:28 2003
Comments
-------
Please pass this on to the highest level of management. I understand that
the bank has invested money in SCO.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,135671
reseller - prior to its sale to Novell I used to work for a company also
owned in part by the Canopy Group I work with the Linux operating system and
am very conversant with the ongoing dispute between SCO and "the rest of the
world" and am of the opinion that SCO's management are doing what they are
doing for personal gain (note the amount of insider trading that has been
done by them in recent weeks) This investment by Royal Bank is one of the
most stupid things I have ever heard of you doing. The tactics being used by
SCO in their quest for publicity (I can't conceive of them actually gaining
anything in the way of licensing and/or penalties from their suits with IBM
and/or SGI and others) are grandstanding of the first order. I have been a
loyal customer of Royal Bank for almost 20 years but am strongly considering
moving my business just over this one stupid act. For my background, please
see: http://richard.pacdat.net richard
--
--
This e-mail may be privileged and/or confidential, and the sender does not waive any related rights and obligations. Any distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it contains by other than an intended recipient is unauthorized. If you received this e-mail in error, please advise me (by return e-mail or otherwise) immediately.
Ce courrier electronique est confidentiel et protege. L'expediteur ne renonce pas aux droits et obligations qui s'y rapportent. Toute diffusion, utilisation ou copie de ce message ou des renseignements qu'il contient par une personne autre que le (les) destinataire(s) designe(s) est interdite. Si vous recevez ce courrier electronique par erreur, veuillez m'en aviser immediatement, par retour de courrier electronique ou par un autre moyen.
=
If you are trying to get liability insurance, that's another thing - you can spend as much money as you have and it may not help.
So... give us a fer instance on what you're trying to do - your box looks pretty innocuous.
I was out on the motorcycle yesterday and ride all year round. There have been few months when I havn't ridden at least once and enjoyed it.
The other thing I've noticed recently (lived here all my life) is that the forecasts are getting much better - easily 90% accurate 3 days out and almost as good 5 days out (and no cracks about just forecasting rain and being right 75% of the time eh? ;)
Somebody is doing a good job.
I'd bet that SCO's brain-dead legal people would sink about $1-2million into looking it over before they figured out what they were looking at :)
Actually, I think each of us should go out and get 1 share (some time before it is de-listed - certainly not while the price is above $1) as that will allow us all to participate in the class action suit against the directors and executive of SCO after they've raped and pillaged the company to death and lost the suit.
At typical markups, a $0.25 cost at manufacture ends up being 4 times that at retail i.e. $1.00
In the case of FLASH in particular, it is also the way that the system "wear-levels" the medium since flash has a life-cycle for each bit. I know the life-cycle is getting far longer than most people are likely to run up against (100,000+ cycles) but the other part is that flash does not just flop bits one at a time back and forth between 1 and 0 - it does this in blocks at a time - writing all 1s to a block to erase it. This needs to be managed somehow - and it needs to be done in a manner that can survive power and "finger" problems (with removeable cards) - and that's what JFFS is all about.
Suggesting TAR as a file system for something like FLASH is crazy!
You anticipated my further reply - exactly what I would have done
The point I was making is that in the stated case (and I expect in a lot of other cases) the authority does not go along with the responsibility, so those responsible fall back on brute force and when the shit hits the fan, blame it on the vendors or the users but certainly not on themselves since they did everything right.
There is no excuse for subjecting any employee to absurd security systems while you ignore the fact they are subverting them. Any time an employee ends up in front of you (or their direct superior as is my suggested policy for first-time punishment) YOU (the IT person) have failed too. You've failed to educate them, failed to understand their potential failings, failed to anticipate. Each such failing needs to be a reason for introspection - and in fact the potential for such failings needs to be considered before implementing any security policies or procedures - in light of the types of employees the employer hires, the typical profile they present, etc. These would indicate (in the realm of securing info in a hospital for instance) the use of something that would allow the high-priced hired help to do their jobs with as little interruption and hassle as possible - things like proximity-based authorization mechanisms, etc; certainly not 4 levels of mandatorily aged/changed complex passwords. While you're at it, use the same or similar methods for the rest of the folks since they are already justified and there is no use in doing the same thing two different ways.
All the responses about how/why to select passwords miss the point that if the user doesn't have an incentive to remember them without the use of sticky notes, the password complexity is useless. Same if the rest of the system allows the passwords to be sniffed on the network, sent in clear somehow (by return e-mail for example) or any other weak link in the chain.
The example in the article of the hospital (and note that all in the US are under the same gun) points up the fact to me that either the IT person didn't understand the problem or was trying to cover their butt because they lacked the authority to put in place the policies that would make the users actually follow the policies and I'm betting that it was the latter!
If I'm in charge of security (not just the IT portion of it) and management won't let me put in place a policy that spells out what will happen to employees that subvert the security implementation and back me up when I have to apply the policy's warning and penalty portions, then I'm out of there!
1 - Anyone caught writing their password down on anything will suffer punishment
2 - Anyone allowing anybody else to use their account/password will suffer punishment
3 - Anyone leaving their workstation logged in and not protected with the approved screensave/password will suffer punishment
etc.
Punishment to be:
first offence - note in personnel file and severe dressing down including things to the effect that if they can't remember the passwords then they obviously don't have the necessary skills for the job
second offence - time off without pay or outright firing
if allowed to get to a third offence, it is either them or me - and I'm betting it is them, and damn the unions and labour relations - they're unfit for the job.
And the response to the post about it being a matter of managing the liability - if the employee is still an employee and the above policies are not in place and followed through on, then the liability is on the company/HMO or whatever. The penalties are enough to bankrupt an HMO and nobody will take "it was the employee's fault" as an excuse no matter how onerous the security techniques look on the surface. It is the follow through that proves that the policies are what they need to be - enforced.
I'm just glad that (so far - but Jan 1 is coming) Canada doesn't have the laws that the US has currently.
But if you added a better enumeration system for what actually got played, noting that the computer systems and network today make this almost trivial compared to the current sampling system and estimation based solely upon air-play (which is itself pushed and pulled by what amounts to payolla but isn't called that anymore), then it may in fact be fair.
The other thing to note is that there doesn't seem to be any movement to make this (levy) payment the only way an artist can get paid. I expect that many (more) will resort to self-publishing and doing e-commerce in the same fashion that Janis Ian is doing, adding value in the form of physical articles that go along with the purchase of the (digital) art in question.
Collectors, fans, wanabees and all sorts will pay for exclusivity - either first access, unique extras, etc.
The other thing that will continue to make the artists money is appearances - live music gigs for example.
What the whole change is doing is cutting out the middle men - the publishers - and I for one am glad they're going. Today, they add nothing and take much. They are the ones that want to implement DRM - so they can get paid to do what they no longer need to do - distribute.
call it my ongoing "call to arms" when somebody says they've put together something that they think works well for them. Many people forget that the number of people now dealing with these technologies is such that the chances are excellent that somebody else has the same problem looking for a solution - but maybe not the same talent at cobbling something together.
The other side of that is that when you let others take a look, (even anonymously) you can sometimes learn a lot.
On the other hand, I'll (kind of) echo your sentiment about FP. Today it is nowhere near many others in terms of power and flexibility. The point to remember is that the question was about something for family (with no or minimal web/computer skills), not for an experienced and creative professional.
FP has the advantage of being 2 pieces - the client and the host - and they conspire to make some things that should be simple actually simple!
Setting (and changing) an overall theme.
Drag and drop navigation
Work "directly" with pages on the net (try to explain the fact of a copy "here" and a copy "there" to grandma)
templates for subsections that are protected and easy add/change for access rights
templates for other mainstream functions - feedback forms, discussion forums, etc.
Drawbacks are mostly to do with things that grandma doesn't care about - flash, animations, etc. but the one that some of my "pet" sites have run up against is slow response to major (all page) changes (such as themes) when the site gets large.
Anyway - MS is bound to screw it up at some point. Personally I think that FP2000 was just capable enough to be useful without being pretentious ;)
Otherwise, I expect I'd revert to my tried and true solution - FrontPage (with a Linux Apache server with the FrontPage extensions and no "root" web administration)
I've crafted web pages using damned near everything from VI through to the latest and greatest versions of very expensive programs, including WIKIs and java-server systems with Oracle (and other DBMs) back ends that would be the envy of all, and for sheer ease of use and fun, I've never seen anything that can match FrontPage straight out of the box.
I started with FP97 just because it had drag and drop navigation - then ran sed on all the files to delete the extra stuff that MS put in to announce to the world what it was doing.
I've brought housewives with no computer skills up to the point where they are now successful web entrepreneurs using FP to do all their site - and not sweated the time since there was practically none on my part.
The nice thing is that if they screw up, I can fix it from whereever I am (OK, I run the server and do backups - but rarely have to actually restore something they've lost)
They can drag and drop - it is secure enough (the way I've set it up as per above - no root server) that none of the sites I've set up have had a problem (and some are now very large) BTW - I am a died in the wool UNIX/Linux person. I didn't use anything from MS for anything except preparing a hard disk for Unix/Xenix installation prior to 1996 (then ended up MIS director for a firm with MAC, Windows and UNIX people - what a time ;) but I am also a tool junkie - I hate using a screwdriver where a hammer is best and vice versa. FrontPage just works well, and if your family members are already running Windoze, why not?
Why don't they just legislate pi = 3 and take on the mathematicians instead? That should be easier!
I know this leaves those with multi-processor boxen in the lurch, but in the mean time the single processor stuff is getting faster and there may be other options for many/most now.
I expect that if it ever got to court because Mrs. Grundy was peaking in the window (with binoculars from across the street so she wasn't actually trespassing) and saw and reported this "crime" the judge would congratulate the parent on being responsible and doing a good job - provided the incident was shown to be part of the ongoing education of junior, not just done for purient reasons.
I showed my sons (at about age 12-14) stuff that would turn Mrs. Grundy's hair whiter than it already is and they (now 19 and 20) have turned out pretty well IMHO.
My children (2 boys, now 19 and 20+) have had access to the Internet and its predecessor UseNet (via UUCP) since they were 8 and 9.
:(
During the first years, as I was part owner of Canada's first commercial ISP, I had full-time connection to the net from home and always had a Unix and later Linux box connected and active. I'd worked from home most of the boys' lives and continue to this day to do much from home.
During their upbringing, my wife and I had one major rule for their education - answer their questions with the truth to the limit of their endurance (and sometimes beyond). Nothing was held back if they asked the question - but they had to ask, we just lead them to the topics if we could.
About the time they became teenagers I took each of them in turn for a (daylight) walk through some of the worst parts of town - ostensibly to shop for a guitar at all the pawn shops found there. We discussed the various pitfalls of life and the trip set up for even more frank discussions shortly afterward.
Both boys were interested in what the Internet was all about, but alas, neither became programmers or web gods
On the other hand, both were interested enough in all things that the Internet became a magnet, especially for games. This lead to them wanting to sample warz which lead to the discussion of copyright.
Their access to the (at that time brand new) web starting in 1993 lead them to some of the seamier sides of life and I spent time purposely showing them about the worst things I could find - at that time mostly from UseNet news but today you'll find it directly in the web. The purpose was not to shock them but to innoculate them - and it seems to have worked. I don't believe that a person is truly educated until they have seen some examples of what the human animal can do if allowed to degenerate. I'm purposely not giving examples even of categories as there are as many devils as there are people to fear them - choose your own way - just keep the courage of your convictions.
When they were smaller, I helped them learn compassion by showing them how to treat those who were less able than they - mostly animals and birds, but they also have a cousin in a wheelchair. I never allowed them to be cruel but showed them what cruelty meant through examples from others. I wished that there were no examples but they are unfortunately not hard to come by.
When they reached 12, we enrolled them in the Canadian Air Cadets. They have stood watch at the local cenotaph several times on November 11th, and have a deep appreciation for war veterans and patriotism.
Both have had their own Internet connected computer for the past 4 years and prior to that they shared one in the downstairs rec-room. Their connection went via my firewall and I randomly (when I was bored, or when I noticed lots of traffic and knew it wasn't me) looked at the logs. The web was proxied and their e-mail host was my server so I had access to their communications.
The fact is, the number of times I checked over the 7+ years I can count on one hand. I only once came downstairs with a print-out of what they were looking at - and at that time it was because they were letting one of their (younger) friends look, something I'd specifically forbidden as that was up to their parents, not me.
Several times, when they were in their early teens, they asked me about some of the stuff poping up (even then) in advertising and in spam e-mails - again, they got answers to the limits of their endurance.
Today they are both loving and caring individuals. One has taken up Buddhism - but is not rabid about it. Both have full-time partners and jobs and are continuing their education with their own money.
Both use the Internet for education and entertainment and neither eschew the sexual side; but neither participate in unhealthy activities either.
Both of them talk to us about anything that comes into their lives; talk with no shame and with no obvious bou
The question was asked in the light of the public's (you and me) somewhat stilted ability to affect the law that lawyers eventually try to pervert in favour of their particular client of the time. The article I wrote is about the FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas) proposed treaty and in part was meant to be inflamatory (although I don't seem to do that very well) to Canadians in particular and others in general about the continued erosion of the social contract that was struck back in the 1710 Statute of Anne whereby the public grant to the copyright holder some exclusivity in return for eventual unburdened public access.
I, along with many other /. people, work in the field of Open Source software and I expect the government to uphold its end of the bargain by going after those who would claim my works as their own and try to profit by that.
What I object to is government distorting the playing field in favour of those with money to lobby.
In the daily grind I also am subject to non-disclosure agreements and all manner of legal machinations to protect what amounts to trade secrets - things that have not been published and which here in Canada (and in some other parts of the world but it appears not in the US) are not yet covered by copyright protections.
This discussion may degenerate into "mine is better/worse than yours" rhetoric but I hope it will either cause some people to put their oar in the water in defense of current (or past) rights against the erosion typified by DMCA and the FTAA or at least make some constructive comments to those of us who do want to be part of the process.
The indentation on this is not the original. There was actually a line break in (b) after the comma and the words "but does not include" are on a separate line - which to me means that (c) and (d) are not included as "publishing" in Canada.