90% of the Australian "beer" industry (Coopers being the largest exception here) manages to produce stuff that would embarrass even some of the larger US producers. Frankly if they removed ALL the barley I'm not convinced anyone would notice.
I've read the comments on the end of the Scoble link ("I couldn't bear for Twitter to be silent all day" etc.) - someone please tell me that these posters are all having a laugh.
... Cheshire is a largely agricultural, impoverished region... Er, so we should worry and the huddled masses of Congleton and Alderley Edge should we? That'll get the Mail readers into line, sure... (for the benefit of anyone outside the UK, parts of this area south of Manchester are among the richest in England). I guess that Jodrell Bank made the Times because people have heard of it (as opposed to something like ALICE, which is arguably far more like to produce interesting science in the next few years, but which most people are unlikely to be able to tell apart from a hole in the ground).
Seriously, the sad thing here is that as a UK taxpayer I've paid for the development work that's gone into these projects and am now giving away the results of that substantial investment to the other collaborators. It's like building a house jointly with someone else and then saying "Nah - I can't be bothered to put the roof on. You do that and it's all yours".
Well, Harold (who later wound up with an arrow in his eye) vs Harald Hardrada was only a couple of miles up the road (from the Dunnington East of York, that is.).
"UK Government To Terminate File Sharers' Net Access" implies that something is actually going to happen. It's a misreporting of the situation.
What's happened is that:
o Andy Burnham, a member of the current government, has said that he is going to publish a green paper next week called "The World's Creative Hub".
o In what seems to be a leak to the Times, the Times has extrapolated a conversation with a minion into a news article. The BBC seems to have no external source as it's saying "The Times suggested..."....and that's it.
It's worth remembering that this is a green paper - "a tentative government report of a proposal without any commitment to action" (that quote stolen from wikipedia because I couldn't define it better myself). It's not a law, nor a proposed law, nor something that is expected to be written up and proposed to become a law.
What happens next is that people either welcome it, or are outraged by it, or a mixture of both. All political parties say they are/are not in favour of idea X depending on whether there are any votes in it. Assuming there is some actual reason to continue (i.e. votes) in this it'll get written up as a white paper. That's an actual intention to do something (which is what a green paper isn't), but it still isn't a proposed law. That stage occurs if and when it gets introduced to parliament as a bill (which will happen if there are still votes in it) and if the government hasn't run out of parliamentary time.
Assuming that the government still has (a) time, (b) a working majority and (c) the will to proceed (still votes in it) it'll pass as a government-sponsored bill.
Of those three, (b) is a given, (a) could be very tricky and (c) is pretty unlikely - this doesn't sound like a votewinner to me.
So what's actually happening then?
o Andy Burnham presumably wants to look busy and useful. The DCMS isn't exactly an "action department", so he has to look like he's doing something if he's to progress up the greasy pole. Making unpopular ideas seem palatable (even if ultimately rejected) is likely to earn him brownie points.
o The Times is from a stable including content producers Fox and Sky and isn't exactly an independent observer, so their spin on the conversation isn't actually surprising. The BBC's a content producer too...
Note that there it's not law there either - the nearest it's got to that is being proposed by an industry panel and included in a speech by Nicolas Sarkozy. The Times says "...is implementing..." when describing what they're up to, which could be argued as being correct, but is at the very least misleading. The BBC seems to have missed that bit out of the copy and paste.
Of course, what'll really happen is that next month everyone will forget about it and move on to talking about another daft scheme. In the world of the Internet we may move on from "writing postcards" to "sending letters" instead (which is no bad thing). Content providers will still struggle against new technology, governments will still try and look busy and get votes, and news organisations will still publish what are essentially press releases as "news".
You're right - a system such as PGP wouldn't have here. If the lawyer corresponded with both the journo and the colleague (which seems likely - both were in her personal address book) then an email program that encrypted using the public key of the intended recipient would simply have used the wrong public key.
Understanding how public key encryption works is different to ensuring that information stays secure...
How much liberty does the TSA have with the screening that takes place? Surely it was either mandated by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act or is a reaction to perceived threats since, real or otherwise?
In the same way that a local police chief can't decide what the state speed limit is (although he might decide how anally to enforce it), I can't believe that the head of the TSA has a lot of freedom when it comes to screening:
Richard Reid? Off come the shoes. Alleged binary liquid plot? No bottled water onboard for you.
It seems (from a perspective from across the sea) entirely reactive, and a result of the current political climate. That's not to say that US airport security wasn't atrociously lax pre-2001, it was; but things aren't going to become any easier until something rather more dramatic occurs than an official in a government agency starting a blog.
"Marketing Week" decides to drive more people to it's site by including the word "iPhone" in an article title. However, they're still so far off their tits to bother to use a spellchecker, so "al-though" makes it into the published copy. Cmdrtaco hasn't woken up properly yet, so it gets copied to Slashdot too...
Seriously, "Senior industry sources" could mean anything. It probably means "some people we went down the pub with that actually work for a from a company that you've heard of".
(and no, in case you're wondering, I never get invited to 3GSM)
To add to the good stuff that everyone else is saying, I'd suggest that you try and start slowly and don't try and fix the world before lunchtime.
I'd pick one process where having something written down would benefit all of the users of that process, and try and get something down there (possibly as notes from a "passed on orally" session that was going to happen anyway.
Whether you use wikis, Sharepoint, Livelink, just a pile of shared documents or whatever is less important than making sure that the idea of keeping information shared has buy-in from as many people as possible (not just "the management"). I'm guessing that in a non-profit that's even more important than in a commercial enterprise.
Also, apologies for stating the bleedin' obvious but but you're new there - so the chances are that there are also a whole bunch of relationships between people built up around "helping person X do thing Y". You'll need to tread carefully to avoid making enemies out of the traditional "sources of knowledge" in the organisation.
If you get cast into the role of "the person who does the documentation" then it'll be your "fault" when something isn't communicated properly between two completely different people.
The GPS one from 1999 is a bit more interesting - they're actually patenting the mechanism whereby a GPS device gets data over the air (in road navigation, Telmap Navigator is an example of that right now) rather than from local storage such as a CD (e.g. TomTom).
Anyone think of a GPS with radio communication capability back in 1999? Military systems with GPS capabilities are the first that come to mind to me. If you change the word "GPS" to "location" there's certainly plenty of prior art - I was working on radio data networks that provided positional information in the early to mid 90s.
Taking the second point first, I don't think that it's relevant - the ICO's "Facebook decision" would apply just as much to Wikipedia anonymous edits as to Facebook: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7196803.stm
However, regardless of where a company is based, the link above suggests if they're "established" in the UK they're subject to law in the UK (presumably the law of whichever bit of the UK they're established in). Presumably it is up to a court has to establish that. In the case of someone with an actual address or mailing address in the UK, that should be easier than with someone who just sells services or advertising here from elsewhere. Wikipedia doesn't even do either of these (yet), and even if they did I can't see anything more than a slap on the wrist happening anyway.
1) Young people have always been impatient. Apparently this "meta study" does claim to compare studies from the 1980s and 1990s to now. However, I'm not sure that I can take seriously any academic document that contains the words "According to Wikipedia".
For no other reason that it's significantly cheaper. What corporations do is dictated by money, and no amount of wishing will change that.
Despite some correction, the cost of living in the US (particularly Silicon Valley) is going to be significantly higher than the likes of Bangalore for the foreseeable future. The only way to compete is to do a better job - speaking the language as a native rather than a second language is a start.
It seems very very odd that in order to be able to drink somewhere you're going to get asked to prove that you'd be a danger travelling home if you were to do so?
I'm from the UK and have never had problems getting served with alcohol in the US without any photo ID (assuming I'm not carrying a passport around, which half the time I wouldn't be). I'm very obviously of legal drinking age, which helps. Sometimes you get some comic who asks to see a driving licence, but showing that there's no photograph on it usually makes them not bother asking further and serve you anyway. Once I explained how to extract the date of birth from the driver number on there (see http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/DriverLicensing/DG_068315) and got the comment "You're not from round here, are you?". I still got my beer.
No, it was a piece of old Italian shit - a Fiat 128 built on the cheap long after its sell-by date. I'm sure the 128 wasn't actually a bad car at the end of the 60's.
If you cause less carbon to be burnt than the average Indian family of 3 with a Honda 50, then you probably have the right to make such a comment. If you don't, then (like me) you don't.
It is possible to choose to work where you live or live where you work - for the majority of the time the USA's been around people had no choice but to do just that. Many American small towns (and even a few cities) are still nicely walkable - it's just more convenient to drive, so people (including you) do.
Re:Sounds like an awesome book
on
Linux Firewalls
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Slashdot Mirror
90% of the Australian "beer" industry (Coopers being the largest exception here) manages to produce stuff that would embarrass even some of the larger US producers. Frankly if they removed ALL the barley I'm not convinced anyone would notice.
Toohey's New? Life's too short.
I've read the comments on the end of the Scoble link ("I couldn't bear for Twitter to be silent all day" etc.) - someone please tell me that these posters are all having a laugh.
They're not serious, are they?
http://www.r-r-a.org.uk/image/garrett34265.jpg
"peak oil" doesn't imply "peak things we can burn to get energy from".
... Cheshire is a largely agricultural, impoverished regionSeriously, the sad thing here is that as a UK taxpayer I've paid for the development work that's gone into these projects and am now giving away the results of that substantial investment to the other collaborators. It's like building a house jointly with someone else and then saying "Nah - I can't be bothered to put the roof on. You do that and it's all yours".
If there's now a cliff at Mildenhall something very, very unfortunate has happened at the base there.
Around where I live (rural England), OSM seems only to have the medium-small roads on it that lead to pubs - make of that what you will!
Try searching Google maps for "Dummy1456".
Well, Harold (who later wound up with an arrow in his eye) vs Harald Hardrada was only a couple of miles up the road (from the Dunnington East of York, that is.).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7225556.stm
Done that. Next?
With what? The only money that they have is money that you've given them.
"UK Government To Terminate File Sharers' Net Access" implies that something is actually going to happen. It's a misreporting of the situation.
...and that's it.
What's happened is that:
o Andy Burnham, a member of the current government, has said that he is going to publish a green paper next week called "The World's Creative Hub".
o In what seems to be a leak to the Times, the Times has extrapolated a conversation with a minion into a news article. The BBC seems to have no external source as it's saying "The Times suggested...".
It's worth remembering that this is a green paper - "a tentative government report of a proposal without any commitment to action" (that quote stolen from wikipedia because I couldn't define it better myself). It's not a law, nor a proposed law, nor something that is expected to be written up and proposed to become a law.
What happens next is that people either welcome it, or are outraged by it, or a mixture of both. All political parties say they are/are not in favour of idea X depending on whether there are any votes in it. Assuming there is some actual reason to continue (i.e. votes) in this it'll get written up as a white paper. That's an actual intention to do something (which is what a green paper isn't), but it still isn't a proposed law. That stage occurs if and when it gets introduced to parliament as a bill (which will happen if there are still votes in it) and if the government hasn't run out of parliamentary time.
Assuming that the government still has (a) time, (b) a working majority and (c) the will to proceed (still votes in it) it'll pass as a government-sponsored bill.
Of those three, (b) is a given, (a) could be very tricky and (c) is pretty unlikely - this doesn't sound like a votewinner to me.
So what's actually happening then?
o Andy Burnham presumably wants to look busy and useful. The DCMS isn't exactly an "action department", so he has to look like he's doing something if he's to progress up the greasy pole. Making unpopular ideas seem palatable (even if ultimately rejected) is likely to earn him brownie points.
o The Times is from a stable including content producers Fox and Sky and isn't exactly an independent observer, so their spin on the conversation isn't actually surprising. The BBC's a content producer too...
It's not even a new idea - it's stolen from the French:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUKL2346825720071123?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
Note that there it's not law there either - the nearest it's got to that is being proposed by an industry panel and included in a speech by Nicolas Sarkozy. The Times says "...is implementing..." when describing what they're up to, which could be argued as being correct, but is at the very least misleading. The BBC seems to have missed that bit out of the copy and paste.
Of course, what'll really happen is that next month everyone will forget about it and move on to talking about another daft scheme. In the world of the Internet we may move on from "writing postcards" to "sending letters" instead (which is no bad thing). Content providers will still struggle against new technology, governments will still try and look busy and get votes, and news organisations will still publish what are essentially press releases as "news".
Yes, you could get a couple of days of the Olympic Games for that:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7135824.stm
You're right - a system such as PGP wouldn't have here. If the lawyer corresponded with both the journo and the colleague (which seems likely - both were in her personal address book) then an email program that encrypted using the public key of the intended recipient would simply have used the wrong public key.
Understanding how public key encryption works is different to ensuring that information stays secure...
How much liberty does the TSA have with the screening that takes place? Surely it was either mandated by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act or is a reaction to perceived threats since, real or otherwise?
In the same way that a local police chief can't decide what the state speed limit is (although he might decide how anally to enforce it), I can't believe that the head of the TSA has a lot of freedom when it comes to screening:
Richard Reid? Off come the shoes.
Alleged binary liquid plot? No bottled water onboard for you.
It seems (from a perspective from across the sea) entirely reactive, and a result of the current political climate. That's not to say that US airport security wasn't atrociously lax pre-2001, it was; but things aren't going to become any easier until something rather more dramatic occurs than an official in a government agency starting a blog.
"Marketing Week" decides to drive more people to it's site by including the word "iPhone" in an article title. However, they're still so far off their tits to bother to use a spellchecker, so "al-though" makes it into the published copy. Cmdrtaco hasn't woken up properly yet, so it gets copied to Slashdot too...
Seriously, "Senior industry sources" could mean anything. It probably means "some people we went down the pub with that actually work for a from a company that you've heard of".
(and no, in case you're wondering, I never get invited to 3GSM)
To add to the good stuff that everyone else is saying, I'd suggest that you try and start slowly and don't try and fix the world before lunchtime.
I'd pick one process where having something written down would benefit all of the users of that process, and try and get something down there (possibly as notes from a "passed on orally" session that was going to happen anyway.
Whether you use wikis, Sharepoint, Livelink, just a pile of shared documents or whatever is less important than making sure that the idea of keeping information shared has buy-in from as many people as possible (not just "the management"). I'm guessing that in a non-profit that's even more important than in a commercial enterprise.
Also, apologies for stating the bleedin' obvious but but you're new there - so the chances are that there are also a whole bunch of relationships between people built up around "helping person X do thing Y". You'll need to tread carefully to avoid making enemies out of the traditional "sources of knowledge" in the organisation.
If you get cast into the role of "the person who does the documentation" then it'll be your "fault" when something isn't communicated properly between two completely different people.
One filed in 1997 was pretty much just for a cameraphone, and the combined editors of wikipedia suggest a good few examples in 1997 and previously:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=31&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=6278884&OS=6278884&RS=6278884
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_phone
The GPS one from 1999 is a bit more interesting - they're actually patenting the mechanism whereby a GPS device gets data over the air (in road navigation, Telmap Navigator is an example of that right now) rather than from local storage such as a CD (e.g. TomTom).
Anyone think of a GPS with radio communication capability back in 1999? Military systems with GPS capabilities are the first that come to mind to me. If you change the word "GPS" to "location" there's certainly plenty of prior art - I was working on radio data networks that provided positional information in the early to mid 90s.
Taking the second point first, I don't think that it's relevant - the ICO's "Facebook decision" would apply just as much to Wikipedia anonymous edits as to Facebook:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7196803.stm
However, regardless of where a company is based, the link above suggests if they're "established" in the UK they're subject to law in the UK (presumably the law of whichever bit of the UK they're established in). Presumably it is up to a court has to establish that. In the case of someone with an actual address or mailing address in the UK, that should be easier than with someone who just sells services or advertising here from elsewhere. Wikipedia doesn't even do either of these (yet), and even if they did I can't see anything more than a slap on the wrist happening anyway.
For no other reason that it's significantly cheaper. What corporations do is dictated by money, and no amount of wishing will change that.
Despite some correction, the cost of living in the US (particularly Silicon Valley) is going to be significantly higher than the likes of Bangalore for the foreseeable future. The only way to compete is to do a better job - speaking the language as a native rather than a second language is a start.
It seems very very odd that in order to be able to drink somewhere you're going to get asked to prove that you'd be a danger travelling home if you were to do so?
I'm from the UK and have never had problems getting served with alcohol in the US without any photo ID (assuming I'm not carrying a passport around, which half the time I wouldn't be). I'm very obviously of legal drinking age, which helps. Sometimes you get some comic who asks to see a driving licence, but showing that there's no photograph on it usually makes them not bother asking further and serve you anyway. Once I explained how to extract the date of birth from the driver number on there (see http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/DriverLicensing/DG_068315) and got the comment "You're not from round here, are you?". I still got my beer.
No, it was a piece of old Italian shit - a Fiat 128 built on the cheap long after its sell-by date. I'm sure the 128 wasn't actually a bad car at the end of the 60's.
If it's state-planned shit that you want, try one of these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%A0koda_130/135/136
Skoda were about the eastern-bloc manufacturer to not buy in from the west and yet still be able to sell significant numbers there.
If you cause less carbon to be burnt than the average Indian family of 3 with a Honda 50, then you probably have the right to make such a comment. If you don't, then (like me) you don't.
It is possible to choose to work where you live or live where you work - for the majority of the time the USA's been around people had no choice but to do just that. Many American small towns (and even a few cities) are still nicely walkable - it's just more convenient to drive, so people (including you) do.
You could do worse than start here:
http://www.cse.msu.edu/~minutsil/iptables.html