Michael's musings

Fri, 27 Oct 2006

Forbes acknowledges GPL as significant

There was a recent article in Forbes magazine attacking the GPL and Richard Stallman. Of course, there was a response on slashdot:

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/26/1622205

A colleague found the following, very astute response, which I'm copying here:

I consider the GPLv2 to be less free than the BSD license in precisely the same way as living in a country with a constitution and laws is less free than living in a country without them. Which of those two countries would you rather live in? I know which I'd rather live in. The GPL is a statement of the rules under which we are all free.

And the GPLv3's insistence that I be able to replace the GPL code in my Tivo with my own versions seems to me like a restriction much along the same lines. Whether this is an encroachment on freedom that the GPL should be concerned with is open to debate. But that restricting my ability to do this is an encroachment on my freedom is not open to debate.

• by Omnifarious (11933)

I could not agree more. I've always assumed that the editors of Forbes magazine were in favour of free markets. Well, perhaps if one remembers the "Steve Forbes 10% tax" one might remember that Forbes is a magazine for rich people. (His tax would not actually have taxed capital gains!)

Wed, 18 Oct 2006

Ontario's Privacy commissioner endorses non-standards

CBC.ca writes:

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2006/10/18/privacy-identity.html?ref=rss Ontario's privacy commissioner and Microsoft Corp. on Wednesday unveiled a framework of principles they hope will be adopted by internet companies to help increase personal privacy and reduce online crime.

Since when does Bill Gates write laws in Ontario?

Since when the government of Ontario endorse proprietary solutions from single vendors?

Did the IPC pay for consulting from MS? Was there an RFP?

BTW: the ipc.on.ca is full of non-compliant web pages, and character

encodings which are proprietary. and the pages do not validate with http://validator.w3.org/

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fipc.on.ca

The FIRST and MOST IMPORTANT thing you can do to protect people's privacy is to make sure that you never require people to run a single vendor's computer system. Choice > competition > security.

"Doctor Heal Thyself"

Fri, 06 Oct 2006

A Vous La Parole

Some things are better said in french.

Harry Gow writes to Le Droit:

À VOUS LA PAROLE

Train léger et sommeil lourd -

Mais quelle mouche a piqué la Ville d'Ottawa et son service de transport, OC Transpo? Une tsé-tsé? Pendant le sommeil des uns d'autres s'affairent! Est-ce le brouhaha et le débacle tels que l'on pourrait croire en lisant le Droit?

Quatre conseillers mécontents de la route proposée pour la ligne est-ouest de tramway proposée, un ministre qui est obligé de se fâcher pour avoir accès aux détails d'un contrat, des citoyens alarmés par la fermeture prévue pendant trois ans de la ligne O-Train actuel, (ses trains seront bientôt vendues aux enchères), billets contrefaits, harcèlement et j'en passe.

Pour couronnner le tout, un Directeur-général recruté il y a peine six mois pour son expérience et ses vastes connaissances quitte la barque. On me dit qu'il semblait malheureux... . Pas pour rien; si on vous demande de prendre le timon d'un paquebot et vous découvrez des fuites dans le coque, seriez-vous heureux?

Si les choses sont à un tel point, un audit de l'organisation et une évaluation externe de ses plans de train léger seraient les seules issues raisonnables de la crise, selon un collègue qui a déjà conduit une évaluation des services de OC Transpo il y a quelques années.

Harry Gow

Wed, 04 Oct 2006

Buzz Hargrove gets it wrong

Subject: interview with Buzz Hargrove on CBC today

I thank the CAW for trying to mix jobs and the environment. It's a good strategy. However, I don't think your short-term strategy is going to work.

If I were to listen to you, you think that we can continue for another 100 years to build automobiles, they just need to be more efficient. That's not enough. We have to move FAR FASTER.

If we don't retool NOW, there will be no TRANSPORTATION industry in Canada. That means a whole new approach to mobility --- it means less automobile ownership, and more short-term leasing, rental, co-ops, transit, and the like. People need to able to buy only as much mobility as they need.

That means that your industry will have to change from being something that builds products to a service industry. That means fewer robots, and more labour. Robots can't overhaul vehicles after their 5 year warantee is over.

Further, in the short-term if California reduces their emissions, and Ontario plants don't produce automobiles that can be sold in California, then... where will you sell them? Do you really think the Ontario market is big enough?

YES, that's unfortunately ones that are built in Ontario due to the Auto pact. Maybe... it's time to fix THAT.

If the CAW really cared about doing things right, they'd insist that their employers STOP investing in automobiles that nobody wants to buy. The SUV/Minivan craze is OVER. YOU knew this 5 years ago, but 0% financing kept the market alive for awhile, and then the major slump as everyone replaced their vehicles early.

Mobile phone physical standards

I responded to Ontario Today's piece of mobile phone use in automobiles.

Subject: mobile phone usage in cars

I think it's great if employers do not require, and even actively discourage mobile phone usage while driving. But, I suggest that maybe people are thinking about this in the wrong. Maybe it's not the mobile phone that is inappropriate, maybe it is the DRIVING that is inappropriate.

I wish however to respond to the belief that we need to outlaw mobile phone usage while driving. I question if this is in fact enforceable, or if we really want to make it possible to enforce. Perhaps we really already have enough laws to deal with the problem --- surely it's illegal for a person to eat cereal while parked on the 401. (I think you had a call-in about this kind of thing).

Further, the number of mobile/connected devices is going to massively increase, not decrease. At some point, it may be that your driver's license might in fact be a mobile device you use to authenticate to the highway. (Think 407ETR)

Instead, I think that the Ontario government can make some improvements that will have widespread effects on mobile phone usage and safety. What we need is to be able to take any mobile phone into any vehicle and have it operate in the most safe fashion. This means a hands free mode with a headset and/or speakerphone. To do this properly requires cooperation of the phone and vehicle.

The nice thing is that it would also significantly reduce the amount of waste in the form of "obsolete" mobile phones, batteries and accessories:

I would make it required that all mobile phones sold in Ontario:

a) be unlocked, so they can be used with any mobile network provider (this would permit the phones to be re-used, rather than throw out) This might eliminate the $0 for your phone deal in its current form. Tough.

b) there shall be a standard headset adapter format. c) there shall be a standard interface to a charger. d) there shall be a standard mounting bracket. e) there shall be a standard battery format. (very controversial)

b,c,d would permit vehicles to be equipped with a standard way to mount your mobile phone on the dashboard so that it can get power from the car, and put the audio through the car speaker system. That would make mobile phone use in a vehicle very much safer.

e - would eliminate a lot of waste in batteries. I have two mobile

phones would work fine if only I replaced the battery, and bought new chargers. But the cost of that exceeded the cost of a new phone. So they go into my junk drawer until I decide to put them in the landfill.

a - would create an actual market for used phones (they all have serial

numbers, so it would be trivial to see if they are stolen)

This would not require that current mobile phones be changed, just that they come (at no charge) with some kind of adapter to adapt their current mechanism to the "standard". New ones might come with the standard mechanism.

I think that this would be a massive boon to Ontario uses, and other jurisdictions would rapidly adopt our regulations. Yes, there will be costs, but as I have a different headset and a different charger (and replacement charge, and computer cable, and spare battery...) for EACH phone I've owned, I know that I'll win in the end. The industry can not be depended upon to do this on their own --- it's not in their interest.