Wow:
That’s even better than live Tetris, but not as good as live Super Mario:
Hat tip: Matthew Ingrahm
September 2007
Slashdot reports that the “multiply” feature on Excel 2007 doesn’t work. (Seriously) A Slashdot commenter describes Microsoft’s response:
Microsoft already has a patch in the works to help users overcome this issue. Whenever the user types a ‘*’ in a formula, an animated sprite of Charles Babbage’s head will pop up. It will show this bubble caption:
“It looks like you’re trying to multiply two numbers. I can help show you how to use the Method of Finite Differences to find a good approximation of your answer using only addition and subtraction. Would you like me to bring up a wizard so that we can get started on finding an appropriate power series?”
Everyone should have a windmill to tilt at, right? Mine is collection of SSNs by accounting departments that don’t need them, such as when they reimburse me for travel expenses.
Here’s my latest effort to work that issue, in an email sent to the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants:
Following on my post yesterday, Tim Lee has written a story at Ars Technica. Anne Broache of CNET also investigated the REAL ID advocacy training DMV bureaucrats are getting.
Update: Ryan Singel on Wired’s Threat Level blog also picked up the story.
So, here’s a question: Are state DMV bureaucrats using or planning to use DHS grant funds to lobby for REAL ID? Whether or not that’s a legal violation, it is certainly an ethical one.
In a breezy post on the Department of Homeland Security’s new blog, DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff writes about the federal government’s lawsuit to overturn an Illinois workplace privacy law. The “Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act” will restrict the ability of Illinois employers to enroll in the federal government’s “E-Verify” system, which runs all new employees through a federal background check to determine if they’re entitled to work under federal law. Illinois has got it right. There shouldn’t be a federal background check before you can work.
Chertoff takes on some objections to “E-Verify” one by one. Let’s take his responses one by one.
Nick Carr’s comments on CCIA’s study of fair use include the following critique:
What the authors have done is to define the “fair-use economy” so broadly that it encompasses any business with even the most tangential relationship to the free use of copyrighted materials. Here’s an example of the tortured logic by which they force-fit vast, multifaceted industries into the “fair use” category: Because “recent advances in processing speed and software functionality are being used to take advantage of the richer multi-media experience now available from the web,” then the entire “computer and peripheral equipment manufacturing industry” qualifies as a “fair-use industry.” As does the entire “audio & video equipment manufacturing” business. And the entire software publishing industry. And the entire telecommunications industry.
Oh dear. I think one could fairly count the Tivo, and a portion of some of the activity described above… anything involving parody, certainly.
Of course, there is a larger conceptual problem. Fair use is always fair use *of* something copyrighted… so do we add fair uses on to the value of copyright uses? There is a case to be made that the copyrighted materials–and the consequent fair use of them–would not exist in such abundance but for copyright. The logical response to that is, yes, but we wish to measure in particular the value of this particular *exception.* Fair enough, so long as one bears in mind the risk of the exception’s swallowing the rule. Also, that a substantial part of the economic activity in question might well occur in similar form even without the exception, due to the growth of markets in snippets and bits and other licensed material for downstream use.
Empirical studes are funny things, aren’t they?
SS
Throw out everything you learned in civics class. The legislators who represent you in Congress and your statehouse are just figureheads. The real work of governing is done behind the scenes, by the bureaucracy. This is why the REAL ID Act – all but dead – is still a threat to your privacy.
This week, state bureaucrats are gathering at a vendor-sponsored conference on REAL ID at the Renaissance Washington Hotel here in D.C. Session titles include Clarifying The Different Funding Options – Where Exactly Is The Money Going To Come From? and Developing A Practical Roadmap For Real ID Implementation. With public opinion set against REAL ID, here’s a session that’s particularly interesting:
Bringing Your Public Onboard For Smoother Legislature Changes
. . . [E]very State DMV needs to find a way to educate their public so that they can ensure the legislature changes necessary to become Real ID compliant. So how exactly can you do this? This session will examine how you can change your public’s perception as quickly and as cost effectively as possible.
- Listen to your people: Examining the direct impact on your public so that you understand the perception you are trying to change
- Know which marketing methods will be most effective at reaching your public
- Examine how much of your budget a public relations exercise is worth: Measuring cost against outcome
Yes, DMV bureaucrats are learning how to promote REAL ID through PR campaigns and “legislature changes.”
State legislators who care about privacy should bar their employees from attending events like this – before the bureaucrats oust them from office.
Back in 2005, I wrote a book called Media Myths and one of the myths I attempted to debunk in the book dealt with the power of new media outlets and technologies relative to the old mass media. Specifically, I made the argument that, contrary to what many media critics claimed, new media could provide both a credible alternative to many traditional mass media providers as well as a powerful check on them and their power.
That argument was certainly harder to advance back in 2005 when the general public was just beginning to gain an appreciation for the power of the Internet, blogs, and so on. Today, however, I think most people “get it.” I remember back then how many people would stare at me funny when I explained to them how I started my day by reading Google News and checking my Bloglines account for updates to my favorite blogs. But now I seem almost old fashion when I say that to an audience as many have moved on to even more sophisticated ways of gathering news and information daily.
And with each passing week, I continue to discover new and exciting ways that new media outlets and technologies are shaking things up and providing a credible alternative to old media. Last week, for example, provided us with two powerful examples:
What did you do with your Saturday night? I spent mine solving this programming puzzle. (Via PJ) I’m guessing most TLF readers don’t care, but if any do, details are below the fold.
This week’s podcast focuses on two copyright issues. First, Congress has been considering legislation that would extend copyright-like protections to the fashion industry. Second, in the decision of Golan v. Gonzales earlier this month, the Tenth Circuit held that Congress cannot re-impose copyright restrictions on public domain materials without invoking heightened First Amendment scrutiny.
Our first guest is a man who’s been in the thick of both controversies. Chris Sprigman is professor of law at the University of Virginia. He was one of the attorneys behind the Golan case, and he wrote a widely-read paper called The Piracy Paradox” arguing against extending copyright law to the fashion industry. Our other guest, Julian Sanchez, wrote an article for the American on the Congressional effort to impose copyright restrictions on the fashion industry.
There are several ways to listen to the TLF Podcast. You can press play on the player below to listen right now, or download the MP3 file. You can also subscribe to the podcast by clicking on the button for your preferred service. And do us a favor, Digg this podcast!
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.