An anonymous reader brings us Computerworld's interview with Don Woods, one of the creators of Compiler Language With No Pronounceable Acronym (INTERCAL). INTERCAL and its documentation were created in 1972 as a parody of that era's languages and instruction manuals. Among other things, Woods had this to say: "We designed the language without too much trouble. Writing the manual took a while, especially for things like the circuit diagrams we included as nonsensical illustrations. The compiler itself actually wasn't too much trouble, given that we weren't at all concerned with optimising the performance of either the compiler or the compiled code. I admit I'm surprised at its longevity. Some of the jokes in the original work feel rather dated at this point. It helps that the language provides a place where people can discuss oddball features missing from other languages, such as the 'COME FROM' statement and operators that work in base 3."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Trailrunner7 writes "Internet Explorer has been a security punching bag for years, and rightfully so. IE 6 was arguably the least secure browser of all time. But Microsoft has been trying to get their act together on security, and the new beta of IE 8, due in August, will have a slew of new security features including protection against Type-1 cross-site scripting attacks, a better phishing filter and better security for ActiveX controls."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "When some North Carolina State students recently brought to the attention of the Court the apparent illegality of the RIAA's investigations by unlicensed investigators, they also caught the attention of the judges. After reading these new papers, District Judge Louise W. Flanagan, who admits that she's been routinely signing the RIAA's ex parte discovery orders in the past, has indicated that she is now going to take 'a fresh look' at the RIAA's tactics. She issued a stay of the subpoena, ordering NC State not to respond to it, and referred the motions to dismiss the cases to a Magistrate Judge for him to take that 'fresh look' at what has been going on."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

ruphus13 writes "Twitter has had a lot of public woes with Open Source technologies like Ruby on Rails, and a lot of alternatives have sprung up in the micro-blogging world, but no one has managed to dislodge twitter in its usage or appeal. Now, an Open Source alternative by Identi.ca, backed by project Laconica has emerged. From the article, 'It supports OpenID for logins, is completely free software, and is designed to apply a Creative Commons license to all the traffic that it carries. It's also built to support the OpenMicroBlogging protocol, meaning that (at least in theory) it can attack scalability issues by federating together multiple autonomous servers. The underpinnings of Laconica include PHP, PEAR, and XMPP. You can download a tarball of the source, or check it out directly if you're using Darcs (there's also an unofficial mirror on Google Code, giving you Subversion access for a read-only copy).' The community will still need to work on this, if a true competitor to twitter is to be had. It is lacking APIs, and SMS integration. Oh, and millions of users!"

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

ram.loss writes "According to a Reuters article, a long version of Metropolis has been found at a cinema museum in Argentina, by a newly appointed archivist. The reels have been authenticated by the Murnau foundation at Germany. 'Although estimates of its original length vary depending on the speed at which it is shown, Possmann said "Metropolis" was conceived as a film lasting just over 2-1/2 hours. Around 20 to 25 minutes of footage that fleshes out secondary characters and sheds light on the plot would be added to the film pending restoration, he added. But around 5 minutes of the original were probably still missing, he said.'"

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

The Associated Press reports that Max P. Sanders, 19 is charged with a felony for attempting to auction off his vote in the upcoming presidential election on eBay. From the article: '"Fundamentally, we believe it is wrong to sell your vote," said John Aiken, a spokesman for the office. "There are people that have died for this country for our right to vote, and to take something that lightly, to say, 'I can be bought.'" [...] "It's a real shame"' Yes, that is a terrible shame, isn't it. Perhaps we should arrest, prosecute, and imprison everyone who sells their vote. The boy says it was all a joke, but prosecutors aren't laughing. Max faces up to 5 years in prison and $10,000 in fines if he is convicted.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Bryan writes "Xian-Jin Li's purported proof of the Riemann Hypothesis (reported on recently) has been rebuked by Fields Medalist Terence Tao. Fortunately, Dr. Li's proof fails alongside a respectable graveyard of previous attempts." Relatedly, jim.shilliday writes "The proof cites and appears to be based in part on the work of the leading French theorist Alain Connes. A few hours ago, Connes posted a comment on his blog stating that the purported proof is so badly flawed that he stopped reading it."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Several readers noted the special section in Science, published today, with results from Messenger's flyby of Mercury last January. One conclusion is that volcanism has shaped the planet, contrary to earlier theories that Mercury had been "dead on arrival." The LA Time's coverage highlights the finding that Mercury has shrunk by a mile in diameter over its lifetime, due to shrinkage at its core.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

I used to teach a course to staff at King's College London on copyright law, and one of the main pieces of advice I gave was that contrary to popular belief, content on the internet is not free. Yes, you can access certain information online, but this does not mean that is legal to upload or download it, as the case may be.

It therefore came as no surprise that a US district court judge ruled in favour of Viacom's demands to see who has been uploading their video content on YouTube. Call it payback time. This is part of a $1bn case which Viacom has undertaken to establish whether it is an infringement for YouTube to host copyright material on their website without permission.

The unexpected aspect of the case was that the judge decided to force Google to hand over data which includes the user names and web addresses of anyone who has logged in to watch clips on the site. There may be a legal challenge to the judgment, as many insiders are already questioning whether this is a breach of privacy law, both in the US and the EU. Still, it is unlikely that internet service providers will now have to divulge the details of individual users, unless they have actually posted clips belonging to Viacom.

Viacom is claiming (pdf) users put up pirated video clips on YouTube "by the thousands".
Google, which paid $1.6 bn to acquire YouTube in 2006, is likely to be hit by a massive bill if they lose the case, and the value of YouTube will be substantially reduced. The English Premier League is also involved in the litigation, and is seeking class action status. This means they can join in the action against YouTube by showing that they have a similar complaint.

Disclosure of the details of YouTube users will help Viacom to find out the extent of the illegal content on the site, and may form the basis for actions against individual infringers. It is unlikely mere viewers will be sued, as organisations that police copyright have generally only taken legal action against people who download or share content, and counterfeiters making money from it.

Attorney Kurt Opsahl, for privacy campaigners the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), said, "The court's erroneous ruling is a set-back to privacy rights, and will allow Viacom to see what you are watching on YouTube. We urge Viacom to back off [from] this overbroad request and Google to take all steps necessary to challenge this order and protect the rights of its users." EFF called the judgment "a set-back to privacy rights."

It is time that YouTube and other file-sharing services operated more responsibly. The well-meaning users who upload their favourite clips, or make parodies of videos which are owned by big media companies may feel they are doing nothing wrong. Some people argue that organisations like Viacom and the Premier League make enough money already. But there is a more important principle at stake. Most copyright owners make very small amounts from their work, and they should be entitled to prevent low quality copies from being distributed on YouTube if they wish.

Copyright owners have the right to object to illegal file-sharing, and downloading of their content. The result of this court action is that YouTube will need to police the material that people upload. They will also need to set up a system of royalties to pay content owners and authors for the rights to use their work. This will reduce the value of the YouTube brand, and force them to share their profits on a more equitable basis, instead of just enriching Google.

Angelica Mari, Computing, Friday 4 July 2008 at 17:27:00

Retailer suffers from web downtime for the second time in a month

Sainsbury's has had more problems with its online set-up, with its main web site unavailable for more than an hour today....

Janie Davies, Computing, Friday 4 July 2008 at 17:21:00

Another supplier has met government compliance criteria for a key social care IT system

Social care IT has achieved compliance with the latest requirements set out by the Department for Children Schools and Families (DCSF) for the Integrated Children System (ICS)....

Angelica Mari, Computing, Friday 4 July 2008 at 16:37:00

Liberty ties up database information for stock management

Department store Liberty of London will implement a multi-channel business system as part of an IT modernisation process. The new centralised database is aimed at consolidating information flow and streamlining...

An anonymous reader writes "The Bavarian Parliament passed a law that allows Bavarian police to place 'Remote Forensic Software' (Google translation) on a suspect's computer as well as on the computers of a suspect's contacts. They may break into houses in secret to install the RFS if a remote installation is not possible; and while they are there a (physical) search is permitted too. The RFS may be used to read, delete, and alter data." The translation says that RFSs may be used in cases of an "urgent threat to the existence or the security of the Federation or a country or physical, life or liberty of a person... Even where there is a reasonable assumptions on concrete preparatory acts for such serious offenses."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

There's a meme going round that I think we need to stamp on, quick, because I know you won't give this piece much of your time. The reason for that is not because the internet is making you stupid, but because this piece will only appear on screens (unless you print it out onto paper, you environmental villain).

The idea that "the internet is making me stupid" has gained some traction in recent weeks. Nick Carr kicked it off with an article in The Atlantic magazine called "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" in which, contrary to longstanding requirements of headlines that ask questions, the answer was not "No, next!" but "Perhaps, yes".

His line - roughly - is that access to all this information, and the tendency to leap around as we consume information in little chunks, means that we're becoming unfamiliar with mastering long, complex arguments, and give up reading after a few screens of HTML.

Others chimed in, saying that they, too, found it hard to concentrate on things.

Well, sure, we have a lot more distractions these days. There's always the computer, and your mobile, so a tweet or a quick check on your Scrabulous game on Facebook is never far away. We're easily distracted, though I suspect that's just part of how we're built as humans. Nobody criticises birds for being prone to fly away when we approach them; it's a defense mechanism against predators. Humans, too, will flit around, given the chance, just in case we find something that's fabulously useful to us.

But I think the root cause of all this handwringing is much closer to home than Google. It's the screens. Reading on a screen is tiring. You read slower on a screen. Add in a non-optimal font (sans serif, without the little marks you find at the ends of letters, works best on screen because it's easier for the computer to draw) and you have a recipe for slow reading.

It's interesting to go back and see what Jakob Nielsen, the usability expert, was saying about this 10 years ago: "Low-resolution monitors (including all computer screens until now) have poor readability: people read about 25% slower from computer screens than from printed paper. Experimental 300dpi displays (costing $30,000) have been measured to have the same reading speed as print, so we will get better screens in the future. People will simply not read long texts at a reduced reading speed, so unless they have much better screens, electronic books will have a problem."

He added: "Even when e-books gain the same reading speed as print, they will still be a bad idea. Electronic text should not mimic the old medium and its linear ways. Page turning remains a bad interface, even when it can be done more conveniently than by clicking the mouse on a "next page" button. It is an insufficient goal to make computerized text as fast as print: we need to improve on the past, not simply match it.

"The basic problem is that the book is too strong a metaphor: it tends to lead designers and writers astray. Electronic text should be based on interaction, hypertext linking, navigation, search, and connections to online services and continuous updates."

(Interestingly, he said the two ideas that would work were print-on-demand, and downloadable audio. Have you subscribed to Tech Weekly?)

So this 25% slower figure: is it true? Yes. Other studies bear it out: this one in 1998 found that higher-resolution screens mean you read more accurately, though still not as fast as print; another more recent one at Manchester University (PDF or Google HTML cache) found reading on paper 10-30% faster.

There's another thing about paper. You're not tempted to go and check your email. I find I can read 5,000-word pieces in the New Yorker magazine (one of the last refuges of really long, well-written pieces, along with the London Review of Books) as long as they're on paper. On screen, I haven't a hope: they're about 10 screens long, and one does simply get tired of having to click through while retaining everything you've read. And there's always the distraction of following a link that you won't have in print.

Computer screens, meanwhile, are still a long way from mimicking the quality - in terms of dots per inch - of paper. Jeff Atwood of Coding Horror did an interesting comparison at the end of 2006 to show how far we haven't come, comparing commercial printing (about 2,400 dots per inch, or dpi) with a good, cheap printer will give you between 600 and 1,200dpi.

A typical computer display, by contrast, is between 72 and 100dpi (in some cases up to 150dpi - though often the screen is then very small, so the letters of words become hard to read. (There are other differences, which is that the screen has luminance, where the paper reflects light. This, as you already know, is why you can read a computer screen at night.) Atwood's conclusion: "We have a long, long way to go before computer displays can get anywhere near printer resolutions."

The only niggling question I have is whether anyone has investigated reading speeds for the Amazon Kindle, which has low luminance and a 167dpi screen. That's good, but it's still a long, long way from paper. (I can't find any studies about reading speeds on it; perhaps it's too early.)

OK, you've read to the end. You know now that the internet isn't making us stupid; it's just making us read slower. Go on, go and check your email. You've earned it.

theodp writes "In its just-published patent application for Network Node Ad Targeting, Google hatches plans for identifying the most influential of a circle of friends and providing this 'influencer' with 'financial incentives from advertisers in exchange for permission to display advertisements on the member's [social network] profile' (sound familiar, Jeremy?). Doing so will 'provide advertisers with the option of targeting either all members in the community or advertising only on the profile of the influencer, thereby targeting the entire community,' explains Google. Who says you can't buy friendship!"

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Christian Heilmann, a developer at Yahoo who has worked in Munich, San Francisco, Mumbai and London, gives his tips on HTML and CSS structuring, Java testing and use of Yahoo's almost-open-source libraries

davidphogan74 writes "I have some stolen computers checking in with a server we have (software pre-loaded), and I have full access to the systems. What's the best way to deal with this situation? The local police (to the theft) have been contacted several times and seem to be clueless. I personally have no financial interest in these computers, I just don't like atom-thieves. What's the best way to handle knowing the IPs, email addresses, MySpace sites, the Google login, etc. when working with law enforcement? The officer I spoke with (who genuinely seemed to care) didn't know an IP address from a mailing address, so I called others. Nobody cared. Anyone have any ideas?"

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Dekortage writes "The NYTimes has a piece up about the paradox of privacy: 'Normally sane people have inconsistent and contradictory impulses and opinions when it comes to their safeguarding their own private information.' More specifically, it's all how you ask: if you don't talk about privacy, people won't worry about it. In one survey, 'When the issue of confidentiality was raised, participants clammed up. For example, 25 percent of the students who were given a strong assurance of confidentiality admitted to having copied someone else's homework. Among those given no assurance of confidentiality, more than half admitted to it.'"

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Are you nervous Viacom will know your online habits?

wooferhound sends along an amusing piece about thieves who got run over by technology and never knew what hit them. "A Rain Master Eagle-i Irrigation Controller recently stolen out of a housing development just outside of Tucson traveled nearly 80 miles before rescuing itself. The smart controller is now back in place on the wall where it was originally pinched... In this day and age, something that may look passive like an irrigation controller may not be so passive. The thieves didn't realize they were removing equipment that features 2-way wireless communications via the Internet. Three weeks later, the unexpected happened. The Maintenance Supervisor noticed a signal coming in from the stolen controller. He thought it was kind of odd that it was up and running... Whoever had stolen it had plugged it back in."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.