— A bougette of capralalia — Left hand/right hand It’s always Hammertime! — Hardest SuperWigga Ali I raps into the Budget
A bougette of capralalia Having been fortunate enough to grow up bilingual and picked up a few languages during my global slide downwards, I see meaning in common words that eludes other people. Take the somewhat obscure but commonly used “budget” for instance. Originally from Sweden, this compound term is made up of “bud” which means either messenger or in this case, bid, and “get”, which stands for goat. The latter term mustn’t be confused with GOAT, a less aggressive internet FLA exhorting people to leave than FOAD. The “bidding goat” was used in the courts of Viking chiefs as a way to stymie opposing village factions, by promising the delivery of many a horned goat, even though it may be impossible to fulfil the undertaking. It is a powerful political tool, and to hide its origins that give away the game, Parliamentarians have deliberately obscured the etymology of the word. Which brings us to the Broadband Investment Fund of course. Labour’s BIF gets some things right by being technology neutral and encouraging competition over an open access network, not to mention the $15 million towards a trans-Tasman cable and boosting KAREN (our academic network of sorts) funding by $7.8 million. But, the overall amount of funding is niggardly, especially if you consider that $50 million of the $500 million in total will be spent on the Government Shared Network and another $105.5 million on education and health networks. That leaves approximately $325 million for doling out via the BIF, with the first applications to be granted in a years’ time. Compare that money to the billions bandied about in Australia and … well, it’s not very impressive, is it? If the BIF happens of course; should National win the election, I can’t see that it will keep the BIF going for long, especially if it intends to go ahead with its $1.5 billion fibre-to-the-premises plan that Labour says favours Telecom. Speaking of fibre-optic, it’s no longer the only last-mile technology to deliver high-speed broadband. By using technologies such as dynamic spectrum management and by cancelling line noise and crosstalk, DSL could deliver speeds of 100Mbit/s over 500 metre single-pair lengths of copper cable, according to CommsDay in Australia, which is quoting John Papandriopoulos from Assia. Researchers such as John Cioffi see the current maximum throughput of DSL as being one to two gigabits per second, which is right up there with fibre-optic. And, DSL does have the distinct advantage of being deployable over an existing network… — Inside the Budget Broadband Investment Fund — Government rolls out broadband plan — Lack of vision in Labour’s broadband plan — Dynamic Spectrum Management Project — Assia — John Papandriopolous
Left hand/Right hand Obviously, Microsoft’s ISO win for OOXML wasn’t good enough for Microsoft. In fact, it looks like ODF support will make it into Office 2007 well before OOXML appears in Office 14. — Office 2007 won’t support ISO’s OOXML
Robert X Cringely Microhoo, Facebook and you Don't look now, but there's a secret cabal at work conspiring to lock you out of the public internet. That, at least, is the hyperventilated opinion of Robert Scoble, who not so long ago was just another Microsoft employee with a blog and now is a Web 2.0 maven. His theory? After lopping off the tastiest bits of Yahoo Search and tossing the scraps to the dogs in Mountain View, Microsoft will then drop US$15 to US$20 billion to swallow Facebook solely for the purpose of keeping it and its 70 million sheep-tossing users locked in a permanent digital dungeon, far from the clutches of Google. Scoble told Cocky Locky, who twittered Ducky Lucky, Henny Penny, and Foxy Woxy. Yes, the sky appears to be in free fall. His main clues: Facebook's spurning Google's attempts at data portability via Friend Connect, and reports that Microsoft was making goo-goo eyes at Facebook while trying to score with Yahoo. Would Microsoft want Facebook? Sure. Redmond desperately needs somebody who knows what they're doing on the internet, and it already has one gnarled talon wedged in Facebook's door with its US$240 million investment last year. But the notion that Microsoft would gladly spend US$20 billion just to snub Google seems totally koo koo for cocoa puffs. There are a few things wrong with this theory. — Why in Gates' name would Zuckerberg sell? He's already a billionaire on paper. In two years when he takes Facebook public he'll be a billionaire for real. Yes, he might get richer faster if Redmond cuts him a check, but then what's he going to do — start a softball league for 25-year-old billionaires? It makes no sense for Facebook to sell now while it's still in a massive growth phase with lots of worlds to conquer. The only way that would happen is if the company's VCs got antsy and forced Z's dainty hands. I don't see it. — If Microsoft did somehow coerce the Z-man to cash out, and then decided to step on Google's spiders, so what? Some FBers would immediately flee anything with the taint of Microsoft on it. Some would leave after Microsoft made "improvements" to the service, drowning any innovative or interesting features in the bathtub and driving away the smart employees. And the rest of the Facebook throng wouldn't notice. After all, Rupert Murdoch managed to buy MySpace without destroying it (though you might argue MySpace was already trashed, and that's how its users like it.) — Assuming all this comes to pass, is having a small section of the Net closed off to Google such a horrible thing? Isn't the point of a social network to share your inane thoughts, photos, videos, and barnyard animals with your friends — and onlyyour friends? That's how Facebook is today. Fact is, Facebook will probably end up working out an agreement with Google over Friend Connect. As long as I get to choose what information is and isn't available to the Net at large, I'm fine with that. How about you?