Letters Lots to get through this week - so let's get right to it and address the burning issues of your day. First up, the old "risky business" attack on open source, as brought up (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/17/software_compliance_issues/) in an article on software compliance:

Oh dear, a rather unfortunately phrased boo-boo in this story. No doubt a small army of malodorous T-shirt clad geeks is clustered at the gate to El Reg Towers, waving pitchforks and torches, demanding your blood for suggesting that using GPL code means one is compelled to release any other source it is combined with. That is of course complete nonsense, but part of the reason for the violent response I suspect you'll be getting is that this is one of the oldest and lamest of canards to be flung at "open source" or Free software, "if you use it, you have to give away all your IP". I won't spell out the specifics, I'm sure others will have done so by now :) and I look forward to reading a correction... cheers \a

---

quote: Just as you're going for IPO, someone in the community points out that 100 lines of code used within your one million lines were licenced under the GPL. All of a sudden, all your 1 million lines of code have to be covered by GPL - the code has to be made available to anyone, and you cannot apply restrictions on the redistribution of such code - or its modification. You still own the copyright - but that's no use when your customer base and those who you were hoping would invest in you are deserting you in droves. \quote Not this crap again !!!!!!

Anthony

---

Do you still want that bacon sandwich? Even after reading this (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/10/tasty_humans/)?

Re everything tastes of chicken, I can attest from experience that Crocodile also tastes similar to poultry. I used to be a bush pilot in central africa some years back, and whilst stranded in the rainforest for a few days waiting out bad weather the locals whipped up a (really nice) dish of crocodile tail with chilli sauce, the texture was a bit like those fish stick things you get in crappy restaurants. Appetisers were 3 inch long grubs found in tree bark swimming in palm oil sauce (known as worms in vomit sauce), Can't tell you what they taste of as it was an appetiser too far for me, which is really saying something as I'm usually willing to eat anything no matter how disgusting it looks. (Just ask any of my ex-girlfriends)

Regards Peter

---

Unlimited limits on your broadband, courtesy of Vodafone (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/19/vodafone_explains/). The firm explains itself, but you feel there might be room for a little more debate here:

I dont want to open the unlimited debate again but... I have a vodafone "unlimited" data card. I get connection speeds up to 3.4 Mbps, (via HPDSA?) but the "fair-usage" limit is 1GB per month!! Which at that speed i can download by lunchtime on the 1st of the month.

I have greatly exceeded my limit for the first two months so far and i am awaiting a letter telling me how limited unlimited can really be.

Its worth noting that i clock most of my bandwidth usage on voice and video calling and make up the rest via joost!

Jez

---

<rant> Nice of them. Have they not considered that some customers actually have extensive VOIP provisions in house and want to use WiFi connected Nokias for both GSM and VOIP at the same time saving the number of VOIP devices and the training needed for the users to use two phones? The N95 aside, try even talking to customer services about VOIP on other devices e.g. E50, E65 etc. all of which are listed on Nokia's website as supporting the likes of Cisco's VOIP solutions - I was told that the phones didn't do it and when I pointed them at both Nokia's and their own web based literature I was then told to not pay attention to that as it wasn't supported. It is like being sold a Combination Microwave and being told not to use the conventional heating element because it isn't supported.

Come on guys, understand what is going on in corporates and enable us not restrict us. </rant>

Tim

---

The inflight movie is finishing, the cheap, but drinkable red plonk that came with dinner is just about gone, as is the oxygen in the recycled air, but never mind about that now... You can feel sleep pleasantly tugging at your eyelids when Beep beep! (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/19/in_flight_sms/) Some lunatic's SMS notification goes off. At 30,000 feet. Now that can't be right, can it?

There is an international consortium whose sole purpose on Earth is to make the flying experience as much of an absolute hell as is possible with human technology. - Stupid safety precautions that take hours to resolve and that make you ditch half your luggage - The absolute worst travel experience since the invention of the galley [and those guys had it good!] - Food that is a smirking sneer of derision if it is served at all - Jet lag and thrombosis from extended periods in the same position [I forget what the correct medical term is]. - If your luggage is not shipped to Murmansk it is damaged and/or stolen

This wonderful experience will now be complemented and completed by people yacking at the loudest volume level that the human voice can produce throughout the entire flight, only to be interrupted by the food tray and the occasional onslaught of murderous rage.

If you so much as dare open your mouth to protest the flight will be diverted to the nearest airport, you will be jumped on by a SWAT team and be shipped off to a place where you can be questioned properly, say Guantanamo Bay Naval Station.

When this becomes the standard in air travel, I don't ever want to fly again [unless it's in the backseat of an F-15 trainer, I could live with that].

Frances

---

The mighty power of Google (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/29/google_bush_map/), as seen through a misunderstanding:

I was reading the Google redraws world according to George Bush story you did when my girlfriend, who prides herself on her technical ability and knowledge, stated that she never knew George Bush worked for Google and that she was surprised U.S Presidents could have the time to do proper jobs...

Bless her heart she didnt understand why I didnt stop laughing for nearly 5 minutes and promptly got offended...

Keep up the good work guys,

Dean

---

The UK plans to toughen up border controls (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/18/elitist_migration/). You are not impressed. First we'll deal with the shorter replies, and then hand the floor to Andy for a quality rant:

Anyone for granny tagging (http://society.guardian.co.uk/longtermcare/story/0,,2060773,00.html?gusrc=ticker-103704)?

New Labour's latest proposal is that in addition to tagging prisoners, ex-prisoners, potential criminals, paedophiles, immigrants, children of immigrants, cars and iPods, we should start tagging the elderly.

Tagging politicians would be a better idea - we'd know where to aim.

Mike

---

Ok, so lets restrict economic migrants from the USA and Australia, but allow anyone with a passport to come in from Poland. That's going to be successful for the economy isn't it. Cut the number of migrants from some countries by a few thousand, with a £20m scheme, but still allow 600k people from Eastern Europe.

Dave

---

I don't think I can find words adequate enough to explain why this is probably most unjust, xenophobic, bullshit I've ever heard from someone representing a so-called democratic society.

Immigrants have plenty to offer our country, and just because they don't fall into self serving slots upon entry, shouldn't be used against them by xenophobic public servants.

We're not talking about hardened criminals here, we're talking about people that are just as likely to educate themselves and find jobs as anyone born in this country.

Perhaps we should consider shipping to Australia any Briton that doesn't meet our needs too? You know, get rid of our problem people, like those unfortunate enough to be born in depressed areas, or without the means to buy a university education.

As for the sponsor idea, that is as elitist as the selfish notion that we can cherry pick wealthy or well-educated migrants. The US sponsorship method means keeping families apart if they are unfortunate enough not earn what the government decides is enough for a family of their size. It assumes that because you aren't lucky enough to earn big money, you're immigrant spouse will immediately start claiming benefits.

It also gives the government the power to bill you for those benefits if they claim them within a predefined number of years after entry.

It gives no regard to circumstances, being made redundant, becoming disabled or any number of situations beyond the control of the family.

What we should be doing is considering the immigration policy that the US used to have, before their conservative thinkers decided they were no longer immigrants because at least two generations of their family have lived there - and therefore they would do everything in their power to stop people like their own grandparents from entering the country.

Lets be blunt - having the distinction of being born somewhere like Britain shouldn't mean we turn our backs on those that just want the chance to earn what we've been lucky enough to get at birth. You often find these people are incredibly grateful, hard working and want to give whatever they can back to the communities that accepted them.

In the US for example, I've met people that joined the army, not because they were grateful about being allowed to live there, but because they inherited that gratitude from parents or grandparents that were allowed to live there. The appreciation and hard work doesn't stop with the first generation.

Certainly we can limit numbers (with the exception perhaps that unless they've committed serious crime, every spouse and child should be given residency without conditions), and certainly we can reject the applications of known criminals. But to turn our immigration policy into some kind of self-serving elitism is just plain wrong.

Andy

---

Next up, some unconventional wisdom on the life saving properties (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/19/smoking_saves_lives/) of the odd sneaky fag:

Huzzah - and I want a T-shirt that says that, as I've been banned from wearing my "Smoking leads to Heroine Addiction, Paedophilia and Suicide Bombing" T-shirt at work.

I'm happy going outside in -20F - being a touch cold is significantly better than giving my co-workers, friends and family cancer and heart disease - but I feel I should be allowed to wear my T-Shirt in protest to the snarky remarks made whenever someone feels I'm only standing 19.9 feet away from a doorway, instead of the mandatory 20 soon to be required in Anchorage.

So a big Huzzah and a Blue Peter badge to the woman that showed the world that sometimes smoking can save your life.

To my knowledge the only other notable instances of cigarette life saving were the countless lives saved during both world wars by cigarette holders and lighters handed down from grandfathers. Strategically placed in pockets, which in turn were placed precisely where Germans always seemed to shoot you - it seems every family in Britain and the US had a loved one saved in this manner.

Andy

---

As a follow-on from that, alcohol saved a colleague’s life some time ago. It was the day before my birthday and we went to a local purveyor of alcohol, otherwise known as the Pulpit wine bar and shared a pint jug of port (that’s how it was in those days…) Anyway, it slid down a treat and my colleague, also called Alan, suggested that we had another one.

Well, after a little convincing, I agreed and so we had a second one. And then we staggered our respective ways home. Or rather in his case, didn’t, because there were a rather large number of fire engines, ambulances and such like surrounding his station.   Yes, it was Kings Cross on the 18th of November, 1987.   If he hadn’t bought the second pint of port, who knows what might have happened to him.   So there we have solid proof that booze and fags can save lives.   Alan

---

The grammar police are after Cody Webb, now that the actual police have released him (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/16/daylight_saving_error/) in the greatest daylight saving cock-up this year:

"Me and God know I didn't do it." If I were Cody Webb's family I know that I would sure consider a law suit against the school if that is the level of English being taught.

Sincerely, Arah

---

Tsk tsk. If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear. Except, of course, 12 days in jail being bullied into confessing to "a felony charge of threatening to use a weapon of mass destruction" (given "weapon of mass destruction" is now being equated to "bomb" can we now admit that we failed in preventing Al Qaeda getting hold of WMDs?).

K.

---

Kids these days and their new fangled rock and roll probably all deserve a stint in jail just to teach them a lesson on manners and how to eat in restaurants. Bring back hanging and public flogging, and stick more children down chimneys is the only answer. When I wur a lad just being up at 3:12am would be enough to see us put in jail for a month - before being flogged and shipped off to Australia. I hope he's learned his lesson good and proper. Andy

---

Ignorance is no defence. So say the lawyers in the P2P pinball piracy case (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/17/davenport_evidence/). We reckon this bodes poorly for our government post the missing WMDs, but that might be an issue for another day:

Surely they should be suing the ISP, then, since their tubes were used to pirate the content.

Sue MS for hiding so many internet sharing protocols behind SVCHOST and hiding the owner of the machine of the scary information that would help them see the infection.

Sue the copyright owners for putting the game in the public view so that people were able to copy the content illegally.

And so on.

Mark

---

I do wonder if we are legally responsible for misuse of our equipment without our knowledge. For example, if someone broke in to my car because I parked it in a dodgy neighbourhood, then hotwired and stole it, running over several fire hydrants, killing a few pedestrians - then crashing it into a hospital, would I be the one responsible (ignorance is no defence), or would the thief be the one to blame? Furthermore, what could I be expected to do about it? Run after my car, calling "Stop, thief!"? As far as my home network is concerned, it's not always so easy to batten down the hatches. Does this make me guilty for not running a bank?

The situation is complicated somewhat by the network equipment vendors. Sometimes, I *have* to run a weakened security WLAN, simply because my wireless devices don't all support WPA2 or something sparkly like that.

I run several devices over Ethernet, and finding a good bridge that will allow me to encrypt traffic at anything more than WEP strength is bloody difficult. And I'm one of those people who actually care (and can afford to buy such kit). Millions more couldn't give a damn about their network security / can't afford to buy secure kit - if it just works, that's usually enough cause for celebration.

Personally, I hate wireless networks - I wouldn't even be using one if I could re-wire the flat I'm renting with ethernet cable. However, I can't rewire my flat - and so I have to use wireless. Does that make me a criminal?

Usually, you will find many wireless routers that support a gazillion security protocols. However, try and find an Ethernet bridge that also supports the same network speed, and the same security protocols - from the same vendor. USB, PCI and PCMCIA devices don't count - I'm talking about devices that connect a wired Ethernet network to a wireless LAN, without the need to install any additional drivers on the client.

If such laws become standard, the likes of Microsoft will have much to fear: The legal liabilities of running a Microsoft operating system will be too great for many corporations, and the swift migration to Linux will be unabated by the "advent" of Windows Vista or anything else Microsoft tries to release upon the hapless masses.

Hell, the EU might just pounce at the chance to declare MS Windows an "illegal" operating system...

Oliver

---

Just read your article that P2P pinball lawyers say ignorance is no defence.

Wow Lawyers eh?

If we extend that argument a little: That means if my car is left unlocked and then stolen. And then the thief mows down a mother taking her kids to school then I should go to jail and not the thief.

Well that's alright then, we’ll just prosecute the victim of crime and not the perpetrator. I mean, it’s not like there are any laws about perversion of the course of justice or anything.

As long as the lawyers can bill by the hour, all is right with the world.

Keep up the good work mate. I love article like this on El Reg

Cheers Jon

---

Sweet! If it truely is your responsibility, that means that you can now sue those Fortune 500 companies that send spam for spamming you. It was their internet connection, so therefore their responsibility!

John

---

We hear from an ex pat about how healthcare ought to work. Of course we'd have to move to France, but then that would have its compensations. Still, we hope Connecting for Health (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/03/pacs_success/) is reading this too:

Reading these type of stories make me embarrassed to be British. Here in France they never seem to have such issues.

I recently had some back troubles. After an initial visit to my GP, he wrote me a prescription for some x-rays.

I phoned up the local x-ray centre and they gave me an appointment that afternoon. I was there for 1 hour and had 12 x-rays of my spine taken and a 10 min session with a consultant who also gave me an envelope with my x-rays and 2 copies of a letter explaining his medical opinion.

I didn't even have to pay, they just swiped my "Vitale" health smart card.

All in a day, no need for a million euro centralised IT system. (Well Vitale was quite expensive, but it works great!)

Second visit to my GP got me 10 weeks of massage and "Kinesthérapie"

Not that difficult really.

Regards, N.

---

And finally, you let us know just how much sympathy you have for anyone who got stung by Malware masquerading as footage (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/19/virginia_tech_malware_attack/) of the Virginia tech shootings:

I don't think I can find any sympathy for people who infect their PCs with malware when they were trying to surf the net for footage of people being killed.

What sort of person actually wants to see another being killed? It is not somehow ok because it's a small, jerky image on a computer screen or a mobile phone. The people who look at and look for these images are cu*nts.

Fraser

Short, sweet and to the point. Have lovely weekends, all. ®