Copyright Amendment Bill 2006

OK. I've had a chance to read through the Bill as proposed (here) and it seems that some of what was being said about this proposed Bill earlier (including in my last post) isn't 100% correct.

From my reading of the proposed Bill, not the final Amendment Bill (as I cannot find it anywhere), it seems that the following is basically what was proposed:

1. A lot of the amendments were due to the recently signed AUSFTA (the
Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement ) and were meant to bring the Australian Law somewhat into alignment with US Law than they currently were. This is applicable only in areas where the AUSFTA holds significance. Generally, the changes made offer less freedom in Australia than the US.

2. Format shifting of music CDs, tapes, records or digital downloads (except podcasts), as well as books, newspapers or periodicals, and also a video from tape to digital format (but not, please note NOT a DVD video) will be allowable as long as the original source is a legitimate copy owned by the person who owns the copy and it is for private, domestic use only. Copies of this "main copy" cannot be made. This "main copy" can only be lent (not hired, sold or otherwise distributed) to family or household members for their own private and domestic use.

3. Time shifting of broadcast programs (television and radio) will be enable an individual, for their private and domestic use, to watch and/or listen to a program at a time that is more suitable to them. They may *lend* (but not hire nor sell nor otherwise distribute) this copy to family or household members for private and domestic use. There seems to be no mention of the "watch once and then delete" provision that was spoken about earlier.

4. Library usage, parody/satire usage and disabled persons ability to access copyright materials have all been increased.

5. There are three types of offence under the Copyright Act - indictable, summary and strictly liable. An indictable offence is a serious offence, whereas a summary offence is a lesser offence - both need to have proof of recklessness (indictable) or negligence (summary), whereas a strictly liable offence needs no proof of a fault element (ie, the fact that an item was copied and sold is enough for a prosecution).

(1) A person commits an indictable offence if:
(a) the person makes an article, with the intention of:
(i) selling it; or
(ii) letting it for hire; or
(iii) obtaining a commercial advantage or profit; and
(b) the article is an infringing copy of a work or other subject-matter; and
(c) copyright subsists in the work or other subject-matter when the article is made.
(2) An offence against subsection (1) is punishable on conviction by a fine of not more
than 550 penalty units (currently AU$60,500) or imprisonment for not more than
5 years, or both.

Under the same conditions above, a summary offence is punishable on conviction by a fine of not more than 120 penalty units (currently AU$13,200) or imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or both.

(5) A person commits astrictly liable offence if:
(a) the person makes an article in preparation for, or in the course of:
(i) selling it; or
(ii) letting it for hire; or
(iii) obtaining a commercial advantage or profit; and
(b) the article is an infringing copy of a work or other subject-matter; and
(c) copyright subsists in the work or other subject-matter when the article is made

The penalty on conviction is 60 penalty units ($6600)

6. Decoding an encoded broadcast is illegal (maximum penalty is 550 penalty units ($60,500)). As is dishonestly accessing a subscription broadcast without authorisation and payment of the subscription fee (maximum penalty is 60 penalty units ($6600)).


So, basically, the Government has introduced this Amendment to the Copyright Act to ensure that "everyday consumers shouldn’t be treated like copyright pirates". The criminal offences seem to require that the copied material is creates some sort of commercial gain for the person or organization pirating the material. Until I see the actual Bill and read it, it seems, for now, that this isn't *too* bad an Amendment. It definitely is better than making me out to be a criminal because I was working and didn't get to see the last episode of The Glasshouse, so I recorded it to watch at a more convenient time. :)

Regards,

The Outspoken Wookie

It's legal to use an iPod in Australia now!

It appears that the Federal Government has now passed an amendment to the Copyright Act so that Australians can copy CDs to their portable music devices. I've not yet read the complete Copyright Amendment Bill 2006, but when I will, I'll post a more in depth commentary on it.

Basically, format shifting of a CD that you have purchased onto your Creative Xen or iPod or computer is now no longer illegal. Of course, copying the CD for backup purposes is still illegal.

The same holds for a DVD - you can convert it to play on your MP4 player without going to jail. As for television programs, we now are allowed to record and watch a program later, though it appears to be a single screening only and then must be deleted.

It is a start. Finally the Government is catching up with things that have been happening for the past 30-odd years. Good to see they are right up there with leading edge technology!

Again, when I have a chance to read through the Amendment in full, I'll try digesting the legalspeak and then post again about both the good points and the weaknesses in this Amendment.

Regards,

The Outspoken Wookie

What kind of sickos are we letting have kids these days?

Sometimes I really wonder if we should issue licenses for having kids.

Regards,

The Outspoken Wookie

Microsoft has had a busy few days

Well, Microsoft seems to have had a busy few days this week.

On Monday the 6th November, 2006, Microsoft released the next version of Office to manufacture - Office 2007. Office 2007 is a rather revolutionary rework of the old office suite. In all but Outlook, gone is the old Toolbar that was, well, confusing at best and in comes their "Ribbon" which is a context sensitive replacement. The Ribbon takes a little getting used to, but once you have, I can probably bet a critical body part that you won't want to go back to the old toolbar.

There's still a few issues - they have kept the same silly interface in Excel that doesn't exist in Word - in other words, whereas in Word you can open multiple documents in separate windows, all Excel spreadsheets still exist in the one containing window. I have no idea why they didn't fix this inconsistence whilst they were rewriting the Office suite. Outlook has retained the old Toolbar look, because - according to Microsoft - the new Ribbon is inappropriate for Outlook users. (When creating an email, the Ribbon appears, but the main Outlook interface contains no Ribbon. One thing Microsoft is consistent about is inconsistency.) Well, I disagree and you may well disagree, but that's the way it has been released.

Then, Microsoft released Vista to manufacture yesterday (8th Nov, 2006). Whilst Vista is an improvement over Windows XP SP2 in a number of areas - and so it should be, there's been 2 totally missed releases by the Windows Desktop Operating System teams since Windows XP was released back in 2001 - it still has a long way to go. There are still a number of issues that are seen in the RC2 release (I've not seen the final release yet) that I reported during the Beta process. Yes, unfixed issues. Silly, frustrating issues. Like trying to browse to a mapped network drive in some File Open boxes resulting in an error stating that "Internet addresses are not allowed". Since when was "P:\" an Internet address?

So, I'm currently still - unfortunately - not impressed with Vista. I can see what Microsoft is trying to do, and this is good. The problem is the way they have implemented a lot of the things they are trying to achieve is less than good. I have NO IDEA why Microsoft didn't look at Linux until recently, but the way limited user access is implemented in Linux is at least an order of magnitude more appropriate than Microsoft has managed to fumble into Vista.

Is Vista going to be a good thing? Yes, I think it is. Will it take until Vista SP1 for this to happen? Yes, I think it may. Will I be using and recommending Vista to our clients? Depends. We'll be using it internally (like we have been for quite a while now) and recommending it to clients who we think will benefit from its deployment.

Speaking of deployment, the OS deployment functionality in Vista is one of its major advantages for medium to large businesses - the need for multiple SOE images is drastically reduced. If you have a good grasp of GPO or use something like SMS to deploy applications, then Vista will be a dream come true for you - at least as far as deployment and application installation goes.

The new Application Compatibility Toolkit will help here quite a bit, too. And Microsoft's recent acquisition of Desktop Standard, Softricity and Sysinternals/Winternals will bring added benefits to those who have Software Assurance on their Windows XP Pro/Vista deployments.

All up, Office 2007 is really, really nice and Vista has the potential to be, if Microsoft keeps developing it and getting it ready for use (even though they have already released it).

Regards,

The Outspoken Wookie

Australian Spammer Fined AU$5.5m

Now, here's something that makes me cry tears of joy! Wayne Robert Mansfield, a well known Australian spammer and his company Clarity 1 (also trading as Business Seminars Australia and Maverick Partnership) were taken to Federal Court by the ACMA (the Australian Communications and Media Authority) in March of 2006. The ACMA claimed, basically, that he contravened the Australian Spam Act 2003 (Cth) by sending over 56 million unsolicited commercial emails.

Well, finally this has been not only won by the ACMA, but the Federal Court Justice Robert Nicholson fined Clarity1 the sum of AU$4.5m and Wayne Robert Mansfield the sum of AU$1m. That's a total sum of AU$5.5m (approximately US$4.2m). In delivering his decision and the fine, the Judge stated that this spammer had caused "real loss or damage to the recipients ... in the form of direct financial costs associated with purchasing blocking and filtering software (and) other financial costs in the form of lost time and productivity ... ". Hooray for Justice Robert Nicholoson - it looks like we have Federal Court Judges who actually have an understanding of the Internet in Australia, and the ACMA was fortunate enough to have one appointed to their hearing.

At least people in Australia who are responsible for enforcing Laws on the Internet have a clue, unlike one particular US Senator Ted Stevens (R) who made what has come to be known as the most stupid ever claim about the Internet - that "it's, it's a series of tubes". Obviously the stupid senator knows nothing about the Internet, which is fine as he's only the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation who was investigating Net Neutrality at the time. Go "The Daily Show". :)

Oh, you have to watch this (DJ Ted Stevens)!

Regards,

The Outspoken Wookie

How could I possibly resist?

Well, I couldn't.

Apple, the company who constantly claimed that their old PowerPC line of processors were sooooo much faster than the Intel processors, who switched to Intel and immediately claimed that these new Intel processors were sooooo much faster than the old PowerPC processors, who keeps claiming that their computers are so fast that they are illegal in some countries, and who is slowly losing market share each day has decided to give Windows users a nice little surprise when they buy a new Video iPod.

What Apple has decided to do is to drop the quality control of their iPod building plants (outsourced, I might add) to the point where they have allowed the RavMon.E trojan (which Apple mistakenly calls a virus - you think that they should know better) to be shipped at no extra charge on a select number of video iPods.

Of course, in keeping with Apple's style, they have kept the real figures to themselves - they have never been a company to come out with believable statistics before, so how could we believe any figures they released on this issue anyway?

As of now, all currently shipping units have been checked and cleared of the virus - that is, they have decided to actually quality control their Video iPods. Oh, yay - isn't that big of them?

And, then, to top this all off, they "are upset at Windows for not being more hardy against such viruses" - what, the viruses (in this case, trojans) that Apple distributes, or viruses (trojans) in general? Did they not think that maybe because they have what, just around 3% of the market share that people simply couldn't be arsed writing viruses, trojans and other malware as the whole idea of writing them is to infect as many people as they can - and 3% is just not worth the effort!

Anyway, here's to Apple for distributing a trojan, not actually knowing the difference between a trojan and a virus, and for being upset at Microsoft for them (Apple) distributing this trojan. Keep up the good work!

Regards,

The Outspoken Wookie

Legally forced to write vulnerable code? You're kidding?

With the backing of the EU - and probably ONLY because of the backing of the EU did these two even start bitching and moaning about this - McAfee and Symantec have won their battle to have Microsoft allow kernel access to non-kernel developers, malware authors and anyone who can understand how to download an SDK and use an API to give them access to the core part of Windows Vista x64.

This is one of the most brain numbingly stupid decisions Microsoft has been forced to make in the history of Microsoft's brain numbingly stupid decisions.

I DO NOT want malware authors to have easy access to the kernel in Vista x64. I don't even want them to have easy access to a Vista x86 kernel! I'd prefer malware authors learned how to fill their baths with hot, fuming sulfuric acid before their next... oh, that's probably no good as they would be unlikely to bathe in quite a while.

Now, in addition to this idiocy, the EU is insisting on making their annual budget deficit up by direct debiting Microsoft's bank account. Know an easy way to stop this madness? yup - you guessed it. Microsoft should simply not make Vista or Office 2007 available for sale in any EU countries. They should add a bit to their EULA stating that if anyone in the EU is purchasing Microsoft software from a foreign country then they are under the jurisdiction of that foreign country's legal system when it comes to complying with Licensing. They should also add a bit that states something like "EU residents may only purchase this software from a US based reseller - purchase from anywhere else is not permitted and the EULA transfers no rights of usage, installation, copying or anything else unless a EU resident has bought this software from a US reseller" to make sure that this jurisdiction is something that Microsoft completely agrees with.

Then they could close the gaping wound they have just made to the safety of my computers, my network and most importantly my data by allowing malware authors (and I include McAfee and Symantec in that class - have you seen their software lately) and start making decisions based on "Secure by design" instead of "Holes added to save us billions in litigation".

McAfee, Symantec and the EU have a LOT to answer for! Can I sue them when some 14 year old script kiddie uses the holes they forced Microsoft to open to invade my privacy?

Regards,

The Outspoken Wookie

Please Write Vulnerable Code

OK, I'm no big fan of Symantec and their sloppily written, resource intensive, bug ridden rubbish they call code. You probably all know, or are about to learn, that we don't support their software as we know how much grief it causes on computers. You know that when we approach a potential client who is running Symantec software on their network that if the client doesn't agree to have those machines formatted and rebuilt (servers, workstations, whatever) then we'll shake hands and walk away. We do not support Symantec software because we know that there's nothing we can do to make it work well, and that our clients will be unimpressed with the results of our work, purely because of this crap called Symantec software that they are running. So, we say no.

Same goes for McAfee - their products, too, are sub par. We don't support any of their crap, either.

Now, as you may have read in Jesper's blog, both Symantec and McAfee are bitching and moaning at Microsoft because Microsoft is closing some of the more insidious holes in their OS - they are disallowing 3rd party vendors access to the kernel. Well, at least in Vista x64, they still (stupidly) allow this access in the 32-bit version of Vista. What these two "security" vendors want is for Microsoft to continue writing vulnerable code.

What Symantec and McAfee have asked of Microsoft is that Microsoft writes vulnerable code.

Yes, that's right. They want to have a vulnerable OS so that they can be seen as the saviours of the modern OS. Well, guess what? Its not going to happen. Microsoft doesn't write the most secure code on the planet - I think that's common knowledge. But Symantec and McAfee are nowhere near as good at coding as Microsoft's programmers are. I know who I'd rather have writing the security in my OS - the guys who write the OS, not some 3rd party who has not yet shown they have a clue.

Any Judge who's asked to make a decision on whether Microsoft should be allowed to write secure code, or to have to open holes into the most critical parts of their OS to be exploited by virus writers, 3rd party developers with no OS kernel level experience whatsoever and all other malware authors will have a "no brainer" decision to make.

Who here wants to vote for yet another insecure OS from Microsoft, just because some other "security" company wants it to be left open to hackers where Microsoft wants to tighten the security?

Ooh, the silence is deafening!

Regards,

The Outspoken Wookie

Simply in the pursuit of being equally unfair to everyone

I'm sure this was found purely to keep the card table balanced, but there's been a recent vulnerability found in Firefox that already has had the source code for the exploit published. I mean, what happened to responsible disclosure?

The good folks over at SecuriTeam have made mention of this in their blog. They also say, and I agree, that this will likely be patched by the Mozilla dev teams significantly faster than the recently discovered and also currently exploited holes in some Microsoft IE ActiveX controls that I mentioned yesterday.

[Update: This vulnerability was a hoax. So, as well as responsible disclosure discussions should we also be having "this is not funny" discussions? - HT 2006-10-04]

Anyway, no matter which web browser you use: Internet Explorer, Firefox, Opera, Linx, etc, you need to make sure that you keep an eye out for official security patches and apply them as soon as they are released (for critical issues) and also keep an eye out for active, unpatched exploits and have a look at the workarounds suggested. This helps to assist your browsing experience to be a pleasant experience. And life's all about enjoyment, isn't it? :)

Regards,

The Outspoken Wookie

More Vulnerable ActiveX Controls

Yes, just after Microsoft was finally coaxed into releasing an "out of band" patch for the actively exploited VML vulnerability last week, along came another vulnerability. Microsoft is yet to fix an earlier vulnerability in the DirectAnimation Path ActiveX Control that was found the week before the VML vulnerability.

I do wonder why we all have to try so hard to get Microsoft to release critical security patches for actively exploited vulnerabilities, such as the WMF vulnerability in December 2005, this VML issue, the DAXCTL issue and the recently discovered WebViewFolderIcon control vulnerability - sure, this one was only discovered a few days ago and is being actively exploited already, but Microsoft will try to get the patch in their regular "Black Tuesday" patches, or wait until next month. Absurd, if you ask me, to wait that long for actively exploited vulnerabilities to be patched.

Now, Jesper has already mentioned this vulnerability in his blog, complete with a workaround which will disable the vulnerable control (and also for the DAXCTL issue) which is great. Microsoft has published a Security Advisory with similar information in it.

The issue here is that not many admins look at either Jesper's blog nor the Microsoft Security Advisories, which - to my way of thinking - is frightening. I can understand the "I can use both buttons on a mouse so they made me the sysadmin of our network" people not knowing enough to secure their systems - it isn't a job they asked for and isn't a job they know how to perform properly, but I cannot understand nor accept that professional sysadmins don't keep up to date on the latest security issues relating to the systems under their control. That is "DCM Slip" fodder if ever there was any.

The bigger issue, not caused by, but at least enhanced by those sysadmins who are not keeping up with security issues, is that according to Internet Storm Centre at SANS, this issue is being actively exploited. The exploit at least installs a rootkit, and possibly does other malicious things. This is bad. Most decent AntiVirus programs should be detecting this and any variants. I know NOD32 has been detecting variants since 28 September 2006, and Trend since 30 September, 2006.

Security is not an endpoint, it is a journey. We can never, ever secure our machines - we can only increase their level of protection.

Regards,

The Outspoken Wookie

Sad News

Hi All,

I'm sorry to have to report that Australia (especially the Gold Coast) is getting more like the USA every day, but in case you haven't heard the terrible news about Tony Nugent, a good friend and colleague of ours, here are some links.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,20483440-3102,00.html
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,20487334-911,00.html

I'm glad they caught the prick that did this and I cannot see how he can be charged as anything but an adult, despite him being 16 years old - if he had the ability to think his way into stealing from someone and then mowing them down in a car, then he's every bit as adult as he needs to be to be tried as one.

Unfortunately, Tony is suffering severe head injuries and his prognosis is poor, at best. This is coming just after Tony started to recover from a previous total bilateral kidney failure a couple of years ago and get on the road to being able to start working again. He was finally starting to see a way out of the forest he had been in for a while, and then this little fucker comes along and takes that away from him.

And how will his mum feel? She saw it happen. I don't know how she's able to sleep, and I hope the prick that caused this can't sleep ever again. What about Tony's 3 children?

It disgusts me that people like his parents - look at the report on his father - are able to raise kids and give them the sort of "me first" attitude that gives them the idea that stealing and then running a human being down in a car whilst making a get away is a reasonable way to live. The prick who did this was capable of his own thoughts and actions, though, and is 100% responsible for what he has done. I just hope that our court system can bring itself to punish the criminal to the fullest extent of the law - there should be no leniency in this case at all - he knew exactly what he was doing.

Regards,

The Outspoken Wookie

Freedom at last!

Well, I have just finished a 62 day straight workathon and I finished it in style at the Brisbane Jazz Club. So, then I had a day off, and I'm only part way through that.

A while ago (around 6 or 10 years ago, that is) I said to some friends that I should buy a bike and start cycling again as it was something that I used to enjoy back when I was a fit little fscker at high school, playing 6 competition squash matches a week plus training plus sailing plus school and cycling inbetween all of these. But that's when life was good and I didn't have a care in the world. Things change from when you're 14, so I've found out!

So, I decided to make good on that 6 to 10 years of mouthing off and actually buy a bike. And, since in that 6 to 10 years I have gained the benefits of both a dodgey right knee (medial meniscus issues) as well as 2 bulging discs at L4-L5 and L5-S1 to add to my already questionable C1-C6 issues caused as the result of a major head trauma in high school in April 1987 (yes, dates me, doesn't it?), I thought that a mountain bike with both front and rear shockys would be a good place to start.

I ended up with a Trek Liquid 20 bought 2nd hand from Riders Cyclery at Macgregor. I'd heard only good things about them, so decided to buy from there. I got the bike, some sexy daks and decided to stick with the cleated pedals and got some comfy "I don't want to walk like a duck" Shimano shoes with fitted cleats. It all cost a little more than I'd initially set for myself, but that's life, and I was far from concerned - I intend to do a decent amount of kilometeres each week (like, around 200), so getting a good bike was more important than saving a few bucks.

Well, after some 19 years of not riding a bike, as well as generally being about as unfit as I've been in my life, let me just tell you that there are a few muscles in my legs that wanted to jump out and throttle me this afternoon! I still have to get used to the cleats, mainly getting them locked in, and I think I should have a fire drill on getting them out at very short notice, but I think that I'll be fine with them in a short space of time.

I managed to squeeze about 5.6 km out of my legs today at between 15 kmph and 21 kmph before they wanted to fall off - which, all things considered, I'm happy with. I'm back on it tomorrow and intend to keep up with daily morning rides, sometimes also an evening ride, and the odd longer trip on the weekends.

At least I have a few friends who either ride regularly or used to ride regularly, and me getting on my bike, so to speak, has encouraged a few of them to also get back on theirs. And as there's approximately 520 km of bikeways in Brisbane now, we should all have no real excuses for not getting and staying fit.

Regards,

The Outspoken Wookie

Software Licensing

Sometimes I have to wonder...

I've been having an, aahhhh... a conversation with a well known SBS community member about Licensing issues. Someone posed a question about OEM Licenses being used for emergency restore to a backup server and whether this would be legal if there was a Full package Product license sitting on the shelf.

Since the Microsoft OEM EULAs (End User Licensing Agreement) clearly outlaw installation of any OEM software (workstation OS, server OS or regular applications) on a machine other than that with which it was sold UNLESS this other machine is an under-warranty, non-upgrade replacement of the machine that OEM software was originally installed on, then what was being asked about is a clear breach of the EULA, therefore copyright law. In other words, if you were to do this, the OEM EULA clearly states that you will be running unlicensed software and therefore subjected to the relevant laws and punishments under those laws.

The MVP in question - someone that Microsoft has in the past recognised as contributing (beneficially) to the SBS community - feels that in an emergency, the EULA (therefore) the law can be ignored. I don't remember seeing this clause in either the EULA nor in any copyright law I have read - and I'll now add that IANAL.

All up, as well as the need to get a client back online as quickly and reliably as possible, as an IT Consultant, I also have a responsibility to ensure that my clients are operating in a legal fashion, abiding by copyright and other laws. Again, IANAL, but its clear to me that if an EULA states that software cannot be installed on another computer then it means exactly that. Breaching this condition is placing a client in breach of Copyright Law and results in unlicensed software being used. This is simply something I have no intention of doing to any of our clients.


Generally I find that our clients appreciate us keeping them in compliance with Copyright Law - and they have 302,500 federally funded reasons to back them up!

OK. So I'm a slacker!

Get over it. I did. :)

Its not like I haven't been thinking about posting, more like I just haven't posted. Believe me, its definitely not because I stopped shooting my mouth off - like that's ever going to happen!

Anyhow...

It looks like Intel has finally started to recover from the loss of Andy Grove as CEO in 1998. Since Andy Grove left, Intel was headed by Craig R. Barrett (1998 - 2005) and currently by Paul S. Otellini (2005 - current (2006-05-02)). When Andy Grove (a tech head) left the company, under the leadership of Barrett (also a tech head and an engineer) Intel floundered about like a ship lost at sea. They lost most of the market leadership that kept them as the most powerful force in the microprocessor world. They lost percentage to AMD. They couldn't get their shit together to come up with a workable 64 bit extension to the 32 bit CPU core in the current x86 CPUs and eventually had to use the one that their sworn enemy - AMD - had developed. And the AMD extension is great.

Intel's own Itanic II (after the first one sank in record time) is selling barely more than a handful whilst AMD's Opteron is moving ahead in leaps and bounds. Sure, there's a bit of difference in the target markets, but AMD found a niche that makes them money - Intel failed to.

Then Intel's Pentium D CPU series - the one that needs a 10,000 BTU airconditioner to cool it adequately - wasn't any real advance. It has a limited amount of smarts in the chip as compared to two separate CPUs plugged into the motherboard. basically, this is called (and sorry for the technical term) a kludge.

Now, Intel *finally* started thinking when they released their Pentium-M (and Celeron-M) CPUs which were re-thinks of current design as applied to the older Pentium III that the current Pentium 4 is based on. A 1.73 GHz Pentium M is very roughly equivalent to a Pentium 4 running at 2.8 GHz - this is an approximate 60% increase in performace per MHz.

Intel have now released their Core Duo (and Core Solo) CPUs for the mobile (and desktop, at a push) market which is a properly designed dual-core Pentium-M as compared to the kludged Pentium-D. The Intel Core Duo CPUs are the first in Intel's new line of CPUs where they will totally transition away from the older Pentium 4 architecture and build the new CPUs on the Pentium-M model.

HOORAY!!! Intel finally has found their technical staff - they must have hunted high and low in the pubs and brothels - and given them something useful to do. Its about time!

So, this may signal the next wave of blog postings. Who knows?

Regards,
The Outspoken Wookie