In the UK recently there have been a number of widely reported stabbings and murders among the youth of our country.  It's a sad state of affairs that youths are now using knives to attack and end innocent lives, but it's a symptom of a problem - not the problem itself.

Today, the government announced that it will be pushing stricter penalties on those who carry knives, and that possession is equal to 'intent to use.'  This is the point at which I am very concerned.  Although I think it's abhorrent that a few people in our society would wish to attack or defend themselves using knives - this type of law has no place in a developed society.

There are a number of people who rely on a knife in order to do their work - and the majority of people I've worked with in the trades carried a knife.  It's a 'tool' that is very necessary for many people to carry - it's also a tool that may come in use in unforeseeable situations.  They're also a very natural and historical tool - that have been carried around by gentlemen for centuries.

Last year, I wrote about a trip I took to the Nontron Knife Festival, at which I bought myself a knife.  I wouldn't say I have particular need for a knife - but there are situations (such as when I'm fishing, camping .etc) when a knife is a useful tool to have.  I'd take a photo and put it up, but I've left it at a friends after a camping trip.

With the proposed law (and current situation), should my friend and I decide to rendezvous on foot in order for me to take back my knife, the chances are that if we were seen one of us would end up in court.  However, should I drive up to Sheffield (from my home in Birmingham) and pick up the knife in my car - my chances are massively diminished.

The other point is that playing with my knife is sometimes therapeutic.  In January, I was eating an apple at my desk and cutting it up with the knife in my hand to eat it.  It's a pretty normal thing to do with a knife, and 100% legal.  However, after eating the apple and cleaning my knife, I dropped it into my pocket.  I wasn't leaving the house any time soon, and didn't want to leave it in the kitchen draw.  Only later on in the evening did I realise I still had it on me, so I left the pub I was in and took it home, before coming out again.

Now I'd consider this a responsible action, however, should I have been stopped in the pub or on the way home by the Police - I'd be facing a court appearance and custody.  A disproportionate response to an innocent misadventure.

It's a shame that the law-abiding citizen has to suffer for the minority of idiots that choose to wield knives in an ungainly fashion - and then the majority of 'illegally used' knives are kitchen knives/cleavers.  Do we ban these too?

It's a silly precedent that the government are setting - they should be looking at the wider social picture, rather than at an easy-to-target symptom of the problem.  Curbing civil liberties is going to have little affect on the people who wield their knives illegally.  I do understand there is a problem with knife crime in the UK, but better policing and targeting of unruly youths is the answer - not creating new laws to limit the general public's freedom.

It's ironic really.  Tomorrow the ISO council are likely to vote OOXML to be fast-tracked to a standard.  There's been good coverage on Groklaw and by Zeth Green. One of the problems with technical decisions like this is that they really don't get the average person in the street interested.  It's only when problems occur that they realise there's an issue - and they expect their IT guy/friend/consultant to be able to fix it for them.

Well, today I had a call from my mate - saying that he'd sent a company his CV, but they'd written back to request that he send it from Microsoft Word.  He did.  He was using Office 2007.  I smelt the problem right away.

He was using OOXML, and they weren't.  At this juncture, one has two options.

a) Try and get the organisation you're sending the document to to download the "OOXML Compatibility Pack."   Your chances of success are small.

b) Save the file in a different format.  RECOMMENDED!

Here's how:  See the list at the bottom of the page for recommended (and not-recommended) defaults.

To change default file save options in Office Excel 2007

1. Double-click Microsoft Office Excel 2007, double-click Excel Options, and click Save.
2. In the right pane, right-click Save Excel files as, and select Properties.
3. In Save files in this format, select Enabled.
4. In the drop-down box, select a default file save format.
5. Click Apply to save the settings.

To change default file save options in Office PowerPoint 2007

1. Double-click Microsoft Office PowerPoint 2007, double-click PowerPoint Options, and click Save.
2. In the right pane, right-click Save files in this format, and select Properties.
3. In Save files in this format, select Enabled.
4. In the drop-down box, select a default file save format.
5. Click Apply to save the settings.

To change default file save options in Office Word 2007

1. Double-click Microsoft Office Word 2007, double-click Word Options, and click Save.
2. In the right pane, right-click Save files in this format, and select Properties.
3. In Save files in this format, select Enabled.
4. In the drop-down box, select a default file save format.
5. Click Apply to save the settings.

The possible value for the default file save format include:

For Excel:

• Office Excel 2007 workbook (.xlsx), (NO)
• Office Excel 2007 macro-enabled workbook (.xlsm), (NO)
• Office Excel 2007 binary workbook (.xlsb), (NO)
• Web page (.htm, .html),
• Excel 97-2003 workbook (.xls), (YES)
• Excel 5.0/95 workbook (.xls)

For PowerPoint:

• Office PowerPoint 2007 presentation (.pptx), (NO)
• Office PowerPoint 2007 macro-enabled presentation (.pptm), (NO)
• PowerPoint 97-2003 presentation (.ppt) (YES)

For Word:

• Office Word 2007 document (.docx), (NO)
• Office Word 2007 macro-enabled document (.docm), (NO)
• Office Word 2007 macro-free template (.dotx), (NO)
• Office Word 2007 macro-enabled template (.dotm), (NO)
• Single file Web page (.mht), (NO)
• Web page (.htm, .html),
• Filtered Web page (.htm, .html),
• Rich text format (.rtf), (YES)
• Plain text (.txt),
• Word 97-2003 document (.doc), (YES)
• Word 97-2003 template (.dot),
• Flat XML document (.xml),
• Word 6.0/95 document (.doc),
• Word 6.0/95 Chinese (simplified) document (.doc),
• Word 6.0/95 Chinese (traditional) document (.doc),
• Word 6.0/95 Japanese document (.doc),
• Word 6.0/95 Korean document (.doc),
• Word 97-2002 and Word 6.0/95 rich text format (RTF) (.doc),
• Word 5.1 for Macintosh (.mcw),
• Word 5.0 for Macintosh (.mcw),
• Word 2.x for Windows (.doc),
• Works 4.0 for Windows (.wps),
• WordPerfect 5.x for Windows (.doc),
• WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS (.doc)

Of course, if you want to make sure you don't come across this problem in the future - choose an open and free format - and ask your friends/colleagues/clients to do so too.  There's already a documented format standard in *.odf.

Download your cross-platform Free Office Suite (completely legally) from OpenOffice.org

I've moved back home and have just set up my desk. I quite like what's going on at the moment therefore I thought I'd share a couple of pictures.

I have my fishtank to the left, then a mac mini running OSX Tiger - useful for checking cross compatibility. Then I have my sound-dock which is connected to my PC via my "unique connector." I then have my Webcam, followed by my 19" Dell Monitor running Gentoo & my virtual machines (Windows and Centos). Centos I use as it's my company's choice of server distribution, and Windows for cross-platform testing and to connect to my o2 XDA Stellar (shown under the screen). I also have my work VoIP phone, which is very useful, and my HP Compaq nc4000 lightweight notebook running ubuntu.

All in all a quality set-up.

My adobe saga is ongoing. I received a further email today, which fails to address my point, and is encouraging me to go around in circles with my correspondence to Adobe.

Thank you for contacting Adobe Customer Services.
We guess your query is to amend the EULA policy, unfortunately that is not possible for now, may be in the nearest future, please stick to the policy, only install on your PC or other wise buy a full version flash media Server which you can install any where you like.
Thanks.
Should you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Although a side-product of my correspondence may be that the EULA for flash-player may change (or be made clearer) - my main concern is whether or not it is legal for me to use the flash-player on my initially-a-'Media Centre'-but-now-a-PC Computer.

As identified quite correctly by popey in #ubuntu-uk - there's no defintion for "Media Centre PC" - therefore I shouldn't be worried on this point.  It was my paranoia, rather than anything specifically in the EULA which led me to think I was running a "media centre."

However, reading through section 3.1 of  the EULA makes interesting reading. If we ignore the "examples list" (in italics) - then it becomes quite clear.

3.1  Web Player Prohibited Devices. You may not Use any Web Player on any non-PC device or with any embedded or device version of any operating system. For the avoidance of doubt, and by example only, you may not use a Web Player on any (a) mobile devices, set top boxes (STB), handhelds, phones, web pads, tablets and Tablet PCs that are not running Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, game consoles, TVs, DVD players, media centers (excluding Windows XP Media Center Edition and its successors), electronic billboards or other digital signage, internet appliances or other internet-connected devices, PDAs, medical devices, ATMs, telematic devices, gaming machines, home automation systems, kiosks, remote control devices, or any other consumer electronics device, (b) operator-based mobile, cable, satellite, or television systems or (c) other closed system devices.

However, I do feel quite silly in pursuing what is now a dead end.. therefore I address Adobe with the following.

Thanks for letting us use flash-player on Linux - but please make the examples list more Linux (and even apple..) friendly :)

My recent post on the BCS questioned whether or not I should join. I've decided (also thanks to a fantastic response from Mark Harrison) to do so, probably around March.

The main article that attracted my interest enough to write the previous post, also posed a question that I have an alternate view on. The article covered:

Should BCS take a proactive role in bringing concerns of an ethical nature involving the use of IT to the public's attention?

The main paridigm of the article was that due the the members of the BCS having split affiliation between the different political parties, and therefore the politics of the individual issue - it was perhaps not in its best interests to voice an opinion - as the membership would have to be polled. The issues brought up for discussion in the article were the ID Cards - and the NHS Central Repository of Patient Information.

In my opinion this is exaclty the sort of thing I'd like an 'independent' and 'chartered' IT organisation in the UK to be doing. I don't expect such an organisation to promote/demote the actual policy - but be more involved in how the policy is implemented. Rather than contesting the need for this central repository - the organisation should be analysing and offering different methods of fulfilling the functional specification.

For ID cards, the BCS should be using their collective technical expertise to make sure that there are no 'weak points' in the infrastructure of such a critical database. The security should be audited by the BCS (paid for by whichever consultants happen to be doing the implementation). However, the BCS should not question the policy itself. In my opinion that is where the BCS would become internally divisive.

Other areas in which the BCS should operate is in analysing future market trends. The BBC iPlayer debate being something I've yet to see the BCS have much publicity over. Someone 'educated and informed' and most of all 'independent' needs to comment on what the BBC's policy actually means. The repercussions of the BBC's decision on small businesses and the IT sector in the UK need to be addressed publicly. The BCS are the only organisation (to my knowledge) that have the respect and perceived independence to be authoritative on this issue. Organisations like the OSC and ORG have done a fantastic job thus far - but as they are more 'radical' - their views are easily rebutted by the 'average joe.'

I think this is a desirable role for the BCS to take - advising people like John Pugh on the technicalities and viable options - rather than have people talk about 'principles' which are currently impossible to pursue. If there's already another organisation that fulfils this role, (as I'll consider joining that one too,) please let me know.