No pun or euphemism this time, the title says it all. Years ago Jon Lech Johansen broke the code that prevents DVDs from being played on software that isn't supplied by the movie industry, in an effort to play back store bought DVDs on his linux system. He was sued (with considerable pressure from our friends in the US), and cleared of any wrong doing. To complete the story, needless to say, there was not even one piece of software for linux at the time, supplied/endorsed by the industry, to play DVDs. And there isn't today, as far as I know.

So today people can play DVDs on linux, but not in a legal way (depending on where you live, hopefully not in the US). Jon's work has also given rise to projects like divx, xvid and the general mass distribution of movie titles, because he released the code openly (which made it possible to read DVD discs), and not just in a ready-made application. So much for DVDs.

Let's switch to music. If you buy and mp3 player today, most likely it will only work with the egregious Windows Media Player and put all kinds of restrictions on how you can transfer songs to it and how you can transfer songs from it. Not to mention that it completely kills your choice of what music player to use with your mp3 player. Not only that, most players don't support a free and open format like ogg vorbis, they will support mp3, wma and whatever proprietary bs.

If you buy and iPod, you can use it with iTunes (and probably Windows Media Player), but you certainly cannot use it on linux. That is, until someone wrote the code to allow you access to it. You also don't get to play ogg files. iRiver, the manufacturer I have given much credit (and a couple of sales through recommendations, in fact) switched their newest product lines to the Windows Media Player hell, so now if I buy a new player from them, I can't use it on linux anymore. There are companies that do support (or at least not block) linux on their players, but they're few.

So you see, when you buy a song from iTunes today (which you shouldn't, if you value your freedom), you don't actually own the song. You own it on iTunes and your iPod (and probably Windows Media Player), but no further. Not on your iRiver, not on another device or even music player software. I read a blog entry where someone described how they bought a Seinfeld DVD only to find out it was completely useless to them as the person could not play it in linux, because of DRM restrictions.

DRM (Digital Rights Management), ie. restrictions on how you can use digital content, is an abomination and I encourage anyone buying any kind of digital content to be very vigilant about what exactly they are paying for. Check all labels on the box, ask the salesman if necessary (chances are he won't know much). If you buy online, check the licence agreement (or simply google/wikipedia for an opinion on the company's restriction policy). Above all: research, research, research. Or be stuck with a product you can't use and a store that won't let you return it.

Sweden has made a commitment to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels to...zero. It's time someone took a bold stand like that!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,,1704954,00.html?gusrc=rss

Yes, as you can see, I refrained from entitling this post with the more accurate description "outrage!!!". I rarely bother commenting on political issues, as there is so much comment and debate on them anyway, but this one struck a nerve with me.

The origins of this "scandal" are found in the editing rooms of Jyllandsposten, a (minor?) Danish nationwide newspaper. The paper published a series of caricatures of the prophet Muhammad. Why? For the hell of it maybe, the motive is not relevant. What followed was protests to the Danish government from various embassies representing Islamic countries, demanding an apology for this blasphemious act. This happened almost 6 months ago, but since then the reactions have magnified and recently there have been tons of protests and uproar, both in Denmark and against Danish embassies in various countries. It's gone so far as to boycotting Danish products in Saudi Arabia I believe.

Leaving for a moment the idiotic stance of boycotting a whole nation for the acts of a few people, what kind of gross misunderstanding of the concept of free speech does it take for a person to realize that satire is an accepted and legal means of expression? If the reactions here were purely an outrage over Jyllandsposten and people started to boycott the newspaper, fine. But to blacklist a country over this, to apply diplomatic pressure, to egg an embassy, to boycott Danish products? That's misdirected energy and passion, religion being the poison which incites it.

Oh cmon it's election day, you really thought I wouldn't get political? :P

Like it or not, we and most other nations (if not all) in the world today are affected by the outcome of these theatrics currently in progress. It's fair to say in the long run it affects us just as much (or probably more) than whatever may be the outcome of the political process here at home. Thus it shouldn't be hard to understand that the world gets involved when the only world superpower is electing its leader. And the world has voted overwhelmingly for not-Bush. In the grand scheme of US politics, where no person without a fortune and the backing of most the country's multinational corporations is a worthy candidate, it might seem trivial to get worked up about who might win. Either of the sides is still going to do favors for their corporate patrons and noone cares about the people anyway.

But seeing how much damage the Bush camp has managed to inflict over the past four years, considering that administration shows no restraint in pursuing their blatant self-interests at the expense of long standing, well established diplomatic relations (for one thing), the choice seems very clear. The puppet must not win, otherwise the puppet masters currently in power will never hesitate to extend this dreadful streak of ruthless foreign policy and domestic misery. Bush is no orator and in his poor rhetoric, I noticed that he doesn't speak much about domestic issues at all. It's all about "we have to defend ourselves", "this is a great country", "hard working people" and for some reason people don't seem to mind hearing that. Yes, let uncle tell us a story. In Orwellish manner, the "threat to national security" is so great that he gets away with harping on that same thing and that's enough to please the masses. "America was attacked". Meanwhile fresh reports suggest the number of civilian casualties in Iraq has surpassed 100,000 but that never makes the big headlines.

I might as well say I don't know anything about John Kerry. But his people couldn't possibly be any worse than this.

I get the impression it doesn't happen often that we as citizens commend our government or parliament for doing something good. More likely, we're complaining about all the pointless decision that they make. But in this case I am happy to announce that our representatives have applied common sense to a problem that was not all too complicated to solve and arrived at a meaningful and sensible solution. I may be giving these people too much credit here, as it almost seems like what happened is a result of the decisions they made rather than a target goal. In any case, common sense has prevailed and that's the most important.

In the space of the last decade, the national defence budget has been slashed considerably, thus causing Norway's armed forces to reduce the number of recruits in the mandatory nationwide draft from 100% to less than half the gentlemen age 19 who are declared physically fit. In other words, anyone eligible for the draft at 18 not willing to take part in the ordeal now has a fairly good chance of skipping it. In my case, in those days the draft was still all encompassing but certain exceptions were being made. I was drafted and set to sit out that one year in the woods like the vast majority of males my age when I signed up for community service in the 11th hour. (For those not informed, in Norway you may skip service in the army on grounds of strong conviction, in my case pacifism which isn't even a fictional stand, with the consequence of being shifted to community service and serving an equal time period there.) But for some reason the infrastructure responsible for offering community service for those not willing to serve in the army was being overrun by my peers and my "term of service" was being postponed several times. Finally, I was informed that enough time had passed for them to clear my name from their system in clear conscience (I believe the timeframe was 3 years) and I would not be doing any community service. In other words, the draft did not affect me at all.

So nowadays, it has become easier to skip out on the army for those not willing than it was for me and much easier than it was for those facing that situation 10 or 15 years ago. And since the infrastructure for community service is unable to process all the rest, a sizeable share of people will not be doing anything. And just today on the news it was reported that since the number of places in the army is now limited, there is actually competition among those eligible to be drafted because some really want to. And thus through common sense, one has accomplished the following two goals, which I advocated years ago:

1. The army is composed to a much greater extent of motivated individuals who find military service to be meaningful and a component in their future career (the army offers various educational programs which allow people to get a degree while working part time in the army and thus avoid considerable debt due to costly student loans).

2. Those of us who don't believe in the cause and have no interest in seeing weapons being fired aside from the occasional James Bond movie every couple of years are left the hell alone.

I raise my glass to you..