Sadly, Firefox today looks like it belongs in the last decade. However, a proposed user interface evolution shows Firefox morphing into Google Chrome over two iterations.
A lot of people got excited when Mozilla announced in 2007 that Firefox 3 would include a visual refresh focussing on system integration. Finally, Firefox would look like it belonged in Windows Vista. Sadly, that wasn’t the case, and Firefox today still looks like it belongs in the last decade.
Recently, a number of blogs have picked up these screenshots, showing mock-ups of the interface for Firefox 3.7. But what I found more interesting was the proposed interface evolution shown here:
After stopping off briefly at Firefox 3.7, the interface continues its evolution until it’s practically indistinguishable from Google Chrome.
I happen to love the Chrome interface, so, if accurate, this is nothing but good news. But it’ll be a long wait until Firefox 4.0. The question now is whether Google can add support for extensions to Chrome before Mozilla adds a modern interface to Firefox.
Greater Union stops burying its $1 per ticket ‘booking fee’ in the fine print after recent changes to the Trade Practices Act.
Recently, I was checking session times on the Greater Union website and I noticed that their advertising had changed. Previously, Greater Union enticed its visitors to join its CINE BUZZ club with low ticket prices for certain movies:
This type of advertising always annoyed me. ‘How much for that eight-dollar ticket?’ ‘Nine dollars, thank you.’
(1) A corporation must not, in trade or commerce, in connection with:
(a) the supply or possible supply of goods or services to a person (the relevant person); or
(b) the promotion by any means of the supply of goods or services to a person (the relevant person) or of the use of goods or services by a person (the relevant person);
make a representation with respect to an amount that, if paid, would constitute a part of the consideration for the supply of the goods or services unless the corporation also:
(c) specifies, in a prominent way and as a single figure, the single price for the goods or services; and
(d) if, in relation to goods:
(i) the corporation does not include in the single price a charge that is payable in relation to sending the goods from the supplier to the relevant person; and
(ii) the corporation knows, at the time of the representation, the minimum amount of a charge in relation to sending the goods from the supplier to the relevant person that must be paid by the relevant person;
specifies that minimum amount.
Subsection (7) provides that ‘single price’ means ‘the minimum quantifiable consideration for the supply concerned at the time of the representation concerned’, and subsection (4) provides that the single price must be specified in at least as prominent a way as the most prominent component of the price.
So section 53C prevents corporations from advertising, say, movie tickets as $8 with the unavoidable $1 per ticket ‘booking fee’ buried in the fine print. It’s about time.
You can find a useful ACCC summary of the new section here.
Update: Recently, Greater Union posted a similar promotion, for $7 movie tickets for students.
A tiny plugin to change the annoying minimum and maximum font sizes used by the default tag cloud widget in WordPress.
One of the annoyances about the default tag cloud widget in WordPress is that there is no easy way to change the minimum and maximum font size that the widget uses. While the recent release of WordPress 2.8 doesn’t add any UI to change those sizes, it’s now easier to change them than before.
WordPress 2.8 adds a new widget_tag_cloud_argsfilter, which you can use to override the default arguments that are passed to the wp_tag_cloud function. The filter provides a keyed array, where the smallest, largest, and unit keys represent the smallest font size, the largest font size, and the unit (‘pt’, ‘em’, ‘px’, etc) used by the default tag cloud widget.
You can change the minimum and maximum font size that the default tag cloud widget uses in WordPress 2.8 by creating a new plugin that hooks that filter as explained below.
Step-by-Step
Create a new text file called tag-cloud-resizer.php. Copy and paste the following code into that text file, changing the relevant values as desired, and save it.
<?php/*Plugin Name: Tag Cloud ResizerPlugin URI: https://chris.dziemborowicz.com/blog/2009/06/11/change-the-tag-cloud-font-size-in-wordpress-2-8/Version: 1.2Author: Chris DziemborowiczAuthor URI: https://chris.dziemborowicz.com/Description: Changes the font sizes used by the tag cloud widget.*/functiontcr_tag_cloud_filter($args=array()){$args['smallest']=8;$args['largest']=12;$args['unit']='pt';return$args;}add_filter('widget_tag_cloud_args','tcr_tag_cloud_filter',90);
Create a new directory called tag-cloud-resizer in your wp-content/plugins directory, and upload tag-cloud-resizer.php to the new directory. Finally, activate the plugin by logging into WordPress as an administrator, selecting Plugins from the menu, and selecting Activate for the Tag Cloud Resizer plugin.
The EULA for the Razer mouse driver software reads, ‘Razer™ grants you a … license to use one copy of the enclosed software … on one computer only … No other rights are granted.’
I did it. I bought a Razer Mamba mouse. It’s a AU$200 mouse, AU$140 of which is in the form of its packaging. Besides being beautifully designed, it performs very well, and it’s highly recommended if you have the money.
Being inclined as I am, I decided to read through the legalese that accompanies the mouse, including the EULA for the driver software.
Razer™ IS WILLING TO LICENSE THE ENCLOSED SOFTWARE TO YOU ONLY ON THE CONDITION THAT YOU ACCEPT ALL OF THE TERMS CONTAINED IN THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT.
That’s generous. I wonder what kind of license they’re willing to grant.
Razer™ grants you a non-exclusive, revocable license to use one copy of the enclosed software program, licensed and not sold to you, (“Software”) on one computer only with the Razer™ product you have purchased. No other rights are granted. [Emphasis added.]
It’s good to know that I won’t be able to use this mouse with more than one computer, especially given that it comes with on-board memory specifically for the purpose of easily moving it between multiple computers.
Installation on a network server for the sole purpose of your internal distribution of the Software is permitted only if you have purchased an individual Software package or concurrent dedicated license for each networked computer to which the Software is distributed. …
You may not transmit the Software over a network (except as expressly permitted above) or electronically using any means. [Emphasis added.]
So I can’t store it on my home server either. Nice.
It goes without saying that Razer does not, I’m sure, intend to enforce any of this. Indeed enforcement would be difficult for a number of reasons, particularly Razer’s inconsistent advertising. I would emphasise, however, that there is no fair use concept in Australia.
One of the goals when drafting a contract is to protect your client’s interests. But the other is to give effect to the bargain struck. It’s incredibly frustrating when lawyers draft licenses such as this and completely ignore the latter.
Yesterday, Senator Conroy said that filtering could be implemented with a voluntary industry code. Here’s what he (probably) meant.
Australian IT ran a story yesterday suggesting that Senator Stephen Conroy is backing away from the ‘mandatory’ in his mandatory Internet filtering plan. The story refers to statements that Senator Conroy made in a Senates Estimates hearing suggesting that filtering could be implemented with a voluntary industry code.
To explain what he (probably) meant, I have set out how filtering is governed by a voluntary industry code today, how this can be changed to make filtering mandatory, and what exactly is ‘voluntary’ about this industry code.
Current System
Schedule 5 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth), which is presently in force and has been for years, already provides that ISPs must filter ‘prohibited content’ and ‘potential prohibited content’ hosted overseas notified to them by ACMA.
However, that filtering is subject to any industry code (a code made by a body or association that represents ISPs) that sets out a notification scheme for such content and procedures that ISPs will follow when notified of such content.
In other words, the Act provides that ACMA can direct ISPs to filter out ‘prohibited content’ and ‘potential prohibited content’ hosted overseas unless ISPs have made a code that says that they will deal with the content in some other way.
The Internet Industry Association (IIA) has made such a code. The most recent version is the Internet Industry Codes of Practice 2005, and it’s registered by ACMA here. The Code provides that ACMA will notify the content to makers of IIA Family Friendly Filters, and that ISPs will distribute those filters to customers who want them at no more than cost. Effectively, this creates an opt-in filtering system.
What Senator Conroy was saying was that there are two ways to introduce mandatory Internet filtering: change the legislation so that ISPs have to filter despite any code or change the code to require mandatory filtering.
Voluntary Codes are Mandatory
But if the industry code is voluntary, how can it provide for mandatory filtering? The answer is that compliance with a registered industry code is not really voluntary.
The code is voluntary in that the IIA (or some other body or association that represents ISPs) would have to voluntarily make it (as opposed to legislation which is simply imposed by Parliament). However, once it’s made and registered by ACMA, ACMA can direct an ISP to comply with it.
While failure to comply with the code is not itself an offence, failure to comply with a direction to comply with the code is. The penalty is $5,500 for each day of contravention for an individual and $27,500 for each day of contravention for a body corporate.
Effectively, compliance with the code is mandatory.
In Summary
In this way, even though the code would be voluntarily made, ISPs could be required to comply with it, making filtering effectively mandatory. And even if compliance with the code were truly voluntary, filtering could still be mandatory from the perspective of the end user if enough ISPs chose to comply with it.
None of this is to suggest that the IIA is likely to change the code to mandate filtering. Indeed, given the opposition to filtering, it’s unlikely that ISPs would volunteer to implement filtering on a mandatory basis (especially with the overbroad definition of ‘prohibited content’ in the current Act).
Unfortunately, though, it’s a little too early to celebrate victory over mandatory filtering.
While I have attempted to write this post without bias, I am opposed to any plan for mandatory filtering of online content.
This post is not intended as legal advice. I make no representations whatsoever as to its quality, and will not be liable for any loss, injury, or damage howsoever resulting from it. Seek independent legal advice.
