Bloody. Hell. 15-6. Damn. But South Africa deserved it. Just.

The match is over, but the dream remains. England can win again. But this time it was South Africa’s turn. They played better in one single part of play, and that was enough to make the difference in many other areas of the game.

What did they do better? Basically, they bonded two men into one unit far better than England. Look at the rucks. Look at the mauls. look at the tackling. Their different tactic made a huge difference, so big that although England actually played better in free play, they couldn’t cope in other key areas of the game.

So what was the South African secret weapon? Bonding. Between players. Especially noticeable in the ruck where the Springbok counter rucking was very effective, this bonding showed up in any situation where in “normal” Rugby there is a one on one confrontation. Tackling was another area in which this two-to-one advantage showed itself to be very effective. This South African tactic created so many turnovers in so many phases of the game it became the springboard for many attacks.

Even where the South Africans didn’t win the ball, their bonding stopped England walking away with the ball. So, when it was carried out effectively, it became superbly attacking play; when not performed to the same effectiveness, it remained an extremely effective defensive play. A kind of win-win play.

This South African tactic created so many turnovers in so many phases of the game it became the springboard for many attacks. Everywhere else the teams were pretty well matched. The wings neutralised each other very well. The lineouts were pretty even, although the South Africans may have had the edge early on. And the scrum, one of England’s main weapons, gave nobody any particular advantage. So, the main difference was this bonding, in which both men worked as if in a three legged race, or perhaps in a rowing eight with everyone pulling together to create a machine rather than a group of men.

England played very well though. The defense took the spring right out of the Springbok stride and stopped another 36-0 drubbbing, as they had been beaten by the same team in the same tournament just 37 days ago. What a difference 37 days make.

When South Africa did penetrate into the England half they generally scored. This wasn’t the case when England penetrated South Africa’s line, but they did have one try disallowed. Shame. It would really have changed the flavour of the game. But, Matthew Tait who made the move will remember the loss and it will fuel his preparation for next time. He’s only 21. Now he’s tasted it, he’ll want more next time.

Let’s not take anything away from South Africa though. They have been the team of the year and have beaten everyone they played against. Often by huge, huge margins. They are supreme Champions who deserved the Rugby World Cup in 2007.  But I’ll bet they were sweating a bit!

How to Win in Formula 1? Send an email to your competitors.

As we have seen, McLaren-Mercedes have lost their constructors’ championship points for the 2007 season and will pay a record fine of $100 million USD, the FIA World Motor Sport Council decided today.

So, to win the Formula 1 World Championship you don’t need to actually beat anyone on the track. You don’t have to have a double World Champion in your team. You don’t even have to have spent ten years supporting the brightest new star in Formula 1 for decades.

No. All you need do is “find” one of your employees’ email accounts (preferably of someone whose name you wish to tarnish too because they’re leaving your team) was “used” to send an email containing technical information about your car – allegedly not even commercially worthwhile or confidential information – to your main competitor.

Everyone knows that Formula 1 has had spy scandals for years, and three time World Champion Sir Jackie Stewart has said so publicly. What is unusual this time is that Ferrari are usually the ones accused of spying on everyone else, even of listening in to car to pit telemetry broadcasts to gain an advantage (I seem to remember them at one point reportedly employing an ex-Military radio expert as a “security consultant” – but I could be wrong).

As long as I have been following Formula 1 it has been widely known and reported that no top team maintains a technical advantage over another for more than a few races, because their engineers are so clever they can copy anything. There were rumours in the past that Ferrari had the ability to “see” scrutineering reports of competitor cars parked in parc ferme. These days, with Technical Specifications so narrowly defined, it would be hard to identify truly original ideas, but easy to complain someone has copied you just because their car works the same way.

As for the cheating and on-track shenanigans of the team with one M Schumacher in the driving seat, with Rubens Barrichello admitting proudly he was “equal” to MS because he was the No. 1(b) driver at Ferrari. Ferrari were never punished for favouring Schumacher, even though it was well known, contractual, and quite illegal under the “sport’s” rules. Ferrari are also said to have more representatives on the World Council than any other team. That doesn’t seem right, does it? But then, Ferrari are renowned for spending more money than any other team…

But why fine McLaren now, and so much – an unprecedented $100 million? Is it because they had the audacity to be the first team to bring a coloured driver to the sport? Not only that, but to create a world class, winning coloured driver to boot? A driver who has upset the cozy, white establishment represented by the likes of Max Mosley, second son of Sir Oswald Mosley, former leader of the British Union of Fascists. Max Mosley, by the way, is a barrister and is President of the FIA, Formula 1’s governing body who passed down this enormous fine.

I’m not sure I believe any of the above though. It’s more likely to be payback time for McLaren’s support of the breakaway movement that for a few years threatened to set up a rival series to F1 which all the major manufacturers set themselves against the FIA. Except Ferrari.

The FIA are said to be releasing more details on Friday, but you can bet you’ll be scratching your head about it afterwards. From a fan’s point of view, it’s clear that McLaren are being made into scapegoats here. And yet again, Ferrari benefit as with McLaren’s Constructor’s Points disappearing Ferrari will now be the World Champion Constructor – and the season still hasn’t ended! Remember, Macchiavelli was Italian.

So, if you are planning to win in Formula 1, just remember that email address your competitor uses, and spike their mails! Who cares if your car is outclassed? Who cares if your team is disintegrating? Who cares if there is no overtaking? Just send an email to your competitor, accuse them of skullduggery, and sit back and rake in your rewards.

Formula 1 has gone totally, totally mad. Worse, the inmates are in charge of the asylum. Poor Bernie.

Never buy a Computer for a Woman

After at least six months of “my computer doesn’t work properly” I bought my other half a new MacBook. I admit I’ve been pushing for Macs in the office for 2 years – since I found out how good my Mac mini was. But it wasn’t as if she’d never seen the MacBook, she’d even said she liked it. Especially since it could run Windows.

She’d seen it in the shop and said it looked a lot nicer than the others (PCs) and if she had the money she’d buy one, even if it was a Mac which she “doesn’t understand”.

Then her keyboard broke. She sent me an email with all the words on a line of their own, with many letters missing to prove it.

So, mug that I am I went and bought a MacBook – the very same one she said she really liked. The Black One, 2.16 GHz etc.

When I brought it home as a surprise I got a black look, and a deadly silence. “I feel like you’ve hit me over the head!” she said. Huh? How’d that happen? Big discussion followed. I said I’d take it back. That was yesterday.

Today, she said she liked it. She’d have it. I felt good for a moment. Then she didn’t want it. I said I’d take it back.

I biked in to work today so left the computer at home until I took the car. I saw her in the afternoon “I’m sorry I gave you a hard time last night, I do want it, thank you.”

That was a sudden change, but nonetheless welcome.

When I got home this evening, I was expecting her to at least open the box, plug it into her iMac, and do a data transfer using Migration Assistant. She could have the computer to use in the office tomorrow to replace her buggered keyboard. And knackered computer.

No. She doesn’t want it any more. “All that money! Take it back!” Yet another discussion. I said I’d take it back.

Her computer is a 4 year old Maxdata Pentium M Centrino 1.5 or something like that. The keyboard has no visible lettering anymore. Half the keys don’t work. It can’t connect to our wireless Network at home, and if you change the Windows 98 Network settings so it can connect up to the internet at home they all have to be redone manually to connect to the office network. And redone again on returning from work. There’s no automated script. The battery doesn’t work anymore. It crashes three to four times per day. It’s been infected by viruses at least twice.

She’s a lawyer. Would you believe it? She’s one of the principal earners in the office, if not the largest, and she depends on her computer for doing it.

Would I buy a computer for a woman again? Why bother? At least with flowers the same bad feeling only costs me a fiver!

What did I do wrong?

Another World First for Apple Innovators

I’m getting a picture of Laura Metz, the head of desktops at Apple. It’s coming through the ether to me – big power shoulder pads, possibly in purple; lots of chunky costume jewellery, designer dresses, shiny patent leather shoes but not quite matching accessories. Oh yes, and “thin” is important to her.

Where am I getting this from? Well, the new Apple iMac of course. It’s big, shiny, glossy, overly decorated, designer label – and it’s accessories don’t quite match… Who decided a black, aluminium and glossy glass computer would match a white plastic mouse and a white and aluminium keyboard? Oh, yes, most important, don’t forget – it’s very thin! The keyboard is thin, the computer is thin. It’s a thin client computer.

Who cares if the computer is thin? I look at mine front on, it’s then just a 2 dimensional thing in front of me. Like a mirror. Actually, exactly like a mirror. No, it is a mirror! So much so that the only way to view the machine without seeing everything behind you and hardly anything in front of you (ie what’s on the screen) is to point the screen away from you like in this picture by Doug Rosa.

Suddenly it’s all become clear! Of course, its thin – it has to be! Yet another Apple Innovation – the world’s first only-viewable-from-the-side computer. Glossy? It has no option. Glossy glass for a lossy lass. Poor old Laura. Looks like she Metz her match with that one…

Shame really, I was going to buy one – but not with a glossy screen. No matte screen, no deal.

And Steve, I don’t care how bloody thin it is! I just want to be able to read my text…

Bush: Hoist by his own petard

Second Bush Inaugural Speech, January 2005

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.

Hmm, that’s interesting. Sounds great, doesn’t it? But I’m having a problem here. According to the reliably informed BBC website “US, Israel vow to support Abbas” who is part of the party that just lost the democratic elections in Palestine. Their report says:

US President George W Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert have offered strong support for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

Calling Mr Abbas “the president of all the Palestinian people”, both men pledged to work with his new emergency government, which excludes Hamas.

Hamas of course won the democratic elections of 18 months ago, but have been prevented from taking over effectively by outside forces. Now, I’m no fan of extremists, but Pres Bush can’t have it both ways. Either he believes in democracy, or he doesn’t. We know what he says he believes in, but his actions speak differently.

When Hamas won the elections, it was because most people were tired of the corruption that seemed endemic in Fatah. What little money was going into the Palestinian Authority was being skimmed off by officials who were decorating their bathrooms with gold taps, amongst other things, as Robert Fisk said in the Independent of Saturday 16th June while their countrymen were starving and struggling.

The fact that Hamas actually took part in the elections at all shows that they were, like the IRA once did before they gave up violence altogether, moving away from violence and towards peaceful solutions. Instead of being rewarded – even recognised – they and all the Palestinian people in the occupied territories were punished by having all funding cut off, diplomatic ties cut, and even humanitarian aid rationed. Taxes that were collected by Israel on behalf of the PA were withheld.

So Hamas, the elected government of Palestine, tried to build bridges with Fatah by having a National Unity government, but even this was spurned. Finally, after they had tried the peaceful path and gotten nowhere, Hamas took control in Gaza by force. The BBC website goes on to say:

Mr Abbas dismissed the government on Thursday after it seized control of the Gaza Strip.

Err, excuse me, but aren’t elected government’s supposed to have control over the lands they were elected to govern? That’s like Her Majesty the Queen dismissing the Labour Party as the government because they control Northern Ireland. Hello! I smell hypocrisy here.

Now, suddenly, Fatah and Abbas are a “Partner for Peace” according to Ehud Olmert. The Palestinian Tax monies that were withheld by Israel for 18 months and that amount to some $800 million are being hurriedly transferred (“officially”) to the PA, Israel is allowing humanitarian aid into the Gaza strip, and Condo Rice has said the US will establish “full diplomatic relations” with the Palestinian Authority immediately.

The message this sends out to the world is: “The US punishes your people if you choose democracy and rewards them if there is violence”. Everyone in Gaza who receives the new help will know it must be related to something Hamas did and support them more, and those in the West Bank will also know. People aren’t stupid.

Just the odd President.

What seems clear to me though, is that anti-Western terrorism will persist until the Middle East question – let’s be honest and use its real name, the Palestinian question – is sorted out. What is also clear is that while the Christian Zionists and neo-Cons in the US and their counterparts in Israel persist in believing that they have Biblical Rights to the land of the West Bank – rights which allow them even to break some of the Ten Commandments (Thou shalt not Kill, Thou shalt not Steal, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house) then how can there be peace in Palestine?

There is a lost opportunity here. Hamas showed an olive branch by taking part in elections. By insisting on an ever-expanding Jewish State, peace has been rejected by the Israelis. As Ghandi once said:

There is no path to peace: Peace is the path!

But what do I know? I just want everyone to coexist in peace and harmony, leave egos, greed and vengeance behind, and end the hypocrisy of modern politics. Those going to the ballot box should be encouraged, not punished. Isn’t one of the principles of democracy that we have to sometimes allow someone we don’t like to win? Or isn’t the will of the people really that important?

I could care less…

Wrong! It isn’t “I could  care less” – it’s “I couldn’t care less!” If you miss out the “couldn’t, it actually means you really care a lot… and mostly it isn’t used in this context.

This phrase really annoys me, it is abused so often. It’s a joke. And yet people – mainly Americans right now but I am sure it will spread – people keep on getting it wrong, time after time, in comments, on fora, mostly on the internet.

I could care less… but then I wouldn’t be so passionate about it!

Diabetes can improve your life

I haven’t posted for a while as the hospital room I was in had no internet access. I’d like to say I got plenty of rest as a result, but in hospital? With the comings and goings of staff and other patients, nurses and Doctors poking and prodding you – and the condition you brought with you to contend with as well – rest is not at the top of the list of things a hospital provides. So why stay there?

I’d had a fairly average Sunday visiting my sister-in-law’s for a meal. Now, I like my food. There aren’t many things I won’t eat – although lemon curd and lemon meringue I can live without – so as the years passed I gradually put on more and more weight. At my sister-in-law’s I ate my normal two portions (it was a salad this time, so not very fattening) but afterwards I had a hyperglycaemic attack which led me to hospital. Here they noticed I had high blood sugar of 32 mmol/L which is about five times higher than normal.

Diagnosis: Type 2 diabetes.

That’s the one where you inherit the likelihood of developing diabetes provided you also stuff yourself silly and gain weight. Once my Body Mass Index (BMI) passed 30 I was classed as obese. Like many people, I ate and ate but did no exercise. I sat in front of the TV or computer and avoided exercise like the plague, despite once having been an avid athlete.

As my fat cells increased in number, they began to interfere more and more with my normal sugar metabolism. It’s a fascinating story of physiology, but I’ll spare you the gory details. Suffice it to say the body loses the ability to get the energy the sugar carries in the blood into the cells that need it. The blood runs thicker, blood vessels can become blocked, and because less sugar gets into each cell the brain sends messages asking for more and more food. It’s a vicious circle, and can lead to lethargy, tiredness, and other nasties. Amputation for instance. Blindness. Death. It’s serious business.

Surprisingly, sugar is actually a poison: go on, think about it, when did the sugar in your house ever go mouldy? That’s why jam uses sugar to preserve fruit and why low sugar jams go mouldy quicker than full sugar jams.

Type 2 Diabetes isn’t all black though, it can be treated quite easily in many cases using a combination of diet and exercise. It sometimes vanishes completely, although the damage it does generally cannot be repaired.

And that’s where having diabetes can actually improve your life! It’s forced me to change my lifestyle – for the better. I am back to a regular programme of exercise after 25 years without, and I eat so healthily now it’s unreal. I feel I have been given my life back – and I feel a lot younger as a result. My healthy diet (I’ll say more about that in another post when I get around to it) has also resulted in my skin becoming softer, less dry, younger looking. Instead of the 8 Kg weight gain the Doctors expected, I’ve actually lost a bit.

While the drug therapy can substitute for diet and exercise, exercising really does affect your blood sugar in a positive way: your muscles suck sugar out of your blood as fuel, and this allows your natural insulin to get to work again.

I can’t emphasise enough how important diet and exercise are, so I’ll leave a description of them until another post. What is important though, is that having Diabetes is not the end of the world, you can even get a lot of positives from it. I have!

Who wants the Glory?

Command of NATO forces in Afghanistan is changing hands again. This time the Brits are handing over to the Americans, whose General in charge has earned himself the nickname “Bomber” so we all know what’s coming next.

US and British soldiers have fundamentally different attitudes to solving military problems, even when fighting together. The American military it seems likes to use a “hit ‘em hard” approach like they used in Vietnam; the Brits, with their experience of winning hearts and minds and ending hostilities in Northern Ireland, like to take a more pragmatic, softly softly approach.

Last year there was a British led offensive to remove the Taleban from Helmand province in SE Afghanistan, which the Brits nearly won. They needed and asked for the funds for more reserves so they could cut off the retreating Taleban and finish the job, but were denied the men they needed. Of course, the Taleban got away to fight another day.

This year, the US take over command of ISAF and are also planning another campaign to remove the newly returned Taleban. And guess what? They are getting the extra cash and reserves the Brits asked for last year. Surprise surprise. Someone wants to hog all the glory.

There are two problems here. The first is a uniquely American one: some, but certainly not a majority, of their on the whole rather good Generals covet political power. Examples of this include Gen Wesley Clark who ran for the Democrat Party’s nomination for President, and Gen Colin Powell who served as Secretary of State in George W Bush’s first term.

Those two Generals were certainly not the first though: they stand at the end of a long line of Generals for whom glory on the battlefield led to political success as well.

Does this affect their judgement as soldiers? Possibly. Does it mean they are more likely to jealously guard or seek out any “glory opportunities” for themselves, perhaps at the expense of getting the job done?

There are certainly some strong rumours that Osamu bin Laden got away because the Americans wanted to be the ones to capture him, even though the British SAS were in the best place to strike, had him under close observation, and were told not to strike but to wait for the Americans.

Somebody once said “You can achieve anything so long as you don’t mind who takes the credit” and I suppose this was one of those moments where the credit mattered more than the task itself. A bit like the internal political squabbles that affected the performance of American security agencies inside that great country around the time of 911.

The second problem here is the squabble over tactics, and in a way this may be affected by the first problem. Let me explain.

Part of the British softly softly approach was to win over the tribal elders (the real power in societies such as Afghanistan and Pakistan). The Brits got together a group of people willing to stand up to the Taleban, people who helped push them out of their protected powerbases. These people went out on a limb to get rid of the Taleban, and have been let down.

Why? Because the Taleban were not crushed, and are now returning. By denying the Brits the reserve support, not only could the Americans claim the British tactics didn’t work, they also created circumstances in which the glory could be theirs – or at least, not the Brits’.

Now the Americans are coming in with Bomber as their boss, the fragile but strategic gains made under the British command may be obliterated in a storm of bullets, bombs and heavy-handedness.

It’s about time the hunt for glory was left behind, and people started focussing on the issues now. If we are to get rid of Osamu bin Laden, does it matter who does it? Or are future political careers more important? Soldiers’ lives may depend on how much of a glory seeker their boss is.

Bumbling BBC gives away millions to Microsoft with exclusive 2 year viewer lock-in! (Updated)

Yes, it’s true, the Executive of the BBC is giving Microsoft the equivalent of millions in revenue. For free. On an exclusive basis. They don’t seem to have even realised the commercial implications of what they are doing. But this blogger does.

The BBC wants to begin offering a BBC on-demand TV over the internet service. It’s a very laudable aim – giving viewers 7 days to freely download a program they missed, and then a further 30 days to watch it before it disappears in a puff of smoke. OK, electrons, but let’s not get pedantic.

The problem is, they are planning to use a Microsoft-based DRM strategy. Not only will the strategy be based only on the Microsoft platform, but it will also need Windows XP or above and Media Player 10 to work. If you have a computer that uses Windows 3.1, 95, 98, ME, NT4, 2000, or any Linux or Apple Macintosh computer the BBC will thus exclude you – even if you have paid your licence fee.

Before everything is finalised though, it has to go through a Public Value Test or PVT, and the Conclusions of the BBCTrust [pdf download, 167 kb] which now sits above the governors and the Executive are now available for public scrutiny.

I’ll save you reading through the entire document (it’s pretty yawn inducing overall) but I recommend you read just two bits.

On Page 10, near the bottom it says:

The BBC Executive proposes a digital rights management solution which would require consumers to be using Windows XP (or above) and Windows Media Player 10 (or above) to be able to access seven-day TV catch-up over the internet.

You have to hand it to the Microsoft sales guys, don’t you? They really got into the BBC’s britches! No wonder the BBC is gently pushing Vista – it’s fundamental to their ideas for DRM, so of course they are looking favourably on any press release from Microsoft and even gave Bill Gates an easy time of it when Huw Edwards interviewed him this week.

Then, at the top of Page 11 they go on to say:

Our understanding is that the BBC Executive aspires to offer an alternative DRM framework, which would enable Apple and Linux users to access the service, but has yet to identify a satisfactory solution. In either case, we will expect this to have been addressed within 24 months.

This is the most dangerous point. It basically gives free rein to Microsoft to build a dominating presence in the nascent TV over internet market in the UK. Not only that, but it allows Microsoft free access to BBC television for at least 2 years, as the BBC Trust only require a proposed solution, not an implemented one, within 2 years!

By that time, Microsoft will have used the advantage thus gained to deal a mortal blow to Apple in the home environment for entertainment, or will at least have dramatically clipped Apple’s wings so expansion into that space will have been made only by Microsoft, and not by Apple. First mover advantage would then give yet another monopoly market share to Microsoft. In the UK, the BBC is clearly the dominant player.

The BBC may argue that they had to pick one technology, and don’t have the resources to develop solutions for two. Since their revenue comes mostly from the UK TV Licence Fee – which has just been increased – I can understand their resources are limited to their £4 billion per year income. Which is why it is all the stranger that they haven’t asked Microsoft to pay millions for this exclusive arrangement. Well, not to the BBC anyway. It’ll certainly be worth that and more to Microsoft who get to lock consumers out of Apple and Linux, just at a time when the pendulum is beginning to move in that direction and away from Microsoft.

It isn’t as if there are not already some well-tested alternative solutions in place. Apple has very successful Movies and TV Shows sections with DRM in it’s iTunes store which serves both Microsoft and Apple computers. Linux I know less about, but there must be some alternatives out there for Linux too.

The provisional conclusions are open to consultation for a period of eight weeks, following which a final decision whether or not to approve the proposals will be made by the Trust by 2 May 2007.

If you use an Apple Mac or a Linux box, you need to ask why as a licence payer you are being penalised for choosing a more secure computer; if you use Windows you should ask why Microsoft has not been asked to pay for this vastly commercially advantageous deal that will guarantee them a protected market share for at least two years.

You can send in your complaints to pvtconsultation.ondemand@bbc.co.uk or by snail mail (always gets the BBCs attention) to this address:

On-Demand Consultation
BBC Trust
35 Marylebone High Street
London W1U 4AA

The Minister with responsibility for TV in the UK is Tessa Jowell, who must be looking for a good platform on which to rebuild her reputation right now after the Mills-Berlusconi affair. You can e-mail Tessa Jowell at tessa.jowell@culture.gsi.gov.uk

Update
Ofcom first raised the issue of competition, so are also involved. You can reach them here:
Ofcom Board members and their email addresses

As the Ofcom website is very difficult to navigate to a point from which you can actually do something I’ve also copied the names and emails of their main movers for you:

Chief Executive Officer
Ed.Richards@ofcom.org.uk

Chief Technology Officer
peter.ingram@ofcom.org.uk

Partner, Competition
sean.williams@ofcom.org.uk

Peter Ingram you may remember was involved with the EU’s legal case regarding Microsoft’s alleged abuse of monopoly power which Microsoft have so far lost every round of, but have still to change their attitude regarding lockins of users and lock outs of competitors of their software.

I’ve had a look at the EU website too. The EU’s Competition Commissioner, Neelie Kroes, is clearly going to need to look into this matter. Here’s a relevant excerpt from her website:

“As European Commissioner for Competition, my aim is to promote a fair and free environment for business in Europe.

The job involves both setting EU-wide rules to guarantee fair competition, and enforcing them fairly and with vigour, to prevent and punish any breaches. That means making sure that:

• companies do not carve up markets or fix prices amongst themselves;

• taxpayers money is used to pursue socially desirable objectives without disproportionately distorting competition or wasted when public authorities grant subsidies to business“.

(The italics are mine, just to highlight the areas which this BBC action is moving into.)

Clearly, the BBC-Microsoft deal will carve up markets; the two year timescale will significantly distort competition; and the lack of a fee being charged to Microsoft is in effect a subsidy. It’s a subsidy because a canny commercial broadcaster would have wrung a high price for giving such a hugely advantageous arrangement to a software company that is just beginning to lose market share in both the internet and desktop computer markets.

In effect, the BBC are giving Microsoft a two year season ticket for free.

To contact Neelie Kroes:

Neelie Kroes
European Commissioner for Competition
Neelie.Kroes@ec.europa.eu

Further info:
The Guardian on the BBC iPlayer

University of Auckland Computer Science Department Paper by Peter Gutmann
A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection

MS Cracking Up?

Reports of Microsoft Zune screens cracking up are being denied by Microsoft; at least, rumour has it that Zune owners with such problems are having their claims under warranty refused. Apparently the screens crack up when Zunes are left on charge overnight, but Microsoft allegedly claim it’s nothing to do with them.

Speculation is rife that the batteries physically expand and pressure the screens from inside, thus cracking them, but heat could also be an issue here: everyone knows that recharging a device creates heat, and heat can crack some plastics.

On its own, a report such as this could be ignored as an isolated occurrence, perhaps malicious, but when you read this report about a Key Microsoft Zune Exec leaving the company you have to wonder, don’t you?

There’s no smoke without fire…