I had submitted this comic to The Peak a week ago, but John Morrison III decided that a cat with a giant penis was funnier, and Graham Templeton found the idea of “everybody draw Mohammed day” hypocritical. He wrote a scathing critique of the event on the basis that the western world is only now – after the fire and brimstone riots have passed – deciding to support free speech, whereas they should have stood together and republished the Danish cartoons when this freedom was the most fragile and in need of support. I agree that the western media displayed extreme cowardice in leaving the Danish cartoonists alone to face the violence of Muslims with hurt feelings, but I won’t condemn a stand for free speech whatever the circumstance.

While I’m sure that many people are doing this because it’s relatively safer to make fun of Islam now, I would argue that they’re missing the point. Revolution Muslim, the website that issued a veiled threat to Matt and Trey, is a pathetic excuse of wanna-be terrorists which US authorities have described as all talk and no action. Drawing cartoons to respond to them as opposed to the real life mobs of several years ago would indeed by hypocritical. However, Comedy Central took them seriously after the first part aired, and in the second part they censored not only Mohammed himself, but also any utterances of the name, as well as a speech about fear that doesn’t even mention him. To this day the latter half is unavailable on their official website. This is the same kind of media self-censorship that left the Danish cartoonists out in the cold, and it’s the same kind of cowardice that perpetuates the very controversy of Mohammed cartoons. This is what I believe Everybody draw Mohammed Day is about. Since this was proposed as an annual event, it could potentially carry on significance far beyond that of South Park, why not let this day be in support of all cartoonists who deal with controversial issues?

I’ve republished portions of the Danish cartoons before (as part of a meta-comic), and the stick figure illustration is my contribution to Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. Have a bonus pedo-Santa in a bear suit too (sourced from South Park episode 200).

The easiest way to install Windows without the crapware would be to use a proper installation disc with its corresponding licence key. Some business class products provide the original install media, which makes this process easy. There’s also the option of using another copy, but that would mean the OEM licence – which accounts for about $50 of the laptop price – would go to waste. The last option is to obtain an original install media and make it accept the OEM licence key. This is the most difficult, but the most feasible, and the one I was stuck with this time. Google didn’t reveal much, so I asked Neowin members for ideas.

First attempt. I tried to create the blank install media from the recovery discs that I burnt, either by extracting the Windows files or by removing the crapware installers. Unfortunately, it was burnt as one jumbled ball of data and I couldn’t figure out how to distill the files.

Second attempt. A number of suggestions from people involved obtaining the bits elsewhere. One option was to obtain a generic OEM disc, installing it without a licence key, and activating it post-installation. This might be an effective option, but I don’t have an OEM disc at hand so I couldn’t try. This would also litter branded markings everywhere if the source is another company. The other option would be to use a retail disc and modify it to accept OEM keys. Apparently, this was possible in XP, but I couldn’t find any analogous mechanisms for Windows 7.

Third attempt, success. There was one other suggestion, which is to extract the licence information on the original installation, install with a retail disc, and then restoring the original licence. The SLIC Toolkit was recommended for this task.

To extract the licence information, launch the program, go to the ‘Advanced’ tab, and hit the ‘Backup’ button (outlined in red above). This will then save two files, the licence certificate with a .xrm-ms extension and a text file containing the licence key. A retail copy could now be installed onto the computer, sans licence key. If the retail disc for the same edition isn’t readily available, just create a new copy of the install media without the ei.cfg file in the sources folder, and select the appropriate version when installing.

Once the correct edition of Windows has been successfully installed, it can’t be activated via the usual link in System properties. Instead the licence must be restored using the Windows Software Licensing Management tool in command prompt. First use slmgr -ilc %path_to_licence%\Licence-Cert.xrm-ms to restore the OEM certificate. Then use slmgr -ipk licence-key-string-here to install the key. There is a confirmation dialogue after both lines, but it took a while to pop up. The System properties should now identify this as a genuine Windows installation. Thanks goes to user iamwhoiam for this method.

This is because since Gmail is now sending the email instead of the original mail server, it must include the actual Gmail address in the mail headers.

• Delivered-To: recipient@domain.com
• Return-Path: <real@gmail.com>
• MIME-Version: 1.0
• Sender: real@gmail.com
• Subject: email
• From: Chen Shen<new@cshen.ca>
• To: recipient@domain.com

A while ago Google introduced a new function that solves this by routing emails through the actual server of the alternate address. I’ve only recently set it up with my own account, and found the relevant information scattered around the web. This is a compilation of my search results.

The Setup Process

The first step is the same as before, go to the Gmail settings page and add a new email address.

On the next step, there is an option to route emails through the alternate server in addition to the traditional method of simply spoofing the “From:” field. Once this option is selected the details of the SMTP server could be specified.

A verification email will be sent to the alternate account, and the process is complete after confirmation.

The SMTP Settings

I set this up on two different servers. Google Apps for my own domain, and SFU Connect for my university account.

For Google Apps, the details are as follows:

• SMTP Server: smtp.gmail.com
• Port: 465
• Username: username@domain.tld
• Always use SSL: yes

And the settings for SFU Connect are auto-detected, which are:

• SMTP Server: mailgate.sfu.ca
• Port: 465
• Username: SFU Computing ID
• Always use SSL: yes

Other Things to Know

• While this will allow Gmail to send emails as other addresses, the other accounts need to be forwarding mail to the Gmail account for two-way communication to work.
• When routing through Google Apps, it rewrites the outgoing address to the actual email address of the account being used. So if the account has an alias, it will not be used as the “From:” address. For example, if the email account is admin@domain.com with an alias of me@domain.com, adding me@domain.com as an alternate email will not work. The recipient will always see admin@domain.com since the email is being routed through there. SFU Connect does not enforce this, and therefore it is possible to use both computing-id@sfu.ca as well as first.last@sfu.ca as alternate addresses.
• Google Apps also stores routed emails in the sent folder. This may be useful since a full conversation history could be stored in the alternate account as well. A filter will need to be set up to delete sent emails if you do not wish to retain them. SFU Connect also doesn’t do this, so there will still only be half (incoming) of a conversation stored on SFU’s server.
• Since the email is now being sent by other servers, sending an email from an alternate address to the same alternate address will not place it in the inbox. If this is a Google Apps account, the email will be found in the inbox of the Google Apps account, since it actually sent the email to itself (unless, of course, there’s a filter to delete sent mail).
• It is also possible to use Gmail’s SMTP server with other services. This is the same server as Google Apps, but the username would – naturally – simply be a Google account and not custom domain account.

It is evident, from past bills the government had tried – and failed – to pass, that the goal of this copyright “reform” is to mimic the DMCA of the United States. It is also evident, from numerous examples under the DMCA, that this kind of legislation is a bad idea. One does not have to support file sharing to realize that fines of $1.92 million for allegedly sharing 24 songs, or even $675,000 for 30 songs, can in no way, shape, or form be just, or even sane.

I recently stumbled across an article clearly illustrating the outrageousness of DMCA fines, by comparing them against fines for criminal offences. Apparently in Illinois (presumably the author’s jurisdiction), abducting a child, stalking, and second degree murder all carry fines of $25,000. The author also factors in monetary loss from jail time, which still works out to magnitudes less than a fine for 24 songs.

This is interesting, but not directly applicable to Canada due to our different criminal law, so I adopted the idea and tried to find some points of comparison within the Criminal Code. There were few provisions which mentioned fines – presumably because we’d rather incarcerate or probate criminal offenders – but the few I did find were no less revealing.

• 733.1 violation of probation order – $2,000 (This could be anything from “be home by 10″ to “don’t own a gun”)
• 490.0311 providing false information to the sex offender registry – $10,000
• 83.12 owning, dealing with, or facilitating property transactions owned by or on behalf of terrorists – $100,000
• 462.2 importing or manufacturing equipment for drug use – $300,000

To be fair, these offences also have prison terms available as punishment instead of or in addition to the aforementioned fines. I didn’t factor them in because I don’t believe that incarceration could be meaningfully translated into a monetary value.

This doesn’t, however, mean that the criminal code offences are more severe. Take s.490.0311 for example, it prescribes up to $10,000 and/or 2 years imprisonment for multiple offences, if proceeded by indictment. Compare this to the most recently failed copyright proposal, bill C-61, which – if proceeded by indictment – could entail up to $1 million in fines and/or 5 years in prison.

Even when proceeding by summary conviction, sharing music circumvention still involves a more severe punishment at $25,000 and/or 6 months, versus $10,000 and/or 6 months. The government’s message is clear: lying on the sex offenders registry is less harmful than sharing your favourite songs on the internet watching DVDs on Linux.

I, for one, find this utterly absurd. For this and other reasons, I oppose any draconian copyright legislation that the government may propose. Hopefully, though, they won’t propose a renewed C-61 if people speak out against it. A consultation is currently in progress and soliciting responses from everyone, it’s not too late to send in submissions and demand balanced copyright legislation. The Vancouver Fair Copyright coalition – of which I am a member – has a handy consultation guide for those who need a place to start.

Let’s see Canada move into the digital age by embracing new technologies, instead of clinging on to archaic – and failing – business models at the expense of society.

Update: the C-61 fines outlined above are for circumvention, not file sharing (which carries a potentially lower but still insane penalty). This means that you’ll be hit with the penalties if, say, you purchased a DVD and watched it on Linux.

I should mention right off the bat that this is an experiment only, and does not represent a viable design for goSFU. There are several noticeable oversights that reflect the quick-and-dirty nature of the design, which I didn’t bother fixing because well, it’s just an experiment.

Note: If you only want to see the design and don’t feel like reading the explanations, skip to the very end.

Current goSFU Homepage

I was only really interested in the course selection aspect, but it would be rather weird to do a redux that doesn’t even include the homepage, so I laid one out.

goSFU Redux Homepage

I tried to maintain SFU’s brand identity by using the same standard header as other SFU websites. Admittedly, I didn’t stick to the standard that much, replacing the campus links (Burnaby, Surrey, Harbour) with navigation links instead. The overall colour scheme is taken directly from SFU’s web guidelines.

The new header navigation [1] takes the place of the current sidebar, which has the same main links but also links to subsections. Since there’s already index pages which display each subsection, the sidebar is rather redundant, especially since it currently requires two clicks to reach anywhere anyways.

Instead of simply listing courses the student is currently enrolled in, which is mostly useless at conveying a schedule, I pulled the weekly calendar out to the front page, this is the largest section on the homepage and commands the most emphasis. The calendar lays out one’s schedule in a visual form and the temporal relationships between classes are clearly presented. The details of a course is still accessible by hovering upon an item on the calendar [2], which will pop out a bubble with all the relevant information.

Note: in the mockup all three cmpt120 blocks (but not cmpt120l) should be highlighted blue, since it’s a 3 part lecture.

The next most prominent section on the page is the Finances section. This is now placed beside the calendar, instead of hidden at the bottom of the page, since students would presumably care a lot about how much money they owe the school. The sidebar also contains one’s personal information, with a reduced emphasis than before.

Enrolment links and information is placed just beneath the calendar, in the main column. It is placed lower on the page because it’s only really accessed once every four months, having a wider section could also make it more useful, such as class searching directly from the homepage[3]. The search box would search the immediately upcoming semester and accept a variety of inputs, such as “easc101″, “earth sci”, “earth science 101″, or other combinations.

Now onto the page that I really wanted to redesign: the course selection page.

Current goSFU Course List

The current goSFU list is just that – a list of courses, in alphabetical order, with no advanced functions of any sort. It’s a pain to navigate because it takes so long for each page to load, and revisiting courses to get details is a pain in the ass.

goSFU Redux Course Selection

My goal here was to make it as easy as possible to search for, revisit, and decide on courses to enrol in. Since I don’t have to worry about accessibility in this mockup, I worked off the assumption that it’ll rely heavily on AJAX to speed up the interface.

Instead of a screen that prompts the user to select the semester and choose between list or search, the system would automatically assume that the user is looking at the immediately upcoming semester. A dropdown would be used to select other semesters, as well as enabling search functionality (which, needless to say, would also be AJAX-driven). The user also chooses departments via dropdown, instead of the current list of clumsy alphabets.

Beneath the semester selection are two check boxes [1]. One hides courses that the user is ineligible to enrol in, either due to lacking appropriate prerequisites or other limitations. The other hides courses which conflict with courses that the user is already enrolled in, so every course which is displayed can be enrolled in.

To the side is a mini-calendar with shaded boxes to indicate courses that the user is already enrolled in. Like the main calendar, this visually represents one’s schedule and simplifies the decision-making process.

When the user hovers over an entry in the course list, two things happen. First, a link appears and allows the user to add the course to the ‘Shortlist’ [2], this would be a shopping-cart style list that contains courses the user has marked. The shortlist function attempts to minimize the amount of re-navigation the user has to perform during the decision making process. A link to the shortlist on the homepage (I didn’t depict it) would give the user easy access to all the courses they’re considering. Second, the mini-calendar would shade in the time period during which the course is offered [3], in blue if it does not conflict with courses the user is already enrolled in, and red if it does conflict. Lower on the sidebar, the exam date of the course would also appear (same blue/red colour scheme) slotted in between existing exam dates by chronological order.

Note: I neglected the fact that some courses are offered in multiple sections while doing this mockup. This would entail some reworking to accommodate, but shouldn’t pose a big threat to the concept.

In the spirit of making things easier on the student, there is an advanced search function right beneath the department selection.

goSFU Redux Advanced Search

This offers advanced filtering functions such as searching for multiple departments at the same time, as well as filtering results by when and where they’re offered [2]. Like normal selection lists, it is possible to add or remove multiple departments at once by holding shift or control while selecting [1]. This settings menu could host other advanced searching functions as well.

Note: forgot to draw the scrollbar slider.

Pages that tie deeply into course selection may also benefit significantly from a redesign like this, whereas the other more obscure pages like updating your personal information don’t have much to gain from an altered layout. I didn’t bother mocking up other pages because most other pages would either only benefit from a collection of minor changes (which I wouldn’t spend the time on for a mockup), or are easily imagined given the existing mockups (like the Shortlist page).

To reiterate what I said at the very beginning, these are only mockups, and in no way represent a viable design for goSFU. They only showcase my vision for what a far more usable goSFU might look like, broadly speaking.

You can see the full-sized SVG mockups here:

• Homepage
• Course Selection
• Advanced Settings Panel

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin

How does a government eradicate civil liberties? By creating an evil and then pretending to solve it, if only people could give up a little of their freedom. Little by little, one imaginary evil after another, we suddenly find ourselves devoid of the freedoms we once enjoyed, and we have – each and every one of us – become the evil that the government targets.

The strawmen of today are internet criminals: scammers, identity thieves, child pornographers. With the permeance of the internet, they have become the dark, mysterious, scary monsters of our time: a readily available excuse for the government to curtail its population’s freedoms.

The internet is an ideal setting to place draconian restrictions upon. It’s new enough that many people are still unfamiliar with its workings, and are easily fooled by techno-sounding gibberish that the government spews out. It’s intangible enough that many treat it as something separate from reality, making it an easy target as less people defend their online freedoms. Finally, the internet is old enough that it’s well established, and increasing amounts of people are sharing their personal details online.

If the government controls the internet, it can halt the free flow of information that has defined the internet to-date. In this way the government could prevent civil liberties from protecting our future, but it could also reduce what liberties we once enjoyed in a world of traditional media. As more and more of our activities are being replaced by online equivalents, the government has a chance to redefine the limits of freedom that we have taken for granted. Fundamental rights to liberty, freedom of expression, and privacy are all at stake.

Governments have long attempted to control new technologies. China is notorious for the great firewall, arguably the most successful at controlling the internet. Australia is implementing its own great firewall, despite widespread protests from all spheres. The United States under the Bush administration illegally spied on its own citizens for many years, and continuing to fight efforts to hold it accountable under the Obama administration. Here at home, Harper had added Canada – yet again – to the list of countries with draconian governments with the recently tabled bills C-46 and C-47.

The bills – if passed – would grant policing agencies unprecedented power to search and seize personal information, with or without suspicion, and with no judicial oversight. This includes basic subscriber information such as name, address, phone number, to IP address and even the contents of communication – which internet service providers would now be obligated to retain on the whim of the police. And how is this all justified? Because we need to catch those scary pedophiles, of course.

Ironically, the pedophiles and criminals are exactly the kind of people this law doesn’t hurt. Encryption and anonymization software is so readily available that locking the government out of spying is trivial and involves minimal technical knowledge. The criminals are going to continue scamming and stealing people’s identities, and the pedophiles are going to continue trafficking child porn. The grandmas and grandpas, however, suddenly lost every expectation of privacy they previously had. Common, law abiding citizens are the ones who have the most to lose from unchecked police surveillance powers. Think you have nothing to hide? Think again.

And what’s going to prevent corruption? Without judicial oversight the police can spy on anyone they want. Who’s to say their first targets won’t be the ones who are dissatisfied with the government, people who are planning a protest, or even just people with unpopular views? The great firewall of Australia was corrupt before it even went into service, censoring a massive range of websites from political to religious in nature, all while claiming to filter only child pornography.

If there’s one thing history has taught us, it’s that unchecked authority is always destructive to liberty. These bills aren’t about protecting us, they’re not about catching the criminals, they’re about spying on the population, controlling the population, and stamping out dissent. It’s not an extreme hassle to get a warrant, and it’s not going to jeopardize an investigation, but it will protect the liberties of the people, and it will preserve the freedom of society.

The government would also do well to avoid insulting the police with this kind of legislation, as if to suggest that the very capable people responsible for our safety are unable to do a proper job with proper policing procedures. This is ludicrous, the bills are ludicrous, and we shouldn’t step back and let the government chip away at our essential liberty.

For more information on the Bills, see CBC, and Geist.

I have never signed up to any BC Liberals spam list, in fact I have never given them my email address by any means. Their frequent emails are wholly unsolicited and unwanted. How did my address end up on their spam list? My best guess is that a Liberal supporter/organizer who shall remain unnamed took some unrequested liberty with use of my email address. I gave him my email to continue a conversation about some BCYL event I was marginally interested in, nothing was mentioned about being added to a spam list. I decided that the event wouldn’t have worked out with my schedule, and that should have been it, but soon I started receiving BC Liberal spam. Correlated much?

Worse yet, there’s no unsubscribe link. The last time I got an email from the BC Liberals, I replied and asked to be removed from the list. I received yet another piece of spam just now, which asks me to blog about the BC Liberals. So for this one time, I’ll oblige with the request. I’ll even reproduce said spam:

Hi Chen,

As you may remember from my last email, Facebook support is the new benchmark used by the media for determining the popularity of a candidate or political party. However, the media have also started to use blogs as a source for stories and opinion.

I would strongly encourage you to consider starting your own blog just like BCYL member Geoff Sharpe has. After only a few days online, Geoff’s blog is averaging over 200 hits a day. Check out Geoff’s blog at link removed.

It’s also important to comment on blogs and let other readers (which include media pundits) know what you think. The following link will take you to a list of provincial blogs: link removed

Finally, I can’t emphasize enough how important it is to become a supporter of the Premier on Facebook. Please take a couple minutes to do that now by following this link: link removed

You can also become a supporter of me on Facebook by going to: link removed

I hope you will decide to start your own blog. Please send me the address if you do set one up and if you need any help, get in touch with me and I’ll put you in touch with some people, like Geoff, who have blogs already and can help you get started.

I look forward to reading your thoughts online.

Cheers,
Donny

Donny van Dyk
Candidate – Skeena Riding
BC Liberal Party

Curious that a mailing list capable of adding the recipient’s name at the top doesn’t even have an unsubscribe link. Or did the BC Liberals just disable that function? I’m betting on the latter.

Be it being added to the BC Liberals spam list in the first place, or being unable to unsubscribe after the fact, it’s revealing to note the lack of basic ethics BC Liberals representatives display. Spamming is bad, continuing to spam despite a request to stop is worse, using people’s email addresses without consent is worst. I’d like to say that the BC Liberals just lost my vote, unfortunately they never had it to begin with. Hopefully, though, the spamming is going to cost them much more than just one vote.

The only argument that’s being used against this coalition is that Canadians elected a “Tory government”, and that it is disrespectful or dishonest for the other parties to “steal” the government from them. This is such a flawed argument I’d be amused at its ubiquitous adoption if it weren’t so said that so many Canadians are either idiots or too lazy to look up the facts.

Canadians don’t elect the government, we don’t elect who gets to be in government, we don’t elect which party gets to choose who gets to be in government. When you go to vote you’re choosing who gets to fill that seat in Parliament which is dedicated to your riding. Once all the seats have been filled, the Governor General chooses who forms the government, the rest are in opposition. In a majority situation this is very straight forward, the party with greater than half of the seats form a government which is basically unchallengeable by the opposition, ever. In a minority situation, however, every party could form the government, and whoever does it would need the confidence of (at least some of) the opposition, in forming the government at all, and also in continually operating as government. It almost always ends up being the party with the most seats, but there’s nothing dictating that the party with most seats must necessarily be the one to form a government.

Given that we don’t elect the government, the assertion that a Liberal-NDP coalition somehow goes against the electorate’s wishes as expressed by votes is simply ludicrous. Votes are expressed in the amount of seats a party receives, which is the degree of representation the voter gets in parliament. They are totally irrelevant to the issue of government formation. That is left to the parties to work out, the party with most support in parliament from the government.

A coalition government is just a number of parties collaborating to form the government instead of one larger party. Aside from that (and perhaps some more negotiations), it works the same as a normal minority government. This is a form of government commonly found in numerous countries including Germany, Israel, Ireland, Belgium, India, and Finland. It is the most common form of government resulting from proportionally representative electoral systems, where the amount of representation in parliament (or the equivalent thereof) closely approximates the amount of voter support. This is far more democratic than the current Canadian system in which a 3% difference in votes could result in a 16% difference in seats (0 vs. 50).

Our current seat distribution, of course, did not result from a proportionally representative election. However a coalition government in the present situation is still much more democratic than the current Tory government which with 40% of Canadian support rules the country akin to a fascist dictatorship. One does not need to look far to notice the Bush-appeasing, anti-liberty, anti-culture, and draconian legislation that Harper’s government have introduced during his reign, including Bills C-10,42,51,52,60,61, ACTA, SPP, and numerous impositions of minimum sentences to Criminal Code offences, and that’s just what I can recall from recent history without references. A coalition government with the current parliamentary makeup, while not perfect (it still excludes the Greens altogether), would at the very least put 60% of Canadian support in government.

At this point the coalition-hater objects: they’re a bunch of small parties, none of which gained more support from Canadians than the Conservative party. Why should they now “turn” the results over and group together? This is probably accompanied by the suggestion that if they wanted majority vote, they should have all consolidated into a single party like the right-wing did, turning Canada into a two party state.

What a stupid objection to be making, with almost as stupid a suggestion. The champions of anti-coalition sentiment brand themselves as defenders of democracy, and yet, guess who becomes upset when different parties actually work together for once (instead of pointing fingers indefinitely). Our electoral system is far from perfect, given its tendency to place disproportionate amounts of power in parties with minority support. But how would further degrading this system by eliminating voter choice solve the underlying flaws of the system? Patching a broken dam with band-aid doesn’t help, we need to build a new dam, or in this case a new electoral system: a system of proportional representation.

The claim that a coalition is undemocratic becomes even more laughable when you consider the blatant hypocrisy in such statement, Harper himself showing utter disregard for democracy when he manipulated the system for personal gains. The person who called an undue election, tried to strangle every other party to financial death, wiretapped opposition phone calls, and willing to employ any tactic just to stay in power is hardly qualified for any position of authority in democratic governance.

When the Harper government falls, there would be two possible outcomes: either the Liberal-NDP coalition forms government, or we have another election. I personally don’t mind another election, but in light of the recent waste of 300 million dollars, a lot of people would disagree with me. That leaves the Liberal-NDP coalition, which being in complete accordance with our constitution, is the most sensible option to take.

Update: Just came across a Macleans post, Harper himself proposed exactly what he’s now calling undemocratic when he was in opposition.