Today in the Washington Post, Columnist Stephen Barr, laid out some survey results indicating that roughly a third of young Americans would consider working for the federal government if they were encouraged to by folks close to them, like parents or teachers, but also if such a request came from our next president of the U.S. That sounds like great news in light of the retirement wave that is getting under way as baby boomers exit civil service. Except that the critical phrase is “IF they were encouraged to.” Apparently no one is asking America’s new workers to join federal service.

At first that seemed like an easy problem to fix; start encouraging them. But with what and how. I mean after that parent or teacher or president says, “Hey, you should check out working for the federal government,” then what? Where will that person look? What will s/he find? How will s/he be engaged?

What moves someone from consideration to motivation? And on the flip side, how does a particular government agency convince that now motivated person to pursue that one agency over any other? We can try to think of our government as one giant employer, one big happy team, but when workforces get thin agencies will absolutely be competing against each other for good employees. So how do you get yours?

Barr quotes Patricia McGinnis, president and chief executive of the Council for Excellence in Government, who dropped one hint as to how to move beyond encouragement to inspiration. She says 18-to-29-year olds are “more responsive to interactive communication and personal attention than people have realized.” Time to start realizing it people.

Social networks, live chat customer service, user-generated content, they all fall into that category of interactive communication and personal attention. Young Americans, certainly well-educated, tech-savvy young Americans (AKA prime job candidates for federal agencies) rely on interactive communication as much as other generations came to rely on the evening news or the morning paper. Remember when PR was getting mention in the op/ed section of the paper? Or maybe even a mention on the news? What a coup! It moves a bit faster now. It happens a little lower in the weeds now. It’s person to person, or may I suggest employee to potential employee.

Based on the survey results Barr references, it sounds like the federal workforce stands to benefit from at the least some encouraging words, from parents, teachers, and even Mr. or Mrs. President, to explore a career in federal service. Beyond that, it’s up to each agency to shoulder the load and move young Americans from curiosity to engagement. How will you do it? Well for starters you can check out a white paper written by some of my friends here at Mind & Media, “Recruiting the Next Generation of Government Using Web 2.0”.

With apologies to Al Gore, the Web’s bona fide inventor, Sir Tim Berners-Lee believes that the Internet has barely found its proverbial feet. As he explained to BBC News:

“The experience of the development of the web by so many people collaborating across the globe has just been a fantastic experience,” he said.

“The experience of international collaboration continues. Also the spirit that really we have only started to explore the possibilities of [the web], that continues.”

Sir Tim predicted that the web’s ability to engender collaboration could one day see the web being used to help manage the planet.

From collaborative opportunity to planetary management — that kind of power begs participation.

On February 12, Microsoft will be pushing an automatic update to PCs far and wide that will transform Internet Explorer version 6 into version 7. The blogosphere is abuzz about how to avoid the update if you want to and is asking how Microsoft can tuck a software update into what should be security updates. That’s neither here nor there to me. Why folks would purposely avoid the update is outside my lane. I leave that to IT units at individual offices and agencies. I’m actually kind of psyched to see it; perhaps less cross-browser testing is on the horizon!

See, browsers are not like televisions. Different brands don’t all work the same. Imagine being a video producer and delivering your product to a broadcaster, then stopping by Circuit City for the big debut. Wouldn’t that be a surprise if one TV shifted the picture out of frame while another resized the image to bizarro dimensions, and a third finally displayed the video correctly. Well, you could just produce three versions of your show, right? One for each kind of TV. That’d be a hoot. We may not have to generate completely separate products, but web developers do wrestle with a similar scenario.

Despite the best efforts of organizations like the WC3, browsers just don’t all work the same way. They don’t display content the same way. Pieces move or resize or disappear completely. Depending on the goals of your organization, those differences can have large impact.

The latest stats show Internet Explorer 7 holding 21 percent of the market. IE6 holds 33 percent, Firefox 36 percent, and then a steep drop down to Safari, Mozilla, and Opera. Notice the name Netscape isn’t even tracked anymore! Depending on your goals and audience, you may need to test your websites/applications on all of those browsers (not to mention platforms like Mac or PC) to make sure everyone is seeing the same thing and enjoying the same experience.

So how do you decide how much time and effort to put into cross-browser and platform testing? That depends on what you’re doing. If you’re facing a closed audience with predictable systems, you may be able to cut down on testing. For example, a DoD agency targeting an internal audience can feel pretty good about things as long as they’re targeting Internet Explorer 6 (until Feb 12?) and Windows XP. Meanwhile, that same agency may have a public-facing website, one offering critical information or training, one that could reflect on their image and mission. In that case, how accommodating should it be? Is it OK to serve up content that may look wacky on a Mac because it holds such a small share of the market? I’m happy to say that’s not my call. But I could help you think through it. And would you believe it comes down to time and money? I know you’ve never heard that before.

I will say this: There are standards out there, and if we stick to those when building, our chances for success are good from square one. Further that, simply having the experience and awareness of cross-browser/platform issues is another big advantage. Finally, it’s about paying attention your audience and making educated decisions. My decision would be to dump IE6. One version of that browser is enough for all of us.

Actually, it’s 500 pounds (UK) but I don’t know how to type one of those little curly L symbols. Regardless, Brit TV personality Jeremy Clarkson, trying to be technologically cavalier, dismissed concerns that a recent database theft would compromise the personal information of more than 25 million people.

To demonstrate his ambivalence, he published his personal financial information in the Sun newspaper. His belief? With that info, at worst, a nefarious type could only deposit money into his account. An illegal withdrawl would be impossible.

Turns out Clarkson learned the hard way that hackers love a challenge.

“I opened my bank statement this morning to find out that someone has set up a direct debit which automatically takes £500 from my account,” he said.

“The bank cannot find out who did this because of the Data Protection Act and they cannot stop it from happening again.

“I was wrong and I have been punished for my mistake.”

Considering the funds were drawn as a charitable donation to Diabetes UK, looks like Clarkson got off easy. The lesson? We should all absolutely be paying attention to that man behind the curtain.

One of President Bush’s last signatures of 2007 was on a bill that will give the media and general public greater access to governmental goings-on.

According to the Associated Press:

The legislation creates a system for the media and public to track the status of their [Freedom of Information Act] requests. It establishes a hot line service for all federal agencies to deal with problems and an ombudsman to provide an alternative to litigation in disclosure disputes.

The law also restores a presumption of a standard that orders government agencies to release information on request unless there is a finding that disclosure could do harm.

This raises further questions as to how this status-tracking system might evolve. There have been attempts in the recent past to implement web-based means to improved government transparency. These were met with skepticism by senatorial old guard (think Ted “Bridge to Nowhere” Stevens of Alaska, who wanted no part of a requirement to create an online database of government spending). It looks like this effort will fly for the new year, however. The media is understandably pleased, and government agencies must be gearing up for what amounts to a very real opening of the books.

Transparency might be the as-yet-untested campaign buzzword for the forthcoming elections. A change of administration is inevitable, and as we move in to the second decade of the 21st century, federal agencies should get comfortable with the unprecedented informative and communicative power of emerging media.

The next administration has the opportunity to embrace and help define the means of transparency for its agencies and its electorate. If that helps them keep staff, media, and the general public informed while keeping operations on the up and up, so much the better.

Somebody’s had enough, as explained in ars technica.

A Boston man has filed a class-action lawsuit accusing hardware maker HP and office supply retailer Staples of colluding to inflate the price of printer ink cartridges in violation of federal antitrust law. According to the suit, HP allegedly paid Staples $100 million to refrain from selling inexpensive third-party ink cartridges, although the suit doesn’t make it clear how plaintiff Ranjit Bedi arrived at that figure.

Good luck, Ranjit. We’re all for lower overhead.

If you look a week or so back on the M&M blog, you’ll see the post “Well, since they asked so nicely…” But you can’t watch the video. It’s gone.

Just recently, this video went flying through everyone’s email boxes, making fun of the newest “bubble” of Internet companies, such as social networking sites, being valued at 57 megananotrabillion dollars. Now it’s been taken down by YouTube and other sites, due to a single photographer, Lane Hartwell, claiming copyright infringement.

I found out about the takedown from Wired. What I found more interesting than the actual story was the comment trail. It blows my mind how wide the spectrum of belief is. From copyright-backers to “it should all be free” backers. (On a related note: I once had someone tell me that if you posted something…ANYTHING…to the Web, it automatically became public domain!) As a professional in a creative field, I find the misinformation quite disturbing.

While wading through all the comments from people about the whole thing, I came across this gem:

“I realize this is a hard concept for most of the “Copyright-infringement-is-theft” crowd to wrap their heads around, but copying a photo found online is *NOT* the same as stealing a painting from a gallery.”

Well, sure it isn’t the same, but only in that online you are not taking the original physical item. But make no mistake, as far as copyright is concerned, there is no difference between hard drive or canvas. Both are physical media.

Obviously, people are very much in the dark when it comes to copyright law. I don’t pretend to be an expert, but it’s my job to know at least the basics. There are three things that I think most people don’t quite understand: first, the concept of intellectual property; second, the fact that copyright is automatic. The minute a work is put to physical media, it is copyrighted. One doesn’t have to register a work to have it copyrighted. (The role of copyright registration is a story for another time.) The third, and most egregious, is the concept of Fair Use.

The crowd who thinks the photographer is in the wrong will scream “Parody! Satire! FAIR USE!” They are wrong.

While the work as a whole may be a parody, it’s not a parody of her picture—and therefore is not fair use. Had it parodied her picture, she probably wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. Hartwell has every right to ask that her photo be removed. It belongs to her. Her claim is legitimate.

Is it not the same as using a bit of a song. They are not using a small bit of her picture.

They will argue that Richter Scales isn’t making any money off the picture. Again, they are wrong. How many people knew who the Richter Scales were before this? (I think I hear crickets.) They perform…they now are better known—if I’m not mistaken, that will translate into more ticket sales to their performances. Or maybe more sales of their album. They are available on iTunes.

This is, of course, not the first time this has happened. It’s not the most newsworthy (well, until someone starts aping the heavy-handed ways of the RIAA). But it may be the most insidious. People think that if you put it up on the Internet, you know the risk you take of it being stolen. Does this really matter? What if I wanted to sell copies of my pictures online? I shouldn’t be penalized because I posted them online. They are mine, after all. And yet it happens, day in and day out.

The thing is, all of this could have been avoided if the Richter Scales had simply asked for permission (make no mistake, they did have the ability to contact her, through her Flickr page). They most likely would have gotten the permission. Instead, they just took it anyway. What’s truly sad is that it wasn’t an individual who took the picture, but it was an ENTITY that took it. A creative group at that. You would think they would have known better.

Oh, and as I write this, I found that it IS still available, but for how long, who knows.

Last month Avid Technology issued a press release stating that they will not be exhibiting at NAB 2008.

My initial reaction was, Oh no! What? No Avid display at NAB? That’s crazy!

I figured they must be in trouble. I mean, after all, Avid has been a big NAB exhibitor for years, setting up a huge display and occupying a very nice piece of the showroom floor real estate. It’s really quite impressive. And expensive, I’m sure.

All of my doubts come from many other factors, which include the layoffs, CEO changeover, and lack of new upgrades, updates, and tools. Also, I felt like Apple kicked Avid’s butt last year at NAB with introduction of Final Cut Pro’s ability to mix frame rates on a single timeline.

So what’s really going on? Is Avid in trouble? Have they stopped caring?

The press release indicates that the decision is strategic, not financial. They say they are listening to their customers and need to connect with them in new ways.

After taking some time to digest this news, I have come to the conclusion that it might actually be good news. Maybe they do have a plan and will actually benefit from removing themselves from the Expo.

Even though I’ve been angry with Avid lately, I have much more faith in Avid systems than any other NLE out there, despite all these issues going on with them right now, the biggest issue being the unknown future of the company.

Avid has said that they are going to reveal some kind of strategy plan to the public in February. I really hope they are working on getting their act together and will have something impressive to report come February and put Avid users minds at ease.

They’ve managed to create quite a buzz with the decision to not attend NAB; now let’s see if they have anything substantial to tell us. Overall I’m hoping to hear some kind of reassurance as to the future of the company. However, some of the more specific things I’m hoping for include an upgrade to allow mixed frame rates on a single timeline for all DNA systems, Nitris support for native DVCPRO-HD—which is currently very buggy—and finally, HD-SDI Output option for Media Composer’s software version. Honestly, I have no idea what to expect, but I’m keeping my fingers crossed.

Everyone’s favorite humpback has a new handle, and Greenpeace has thanked us all for falling for the name hook, line, and sinker (badda-bing).

(Here’s a recap if you missed the initial story.)

Now they’re calling for us to show as much support protecting the big guy as we did naming him. Again, a tip of the captain’s cap to Greenpeace for surfing, rather than fighting, the overwhelming community sentiment.

EARTHTimes.org is reporting that the nation of Scotland shelled out $250,000 to develop a new tourism slogan. It will soon adorn posters throughout Glasgow’s airport, and doubtless inspire visitors to immerse themselves in the country’s rich history, culture, and diversion.

And what evocative, provocative combination of words did a quarter million buy for those clever Caledonians?

[cue bagpipes and drums]

“Welcome to Scotland.”

Did I just hear William Wallace smack his forehead?