Consequently, I figured I might as well deal with it. When you know a bit of code, it isn’t too hard to patch together a PHP file to deal with this kind of a problem.

I therefore present… the Timekeeper!
The idea is simple: one giant button per timer. Click on “start” to, well, start, and “pause/continue” afterwards depending on what you require. If something new comes up, just hit “New timer”, and the previously running timer will automatically pause while a new one starts.

[There's plenty of good software for this (I know OfficeTime and Billings are very good at that), but my needs were such that I wanted a web app that I could use, without having to go through the hassle of installing paid-for software on my computer at work.]

For those who want to take a look at the code behind it, you may download the PHP file (all zipped up). I’m sure it can be improved.
And yes, it’s released under a BY-NC-SA Creative Commons licence.

Here’s the non-legal intro to show you what it’s all about. Or you can omit reading it here, and read it in the document itself: Legal Implications of Internet Filtering.

Introduction:

Alexander turns on his computer, smiling as he hears the familiar chime. Colours fill the screen, a feast for his eyes, and he clicks on an icon, his gateway to the Internet. As he submits two words to a search engine and chooses the first result, as if advised by an old friend, Alexander is unaware of the underlying processes.

His computer converses with a network provider and asks whether Alexander may access the website.The network provider turns to a domain name server, to find out on which server the website is located, before finally connecting to the hosting provider to obtain transmission of the website data. Meanwhile, Alexander blinks. The Internet must be unhappy with him: he is denied access to the website. Alexander sighs, and goes back to the search results. He does not pause to consider whether access was blocked rightfully or whether this limits his freedom; he does not even contemplate complaining to anyone. After all, it’s the Internet, and he doesn’t understand it. How could he, a normal web user?

In this simplified tale of daily Internet use, Alexander is confronted with access denial to a website that appeared in search results. As he shares the general population’s lack of understanding of the technology underlying the Internet and the World Wide Web, he does not know why the information embodied in the website is not being transmitted to him. He is unable to assess whether the problem lies with the website owner or with any of the intermediaries between him and the website.

One possible explanation may, however, spring to the mind of an observer with some degree of technical knowledge: this access denial may come from a filter.

Once again, here’s the link to the dissertation: Legal Implications of Internet Filtering. Happy reading…

This research, mainly focussed on internet liability (legal responsibility, for non-lawyers), was a true eye-opener, because I had never thought of the internet from that angle: how free is speech on the internet?

Filtering

If you want truly free speech on the internet, then you have to allow hate speech, (child) pornography, instructions on how to make bombs, …

For reasons linked to history and culture, some countries have decided to place “filters” and thus block access to some of this content. The most well-known example is China, with its “Great Firewall”, but some in Western Europe have done the same in a more limited way: in France, for example, Yahoo! was ordered by a court to block access by French users to auction pages for Nazi-related goods, and in the UK, CleanFeed is a mechanism whereby Internet Service Providers (ISPs) block access to child abuse material.

Now, I am a great believer in free speech.
For example, I am fully opposed to certain laws on hate speech, even more so those on negationism: if you feel like saying something, go ahead. If people can’t deal with it, too bad for them (dealing with this stuff is part of growing up, I’ve been told). If people are offended, they also can exercise their right to free speech and respond.
As it stands, for example, I could start saying that the Rwandan genocide never took place (note: I know that it did take place). Many would take offence, but it’s not a crime. Why should Holocaust deniers be punished, if people denying other horrors are not? The obvious response to such speech should not be punishment, but rather a display of evidence showing that the events did take place. And if the people aren’t convinced at that point, too bad.
[Note: I do have a problem with free speech in schools, because few question what a teacher tells them is a fact - as such, the teaching of creationism and the refuting of evolution in a classroom of 10 children is, in my opinion, worse than denying the Holocaust in a hall of 2000 adults]

As you can guess, I am therefore even more opposed to filtering. Indeed, filtering takes place before the information is even made public. It’s ex ante censorship (“prior censorship”, for non-Latinists), preventing you from becoming aware that the information exists.
The internet has quickly become the greatest medium of expressing ideas, and by installing a filter, one completely hinders free speech.

Moreover, an interesting thing about filters is that they don’t work. There have been many studies on the subject (if interested in references, do say so), and three observations recur in them:

• Filters (both automatic and manual) let through some content that they should block
• Filters block some content that they shouldn’t
• Filters can be bypassed

By the way, my research was done on a computer connected to a server on which there was a filter. My research led me to a number of links that I wasn’t allowed to access, because the filter considered them dangerous, when in truth they either discussed ways to bypass filters or published studies on the ineffectiveness of filters (I know that from visiting the websites at home).

Liability for web content

The second major aspect of my research did not concern filters, but rather another aspect of free speech: the liability for content on the internet.

Say you publish content on the internet, for example by writing a post on a webboard. If the content is illegal (hate speech in certain European countries, child pornography, …), anyone may bring an action against you for this content if it is your content.
Can they bring an action against an intermediary, such as the website owner, ISP, …? This is generally not the case, most fortunately, because otherwise intermediaries would be liable for content whose existence was unknown to them (this is an overly simplified answer, to avoid going into too much detail).

To cut a long story short, I would most probably be liable for content published by other users on this part of the website, because the few comments do not require a lot of effort to read. I can therefore edit comments I find offensive (so far, there haven’t been any).
Still, don’t test the system.

The link with free speech is pretty obvious: laws on illegal or offensive content have a direct impact on the freedom given by intermediaries to users, because intermediaries will tend to prefer censorship over liability (as shown in many cases brought before the courts – pretty normal, I would say).

“Conclusion”

As you can see, the internet is not so much of an ideal place for free speech nowadays. It’s still the greatest medium for speech, but there is no absolute free speech here.
Nonetheless, I hope to contribute to changing that in the future.

It had become bad to the point where in IE6 and Firefox, I seemed to systematically get an error when trying to access the ARPIA2 and iTunesque pages. Why on earth they worked fine in Safari and Opera, I do not know.

Anyway, as I saw the quality of OVH’s service decrease, I entered into contact with ICDSoft, a company with servers in Germany, the USA and Hong Kong, and whose reputation seems excellent.

In a moment of frustration, I finally decided to make the move. Hopefully all problems should be over. Let me know if you experience anything weird!

Edit: sometimes I feel so stupid. I forgot to check all caching systems. *hits himself on the head*

The problem is, they all use text to get users to select their language. If it were a bilingual website, it would be easy. But there are 23 official languages in the EU, and so it takes time to figure out which string of text is “yours”.
The worst front page, in my opinion, is the Council’s homepage, which I find impossible to use under five seconds.

I therefore decided to try (during a small break) my hand at another system: maps.

I may be crazy, but I’ve taken a liking to webdesign and coding, and I’m starting to brush up my Photoshop skills in the hopes of coming up with fresh designs (for my personal website, as I don’t go around offering my services to others).

So… I started playing around with a bunch of maps pulled from the web, and put my CSS and HTML knowledge to the test.
The result is the following:
www.arpia.be/europa/
www.arpia.be/europa/europa2.html

Opinions?

I like it a whole lot more than the version they have over at the Consilium website, so I contacted the webmaster to suggest taking a look. Who knows, someone over there might read the e-mail and like the result!

Edit:
Well, I got an answer:

Nevertheless, having in mind the linguistic divesity within the European Union, I have a strong preference for a list of languages.

Too bad!

So, why don’t you go check it out and talk about ARPIA2 or SFA?

I should add that, unfortunately, passwords from the previous board no longer work (well, the hashes do, but I won’t be distributing those ). You will therefore have to request a new password.

Of course, if there are any problems, do let me know.

I’m afraid all access to the forum will be cut until I can fix this.
SFA’ers and ARPIA2′ers, I would suggest finding temporary shelter back on the EV Nova boards. Or you can use this post or the ARPIA2 page to discuss your woes.

Why blog? Why tweet? Why change status every day on Facebook?

My analysis is biased, as I favour blogs over Twitter pages and Facebook activity, but I might as well post my thoughts. Who knows, they might some day be read worldwide.

Twitter has an interesting item on its homepage: next to an explanation of what Twitter is, you get reasons why you should use Twitter.

Their list is the following:

Why? Because even basic updates are meaningful to family members, friends, or colleagues – especially when they’re timely.

• Eating soup? Research shows that moms want to know.
• Running late to a meeting? Your co-workers might find that useful.
• Partying? Your friends may want to join you.

Facebook’s own profile on the Facebook website states this:

Facebook gives people the power to share and makes the world more open and connected.

Millions of people use Facebook everyday to keep up with friends, [...] and learn more about the people they meet.

Blogger has this to say:

A blog is your easy-to-use website, where you can quickly post thoughts, interact with people, and more.

TypePad has a long list of reasons why people should blog, so here are some excerpts:

A blog is a simple, cost-effective way to create a professional online presence. [...]
A blog creates a conversation between you and the people who matter to you. [...]
A blog is a tremendous way to boost your search engine rankings. [...]
A blog delivers a huge impact for very little money. [...]
A blog allows you to take control of what you publish. [...]
A blog allows you to develop a position of thought leadership. [...]
A blog is a valuable business tool for collecting customer feedback. [...]
A blog creates a historical record of your content.

The rise of the so-called “Web 2.0″ websites has led to many more people (such as Peter Craddock, the anonymous writer of this post) crafting their own presence on the internet, and previously static personal websites became more dynamic, with content changing every few hours, days, weeks or months.

Some use one service exclusively, while others combine them (see for example Nathan Borror’s Playground Blues, where he mixes Tumblr blog posts with Twitter posts and Flickr photo additions).

Twitter has become adopted by hundreds of thousands (over a million users, albeit without indication of what Twitter considers to be a “user” [registered? active?]) as a means of sending updates to the world at any given moment. Tweets are usually just a few words, a couple of sentences at the most, and allow people to literally publish on the web thoughts as they come to them.

Why tweet, though?

I have a close friend to whom I send random thoughts by text message at least once a week, from existential questions to simple “Lunch tomorrow?” messages. The advantage is that I can tell her pretty much anything, and privacy is never really an issue. On the other hand, I can’t see myself writing half of those things on the internet.

A friend of mine uses Twitter to post only loopy messages, and thus Twitter becomes a way to escape reality for a moment. Another uses Twitter more intensively, because it allows him to keep people informed of what he is doing. Both uses are fine by me.

But do Twitter and the concept of “microblogging” not lead to an immediate satisfaction of urges?

Tweets, Facebook status updates and blog posts

When writing entries on my website, I like to make them substantial. It takes time and work to create a post, even if the result isn’t grand. I write, think, search arguments or elements, revise, …

If the initial motivation behind your blog post dies after two minutes, you have to keep reviving it (or you simply learn to start writing only that which interests you). There is no satisfaction of your desire to write the blog post until you hit the “Publish” button (and even then, I tend to re-read the whole post to make sure it makes sense and is properly written).

At the opposite of a post that takes ten-twenty minutes, even an hour to write, you have the tweet, which takes less than a minute.

It’s like having a Facebook status and changing it every few days/minutes/hours to reflect what you’re doing. You end up telling everyone you know exactly what you’re doing or thinking (especially on Facebook, where you build up a network of “friends” very fast, even without trying [I have only taken the initiative of adding one friend myself, out of a current 260 "friends"]).

Now, one cannot say that all Twitterers grow a problem relating to the satisfaction of urges or that all bloggers write long and thought-out blog entries. But isn’t the immediate satisfaction of urges problematic per se?

And why blog?

Ultimately, the basic reason for blogging is the same as for tweets: you want to make some of your thoughts available for the world to read.

In my case, though, there are considerations of content and literary quality that lead me to believe that blogging is more “for me” than twittering (and I hope that the posts reflect these concerns).

General considerations

Posting one’s thoughts on the internet seems to give us the possibility of satisfying one basic human need, the need to be/feel heard. Even people who do not speak much need to know that their occasional inputs are listened to. It might sometimes be an illusion, but by posting your thoughts on the web, you imagine that someone is bound to read them one day.

Let’s face it: if a person doesn’t even hope to be read, all potential reasons for posting one’s thoughts on the web disappear, save for the case where a person posts notes to remind him/herself. Even then, wouldn’t the person just use a notepad, real or virtual?

Blogging, microblogging and social networking is all ultimately about the “me” and the people gravitating around, and it all satisfies a thoroughly selfish desire.

Ah, what do I know, I’m just an occasional poster of my thoughts.

Case in point: “we have been authorised by the newly appointed UN Secretary General [...] to officially inform you that your pending inheritance sum of $3.6M [...] ready to be sent to you as to avoid all the omplications you may be passing your attempt to claim your funds from the African banks [...]“.

The omitted “c” in “…omplications” and the lack of sense “omplications you may be passing your attempt to claim” aside, I have to say I love the idea.

The UN Secretary General deals with inheritance (UNO = “ur nan OD’ed”, i.e. your grandma overdosed).
And there is such a thing as “the African banks” (yes, Africa is one single united country).

I love spam.

I must admit I’ve been somewhat startled by some of these statistics.

First, Arpia.be has been faring relatively well on Alexa these past few months. It’s currently the 46,845th most visited website in Belgium, for example, which I find highly surprising, and is (gasps) among the “top 500,000″ in the USA. For a website that’s come from nowhere with nearly no promotion on my part, I think it’s quite a feat. Especially given that while Droides.info, the webboards for law students at my university, has a rank of 23,518 in Belgium, its global ranking is nearly twice that of Arpia.be.

ARPIA2 has been downloaded over 14000 times (in its various formats – “Full” or “Lite”, and updates) since it came out in December 2006, and is by far the clear winner in terms of bandwidth, accounting for over 250 GB of traffic since it was released.

My lecture notes for the first term of the first year of the Master’s Degree in Law at UCLouvain have been downloaded over 4000 times, and those of the second term have, so far, been downloaded over 2000 times.

On average, every day of the week, there are 200-250 visits of the EV Nova Walkthroughs, a number which doubles every day of the weekend, making the walkthroughs the most viewed item per day on this website (and rightly so) and the most commonly used way to find Arpia.be through Google.

The iTunesque page has been viewed over 4000 times, and the most popular iTunesque variant is the “SPL – Aquaffic – Curved pills” one, with over 1300 downloads. Interestingly, the second most popular iTunesque download is the “glyphs” package, with nearly 700 downloads.

Perhaps the most interesting figure of the past few months is that in under a month, there were nearly 500 views of my Social Security law compilation (mentioned on the aforementioned UCLouvain page), after I sent an e-mail to the first year Master students telling them that it was now available online (while there were only 300 views of the update to this compilation, despite the fact that the links were given at the same time).

There you go. I’m sure you feel much smarter now, and somewhat more proud for being among those who read the meaningless banter that I write on this part of the website. I know I feel that way!