I work at a university in Australia. 80% of our students are foreign. Guess they couldn't get into the "best university system in the world" and had to settle for ours? Our maybe they didn't feel they needed to go "across the globe" to play football.

I'm not aware that this is actually against (U.S.) law.

Except this is in Australia so its a matter of Aussie law. Oh wait, no you're right. That Free Trade Agreement means the two are a lot closer now, save for the Aussie laws removing any possible pesky free speech, satire or first right of sale "rights" - I mean: defenses ... no: loopholes. If its against US law then the FTA means its against Aussie law.

actually doesn't bother to distinguish between a creative work, and merely publishing a fact.

Ah, but train Sydney train timetables are a work of fiction, so the distinction is not necessary. In fact, they are a very creative and imaginative work.

Besides, RailCorp & CityRail are not government bodies and so the data is not Crown owned in any case. They are state owned corporations - just like the RTA - and so are companies in their own right. They are simply owned by the state. Carr's government instigated these changes around 1995 I believe.

That is what the G.G.P. was getting at. With the tag, you can upload a video to your web server, reference it in the HTML, and be done with it. Flash simply doesn't offer that.

Good point. I yield as you are absolutely right. Thanks for enlightening me.

The tag doesn't work like that. ... Your browser displays the UI for the video -- Flash isn't involved at all.

Yes, I understand the video tag downloads the video just as it does for images. But then it will hand off to a video player to play. By default (and most users use defaults) Flash videos (mime type "video/shockwave-flash" I think) will play in Flash.

The OGG file you referenced will be played in your OGG compatible video player, which could be just about anything if you have the OGG codecs installed. One can use an player to play Flash if one chooses using the FLV1 codecs, but that's a decision of each installation. By default - ie 95% of people - will use Flash. If you haven't installed Flash - or another compatible player then nothing will play.

So, no real difference to the way it is done now, right?

Flash? When HTML 5 is done they can use the tag.

How is a tag any better than the tag used now? The browser will still load Flash, because it will be a Flash file that is offered. It will be Flash file because everybody - and on Slashdot everybody means "at least 0.1% of the population" - and I mean everybody (ie, maybe 0.2% of people) uses Flash and only Flash.

The tag will just tell the browser to load a Video. It won't - and can't - mandate which client to use.

Seems to me YouTube isn't what young people use, it's what everyone uses.

Rubbish. Some people use YouTube. Some use Facebook, some use MySpace (still), some use torrents, some simply email. Oh, you and yours use YouTube. Well I guess that's everybody who is important then.

Saying, "The government should be forced to re-invent the wheel instead of using a popular free service" is silly. YouTube is perfectly acceptable in most respects.

This is simply about offering Flash videos on the governments website and not YouTube. How is having links to Flash videos off your own web site "reinventing the wheel" exactly? How is YouTube or Akami or anything else a better "distribution channel" than downloading directly from the source?

In the employee break room of a local grocery store, they have a prominent announcement on their bulletin board, very large lettering, which reads in effect that all employees should remember there are other people out there that need jobs.

Take the bulletin, photocopy it and stick it on the front door of the store. Give the customers a chance to be under impressed with the owners. If that doesn't work, stick it on every lamp post in the carpark and surrounding streets.

Needless to say, he got a very short interview and absolutely no consideration. When asked why, both myself and my coworker said 'Unprofessionalism'

Ah that old catch-cry of 'Unprofessionalism'. Very useful when you want to discredit or discount a colleague for no reason. It allows you to safely ignore competency, experience and education whilst claiming to be looking after the best interests of your firm.