I regularly make use of the Google Maps API to add interactive maps to my websites, where a location is required to be pin-pointed. It’s used on both BMTG and Engments to good effect.

It’s my own variation of the code and actively displays a pin in the required location, along with a balloon containing the locations name and address. Here is an example of the code…

<div id="map" style="width: 700px; height: 400px; border-width: 1px; border-style: solid; border-color: #808080;"></div>
<script type="text/javascript" defer="defer">
//<![CDATA[
var map = new GMap(document.getElementById("map"));
map.addControl(new GLargeMapControl());
map.centerAndZoom(new GPoint(-1.218501, 52.927571), 2);
var pinEngments = new GMarker(new GPoint(-1.218501, 52.927571));
map.addOverlay(pinEngments);
var msgEngments = "<div style='width:200px;'>Round Hill Primary School.<br>Foster Avenue,<br>Beeston,<br>Nottingham.<br>NG9 1AE.</div>";
pinEngments.openInfoWindowHtml(msgEngments);
//]]>
</script>

The example code shows the location of Roundhill School from the BMTG website, although you can see some of the code is left-over from using it on the Engments site.

• The DIV sets up a coloured border and defines the height and width of the map.
• The “map.centerAndZoom” line supplies the co-ordinates (which you can get from Google Maps or Google Earth) of the centre of the map. The “2″ at the end is the zoom level.
• The “var pinEngments” line is the co-ordinates of the pin (as you can see the pin is set as the location of the map).
• The “var msgEngments” line is then some code which displays the location and address within a DIV statement.
• The “map.addControl” lines adds the control panel which allows for the zooming, etc. This can be omitted for removal, or changed to other, smaller, controls.

And that’s it. Don’t forget to put your Google API at the beginning of the page or this won’t work.

I’m very excited.

After much research, I’ve bought myself a new camera. My current camera – a Konica Minolta – is a good few years old and was my first “proper” digital camera. It’s getting a little worn now and it’s a little sluggish.

So, first things first, what I needed. What photos do I take? Your standard family and holiday snaps plus rehearsal and show photos for BMTG.  What features do I therefore need? A decent pixel count and zoom, good low-light capability, good video recording and few problems with red-eye. I also want a viewfinder (don’t get on with staring at LCD screens) and image stabiliser. Ideally I’d like it to use SD cards and AA batteries.

I don’t want much

And, after much research, I settled on the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ8. I found an online price of £180 (not at one of the top retailers, but on a site that still had a good reputation). On Friday I visited 3 retail park electrical stores – Currys, Comet and Empire Direct. All sold the same camera for £200. With just a 10% difference I was sure it shouldn’t have been hard to get it for that. Only that day was news of the bad Christmas retailers had and the general economic down-turn. Nobody would turn around £180, would they?

All 3 did. None of the stores were interested. The price on display was the only one they’d accept.

However, something else happened. At Comet they had the next one up in the Lumix range – the FZ18. I tried that out – it has a higher pixel count, zoom, it has face recognition and a bag of other extras. Back at home I found it online for £240 (£280 in Comet). And, ironically, it was at Dixons.

Order made and it should turn up this week. I’ve also ordered a case (from eBay – the “official” Panasonic case  is £35 in comparison to this £8 version), memory card (4GB SDHC Class 6 from Crucial) and spare battery (from global-batteries).

A review, I’m sure, is to come…

I posted yesterday about a recent story about DRM that I came across on the BBC News site. Unfortunately, I misread the main portion of it, hence why I’ve now removed the post. Instead of seeing that the government was planning on making copying CD’s legal, I somehow read it as “illegal”. Stupid me.

Never-the-less, there was a quote from the Association of Independent Music stating that once CDs are replaced, the law could be misused to “open the floodgates to unstoppable copying”, adding that it would like to see copyright holders compensated when music was copied.

Sam from the very same Association of Independent Music read my blog (yes people really do) and commented.

We’d like to see and are working towards a new commercial/legislative framework that allows music fans to freely and legally do what technology allows, while ensuring the creators are fairly reimbursed.  We’re not there yet, but will need to be very soon..  We aren’t advocating copyright holders are compensated when music is copied for personal use – ie from CD to computer.

Now if I’ve interpreted this correctly, they’re saying that you’ll be able to copy CD’s to your PC without an issue. The BBC quote from AIM shows they want compensation when music is copied, yet Sam is saying this is not the case. Is the BBC mis-quoting or have I missed something? Sam does specifically say they’re not after compensation when music is copied for personal use, so maybe he’s talking about compensation under different circumstances? Surely if you’re copying for non-personal use, then this is already covered under legislation (either licensing or the fact, in the case of copying for other people, it’s illegal). So where does the reimbursement come in (unless it’s to get money from those who have been caught illegally copying music)?

Sam, if you’re reading this, please comment and clarify this a little further for me!

One thing in the BBC article that does worry me is “owners would not be allowed to sell or give away their original discs once they had made a copy.” I wonder how this would be policed? I’m assuming they mean this would only be the case if you retained the copy – surely making a copy would not then mean that under no circumstances could you sell the original?