Domain: hm-treasury.gov.uk
Stories and comments across the archive that link to hm-treasury.gov.uk.
Comments · 40
-
What I sent to my MEP
With my colleagues from Irish Free Software Organisation:
http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-ie/2011-April/002981.html===========
Dear Mr. Crowley,Irish Free Software Organisation (IFSO) opposes the extension of copyright
which may be put to a vote in JURI today or tomorrow, and we ask that you do
the same. Further, we ask for your support in requesting a new first
reading for this proposed directive.Software companies with dominant market positions are increasingly using the
copyright of cultural works as a barrier to block other software developers.
Due to Digital Restrictions Management (DRM), music lovers can be required
to use the software of a small group of "approved" large software companies,
or be blocked from listening to DRM'd music.A few large companies are protected from competition, and the majority of
software developers are locked out - including all the "small artists" of
the software field.For people who object to DRM, or who don't find any acceptable software
among the "approved" group, there is still public domain works. Extending
copyright impoverishes the public domain and our cultural heritage.Below is a selection of links to independent studies highlighting the harms
of copyright extension.Yours sincerely,
CiarÃn O'Riordan, +32 487 64 17 54
Irish Free Software Organisation
http://ifso.ie/1. 8 Universities and policy centres issued this 2-page
statement about how the proposal would harm Europe's culture
and economy:
http://www.cippm.org.uk/downloads/Press%20Release%20Copyright%20Extension.pdf2. UK government's "Gower's review", which concluded that:
"The European Commission should retain the length of
protection on sound recordings and performersâ(TM) rights at 50
years." (page "56" - which is the 60th page of the PDF document)http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/pbr06_gowers_report_755.pdf
3. Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam:
"Never Forever: Why Extending the Term of Protection for Sound
Recordings is a Bad Idea"http://www.ivir.nl/publications/helberger/EIPR_2008_5.pdf
=========== -
Re:UK data release vs US annual reports?
I gather the forthcoming Whole of Government Accounts will be broadly similar. Most importantly, they will be using International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and hopefully understandable if you're comfortable enough with the consolidated accounts of a major UK company (and yes even the US is crawling towards adopting IFRS). I'm not sure what the score is here, I thought these were meant to be done for 2006/07 but apparently 2009/10 will be the first set, I think they spent a few years just moving in this direction.
Publication of this Coins data is something different but is a major disclosure. It's almost certainly not going to be of any direct use to the taxpaying public, but for journalists and anybody wanting details on something specific then wow.
I am a little hesitant however. Not many people understand financial information and even fewer are able of putting it in the context of an organisation so massive as the UK government, and UK newspapers and other interested bodies are well versed in manipulating ignorance to their own ends. Even with the best of intentions, the volume of detail here is such that not even a team of researchers has much chance of putting it into context.
-
Re:Patents were always a money making scam
The Erbium Doped Fibre Amplifier was invented at Southampton University in the UK. Due to issues getting the patent, they have lost quite a serious amount of cash:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/B/C/university_of_southampton_341_15kb.pdf
(page 3)These guys and their department (although i'm fairly sure they aren't short of cash) would probably have done a lot of good things with the royalties that they should have received.
-
The Gowers Report is well worth reading
I highly recommend skimming through the Gowers Review of Intellectual Property, the 2006 study on IP that seems to be the basis for this new law.
It seems to be a truly balanced study, full of interesting insights and recommendations. Some bits I liked:
- Page 34, Models of Innovation - a nice explanation of 'open' and 'closed' innovation
- Page 35, Cost of licensing spending - where I learned that in 1999, 90% of companies spent less than 10% of their R&D budget on licensing, but by 2009, that figure had dropped to only 10% of companies spending less than 10% on licensing. Wow.
- Page 49, IP "performance" scorecard - a frame for judging the cost/benefit of patents, copyrights, trademarks, and designs.
- Page 56, Revenue Distribution of Songs - where I learned that even the credit card companies make more on downloaded songs than the artist does (!). That's just sad.
- Page 58, Sales of fiction by year of publication - proof that an extremely small number of works makes any money beyond just a few years after publication
And I could go on with the remedies suggested by the study, but I'll stop here. If the world were to adopt the recommendations in this Study, I do think it would be a huge step forward.
-
Letter to my MPA couple of months ago when I first heard about the initial proposals in the UK to have a three strike system with regards to illegal file-sharing, I decided to send a letter to my MP (Theresa May). I laid out the most basic points in favor of general file-sharing and why I disagreed with the entertainment industry's indiscriminate crackdown on illegal file-sharers. The main problem I had with the three strike system was that it seemed to skip all due process, the ISP's were to cut off your internet connection on mere accusations. If the evidence is strong enough to convince my ISP that I am illegally file-sharing then surely the evidence is enough to convince a court of law that I am file-sharing. I would much rather be accused of a crime to my face in a court where I can defend myself, than be accused behind my back and have my connection summarily cut (especially seeing as I depend on it for work).
Needless to say I wasn't expecting much more than a quick response saying that my MP was also concerned and that she would keep an eye on it, blah blah blah. Indeed this was almost exactly what I received several months ago. Today however, to my surprise I received a further letter from my MP. It seemed that she had also written a letter with mine attached to John Hutton who is the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. I never honestly thought that my letter would get much of a response but it did get one from Shriti Vadera (Under Secretary). My MP forwarded it as follows (with my name replaced):Dear Ms May,
Thank you for your letter of 19 March to John Hutton on behalf of your constituent, Simian Road, about the 'peer to peer' network users. I am replying as this matter falls within my portfolio.
Mr Road's concerns may have been prompted by recent press reports on this issue, some of which, I'm afraid, were inaccurate. The correct position is as follows:
In December 2005, the then Chancellor asked Andrew Gowers to undertake an independent review of the UK intellectual property framework. The Review was published in December 2006 (and can be found at http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/gowers_review_intellectual_property/gowersreview_index.cfm). The Government welcomed the findings of the Review, and committed to taking forward those recommendations for which it is responsible, to ensure that the UK Intellectual Property (IP) regime is fit for the digital age.
The following recommendation concerned "peer-to-peer" (P2P) data-sharing - in effect the un-authorised copying of data files (typically music or films) between individuals: "Recommendation 39: Observe the industry agreement of protocols for sharing data between ISPs and rights holders to remove and disbar users engaged in 'piracy'. If this has not proved operationally successful by the end of 2007, Government should consider whether to legislate".
The issue is a complex one and has implications for data protection, e-commerce, consumers, the network infrastructure competition, and copyright protection. To date, industry has been unable to develop a voluntary solution and, in view of this, we have decided to start looking at possible legislative solutions. As stated in the Creative Britain strategy paper published on 22 February: "We will consult on legislation that would require internet service providers and rights holders to co-operate in taking action on illegal file sharing - with a view to implementing legislation by April 2009".
The consultation paper, which we are developing in discussion with stakeholders, will seek to identify a number of possible legislative options, including technological solutions. -
Re:Oh the humanityAlso, while our European governments steal all our money for taxes, we use it for better things than throwing bombs at some desert... And what exactly do you use it for? I'm always hearing how universal healthcare costs Europe less per capita than the US system costs our government. Now if your not going to war (where most of our budget goes), and spend less on healthcare then us, what are you doing with all those taxes? Excellent question! I've searched around, and UK tax is spent on:
- Social protection, £159bn
- Personal social services, £26bn
- Health, £105bn
- Transport, £20bn
- Education, £78bn
- Defence, £32bn
- Debt interest, £31bn
- Industry, agriculture, employment and training, £21bn
- Public order and safety, £33bn
- Housing and environment, £22bn
- Other, £62bn
What those things mean is defined by the UN. For the UK, most of 'Social protection' is social security benefits, i.e. money given to the unemployed, families, retired people etc.
For more detail than you could possibly want, see the HM Treasury Report.
But I think you might have wanted me to say name other things I notice in daily life, other than healthcare, that I don't have to pay for. I'm not sure, since I haven't lived in the US and don't really know how life works there. If I lose my job, I can ask for "Jobseeker's Allowance", and I'll be given £46.85 a week (so long as I prove I'm looking for another job). Other things like that are listed on Direct.gov.uk (e.g. benefits, free travel, pensions, student loans, ...) -
Re:Collecting data
"Yes, we do. Don't project your own ignorance onto others."
"Then please, give me facts that can prove that we are 100% responsible for climate change..."
For fun facts and conservative predictions/estimates, check here, here and here. If reading is too much (there are over 10,000 peer-reviewed papers on the subject), grit your teeth and watch or at least listen to Gore's presentation. According to some well known scientists involved with the IPCC, it's a good rendition of the reports.
Paradoxicaly, demanding proof proves your ignorance. -
Re:So, the basic argument against SW patents is...4.114 There have been calls in the UK to introduce pure computer software patents to
ensure that innovation is properly protected and encouraged. In Europe, patents are not
granted for computer programs as such,87 but patents have been granted to computer-based
innovations provided they have a technical effect. In the USA, pure computer software
patents can be granted. The evidence on the success of pure computer software patents is
mixed. The software industry in the USA grew exponentially without pure software patents,
suggesting they are not necessary to promote innovation.88 The evidence suggests software
patents are used strategically; that is, to prevent competitors from developing in a similar
field, rather than to incentivise innovation. 4.116 Introducing pure software patents could raise the costs for small software developers
to mitigate against risks surrounding R&D, thereby inflating the capital needs of software
development. Sun Microsystems argued that without exceptions that allowed for reverse
engineering for interoperability, pure software patents could stifle competition. 4.117 Last year, the European Parliament rejected the Computer Implemented Inventions
Directive, but this issue has been raised again. The economic evidence suggests that such
patents have done little to raise incentives to innovate, and other evidence suggests that the
introduction of such patents will have a chilling effect on innovation. In the absence of such
evidence, a new right for pure software patents should not be introduced, and so the scope of
patentability should not be extended to cover computer programs as such. 4.122 The Review supports the current position on pure software patents, business method
patents and gene patents, and recommends that changes to the current position should only
be made in light of economic evidence that such changes would enhance innovation to offset
the considerable costs. Recommendation 17: Maintain policy of not extending patent rights beyond their present limits within the areas of software, business methods and genes.
Reference: Gowers Review of Intellectual Property. -
Re:There is some need for ID cardsThere are several situations where you are supposed to identify yourself. The way this is 'solved' currently, is to show a recent UTILITY BILL.
To be more specific, in some situations the supplier must comply with the Money Laundering Regulations. These specify that the customer's identity must be verfied 'on the basis of documents, data or information obtained from a reliable and independent source'. It's up to the supplier to decide what documents they want to use as evidence.
Many suppliers demand not only evidence of identity but also of current address (which is why they want utility bills in addition to a passport). AIUI, there's nothing in the MLR 2007 requiring them to establish address, only identity. I assume they just want to make sure they can sue me conveniently.
Namgge
-
Economists say NO: Stern ReportRead the Stern report done by a UK economist who figures out the amount of GNP it would take to prevent/reduce climate change vs. cleaning up after the fact.
It won't be free, but nothing in life is.
-
Yahoo Exec Says "Enough DRM"...
...but not enough broad and trivial software and business method patents:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=Yahoo&FIELD1=ASNM&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=PTXThttp://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=Yahoo&FIELD1=ASNM&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=PTXT
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/E/D/yahoo_144_70kb.pdf -
Re:Skirting the issue
This was the second of four reports. They are:
Working Group I "The Physical Science Basis" (Released 2 February)
Working Group II "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability" (The one just out -- 4 April)
Working Group III "Mitigation of Climate Change" (Due 3 May)
The Synthesis Report (SYR) (Due 16 November)
See http://www.ipcc.ch/
The economics of making as early a start as possible are looked at quite closely at:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/Independent_Reviews/ stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_ index.cfm
Industry will certain play some role in getting things moving. A good example would be "CEOs Ask Bush for Mandatory Emissions Caps" at:
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/55321.html.
The insurance companies are certainly seeing this as important:
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international /2007/04/06/78536.htm
There's a link from the above to a PDF hosted at Lloyds:
http://www.lloyds.com/NR/rdonlyres/FCA144E6-24D5-4 25E-B058-3A64E020E18F/0/360_RapidClimateChangeRepo rt.pdf
That's a 31 page PDF titled _Rapid Climate Change_. Major topic coverage:
Rapid sea level rise
By Professor David Smith
Destabilisation of parts of the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheet
By Dr Stephan Harrison
Increased frequency and intensity of floods
By Dr Matt Wilson
Climate variability and changes in global drought intensity and frequency
By Dr Richard Washington -
Re:India
Any changes that could be made in the USA, Canada, and Western Europe (and Oz and Japan) would pale in comparison to the large increases coming from China and India. And short-sighted, when you consider that capping CO2 emissions will force a quarter-after-quarter recession on all involved nations.
So - what is the point here? That any cuts you americans (19.4839 *) make is unneccesary as long as those insidous indians (0.933086 *) and the vily chinese (2.65908 *) are polluting like there is no tomorrow?
Have you considered the possibility that emission schemes like the Kyoto Protocol are made specifically to help emission control in poor countries through emissions trading? **
And short-sighted, when you consider that capping CO2 emissions will force a quarter-after-quarter recession on all involved nations. And ain't that a pretty picture to consider?
Have you considered the possibility that not dealing with climate change may be more expensive than not doing anything about it? ***
*: Thousand metric tonnes of carbon dioxide Per capita figures expressed per 1,000 population.
**: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#Emissi ons_trading
***: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/ stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_ index.cfm -
Re:Believe it.
A bit late but I'm going to reply anyway
I don't disagree with much of your reasoning, just the conclusions that you draw from it.
To be clear I'm not advocating crippling the economies of the developed and developing world - I agree there is a level of economic damage that it is simply not worth taking, especially given that (if you accept the global warming hypothesis), we are already at the point where we will have significent changes to overcome.
I do think that there are measures that can be taken now that will have a significant impact on human CO2 production over the next few decades, primarily carbon trading couple with increasing carbon efficiency and carbon sequestration - I'd point you at the Stern review for more details (obviously this takes anthropomorphic global warming as a starting assumption).
The problem that carbon trading fixes in my understanding is the "market failure" [Stern review] inherent in the current system. It creates a market for technologies, business practices and lifestyle changes which reduce human carbon emissions. Without such a system there is unlikely to be a reason for these to be adopted, even if they are possible - market forces reward carbon emmiters in other words, and this does need to be counterbalanced.
I concede that this system will increase costs, and therefore hurt the economy. But properly implemented such damage can be absorbed. Maybe it's unnecessary. Maybe it's too little too late. But there is enough hope IMO for it to be worthwhile.
I simply can't accept the "wait for more evidence" argument. We are not likely to have a major breakthrough in our understanding any time soon, and if the problem is real we need to act asap. -
Re:Completely Moot
Here in the U.K. it's still illegal (as far as I'm aware) to format shift.
Yes it is. For example it's technically illegal to use a video recorder or Tivo or to rip a CD that you own into itunes (the apple 'rip, mix, burn' advertising was in fact an incitement to break the law - a crime in itself).
However a law has to be backed up by enforcement to by effective. Nobody has ever tried to jail someone for recording Eastenders for example.. and they would look pretty damned stupid if they did. It's unlikely such a prosecution would succeed anyway.
The a recent report proposed making format shifting legal, and having a specific exception on copyright law for parody (another thing we don't have that the US has).
(btw. it's written for politicians so has cheesy things like a 'what is IP' section.. it does mean it's readable though). -
Re:The other side the matterA few points worth discussing:
Larger shifts in CO2 and temp have occurred historically, and just as quickly, long before humans showed up.
I would be interested to know how you justify that claim. We do have decent historical carbon dioxide records via ice cores, and temperature proxies, but the high resolution short term data doesn't support your claim at all, and the longer term data which does, at least, provide significant changes in carbon dioxide and temperature are simply of far too poor a resolution to make any claims about "just as quickly": ice core co2 records that cover previous interglacial periods have resolution of around 500 years; moreover they don't show changes in carbon dioxide as large as what we are currently witnessing; records that go further back to periods with significantly higher carbon dioxide levels have resolution that is orders of magnitude worse.Is the result of climate warming bad? NOBODY seems to know, although we managed to live quite successfully at lower tech levels and higher temps at regular periods in our history.
When mankind lived through previous changes in glacial/interglacial change the rate of change was more than likely slower. More significantly the lower technology levels of the time (and, equally importantly, lower populations) likely actually helped: humans were sparsely spread and nomadic - if climate changed then groups ould easily move to new areas. What we face now is a far denser population where any movement of significant percentages of population with have dramatic effects, and significant amounts of investment in fixed non-moile infrastructure. We can't just pick up and move all our farming infrastructure somewhere else at the drop of a hat - any transition would be costly and significant. Ultimately if you want an accounting of costs then ask an economist. The UK government did, and the result is the Stern Review from Nicholas Stern, a world respected economist. By his accounting (and it was an extremely detailed and in depth study - some 700 pages of report) the effects will be detrimental. Expect more such reports from other economists in the near future.Can the human activity be changed such that the effect is altered, and what is the opportunity cost for doing so? [This is] really [what is] under argument. Environmentalists stamping their sandal-clad feet and crying that "we have to" is unpersuasive. And a report claiming that global warming is going to cost X is (nearly) meaningless unless it's compared to the Y cost of mitigation.
At this point I would again direct you to the Stern Review which is specifically what you ask for: an accounting of the costs of both inaction, and a comparison of those costs with an equally detailed accounting of the costs of mitigation. The results were that, providing mitigation action was taken sooner rather than later, the costs of mitigation efforts would more than repay themselves within 50 years. Indeed, costs of mitigation could amount to around 1% of global GDP if taken now, while inaction was expected to cost between 5% and 20% of global GDP by 2050. And just to reiterate: this was a detailed report from a respected economist (former chief economist for the World Bank), not a bunch of "sandal clad hippies". -
Re:The other side the matterA few points worth discussing:
Larger shifts in CO2 and temp have occurred historically, and just as quickly, long before humans showed up.
I would be interested to know how you justify that claim. We do have decent historical carbon dioxide records via ice cores, and temperature proxies, but the high resolution short term data doesn't support your claim at all, and the longer term data which does, at least, provide significant changes in carbon dioxide and temperature are simply of far too poor a resolution to make any claims about "just as quickly": ice core co2 records that cover previous interglacial periods have resolution of around 500 years; moreover they don't show changes in carbon dioxide as large as what we are currently witnessing; records that go further back to periods with significantly higher carbon dioxide levels have resolution that is orders of magnitude worse.Is the result of climate warming bad? NOBODY seems to know, although we managed to live quite successfully at lower tech levels and higher temps at regular periods in our history.
When mankind lived through previous changes in glacial/interglacial change the rate of change was more than likely slower. More significantly the lower technology levels of the time (and, equally importantly, lower populations) likely actually helped: humans were sparsely spread and nomadic - if climate changed then groups ould easily move to new areas. What we face now is a far denser population where any movement of significant percentages of population with have dramatic effects, and significant amounts of investment in fixed non-moile infrastructure. We can't just pick up and move all our farming infrastructure somewhere else at the drop of a hat - any transition would be costly and significant. Ultimately if you want an accounting of costs then ask an economist. The UK government did, and the result is the Stern Review from Nicholas Stern, a world respected economist. By his accounting (and it was an extremely detailed and in depth study - some 700 pages of report) the effects will be detrimental. Expect more such reports from other economists in the near future.Can the human activity be changed such that the effect is altered, and what is the opportunity cost for doing so? [This is] really [what is] under argument. Environmentalists stamping their sandal-clad feet and crying that "we have to" is unpersuasive. And a report claiming that global warming is going to cost X is (nearly) meaningless unless it's compared to the Y cost of mitigation.
At this point I would again direct you to the Stern Review which is specifically what you ask for: an accounting of the costs of both inaction, and a comparison of those costs with an equally detailed accounting of the costs of mitigation. The results were that, providing mitigation action was taken sooner rather than later, the costs of mitigation efforts would more than repay themselves within 50 years. Indeed, costs of mitigation could amount to around 1% of global GDP if taken now, while inaction was expected to cost between 5% and 20% of global GDP by 2050. And just to reiterate: this was a detailed report from a respected economist (former chief economist for the World Bank), not a bunch of "sandal clad hippies". -
Re:Pollute more
Ha, ha. Your post should have received a score 2, funny. Polluting more to enhance global dimming is only a way to alleviate the symptom; it does nothing to solve the problem in the long run. Pollution is also undesirable for other obvious reasons (just look at the situation in China). Cutting back on the large scale use of fossil fuels sooner rather than later is the only solution that makes economic sense.
-
Re:Not legal in the UK
'The saddest thing about this, is that it's not legal in the UK to rip CDs to MP3.'
This at least may well change quite soon, if the government acts on the Gowers Review:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/ gowers_review_intellectual_property/gowersreview_i ndex.cfm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6214108.s tm -
It's a lot more than tougher laws
OK, since <obligatory moan> for some reason the eds posted a story about a BBC article and not my version straight from the source</obligatory moan>, let's get a few things cleared up.
We're talking about the Gowers Review of Intellectual Property. This was a wide-reaching review, covering a lot more than just copyright, though of course copyright is a major component in our IP framework.
In terms of copyright law, here are some of the major recommendations from the review:
- The EC should not extend the copyright term for sound recordings and performers' rights. Moreover, if any extensions are proposed, they should not be retroactive. (The arguments given for this approach would make most Slashdotters proud, I imagine!)
- The UK should introduce a tightly specified private copying exception, to legalise format-shifting.
- Enforcement needs to be stronger, with tougher penalties and consideration given to a fast track procedure.
- It is too early in the development of DRM to start legislating about it, but it should not be allowed to interfere with legitimate uses of copyright material that are non-infringing. An existing mechanism to report such abuses of DRM is noted, but is so convoluted that no-one has ever used it. The Review recommends making this process much more obvious and easier to use. The Review also recommends taking another look at some of these issues further down the line to investigate whether the system is working fairly.
Personally, I agree with most of the review's conclusions and recommendations. I was, however, disappointed that they felt the need to limit their recommendation for a personal copying exception so much. The Review acknowledged that some personal uses were perceived, incorrectly, to be legal by many people, and that banning such uses by law damages the credibility of copyright as a whole in the public eye. They also acknowledged that some of these uses do not harm the interests of the copyright holder. They have also stressed throughout their process that their review would be evidence-led. I find it intriguing, therefore, that they have completely failed to address other reasonable personal uses mentioned in several of the submissions, such as backing up, recording broadcasts, and making compilations.
Some submissions gave quite reasonable arguments based on existing law in favour of explicitly legitimising these. For example, under blanket UK consumer protection legislation, any article purchased from a shop must be (a) fit for purpose, and (b) capable of lasting for the expected lifetime of the product. Since the expected lifetime for information is indefinite, abusing copyright and/or DRM so that when someone's CD wears out they have to buy a whole new CD because they couldn't take a back-up should be a violation of UK trading laws. (Bizarrely, under the proposed system, you could take a back-up as long as it's in a different format, and if your original copy wore out you could then shift the information back again as you would still have only a single copy in any given format of material you had legitimately obtained.)
On the whole, I give them 8/10 given the huge scale of what they were attempting. At least pretty much everything I've read of the review so far is a reasonable position, and most of it is a clear improvement on where we are now. My complaint, such as it is, is more that they didn't go far enough in some areas than that they went in the wrong direction. But such is progress, perhaps.
-
Gowers Report Link
I know nobody here even read TFBBCA, but here's the full Gowers report (see PDF under Final Report), with background etc.
Lawrence Lessig blogged about one interesting recommendation -- that copyright term not be altered retrospectively. I think that's British for "retroactively". -
Re:Lomborg no longer deny that global warming is r
Comparing the cost of trying to adapt to a changing climate with the cost of trying to prevent climate change is certainly a worthwhile, especially as global warming based on past actions is already inevitable.
Of course Lomborg is not the only one to make such an analysis. The Stern report represents a study of exactly such a question from a world renowned economist. It comes to the opposite conclusion. -
Re:Proof is for mathematicians
The debate I am hearing is how we better turn power over to the activists and pretend that the economy is unimportant. Well, that is not going to go over very well, is it?
Then stop listening to pundits an start paying attention. No-one but pundits trying to be sensationlist for the sake of airtime is talking about "handing things over to activists", and to the contrary, the debate is considering the economy as vital.Ask a real climate scientist about the solar influence question - their best answer is that it doesn't seem to be likely that a change 100 years ago can effect weather today. But that is exactly what CO2 will do, right? And the Earth is pretty big, maybe it takes a century or two to fully adjust to a solar input variation.
The problem is that your raising an "it is possible that..." scenario with nothing to back it up. It is possible that that's the case, but there simply isn't any evidence for it. The issue of solar variation has been carefully considered over the last decade and, despite a variety of interesting findings, the conclusion so far is that while it is responsible for some warming, we cannot find any explanation that would allow it to account for all the observed warming. It is possible that we will learn differently at some point in the future, but ultimately we have to go on what we know now; it is not like this question has been ignored and we know nothign about it - there have been lots of studies on solar variation and its effects. -
Re:A few key questions...
What is your proposal to completely resolve the problem and avoid the economic and loss of life consequences?
The "completely resolve" is a little disingenuous. If you want a variety of mitigation plans, all carefully detailed and researched, then try the IPCC TAR Mitigation Report which does analysis on emissions scencarios to see what effects different scenarious will have.How much will it cost (include high & low estimates) to solve the problem? What is the time scale for the costs?
The mitigation report has some basic estimates, but if you want detail then try the Stern Report which is a detailed (700 page) report specifically on the costs, both of solutions, and failure to apply solutions, from a world renowned economist. The time scale is to 2050. The costs of solution range, but would be as little as 1% of global GDP if action begins immediately. In comparison the unchecked effects of global warming were found to result in a 5% to 20% reduction in global GDP by 2050.What confidence level does the solution have in actually solving the problem? Is there a general consensus in the solution, costs, and liklihood of success?
For confidence levels with regard to basic solutions like reducing emissions per the IPCC emissions scenarios then you should, again, refer to the IPCC TAR Mitigation Report. Of course the TAR is fro 2001 while the FAR will be out next year and that may have higher confidence levels. As for general consensus - I don't believe there is abslute consensus on how the problem should b dealt with. I believe there is consensus, however, as to basic minimum courses of action such as reducing emissions (preferrably in line with the IPC or Stern reports, which in general seek to have atmospheric CO2 level out at around 500ppm, up from 380ppm currently). As to the costs - the mitigation reports provide basic accounting, but the Stern Report is the first major report by an economist seriously looking at the costs, so no, I can't say there is yet consensus on costs: we've only just begun looking at that issue.As a last resort... considering this is a global problem and assuming the solutin must be executed on a global level if one country or group of countries refuses to comply with the solution and jeoporadizes the success of the entire solution are military actions acceptable in order to avoid the economic and loss of life consequences?
That's a very context sensitive question. Realistically I think it is highly unlikely, especially given that many of the countries likely to be problematic on compliance are sufficiently large and militaised that this simply won't be an option. You might see various forms of economic sanctions, however, if the situation becomes both sufficiently clear and sufficiently grave. We haven't reached that point yet, however. Scientists have reached their conclusions, and are busy refining their confidence in their models of differing emissions scenarios. The work of economists to do a full accounting of costs one way or the other has just begun. Politicians are always the last to seriously commit, so it will likely be quite a while yet. Much will hang on how well received the Stern Report proves to be, and what the next round of similar follow up reports shows. -
Re:RepairWe it is not repair, but there has been a recent report (the Stern Review) which looks at the economic impacts of acting now or later on climate change. It represents the first attempted at linking economic impacts to the impacts of climate change.
The report can be found here -
Re:full study
The review will not officially be released until tomorrow, so you can't get it yet. There is this webpage which will potentially host the report when it is released, and has intermediary papers and presentations by Stern in the meantime.
-
anti money laundering laws in the UKAll of this was picked up during routine hot scanning where it is a legal requirement to tip off authorities when a suspicious transaction occurs.
The above PDF gives advice to financial institutions on how to submit STR (suspicious transaction report) to the treasury. The interesting thing is that it is not an offence to submit an incorrect tip off (STR). Also, the PDF shows some of the internal workflow for the STR - which would pass through NCIS (National Crime Squads, now SOCA) before reaching other interested parties.
Anyone who has bought a car, boat, house or any expensive item by law has to show valid identification and a transaction form is completed and sent in. When I recently bought my car, I had to take my passport in and the dealer filled in a form and photocopied my ID!
Even the UK version of PayPal has an inbuilt limit at GBP4,100 that will temporarily freeze the PayPal account until the account holder has validated their identity - this is reported and sent in and used for tax collection and STR purposes.
not a new story, move along please.
-
And the UK is still doing something similar
For our boys and girls in the UK, don't forget that the Gowers review is still accepting responses to their call for evidence, and covers (inter alia) the same sort of questions.
-
To a large extent.....
The UK parliament has been redundant for a long time.
Back in the days of Margaret Thatcher, huge parliamentary majorities were won on minority votes thanks to the first past the post, 3 party system. If I remember rightly, Mrs. T held a majority in excess of 300 MPs with only 40% of the electorate voting for her. Tony Blair commanded about 35% of the vote when less than 50% of the electorate turned out.
With a three figure majority and the back-benches filled with career minded sheep, the government can get pretty much anything they want through so the new law is just icing on the cake. What worries me more is the sort of people they hang with. According to the treasury web site, the following are being flown in by Gordon Brown, the next Prime Minister, to give advice on business in New Britain:
Bernard Arnault, Chairman and CEO, LVMH
Lord Browne, Group Chief Executive, BP
Dr Jean-Pierre Garnier, CEO, GlaxoSmithKline
Bill Gates, Chairman and Chief Software Architect, Microsoft Corporation
Sir Ka-shing Li, Chairman of the Board, Hutchison Whampoa Ltd
Sir Terry Leahy, CEO, Tesco
Sir John Rose, CEO, Rolls Royce
Robert Rubin, Director and Chairman of the Executive Committee, Citigroup Inc
Lee Scott, President and CEO, Wal-Mart
Ratan Tata, Chairman, Tata Group
Meg Whitman, President and CEO, eBay
James Wolfensohn, Special Envoy for Disengagement and Former President of the World Bank
Yep, that's right. In order to improve the business environment for entrepreneurs and encourage opportunity among the lower classes, Brown is freighting in a convicted monopolist and a horde of bankers and fat-cats some of which are heads of corporations that have been criticised for predatory and/or unfair practises. Hmmmm.. Can't wait 'til the advice starts flowing. "Well everyone, what's the best thing to encourage competition in business"? Patents for everything and tax cuts for the exceptionally rich? Sure thing, no problem now that I can push it through Parliament without a proper debate. Seat in the House of Lords? Two million to you guv but make it untraceable, know what I mean?
Sick country man, a really sick country. -
If you live in the UK... (Gowers)
Sadly, the Slashdot eds decided not to run my story about the Gowers Review calling for evidence as of yesterday, so since it's directly relevant I'll mention it here.
For those who don't know, this is a government-ordered review into the current state of intellectual property, and whether it needs amending in light of new technologies, easy distribution over the Internet, etc.
The review is concerned with several quite general questions, quite a few specific issues, and any other comments interested parties care to make. Among the specific issues explicitly mentioned in the call for evidence (available on the web site linked above) are:
- the period for which copyright lasts;
- what sorts of fair use rights might be appropriate in the UK (bearing in mind that we don't have anything directly equivalent to US fair use provisions at present, and a lot of the things mentioned in this discussion -- such as format-shifting for personal use -- are clearly illegal here at present);
- the use of DRM (including several very relevant questions about balancing the right of a copyright holder to protect their work and the right of a consumer to use it reasonably);
- access to orphaned works, for which the legitimate copyright holder can no longer be reached.
So, if you're from the UK and you've ever bitched on Slashdot about the unfairness of DRM, the media cartels gaining ever longer "temporary" protections, the daftness that format-shifting is illegal even when the industry is happy to sell you equipment that all but requires it to be useful, the use of patents to create a barrier to entry for OSS, or any number of other IP-related issues, stop complaining on here and write to the Gowers Review to make your case. You can bet the big businesses all will be.
-
Re:Staying Competitive: Europe vs. USA
The fact that you're literally comparing the dollar amounts between defence and social spending is troubling. Defence spending shouldn't even be on the same order of magnitude as social spending. Take a look at Britain's budget, http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/91D/93/ACF12D
7 .pdf . And Britain isn't exactly what I'd call a pacifist state.
Britain isn't a pacifist state, but it isn't a superpower either. There's a lot of wasteful spending that goes on for defense, but a big reason for why Europe can spend less on its military is that the US spends so much on its own. Whether or not you agree with the war in Iraq, the fact that the US does have a powerful military is a big deterrent to dictators who'd like to do various international mischief. China can't invade Taiwan primarily because the US Navy is there. North Korea can't invade its southern neighbor because the US would take action; even though the UN was the official body that countered the north's first attack, the vast majority of non-Korean troops in the UN force came from the US. There are many other similar examples.
In a nutshell, my point is that the military gives teeth to the words of the US and Europe, and in many cases this serves an indirect social purpose in itself. That's not to say there aren't exceptions or waste in the military; I'm just saying that Europe can have a smaller military because the US has a bigger one. Having such a large military requires a lot of money.
As far as social programs go, most of these programs are designed to make up for a lack of financial planning and/or discipline on the part of individuals. For example, if everyone was wise enough to invest their money in a retirement account, Social Security would be unnecessary. Unfortunately, Americans save only 2% of their incomes (compare this with the Chinese, who save 40%), and thus when they reach retirement, they expect the rest of the public to pick up the tab. Entitlement programs cause people to take less care of themselves and expect everyone else to take care of their own problems. Obviously there are some legitimately poor people who ought to be helped, but with excessive social programs you get things like the enormous unemployment in Germany.
In short, we *are* spending huge amounts of money on social programs. Frankly, I find it somewhat ridiculous that we spend half of our tax dollars on taking care of people who could take care of themselves. -
Re:Staying Competitive: Europe vs. USA
So if I'm paying $400 a month for rent, and $350 a month for food, I'm spending "huge amounts of money" on rent?
The fact that you're literally comparing the dollar amounts between defence and social spending is troubling. Defence spending shouldn't even be on the same order of magnitude as social spending. Take a look at Britain's budget, http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/91D/93/ACF12D7 .pdf . And Britain isn't exactly what I'd call a pacifist state. -
The situation in the UK
I help run a large dancing club in the UK that regularly deals with PPL and such. Sorry, but the parent post is completely wrong on several counts.
Even to play the original media at public classes and special events requires a licence here if you don't hold the copyright. We submit a form to PPL each year, basically describing the number of hours of music we'll be playing that year, the venues we'll be using, and what the tracks we'll be playing are. (These are necessarily approximations, and FWIW this has never caused us a problem, not that that means much these days.) We then get told how much we have to pay for the rights to play the music as requested. This is not a flat rate, so I have no idea where the figures quoted by others in this discussion have come from.
This is a wholly separate issue to format-shifting, which is illegal by default under UK copyright law. Just because you've bought an MP3 player or your laptop has media playing software doesn't actually give you the right to put any of your CD collection on it, and copying a CD onto tape to play in your old car cassette deck is against the rules. No, I'm not kidding. I haven't read the latest PPL guidelines that apply here yet, but I'm guessing (as in, check it yourself before you rely on it!) that this licence actually covers the format-shifting required to get the material onto the other system. It may or may not cover the same things as the regular PPL licence as well, but I'm guessing not if it's a flat rate or everyone would be doing it (our PPL "contribution" is well over £200 per year).
If you're in the UK and think that charging for a CD, charging for the right to use it in public performances, and charging a significant amount to play the music you've already paid for to an audience you've already paid for, then you might like to consider contributing to the Gowers review of UK IP law when it starts consulting in Febuary 2006.
-
Re:And the green book is this!
"The green book" is a phrase you hear a lot in the UK if you have much to do with the government. It means something totally different to UK civil servants.
-
Re:I hate EU
-
Re:Doing well with renewable energy
I'm thinking they would still have vehicles that must consume this valuable commodity.
I'm sorry, I think I should have mentioned this. It's odd that they are talking about 600 GBP grants for conversions, but the tech might costr a bit more there than it currently does here (around $700 to $900, depending on the make of the car.)
The U.S. gets its power from natural gas, coal, and nuclear fuel.
You are right, the US gets only about 5% of it's energy from oil fired generators. The techs you mention are the root cause of the east-coast blackout that we expirienced last summer due to the need for heavy currents being transmitted at high voltage over long distance power lines. Most of the renewable energy technologies that have been proven to be feasable (wind, solar, renewable natural gas) work as efficiently on a micro-generator scale as they do on a centralized generation model. As we consume more and more energy, it will become necessary to move the production of electrical power closer to the consumer.
If it went completely to renewable energy for power generation, it would still need just as much oil.
If the US went to renewable natural gas generation on its livestock farms and at its sewage treatment plants, the cost of natural gas would drop enough that it would be feasible to run our cars on it.Lubricants and other petroleum based products could easily be made from our domestic oil production or manufactured from vegetablesopurces or meat/poultry rendering waste products.
-
Ha Ha Only Serious
You nearly had me there, Taco. This is just the sort of thing that someone like Microsoft would try to foist on a government that's repeatedly shown itself to be less than clueful about IT matters. As such, I think it's quite a good April Fool - it's only just on the wrong side of being completely plausible.
The Techworld article and the "Lose-IT" website are tantalisingly vague. One suspicious detail is that lose-it.org.uk was registered on 12 March, while the Budget was not made public until 17 March. Either the owner had inside information (not entirely impossible) or he was planning to do something for 1 April.
Our government is trying to grok the internet, so they have various official documents available online. The complete text is here, as a set of 14 PDFs. I haven't read the whole thing (what do you expect on Slashdot?!), but a search through each of them for "computer" and "software" turns up nothing that looks relevant.
Overall, then, nice try, thanks for playing, see you again next year.
-
Right, fuck thisThis is bullshit. If this is real (and I hope with every piece of my fibre that it is not) then I am going to be VERY angry.
If you're in Britain, heres what you can do...
- Email the government, check if is real and if it is a plan. The treasury public email address is public.enquiries@hm-treasury.gov.uk. If real, move on to the next step.
- Contact a news source, giving details, URLs, any reply you got from the Treasury, whatever. I recommend The Independent and The Telegraph, they seem less likely to reject something like this.
Do whatever you can, this is outrageous. -
the official UK budget
here is the official hm-treasury budget 2004 website budget
-
Re:So wrong, you are
> China does not accept U.S. dollars for their goods. They may very well convert their dollars into Yuan and buy Chinese products. But as I covered elsewhere in this thread, at some point, those dollars are coming home, unless they're being used for decoration.
Chinese exporters convert their dollar profits into Yuan (to pay workers and suppliers). The dollars get deposited at the central bank.
Jul 15, 2003:
Japan's foreign reserves currently total $496 billion, followed by China at $310 billion and Taiwan at US$170 billion, according to figures compiled in April by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority. Hong Kong, with 7.5 million people, has reserves of $114 billion, nearly seven times the total money in circulation in the territory. Other Asian treasuries are similarly bulging with dollars.
there is no rational reason for such big foreign reserves. unless, of course, you do not care about the value of your accumulated paper reserves, but have other goals, like GDP growth on your mind (transfer of industrial infrastructure). undervalued currency means the population does not buy much of imported goods.
for comparison: The UK Government's net reserves rose by $621 million in December 2003, bringing the end-December total to $17,903 million
since July 2003 the value of the dollar dropped by ca. 10%. so china's central bank lost say, $30 bln. they do not buy anything material with those dollars. they just reinvest them into US-bonds (as good as cash, but gives interest over time).
japan's foreign reserves are even bigger, because they tried hard to keep their economy afloat trough out the nineties. they bet on exports to the US, so they had to have a cheaper currency.