Slashdot Mirror

If it's brown, it's down.

Sony {has} yet to start PS3 production (august 22). But it still expects to have product in the stores in time for the Christmas shopping season? Which in the states begins with Halloween. October 31st.

No, it's higher.

(Unfortunately, the article that goes with the chart doesn't seem to be online. IIRC, it claims that the chart is based on OECD data.)

Excuse me Denial93... can you provide any links to this purported vote of no confidence? Whilst I personally have no confidence at all in the current British premier, I have been unable to find any references to this "same day" vote. Certainly, there are fairly widespread press articles suggesting that Blair is due to face such a vote of no confidence (and in my opinion, the sooner the better), this accusation currently appears to be unjustified - so I am most intrigued!
(disclaimer - my entire response to this "alleged" plot has been that it is a massive over-reaction by the UK government as a means to keep the population scared - my tinfoil hat is a big as yours.)

Maybe it's the history of the British fight against the IRA, but it seems to me that the British people have been a little more tolerant of state intrusion than Americans. What I infer is happening now is that the overboard Orwellianism of the current British government is reaching a tipping point where a lot of Brits are wondering, "How much is too much?".

Your replies from Brits so far are quite informative in the sense of why Britons have been so tolerant. They have no idea how close Britain is to a totalitarian dictatorship.

This Government has already passed 2 truly totalitarian laws:

1. The Civil Contingencies Act, which is almost exactly the same as Hitler's Enabling Act.

2. The Identity Cards Act, which not only forces passport renewers on to a database, it also connects that database with 4 other significant databases (tax system, police records, ANPR & passports) thus creating the world's most intrusive database. It does not stop there either. There is nothing preventing our medical records, phone records, email & surfing records, credit card records etc being linked to the meta-database.

The Govt is trying to get a 3rd totalitarian law through, the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. This, like the Civil Contingencies Act, grants almost unfettered power to a handful of people. While CCA requires an emergency to be declared and cannot abolish elections or amend the European Convention of Human Rights (its only limitations), legislation under LRRB currently requires approval (without debate) by both Houses and likewise cannot amend the ECHR. It's amended version is no less dangerous AFAIK.

There are also 4 anti-terror laws, all worse than your Patriot Act and two of which have been ruled to contravene the ECHR (both for locking people up without trial).

Thanks to people like Lord Phillips, the House of Lords has been doing a reasonable job of standing up to Blair's executive, with the two obvious exceptions above. They have very little power (which they are reluctant to use), merely being able to hold up a Bill for about a year. The Law Lords are not able to overturn laws, but simply rule them incompatible with other laws like the ECHR.

As I implied at the start, the reason we've allowed this is that almost no-one knows. I bet less than 1% of Britons have even heard of the Civil Contingencies Act.

We are not taught to scrutinise our Govt as I understand Americans are. We haven't had to fear our Govt in modern times, and most people who did were left wingers who voted for Blair and have been slow to realise how dangerous he is.
We also don't realise that Britain is an elective dictatorship which has respected freedoms only because of the benign nature of its governments. The Conservative opposition has been remarkably quiet as has the media until the last few months. I kid you not, if Britain survives this attack on our freedoms (and that's a big if) it will be because of blogs, unfunded campaigns, leaks and Blair's mistakes like Iraq & pushing for 90-days detention.

I wrote about Britain's remaining safeguards here.

Thousands of people did die today... Due to car accidents, cancer, and poverty. If we're just trying to stop deaths, we should focus on making safer cars, researching cancer, and helping those less fortunate than ourselves.

I suspect, however, that all of this terrorism hype isn't about stopping deaths.

You've got it spot on, it isn't about stopping "deaths", randomly distributed accidents, excess deaths due to poor life style choices like eating too much cheese on your onion rings every day, or disease. It is about stopping deliberate, calculated mass murder. Terrorist incidents are infrequent due to active preventative measures, not because it has a low naturally occurring frequency.

We don't even know for sure that there was going to be a terrorist attack.

By repeated observation, the British like most people in Western society have learned that when young Muslim men between the ages of 18-40 accumulate explosives, hold secretive meetings, receive large sums of wired money, and follow up by studying airline schedules, and plots to blow up aircraft in midflight, it is unlikely to lead to a spontaneous soccer match, .... at least not one you would care to attend. A terrorist attack, on the other hand, seems to be a distinct possibility. Some well informed people might even spot something resembling a pattern or two. Of course, who knows? Maybe they just wanted to go "dancing". But hey, believe what you want.

The US and UK governments are far from being trustworthy.

You left out Australia, Spain, Russia, Morocco, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Italy, Egypt, Philippines, Afghanistan, and quite a few more countries that are having problem with Islamist terrorist organizations.

The US government has contemplated "simulated" terrorist attacks to change public opinion.

Well, here is a shocker: the US government tries to change or influence public opinion or behavior pretty much every day on all kinds of matters: diet, exercise, tax code compliance, joining the military, better methods to raise corn, reducing pollution, reducing drunk driving, avoiding travel to various foreign countries, and so on. The fact almost 45 years ago a handful of anti-Communist zealots managed to get a draft paper for a dubious plan like Northwoods to the President where it was immediately shot down (with no doubt that one or more of the words: crazy, stupid, insane, criminal, were in the air) is a wonderful example of US democracy and civilian control of the military in action. The system worked. Or is that bad? Unless you are proposing total thought control, which has plenty of problems of its own, there will always be ideas that need to be shot down in government.

You know, it strikes me as odd that you would seemingly trust the government to deliver all manner of social welfare services, health care, and medicines, when you believe that same government is untrustworthy and is trying to fool you or maybe even kill you.

The Netherlands legalized marijuana usage decades ago and still is together with Germany the smartest country in Europe with 107 IQ points on average.

ARRESTED not CHARGED and indeed INNOCENT until proven GUILTY! Remember a couple of months back when they "raided the bio-chemical bomb factory" shot one man and arrested another then found NOTHING http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,29389-2208 222,00.html

This happened on Deputy PM John Prescott's watch. "Tony Blair is beginning his delayed holiday to the Caribbean ... While Mr Blair is away, Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott is expected to take control of the day-to-day running of the country." - BBC 8/8/6

So I'm waiting for further evidence before deciding whether this is a real threat or just "security theater".

But we better hope the ban on hand luggage works, because the next step for John Prescott could be really scary: "Naked ... On a Plane".

Some points:

1. The British authorities have a record of attempting to conjure 'terrorist threats' out of nothing in order to increase public support for unpopular foreign and domestic policy decisions.

2. If the UK really is under threat of "imminent attack" and there really is credible intelligence on which to base that belief, then shouldn't the PM be in the UK and not on a Caribbean beach?

One cannot be certain at this early stage that this is a mere PR exercise - but neither is it appropriate to suspend scepticism entirely. Especially given the track record of this goverment.

Jean Charles de Menezes

If you really remember, you will recall certain facts you left out, such as the man was fleeing from police. He created the dangerous situation. If you do such things, especially in a security-critical transportation environment, don't be surprised if you get shot.

No, He wasn't fleeing from the police.

You should really try and get your facts right before you accuse other people.

Talk to Trading Standards in the UK.

That was not someone rebranding Firefox and selling it under his own name, nor did anyone get sued for that matter. Someone was merely selling CDs with the regular Firefox on them and it was a trading office official who got confused because she indeed was not familiar with the concept of Free Software.

(doesn't come in at page 2 - not split)

Then be prepared to be in a major shock when you read http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2091-22620 28.html. Yes, stem cells without the turmor growths.

Dammy

That EC case is specifically about (formerly) private Windows network protocols, particularly ActiveDirectory, which were never intended to be a public API in the first place.

While the EC case about opening up internetworking protocalls that's not all it was about. One of the parties against MS was Realnetwork with MS blocking Windows media technologies:

In October 2005, Microsoft came to an agreement with its last big competitor in the EC antitrust case. The arrangement included a $460 million cash payment to RealNetworks, greater access to some Windows Media technologies, and an end to all of their antitrust disputes worldwide. But the EC carries on despite this settlement.

There's also this:

The EU also ordered Microsoft to share the blueprints of its Windows operating system, which accounts for around 90 per cent of the market, to allow rivals to build applications that work smoothly with it.

...the usual suspects have already had much to say:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/15/vehicle_mo vement_database/
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1869 818,00.html

Unfortunately, there isn't any serious political opposition to it at the moment. If I could vote for a Lettice I would - we only seem to get turnips at the moment.

I'm Indian and all that, but can we drop those gratitious references to marches and being an "IT super power" or whatever shit? Propaganda has its uses, but only for totalitarian societies, not a free-thinking, or argumentative society that I always thought my country was.

An article in the timesonline states that the number of murders in Chicago, the the nation's murder capital droped to 447. I don't know how many of these were gun crimes, but I would suspect a significant proportion.

This is comparing country wide, with single city statistics

Personaly, I would rather be mugged for the MP3 player, than shot in a random drive by killing.

The attack leveraged the Windows Metafile (WMF) exploit to install programs in the PurityScan/ClickSpring family of adware, which bombards the user with pop-up ads and tracks their Web usage.

Anyone who protests tracking of their web usage obviously hates america.

Oh bollocks. ASBOs have been abused by councils up and down the land, to criminalise behaviour that someone finds undesirable but is certainly not, in itself, criminal. One woman was given an ASBO to prevent her answering her door in her underwear, for heaven's sake.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2090-15132 43,00.html

Actually, up until recently the register was planned for introduction in 2008 (they haven't built it yet so they can't store the required things in it).
Read this from the BBC in March of this year.

Then more recently (within the last week) the whole thing has been crumbling, read here for a short piece about it.

Gervase Markham's article for the Times Online would seem to disagree with you on that last point—a previous ruling meant a £1.5/day fine. Markham argued that Microsoft should just pay the fine as that fine was not so big:

"Still, Microsoft may consider this a good deal. One foundation of their success is their operating system monopoly, reinforced by the interactions and dependencies between the client and server versions which tie the two together. In 2003, they made £14 million a day from Windows client operating system licences alone. In the context of preserving that revenue, a fine of one-tenth of that figure suddenly doesn't seem so large.

Somehow a fine double that of the old fine still doesn't seem terribly significant in their daily take. And according to the BBC, Microsoft will appeal so perhaps this will ultimately result in a fine more to Microsoft's liking.

And life is very, very, hard to enjoy when you're not making good money.

Depends what you mean by "good money". The science says that above a minimum money does not buy happiness

---

You communist! Breathing shared air!

There is an argumenent in the UK at the moment about deporting and extraditing people to nations who have poor human rights records. I think a nation who imprisons people without trial and without legal representation is a perfect example.

Or, we could just bypass the whole sham trial thing, and just shoot him, like the Brazilian kid.

Not trying to be funny or flippant, but nowhere has a perfect record on these things.

Great to see the UK judiciary bending-over for a foreign power.

Would you say that the Spanish government was "bending over" for the UK in this case?

How about the Nigerians? Are you ashamed to make them bend over?

Perhaps the Italians are feeling bent over by the UK?

Or, perhaps the Germans, when they extradited a former US Marine to the UK?

One is tempted to think that you are, perhaps, exhibiting selective distaste for extradition when it suits your purely political posturing?

"...looking for people who appear that they might be some kind of spammer, toss them into the back of a van..."

I believe you're correct, except for the re-education part. Those vans will actually be China's Death Vans

just to egg you on

I think it's misleadingly phrasing (in the aim of a short heading) rather than chauvinism. The facts would tend to bear out the statement that the best universities tend to be in the US, even if he has merely relied on the opinion of a few professors rather than a larger study of opinion. Most rankings of top universities are of course subjective, but they do tend to heavily list US establishments at the top - the top 10 from people such as the Times Educational Supplement (who ask 1600 profs worldwide) tend to show that the US have 8 out of the top ten in the world (Oxford and Cambridge being the others - this is based on all subjects, not just computing)
THES Top universities

There was a time when it was illegal to hide a runaway slave in the United States, for example.

And, in more recent times, some countries are trying to oppress minorities even today. While other countries are allowing all their citizens to be equal, not "equal-if-you're-not-gay".

Just pointing out that what seems evil to some people is something that other people will actively try to bring into legislation even in supposedly free countries like the USA and the UK.

Why doesn't someone just figure out that statistic and then we'll have an answer

They have! (that was the first link I found to the story/study).

Researchers from the University of Oklahoma recently found that two-thirds of school fights were instigated by regular video game players, but only 4% were started by children who had never played such games.

Two-thirds started by regular video game players! Only 4% by kids who never played such games! Fast, ban them! Ban them NOW!

But wait, aren't like 80% of kids regular video game players? And they're only responsible for 67% of incidents? Is it possible only 2% of kids have never played such a game??? That means non-gamers are significanlty more likely (per individual) to instigate fights! We need new school programs fast to make kids play more video games! Somebody call the press!

Note: I have yet to find a reference to the above study that actually mentions what % of kids in the study were "regular video game players". Nobody seems to realize the results are meaningless without that.

Oh, and it's not just the Jews that are to wear 'ribbons', it's chritians as well. Patch sewn onto clothing. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

A neocon "exile" with ties to the white house neocons and a suspicious PR agency planting emotional misinformation in a foreign english newspaper thus avoiding US laws against goverment propaganda in order to sow irrational fear over an entire country for which the US is working on "regime change", sounds familiar, doesn`t it?

Oh and from advertising materials of the PR agencies that are involved in swift boating entire countries we can learn that these agencies are active on blogs... Is it possible that this would include slashdot?

And if you get emotional over jews being forced to wear patches, healthy IMHO, consider Anne Franks view on war as an inspiration, instead of Cheney`s...

This may sound a little partisan and controversial, but the problem is basically Tony Blair.

Since coming to power, he's increasingly become a control freak.

He's emasculated the house of lords, under cover of "reform", while seemingly trying to block the option (favoured by many MPs) of a largely-elected house of lords (because a largely-elected second chamber would be a legitimate "check and balance" on his authority, as compared to a set of nominated place-men). (See for example here).

He's also marginalised parliament - his government carries out the minimum of "debate" there now, merely using it as the place to anounce previously-decided policies. There was a big fuss recently, little reported, about the government trying to pass a law allowing them to change legislation at will, without any debate at all, under cover of "reducing red tape" (see here.

Even within the cabinet, he seems to fire anyone who seems remotely a threat or who disagrees with him in any way (with the exception of Gordon Brown, the chancellor (and probably the next Labour leader), who is powerful enough to be left alone).

Since he's been prime minister, there have been dozens of crime bills, making hundreds of new criminal offences (e.g. see here.

He's increasingly making noises about the criminal justice system being "out of touch" (i.e. not automatically just doing what he says), in a seeming bid to further curtail their powers. For what he's already achieved, see, for example, here.

He himself is becoming increasingly irrational and out-of-touch to the extent where his party are starting to think of him as a liability, let alone what the country now thinks of him. The more out of touch he gets, the determined to get his own way he becomes. He's done a lot or damage to this country's constitutional processes, a lot of damage to its reputation (via Iraq), and the sooner he goes, the better.

Or the human cattle ID cards Act, which creates by far the world's most intrusive Big Brother database on citizens by linking up 5+ previously unconnected databases...

The Dictatorship Bill, also called the Abolition of Parliament Bill, Totalitarianism Bill or (by the Govt) the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill is nothing less than a naked grab for power. After being amended 3x, the Bill was passed in the form described here.

LRRB enables ministers to rewrite our constitution with only rudimentary scrutiny. Consider the extraordinary mass surveillance / coersion implications of the ID Cards Act. Even the well-organised opposition could not stop this legislation.

What chance then of:
1. Spotting obscure but deeply damaging clauses hidden in the boring legislation?
2. Motivating the Tories, LibDems and enough New Labour drones to subsequently block it?

LRRB is then carte blanche for Blair to do what he will with this country. What can we deduce of his plans?

New Labour already rejected an amendment to stop LRRB re-writing our most important constitutional laws. They then promised to introduce new amendments fulfilling the same thing. Our skepticism was once again justified. This is more than enough evidence that Blair wants dictatorial powers.

LRRB is obviously a precursor to passing laws which Parliament wouldn't otherwise pass.

Considering the deeply scary laws he's got through Parliament, the likelihood is that he wants something so badly, and so unpalatable that he won't even risk presenting it for proper Parliamentary scrutiny.

- He does not need Parliamentary approval to invade Iran
- He already has Hitler's Enabling Act.
- He has already passed RIPA and the ID Cards Act for more Big Brother snooping than anything China or North Korea have.
- He already has locked up people for 3 years without trial or even being questioned - although he has been twice been 'told off' for breaching the Human Rights Act in this way.

I did not believe that he needs LRRB to repeal the HRA - indeed one welcome amendment was to exclude the HRA from being amended. When every other explanation has been ruled out, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be considered. I think something much worse is coming although I dread to think what.

In theory, Tony Blair writes, traditional court processes and attitudes to civil liberties could work. But the modern world is different from the world for which these court processes were designed. This view that due process is obsolete explains the Prime Ministers conduct; it explains the connection between extradition without safeguards, detention without trial, Asbos without criminal offences, subjective and discretionary judgments, police powers to arrest, and increasing ministerial powers. They are all characteristic of Blair legislation; they all avoid due process of law.

-From this article

I've never understood why American conservatives support him as a leader, rather than simply appreciate his support in the war on terror. He has many anti-conservative positions and is a member of the Fabian Society. He's Britain's problem, but it's high time that American conservatives realize what American libertarians have known about Blair for a while: he's not our ally at all beyond the War on Terror. In fact, Blair was not only a close supporter of Clinton, but is far worse as a leader than Clinton in most respects. I'd take the latter over the former any day (as long as it's Bill, not Hillary).

Ya gotta hand it to Blair, though. He's honest about holding a totally "fuck you" attitude toward civil liberties whereas Bush still genuflects before that "God damn piece of paper" (as Bush supposedly called the US Constitution) that those "dead white men" with their libruhl idears wrote up after kicking out Blair's predecessors 2 centuries ago.

What kinds of schemes might people think up if they're free from any oversight whatsoever?

I can think of a number of things, all of which feature large-bosomed blondes with ambiguous morals....

You sir, are unlikely to ever be elected to public office.

But if, by some chance, you are, would you please invite me to your poker parties?

--MarkusQ

Basing a war on lies is wrong for the person who does it, but our soldiers, the people GP was talking about, did not base their actions in this ware on lies. They based them on fairly accurate opinions of the Iraq situation built up over the last 12 years.

You know I'm amazed some americans still believe this.

The Downing street memo
Doubts, dissent stripped from public version of Iraq assessment
CIA leak illustrates selective use of intelligence on Iraq
Bush talking on the political advantages of war in 99

We didn't attack Iraq, we attacked its government. There is a huge difference. The country as a whole still suffers consequences, but that doesn't diminish the distinction.

The people of Iraq may not agree. I sure as hell don't. Collateral damage is newspeak:
U.S. invasion responsible deaths of over 250,000 civilians in Iraq
THE REAL WMD'S IN IRAQ - OURS
Displaced Iraqis 'living like animals'
'unknown Americans' are provoking civil war in Iraq
The Missing Girls of Iraq

Yes, we agree on many points. And I'm glad we managed to keep this civil. The points we disagree on are rather big though:

I do not believe that the death of tens of thousands of civilians can be justified by claiming to be bringing democracy.

I do not believe that you can force democracy on a country. All you can achive that way is a pseudo colony with a pseudo democracy. The kind of situation leading to the current state of Africa.

I do not believe that Bush believed there were WMDs in Iraq, nor that Iraq was closely tied to Al Quaeda, nor that Iraq was any kind of threat to the US.
I do believe that the "intelligence failures" were 100% intentional.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-15936 07,00.html
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/sp ecial_packages/iraq/intelligence/11901380.htm
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/sp ecial_packages/iraq/intelligence/12995512.htm

I do not believe that Bush invaded Iraq for humanitarian reasons.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
This count is most likely closer to the truth:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11 674.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2006/05/12/wirq12.xml
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2162249, 00.html
http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1 186519,00.html
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArti cle.asp?articleID=8218

The list is endless but I'll stop here.

I believe that Bush does and will continue to do exactly whatever he feels will benefit him, with no concern what so ever for how many dies for his gain. Not that you actually need anything but his actions and his statements to prove this, but here are more links:
http://downingstreetmemo.com/archive/2004-10-31-Ho ustonChron-Herskowitz/
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12 885.htm

I believe that Bush is now planning his next war of aggression.
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&trh=20 060511&hn=33036
http://www.rense.com/general71/tdarg.htm
http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/05/ us-feverishly-works-to-frame-iran_13.html
http://newswire.indymedia.org/en/2006/05/839133.sh tml
http://english.people.com.cn/200605/13/eng20060513 _265252.html
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Condoleeza_Rice_ admits_she_responded_to_0509.html

Yes, we agree on many points. And I'm glad we managed to keep this civil. The points we disagree on are rather big though:

I do not believe that the death of tens of thousands of civilians can be justified by claiming to be bringing democracy.

I do not believe that you can force democracy on a country. All you can achive that way is a pseudo colony with a pseudo democracy. The kind of situation leading to the current state of Africa.

I do not believe that Bush believed there were WMDs in Iraq, nor that Iraq was closely tied to Al Quaeda, nor that Iraq was any kind of threat to the US.
I do believe that the "intelligence failures" were 100% intentional.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-15936 07,00.html
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/sp ecial_packages/iraq/intelligence/11901380.htm
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/sp ecial_packages/iraq/intelligence/12995512.htm

I do not believe that Bush invaded Iraq for humanitarian reasons.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
This count is most likely closer to the truth:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11 674.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2006/05/12/wirq12.xml
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2162249, 00.html
http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1 186519,00.html
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArti cle.asp?articleID=8218

The list is endless but I'll stop here.

I believe that Bush does and will continue to do exactly whatever he feels will benefit him, with no concern what so ever for how many dies for his gain. Not that you actually need anything but his actions and his statements to prove this, but here are more links:
http://downingstreetmemo.com/archive/2004-10-31-Ho ustonChron-Herskowitz/
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12 885.htm

I believe that Bush is now planning his next war of aggression.
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&trh=20 060511&hn=33036
http://www.rense.com/general71/tdarg.htm
http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/05/ us-feverishly-works-to-frame-iran_13.html
http://newswire.indymedia.org/en/2006/05/839133.sh tml
http://english.people.com.cn/200605/13/eng20060513 _265252.html
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Condoleeza_Rice_ admits_she_responded_to_0509.html

Things have changed.

Actually, the law was changed in 2001, but the law lords only ruled it legal to permanently keep DNA records of cleared suspects in 2004.

The register has followed this story in some detail. (See the links at the bottom of that page.) There has also been some coverage in mainstream newspapers.

combine this with the automated "racial profiling" with their ANPR cameras, and you've got an episode of COPS!

"BRITAIN'S most senior policeman Sir Ian Blair is facing a race relations dilemma after the release of figures that reveal almost half the number of people arrested in relation to car crime in London are black. Blair, the Metropolitan police commissioner, has signed off a report by his force's traffic unit which shows that black people account for 46% of all arrests generated by new automatic numberplate recognition (ANPR) cameras."

"It started to make me wonder if people outside the USA have a better picture of what's going on (even in our own country) since we are so "sheltered" from information."

I'm absolutely certain of it. The first three Web sites I hit for international news are:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
http://news.google.com/

Tremendously different slant on many issues than staying with US domestic news. Also some very clearcut cases of biased reporting in US media (not just the horrible Fox News). In fact, after a few years of the first two (Google News is comparatively new, of course) I can't *stand* domestic US 'news' services. But then I was never into pot-bellied pigs, either.

The United States has already carried out a flight test with a scramjet engine, while the European Union, Japan, China, Russia and India are in different stages of testing their technologies.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,200-217097 7,00.html

For those of you who want to read the court document first hand (I know there are at least a few groklaw people out there).
From Times Online.

Apple Corps v Apple Computer: judgment in full

Neutral Citation Number: [2006] EWHC 996 (Ch)
Case No: HC03C02428

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

08/05/2006

Before:
MR JUSTICE MANN

Between:

APPLE CORPS LIMITED, Claimant

and

APPLE COMPUTER, INC, Defendant

MR. G. VOS Q.C., MR. D. ALEXANDER Q.C. and MR. R. MEADE (instructed by Eversheds LLP) for the Claimant.

LORD GRABINER Q.C. and MR. D. TOLEDANO (instructed by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer) for the Defendant.

Hearing dates: 29th, 30th, 31st March 2006, 3rd and 5th April 2006

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT

Crown Copyright ©

Mr Justice Mann

Introduction

This is a claim for breach of an agreement made between the claimant and the defendant in 1991 in which they sought to arrive at an agreement as to how they would each use their respective similar marks. The claimant, whom I will call "Corps", claims that the defendant, whom I will call "Computer", has acted in breach of that agreement in circumstances arising out of the creation and operation of Computer's iTunes music download service. At this stage of the trial I am asked to determine liability only. If I determine that question in favour of Corps any damages or other financial compensation will be determined at a separate inquiry; whether any, and if so what, injunction is necessary or appropriate will also be dealt with once liability is determined.

The Parties

As is widely known, Corps is the record company synonymous with the Beatles. It was incorporated as The Beatles Limited on 20th June 1963. On 4th December 1967 it changed its name to Apple Music Limited and on 9th February 1968 it changed its name again to its present name. From that time at the latest the apple mark, both in the sense of the word and as a graphic symbol, became an important part of its business. Its symbol was a sideways view of a whole apple. On 19th March 1968 the first apple trade mark was registered. Corps owned, and still owns, the rights to a large number of Beatles recordings, and extensive other rights both in relation to the Beatles and in relation to other artists. For many years its principal activity has been the continued exploitation of those rights in a variety of ways which it is not necessary for me to go into. In the course of exploiting those rights, its apple marks have been an important benefit for it. In this case Mr Geoffrey Vos QC led for Corps.

Computer was founded in 1976. It is the well known computer and software house. It started producing computers (the Apple I and II) at the end of the 1970s and has continued to develop computers and software ever since. While it has had nothing like the market share of Windows-based computers, its market share in the personal computer market is nonetheless significant and it has large numbers of devotees. It too has adopted apple marks, including the word "Apple" and a stylised apple with the bite taken out of it. Its own marks have been important to it in the development of its business. In this case Lord Grabiner QC led for Computer.

The Genesis of the Agreement sued on

From time to time, the marks of Corps and Computer created conflicts. In November 1981 they entered into an agreement concerning the use and registration of the word "Apple" and various apple logos. I do not need to set out the detailed terms of that agreement. In general terms, Computer was allowed to use its marks in relation to computer goods and services, but not use them in relation to computer equipment specifically adapted for use in the recording or reproduction of music, or in relation to operational services relati

They found cut and polished stone blocks.

You live in the US, correct?

We Americans have a somewhat different view of what it means to find traces of a civilization than do Europeans.

In the US, if you go out and dig in your backyard and find something man-made and more than a few hundred years old, you've most likely really found something of archaeological interest.

In Europe, you can set up a dig just about anywhere and find crumbled bricks, broken pottery, or some other traces of very very old human civilization.

Hell, for another recent news item to make my point, the UK Times Online reports that archaeologists just found an almost perfectly preserved Roman city in Spain - Which the Spanish felt so impressed by, they promptly turned it into a parking lot.



And it's perfectly reasonable to assume that his wild-assed guess of 12,000 B.C.E. is totally wrong, while he's 100% correct about the pyramid's existance.

I agree that ad hominem doesn't disprove the existance of a pyramid in Bosnia. But when the town loony raves about aliens landing in his back yard, you don't call NASA to disprove him.

As for Jackie Fisher, I like Al Stewart's song Old Admirals that is based on his life. While he did some great things, he should not have been recalled as First Lord of the Admiralty. He opposed Churchill's plan for Gallipoli. Although the operation went forward, it was Fisher's refusal to fully support the operation with enough ships and shells that lead to its failure and the death of thousands of Anzacs.

There were four, deliberate typos according to this article; the actual decoded message read: "Smithy Code: Jadkie Fisthr- who are bou? Dreadqought".

Only the first eight numbers of the Fibonacci sequence were used (1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21) and repeated to generate the key for the length of the message.