But this is tele over the internet, right? If all you have is a computer and high speed internet, but no tele, do you, or do you not, have to pay a license fee? And what if (you Brits) are overseas and want to see the tele shows from back home?
You don't need a license for the internet connection, you need a license to watch anything that is being broadcast over the airwaves as you are watching it, even if you are watching it over the internet. This does not include most shows on the iPlayer or other sites like that, as that content is being streamed personally to you, and not being broadcast over the airwaves at the same time. The one exception to this is live shows on the iPlayer, as those are also being broadcast over the airwaves at the same time.
Suddenly not being able to use your DVR to keep a copy of a show to watch later I consider to be fairly intrusive
Meanwhile encyrpted channels can licence shows and movies quicker and cheaper, making better use of the licence fee.
Whilst at the same time taking away our rights as a consumer. In the UK it is perfectly legal to record anything broadcast so long as you have a TV license, and to keep it for up to a year. This will not be used to license shows quicker and cheaper, it will just be used to take away a right, and then next year they'll try to take away another.
Note: this is record and watch, not distribute. Taking a lending a video to a friend does not constitute distribution.
Not true - you have to not have the ability to recieve said broadcasts if you dont want to pay. Even if you only use your widescreen TV to watch Mapouka on youtube, and its not connected to an aerial, you still have to pay for a licence.
I hate the TV licensing system, because it's run by a set of government approved con artists. What you have just said is NOT true, and the parent is correct, mostly. You ONLY need a tv license if you receive broadcast TV as it's being broadcast. You don't need one to watch you tube videos, or anything that isn't being broadcast as you watch it (this includes iPlayer unless it's live TV). You don't need it to watch videos / dvd's or to play games. By receive I mean watch or record as it's being broadcast, and streaming is completely different from broadcasting.
I call them con artists because their website tries very hard to make you think you always need a TV license, or at least it used to. Their customer service is also extremely misleading, however I think this is due to incompetence rather than actual malice. If you inform them that you don't need a TV license for the reasons above, they will respond by telling you the reasons why you need a TV license which do not fit your current situation. The solution, call them out on it in a semi-aggressive way complaining that they did not even read your original letter, reiterate your reasons, and they generally get the point, eventually. It's probably best to make sure your TV isn't connected to an aerial, and if possible detune any of the channels on it. It will make life much easier if they ever send out someone to check.
At the start of this semester they even had a van on campus with the words "Now you know you need one on" the side of it. Complete BS lying to you trying to extort more money out of students.
The thing is some countries have copyright laws that explicitly allow copying for backup purposes. I'm pretty sure the UK is one of these, pretty certainly for software. Would a SNES cartridge constitute software or firmware and does it make a difference?
Of course Nokia aren't exactly a UK company and they clearly aren't using it for backup purposes, but frankly I don't see anything wrong with what they did (provided they own the actual cartridges).
You're right. Cascading failures can (and probably will) occur in any system (see 4th November 2006 European Blackout among others), the real question is whether or not connecting the three systems will make the system more stable/manageable. Peaks occur in power usage at varying points throughout the day, mostly in the evening due to heating/lighting etc just before people go to bed. Thanks to the different timezones across the states, this will make these peaks will occur more spread out making power generation easier to predict and hence more stable and easier to manage.
If it were an AC connection it would allow for more distributed automatic load-frequency mechanism. Should one power station fail, there will be more power stations available across the board to ramp up their generation resulting in a faster recovery, and again a more stable grid. This is not the case here however, being DC, no standard distributed load frequency mechanism exists making it harder for the other grids to rescue the one with the failure. This does however reduce the risk of a cascading failure.
I may be naive in saying this next point, however it should hopefully make electricity cheaper by allowing it to be used from the cheapest source available across the country. Say it's a windy day at a wind farm, now the whole country will be able to benefit from the cheaper energy, and on a calm day the standard sources can be used instead.
Wireless is a very limited resource. It is very valuable and sought after by many companies and individuals. The allotted wireless frequencies are already overly crowded in many places. It should only be used in situations where it is suited, and expecting it to be used as the standard instead of making the investment in a more long term solution is not advisable. Research helps to an extent, but you cannot overcome the laws of physics. Directional wireless such as light or microwave frequencies can be used and solve some of the issues but bring their own problems.
I agree with you, something needs to be done however expecting the over use of wireless is not the solution.
It's the drivers' responsibility to maintain control of their vehicles and be cognizant of sudden dangers in the street. Any attempts delegate this responsibility onto pedestrians, wildlife, and falling trees are completely retarded.
This isn't delegating responsibility, this is alerting a pedestrian when the idiot drunk driver is coming towards you at excessive speed. Have you seriously never encountered an irresponsible driver?
New and improved with full backwards compatibility leaves the errors of the past in the operating system, and hence can never be removed. By adding an emulation mode they're ensuring backwards compatibility, yet making it that bit more awkward forcing new software writers to conform to their newer operating system yet not breaking everything.
Sometimes it's hard to get rid of your old mistakes because people end up relying upon them. By adding pressure in the sense of annoyance forces design changes without breaking everything. I swear they tried something similar with UAC but fucked up the ratio of annoying to usable.
I completely agree with what your saying but there is still a difference. Whilst it's safer to assume an EULA is a contract, EULA's still have that grey area flexibility that you can gamble on. What I was trying to imply is that treating a signed contract in the same light as an EULA is not sensible. It only works one way, not the other.
Note, I did not RTA so I not know if they were actually talking about an EULA, but the quote higher in the thread makes it sound very much like a contract.
The freerunner has issues. A friend of mine has one and the most notable thing is I can barely hear him because of the interference it causes/picks up permanantly.
Because the longer it exists, the more people will use it, the less content linux users would have access to without it. There may not be much now but for better or worse it will grow.
Agreed, but in a company of that size you're bound to have at least a few idiots with more power than they should. The ratio is just a little more skewed with Microsoft, and hopefully the ones with sense are fighting to take things back.
The European Commission told Microsoft that linking Internet Explorer to its dominant Windows operating system violates EC rules...Microsoft could seek to offer a Windows version without IE
I think people are taking this the wrong way. They shouldn't provide a version of windows without IE, a browser is a necessary part of any operating system and they have the right to plug their own choice first. What they don't have the right to do is link it so closely to the system that you cannot remove it, no matter how hard you try.
You can remove the links, and try to make every application use another browser, but it always finds a way to popup. In true slashdot style I haven't RTFA.
NoScript breaks my online banking. Yeah it's a good idea and I tried to use it for a while, but I found that no matter what exceptions I gave it when it came to my bank, it refused to allow me access. Don't know why, but it kinda kills your argument if you have to turn NoScript off completely to use your online banking.
Native base 10 has been done before (basically ignoring bits representing 10-15) and all that was found was that it wasted space as conversion in those scenarios are beyond trivial.
Please correct and forgive me if I'm wrong but that doesn't sound like native base 10. That sounds like storing data in BCD using a 2 state bit. What the GP is implying is that instead of using a 2-state bit, there's the ability for a 3, 4 or n-state bit to represent numbers. This wouldn't result in wasted space, instead using only the 2-state bit would be wasting the space.
I can't comment on how well it would perform though, as you are entirely correct that conversion at that level is very trivial.
If you don't want to visit websites that don't have ads, then don't do it. Start support for a Firefox plugin that doesn't load domains that are ad-supported.
Seriously, how many sites are there without ads? A lot less than you seem to think
Using ad-blocker is simply stealing. And yes I do call it stealing because you are incurring a cost on the content provider without compensating them. Its no different from stealing at a store with poor security.
Right, except here the stores poor security often allows unwarranted adverts through containing malware, or links to other nasties. I am sick and tired of having to tell a relative/friend not to worry and just not to click on the adverts claiming you're infected. Do the content providers give a damn? Hell no, they just want the revenue. Using an adblocker is just safer.
Of course not all sites don't care but my point remains valid. The sites that I visit frequently I unblock the ads, and only if the ads are obnoxious enough does it get blacklisted again. I support the use of ads on a site, and had they not been abused horrifically I would not have an adblocker. If the advert is over half the height of my window which it frequently is, or it contains sound, or a video, or decides to take up 90% of my cpu then yeah, it's gonna get blocked.
Your arguments would work if adverts weren't abused, but it's a fact of life that they are and adblockers just level the playing field whilst also managing to make browsing safer!
Slashdot Mirror
But this is tele over the internet, right? If all you have is a computer and high speed internet, but no tele, do you, or do you not, have to pay a license fee? And what if (you Brits) are overseas and want to see the tele shows from back home?
You don't need a license for the internet connection, you need a license to watch anything that is being broadcast over the airwaves as you are watching it, even if you are watching it over the internet. This does not include most shows on the iPlayer or other sites like that, as that content is being streamed personally to you, and not being broadcast over the airwaves at the same time. The one exception to this is live shows on the iPlayer, as those are also being broadcast over the airwaves at the same time.
Consumers won't care if it's not intrusive.
Suddenly not being able to use your DVR to keep a copy of a show to watch later I consider to be fairly intrusive
Meanwhile encyrpted channels can licence shows and movies quicker and cheaper, making better use of the licence fee.
Whilst at the same time taking away our rights as a consumer. In the UK it is perfectly legal to record anything broadcast so long as you have a TV license, and to keep it for up to a year. This will not be used to license shows quicker and cheaper, it will just be used to take away a right, and then next year they'll try to take away another.
Note: this is record and watch, not distribute. Taking a lending a video to a friend does not constitute distribution.
Not true - you have to not have the ability to recieve said broadcasts if you dont want to pay. Even if you only use your widescreen TV to watch Mapouka on youtube, and its not connected to an aerial, you still have to pay for a licence.
I hate the TV licensing system, because it's run by a set of government approved con artists. What you have just said is NOT true, and the parent is correct, mostly. You ONLY need a tv license if you receive broadcast TV as it's being broadcast. You don't need one to watch you tube videos, or anything that isn't being broadcast as you watch it (this includes iPlayer unless it's live TV). You don't need it to watch videos / dvd's or to play games. By receive I mean watch or record as it's being broadcast, and streaming is completely different from broadcasting.
I call them con artists because their website tries very hard to make you think you always need a TV license, or at least it used to. Their customer service is also extremely misleading, however I think this is due to incompetence rather than actual malice. If you inform them that you don't need a TV license for the reasons above, they will respond by telling you the reasons why you need a TV license which do not fit your current situation. The solution, call them out on it in a semi-aggressive way complaining that they did not even read your original letter, reiterate your reasons, and they generally get the point, eventually. It's probably best to make sure your TV isn't connected to an aerial, and if possible detune any of the channels on it. It will make life much easier if they ever send out someone to check.
At the start of this semester they even had a van on campus with the words "Now you know you need one on" the side of it. Complete BS lying to you trying to extort more money out of students.
Works perfectly on Ubuntu 9.10, wish I had some mod points! Thanks, I've been looking for this for aaaaages now!!
The thing is some countries have copyright laws that explicitly allow copying for backup purposes. I'm pretty sure the UK is one of these, pretty certainly for software. Would a SNES cartridge constitute software or firmware and does it make a difference?
Of course Nokia aren't exactly a UK company and they clearly aren't using it for backup purposes, but frankly I don't see anything wrong with what they did (provided they own the actual cartridges).
You're right. Cascading failures can (and probably will) occur in any system (see 4th November 2006 European Blackout among others), the real question is whether or not connecting the three systems will make the system more stable/manageable. Peaks occur in power usage at varying points throughout the day, mostly in the evening due to heating/lighting etc just before people go to bed. Thanks to the different timezones across the states, this will make these peaks will occur more spread out making power generation easier to predict and hence more stable and easier to manage.
If it were an AC connection it would allow for more distributed automatic load-frequency mechanism. Should one power station fail, there will be more power stations available across the board to ramp up their generation resulting in a faster recovery, and again a more stable grid. This is not the case here however, being DC, no standard distributed load frequency mechanism exists making it harder for the other grids to rescue the one with the failure. This does however reduce the risk of a cascading failure.
I may be naive in saying this next point, however it should hopefully make electricity cheaper by allowing it to be used from the cheapest source available across the country. Say it's a windy day at a wind farm, now the whole country will be able to benefit from the cheaper energy, and on a calm day the standard sources can be used instead.
So if I want a phone that isn't crippled, all's I have to do is not buy an iphone?
I thought that was already the case?
Wireless is a very limited resource. It is very valuable and sought after by many companies and individuals. The allotted wireless frequencies are already overly crowded in many places. It should only be used in situations where it is suited, and expecting it to be used as the standard instead of making the investment in a more long term solution is not advisable. Research helps to an extent, but you cannot overcome the laws of physics. Directional wireless such as light or microwave frequencies can be used and solve some of the issues but bring their own problems.
I agree with you, something needs to be done however expecting the over use of wireless is not the solution.
It's the drivers' responsibility to maintain control of their vehicles and be cognizant of sudden dangers in the street. Any attempts delegate this responsibility onto pedestrians, wildlife, and falling trees are completely retarded.
This isn't delegating responsibility, this is alerting a pedestrian when the idiot drunk driver is coming towards you at excessive speed. Have you seriously never encountered an irresponsible driver?
And whatever happened to stop, look and listen?
New and improved with full backwards compatibility leaves the errors of the past in the operating system, and hence can never be removed. By adding an emulation mode they're ensuring backwards compatibility, yet making it that bit more awkward forcing new software writers to conform to their newer operating system yet not breaking everything.
Sometimes it's hard to get rid of your old mistakes because people end up relying upon them. By adding pressure in the sense of annoyance forces design changes without breaking everything. I swear they tried something similar with UAC but fucked up the ratio of annoying to usable.
I've also heard good battery life. A friend has one and she claims it lasts for 8 hours with general use, seriously wish my laptop lasted that long.
I completely agree with what your saying but there is still a difference. Whilst it's safer to assume an EULA is a contract, EULA's still have that grey area flexibility that you can gamble on. What I was trying to imply is that treating a signed contract in the same light as an EULA is not sensible. It only works one way, not the other.
Note, I did not RTA so I not know if they were actually talking about an EULA, but the quote higher in the thread makes it sound very much like a contract.
Accepting an EULA and signing a contract are two very different things.
The freerunner has issues. A friend of mine has one and the most notable thing is I can barely hear him because of the interference it causes/picks up permanantly.
Because the longer it exists, the more people will use it, the less content linux users would have access to without it. There may not be much now but for better or worse it will grow.
Agreed, further butchering of a classic.
First time I've ever seen something using OpenID, and it refused to let me login. Dang alpha signup.
Agreed, but in a company of that size you're bound to have at least a few idiots with more power than they should. The ratio is just a little more skewed with Microsoft, and hopefully the ones with sense are fighting to take things back.
The European Commission told Microsoft that linking Internet Explorer to its dominant Windows operating system violates EC rules...Microsoft could seek to offer a Windows version without IE
I think people are taking this the wrong way. They shouldn't provide a version of windows without IE, a browser is a necessary part of any operating system and they have the right to plug their own choice first. What they don't have the right to do is link it so closely to the system that you cannot remove it, no matter how hard you try.
You can remove the links, and try to make every application use another browser, but it always finds a way to popup. In true slashdot style I haven't RTFA.
We are not all quite as lucky as you.
NoScript breaks my online banking. Yeah it's a good idea and I tried to use it for a while, but I found that no matter what exceptions I gave it when it came to my bank, it refused to allow me access. Don't know why, but it kinda kills your argument if you have to turn NoScript off completely to use your online banking.
Undoing an accidental mod - Nothing to see here, move along.
Native base 10 has been done before (basically ignoring bits representing 10-15) and all that was found was that it wasted space as conversion in those scenarios are beyond trivial.
Please correct and forgive me if I'm wrong but that doesn't sound like native base 10. That sounds like storing data in BCD using a 2 state bit. What the GP is implying is that instead of using a 2-state bit, there's the ability for a 3, 4 or n-state bit to represent numbers. This wouldn't result in wasted space, instead using only the 2-state bit would be wasting the space.
I can't comment on how well it would perform though, as you are entirely correct that conversion at that level is very trivial.
If you don't want to visit websites that don't have ads, then don't do it. Start support for a Firefox plugin that doesn't load domains that are ad-supported.
Seriously, how many sites are there without ads? A lot less than you seem to think
Using ad-blocker is simply stealing. And yes I do call it stealing because you are incurring a cost on the content provider without compensating them. Its no different from stealing at a store with poor security.
Right, except here the stores poor security often allows unwarranted adverts through containing malware, or links to other nasties. I am sick and tired of having to tell a relative/friend not to worry and just not to click on the adverts claiming you're infected. Do the content providers give a damn? Hell no, they just want the revenue. Using an adblocker is just safer.
Of course not all sites don't care but my point remains valid. The sites that I visit frequently I unblock the ads, and only if the ads are obnoxious enough does it get blacklisted again. I support the use of ads on a site, and had they not been abused horrifically I would not have an adblocker. If the advert is over half the height of my window which it frequently is, or it contains sound, or a video, or decides to take up 90% of my cpu then yeah, it's gonna get blocked.
Your arguments would work if adverts weren't abused, but it's a fact of life that they are and adblockers just level the playing field whilst also managing to make browsing safer!
Speakers have three main desirables:
Pick two.