The document says "We welcome responses to this consultation by 30th July 2010."
Also, the OP says "Music and film companies will then be allowed access to the list, and be able to decide whether or not to take legal action."
The full consultation document clarifies this somewhat saying:
ISPs will have to keep a record of the CIRs [Copyright infringment reports] linked to each subscriber along with a record of which Copyright Owner sent the report. A Copyright Owner can request an ISP to provide them with relevant parts of those records on request, but in an anonymised form to comply with data protection legislation. This is called a Copyright Infringement List.
But in this context Lord *means* "politician" (in as much as sitting members of the House of Lords can ever be called politicians).
Why should they not call themselves Lords? Is it egotistic for a senator to call themselves a senator? After all, 'senator' is also synonymous with power and authority.
62 Possession of extreme pornographic images
(1) It is an offence for a person to be in possession of an extreme pornographic image.
(2) An "extreme pornographic image" is an image which is both--
(a) pornographic, and
(b) an extreme image.
(3) An image is "pornographic" if it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.
(Section 7 defines an extreme image as one which portrays: risk to someone's life; 'serious injury' to breasts, anus or genitals; 'sexual interference' with a human corpse; intercourse or oral sex with an animal 'dead or alive'.)
This means that possession of such an image is not in itself a crime (under this act). It is only a crime if you possess the image "principally for the purpose of sexual arousal". Since this is a mental state, and therefore a thought-process, this must be a thought crime...
I am not really in a position to validate anything he says, but Lubos Motl discusses LHC alarmists, and the validity of their various arguments, in this post...
There is an early (2000) paper by Leonhardt (that I haven't read fully yet) talking about the theory behind this in Physical Review Letters Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 822 (2000), along with some follow-up discussion explaining why this model might not be, strictly, a 'black-hole' Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 5252 (2000) (but one which describes how it may be adapted to become a model of a black hole).
That Visser critique has a couple of references to papers by W. G. Unruh, who tries to claim, as far as I can tell, that black-hole evaporation processes may be observable and modelled by a sonic black hole: Phys. Rev. Lett. 46 1351 (1981), Phys. Rev. D 51 2827 (1995).
This work is presumably making a transition from sonic black hole models, to optical black hole models.
IF HIS ACTION WAS POSSIBLE FROM A NONAMERICAN, AND I REACTED THE SAME, THEN IT WOULD BE THE ACTION NOT THE INDIVIDUAL I CARED ABOUT.
You appear to be confusing two separate points. I am not arguing that you *do not* care about the action. I am questioning the claim that you have no care for the individual who caused it. This should be obvious. Maybe the monitor is shaking so much from your pounding of the keyboard that it is difficult for you to read the words accurately?
your argument why it isn't demonstrates quite clearly why you're too stupid to have your opinion be considered.
It is not totally consistent. The statement "I don't care about You" is totally inconsistant with the demonstrable fact that you care enough about (him) to post a reply such that he hears your opinion. If you truly *didn't* care about him, and were just posting a reply to air your own views *without* the intention of educating him as to what they were, then you wouldn't have used the words "your" and "you" in your original post.
Bob Spink: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what outstanding liabilities there are to the United Kingdom of lend-lease loan facilities arranged during the Second World War; [38441]
(2) what total payments have been made to meet World War II debts owed to the United Kingdom by other countries; what debts remain unpaid; and what the schedule is of future payments to the UK; [38425]
(3) what the level is of First World War debt owed by the United Kingdom to the United States of America; in what year repayments were last made to the USA; and what plans he has to (a) pay off the debt and (b) cancel liability to this debt; [38427]
(4) what outstanding schedule of payments the United Kingdom Government will make to the USA in respect of World War II debt; and what the date is of the final payment; [38424]
28 Feb 2002 : Column 1440W
(5) what loans and other financial liabilities incurred by the United Kingdom with the United States of America for World War II (a) have been paid and (b) are outstanding; [38426]
(6) what recent representations the United Kingdom Government have made to the USA for the cancellation of (a) World War I and (b) World War II debts and lend-lease loans. [38440]
Ruth Kelly: The information is as follows.
First World War debt
At the end of the First World War the United Kingdom debt to the United States amounted to around ÿ850 million. Repayments of the debt were made between 1923 and 1931. In 1931, President Hoover of the United States proposed a one-year moratorium on all War debts, which allowed extensive international discussions on the general problems of debt repayment to be held. However, no satisfactory agreement was reached. In the absence of such an agreement no payments have been made to, or received from, other nations since 1934.
At the time of the moratorium the United Kingdom was owed more by other nations (ÿ2,269 billion) than the outstanding principal it owed the United States ($4,368 billionat 1934 exchange rates this was around ÿ866 million).
Second World War debt
Under a 1945 Agreement the United States Government lent the United Kingdom a total of $4,336 million (around ÿ1,075 million at 1945 exchange rates) in war loans. These loans were taken out under two facilities: (i) a Line of Credit of $3,750 million (around ÿ930 million at 1945 exchange rates); and (ii) a Lend-Lease loan facility of $586 million (around ÿ145 million at 1945 exchange rates), which represented the settlement with the United States for Lend-Lease and Reciprocal Aid and for the final settlement of the financial claims of each government against the other arising out of the conduct of the Second World War.
Under the Agreement the loans would be repaid in 50 annual instalments commencing in 1950. However the Agreement allowed deferral of annual payments of both principal and interest if necessary because of prevailing intern
Because I very much care about exploding stupid little assumptions people use to prop up their chauvinism.
So you do care. You just said you didn't.
I'm just making the suggestion that, if someone makes the accusation that Americans are overly arrogant, it might not be such a good idea to respond with a comment that just makes you look arrogant.
And then there is the UK's debt to the US. The UK still owes Billions of dollars to the US. The UK was in a very bad way after WWII so the US dropped the interest rate on the money they owed the US to next to nothing. The UK still owes the US the money but is in hurry to pay it back. The UK is making more money off investments that they have in the US than they pay in interest so they will just keep that money thank you very much.
""A song on iTunes in Britain will set you back 79p, in Europe it is 99 cents, or 69p. In the US, it is 99 cents again, which translated into our money is 50p, although the difference with the States, but not Europe, is that sales tax is excluded and when that is factored in the price is more like 55p. And the pennies add up. Last year the value of music sold at retail in the UK was £1.75 billion, and digital ran at 6 per cent of the total. Lets assume that Apple dominates digital sales and accounts for 4 per cent of the whole market: that represents roughly £43.9 million.""
I'm just providing a service and quoting the relevant pieces of legislation.
If you are asking "where do the BBC stream programmes over the web simultaneously as air transmissions", then you could start with quite a lot of their news output. Newsnight is one example [ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/de fault.stm ]. If you visit their page right now (before 23:20 BST) there will be a link that says "newsnight is now on air - watch live now", allowing you to watch the live transmission within their real player. I believe a lot of the BBC's 2006 World Cup footage was broadcast under the same terms ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/09/internet_t v_licence/ ).
I think the TV licencing (authority?) have said that the licence isn't required to watch streams that are *not* simul-cast on-air. However, the wording of the legislation
"receiving by any means any programme included in that service, where that programme is received at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public by virtue of its being broadcast or distributed as part of that service"
seems to imply that the test is merely whether any other person is watching at the same time...?
Finally, you say "Also, nowhere in the site's Terms of use does it say a TV licence is required"
368 Meanings of television receiver and use (1) In this Part television receiver means any apparatus of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State setting out the descriptions of apparatus that are to be television receivers for the purposes of this Part. ( http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_2003002 1_en_34#pt4-l1g363 )
-----
Statutory Instrument 2004 No. 692
The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004
Meaning of "television receiver"
9. - (1) In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), "television receiver" means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose.
(2) In this regulation, any reference to receiving a television programme service includes a reference to receiving by any means any programme included in that service, where that programme is received at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public by virtue of its being broadcast or distributed as part of that service.
Slashdot Mirror
The BBC article seems to be actually reporting on this Ofcom "Draft Initial Obligation Code"
Summary: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/copyright-infringement/summary/
Full document: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/copyright-infringement/condoc.pdf
The document says "We welcome responses to this consultation by 30th July 2010."
Also, the OP says "Music and film companies will then be allowed access to the list, and be able to decide whether or not to take legal action."
The full consultation document clarifies this somewhat saying:
Yes, possibly: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/19636
But in this context Lord *means* "politician" (in as much as sitting members of the House of Lords can ever be called politicians). Why should they not call themselves Lords? Is it egotistic for a senator to call themselves a senator? After all, 'senator' is also synonymous with power and authority.
The act states:
(Section 7 defines an extreme image as one which portrays: risk to someone's life; 'serious injury' to breasts, anus or genitals; 'sexual interference' with a human corpse; intercourse or oral sex with an animal 'dead or alive'.)
This means that possession of such an image is not in itself a crime (under this act). It is only a crime if you possess the image "principally for the purpose of sexual arousal". Since this is a mental state, and therefore a thought-process, this must be a thought crime...
I am not really in a position to validate anything he says, but Lubos Motl discusses LHC alarmists, and the validity of their various arguments, in this post...
... Sorry, just looking for somewhere to put this ;)
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/02/lhc-alarmists.html
As a follow up to my own comment, arXiv has what looks like the (a?) preprint for this current optical-fibre work arXiv:0711.4796v2 [gr-qc]?
Not if they're claiming "is kind of like" means "isomorphic" .
Hmm, here is some random page from Google on 'Optical Black Holes' http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog15/node10.html.
There is an early (2000) paper by Leonhardt (that I haven't read fully yet) talking about the theory behind this in Physical Review Letters Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 822 (2000), along with some follow-up discussion explaining why this model might not be, strictly, a 'black-hole' Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 5252 (2000) (but one which describes how it may be adapted to become a model of a black hole).
That Visser critique has a couple of references to papers by W. G. Unruh, who tries to claim, as far as I can tell, that black-hole evaporation processes may be observable and modelled by a sonic black hole: Phys. Rev. Lett. 46 1351 (1981), Phys. Rev. D 51 2827 (1995).
This work is presumably making a transition from sonic black hole models, to optical black hole models.
Hi.
IF HIS ACTION WAS POSSIBLE FROM A NONAMERICAN, AND I REACTED THE SAME, THEN IT WOULD BE THE ACTION NOT THE INDIVIDUAL I CARED ABOUT.You appear to be confusing two separate points. I am not arguing that you *do not* care about the action. I am questioning the claim that you have no care for the individual who caused it. This should be obvious. Maybe the monitor is shaking so much from your pounding of the keyboard that it is difficult for you to read the words accurately?
your argument why it isn't demonstrates quite clearly why you're too stupid to have your opinion be considered.Are we going round in circles?
It is not totally consistent. The statement "I don't care about You" is totally inconsistant with the demonstrable fact that you care enough about (him) to post a reply such that he hears your opinion. If you truly *didn't* care about him, and were just posting a reply to air your own views *without* the intention of educating him as to what they were, then you wouldn't have used the words "your" and "you" in your original post.
They're sitting on it: (from Hansard, the transcript of UK parliamentary debates / ministerial questions, etc):
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/newhtml_hl?DB=semukparl&STEMMER=en&WORDS=first%20world%20war%20debt&ALL=&ANY=&PHRASE=%22first%20world%20war%20debt%20%22&CATEGORIES=&SIMPLE=&SPEAKER=&COLOUR=red&STYLE=s&ANCHOR=20228w04.html_wqn4&URL=/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo020228/text/20228w04.htm#20228w04.html_wqn4
So you do care. You just said you didn't.
I'm just making the suggestion that, if someone makes the accusation that Americans are overly arrogant, it might not be such a good idea to respond with a comment that just makes you look arrogant.
The WWII loans are now repaid in full http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4970720.stm. This page discusses the rest of it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4757181.stm
Times article: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article2500469.ece
""A song on iTunes in Britain will set you back 79p, in Europe it is 99 cents, or 69p. In the US, it is 99 cents again, which translated into our money is 50p, although the difference with the States, but not Europe, is that sales tax is excluded and when that is factored in the price is more like 55p. And the pennies add up. Last year the value of music sold at retail in the UK was £1.75 billion, and digital ran at 6 per cent of the total. Lets assume that Apple dominates digital sales and accounts for 4 per cent of the whole market: that represents roughly £43.9 million.""
I'm just providing a service and quoting the relevant pieces of legislation.
e fault.stm ]. If you visit their page right now (before 23:20 BST) there will be a link that says "newsnight is now on air - watch live now", allowing you to watch the live transmission within their real player. I believe a lot of the BBC's 2006 World Cup footage was broadcast under the same terms ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/09/internet_t v_licence/ ).
p _2006/bbc_coverage/5042320.stm ] talking about World Cup coverage.
If you are asking "where do the BBC stream programmes over the web simultaneously as air transmissions", then you could start with quite a lot of their news output. Newsnight is one example [ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/d
I think the TV licencing (authority?) have said that the licence isn't required to watch streams that are *not* simul-cast on-air. However, the wording of the legislation
"receiving by any means any programme included in that service, where that programme is received at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public by virtue of its being broadcast or distributed as part of that service"
seems to imply that the test is merely whether any other person is watching at the same time...?
Finally, you say "Also, nowhere in the site's Terms of use does it say a TV licence is required"
Well, I don't work for the BBC, and certainly not their legal department. Sorry. However, see the question starting "Q: Will it cost anything?" on this page [ http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_cu
Communications Act 2003 ( http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/20030021.htm )
2 1_en_34#pt4-l1g363 )
368
Meanings of television receiver and use
(1)
In this Part television receiver means any apparatus of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State setting out the descriptions of apparatus that are to be television receivers for the purposes of this Part. ( http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_200300
-----
Statutory Instrument 2004 No. 692
The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004
( http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/20040692.htm )
Part III
Meaning of "television receiver"
9. - (1) In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), "television receiver" means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose.
(2) In this regulation, any reference to receiving a television programme service includes a reference to receiving by any means any programme included in that service, where that programme is received at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public by virtue of its being broadcast or distributed as part of that service.