You make several good points, there are notable differences between our [many] systems.
While privacy is highly valued in Europe in general, regardless of EU membership or not, the US has a more "aggressive" justice system in my opinion. The incarceration rates seem to support my claim.
I expect(ed) a US lawyer/prosecutor to find something "applicable" to the situation with regards to misuse of private property.
However as you correctly stated it does not get to the core of the issue. I'm not at all sure the machine weren't re-imaged, that's why I mentioned it, I suggest that it could be that he simply visited several times.
I'm sorry, I only know my own European legal system in detail, however I believe that you are not legally entitled to use their property in such a manner simply because it is technically possible?
I imagine it would require Apple's explicit consent to collect information [using their property] for your private purposes legal or otherwise.
I've never been to an Apple Store but I imagine reading that they re-image their machines every day?
I don't take that kind of talk at its face value. On the other hand it was deeply personal for Jobs, what he really meant and felt is not for us to speculate about. If Jobs truly had put Apple on the line [to destroy Google], that would change things. He didn't.
Yes, please do. Those are not very good examples, they're stories that prove that people act irrational at times. I'm not sure that qualifies as "irrational" in general. Look at their work instead of tabloid headlines.
After all, did Steve continue to throw chairs at work? Did they launch Microsoft Chairs XP? I suppose he has a temper, but how did that affect his business decisions? It does not seem to have been very detrimental? Microsoft is still pretty solid.
Steve Jobs' desire to bankrupt and destroy Google is hardly irrational, it's quite logical to want to beat your competitor(s). As for how he said it, he was a show man, was he not? Did Apple in fact spend every Dollar they had?
They're certainly "characters" we remember, but I don't think that's a bad thing.
What exactly do you claim Steve and Steve did that was not rational? Please, remind me.
I agree that they are/were controversial, but irrational? They seem to have done very well for themselves, their respective corporations and products.
I seem to remember mostly business decisions that other people simply didn't like or had negative effects for others. That's not irrational or unreasonable by definiton.
I find it strange that you feel the need to defend this corporation? Especially its quick and dirty establishment.
I'm afraid you misunderstand if you think I attacked the British/American "Ltd"/"LLC" or the German "GmbH". It is specifically the "UG" form banks and other serious organizations regard as lesser.
German banks certainly don't award credit as easily. I don't blame them as the company has little or no capital to begin with! It is not simply my opinion, by German law there are limits on such companies that the GmbH-form does not have. As long as the capital is under €25,000 they have to keep 1/4 of the profits in the company, a severe limit for any successful venture.
Yes, I see your point and it's well founded, however for the moment I see no reason to wish for interference.
The best way to resolve the issue is in the form of competition. The two sides, content providers and network owners, are struggling to finding a balance between who pays and owns what.
Regulators and consumers need only sit back and watch, if there is a need for regulation the watchdogs can step in and force their hand(s). This latest wave of changes has barely begun, who knows where and how the lines between the two sides will end?
As it stands the content providers interests happen to match that of the consumers, both want the lowest possible price for [their] users' free and unrestricted access.
It's a sound strategic move for any large content and service provider including Google, Apple and especially Facebook.
They rely on the networks for their revenue, it makes sense to own parts of this infrastructure yourself if you can afford it. If only to use as leverage and/or offsetting future increases in transport costs. Owning huge datacenters is not enough, any longer, for the very large scale, global enterprises.
The [network] owners have already begun asking companies such as Facebook to pay for their users' data usage. The European ISPs and telecom corporations asked earlier this year for the right to offer "better" service levels to paying clients such as Facebook (i.e. Network Neutrality).
Facebook will be building a huge new data center in northern Sweden to support the rapid global growth of its users. The new data center in Lulea, Sweden will be Facebook’s first facility outside the United States.
“It’s the next step in our ongoing strategy of building our own infrastructure and moving away from leased facilities,” said Facebook spokesman Michael Kirkland. “We are expecting this data center to continue to help us reduce latency for our users in Europe and beyond.”
Thanks, after looking it up in the business register I see it's formally "IPP Int UG" (i.e. haftungsbeschränkt or almost the equiv. of Ltd/LLC).
In other words this is the "light version" or less serious company form, founded with €1 in capital, i.e. not a very serious business [in my and the bank's opinion].
Does this so-called "IPP" company in fact exist at all? I've had a cursory glance on Google, but didn't find much of interest.
German companies are not called Limited or Ltd. if they are indeed "governed by German law", as claimed in the court declaration. Under German law it should be called "IPP GmbH". I would normally assume a "Ltd." company was based in the UK, on one of their islands or somewhere far away from Europe in general.
IPP seems to be a fairly common name in the German business register (Unternehmensregister), but none of them seem to be the company in question? Does anyone out there have further information?
Radio is still free in Europe, as far as I know. Satellite radio is not offered here, and I don't want it either. The largest national broadcaster here is [still] trying to push DAB radios.
As a Norwegian I don't understand your frankly ignorant attack on Arctic resource exploitation. We have been active in this region for a long time, with rapidly increasing activity levels the last two decades.
As an Arctic nation we are very concerned with regards to our environment and safety. We have a proven track record.
May I ask if you have any real knowledge of the region or indeed oil & gas exploration?
Newspapers are not dying everywhere in the world, you know? I know it's happening a lot in the US, but we Europeans seem to keep buying and reading them:)
I can't speak for everyone, but I know my [country's] newspapers are doing very well thanks to both print and the web/apps. Lots of new revenue options including non-news services.
I should have been more precise, it's slightly unfair to claim it's just "old people". It's not just about age obviously, my apologies.
While people on Slashdot are generally more technologically capable, the general population is less so. Age is a factor as well as income and education. It would perhaps be more fair to say that [within the general population] the oldest and poorest are both more likely to use traditional television services. They might not be aware of the possibilities or simply don't care.
Like you I'm not wasting my time or money on services I don't want. If I want access to Discovery, NatGeo or BBC documentaries and programmes I want those and nothing else. For now I'm content with my iPlayer and BitTorrent access. It would be better for everyone if I could pay and access the content directly [at a fair price].
The "loudness wars" were already lost when BitTorrent made content without ads easily available to people in general. Heck, I generally don't like loud music or noises in my TV-shows, so I wrote a little script...
That doesn't change my view of the TV as a very limited and passive device. I'm sorry if I offended anyone.
I would also like to point out that in my country most people have access to plenty of bandwith at very reasonable prices (Scandinavia). We have Netflix-like services and PVR/DVRs here as well.
Oh, I agree, there's no doubt that public broadcasters have an important role to fill, that is if they are financially and politically viable. I am not certain the costs are justifiable.
It is clear that commercial channels would never be interested or able to produce the same content. Their track record has proven as much. I personally have no particular interest in any of them, I am only interested in [some of] the studio-produced content they purchase and broadcast. It's only that content I wish to purchase/view on demand at my leisure and device of choice.
News and other reporting is perhaps something that should be separated from the public broadcaster's role as a source of entertainment? I see no reason why purile reality and quiz shows have to be produced by the public broadcaster. TV2 has already taken upon itself the 24h news channel role.
It is my opinion that the "independent" role will be less important in an online media age where the alternatives are free and numerous. NRK may retain its status as our premier and official news source, I see few threats to that status regardless of party politics and who dominates parliament at any given time. The license hardly guarantees that role, but I do see your point. I believe it is a more fundamental aspect of our society; trust and reciprocity.
I feel we should explore other options and evaluate a commercial business plan for NRK. One that would increase revenue without the "tax" label in ordinary consumers' eyes. Feel free to charge customers the present amount for the same service if people choose to purchase this service.
Full disclosure: I vote for the Conservative Party, but I have no desire to change our present political system or societal course. The beauty of the Scandinavian system is its stability and lack of short term political fluctuations.
Yes, that was my point as well, I am very aware of their excellent streaming and the NRK Beta bittorrent offers. If I were interested in using them I would not mind paying, as I mentioned in my first comment.
NRK has in fact asked for a license fee on all PCs, capable smartphones and TVs for this very reason. I understand the logic behind that request. It was denied and for good reasons. It is not "fair" to require non-users to pay for a service they don't want. The current license is tied to the ownership or possession of a TV set, and has no ties to actual usage or [TV] content provider preference.
I cannot understand why you would even contemplate extending this license to cover other boxes, that is if I understand you correctly? What my device is capable of is irrelevant in my opinion, if I don't drive on toll roads should my car still pay for it? I realize this is how we finance public road works, but toll roads specifically only charge an access fee when you use it.
In my mind it should either be fully financed over the national budget or entirely commercially funded. We have very capable commercial providers already. The public broadcaster role is culturally valuable, but very expensive for a small nation. Perhaps too costly when we consider the public purse's shortcomings? I would rather have access to the PBS content on demand at a fair price per item/time period.
As a fellow Norwegian I wonder how long it will matter? While your employer, Norwegian Public Television and Radio (NRK) is very innovative with its open source, free BitTorrent and multi-platform content streaming I foresee a bleak future. I imagine the costs are simply going to skyrocket with the future demands for streaming and development.
Small European public broadcasters like ours are bound to either lose their access to license funding, have to accept commercials or must ask parliament to introduce new licenses that cover online media and platforms such as smartphones, PCs and other devices.
I don't see that happening in Norway at the moment due to public opposition to such "unfair" taxes. It would be far better if it was done over the national budget without the extra cost of invoicing students, families and the elderly. As one of the many that don't have a TV, don't pay the TV license and rarely watch your content, I strongly oppose more licenses. I would not mind paying a fee if I actually watched your content.
That's a very fitting description; "the old and the dull". I could not agree more, that's exactly how I view people that watch TV these days. My parents generation still watches TV, but everyone else I know and my siblings stream/torrent their content.
Slashdot Mirror
You make several good points, there are notable differences between our [many] systems.
While privacy is highly valued in Europe in general, regardless of EU membership or not, the US has a more "aggressive" justice system in my opinion. The incarceration rates seem to support my claim.
I expect(ed) a US lawyer/prosecutor to find something "applicable" to the situation with regards to misuse of private property.
However as you correctly stated it does not get to the core of the issue. I'm not at all sure the machine weren't re-imaged, that's why I mentioned it, I suggest that it could be that he simply visited several times.
I'm sorry, I only know my own European legal system in detail, however I believe that you are not legally entitled to use their property in such a manner simply because it is technically possible?
I imagine it would require Apple's explicit consent to collect information [using their property] for your private purposes legal or otherwise.
I've never been to an Apple Store but I imagine reading that they re-image their machines every day?
The stores are public, but the PCs are private property. He did step over that last line.
That's it for me, no more Battlefield anything. I've had enough.
I don't take that kind of talk at its face value. On the other hand it was deeply personal for Jobs, what he really meant and felt is not for us to speculate about. If Jobs truly had put Apple on the line [to destroy Google], that would change things. He didn't.
Yes, please do. Those are not very good examples, they're stories that prove that people act irrational at times. I'm not sure that qualifies as "irrational" in general. Look at their work instead of tabloid headlines.
After all, did Steve continue to throw chairs at work? Did they launch Microsoft Chairs XP? I suppose he has a temper, but how did that affect his business decisions? It does not seem to have been very detrimental? Microsoft is still pretty solid.
Steve Jobs' desire to bankrupt and destroy Google is hardly irrational, it's quite logical to want to beat your competitor(s). As for how he said it, he was a show man, was he not? Did Apple in fact spend every Dollar they had?
They're certainly "characters" we remember, but I don't think that's a bad thing.
What exactly do you claim Steve and Steve did that was not rational? Please, remind me.
I agree that they are/were controversial, but irrational? They seem to have done very well for themselves, their respective corporations and products.
I seem to remember mostly business decisions that other people simply didn't like or had negative effects for others. That's not irrational or unreasonable by definiton.
I find it strange that you feel the need to defend this corporation? Especially its quick and dirty establishment.
I'm afraid you misunderstand if you think I attacked the British/American "Ltd"/"LLC" or the German "GmbH". It is specifically the "UG" form banks and other serious organizations regard as lesser.
German banks certainly don't award credit as easily. I don't blame them as the company has little or no capital to begin with! It is not simply my opinion, by German law there are limits on such companies that the GmbH-form does not have. As long as the capital is under €25,000 they have to keep 1/4 of the profits in the company, a severe limit for any successful venture.
Yes, I see your point and it's well founded, however for the moment I see no reason to wish for interference.
The best way to resolve the issue is in the form of competition. The two sides, content providers and network owners, are struggling to finding a balance between who pays and owns what.
Regulators and consumers need only sit back and watch, if there is a need for regulation the watchdogs can step in and force their hand(s). This latest wave of changes has barely begun, who knows where and how the lines between the two sides will end?
As it stands the content providers interests happen to match that of the consumers, both want the lowest possible price for [their] users' free and unrestricted access.
It's a sound strategic move for any large content and service provider including Google, Apple and especially Facebook.
They rely on the networks for their revenue, it makes sense to own parts of this infrastructure yourself if you can afford it. If only to use as leverage and/or offsetting future increases in transport costs. Owning huge datacenters is not enough, any longer, for the very large scale, global enterprises.
The [network] owners have already begun asking companies such as Facebook to pay for their users' data usage. The European ISPs and telecom corporations asked earlier this year for the right to offer "better" service levels to paying clients such as Facebook (i.e. Network Neutrality).
This is all part of Facebook's new strategy.
Facebook will be building a huge new data center in northern Sweden to support the rapid global growth of its users. The new data center in Lulea, Sweden will be Facebook’s first facility outside the United States.
“It’s the next step in our ongoing strategy of building our own infrastructure and moving away from leased facilities,” said Facebook spokesman Michael Kirkland. “We are expecting this data center to continue to help us reduce latency for our users in Europe and beyond.”
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2011/10/27/facebook-goes-global-with-data-center-in-sweden/
Thanks, after looking it up in the business register I see it's formally "IPP Int UG" (i.e. haftungsbeschränkt or almost the equiv. of Ltd/LLC).
In other words this is the "light version" or less serious company form, founded with €1 in capital, i.e. not a very serious business [in my and the bank's opinion].
Does this so-called "IPP" company in fact exist at all? I've had a cursory glance on Google, but didn't find much of interest.
German companies are not called Limited or Ltd. if they are indeed "governed by German law", as claimed in the court declaration. Under German law it should be called "IPP GmbH". I would normally assume a "Ltd." company was based in the UK, on one of their islands or somewhere far away from Europe in general.
IPP seems to be a fairly common name in the German business register (Unternehmensregister), but none of them seem to be the company in question? Does anyone out there have further information?
Radio is still free in Europe, as far as I know. Satellite radio is not offered here, and I don't want it either. The largest national broadcaster here is [still] trying to push DAB radios.
As a Norwegian I don't understand your frankly ignorant attack on Arctic resource exploitation. We have been active in this region for a long time, with rapidly increasing activity levels the last two decades.
As an Arctic nation we are very concerned with regards to our environment and safety. We have a proven track record.
May I ask if you have any real knowledge of the region or indeed oil & gas exploration?
Newspapers are not dying everywhere in the world, you know? I know it's happening a lot in the US, but we Europeans seem to keep buying and reading them :)
I can't speak for everyone, but I know my [country's] newspapers are doing very well thanks to both print and the web/apps. Lots of new revenue options including non-news services.
I should have been more precise, it's slightly unfair to claim it's just "old people". It's not just about age obviously, my apologies.
While people on Slashdot are generally more technologically capable, the general population is less so. Age is a factor as well as income and education. It would perhaps be more fair to say that [within the general population] the oldest and poorest are both more likely to use traditional television services. They might not be aware of the possibilities or simply don't care.
Like you I'm not wasting my time or money on services I don't want. If I want access to Discovery, NatGeo or BBC documentaries and programmes I want those and nothing else. For now I'm content with my iPlayer and BitTorrent access. It would be better for everyone if I could pay and access the content directly [at a fair price].
The "loudness wars" were already lost when BitTorrent made content without ads easily available to people in general. Heck, I generally don't like loud music or noises in my TV-shows, so I wrote a little script...
That doesn't change my view of the TV as a very limited and passive device. I'm sorry if I offended anyone.
I would also like to point out that in my country most people have access to plenty of bandwith at very reasonable prices (Scandinavia). We have Netflix-like services and PVR/DVRs here as well.
Yes? That's why I oppose any such tax... that's what I wrote above.
I do not want them to charge anyone a license fee. It's either done over the national budget or not at all.
Oh, I agree, there's no doubt that public broadcasters have an important role to fill, that is if they are financially and politically viable. I am not certain the costs are justifiable.
It is clear that commercial channels would never be interested or able to produce the same content. Their track record has proven as much. I personally have no particular interest in any of them, I am only interested in [some of] the studio-produced content they purchase and broadcast. It's only that content I wish to purchase/view on demand at my leisure and device of choice.
News and other reporting is perhaps something that should be separated from the public broadcaster's role as a source of entertainment? I see no reason why purile reality and quiz shows have to be produced by the public broadcaster. TV2 has already taken upon itself the 24h news channel role.
It is my opinion that the "independent" role will be less important in an online media age where the alternatives are free and numerous. NRK may retain its status as our premier and official news source, I see few threats to that status regardless of party politics and who dominates parliament at any given time. The license hardly guarantees that role, but I do see your point. I believe it is a more fundamental aspect of our society; trust and reciprocity.
I feel we should explore other options and evaluate a commercial business plan for NRK. One that would increase revenue without the "tax" label in ordinary consumers' eyes. Feel free to charge customers the present amount for the same service if people choose to purchase this service.
Full disclosure: I vote for the Conservative Party, but I have no desire to change our present political system or societal course. The beauty of the Scandinavian system is its stability and lack of short term political fluctuations.
Yes, that was my point as well, I am very aware of their excellent streaming and the NRK Beta bittorrent offers. If I were interested in using them I would not mind paying, as I mentioned in my first comment.
NRK has in fact asked for a license fee on all PCs, capable smartphones and TVs for this very reason. I understand the logic behind that request. It was denied and for good reasons. It is not "fair" to require non-users to pay for a service they don't want. The current license is tied to the ownership or possession of a TV set, and has no ties to actual usage or [TV] content provider preference.
I cannot understand why you would even contemplate extending this license to cover other boxes, that is if I understand you correctly? What my device is capable of is irrelevant in my opinion, if I don't drive on toll roads should my car still pay for it? I realize this is how we finance public road works, but toll roads specifically only charge an access fee when you use it.
In my mind it should either be fully financed over the national budget or entirely commercially funded. We have very capable commercial providers already. The public broadcaster role is culturally valuable, but very expensive for a small nation. Perhaps too costly when we consider the public purse's shortcomings? I would rather have access to the PBS content on demand at a fair price per item/time period.
As a fellow Norwegian I wonder how long it will matter? While your employer, Norwegian Public Television and Radio (NRK) is very innovative with its open source, free BitTorrent and multi-platform content streaming I foresee a bleak future. I imagine the costs are simply going to skyrocket with the future demands for streaming and development.
Small European public broadcasters like ours are bound to either lose their access to license funding, have to accept commercials or must ask parliament to introduce new licenses that cover online media and platforms such as smartphones, PCs and other devices.
I don't see that happening in Norway at the moment due to public opposition to such "unfair" taxes. It would be far better if it was done over the national budget without the extra cost of invoicing students, families and the elderly. As one of the many that don't have a TV, don't pay the TV license and rarely watch your content, I strongly oppose more licenses. I would not mind paying a fee if I actually watched your content.
That's a very fitting description; "the old and the dull". I could not agree more, that's exactly how I view people that watch TV these days. My parents generation still watches TV, but everyone else I know and my siblings stream/torrent their content.
I remember reading this article about an ABC executive and her daughter, it described the new reality very well:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/business/media/04hulu.html?_r=1&ref=global
Notice that this was announced shortly after IPv6 was "rolled out". You're right, they're looking for more space, address space!
The White House, Department of Defense, the State department and the CIA beg to differ.
The Department of Defense says "Navy Looks to Bolster Capabilities in Persian Gulf" (2012):
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=67586
The State Department notes in a briefing by Secretary of State Clinton on her visit to India in May 2012 that peace in the Persian Gulf is important:
http://translations.state.gov/st/english/texttrans/2012/05/201205085219.html#axzz1vAEAsbH0
The White House's press briefing includes references to carriers in the Persian Gulf (2012):
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/04/09/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-4912/
This is the CIA's World Fact Book entry for Iran. Look at the map saying "Persian Gulf".
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html
The State Department shows the same map for Iran ("Persian Gulf"):
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/ci/ir/
The CIA's Persian Gulf War Task Force was last reviewed and updated in January 2012.
https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/gulfwar/index.htm