The USA would have more to lose by increasing import tariff on European-originated products.
Like it or not, more products and services come from the US to Europe than go in the other direction, and seeing as the EU do have teeth, it would be incredibly stupid for GWB to get in a tit-for-tat battle over import tariffs that he can't win.
I'll refrain from making a sarcastic comment about how shocked I am that Windows XP N has flopped. Did anyone really expect it to fly off the shelves?
Remember, Windows Media Player isn't just the application; it's all the codecs included with the application and the underlying WMPlayer framework within the OS.
With that in mind, why would any computer manufacturer which sells Windows systems, and caters to the home market, want to sell a crippled version of Windows, which can't even play a CD?
IMO this is very much a non-story and a whole lot of fuss over nothing; Microsoft have done what is required of them, at least in terms of the WMP-less version of Windows. Consequently, the PC builders have - not surprisingly - decided to vote with their feet and will continue to sell Windows XP with the integrated Media Player.
If we're wanting to discuss Microsoft's lack of compliance when it comes to opening up the standards as specified in the EU rulings, that's an entirely different matter. But it's also an entirely different topic of conversation which can no doubt be covered when the topic re-appears on Slashdot at some point in the future.
I'm actually a fan of the "soft" power button; I have mine configured so that if I accidentally press it, it asks me what to do.
That aside, holding down the power button for 5 seconds does actually turn the computer off completely. By that, I mean it bypasses the Windows shutdown process - ie, the computer would use however much power it uses when "switched off".
Since when is $1 fair? I think $1 is simply what the market will bear, slightly above what the media monsters are charging Apple, and the price point that maximises (or at least comes close to maximising) Apple's profits.
It's a fair price if people will pay it. If potential customers don't want to pay it, they can vote with their feet and either purchase the CD or go without the song.
Let's go back to the idea of "fair". I recently bought a stack of new music. I paid $12 average per album and there are 15 songs per album. These are Australian prices and over here iTunes is $1.69 per song. Crunching the numbers and using the iTunes $1.69/$1 as the comparison ratio, I paid 47 USA cents per song for non-DRM non-lossy CDDA quality audio with a jewel case, album cover, paper inserts and delivered on a pressed disc. By the way, the $12 average per album included delivery to my doorstep (I bought them online) and the delivery time was overnight.
There's a big difference though, and it's often mentioned here; when I purchase a song via iTunes or any other online service, I'm not usually under any obligation to purchase the entire album.
Therefore, if on one of those $12 album, there were 3 songs I actually liked, I'd be paying an average of $4 per track rather than the $1 per track I would be paying if I purchased the tracks separately.
There is going to be a "soft cutover" in the UK, but slightly different from the method you suggest.
Analog transmitters will start to be switched off, area by area, starting in 2008; the final switch off will be in 2012. One community in Wales has already had its analog transmitters switched off voluntary and is now entirely digital.
Did Sony intend to commit copyright infringement? No.
Great - so if I download copyrighted material via Bittorrent I'm not liable for copyright infringement? After all, I don't intend to commit copyright infringement; the fact that the copyrighted material is uploaded too is merely a by-product which is hard/impossible to stop.
Is Sony still distributing the software? No.
Even better! So if I upload/share x amount of music tracks illegally, and then stop distributing them, I'm not liable?
Let's say I don't speed. Does that suddenly mean that the actual equipment, running costs, and infrastructure costs of such a system are no longer present?
It's more a case of a court ruling particular clauses as "unreasonable". Contracts like that are enforcable, however the validity of each clause is dependant on whether a court ruled it as unreasonable or not.
But the cameras on cellphones are getting better all the time. I recently purchased a cellphone which comes with a 2 megapixel camera - I'm not a professional photographist, I don't "need" any more than 2 megapixels judging by the quality of the images I've taken thus far, and the camera works very well at night and indeed has a flash.
Nokia's N-Series range is very impressive in terms of features.
It's really the convenience factor, rather than screwing customers for more money.
I have a Sky+, which is basically a Tivo-type device but made for and sold by Sky TV - the UK's satellite broadcaster. I missed the first episode of Lost because I didn't know about it, and with such a system, you cannot save programmes that you've missed. I only found out about Lost the day after the first episode aired and found everyone in work talking about it.
Such a system whereby you an purchase the right to view a time-limited re-run of a particular episode/show would be ideal in that sort of situation. Several other situations come to mind, such as power cuts, people deleting shows from a PVR when not everyone has seen it, to name but a few.
On the flip side, the iPod is an excellent music player, and probably the most famous and biggest-selling.
As a result, people are going to buy products from the iPod line, and those who buy the "proper" iPod will get the video features included just because they bought the unit.
So the customer/consumer who maybe can't afford the notebook, or doesn't want a notebook, can go to that same hotel and plug their iPod into the TV in the room and watch video content.
The problem for Nokia, is that even if they do produce a device which did DVB-T, the likes of Vodafone, O2 etc. are highly unlikely to subsidize it or offer it to consumers. After all, who's going to bother with crappy and expensive video clips from their telco, when their phone lets you watch 30 channels for nothing?
The beauty of SIM free handsets and existing SIM cards.
The great thing about the UK mobile telephone industry is the choice you have. You can either go with a subsidised handset on a contract, or go with a full-price handset on a contract, or the same on pay as you go.
Even in the UK who are second only to Japan in terms of the advancement of the mobile phone networks we still have phones available which merely act as a phone. If you don't want a contract your options are pay as you go, where you will pay more, or buying the phone SIM free and using it with an existing SIM.
Focused on voice calls & SMS, it still supports WAP, albeit in limited format. It supports Bluetooth and GPRS for a connection to laptop too.
The one puzzling thing about it is the internal 0.5MP camera. With handsets including cams of 1.5MP and higher these days, it seems very much an afterthought and something included just because.
That aside, IMO it is a beautiful phone - small, lightweight, and without feature bloat.
All CCTV does is serve to create a nanny state. The UK has more CCTV cameras in proportion to its size than any other nation in the world, yet we still get massive amounts of crime.
Then again, I don't believe in the notion that "if you've got nothing to hide, what have you to be afraid of". CCTV on private property is absolutely acceptable, provided it is managed in accordance with the Data Protection Act, but Government CCTV cameras - while acceptable in certain limited circumstances - merely serve to further the "Big Brother" notion.
At risk of taking the so-called slippery slope too far, imagine how much fun a dictator would have in the UK with all sorts of CCTV and other privacy-invading tools at his/her disposal.
IANAL nor do I play one on television, but from my understanding of the RIP Bill, it reverses the burden of proof and it becomes down to the individual concerned to prove they are not currently in the possession of the key, and that they had never been in possession of the key.
In the case of something like Skype, I believe it *should* be a simple case of explaining as to why you're unable to obtain the key. Not that I'd like to be in a situation where I was ordered to provide an encryption key, especially one I did not have access to, as I'd be likely to refuse on a matter of principle.
And, of course, I've not even begun my gripes with the presumption of guilt until you prove yourself innocent.
For those of you interested in more detailed analysis of the RIP Bill, what it means for UK Citizens, and the various provisions for Law Enforcement Agencies (and any other Government body!), STAND provide a useful guide to all aspects of the Bill.
In summary, the Government can "request" your password/encryption key at any time. Failure to hand it over, or even to disclose to anyone that you have been "asked" is a criminal offence punishable by jailtime. Oh, and a bunch of other goodies which totally make a mockery of our justice system and civil rights.
Poor credit and trying to get a landline? Provide two-months worth of basic service as a deposit (less then $20 in Verizon land) and they have to give you service. Poor credit and trying to get a cell phone? Pay insanely huge ass and out of line deposit that they aren't even required to pay interest on and don't have to give back to you after six or twelve months. In fact, the last time a friend of mine tried to get service from Verizon Wireless (the only mobile carrier here with coverage worth shit) they wanted a thousand dollar deposit.
Don't you get prepaid service in the USA?
I know the cellular networks in the USA are behind that of other countries in general, but surely prepay accounts are available?
I use prepaid, mainly because it suits me perfectly.
I use very few minutes - I'm lucky if I'll use 60 minutes over the course of a month. If I want to talk to someone and have a conversation longer than: "I'm running slightly late, will be there in 15," then I'll go on Skype and communicate with them that way.
My cellular handset is mainly for text messaging and emailing on the move - that and using the inbuilt camera to take photos and videos.
The fact that he was arrested for performing a nonviolent act is the first abuse by authorities.
I'm sorry, abuse?
Does this mean if, for example, your car was stolen with no violence involved, you would be happy if no action was taken? What if your house was burnt down by someone who doesn't like you, but again, no violence was involved. I'm sure this would be acceptable too, right?
Whether you like it or not, the Computer Misuse Act (1990) is here for a reason. It is not a basic human right to access computer systems you are not authorised to access. It is not a basic human right to "check for security".
You do have the right not to donate to certain websites, and not to use certain websites. You also have the right to search the web for opinions of others who have used a particular service.
Sadly, I suspect your original post is nothing short of trolling.
Slashdot Mirror
The misuse is the illegal copyright infringement which the vast majority of P2P traffic is used to carry out.
I was transferring midis & operator logos to my handset even back in 2000.
Like it or not, more products and services come from the US to Europe than go in the other direction, and seeing as the EU do have teeth, it would be incredibly stupid for GWB to get in a tit-for-tat battle over import tariffs that he can't win.
Remember, Windows Media Player isn't just the application; it's all the codecs included with the application and the underlying WMPlayer framework within the OS.
With that in mind, why would any computer manufacturer which sells Windows systems, and caters to the home market, want to sell a crippled version of Windows, which can't even play a CD?
IMO this is very much a non-story and a whole lot of fuss over nothing; Microsoft have done what is required of them, at least in terms of the WMP-less version of Windows. Consequently, the PC builders have - not surprisingly - decided to vote with their feet and will continue to sell Windows XP with the integrated Media Player.
If we're wanting to discuss Microsoft's lack of compliance when it comes to opening up the standards as specified in the EU rulings, that's an entirely different matter. But it's also an entirely different topic of conversation which can no doubt be covered when the topic re-appears on Slashdot at some point in the future.
That aside, holding down the power button for 5 seconds does actually turn the computer off completely. By that, I mean it bypasses the Windows shutdown process - ie, the computer would use however much power it uses when "switched off".
It's a fair price if people will pay it. If potential customers don't want to pay it, they can vote with their feet and either purchase the CD or go without the song.
Let's go back to the idea of "fair". I recently bought a stack of new music. I paid $12 average per album and there are 15 songs per album. These are Australian prices and over here iTunes is $1.69 per song. Crunching the numbers and using the iTunes $1.69/$1 as the comparison ratio, I paid 47 USA cents per song for non-DRM non-lossy CDDA quality audio with a jewel case, album cover, paper inserts and delivered on a pressed disc. By the way, the $12 average per album included delivery to my doorstep (I bought them online) and the delivery time was overnight.
There's a big difference though, and it's often mentioned here; when I purchase a song via iTunes or any other online service, I'm not usually under any obligation to purchase the entire album.
Therefore, if on one of those $12 album, there were 3 songs I actually liked, I'd be paying an average of $4 per track rather than the $1 per track I would be paying if I purchased the tracks separately.
Analog transmitters will start to be switched off, area by area, starting in 2008; the final switch off will be in 2012. One community in Wales has already had its analog transmitters switched off voluntary and is now entirely digital.
Great - so if I download copyrighted material via Bittorrent I'm not liable for copyright infringement? After all, I don't intend to commit copyright infringement; the fact that the copyrighted material is uploaded too is merely a by-product which is hard/impossible to stop.
Is Sony still distributing the software? No.
Even better! So if I upload/share x amount of music tracks illegally, and then stop distributing them, I'm not liable?
Let's say I don't speed. Does that suddenly mean that the actual equipment, running costs, and infrastructure costs of such a system are no longer present?
It's more a case of a court ruling particular clauses as "unreasonable". Contracts like that are enforcable, however the validity of each clause is dependant on whether a court ruled it as unreasonable or not.
Nokia's N-Series range is very impressive in terms of features.
I have a Sky+, which is basically a Tivo-type device but made for and sold by Sky TV - the UK's satellite broadcaster. I missed the first episode of Lost because I didn't know about it, and with such a system, you cannot save programmes that you've missed. I only found out about Lost the day after the first episode aired and found everyone in work talking about it.
Such a system whereby you an purchase the right to view a time-limited re-run of a particular episode/show would be ideal in that sort of situation. Several other situations come to mind, such as power cuts, people deleting shows from a PVR when not everyone has seen it, to name but a few.
As a result, people are going to buy products from the iPod line, and those who buy the "proper" iPod will get the video features included just because they bought the unit.
So the customer/consumer who maybe can't afford the notebook, or doesn't want a notebook, can go to that same hotel and plug their iPod into the TV in the room and watch video content.
The beauty of SIM free handsets and existing SIM cards.
The great thing about the UK mobile telephone industry is the choice you have. You can either go with a subsidised handset on a contract, or go with a full-price handset on a contract, or the same on pay as you go.
Three offer this in the UK over their 3G mobile network . The cost is an almost-equivalent £5 GBP per month and there are no data charges on top.
Even in the UK who are second only to Japan in terms of the advancement of the mobile phone networks we still have phones available which merely act as a phone. If you don't want a contract your options are pay as you go, where you will pay more, or buying the phone SIM free and using it with an existing SIM.
Focused on voice calls & SMS, it still supports WAP, albeit in limited format. It supports Bluetooth and GPRS for a connection to laptop too.
The one puzzling thing about it is the internal 0.5MP camera. With handsets including cams of 1.5MP and higher these days, it seems very much an afterthought and something included just because.
That aside, IMO it is a beautiful phone - small, lightweight, and without feature bloat.
What are Roche being deprived of aside from potential profits?
Then again, I don't believe in the notion that "if you've got nothing to hide, what have you to be afraid of". CCTV on private property is absolutely acceptable, provided it is managed in accordance with the Data Protection Act, but Government CCTV cameras - while acceptable in certain limited circumstances - merely serve to further the "Big Brother" notion.
At risk of taking the so-called slippery slope too far, imagine how much fun a dictator would have in the UK with all sorts of CCTV and other privacy-invading tools at his/her disposal.
In the case of something like Skype, I believe it *should* be a simple case of explaining as to why you're unable to obtain the key. Not that I'd like to be in a situation where I was ordered to provide an encryption key, especially one I did not have access to, as I'd be likely to refuse on a matter of principle.
And, of course, I've not even begun my gripes with the presumption of guilt until you prove yourself innocent.
For those of you interested in more detailed analysis of the RIP Bill, what it means for UK Citizens, and the various provisions for Law Enforcement Agencies (and any other Government body!), STAND provide a useful guide to all aspects of the Bill.
In summary, the Government can "request" your password/encryption key at any time. Failure to hand it over, or even to disclose to anyone that you have been "asked" is a criminal offence punishable by jailtime. Oh, and a bunch of other goodies which totally make a mockery of our justice system and civil rights.
Don't you get prepaid service in the USA?
I know the cellular networks in the USA are behind that of other countries in general, but surely prepay accounts are available?
I use very few minutes - I'm lucky if I'll use 60 minutes over the course of a month. If I want to talk to someone and have a conversation longer than: "I'm running slightly late, will be there in 15," then I'll go on Skype and communicate with them that way.
My cellular handset is mainly for text messaging and emailing on the move - that and using the inbuilt camera to take photos and videos.
I'm sorry, abuse?
Does this mean if, for example, your car was stolen with no violence involved, you would be happy if no action was taken? What if your house was burnt down by someone who doesn't like you, but again, no violence was involved. I'm sure this would be acceptable too, right?
Whether you like it or not, the Computer Misuse Act (1990) is here for a reason. It is not a basic human right to access computer systems you are not authorised to access. It is not a basic human right to "check for security".
You do have the right not to donate to certain websites, and not to use certain websites. You also have the right to search the web for opinions of others who have used a particular service.
Sadly, I suspect your original post is nothing short of trolling.
It's entirely possible that illegal copyright infringement could be classed as causing harm, thus defeating the point of any such EULA.