It looks like when it comes to TERRORISM, the authorities are taking a hard line on where discussion becomes planning.
'The men, from Luton, admitted one count of engaging in conduct in preparation for acts of terrorism between 1 January 2011 and 25 April 2012 at a hearing on 1 March.'
I have found the expensive hotels in the USA to be the worst for nickel & diming you. After you pay $600, they want extra to look after a bag, $15 if you want to drink the bottle of water beside your bed, etc.
Meanwhile down the road at the $60 place - water, wifi and service are included.
Having said that - there may be something in the fact that the luxury hotels were the first ones to install wifi throughout the building - back when it was really expensive to do. They installed it on the basis that they would be able to charge, and haven't updated their assumptions in the face of widespread free wifi.
Why do people insist on using PayPal for high value accounts?
because doing anything else is significantly harder / more expensive / less successful.
whilst it is clear that Paypal act like dicks on a frequent basis, they also provide an easy way to accept money from people all over the world in a way that is easy for the customer to use, and cheap/quick for the receiver to set up.
or to put it another way - can you suggest a better alternative?
The holodeck looks like fun. I'd like to spend most of my evenings playing there with my friends. Also, I'd like a big cabin with a large forward facing window.
Both of those are scarce. How are they allocated?
What if I'm willing to take a smaller cabin in return for more holodeck time?
the smartphone market isn't necessarily a great baseline.
making up numbers completely, It could be argued:
they had 90% of the corporate_mobile_email_phone device market. They now have 60% of the corporate_mobile_email_phone device market.
the broader smartphone market has exploded, and apart from a few niches where bbm is valued highly, they have almost completely failed to succeed in the new market.
not that I don't think they're dead - just that I like alternate perspectives!
This would just reassert the point that Google's TS are discriminatory, since they don't abide by them themselves, and the end result is that they can pick and choose which platforms get a full-fledged YouTube experience and which don't.
I don't see a problem with Google treating themselves differently to people who want to use their API. It would be entirely reasonable for them to have YouTube and offer no API at all.
Amongst other reasons - Google have the ability to update their own apps if they feel a need to change things in the future; They have less control over third parties, so they have a legitimate reason to care more about how third parties implement critical functionality like displaying adverts.
Yes, they pick and choose which platforms get full-fledged YouTube, just like the way Microsoft pick and choose which platforms get full-fledged Office. I don't have a problem with that either.
Can you give an example of a specific HTML5 feature in IE that YouTube would require? It supports a great deal of the standard as of IE10, you know.
In an official statement YouTube said:
"We're committed to providing users and creators with a great and consistent YouTube experience across devices, and we've been working with Microsoft to build a fully featured YouTube for Windows Phone app, based on HTML5. Unfortunately, Microsoft has not made the browser upgrades necessary to enable a fully-featured YouTube experience, and has instead re-released a YouTube app that violates our Terms of Service."
If you mean basically hosting the mobile YouTube page as is in a web browser control and calling that an app, then this is precisely what several dozen YouTube players for Windows Phone already do.
One sticking point seems to be their ad-serving code. Presumably, this is exactly how Google want it implemented (in a browser control).
The problem with this approach is that it plainly sucks, which makes the users annoyed. Google was asked to write an official app for WP, but refused, citing low market share. Hence the attempt by MS to fix this themselves.
So MS signed up to the google API terms and conditions, then thought they could break them.
I don't see what the controversy is here, Google doesn't want to release a windows phone app - they don't have to. I released one for one of my apps, and frankly it was a waste of my effort - the platform is insignificant (~3% smartphone sales).
If MS want to release an app, then they have to use the API and follow the terms like anyone else unless Google gives them special dispensation.
declared reason: because that's what the ts&cs require my hypothesised reason: because that requires MS to implement html5 features in IE, and Google wants to have those features available for their own web-apps
possible additional reason: html5 player incorporates code which is under Google control, and provides them with greater control in the future if they need to update/change how some things work.
the shocking thing isn't so much that there are incidents where things go bad. As you say, there are lots of police, and lots of incidents - there will be some where things go wrong. The shocking thing is that there is almost never any consequence for the brutal officers.
Instead, the whole thing gets brushed under the carpet - sending a clear message to other officers that they are free to abuse their power without consequence. I have personally experienced officers casually lying in their statements to cover up a fairly minor offence by one of their own against me. Whilst most officers probably don't indulge in gratuitous brutality; It seems that most officers will not step in to stop it, or report it when they see it.
If the occasional 'bad act' resulted in all the officer's colleagues roundly condemning the actions and the discipline system enforcing significant punishment then I would start to believe that these were acts which did not represent the body of police as a whole.
Regarding the teenager incident you mention - this is actually a great case. Even if an office has been hit and knocked unconscious by a brick - the job of the arresting officers is to capture the teenager with a minimum of force and allow the legal system to administer justice. That's their job. However understandable their desire to give the kid a beating - it is not acceptable. They have a great deal of power and need to show restraint even (especially) when provoked.
My guess is that this is a direct response to Microsoft.
Google has been talking open-ness, and xmpp is part of that. Microsoft decided to connect messenger so that they could send messages to g-chat users, but didn't reciprocate in terms of allowing g-chat users to see messenger contacts. (I don't know the protocol, but I understand this is a valid use of an xmpp server, even if clearly parasitic).
Google have responded by shutting the whole thing down. 'Hey Microsoft -play nice, or we'll take our ball home'
I'm sure someone will step in to help small retailers with all the messiness. They'll probably call it an online shopping cart or something like that and it will automatically add the right sales tax based on the category of the item and the location of the purchaser.
If nobody steps up to provide a shopping cart that integrates with online sales tax filing services, then there is a great business opportunity for you. Be quick though.
there is a difference between 'struggling to compete with model xxx' and 'struggling to compete with someone who has a 5% tax advantage on prices'
it may well be that they can't compete and should die, but it isn't clear why there is anything fundamentally different between buying something at your shop, and buying it online from another state with respect to whether the government can/should add a tax.
You buy all your stuff online, I buy all my stuff from the local stores. Why am I the only one contributing to the state coffers?
you seem to be presenting a strange argument based on the incorrect idea that socialism in this context is a binary property of states.
clearly when we're talking about states, socialism is a matter of degree. The UK is much more socialist than the USA (universal healthcare, welfare benefits, pensions, etc). France is more socialist than the UK. The list goes on.
If you're going to define socialism as an extreme (Cuba, Venezuela) then that's ok - but I hope to see you leaping on the next debate about universal healthcare.
Someone: government is trying to force universal healthcare in the USA Someone else: AAARGH - Socialism !!! You: Nope, this is not socialism. Lots of countries which are neither Venezuela nor Cuba have universal healthcare and clearly they're not socialists.
Given that the suggestion that sales tax should not be avoidable merely by ordering goods from another state has resulted in a cry of socialism in this thread, I think you might find yourself fighting a lonely corner.
I can only speak for myself here. I ported my (fairly successful) app to Windows Phone. My reasoning was that MS was big enough, and Nokia committed enough that they would do whatever it takes to make WP work.
It was a very bad use of my time, I get a bit of cash from WP, but it is a rounding error compared to iOS, or even Android.
It may be that Windows and Nokia will do better in the future, but for now, it is an unrewarding platform.
Blackberry have spent a bunch of time trying to convince me to transfer my Android builds over to their platform, but even spending a day or two to make the necessary tweaks feels like a bad investment.
from a customer point of view - it really doesn't matter why this happened. If the playbook doesn't have the key apps then the customer will be unhappy.
no excuses blackberry: if you have to pay to get the port done, then you have to pay. If your platform is convincing enough that you don't have to pay - then well done to you, but you'd better make sure you're doing to outreach to ensure that the third parties are getting it together.
as for precedent - I don't think there is anything particularly dangerous here. They pay big players at the outset, then when (if) their platform is big enough, they stop paying.
Still - I don't understand why they put a big LED on it. It seems to me that when stealth is important, this would be a really bad feature for a spy's gun.
Perhaps I should patent the idea of a smart gun without any giveaway LED indicators.
for a while, I set up my iPhone app (VLC Remote) so that if it detected that it was pirated, then when you opened a movie, it was always this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
this can only happen if 1) you lose a gazillion battles and get fined 2) you agree to do a bunch of stuff as part of your settlement 3) you don't do it (in a significant way) 4) it gets noticed
You have to work pretty hard to get down to #4. The EU wants companies to take #2 extremely seriously.
MS fought tooth and nail to avoid the fines in #1. The EU commission wants to make 100% sure that if they fight a battle all the way through, and win it -then the company doesn't think they can just ignore the result and get a slap on the wrist.
This makes a pretty clear statement. "When you agree to do stuff - you'd better do it. It might even be worth paying someone on your staff (perhaps in the audit/compliance dept) to do a check once a month to make sure you are keeping your promises."
are they too stupid, or do they just think that it is important that people see clearly what portion of their bill is taxes?
in the UK, the sales tax is marked into the price, so it's kinda invisible. In the USA, you're reminded about it every single time you purchase something.
Australia can make this a lot easier by changing the rules:
0) it's totally legal for people to import and re-sell stuff they buy legitimately elsewhere in the world 1) anyone bringing software in from the USA can easily pay sales tax on it before reselling (no other import duties though) 2) the manufacturing company isn't allowed to disadvantage the user merely for using software / product in Australia
#2 is hardest to balance. In the case of Microsoft, -refusing to activate windows would not be acceptable. -Saying that you have to get customer support on the standard usa numbers in usa times would be acceptable.
Seems to me that the newspapers didn't have a leg to stand on, and Google gave them a face-saving concession to let everyone walk away with their heads held high.
Google doesn't really care about the $60m, it's a fairly small sum, doesn't set a terrible precedent, and saves them the time and effort of fighting this battle.
Meanwhile, the government has achieved a concession and can walk away without an embarrassing loss of face.
Finally, the newspapers can opt out of google news using their robots.txt if they want to (as they always could).
My wifi has been open for years. I have frequently moved flat in the past and benefited from being able to use my neighbour's wifi for a week or two while I get internet installed. It costs me nothing to 'pay it forward'.
We're done now. The boys will serve their time (presumably 9 months with good behaviour) and then move on with their lives.
note: it's not that in theory Paypal couldn't take a civil claim, just that in the UK it isn't generally the done thing. Apart from anything else, it wouldn't be worth it for Paypal. The boys almost certainly have little in the way of assets, so Paypal wouldn't recover much (and it would cost them a bundle in legal fees). On top of that, they would just end up looking like a bullying corporation picking on some idiot boys who had paid for their crime by going to prison.
Slashdot Mirror
It looks like when it comes to TERRORISM, the authorities are taking a hard line on where discussion becomes planning.
'The men, from Luton, admitted one count of engaging in conduct in preparation for acts of terrorism between 1 January 2011 and 25 April 2012 at a hearing on 1 March.'
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/apr/18/luton-terror-plot-four-jailed
I have found the expensive hotels in the USA to be the worst for nickel & diming you. After you pay $600, they want extra to look after a bag, $15 if you want to drink the bottle of water beside your bed, etc.
Meanwhile down the road at the $60 place - water, wifi and service are included.
Having said that - there may be something in the fact that the luxury hotels were the first ones to install wifi throughout the building - back when it was really expensive to do. They installed it on the basis that they would be able to charge, and haven't updated their assumptions in the face of widespread free wifi.
Why do people insist on using PayPal for high value accounts?
because doing anything else is significantly harder / more expensive / less successful.
whilst it is clear that Paypal act like dicks on a frequent basis, they also provide an easy way to accept money from people all over the world in a way that is easy for the customer to use, and cheap/quick for the receiver to set up.
or to put it another way - can you suggest a better alternative?
The holodeck looks like fun. I'd like to spend most of my evenings playing there with my friends.
Also, I'd like a big cabin with a large forward facing window.
Both of those are scarce. How are they allocated?
What if I'm willing to take a smaller cabin in return for more holodeck time?
the smartphone market isn't necessarily a great baseline.
making up numbers completely, It could be argued:
they had 90% of the corporate_mobile_email_phone device market.
They now have 60% of the corporate_mobile_email_phone device market.
the broader smartphone market has exploded, and apart from a few niches where bbm is valued highly, they have almost completely failed to succeed in the new market.
not that I don't think they're dead - just that I like alternate perspectives!
This would just reassert the point that Google's TS are discriminatory, since they don't abide by them themselves, and the end result is that they can pick and choose which platforms get a full-fledged YouTube experience and which don't.
I don't see a problem with Google treating themselves differently to people who want to use their API. It would be entirely reasonable for them to have YouTube and offer no API at all.
Amongst other reasons - Google have the ability to update their own apps if they feel a need to change things in the future; They have less control over third parties, so they have a legitimate reason to care more about how third parties implement critical functionality like displaying adverts.
Yes, they pick and choose which platforms get full-fledged YouTube, just like the way Microsoft pick and choose which platforms get full-fledged Office. I don't have a problem with that either.
Can you give an example of a specific HTML5 feature in IE that YouTube would require? It supports a great deal of the standard as of IE10, you know.
In an official statement YouTube said:
"We're committed to providing users and creators with a great and consistent YouTube experience across devices, and we've been working with Microsoft to build a fully featured YouTube for Windows Phone app, based on HTML5. Unfortunately, Microsoft has not made the browser upgrades necessary to enable a fully-featured YouTube experience, and has instead re-released a YouTube app that violates our Terms of Service."
If you mean basically hosting the mobile YouTube page as is in a web browser control and calling that an app, then this is precisely what several dozen YouTube players for Windows Phone already do.
One sticking point seems to be their ad-serving code. Presumably, this is exactly how Google want it implemented (in a browser control).
The problem with this approach is that it plainly sucks, which makes the users annoyed. Google was asked to write an official app for WP, but refused, citing low market share. Hence the attempt by MS to fix this themselves.
So MS signed up to the google API terms and conditions, then thought they could break them.
I don't see what the controversy is here, Google doesn't want to release a windows phone app - they don't have to. I released one for one of my apps, and frankly it was a waste of my effort - the platform is insignificant (~3% smartphone sales).
If MS want to release an app, then they have to use the API and follow the terms like anyone else unless Google gives them special dispensation.
declared reason: because that's what the ts&cs require
my hypothesised reason: because that requires MS to implement html5 features in IE, and Google wants to have those features available for their own web-apps
possible additional reason: html5 player incorporates code which is under Google control, and provides them with greater control in the future if they need to update/change how some things work.
It's kind of embarrassing if your head of state gets killed.
Even if you don't particularly care for them - you might not want to face the political/pr fallout of such a visible fail.
A clock?
the shocking thing isn't so much that there are incidents where things go bad. As you say, there are lots of police, and lots of incidents - there will be some where things go wrong. The shocking thing is that there is almost never any consequence for the brutal officers.
Instead, the whole thing gets brushed under the carpet - sending a clear message to other officers that they are free to abuse their power without consequence. I have personally experienced officers casually lying in their statements to cover up a fairly minor offence by one of their own against me. Whilst most officers probably don't indulge in gratuitous brutality; It seems that most officers will not step in to stop it, or report it when they see it.
If the occasional 'bad act' resulted in all the officer's colleagues roundly condemning the actions and the discipline system enforcing significant punishment then I would start to believe that these were acts which did not represent the body of police as a whole.
Regarding the teenager incident you mention - this is actually a great case. Even if an office has been hit and knocked unconscious by a brick - the job of the arresting officers is to capture the teenager with a minimum of force and allow the legal system to administer justice. That's their job. However understandable their desire to give the kid a beating - it is not acceptable. They have a great deal of power and need to show restraint even (especially) when provoked.
My guess is that this is a direct response to Microsoft.
Google has been talking open-ness, and xmpp is part of that. Microsoft decided to connect messenger so that they could send messages to g-chat users, but didn't reciprocate in terms of allowing g-chat users to see messenger contacts. (I don't know the protocol, but I understand this is a valid use of an xmpp server, even if clearly parasitic).
Google have responded by shutting the whole thing down. 'Hey Microsoft -play nice, or we'll take our ball home'
I'm sure someone will step in to help small retailers with all the messiness. They'll probably call it an online shopping cart or something like that and it will automatically add the right sales tax based on the category of the item and the location of the purchaser.
If nobody steps up to provide a shopping cart that integrates with online sales tax filing services, then there is a great business opportunity for you. Be quick though.
there is a difference between 'struggling to compete with model xxx' and 'struggling to compete with someone who has a 5% tax advantage on prices'
it may well be that they can't compete and should die, but it isn't clear why there is anything fundamentally different between buying something at your shop, and buying it online from another state with respect to whether the government can/should add a tax.
You buy all your stuff online, I buy all my stuff from the local stores. Why am I the only one contributing to the state coffers?
you seem to be presenting a strange argument based on the incorrect idea that socialism in this context is a binary property of states.
clearly when we're talking about states, socialism is a matter of degree. The UK is much more socialist than the USA (universal healthcare, welfare benefits, pensions, etc). France is more socialist than the UK. The list goes on.
If you're going to define socialism as an extreme (Cuba, Venezuela) then that's ok - but I hope to see you leaping on the next debate about universal healthcare.
Someone: government is trying to force universal healthcare in the USA
Someone else: AAARGH - Socialism !!!
You: Nope, this is not socialism. Lots of countries which are neither Venezuela nor Cuba have universal healthcare and clearly they're not socialists.
Given that the suggestion that sales tax should not be avoidable merely by ordering goods from another state has resulted in a cry of socialism in this thread, I think you might find yourself fighting a lonely corner.
I can only speak for myself here. I ported my (fairly successful) app to Windows Phone. My reasoning was that MS was big enough, and Nokia committed enough that they would do whatever it takes to make WP work.
It was a very bad use of my time, I get a bit of cash from WP, but it is a rounding error compared to iOS, or even Android.
It may be that Windows and Nokia will do better in the future, but for now, it is an unrewarding platform.
Blackberry have spent a bunch of time trying to convince me to transfer my Android builds over to their platform, but even spending a day or two to make the necessary tweaks feels like a bad investment.
from a customer point of view - it really doesn't matter why this happened. If the playbook doesn't have the key apps then the customer will be unhappy.
no excuses blackberry: if you have to pay to get the port done, then you have to pay. If your platform is convincing enough that you don't have to pay - then well done to you, but you'd better make sure you're doing to outreach to ensure that the third parties are getting it together.
as for precedent - I don't think there is anything particularly dangerous here. They pay big players at the outset, then when (if) their platform is big enough, they stop paying.
It's good enough for James Bond.
Still - I don't understand why they put a big LED on it. It seems to me that when stealth is important, this would be a really bad feature for a spy's gun.
Perhaps I should patent the idea of a smart gun without any giveaway LED indicators.
for a while, I set up my iPhone app (VLC Remote) so that if it detected that it was pirated, then when you opened a movie, it was always this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
re steep.
this can only happen if
1) you lose a gazillion battles and get fined
2) you agree to do a bunch of stuff as part of your settlement
3) you don't do it (in a significant way)
4) it gets noticed
You have to work pretty hard to get down to #4. The EU wants companies to take #2 extremely seriously.
MS fought tooth and nail to avoid the fines in #1. The EU commission wants to make 100% sure that if they fight a battle all the way through, and win it -then the company doesn't think they can just ignore the result and get a slap on the wrist.
This makes a pretty clear statement. "When you agree to do stuff - you'd better do it. It might even be worth paying someone on your staff (perhaps in the audit/compliance dept) to do a check once a month to make sure you are keeping your promises."
are they too stupid, or do they just think that it is important that people see clearly what portion of their bill is taxes?
in the UK, the sales tax is marked into the price, so it's kinda invisible. In the USA, you're reminded about it every single time you purchase something.
_that_ is the problem.
Australia can make this a lot easier by changing the rules:
0) it's totally legal for people to import and re-sell stuff they buy legitimately elsewhere in the world
1) anyone bringing software in from the USA can easily pay sales tax on it before reselling (no other import duties though)
2) the manufacturing company isn't allowed to disadvantage the user merely for using software / product in Australia
#2 is hardest to balance. In the case of Microsoft,
-refusing to activate windows would not be acceptable.
-Saying that you have to get customer support on the standard usa numbers in usa times would be acceptable.
Seems to me that the newspapers didn't have a leg to stand on, and Google gave them a face-saving concession to let everyone walk away with their heads held high.
Google doesn't really care about the $60m, it's a fairly small sum, doesn't set a terrible precedent, and saves them the time and effort of fighting this battle.
Meanwhile, the government has achieved a concession and can walk away without an embarrassing loss of face.
Finally, the newspapers can opt out of google news using their robots.txt if they want to (as they always could).
My wifi has been open for years. I have frequently moved flat in the past and benefited from being able to use my neighbour's wifi for a week or two while I get internet installed. It costs me nothing to 'pay it forward'.
It depends on who they're going after.
I certainly cheered when they took on Sony over the Geohot affair.
There is a romantic appeal of the anonymous hero/vigilante righting wrongs from the shadows...
nope - this is England.
We're done now. The boys will serve their time (presumably 9 months with good behaviour) and then move on with their lives.
note: it's not that in theory Paypal couldn't take a civil claim, just that in the UK it isn't generally the done thing. Apart from anything else, it wouldn't be worth it for Paypal. The boys almost certainly have little in the way of assets, so Paypal wouldn't recover much (and it would cost them a bundle in legal fees). On top of that, they would just end up looking like a bullying corporation picking on some idiot boys who had paid for their crime by going to prison.