I know that I'm really late into this, but I'd like to say "thanks" for your refreshing honesty.
Christ knows it makes a change from the self-righteous bullshitting that dominates every copyright-related topic.
"Stealth tax" has to be one of the most inappropriate terms ever devised. Anyone who isn't aware of the existence these taxes is clearly too fucking stupid to be able to do anything with the information if they were given it. VAT, in particular, is roughly as "stealthy" as a man riding on an elephant, shouting: "it's Value-Added Tax! It's a tax! A tax on things you buy!" through a megaphone.
The great irony is that the term was thought up by the Conservatives as a way of making Labour's tax regime sound very, very scary indeed, which is odd, when you consider that the Conservatives were traditionally in favour of indirect taxation as an alternative to income tax.
I just can't believe that you've got a userid as low as yours and you haven't noticed the "nationalistic Slashdot ethos", though. Without it, some topics would never get past First Post;-)
These topics always end up (or more accurately, start with, since it usually happens within the first few posts) as "British people aren't free. Only Americans are free". The governance of broadcasting, gun ownership, rights that are enshrined in the US constitution but merely implied in the UK, whatever.
Yes, you're right: the management of the BBC is an important issue. The fact is, though, that the existing management arrangements - the ones that have been in place for the last ten years and are now being reviewed/renewed/tinkered with - would have fallen foul of the Slashdot ethos of "there is one true model of freedom and we're it". It would be interesting to know, though, whether the US networks - as free from government influence as they are - have subjected their government's pronouncements on Iraq to the same level of scrutiny as the BBC has ours'.
This was the basis of the lawsuit brought by Winston Groom, the author of the original book, against the makers of Forrest Gump, IIRC.
I can't find a detailed account of the case online, but the essence of it was that Groom had a deal with Paramount for a percentage of the gross profits of the movie, only to be told that the film didn't make a profit and that he was therefore entitled to nothing. When he went to court to contest the claim that one of the most successful movies of all time hadn't made a profit, the studio argued that they had had to pay out millions of dollars for marketing - to (something like) Paramount Marketing Inc.; millions more for contract services - to (something like) - Paramount Contract Services Inc.; millions more for etc. etc.; and all of it to companies which were themselves owned by Paramount. These costs were so huge that the movie did not, technically, make a profit.
There's an interesting article about the practice of "Martian Accounting" here.
Conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime of and in itself, even if the conspired-over crime doesn't actually occur. The judgement in United States v. Bayer, 331 U.S. 532 (1947) states that:
"But here we think the District Court correctly ruled that the two charges did not accuse of identical offenses. The indictment is for conspiring and we have but recently reviewed the nature of that offense. Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 . Its essence is in the agreement or confederation to commit a crime, and that is what is punishable as a conspiracy, if any overt act is taken in pursuit of it. The agreement is punishable whether or not the contemplated crime is consummated. But the same overt acts charged in a conspiracy count may also be charged and proved as substantive offenses, for the agreement to do the act is distinct from the act itself. " (Section 4)
This case was still being cited as precedent in cases within the last couple of years, so I guess it's still current.
IANAL - and even if I was, I wouldn't be a lawyer in the USA. Just thought I'd better mention that.
"MS-BS" is right, inasmuch as the article is about MS and it is BS. It's central argument, that "The obscure, anti-user provision at issue allows Microsoft or any software vendor to scan user systems and (implicitly) to take whatever actions deemed appropriate in determining compliance with its own view of licensing terms" is simply nonsense.
I haven't read the entire act, so there may be some subtleties that I'm missing, but the section in question quite plainly states that a vendor could scan your system: "solely to determine whether the user of the computer is authorized to use such software". That would be solely, as in "for the sole purpose of". It doesn't say a word about "taking whatever actions deemed appropriate...". It means that software activation, for example, is permissible; as is checking if software is legit prior to downloading patches or upgrades.
The article's outpouring of paranoia about MS getting a "a quiet, post-election gift" from some legislator is a crock of tinfoil hat-wearing crap.
These figures compare very favourably with other metropolitan areas in England (something not readily demonstrated from the Home Office site without using an awful lot of links, so you can check them yourself if you want). You're less likely to be burgled in Liverpool than in any metropolitan area apart from London, which is slightly better. You're less likely to be robbed in Liverpool than in London, the West Midlands or Manchester, and about as likely as in South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire.
There are categories of crime where the risk in Liverpool is greater than elsewhere, but people nicking your stuff - stereotype or no stereotype - isn't one of them.
Sorry to go on about this. I'm pretty sure that you were simply observing that the stereotype exists, rather than trying to perpetuate it; but I live there and it hacks me off when people drag these things out when there isn't a shred of evidence for them.
Royal Mail briefly had a new name - Consignia - but it was nothing to do with Blair. It was yet another product of powerful Pointy-Haired-Boss / crazed branding consultancy synergy.
Day 1: Devolution for Lancashie (assuming you mean the historical boundaries)
Day 2: Civil war between Manchester and Liverpool begins
Day 4: Preston secedes, taking the entire north of the county with it
Day 5: US-led coalition invades to restore democracy and peace
According to this Dutch university site, the 1938 population of France was just under 42 million. According to this site French fatalities in WW2 were 810,000, which is roughly 2% (although that is fatalities only: presumably there were numerous non-fatal casualties of various kinds).
Alternatively, the Dutch site linked above gives the 1946 population of France as 40.3 million, which is a reduction of 1.6 million, or 3.9%, from the pre-war population.
Actually, I don't think that these figures do anything to undermine the parent poster's argument. It's very easy for people who have never experienced that kind of horror - and probably never will - to sit at their keyboards and decry the restriction of freedom of speech in France and Germany. Those restrictions don't exist for no reason, though. They're the result of profound national traumas way in excess of anything that any American - and even Brit (that would be me) - has had to endure in the last century or more.
All the same, the argument isn't really helped by wildly inaccurate statistics like that 70% figure.
The ratio of baby girls to boys in China is a cultural thing exacerbated by government policies. Far from wanting to regulate it, I imagine that the government would be only too happy if the populace allowed nature to take its course in gender selection.
The "one child" policy creates a huge premium on having a male child. Boys are regarded as preferable to girls for several reasons - not least because they can continue the family line. Quoting from this article, which appeared in Hong Kong newspaper in 1995:
"The birth of a girl has never been a cause for celebration in China, and stories of peasant farmers drowning new born girls in buckets of water have been commonplace for centuries. Now, however, as a direct result of the one-child policy, the number of baby girls being abandoned, aborted, or dumped on orphanage steps is unprecedented.
It is impossible to overstate both how crucial the one-child policy is to China's stability and how rigidly it is enforced. Everyone agrees that if the population, already at 1.2 billion, is allowed to grow, the result will be economic collapse, environmental ruin, famine
"
In fact, the Chinese government has tried to get people to place a higher value on baby girls, in an attempt to stave off future social problems resulting from the huge gender imbalance in the population. Here's one example: a quick Google will turn up others. The cultural predisposition towards baby boys, allied to the knowledge that you won't be allowed to "try for a boy" if your first-born happens to be a girl, has to make you think that their efforts are doomed to fail.
To be honest, I don't care what system you want to install on your frontier. It's your country, after all. Do what you like with it.
What fucks me off is that we don't do it right back to you. Nothing personal (I like Americans - in my experience they're very friendly and have a tremendous generosity of spirit), but if I'm going to be treated like a criminal in your country, I'd like to see my government adopting the same measures with you, rather than bending down to check if the USA's got any last few remaining cling-ons that need licking out from its collective arse crack. Of course, the failing there lies not with the US government, but with our own.
The same section of the Act (section 19(3)) also lists:
(c) access to and use of information services;
The Disability Rights Commission's Code of Practice (an MS-Word document!! You want para 2.17) uses as one of its examples of "What services are affected by part III of the Act":
"An airline company provides a flight reservation and booking service to the public on its website. This is a provision of a service and is subject to the Act."
The Code of Practice is not the same as the law, of course, and could be challenged in court. But it is an interpretation of the law made by an organisation which could be assumed to be well-informed on the issue and on the precise wording of the law.
Whether you approve of the underlying philosophy or not, it seems pretty clear that this sort of thing is covered.
A tape of a broadcast isn't proof, it's evidence. It might be conclusive evidence, but even that isn't the same thing as proof.
The burden of proof should lie with the accuser (even though, let's not forget, we're actually discussing an administrative procedure, rather than a criminal prosecution). That means that they should be able to present evidence in support of their case. That's really a separate issue from "who has to maintain the historical record". I think that it's perfectly appropriate that the braodcasters should bear that responsibility.
If the historical record contains evidence which supports the accuser's case, I think that they should be able to call upon it (similar, I suppose, to subpoenaing it). The broadcasters aren't being forced to incriminate themselves: the tape might be incriminating evidence, but that's a different thing.
It's also worth noting that in most cases there seems to be little or no dispute about what was broadcast (I'm basing this on a cursory study of the FCC's website, and particularly this pdf, and a marginally more detailed look at its UK equivalent's website). The dispute is much more often about whether what was broadcast was or was not indecent or offensive in context.
"granting maximum copyright/exhibition right to the procuders moves the scale a big way to the procuders"
Read the article. The kid was caught at a midnight showing on the movie's day of release. How long a copyright period do you think is reasonable? Is two hours and seven minutes too long?
According to my 1976 edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary (I don't have ready access to the full-on OED in all its multi-volume glory), "Craft" is a noun or a verb, with its roots in Old English. No doubt the OED itself has citations going back centuries, but I don't have them. The OED's online edition is a subscription-only service, and I don't have one (and neither does anyone else who doesn't have GBP 195 + VAT to spend on a dictionary subscription)
I shouldn't really be bothering with this shit, but as someone who (1) is not from Liverpool; but (2) chooses to live there (to the extent that I actively pursued jobs there), just let me point out that it has all of the benefits of living in a major city - theatres (now emerging from what I admit has been a not-very-glorious period in their history); art house cinema; an excellent library; extremely good museums and art galleries; a good range of restaurants etc.; decent shopping etc. It also has convenient access to Manchester, which has most of the same advantages, and has excellent shopping and restaurants. It also has - and in this it's almost unique among major English provincial cities - easy acces to some really nice beaches. I can be on the beach within five minutes of leaving my house, and on a really nice beach in fifteen.
There are very, very many places which are worse to live in than Liverpool (and I've lived in several of them - Hemel Hempstead, anyone?)
Make as many Harry Enfield "scouser" references as you like: I'm not going to reply to them because I'm too busy. I didn't really have time to write this, but I couldn't bring myself to let it pass.
Perhaps he could have "crafted" a response; a well-established usage which would have conveyed exactly the sense that you've described.
Quite why everybody's suddenly noticed the abysmally low standard of English grammar around here, or what this has to do with spam filters, is beyond me, though.
While the current administration has made US-bashing almost too easy, it would be nice if there was more recognition outside the US that, as often as not, wherever there's an American (corporate or otherwise) buggering up the world in the pursuit of profit, there's another American working to try and put it right.
Slashdot Mirror
I know that I'm really late into this, but I'd like to say "thanks" for your refreshing honesty. Christ knows it makes a change from the self-righteous bullshitting that dominates every copyright-related topic.
The great irony is that the term was thought up by the Conservatives as a way of making Labour's tax regime sound very, very scary indeed, which is odd, when you consider that the Conservatives were traditionally in favour of indirect taxation as an alternative to income tax.
I just can't believe that you've got a userid as low as yours and you haven't noticed the "nationalistic Slashdot ethos", though. Without it, some topics would never get past First Post ;-)
Yes, you're right: the management of the BBC is an important issue. The fact is, though, that the existing management arrangements - the ones that have been in place for the last ten years and are now being reviewed/renewed/tinkered with - would have fallen foul of the Slashdot ethos of "there is one true model of freedom and we're it". It would be interesting to know, though, whether the US networks - as free from government influence as they are - have subjected their government's pronouncements on Iraq to the same level of scrutiny as the BBC has ours'.
I can't find a detailed account of the case online, but the essence of it was that Groom had a deal with Paramount for a percentage of the gross profits of the movie, only to be told that the film didn't make a profit and that he was therefore entitled to nothing. When he went to court to contest the claim that one of the most successful movies of all time hadn't made a profit, the studio argued that they had had to pay out millions of dollars for marketing - to (something like) Paramount Marketing Inc.; millions more for contract services - to (something like) - Paramount Contract Services Inc.; millions more for etc. etc.; and all of it to companies which were themselves owned by Paramount. These costs were so huge that the movie did not, technically, make a profit.
There's an interesting article about the practice of "Martian Accounting" here.
IANAL - and even if I was, I wouldn't be a lawyer in the USA. Just thought I'd better mention that.
I haven't read the entire act, so there may be some subtleties that I'm missing, but the section in question quite plainly states that a vendor could scan your system: "solely to determine whether the user of the computer is authorized to use such software". That would be solely, as in "for the sole purpose of". It doesn't say a word about "taking whatever actions deemed appropriate...". It means that software activation, for example, is permissible; as is checking if software is legit prior to downloading patches or upgrades.
The article's outpouring of paranoia about MS getting a "a quiet, post-election gift" from some legislator is a crock of tinfoil hat-wearing crap.
I suspect that this is true in the UK as well. I know lots of people for whom "all you can eat" is a challenge not to be shirked.
But let's not even do that, particularly when the facts don't support it:
Home Office statistics for burglary - Merseyside against national average
Same again, for robbery"
These figures compare very favourably with other metropolitan areas in England (something not readily demonstrated from the Home Office site without using an awful lot of links, so you can check them yourself if you want). You're less likely to be burgled in Liverpool than in any metropolitan area apart from London, which is slightly better. You're less likely to be robbed in Liverpool than in London, the West Midlands or Manchester, and about as likely as in South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire.
There are categories of crime where the risk in Liverpool is greater than elsewhere, but people nicking your stuff - stereotype or no stereotype - isn't one of them.
Sorry to go on about this. I'm pretty sure that you were simply observing that the stereotype exists, rather than trying to perpetuate it; but I live there and it hacks me off when people drag these things out when there isn't a shred of evidence for them.
Fortunately, public ridicule saved the day.
Day 2: Civil war between Manchester and Liverpool begins
Day 4: Preston secedes, taking the entire north of the county with it
Day 5: US-led coalition invades to restore democracy and peace
Day 1: Devolution for Lancashie (assuming you mean the historical boundaries) Day 2: Civil war between Manchester and Liverpool begins Day 4: Preston secedes, taking the entire north of the county with it Day 5: US-led coalition invades to restore democracy and peace
Isn't this sort of process the basis of a lot of weather forecasting?
According to this Dutch university site, the 1938 population of France was just under 42 million. According to this site French fatalities in WW2 were 810,000, which is roughly 2% (although that is fatalities only: presumably there were numerous non-fatal casualties of various kinds).
Alternatively, the Dutch site linked above gives the 1946 population of France as 40.3 million, which is a reduction of 1.6 million, or 3.9%, from the pre-war population.
Actually, I don't think that these figures do anything to undermine the parent poster's argument. It's very easy for people who have never experienced that kind of horror - and probably never will - to sit at their keyboards and decry the restriction of freedom of speech in France and Germany. Those restrictions don't exist for no reason, though. They're the result of profound national traumas way in excess of anything that any American - and even Brit (that would be me) - has had to endure in the last century or more.
All the same, the argument isn't really helped by wildly inaccurate statistics like that 70% figure.
The "one child" policy creates a huge premium on having a male child. Boys are regarded as preferable to girls for several reasons - not least because they can continue the family line. Quoting from this article, which appeared in Hong Kong newspaper in 1995:
"The birth of a girl has never been a cause for celebration in China, and stories of peasant farmers drowning new born girls in buckets of water have been commonplace for centuries. Now, however, as a direct result of the one-child policy, the number of baby girls being abandoned, aborted, or dumped on orphanage steps is unprecedented.
It is impossible to overstate both how crucial the one-child policy is to China's stability and how rigidly it is enforced. Everyone agrees that if the population, already at 1.2 billion, is allowed to grow, the result will be economic collapse, environmental ruin, famine "
In fact, the Chinese government has tried to get people to place a higher value on baby girls, in an attempt to stave off future social problems resulting from the huge gender imbalance in the population. Here's one example: a quick Google will turn up others. The cultural predisposition towards baby boys, allied to the knowledge that you won't be allowed to "try for a boy" if your first-born happens to be a girl, has to make you think that their efforts are doomed to fail.
What fucks me off is that we don't do it right back to you. Nothing personal (I like Americans - in my experience they're very friendly and have a tremendous generosity of spirit), but if I'm going to be treated like a criminal in your country, I'd like to see my government adopting the same measures with you, rather than bending down to check if the USA's got any last few remaining cling-ons that need licking out from its collective arse crack. Of course, the failing there lies not with the US government, but with our own.
The Disability Rights Commission's Code of Practice (an MS-Word document!! You want para 2.17) uses as one of its examples of "What services are affected by part III of the Act":
"An airline company provides a flight reservation and booking service to the public on its website. This is a provision of a service and is subject to the Act."
The Code of Practice is not the same as the law, of course, and could be challenged in court. But it is an interpretation of the law made by an organisation which could be assumed to be well-informed on the issue and on the precise wording of the law.
Whether you approve of the underlying philosophy or not, it seems pretty clear that this sort of thing is covered.
The burden of proof should lie with the accuser (even though, let's not forget, we're actually discussing an administrative procedure, rather than a criminal prosecution). That means that they should be able to present evidence in support of their case. That's really a separate issue from "who has to maintain the historical record". I think that it's perfectly appropriate that the braodcasters should bear that responsibility.
If the historical record contains evidence which supports the accuser's case, I think that they should be able to call upon it (similar, I suppose, to subpoenaing it). The broadcasters aren't being forced to incriminate themselves: the tape might be incriminating evidence, but that's a different thing.
It's also worth noting that in most cases there seems to be little or no dispute about what was broadcast (I'm basing this on a cursory study of the FCC's website, and particularly this pdf, and a marginally more detailed look at its UK equivalent's website). The dispute is much more often about whether what was broadcast was or was not indecent or offensive in context.
And scariest of all, you haven't met Billy Piper's mother-in-law's son. Hideous!
Read the article. The kid was caught at a midnight showing on the movie's day of release. How long a copyright period do you think is reasonable? Is two hours and seven minutes too long?
According to my 1976 edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary (I don't have ready access to the full-on OED in all its multi-volume glory), "Craft" is a noun or a verb, with its roots in Old English. No doubt the OED itself has citations going back centuries, but I don't have them. The OED's online edition is a subscription-only service, and I don't have one (and neither does anyone else who doesn't have GBP 195 + VAT to spend on a dictionary subscription)
There are very, very many places which are worse to live in than Liverpool (and I've lived in several of them - Hemel Hempstead, anyone?)
Make as many Harry Enfield "scouser" references as you like: I'm not going to reply to them because I'm too busy. I didn't really have time to write this, but I couldn't bring myself to let it pass.
Quite why everybody's suddenly noticed the abysmally low standard of English grammar around here, or what this has to do with spam filters, is beyond me, though.
What this has to do with the guy's spam filter is a mystery to me, though.
While the current administration has made US-bashing almost too easy, it would be nice if there was more recognition outside the US that, as often as not, wherever there's an American (corporate or otherwise) buggering up the world in the pursuit of profit, there's another American working to try and put it right.