You don't. You legislate that expensive portable devices should take six years of abuse. Apple decides what to put in the device, and what to sell in the UK. That's their decision. If that means they don't sell the hard disk-based iPod in the UK, so be it.
Really? The only bit of relevant UK legislation is that the device should last a reasonable amount of time for the type of device. Even if a PC company only offered a 1 month warantee, you should be able to claim on the fact that is not a reasonable lifetime for a PC. It's not specifically clear legislation, but it exists. I don't know where the 6 year figure comes from though.
This could solve all the UK's problems with our current drought! An island nation, somehow surrounded by water, it sounds like it could be a great way to give us plenty of water to drink.
Although Thames Water fixing all the leaks could also be a huge help...
If there was one game i'd re-release on a console it'd be Goldeneye, simply because i think my N64 has given up the ghost, and i just don't want to admit the console's dead and test it properly...
My understanding as to why it's never been done is something to do with Rare and Microsoft, hence buggering up licencing for their old games. I hope this isn't so, it'd really be great fun.
True, although saying that i clicked the "Enable auto-updates" feature on the MS Update page and made sure to choose "Inform me of updates before downloading or installing them" option, i didn't want WGA installing on my PC.
5 minutes later i see a Security Centre icon in the bottom right and it's downloading and installing updates i didn't even agree to.
Windows Genuine Advantage "Your install is not valid" here i come...
I find it interesting that illegal copies of Windows aren't able to update the fix for the legal settlement. Microsoft have finally changed their WGA tool to "Do not allow update unless user PC submits 'Yes it's valid'" from "Do not allow update unless user PC submits 'No i'm not valid'", i thought it was odd the way their system worked before.
This is why i'm using Autopatcher XP (Annoying forum-based website), you can download the updates off them, see the details and unselect all the crap you don't want, without having to go through Microsoft and Windows validation. You just have to wait a while before they release the newest version.
Actually it means we know how much a product is going to cost when we purchase it, not how much it'll cost plus a little bit. We all know that it's basically 17.5% on most things, slightly odd on petrol, fags and booze, 0% on the rest.
We know what our tax is like, there's plenty of protests about it, especially petrol tax.
Re:What do they want it to do?
on
Viiv Falls Flat
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, phrased badly. The John Smith coming in and buying a PC won't set their PC up like that. They might well plan to do it, but will it ever end up happening? Only a small minority. Those that really plan to do something like that won't go and get a Viiv PC to do it all, they'll sort themselves out properly.
What do they want it to do?
on
Viiv Falls Flat
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Working at PC World, i've seen the marketing and blurb Intel are putting out about these things, and have had a nice Intel rep tell me all about the Viiv processor/PC thingies.
The flash animations he's got show you having one PC, a Viiv compatible stereo that can recieve your music wirelessly, a TV in the frontroom linked to your PC so you can use it as a PVR and so on. No-one will ever set their PC up like that, especially not the John Smith from the street that decides he wants a nice new PC.
The only thing Viiv offers the home user is a bloody fast PC, built in wireless (On a desktop, not that useful!) and a nifty instant-standby button that's not quite instant but about 5 seconds, very good for a PC to be honest. But is it this nice "platform" they advertise it as? No. What about all the Viiv compatible kit (See stereo above) that's meant to happen? I'd like to see it out and a price tag myself.
It's called misleading advertising. You buy a PC and it says "Comes with Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition", you see an advert for Windows it says "Buy Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition now for only £129.99" and so on. They don't say "Buy a licence for..." or anything like that, it's only till you take it home and install it you find it's a "licence".
If PC World can get attacked by the ASA for "misleading advertising" by using the phrase "Connect to the net anywhere with the builtin wireless technology", can't sell a product called "Champagne" or "Parma Ham" when it's not from the defined areas for that name, you shouldn't be able to "sell" Windows, but you should sell "A licence for Windows...".
That may be true, but seeing as he was trying to get access to military systems there is still quite a good possibility some absurd anti-terror legislations could be activated and he could get shipped to Guantanimo Bay.
I'm not certain about this, but i'm sure there's something about the UK not being allowed to extradite prisoners to a country where they face the possibility of the death penalty, detention in Guantanimo may fall under various clauses related to that (Imprisonment indefinately without trial, etc).
I work at PC World (UK Computer 'supermarket'), and the system works just like that too. They scan the barcode at the bottom of the receipt, the tills bring up the transaction and you can refund each item to the card without the card being present. If they want to exchange the product for a more expensive one, they still need the card with Chip & Pin to pay the remainder.
The software used on the tills is (very poorly made) custom software for the "Dixons Group". The only information available to the cashier is the last 4 digits of the card number when refunding (It has a select card to refund section if they used multiple cards, hence you need to tell which is which). Athough, on the transaction slip made when purchasing and is kept by the store (Authorisation of sale, the bit you used to sign) has all the details printed on it. I could take one of those and have your card information.
To be fair, isn't this an EU policy that just happened to go through when Blair was in charge of the EU? That doesn't really mean much in a system that takes months for stuff to process and go through. Why blame the UK for an EU policy? That's like blaming a State for US-wide laws.
The subjects of England (subject being the key word here) have no right to own firearms and they are screwed because they have no rights or liberties much less any means to overthrow their government.
That was legislation introduced by the government, so us having a monarchy isn't related to that. It's related to the fact we don't have a written constitution demanding we have firearms.
Just because we are technically subjects, doesn't mean we are. The Queen can technically overthrow the government if she wanted to, it's well within her power. However then the government will just remove the monarchy entirely. Our real problem is that Labour has had no real opposition for the last 9 years.
Exactly, and only with lots of cemras, like in the UK, can we hope to prevent terrorist attacks against subways, like what happened in the UK. Thank the UK government for that bit of amazing foresight, why if it weren't for those cameras in the UK, the terrorists would have been able to plant bombs in the subway and set them off! Instead, the terrorists were stopped completely by those cameras.
CCTV was never introduced in the UK as a blanket "This will stop terrorism". Instead they were introduced to reduce things such as violent crime, motoring offences, drunken behaviour. And they have been successful in that in large areas and city centres.
However they have been used to help with terrorist investigations. We know the London bombers, their network and a massive amount of background about their organisation and planning. We know they did a trial run 2 weeks beforehand, that there are links between them and the second bombing attempt. It's also a good argument against ID cards. The "These will stop terrorism" argument got crushed within a week, and we know the London bombers would've been full UK citizens with ID cards.
How about we scrap passport controls, didn't help with 9/11 bombers getting into the US did it? Nor did airport security help stop them boarding internal flights...
The above example is wrong on so many levels (e.g. nothing was done wrong in the first place, rather harsh punishment (can't drive for a year), likely targetted by sex and age, protecting a machine feelings, that this was noticed at all, the fact this was even prosecuted or wasn't even thrown out when the judge saw it or the guy was found guilty, camera used for reasons beyond its original intent, considering the intent of the camera why the camera was even taking the picture in the first place).
Erm, how about the fact that at that moment he wasn't in complete control of his vehicle? That's an offence in the UK, hence you can't use a mobile without a handsfree kit. Lets say that there was an accident just past that speed camera spot and he needed to do an emergency stop or steer out the way. How's he gonna do that staring at a camera and taking both hands off the wheel?
The cameras are also referred to in signs (Yes, all cameras must be signposted in a clear manner) as "Traffic Enforcement Cameras". Doesn't say speed cameras.
Seriously. I remember in the early 90s, tv ads for banks that ended with "...and remember, our staff will never ask for your credit card number over the phone."
I recently read about a credit card scam operating here at the moment. You'll get a call from the bank / card company asking to do a standard security check. The catch is they already know your card details from another source (Skimmed at a restaurant or whatever), so they'll quote you the last 4 digits of your card's number as is standard practice on receipts. Then they ask for the bits of information they need (Mother's maiden name, security code from the back of card...), and walk off with a nice cloned card that they can use anywhere.
Exactly. Just like NPR and PBS in the US. Not really, no.
Rich, snooty, big-city liberals force us working stiffs to give them money, so they can watch opera and documentaries on yacht seamanship without having to pay for it, or God forbid having to watch any icky commercials. Then they pat each other on the back for their pious civic-mindedness. Actually, there's been more opera on Channel 4 (A totally commercial based channel) then there's been on the BBC. If you want to believe it's just for the elite then so be it, but you'll find the BBC is a highly popular channel and provides a large amount of popular shows. Take a look at your TV and see how much of it is BBC programming or a BBC format (See "The Weakest Link").
If so-called "public" media were not living an elitist lie, it would be mostly NASCAR races and soaps. People complain the BBC has way too many soaps. It already has Eastenders on 3 times a week (Or 4, it was up to 4 times a week) with over an hour long omnibus of all the week's episodes on the Sunday. If that's not enough soaps i don't know what is.
You can moan about it from your one-sided view without having seen BBC output if you want, but it provides one of the (Or the most depending on who you listen to) best sources of national and international news, it's one of the least bias stations you'll ever see and has plenty of ways for the public to communicate their dislike of what they've seen. You regularly hear anti-BBC comments or complaints mixed in with other comments on the Breakfast News when they have the "Have Your Say" section. Most recently there were a large number of complaints about the non-publication of the cartoons. Be happy your "TV Licence" goes straight to cable companies that have no reason to provide you with anything of much quality once they've got your money.
It all depends how it works though, doesn't it? Instantly accusing it of being a flat tax on PCs would be the same as saying that the TV licence is a flat tax on TVs, it's not as it's per household. It would also depend on what would count as a taxable PC. A PC with a TV tuner (Already covered), a PC with internet access, a PC without internet access?
Also, it states in the article: "The Government reckons changes to the license fee will not be needed until 2017" Well, every home should have the ability to download TV shows by then in some form or another, so it's not like you'd be taxing a large number of people for the minority that can.
It also states that they're not just looking at taxing PCs randomly, nor that this is the only thing they're looking at: "In that event a fee based on television ownership could become redundant and the government could look at other ways to raise revenue, from subscriptions to taxing other access devices."
This isn't just about taxing for internet content either, it's about the ability for the BBC to continue as an advertisement free public channel, free from the restrains of lowest-common-denominator programming like Big Brother. When the idea of a Television as opposed to a PC and souped up monitor seems laughable, the BBC won't be able to survive on TV licences alone.
However, I would say that the symbol's use in video games isn't any worse than it being used on first aid boxes in real life. According to those rules, that's not allowed either. Currently, the symbol has become pretty synonymous with help or injury relief. I think that forcing things like first aid boxes and the like not to use the symbol would cause more harm with illiterate people than help the red cross.
Actually, a large number of crosses on things like first aid kits that you buy or see in places of work etc. [in the UK] have a green cross on them and are in a green box. If you've ever seen the BBC medical drama Casualty you'll see the logo and the whole title sequence is in green and green crosses. Same goes for large number of pharmacies and chemists in the UK too, all have green neon lights or signs.
Although saying that, the public associates the bold-style cross (In green or red) as being [emergency] medical treatment, so it's kind of irrelevant.
Slashdot Mirror
You forgot to mention the 0.04% nickel impurity!
You don't. You legislate that expensive portable devices should take six years of abuse. Apple decides what to put in the device, and what to sell in the UK. That's their decision. If that means they don't sell the hard disk-based iPod in the UK, so be it.
Really? The only bit of relevant UK legislation is that the device should last a reasonable amount of time for the type of device. Even if a PC company only offered a 1 month warantee, you should be able to claim on the fact that is not a reasonable lifetime for a PC. It's not specifically clear legislation, but it exists. I don't know where the 6 year figure comes from though.
Via:
2 PO Boxes
3 Foreign countries
A customer's secret, illegal account in the Cayman Islands
True, but that doesn't mean that by preordering it you're guaranteed anything, infact:
The website says that because of an expected European shortage, it cannot guarantee delivery before Christmas.
£550 for a console is outrageous, no matter what else you're getting, and to add to that you may not even get it by Christmas is taking it too far.
This could solve all the UK's problems with our current drought! An island nation, somehow surrounded by water, it sounds like it could be a great way to give us plenty of water to drink.
Although Thames Water fixing all the leaks could also be a huge help...
What are they gonna do? Send a popup to my machine every 10 minu...hang on a sec!
If there was one game i'd re-release on a console it'd be Goldeneye, simply because i think my N64 has given up the ghost, and i just don't want to admit the console's dead and test it properly...
My understanding as to why it's never been done is something to do with Rare and Microsoft, hence buggering up licencing for their old games. I hope this isn't so, it'd really be great fun.
True, although saying that i clicked the "Enable auto-updates" feature on the MS Update page and made sure to choose "Inform me of updates before downloading or installing them" option, i didn't want WGA installing on my PC.
5 minutes later i see a Security Centre icon in the bottom right and it's downloading and installing updates i didn't even agree to.
Windows Genuine Advantage "Your install is not valid" here i come...
I find it interesting that illegal copies of Windows aren't able to update the fix for the legal settlement. Microsoft have finally changed their WGA tool to "Do not allow update unless user PC submits 'Yes it's valid'" from "Do not allow update unless user PC submits 'No i'm not valid'", i thought it was odd the way their system worked before.
This is why i'm using Autopatcher XP (Annoying forum-based website), you can download the updates off them, see the details and unselect all the crap you don't want, without having to go through Microsoft and Windows validation. You just have to wait a while before they release the newest version.
Actually it means we know how much a product is going to cost when we purchase it, not how much it'll cost plus a little bit. We all know that it's basically 17.5% on most things, slightly odd on petrol, fags and booze, 0% on the rest.
We know what our tax is like, there's plenty of protests about it, especially petrol tax.
Dr. Emmet Brown, THE film scientist nut.
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 mph) = 30 757 874 newtons
Sorry, phrased badly. The John Smith coming in and buying a PC won't set their PC up like that. They might well plan to do it, but will it ever end up happening? Only a small minority. Those that really plan to do something like that won't go and get a Viiv PC to do it all, they'll sort themselves out properly.
Working at PC World, i've seen the marketing and blurb Intel are putting out about these things, and have had a nice Intel rep tell me all about the Viiv processor/PC thingies.
The flash animations he's got show you having one PC, a Viiv compatible stereo that can recieve your music wirelessly, a TV in the frontroom linked to your PC so you can use it as a PVR and so on. No-one will ever set their PC up like that, especially not the John Smith from the street that decides he wants a nice new PC.
The only thing Viiv offers the home user is a bloody fast PC, built in wireless (On a desktop, not that useful!) and a nifty instant-standby button that's not quite instant but about 5 seconds, very good for a PC to be honest. But is it this nice "platform" they advertise it as? No. What about all the Viiv compatible kit (See stereo above) that's meant to happen? I'd like to see it out and a price tag myself.
It's called misleading advertising. You buy a PC and it says "Comes with Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition", you see an advert for Windows it says "Buy Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition now for only £129.99" and so on. They don't say "Buy a licence for..." or anything like that, it's only till you take it home and install it you find it's a "licence".
If PC World can get attacked by the ASA for "misleading advertising" by using the phrase "Connect to the net anywhere with the builtin wireless technology", can't sell a product called "Champagne" or "Parma Ham" when it's not from the defined areas for that name, you shouldn't be able to "sell" Windows, but you should sell "A licence for Windows...".
That may be true, but seeing as he was trying to get access to military systems there is still quite a good possibility some absurd anti-terror legislations could be activated and he could get shipped to Guantanimo Bay.
I'm not certain about this, but i'm sure there's something about the UK not being allowed to extradite prisoners to a country where they face the possibility of the death penalty, detention in Guantanimo may fall under various clauses related to that (Imprisonment indefinately without trial, etc).
But they do know what they're talking about!
Elbot: "Who convinced you to come visit me?"
Me: "Slashdot"
Elbot: "That explains all these geeks who have been visiting me."
See!
I work at PC World (UK Computer 'supermarket'), and the system works just like that too. They scan the barcode at the bottom of the receipt, the tills bring up the transaction and you can refund each item to the card without the card being present. If they want to exchange the product for a more expensive one, they still need the card with Chip & Pin to pay the remainder.
The software used on the tills is (very poorly made) custom software for the "Dixons Group". The only information available to the cashier is the last 4 digits of the card number when refunding (It has a select card to refund section if they used multiple cards, hence you need to tell which is which). Athough, on the transaction slip made when purchasing and is kept by the store (Authorisation of sale, the bit you used to sign) has all the details printed on it. I could take one of those and have your card information.
To be fair, isn't this an EU policy that just happened to go through when Blair was in charge of the EU? That doesn't really mean much in a system that takes months for stuff to process and go through. Why blame the UK for an EU policy? That's like blaming a State for US-wide laws.
The subjects of England (subject being the key word here) have no right to own firearms and they are screwed because they have no rights or liberties much less any means to overthrow their government.
That was legislation introduced by the government, so us having a monarchy isn't related to that. It's related to the fact we don't have a written constitution demanding we have firearms.
Just because we are technically subjects, doesn't mean we are. The Queen can technically overthrow the government if she wanted to, it's well within her power. However then the government will just remove the monarchy entirely. Our real problem is that Labour has had no real opposition for the last 9 years.
Exactly, and only with lots of cemras, like in the UK, can we hope to prevent terrorist attacks against subways, like what happened in the UK. Thank the UK government for that bit of amazing foresight, why if it weren't for those cameras in the UK, the terrorists would have been able to plant bombs in the subway and set them off! Instead, the terrorists were stopped completely by those cameras.
CCTV was never introduced in the UK as a blanket "This will stop terrorism". Instead they were introduced to reduce things such as violent crime, motoring offences, drunken behaviour. And they have been successful in that in large areas and city centres.
However they have been used to help with terrorist investigations. We know the London bombers, their network and a massive amount of background about their organisation and planning. We know they did a trial run 2 weeks beforehand, that there are links between them and the second bombing attempt. It's also a good argument against ID cards. The "These will stop terrorism" argument got crushed within a week, and we know the London bombers would've been full UK citizens with ID cards.
How about we scrap passport controls, didn't help with 9/11 bombers getting into the US did it? Nor did airport security help stop them boarding internal flights...
The above example is wrong on so many levels (e.g. nothing was done wrong in the first place, rather harsh punishment (can't drive for a year), likely targetted by sex and age, protecting a machine feelings, that this was noticed at all, the fact this was even prosecuted or wasn't even thrown out when the judge saw it or the guy was found guilty, camera used for reasons beyond its original intent, considering the intent of the camera why the camera was even taking the picture in the first place).
Erm, how about the fact that at that moment he wasn't in complete control of his vehicle? That's an offence in the UK, hence you can't use a mobile without a handsfree kit. Lets say that there was an accident just past that speed camera spot and he needed to do an emergency stop or steer out the way. How's he gonna do that staring at a camera and taking both hands off the wheel?
The cameras are also referred to in signs (Yes, all cameras must be signposted in a clear manner) as "Traffic Enforcement Cameras". Doesn't say speed cameras.
Seriously. I remember in the early 90s, tv ads for banks that ended with "...and remember, our staff will never ask for your credit card number over the phone."
I recently read about a credit card scam operating here at the moment. You'll get a call from the bank / card company asking to do a standard security check. The catch is they already know your card details from another source (Skimmed at a restaurant or whatever), so they'll quote you the last 4 digits of your card's number as is standard practice on receipts. Then they ask for the bits of information they need (Mother's maiden name, security code from the back of card...), and walk off with a nice cloned card that they can use anywhere.
Exactly. Just like NPR and PBS in the US.
Not really, no.
Rich, snooty, big-city liberals force us working stiffs to give them money, so they can watch opera and documentaries on yacht seamanship without having to pay for it, or God forbid having to watch any icky commercials. Then they pat each other on the back for their pious civic-mindedness.
Actually, there's been more opera on Channel 4 (A totally commercial based channel) then there's been on the BBC. If you want to believe it's just for the elite then so be it, but you'll find the BBC is a highly popular channel and provides a large amount of popular shows. Take a look at your TV and see how much of it is BBC programming or a BBC format (See "The Weakest Link").
If so-called "public" media were not living an elitist lie, it would be mostly NASCAR races and soaps.
People complain the BBC has way too many soaps. It already has Eastenders on 3 times a week (Or 4, it was up to 4 times a week) with over an hour long omnibus of all the week's episodes on the Sunday. If that's not enough soaps i don't know what is.
You can moan about it from your one-sided view without having seen BBC output if you want, but it provides one of the (Or the most depending on who you listen to) best sources of national and international news, it's one of the least bias stations you'll ever see and has plenty of ways for the public to communicate their dislike of what they've seen. You regularly hear anti-BBC comments or complaints mixed in with other comments on the Breakfast News when they have the "Have Your Say" section. Most recently there were a large number of complaints about the non-publication of the cartoons. Be happy your "TV Licence" goes straight to cable companies that have no reason to provide you with anything of much quality once they've got your money.
It all depends how it works though, doesn't it? Instantly accusing it of being a flat tax on PCs would be the same as saying that the TV licence is a flat tax on TVs, it's not as it's per household. It would also depend on what would count as a taxable PC. A PC with a TV tuner (Already covered), a PC with internet access, a PC without internet access?
Also, it states in the article:
"The Government reckons changes to the license fee will not be needed until 2017"
Well, every home should have the ability to download TV shows by then in some form or another, so it's not like you'd be taxing a large number of people for the minority that can.
It also states that they're not just looking at taxing PCs randomly, nor that this is the only thing they're looking at:
"In that event a fee based on television ownership could become redundant and the government could look at other ways to raise revenue, from subscriptions to taxing other access devices."
This isn't just about taxing for internet content either, it's about the ability for the BBC to continue as an advertisement free public channel, free from the restrains of lowest-common-denominator programming like Big Brother. When the idea of a Television as opposed to a PC and souped up monitor seems laughable, the BBC won't be able to survive on TV licences alone.
However, I would say that the symbol's use in video games isn't any worse than it being used on first aid boxes in real life. According to those rules, that's not allowed either. Currently, the symbol has become pretty synonymous with help or injury relief. I think that forcing things like first aid boxes and the like not to use the symbol would cause more harm with illiterate people than help the red cross.
Actually, a large number of crosses on things like first aid kits that you buy or see in places of work etc. [in the UK] have a green cross on them and are in a green box. If you've ever seen the BBC medical drama Casualty you'll see the logo and the whole title sequence is in green and green crosses. Same goes for large number of pharmacies and chemists in the UK too, all have green neon lights or signs.
Although saying that, the public associates the bold-style cross (In green or red) as being [emergency] medical treatment, so it's kind of irrelevant.