I agree that the religion of the people involved in the SCO fiasco is not relevant and that neither Slashdot nor LinuxWorld are suitable places for discussing discussing whose religion is more "whacko". That said, I think that it is fair to say that the beliefs of the Witnesses (the first word of their name is blasphemous in my own tradition) are closer to those of mainstream Christianity. The Witnesses are in most respects a fairly standard "fundamentalist" Protestant group, distinguished primarily by the fact that they are in the odd position of being failed millenialists. That is, they have predicted several times that the end of the world would occur on a particular date. Unless we're all dreaming, they got it wrong. They also are unusual in their interpretation of the Bible as prohibiting blood transfusion.
The LDS hold a number of beliefs that are quite different from those of mainstream Christianity. In addition to having additional Scriptures, they believe that God is married, and that he and Mrs. God make physical love and produce baby gods. This belief was apparently the thing that most outraged mainstream Christians in the US and led to the vicious persection of the Mormons that led them to move to Utah. A good Mormon doesn't just go to heavan - he becomes the god of his own universe.
My general impression is that a lot of people who haven't had much contact with Mormons and don't know much about them think, on the one hand, that Mormon theology is closer to mainstream Christianity than it really is, and on the other hand, that Mormons are socially more different from other people than they really are. Whether or not you consider them Christian depends on what you think the fundamental criteria are, but it is true that Mormon theology differs in some significant respects from that of other branches of Christianity. On the other hand, in my experience Mormons are generally nice, family-oriented people who make good neighbors.
Once upon a time a filibuster delayed a vote indefinitely and could therefore prevent the Senate from consenting to a nomination, but in 1917 the Senate adopted the cloture rule, which allowed the Senate to bring a filibuster to an end and force a vote by a vote 2/3 of the Senate. So the effect of a filibuster since then has been to refuse consent only when fewer than 2/3 of the Senators are prepared to bring the matter to a vote. The effect is, thus, in effect, to require at least a 2/3 majority. By the way, the Senate historian has a nice web page on the history of the filibuster.
I'm not sure about the current procedure, but I'm not aware that the rules governing filibusters have actually changed. (Judging by an episode of The West Wing I recall seeing during the past few months, they haven't, but I wouldn't want to base an argument on that.) It may be that the Senate has become wimpy and just folds at the threat of a filibuster, but as far as I know, if those favoring a vote stand their ground, the speaker still has to go through the pain of delivering a real filibuster. If the procedure has changed, I can see that it seems unfair not to make the users of the filibuster pay by having to go through the lack of sleep and raw throat and so forth, but from my perspective of it being a roundabout way of imposing a requirement of a supermajority, which I consider to be desirable in the case of judicial nominations anyhow, I don't see any need to make the "culprits" atone for their "sin".
This kind of tactic for shutting up critics is so common that there is an acronym for them: they're called SLAPP suits, for "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation". They have been used especially by developers against environmental and/or community critics of their projects. They have been so badly abused that some states have passed legislation against them. They problem with them is that they are filed by organizations with lots of money, who can afford to pay their lawyers, against individuals or organizations that are often unincorporated and usually impecunious, who can ill afford to pay for legal advice and representation. Those threatened with SLAPP suits are therefore likely to give in even when the suit has no merit.
Uh, I think all of the above are wrong. In the US federal courts there is a right to a jury in civil cases in certain circumstances. The legal basis for this in the Constitution is difficult to interpret today since the value of money has changed considerably and since it involved the distinction between law and equity which has since been abolished. Roughly speaking the current rule is that there is a right to a jury in suits for monetary damages of some significance. In other cases, such as cases where the remedy sought is an injunction, there is no right to a jury. There is also no right to a jury in cases under Admiralty Law. That is one clear restriction that survives from the Constitution.
State courts have their own rules and are governed primarily by state legislation, though by virtue of the 14th Amendment it is not impossible for the federal constitution to bear on the state systems.
States generally have rules similar to the federal rules but not necessarily identical.
It is true that when there is a right to a jury trial the jury may be dispensed with if both parties consent. To my knowledge there is no situation in which a jury is required against the wishes of both parties.
Good discussion in general, but I think there's an unjustified leap of logic in your claim that filibustering undermines the system in which the President appoints and the Senate advises and consents. To begin with, note that he appoints "with the advice and consent" of the Senate. It's not as if the Senate is obligated to consent, with its consent ultimately just a ritual. More importantly, there's nothing in the Constitution, and nothing that I've ever heard of in what we know of the Framers' intentions (such as the Federalist Papers) or elsewhere in the legal tradition, that equates the Senate properly fulfilling its role with taking every nomination to a vote or consenting on the basis of a simple majority. Suppose that the Constitution required a 2/3 majority, or even the unanimous consent of the Senate. Would that alter the fundamental nature of the system? Would it shift the balance of powers significantly to the legislative branch? I don't think so.
The filibuster is essentially a long-winded way requiring a super-majority for confirmation. I don't think that's a bad thing at all. It would of course be more efficient to do this directly rather than by a roundabout means such as the filibuster. If I were (re)writing the Constitution, I would do exactly that. Judicial appointments are very important, have long-term effects, and except in extreme cases, cannot be undone. They ought to be as insulated as possible from partisan politics. Requiring a supermajority maximizes that insulation and sets standards higher. Bush and his allies are trying to ram through the small minority of his nominees that cannot gain bipartisan support because they have such strong biases and weak legal records. That is exactly what the Framers intended to impede, and it is a goal that would be assisted by requiring a super-majority. Failing that, the filibuster is the best available tool for accomplishing this worthy goal.
then it is an open and shut case of libel, which is against the law.
Not really. If "against the law" has its normal interpretation of "being a crime", then in most jurisdictions libel is not "against the law". In all jurisdictions that I know anything about (US, Canada, and Great Britain) libel is first and foremost a tort, that is, something that is recognized as the basis for a civil suit.
There is such a thing as "criminal libel". Indeed, in some places there is or has been a crime known as "blasphemous libel". However, almost everywhere criminal libel has been removed from the criminal code or, where it remains on the books, is never prosecuted. That's partly because of a prevailing attitude that it isn't something that damages the public in general and hence should be dealt with as a matter of private law, and partly because it raises greater issues of freedom of speech. It's one thing for the government to supply a means of addressing a private grievance. It's another for the government make speech a crime. There are circumstances when it is acceptable for the government to do so, but they are limited. Generally speaking the legal community has recognized that issues of freedom of speech are reduced if criminal prosecution is not involved.
Really, its true. I had occasion to read the specs for PDF (designed by Adobe) and RTF (designed by Microsoft) a couple of years ago. The PDF spec is much more complex and at 1200 pages about 3 times the length of the RTF spec. My feeling on reading the PDF spec was that it was written by smart people. Some things were more complicated than I would have liked, but there was a reason for it.
In contrast, the RTF spec gave me the feeling that the people who wrote it weren't all that bright. Lots of things seemed clunky for no good reason. The exposition was often murky and poorly organized.
Yes, there's a difference between sound pressure level and sound power, but the relationship is not such as to make 55 bels a plausible level. That has to be an error for decibels. Sound power is proportional to the square of the pressure. Since these are logarithmic measures, the result is to introduce a factor of two. Here is a handout
that explains the relationship.
I was interested by some of the history mentioned in Prof. Dannenberg's letter and wonder if anybody can fill in some details. One interesting point was the statement that the music industry sued the company that produced the first recordings of Louis Armstrong for patent infringment. I am vaguely aware that there was discrimination against black musicians, but what does that have to do with patent infringment? The other interesting point was the claim that NBC and CBS kept out technological improvements until ABC broke their monopoly. What technology did they suppress? Why?
It isn't entirely true that trademarks are restricted to a particular industry/type of product. There's an exception to this when the mark becomes very widely known in association with a wide range of products. If I want to market "Juicy Fruit" hiking boots, I'm probably okay since "Juicy Fruit" is a mark associated (as far as I know) only with a brand of chewing gum, and chewing gum and hiking boots are very different products. On the other hand, if I decide to market "Sears" hiking boots I'm going to have a problem, even if Sears doesn't have have its own brand of hiking boots, because Sears sells, and in many
cases has its own brands for, a wide variety of goods and is a widely known company.
Lenovo may be a private corporation, but a good chunk of their market is, or will be, in China, where many of the buyers will part of the government, and in any case, in China even private companies are subject to a lot of government influence. It is true that Lenovo will probably continue to provide MS Windows where they think it will be profitable; I don't expect them to take a purely ideological stance. At the same time, between government pressure, the growing Chinese Linux market, and the widespread desire of Chinese people not to be controlled by or beholden to foreign companies, Lenovo will have a lot of motivation not to insist on pre-loading MS Windows on every machine.
Sure, I wasn't suggesting that they would refuse to provide MS Windows, just that they wouldn't insist on it. If they don't want to deal with MS, or if it becomes problematic because they won't sell all their machines preloaded, they might ship machines with no OS or Linux, with MS Windows installation done by OEMs or retailers for those who want it.
It could go beyond meaningless words. For instance, in the New Boy Scouts (TM), if you start to help an old lady across the street and she mentions that she has been downloading MP3s of hymns, you're supposed to abandon her so that she gets run over.:)
Here's a case in which the standard question "but does it run Linux?" is actually relevant. China getting into the PC business in a big way could have an impact on the availability of machines on which one doesn't have to pay the Microsoft tax. With China explicitly interested in independence from Microsoft, it seems likely that they won't play ball with Microsoft and will offer machines with no OS or with Linux pre-installed.
It's true that juries will do the darndest things, but the case will only reach a jury if the judge decides: (a) that the suit satisfies various legal requirements (standing, jurisdiction, etc.) and (b) that there is a significant issue of fact in dispute. Furthermore, in a civil suit such as this, there isn't always a right to a jury trial. The rules for determining when there is a right to a jury trial in a civil suit in federal court are complicated, but generally speaking, when the relief requested is just an injunction (as opposed to monetary damages) there is no right to a jury trial. (Here's
a summary of the rules.) So, this case will almost certainly be decided by a judge.
Uh, I think this is actually suggested in the letter that SCO's Darl McBride sent to the members of Congress, wasn't it? Something about how the enemy would learn all our secrets from the source. (Silly SCO people, who don't know that only Jedi Knights can use the source...)
Sorry but this is not a rebuttal of what I said. I said that the Register article's claims:
are not backed up by any evidence
That remains true: the Register article doesn't specify what statements PJ retracted, with quotes and/or links. So even if the Register's claim were right, it is true that it gave no EVIDENCE for it, which is what I said.
As to the correctness of the Register's claims,
what PJ "admits" is that she made a small modification to ONE statement. Contrast that with the Register article's claim that:
some of the phrases we quote have already disappeared
As far as I can tell, NO phrases have "disappeared", and only one statement has been modified, in a rather minor way. This is hardly vindication for the Register article's overblown claims.
I found it difficult to see the point of the Register article. There was very little in it that was actually inconsistent with what has appeared on Groklaw. The main theme seemed to be that Groklwas was wrong to think that it had made a big discovery about Project Monterey, but Groklaw has never claimed to have made such a discovery, just to have assembled lots of evidence that counters SCO's claims. The Register article's claims about PJ retracting statements are not backed up by any evidence.
As for Groklaw's alleged errors helping SCO, I don't see it. At worst, Groklaw has exaggerated the significance of the history of Project Monterey. SCO has made no hay out of this, and I don't see how it could, even if the Register's claims were true.
Virtual Reality is all they use at the Bush White House. They've got the Weapons of Mass Destruction module, the Iraqis-will-welcome-us-as-liberators module,...
Indeed. An aspect of Canadian law that is quite lacking in American law is the notion of "the honour of the Crown", which crudely put is that the government has an obligation to Do the Right Thing even if it may not be explicitly obligated to do so by statute or precedent.
As both a Canadian and an American, my suggestion to the Prime Minister is that he inform the United States that Canada will consider the United States' concerns about intellectual property when the United States conforms in both policy and practice to the Geneva Conventions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It's one thing to disagree about details of trade policy and the like, but for the United States to make it sound like Canada is a rogue nation that fails to abide by widely accepted standards of decent conduct is outrageous. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
Curiously, in light of Italians' reputation as crazy drivers, using a cell phone while driving is illegal in Italy, unless they've repealed the law whose passage I remember reading about in October of 1990.
the reason WAV has been around for so long is that it's just doing a direct read of the bits on the audio CD, and dumping them to a file.
Not exactly. WAV is a FILE format, not an audio representation format. The audio data can be in any of dozens of formats, many of them involving lossy compression. One of the registered audio data formats (with ID 1) is straight PCM data, that is, uncompressed audio in the usual format. WAV files often contain straight PCM data, but they don't have to.
(I've got some lecture notes on audio data and file formats here.)
I made some comparisons of lossless compression techniques a while back. This web page contains the results of my own tests (for speech data) and links to the tests I found (for music). I use FLAC.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that the religion of the people involved in the SCO fiasco is not relevant and that neither Slashdot nor LinuxWorld are suitable places for discussing discussing whose religion is more "whacko". That said, I think that it is fair to say that the beliefs of the Witnesses (the first word of their name is blasphemous in my own tradition) are closer to those of mainstream Christianity. The Witnesses are in most respects a fairly standard "fundamentalist" Protestant group, distinguished primarily by the fact that they are in the odd position of being failed millenialists. That is, they have predicted several times that the end of the world would occur on a particular date. Unless we're all dreaming, they got it wrong. They also are unusual in their interpretation of the Bible as prohibiting blood transfusion.
The LDS hold a number of beliefs that are quite different from those of mainstream Christianity. In addition to having additional Scriptures, they believe that God is married, and that he and Mrs. God make physical love and produce baby gods. This belief was apparently the thing that most outraged mainstream Christians in the US and led to the vicious persection of the Mormons that led them to move to Utah. A good Mormon doesn't just go to heavan - he becomes the god of his own universe.
My general impression is that a lot of people who haven't had much contact with Mormons and don't know much about them think, on the one hand, that Mormon theology is closer to mainstream Christianity than it really is, and on the other hand, that Mormons are socially more different from other people than they really are. Whether or not you consider them Christian depends on what you think the fundamental criteria are, but it is true that Mormon theology differs in some significant respects from that of other branches of Christianity. On the other hand, in my experience Mormons are generally nice, family-oriented people who make good neighbors.
Once upon a time a filibuster delayed a vote indefinitely and could therefore prevent the Senate from consenting to a nomination, but in 1917 the Senate adopted the cloture rule, which allowed the Senate to bring a filibuster to an end and force a vote by a vote 2/3 of the Senate. So the effect of a filibuster since then has been to refuse consent only when fewer than 2/3 of the Senators are prepared to bring the matter to a vote. The effect is, thus, in effect, to require at least a 2/3 majority. By the way, the Senate historian has a nice web page on the history of the filibuster.
I'm not sure about the current procedure, but I'm not aware that the rules governing filibusters have actually changed. (Judging by an episode of The West Wing I recall seeing during the past few months, they haven't, but I wouldn't want to base an argument on that.) It may be that the Senate has become wimpy and just folds at the threat of a filibuster, but as far as I know, if those favoring a vote stand their ground, the speaker still has to go through the pain of delivering a real filibuster. If the procedure has changed, I can see that it seems unfair not to make the users of the filibuster pay by having to go through the lack of sleep and raw throat and so forth, but from my perspective of it being a roundabout way of imposing a requirement of a supermajority, which I consider to be desirable in the case of judicial nominations anyhow, I don't see any need to make the "culprits" atone for their "sin".
This kind of tactic for shutting up critics is so common that there is an acronym for them: they're called SLAPP suits, for "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation". They have been used especially by developers against environmental and/or community critics of their projects. They have been so badly abused that some states have passed legislation against them. They problem with them is that they are filed by organizations with lots of money, who can afford to pay their lawyers, against individuals or organizations that are often unincorporated and usually impecunious, who can ill afford to pay for legal advice and representation. Those threatened with SLAPP suits are therefore likely to give in even when the suit has no merit.
If you Google for "SLAPP suit" you'll find oodles of information. Here's one informative site.
Uh, I think all of the above are wrong. In the US federal courts there is a right to a jury in civil cases in certain circumstances. The legal basis for this in the Constitution is difficult to interpret today since the value of money has changed considerably and since it involved the distinction between law and equity which has since been abolished. Roughly speaking the current rule is that there is a right to a jury in suits for monetary damages of some significance. In other cases, such as cases where the remedy sought is an injunction, there is no right to a jury. There is also no right to a jury in cases under Admiralty Law. That is one clear restriction that survives from the Constitution.
State courts have their own rules and are governed primarily by state legislation, though by virtue of the 14th Amendment it is not impossible for the federal constitution to bear on the state systems. States generally have rules similar to the federal rules but not necessarily identical.
It is true that when there is a right to a jury trial the jury may be dispensed with if both parties consent. To my knowledge there is no situation in which a jury is required against the wishes of both parties.
Good discussion in general, but I think there's an unjustified leap of logic in your claim that filibustering undermines the system in which the President appoints and the Senate advises and consents. To begin with, note that he appoints "with the advice and consent" of the Senate. It's not as if the Senate is obligated to consent, with its consent ultimately just a ritual. More importantly, there's nothing in the Constitution, and nothing that I've ever heard of in what we know of the Framers' intentions (such as the Federalist Papers) or elsewhere in the legal tradition, that equates the Senate properly fulfilling its role with taking every nomination to a vote or consenting on the basis of a simple majority. Suppose that the Constitution required a 2/3 majority, or even the unanimous consent of the Senate. Would that alter the fundamental nature of the system? Would it shift the balance of powers significantly to the legislative branch? I don't think so.
The filibuster is essentially a long-winded way requiring a super-majority for confirmation. I don't think that's a bad thing at all. It would of course be more efficient to do this directly rather than by a roundabout means such as the filibuster. If I were (re)writing the Constitution, I would do exactly that. Judicial appointments are very important, have long-term effects, and except in extreme cases, cannot be undone. They ought to be as insulated as possible from partisan politics. Requiring a supermajority maximizes that insulation and sets standards higher. Bush and his allies are trying to ram through the small minority of his nominees that cannot gain bipartisan support because they have such strong biases and weak legal records. That is exactly what the Framers intended to impede, and it is a goal that would be assisted by requiring a super-majority. Failing that, the filibuster is the best available tool for accomplishing this worthy goal.
Not really. If "against the law" has its normal interpretation of "being a crime", then in most jurisdictions libel is not "against the law". In all jurisdictions that I know anything about (US, Canada, and Great Britain) libel is first and foremost a tort, that is, something that is recognized as the basis for a civil suit.
There is such a thing as "criminal libel". Indeed, in some places there is or has been a crime known as "blasphemous libel". However, almost everywhere criminal libel has been removed from the criminal code or, where it remains on the books, is never prosecuted. That's partly because of a prevailing attitude that it isn't something that damages the public in general and hence should be dealt with as a matter of private law, and partly because it raises greater issues of freedom of speech. It's one thing for the government to supply a means of addressing a private grievance. It's another for the government make speech a crime. There are circumstances when it is acceptable for the government to do so, but they are limited. Generally speaking the legal community has recognized that issues of freedom of speech are reduced if criminal prosecution is not involved.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.
Really, its true. I had occasion to read the specs for PDF (designed by Adobe) and RTF (designed by Microsoft) a couple of years ago. The PDF spec is much more complex and at 1200 pages about 3 times the length of the RTF spec. My feeling on reading the PDF spec was that it was written by smart people. Some things were more complicated than I would have liked, but there was a reason for it. In contrast, the RTF spec gave me the feeling that the people who wrote it weren't all that bright. Lots of things seemed clunky for no good reason. The exposition was often murky and poorly organized.
Yes, there's a difference between sound pressure level and sound power, but the relationship is not such as to make 55 bels a plausible level. That has to be an error for decibels. Sound power is proportional to the square of the pressure. Since these are logarithmic measures, the result is to introduce a factor of two. Here is a handout that explains the relationship.
I was interested by some of the history mentioned in Prof. Dannenberg's letter and wonder if anybody can fill in some details. One interesting point was the statement that the music industry sued the company that produced the first recordings of Louis Armstrong for patent infringment. I am vaguely aware that there was discrimination against black musicians, but what does that have to do with patent infringment? The other interesting point was the claim that NBC and CBS kept out technological improvements until ABC broke their monopoly. What technology did they suppress? Why?
It isn't entirely true that trademarks are restricted to a particular industry/type of product. There's an exception to this when the mark becomes very widely known in association with a wide range of products. If I want to market "Juicy Fruit" hiking boots, I'm probably okay since "Juicy Fruit" is a mark associated (as far as I know) only with a brand of chewing gum, and chewing gum and hiking boots are very different products. On the other hand, if I decide to market "Sears" hiking boots I'm going to have a problem, even if Sears doesn't have have its own brand of hiking boots, because Sears sells, and in many cases has its own brands for, a wide variety of goods and is a widely known company.
They had MP3s in the pre-1990 East-block?
Lenovo may be a private corporation, but a good chunk of their market is, or will be, in China, where many of the buyers will part of the government, and in any case, in China even private companies are subject to a lot of government influence. It is true that Lenovo will probably continue to provide MS Windows where they think it will be profitable; I don't expect them to take a purely ideological stance. At the same time, between government pressure, the growing Chinese Linux market, and the widespread desire of Chinese people not to be controlled by or beholden to foreign companies, Lenovo will have a lot of motivation not to insist on pre-loading MS Windows on every machine.
Sure, I wasn't suggesting that they would refuse to provide MS Windows, just that they wouldn't insist on it. If they don't want to deal with MS, or if it becomes problematic because they won't sell all their machines preloaded, they might ship machines with no OS or Linux, with MS Windows installation done by OEMs or retailers for those who want it.
It could go beyond meaningless words. For instance, in the New Boy Scouts (TM), if you start to help an old lady across the street and she mentions that she has been downloading MP3s of hymns, you're supposed to abandon her so that she gets run over. :)
Here's a case in which the standard question "but does it run Linux?" is actually relevant. China getting into the PC business in a big way could have an impact on the availability of machines on which one doesn't have to pay the Microsoft tax. With China explicitly interested in independence from Microsoft, it seems likely that they won't play ball with Microsoft and will offer machines with no OS or with Linux pre-installed.
It's true that juries will do the darndest things, but the case will only reach a jury if the judge decides: (a) that the suit satisfies various legal requirements (standing, jurisdiction, etc.) and (b) that there is a significant issue of fact in dispute. Furthermore, in a civil suit such as this, there isn't always a right to a jury trial. The rules for determining when there is a right to a jury trial in a civil suit in federal court are complicated, but generally speaking, when the relief requested is just an injunction (as opposed to monetary damages) there is no right to a jury trial. (Here's a summary of the rules.) So, this case will almost certainly be decided by a judge.
Uh, I think this is actually suggested in the letter that SCO's Darl McBride sent to the members of Congress, wasn't it? Something about how the enemy would learn all our secrets from the source. (Silly SCO people, who don't know that only Jedi Knights can use the source...)
Sorry but this is not a rebuttal of what I said. I said that the Register article's claims:
That remains true: the Register article doesn't specify what statements PJ retracted, with quotes and/or links. So even if the Register's claim were right, it is true that it gave no EVIDENCE for it, which is what I said.As to the correctness of the Register's claims, what PJ "admits" is that she made a small modification to ONE statement. Contrast that with the Register article's claim that:
As far as I can tell, NO phrases have "disappeared", and only one statement has been modified, in a rather minor way. This is hardly vindication for the Register article's overblown claims.I found it difficult to see the point of the Register article. There was very little in it that was actually inconsistent with what has appeared on Groklaw. The main theme seemed to be that Groklwas was wrong to think that it had made a big discovery about Project Monterey, but Groklaw has never claimed to have made such a discovery, just to have assembled lots of evidence that counters SCO's claims. The Register article's claims about PJ retracting statements are not backed up by any evidence.
As for Groklaw's alleged errors helping SCO, I don't see it. At worst, Groklaw has exaggerated the significance of the history of Project Monterey. SCO has made no hay out of this, and I don't see how it could, even if the Register's claims were true.
Virtual Reality is all they use at the Bush White House. They've got the Weapons of Mass Destruction module, the Iraqis-will-welcome-us-as-liberators module,...
Indeed. An aspect of Canadian law that is quite lacking in American law is the notion of "the honour of the Crown", which crudely put is that the government has an obligation to Do the Right Thing even if it may not be explicitly obligated to do so by statute or precedent.
As both a Canadian and an American, my suggestion to the Prime Minister is that he inform the United States that Canada will consider the United States' concerns about intellectual property when the United States conforms in both policy and practice to the Geneva Conventions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It's one thing to disagree about details of trade policy and the like, but for the United States to make it sound like Canada is a rogue nation that fails to abide by widely accepted standards of decent conduct is outrageous. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
Curiously, in light of Italians' reputation as crazy drivers, using a cell phone while driving is illegal in Italy, unless they've repealed the law whose passage I remember reading about in October of 1990.
Not exactly. WAV is a FILE format, not an audio representation format. The audio data can be in any of dozens of formats, many of them involving lossy compression. One of the registered audio data formats (with ID 1) is straight PCM data, that is, uncompressed audio in the usual format. WAV files often contain straight PCM data, but they don't have to. (I've got some lecture notes on audio data and file formats here.)
I made some comparisons of lossless compression techniques a while back. This web page contains the results of my own tests (for speech data) and links to the tests I found (for music). I use FLAC.