I don't understand why they need advertising revenue anyway. I've just paid about £120 (roughly $200) annual fee for my TV Licence which pays for about five and half channels of excellent BBC television, about eight channels of radio (plus the world service and numbwerous local stations) and one of the world's finest web sites and information services. And the establishment of a creative commons-based archive. All of it without a single advertisement or commercial.
I think that's excellent value for money and it proves that revenue from commercials isn't necessary.
Pity it'll never happen in the U.S.
- Andrew
A major proportion of people in the UK have digital satellite receivers, and the picture quality is vastly better than PAL analogue (or analogue satellite or cable). They even broadcast 5.1 AC3 along with some of the movie channels, and the settop boxes have been designed to support 16:9 from the outset. They output to the PAL standard but in RGB format (which virtually all TVs purchased in the UK in the last 8 years can support through the SCART socket).
We also now can buy digital set top boxes for about £50 ($100) that receive digital terrestrial signals which can (given a high enough bit rate) be of similar quality to the digital satellite.
There is a big market in the UK for widescreen (16:9) PAL standard TVs. The plasma (and many of the LCD) ones are, I imagine, HDTV capable, but the CRT ones probably aren't (correct me if I am wrong). However, Sky television is talking about launching an HDTV service into the UK shortly.
Because we already have a number of the perceived advantages of HDTV, and "good enough" picture quality, it will probably be a while before HDTV takes off here.
This is true in Europe as well. The 1991 Software Directive explicitly states that once a copy of a piece of software has been sold with the right-owner's consent within the EU, the right-owner has no further right to restrict the onward sale of that copy to any third party.
There is also something called the restraint of trade doctrine which prohibits restrictions which are greater than those reasonably necessary to protect a party's legitimate interests, and something called article 82 of the Treaty of Rome which prevents an entity from abusing a dominant position in the marketplace. I would argue that trying to place this unreasonable restriction on onward sale is an abuse of Microsoft's dominant position.
- Andrew
Thank goodness someone around here knows the first thing about evolution. The original story is so patently unconnected with evolution (unless the disease was a genetic one) that I am surprised it was posted.
Inidentally, in England we don't have pro-evolutionists and anti-evolutionists. We have people intelligent enough to understand and therefore believe in evolution, and a small number of idiots.
- Andrew
A (US) client of mine nearly needed therapy after renting a car after arriving on a trnasatlantic redeye at London Heathrow and having to deal with
(1) tiredness
(2) driving on the left
(3) in a stick-shift
(4) all the other drivers doing 90 mph on one of the busiest roads in Europe
(5) in thick fog... need I say more...?
The article refers to a "cradle that fits underneath the driver's headrest". This device is fitted into one cool car - it doesn't have a steering wheel or any controls! Full autopilot is what I like to see. Then again, it's possible that since in Japan they drive on the left the picture is of the passenger side of the car.
Note to Americans - the rest of the world is (thankfully) not America.
= Andrew
For the record "monopoly" is shorthand for "dominant position" which is what Microsoft was accused of having abused. Note that under U.S. law (as I understand it) it's illegal to try to attain a monopoly position, something which is perfectly legal in the EU. What is illegal in the EU is *abuse* of a dominant position. Microsoft certainly does have a dominant position in the European Union in the OS and Office-suite markets.
From my perspective as an EU lawyer the case revolved around abuses of Microsoft's dominant position in the European Union. The fact that Microsoft is an American company is irrelevant. It's easy to assume this is anti-American action by the EU, but the truth is that other than (we hope) resulting in a lowering of the prices of Microsoft products so that its gross margins more accurately reflect those enjoyed by other companies (from which the benefit is to the consumer) the major benefit will be to the other US companies (Winamp, Real Networks, Musicmatch) which will be able to sell the products to slip in the space where media player once was...
No thread on maglev is complete without a reference to the fascinating Eric Laithwaite - see here for example. Note I'm not in any way endorsing this site - it's just a starting point.
The jury is still out on whether he was a genius or a nutter, but I'd be interested to hear any comments about him...
In the UK digital set top boxes are shifting well and are coming down in price rapidly. There are also versions with 2 tuners and a HDD which acts as a basic PVR for about 210 about $350 - no subscription required).
They are pretty inexpensive compared to a decent TV, and they will usually allow you to select a letterbox or pan-and-scan mode if you have an olde 4:3 TV.
Do they sell 16:9 non-HDTVs in the US? I just bought a cheapo 16:9 tv (28inch) for my parents in law for about 230 ($400) and for the price it's phenomenal.
- Andrew
>>> That is why you must have a master even if there is no slave.
I'd always believed this to be the case, which is why I was stunned to discover I could boot up a Linux CD-ROM on my PC, even though the CD-ROM drive was jumpered as a slave on the secondary IDE port of my machine with no other disk drive present (either on the primary or secondary ports) - i.e. not physically connected at all.
Maybe this is the difference between IDE and ATAPI - but then again I could be talking utter rubbish. However, what happened, happened, and on boot up it was clear that the first three disk entries were NO DRIVE PRESENT and secondary slave showed my CD-ROM drive.
Is this normal???
- Andrew
It would be nice if it did work that way, but it absolutely categorically and unequivocally does not, at least in England and with a reasonably sized business (there may be some cash accounting exemptions for tiddly companies but even at the rate of attrition attriuted to SCO I doubt they could rely on these).
You have to pay the full amount of VAT on the bills at the end of the quarter in which they were issued, full stop. Yes you can deduct VAT on expenditures, but this is irrelevant to my point...
Yes indeed. You can claim the tax back later if you write off the invoice, but in the meantime you still have to write out a cheque to Customs and Excise (the tax body responsible for collecting VAT).
First off, SCO would have to pay value added tax (VAT) on every invoice it issued (in the UK this would amount to 17.5%) which is a pretty major disincentive to start sending out invoices you have little chance of collecting. There is also the question (which is open) as to whether they would be committing the criminal offence of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed - there'd have to be some level of coercion involved.
I don't understand why they need advertising revenue anyway. I've just paid about £120 (roughly $200) annual fee for my TV Licence which pays for about five and half channels of excellent BBC television, about eight channels of radio (plus the world service and numbwerous local stations) and one of the world's finest web sites and information services. And the establishment of a creative commons-based archive. All of it without a single advertisement or commercial. I think that's excellent value for money and it proves that revenue from commercials isn't necessary. Pity it'll never happen in the U.S. - Andrew
...which is why one is better off with a state run broadcasting corporation like the BBC which has motives other than profit...
A major proportion of people in the UK have digital satellite receivers, and the picture quality is vastly better than PAL analogue (or analogue satellite or cable). They even broadcast 5.1 AC3 along with some of the movie channels, and the settop boxes have been designed to support 16:9 from the outset. They output to the PAL standard but in RGB format (which virtually all TVs purchased in the UK in the last 8 years can support through the SCART socket). We also now can buy digital set top boxes for about £50 ($100) that receive digital terrestrial signals which can (given a high enough bit rate) be of similar quality to the digital satellite. There is a big market in the UK for widescreen (16:9) PAL standard TVs. The plasma (and many of the LCD) ones are, I imagine, HDTV capable, but the CRT ones probably aren't (correct me if I am wrong). However, Sky television is talking about launching an HDTV service into the UK shortly. Because we already have a number of the perceived advantages of HDTV, and "good enough" picture quality, it will probably be a while before HDTV takes off here.
This is true in Europe as well. The 1991 Software Directive explicitly states that once a copy of a piece of software has been sold with the right-owner's consent within the EU, the right-owner has no further right to restrict the onward sale of that copy to any third party. There is also something called the restraint of trade doctrine which prohibits restrictions which are greater than those reasonably necessary to protect a party's legitimate interests, and something called article 82 of the Treaty of Rome which prevents an entity from abusing a dominant position in the marketplace. I would argue that trying to place this unreasonable restriction on onward sale is an abuse of Microsoft's dominant position. - Andrew
Thank goodness someone around here knows the first thing about evolution. The original story is so patently unconnected with evolution (unless the disease was a genetic one) that I am surprised it was posted. Inidentally, in England we don't have pro-evolutionists and anti-evolutionists. We have people intelligent enough to understand and therefore believe in evolution, and a small number of idiots. - Andrew
A (US) client of mine nearly needed therapy after renting a car after arriving on a trnasatlantic redeye at London Heathrow and having to deal with (1) tiredness (2) driving on the left (3) in a stick-shift (4) all the other drivers doing 90 mph on one of the busiest roads in Europe (5) in thick fog ... need I say more...?
Au contraire, I think you'll find that in *america* they drive on the other side of the road :-)
- Andrew
The article refers to a "cradle that fits underneath the driver's headrest". This device is fitted into one cool car - it doesn't have a steering wheel or any controls! Full autopilot is what I like to see. Then again, it's possible that since in Japan they drive on the left the picture is of the passenger side of the car. Note to Americans - the rest of the world is (thankfully) not America. = Andrew
For the record "monopoly" is shorthand for "dominant position" which is what Microsoft was accused of having abused. Note that under U.S. law (as I understand it) it's illegal to try to attain a monopoly position, something which is perfectly legal in the EU. What is illegal in the EU is *abuse* of a dominant position. Microsoft certainly does have a dominant position in the European Union in the OS and Office-suite markets. From my perspective as an EU lawyer the case revolved around abuses of Microsoft's dominant position in the European Union. The fact that Microsoft is an American company is irrelevant. It's easy to assume this is anti-American action by the EU, but the truth is that other than (we hope) resulting in a lowering of the prices of Microsoft products so that its gross margins more accurately reflect those enjoyed by other companies (from which the benefit is to the consumer) the major benefit will be to the other US companies (Winamp, Real Networks, Musicmatch) which will be able to sell the products to slip in the space where media player once was...
No thread on maglev is complete without a reference to the fascinating Eric Laithwaite - see here for example. Note I'm not in any way endorsing this site - it's just a starting point. The jury is still out on whether he was a genius or a nutter, but I'd be interested to hear any comments about him...
In the UK digital set top boxes are shifting well and are coming down in price rapidly. There are also versions with 2 tuners and a HDD which acts as a basic PVR for about 210 about $350 - no subscription required). They are pretty inexpensive compared to a decent TV, and they will usually allow you to select a letterbox or pan-and-scan mode if you have an olde 4:3 TV. Do they sell 16:9 non-HDTVs in the US? I just bought a cheapo 16:9 tv (28inch) for my parents in law for about 230 ($400) and for the price it's phenomenal. - Andrew
>>> That is why you must have a master even if there is no slave. I'd always believed this to be the case, which is why I was stunned to discover I could boot up a Linux CD-ROM on my PC, even though the CD-ROM drive was jumpered as a slave on the secondary IDE port of my machine with no other disk drive present (either on the primary or secondary ports) - i.e. not physically connected at all. Maybe this is the difference between IDE and ATAPI - but then again I could be talking utter rubbish. However, what happened, happened, and on boot up it was clear that the first three disk entries were NO DRIVE PRESENT and secondary slave showed my CD-ROM drive. Is this normal??? - Andrew
It would be nice if it did work that way, but it absolutely categorically and unequivocally does not, at least in England and with a reasonably sized business (there may be some cash accounting exemptions for tiddly companies but even at the rate of attrition attriuted to SCO I doubt they could rely on these). You have to pay the full amount of VAT on the bills at the end of the quarter in which they were issued, full stop. Yes you can deduct VAT on expenditures, but this is irrelevant to my point...
Yes indeed. You can claim the tax back later if you write off the invoice, but in the meantime you still have to write out a cheque to Customs and Excise (the tax body responsible for collecting VAT).
First off, SCO would have to pay value added tax (VAT) on every invoice it issued (in the UK this would amount to 17.5%) which is a pretty major disincentive to start sending out invoices you have little chance of collecting. There is also the question (which is open) as to whether they would be committing the criminal offence of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception.