There is also no good arguements why the ID card is better than the photographic driver's license or passport.
One thing I find interesting is that no one has mentioned that the excuse given in the early 90's as to why the UK didn't join the Schengen area (the part of the EU with no internal borders) was that we didn't have ID cards like the rest of Europe - so we needed the border controls because police couldn't go up to somebody and ask them for ID to prove that they should be here. But nobody on the pro ID card side has mentioned that one of the "benefits" of ID cards would be that there's no longer any need for border control with the rest of the EU.
Also, many of her reforms create mixed feelings - for instance she privatised British Telecom, which free marketeers would tell us should have lead to competition, low prices, and flawless service. I think quite a lot of people would say we don't have that!
Yeah, but anyone who says that probably hasn't bothered to try and find a better deal. There is plenty of competition and some very low prices.
If anything, the percieved problems with BT are due to the failure to deregulate the market fast enough, thus protecting BT. Why did local loop unbundling happen only recently? And look what LLU is bringing - broadband band use is high and there is now real competition for BT - you longer need to either keep your existing BT line or have cable installed to use another telcom company.
We pay around 11 Euros (varies from place to place) for an electronic ID card. A valid ID card must be carried at all times. We have to show it, on demand, for any reason, to a police officer. If you can't identify yourself, the police will take you to the police station until such time that your identity can be verified.
Which are powers that I just don't want our police to have. Exactly what crimes are those powers supposed to stop? And what stops the police from harassing innocent people? I feel such power is far to liable to abuse with no appreciable gain in security.
Liberals will overtake Conservatives in the next 15 years and we'll end up with a people oriented humanitarian system of politics that is fundamentally different from the greed based direction of the recent past.
The only way the LibDems could overtake Labour is if Old Labour split from New Labour and join with the Lib Dems. As long as people with left wing politics vote for a right wing party simply because they like the brand name, then we're going to have "conservative" government. At that assumes that the rump Labour party doesn't just swallow the Conservatives - if they did that they'd still be larger than the "New Liberals". While people in this country (ie, the UK) hate to admit it (as it's extremely unfashionable) this country is a very right wing place and has been for years. Socalism (ie, a people oriented humanitarian system of politics that is fundamentally different from the greed based direction of the recent past) just doesn't appeal to people, other than as a fashion statement.
I also don't think that 24 hour drinking is going to encourage anyone to pace themselves
Have you tried to drink for 24 hours?
I tried years ago back at uni. Even ten years ago, if you were in Edinburgh during the festival and you new which pubs opened at what times you could do a 24 hour pub crawl - a lot of pubs got late extensions combined with market pubs that had odd hours anyway. It's not that easy.
At least your marketing people know to use javascript and html - ours "need" to use flash because they have no idea how to make a site using anything else.
Your opponent might then argue that BBC is a government entity and that private music producers have to compete against an entity giving away product subsidized by taxpayers money.
But then you could also point out to your opponent that the BBC also competes with commercial TV and Radio. Why should the music industry get special treatment?
I'm not sure. If they do try and promote ID cards out of this, the question will be raised of how, exactly, would ID cards have stopped what happened this morning, and the the truth that it wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference would come out. Then the questions of how much it would cost and how maybe that money would be better spent on more police and intelligence services.
But they're not making any new epsiodes, they're just airing the original 15. Read both the TFA and your own link, nothing is stated anywhere about new episodes being produced.
If they did make new episodes, Fox would most likely have first run rights - at least in the US. I suppose they could concievably make new episodes and put them straight to DVD in the states but air them in other parts of the world, but I somehow doubt that would happen.
I'd wager that the internet would be a duller place, would it solely be reliant on such engineering gems lik IIS and Exchange (which came later in the first place).
There wouldn't be an internet - without FOSS we'd still be using things like Compuserve and BBS's. The best connectevity we'd have would be corporate email going through proprietary X.500 systems.
Re:commercial stations are already on the band wag
on
BBC Launches APIs
·
· Score: 1
but are self funded through tv adverting etc.
Actually, they do get a share of the TV licence.
Umm, no C4 don't get any money from the license fee. While they're a public organization like the BBC and unlike ITV and C5, they have to survive solely on commercial revenue.
This wasn't always the case however - in the past C4 was subsidized by ITV - if C4 made losses then the ITV companies would make up for the losses, but that link was severed several years ago. But at no time did C4 ever recieve license fee money.
This might change in the future though - with the current charter review, the government are looking at giving the commercial broadcasters some of the licence fee money to make public service programmes.
When knowledge is a commodity, you'll see a vast upsurge in new knowledge. Well, at least when Google starts to index all the available knowledge, of course.
God why the hell does everyone cry troll the minute someone makes an obvious joke
Because jokes are never obvious to everyone. Different senses of humour, cultural differences and the fact that some people think in different ways from other people (like people with Aspergers - and there are probably one or two people who read/. who have Aspergers) mean that what's an 'obvious' joke to you is a troll to someone else.
Did you read the article? Oh wait, this is slashdot and you're an anonymous coward, of course you didn't.
The methodology and the word lists are available, and the author has stated that he plans on making the perl scripts used available, so the experiment is repeatable.
It also seems reasonably well designed and not particularly speculative.
With that in mind, it's clear that you can read what you quoted in the above sense, and indeed it's the plausible way to read it: it's not "causes a compromised device to be unable...", it's "causes a device with the compromised set of Device Keys to be unable...". Any device using this set of keys--whether it's superDeCSS or any particular machine of the sort that was compromised, or any other machine that shares the same set of keys--will no longer be able to view content--presumably only new content created after the revocation.
To me, this seems to be a golden opprotunity for organized crime, assuming they hire hackers good enough to reverse engineer a particular DVD player.
For example, say Sony make a really popular player, so organized crime get the AACS code hacked and then turn around and extort Sony - give us a lot of money or we'll release the key. If they release the key and this device blocking kicks in, Sony are going to have a lot of angry custumers demanding their money back.
Meh.. The internet's not supposed to work like this. Why don't the BBC and China, for that matter, set up their own private networks if they don't want outlanders hitting their servers?
You'd be surprised by how much "US only" content is out there. It's just that you don't notice it as you live in the US.
Even sites that purport to be "international" aren't - eMusic, for example, has some tracks that can only be accessed by US based members.
Hold on... so individuals and non-profit organisations can take content, use it, and share it, but only within the UK?
from looking at the site, that's not exactly what is meant by UK only - it is meant to be primarily for UK, so you need to be based in the UK to access the archive. It doesn't go so far as to say that people who release works based on content in the archive have to limit those works to the UK.
Because the taxpayer gets extra utility for no extra funds, which means, of course, that they don't foot the bill, for the bill's already been paid!
Ok, let's explain how this works:
1) I (and most of the rest of the population of the UK) give the BBC around 110 pounds a year (we have little choice in this, you either pay it or you can't watch tv/watch tv but end up in jail). The BBC uses this money to make content.
2) The BBC turn around and release some of this content back to UK taxpayer, so that the UK taxpayer can do creative things with the content that they have paid for.
Now with commercial use of this material, with absolutly no pay back to the BBC (and hence the taxpayer) as the OP wanted, would mean that when the commercial user sells me the content, then I end up paying again for something I have already paid for and yet the commercial user hasn't paid anything.
Also note, while the Creative Archive License doesn't allow commercial use, it doesn't mean that commercial use licenses don't exist - the BBC has a commercial arm that specializes in licenseing content. So if somebody did want to release a commercial product they can, they just have to pay to do so. And that payment would go back to the BBC and help in the BBC's funding.
I won't have to shell out 150USD to get the Monty Python's Flying Circus DVD set? Or does Creative Archive License mean that someone can't use the footage for commercial purposes (at least legally), but can make plenty of student films with the footage?
Seeing as it explicity disallows commercial use, plus the fact that the material is primarily intended for use in the UK, I'd say you're out of luck.
For instance, why ban commercial use? To prevent competition? Sure... but competition is what makes the living culture.
Because the majority, if not all, the content has been payed for by the British taxpayer. Why should the taxpayer foot the bill for somebody's commercial use of the material?
However, the BBC and C4 already have extensive commercial operations - the idea being that commercial users would pay for what they use and then that money gets sent back into the public services.
Slashdot Mirror
There is also no good arguements why the ID card is better than the photographic driver's license or passport.
One thing I find interesting is that no one has mentioned that the excuse given in the early 90's as to why the UK didn't join the Schengen area (the part of the EU with no internal borders) was that we didn't have ID cards like the rest of Europe - so we needed the border controls because police couldn't go up to somebody and ask them for ID to prove that they should be here. But nobody on the pro ID card side has mentioned that one of the "benefits" of ID cards would be that there's no longer any need for border control with the rest of the EU.
Also, many of her reforms create mixed feelings - for instance she privatised British Telecom, which free marketeers would tell us should have lead to competition, low prices, and flawless service. I think quite a lot of people would say we don't have that!
Yeah, but anyone who says that probably hasn't bothered to try and find a better deal. There is plenty of competition and some very low prices.
If anything, the percieved problems with BT are due to the failure to deregulate the market fast enough, thus protecting BT. Why did local loop unbundling happen only recently? And look what LLU is bringing - broadband band use is high and there is now real competition for BT - you longer need to either keep your existing BT line or have cable installed to use another telcom company.
We pay around 11 Euros (varies from place to place) for an electronic ID card. A valid ID card must be carried at all times. We have to show it, on demand, for any reason, to a police officer. If you can't identify yourself, the police will take you to the police station until such time that your identity can be verified.
Which are powers that I just don't want our police to have. Exactly what crimes are those powers supposed to stop? And what stops the police from harassing innocent people? I feel such power is far to liable to abuse with no appreciable gain in security.
Liberals will overtake Conservatives in the next 15 years and we'll end up with a people oriented humanitarian system of politics that is fundamentally different from the greed based direction of the recent past.
The only way the LibDems could overtake Labour is if Old Labour split from New Labour and join with the Lib Dems. As long as people with left wing politics vote for a right wing party simply because they like the brand name, then we're going to have "conservative" government. At that assumes that the rump Labour party doesn't just swallow the Conservatives - if they did that they'd still be larger than the "New Liberals". While people in this country (ie, the UK) hate to admit it (as it's extremely unfashionable) this country is a very right wing place and has been for years. Socalism (ie, a people oriented humanitarian system of politics that is fundamentally different from the greed based direction of the recent past) just doesn't appeal to people, other than as a fashion statement.
I also don't think that 24 hour drinking is going to encourage anyone to pace themselves
Have you tried to drink for 24 hours?
I tried years ago back at uni. Even ten years ago, if you were in Edinburgh during the festival and you new which pubs opened at what times you could do a 24 hour pub crawl - a lot of pubs got late extensions combined with market pubs that had odd hours anyway. It's not that easy.
So I mailed them. Told them what happened. They sent me the credit card number to the email adress i used when ordering the books. case solved.
Um, what happens if that old email address is no longer valid? Over the years I've had several email addresses that have become "obsolete".
At least your marketing people know to use javascript and html - ours "need" to use flash because they have no idea how to make a site using anything else.
Your opponent might then argue that BBC is a government entity and that private music producers have to compete against an entity giving away product subsidized by taxpayers money.
But then you could also point out to your opponent that the BBC also competes with commercial TV and Radio. Why should the music industry get special treatment?
I'm not sure. If they do try and promote ID cards out of this, the question will be raised of how, exactly, would ID cards have stopped what happened this morning, and the the truth that it wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference would come out. Then the questions of how much it would cost and how maybe that money would be better spent on more police and intelligence services.
Even a layman could have guessed that autism is often (if not always) the result of environmental factors.
Except that there's a lot of evidence that shows that autism is the result of genetic factors.
But they're not making any new epsiodes, they're just airing the original 15. Read both the TFA and your own link, nothing is stated anywhere about new episodes being produced.
If they did make new episodes, Fox would most likely have first run rights - at least in the US. I suppose they could concievably make new episodes and put them straight to DVD in the states but air them in other parts of the world, but I somehow doubt that would happen.
I'd wager that the internet would be a duller place, would it solely be reliant on such engineering gems lik IIS and Exchange (which came later in the first place).
There wouldn't be an internet - without FOSS we'd still be using things like Compuserve and BBS's. The best connectevity we'd have would be corporate email going through proprietary X.500 systems.
but are self funded through tv adverting etc.
Actually, they do get a share of the TV licence.
Umm, no C4 don't get any money from the license fee. While they're a public organization like the BBC and unlike ITV and C5, they have to survive solely on commercial revenue.
This wasn't always the case however - in the past C4 was subsidized by ITV - if C4 made losses then the ITV companies would make up for the losses, but that link was severed several years ago. But at no time did C4 ever recieve license fee money.
This might change in the future though - with the current charter review, the government are looking at giving the commercial broadcasters some of the licence fee money to make public service programmes.
When knowledge is a commodity, you'll see a vast upsurge in new knowledge. Well, at least when Google starts to index all the available knowledge, of course.
You mean Google Scholar?
http://scholar.google.com/
God why the hell does everyone cry troll the minute someone makes an obvious joke
/. who have Aspergers) mean that what's an 'obvious' joke to you is a troll to someone else.
Because jokes are never obvious to everyone. Different senses of humour, cultural differences and the fact that some people think in different ways from other people (like people with Aspergers - and there are probably one or two people who read
Unrepeatable
Ill designed
Speculative
Not exactly scientific, is it?
Did you read the article? Oh wait, this is slashdot and you're an anonymous coward, of course you didn't.
The methodology and the word lists are available, and the author has stated that he plans on making the perl scripts used available, so the experiment is repeatable.
It also seems reasonably well designed and not particularly speculative.
After the iPod, now its Macs turn to pop on 70% of the MS employee's desks.
Sorry bill, this time you can't ban your employees from using Mac at home
I seem to recall that the Xbox2/Xbox360 people use Macs and I would also assume the MS Mac department use Macs as well.
Does it support adobe's XMP as well?
Expect sanity to prevail when the reality of how dumb this would be in practice is finally hammered home to those who hope use this system.
IIRC, DVD-Audio already uses a similar system.
Of course no one's noticed yet because of how, ahem, popular DVD-Audio has been.
With that in mind, it's clear that you can read what you quoted in the above sense, and indeed it's the plausible way to read it: it's not "causes a compromised device to be unable...", it's "causes a device with the compromised set of Device Keys to be unable...". Any device using this set of keys--whether it's superDeCSS or any particular machine of the sort that was compromised, or any other machine that shares the same set of keys--will no longer be able to view content--presumably only new content created after the revocation.
To me, this seems to be a golden opprotunity for organized crime, assuming they hire hackers good enough to reverse engineer a particular DVD player.
For example, say Sony make a really popular player, so organized crime get the AACS code hacked and then turn around and extort Sony - give us a lot of money or we'll release the key. If they release the key and this device blocking kicks in, Sony are going to have a lot of angry custumers demanding their money back.
Meh.. The internet's not supposed to work like this. Why don't the BBC and China, for that matter, set up their own private networks if they don't want outlanders hitting their servers?
You'd be surprised by how much "US only" content is out there. It's just that you don't notice it as you live in the US.
Even sites that purport to be "international" aren't - eMusic, for example, has some tracks that can only be accessed by US based members.
Hold on... so individuals and non-profit organisations can take content, use it, and share it, but only within the UK?
from looking at the site, that's not exactly what is meant by UK only - it is meant to be primarily for UK, so you need to be based in the UK to access the archive. It doesn't go so far as to say that people who release works based on content in the archive have to limit those works to the UK.
Because the taxpayer gets extra utility for no extra funds, which means, of course, that they don't foot the bill, for the bill's already been paid!
Ok, let's explain how this works:
1) I (and most of the rest of the population of the UK) give the BBC around 110 pounds a year (we have little choice in this, you either pay it or you can't watch tv/watch tv but end up in jail). The BBC uses this money to make content.
2) The BBC turn around and release some of this content back to UK taxpayer, so that the UK taxpayer can do creative things with the content that they have paid for.
Now with commercial use of this material, with absolutly no pay back to the BBC (and hence the taxpayer) as the OP wanted, would mean that when the commercial user sells me the content, then I end up paying again for something I have already paid for and yet the commercial user hasn't paid anything.
Also note, while the Creative Archive License doesn't allow commercial use, it doesn't mean that commercial use licenses don't exist - the BBC has a commercial arm that specializes in licenseing content. So if somebody did want to release a commercial product they can, they just have to pay to do so. And that payment would go back to the BBC and help in the BBC's funding.
I won't have to shell out 150USD to get the Monty Python's Flying Circus DVD set? Or does Creative Archive License mean that someone can't use the footage for commercial purposes (at least legally), but can make plenty of student films with the footage?
Seeing as it explicity disallows commercial use, plus the fact that the material is primarily intended for use in the UK, I'd say you're out of luck.
For instance, why ban commercial use? To prevent competition? Sure... but competition is what makes the living culture.
Because the majority, if not all, the content has been payed for by the British taxpayer. Why should the taxpayer foot the bill for somebody's commercial use of the material?
However, the BBC and C4 already have extensive commercial operations - the idea being that commercial users would pay for what they use and then that money gets sent back into the public services.