So anyone can go ahead and make a "beautiful" version of Wikipedia, right?
What's that? Oh, the curious sound of crickets mixed with tumbleweed.
(But I do wish it was much easier to correct very minor mistakes, like typos, just by clicking on the text to make it editable, like the descriptions under [one's own] Flickr photos).
I'm not saying the whole of England should have this (although see a nearby comment about how they do this in the Netherlands even in rural places), but I'm pointing out it's feasible technologically and there's no excuse why city centres don't have this yet.
The catalyst was actually The Copyright Act of 1976 which brought software under the copyright regime, and Stallman's travails at the AI Lab at MIT with Symbolics. A good source is the well-written and fascinating http://www.faifzilla.org/, and particularly Chapter 9 (http://www.faifzilla.org/ch09.html).
"Let me make the argument another way. Say your wife is sleeping with another man. Obviously, they are having an affair. However, you never agreed to such things, and never endorsed them. You can't sue for breach of contract, as that's not how marriage works. Such a thing is obviously wrong and unethical. Thus, there is a law intended to prevent such things."
A car analogy is also needed but I'll let someone else do that.
> That is of course assuming the increased number of users using alternative OSes do not do stupid shit like run as root or change login users to have root level access.
Which was grandfather's point. [My ol' gramps always was a smart one].
Anyway, I did look up the Monsanto article on wikipedia (more laziness). The Indian suicide claims have been debunked by the International Food Policy Research Institute. Hence, FUD.
Fair enough, I meant it's a crime under the Communications Act; it's a provision the Government can get rid of without affecting any other "crime".
Just wanted to quash the myth that the BBC's funding is independent of the Government, as pleasant as that myth might be:) Thanks for sharpening up my argument.
How did you quote me making it then? I am merely supplementing my original points which still stand.
I believe that laws have been passed by a legitimately elected government that make it a crime.
That's very interesting, but that doesn't my question; I wasn't discussing the rights and wrongs of the licence, only the facts concerning it. You agree it is a crime. That's all I wanted to know, because you also said
No. You'll pay a fine. The government won't even prosecute you. |it will be a private prosecution by TV Licensing.
which is ambiguous as to whether it's a crime or not. I'm sorry I misinterpreted you.
Let me repeat: I was only concerned with the statement made earlier, not by you, that
the government is not involved in the collection of the license [sic] fee
The poster who wrote that has had the good sense not to argue with me. Let me make it clear for you: the licence fee is a tax which right now is mandated by the Communications Act 2003. How is the Government *not* more intimately involved in the collection of the licence fee than, say, when you agree to pay for groceries at the supermarket?
I was responding to the statement of your GP, viz. "the government is not involved in the collection of the license [sic] fee", which is demonstrably false. Are you disputing this, despite what I just said? Also, the licence fee ends up in the Government's Consolidated Fund, which is then disbursed to the BBC as the Government has deemed necessary.
Also, just because you brought it up: do you disagree that not paying the television licence fee is a crime? I would love to hear your justification for that one.
This issue is already complicated enough, so at minimum we need to make sure we are dealing only with facts.
Right, so if I don't pay the licence fee I won't be committing a crime and spending time in a Government-funded prison... Oh, wait, I will, because of Government-mandated laws (http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/aboutus/legislation.jsp).
And now there is discussion by the Government about who the licence fee should go to through a process of "top-slicing" (http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/minister_speeches/6180.aspx/) [which, by the way, Murdoch Jr. agreed with the BBC in opposing because he doesn't want the Government to gets its fingers in more pies; I guess he's not such a rent-seeker after all].
And it's not like the Government decides every so often how much the TV licence should cost. Except, of course, it does.
Slashdot Mirror
Very interesting response, but I just want to point out that Primo Levi also eventually committed suicide...
So anyone can go ahead and make a "beautiful" version of Wikipedia, right?
What's that? Oh, the curious sound of crickets mixed with tumbleweed.
(But I do wish it was much easier to correct very minor mistakes, like typos, just by clicking on the text to make it editable, like the descriptions under [one's own] Flickr photos).
I'm not saying the whole of England should have this (although see a nearby comment about how they do this in the Netherlands even in rural places), but I'm pointing out it's feasible technologically and there's no excuse why city centres don't have this yet.
It is great news, but it's shameful that it's taken this long.
I knew someone would say this...
I'm sure some parts of NYC must be as dense as my area in HK, and even in London there are very wealthy areas which could easily afford this.
The trial will be in *Kesgrave*, for goodness' sake! Why!? I lived in the UK for decades and had never heard of it!
In Hong Kong it's easy to get 1Gbps FTTP, e.g. with HGC (aka Three) for HK$198 a month (about US$25 or 16 GBP a month): http://www.threebb.com.hk/eng/broadbandoffer.html
More details, please...
Haih a!
100% correct, and exactly what I was going to write.
Isn't HK great? ;)
The catalyst was actually The Copyright Act of 1976 which brought software under the copyright regime, and Stallman's travails at the AI Lab at MIT with Symbolics. A good source is the well-written and fascinating http://www.faifzilla.org/, and particularly Chapter 9 (http://www.faifzilla.org/ch09.html).
"Let me make the argument another way. Say your wife is sleeping with another man. Obviously, they are having an affair. However, you never agreed to such things, and never endorsed them. You can't sue for breach of contract, as that's not how marriage works. Such a thing is obviously wrong and unethical. Thus, there is a law intended to prevent such things."
A car analogy is also needed but I'll let someone else do that.
> Some of the comments on TFA are completely off the deep end, and I (foolishly) hope we don't end up with the same.
And then you join them in the very next paragraph!
This idea that China is a super-villain and the US is a superhero is based off of myth, nationalism and ignorance,
Correct.
we are no better than the Chinese.
Wrong (and hence a non sequitur as a bonus).
> That is of course assuming the increased number of users using alternative OSes do not do stupid shit like run as root or change login users to have root level access.
Which was grandfather's point. [My ol' gramps always was a smart one].
http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/00002021.html
I am lazy :) http://everything2.com/title/A+good+programmer+is+a+lazy+programmer
Anyway, I did look up the Monsanto article on wikipedia (more laziness). The Indian suicide claims have been debunked by the International Food Policy Research Institute. Hence, FUD.
[citation needed], otherwise it just looks like extreme FUD to a neutral observer, e.g. me.
They now offer Google Earth Pro (http://www.google.com/enterprise/earthmaps/earth_pro.html) instead.
(I will say 10 "Hail Stallmans" tonight to repent).
So accept the more expensive machine, sell it, and buy an iphone or whatever it is you want. Profit?!?! (Something like that, right?)
1) Don't buy a closed-source system filled with DRM next time.
Tada! Problem solved. Profit is optional.
Fair enough, I meant it's a crime under the Communications Act; it's a provision the Government can get rid of without affecting any other "crime".
Just wanted to quash the myth that the BBC's funding is independent of the Government, as pleasant as that myth might be :) Thanks for sharpening up my argument.
Indeed, but that's not a point you made.
How did you quote me making it then? I am merely supplementing my original points which still stand.
I believe that laws have been passed by a legitimately elected government that make it a crime.
That's very interesting, but that doesn't my question; I wasn't discussing the rights and wrongs of the licence, only the facts concerning it. You agree it is a crime. That's all I wanted to know, because you also said
No. You'll pay a fine. The government won't even prosecute you. |it will be a private prosecution by TV Licensing.
which is ambiguous as to whether it's a crime or not. I'm sorry I misinterpreted you.
Let me repeat: I was only concerned with the statement made earlier, not by you, that
the government is not involved in the collection of the license [sic] fee
The poster who wrote that has had the good sense not to argue with me. Let me make it clear for you: the licence fee is a tax which right now is mandated by the Communications Act 2003. How is the Government *not* more intimately involved in the collection of the licence fee than, say, when you agree to pay for groceries at the supermarket?
I was responding to the statement of your GP, viz. "the government is not involved in the collection of the license [sic] fee", which is demonstrably false. Are you disputing this, despite what I just said? Also, the licence fee ends up in the Government's Consolidated Fund, which is then disbursed to the BBC as the Government has deemed necessary.
Also, just because you brought it up: do you disagree that not paying the television licence fee is a crime? I would love to hear your justification for that one.
This issue is already complicated enough, so at minimum we need to make sure we are dealing only with facts.
Right, so if I don't pay the licence fee I won't be committing a crime and spending time in a Government-funded prison... Oh, wait, I will, because of Government-mandated laws (http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/aboutus/legislation.jsp).
And now there is discussion by the Government about who the licence fee should go to through a process of "top-slicing" (http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/minister_speeches/6180.aspx/) [which, by the way, Murdoch Jr. agreed with the BBC in opposing because he doesn't want the Government to gets its fingers in more pies; I guess he's not such a rent-seeker after all].
And it's not like the Government decides every so often how much the TV licence should cost. Except, of course, it does.
Please think and check before you post.