Breaking up Ma Bell wasn't the best idea our friends in DC ever had.
Here in the Uk & Europe we've got loads of different phone companies - a monopoly isn't required for standardisation, just sensible regulation. We can standardise multiple companies over 24 countries, somehow you failed to standardise anything over a single country. Amazing.
There's a bit more to it than that. If you travel in Europe for business, you're going to be visiting different countries. They're all on the same GSM standard, but roaming and out-of-network rates have traditionally been extortionate.
Given that there are really only two major retailers in the UK: GAME and GameStation, it's most likely them. Of course, it might be HMV, but they're not exactly specialist game retailers.
Could be Play.com - no one said it was defiantly high-street retailers.
you aren't allowed to fire anybody unless they've had three written warnings, written warnings can only be issued after a hearing where the employee has the right to council...
This may sound good and make people who already have jobs difficult to fire. However, the devastating side effect is higher unemployment, especially among the youth and inexperienced. It makes it much riskier to hire if there are high hurdles for firing. Consider that an incompetent employee could do a lot of damage during 3 warnings while costing the employer a paycheck -- and a slick lawyer could keep them at the job. Hiring is critical for a developing economy which have large numbers of young and undereducated people. Policies like this (which are prevalent in third world countries), while well meaning, unfortunately contribute to a country's third world status.
BS. We have very similar laws here in the UK. We're certainly not a 3rd world country & firing total incompetents isn't hard because they tend to leave a lot of evidence. What's hard is firing people just because the boss happens not to like them etc.
It's not that surprising. Remember that they all have some form of ban on public nudity or indecency - it's illegal to just go outside naked. All it takes to go from there to a public breastfeeding ban is lack of an exception and a single precident, as breastfeeding requires a woman expose one breast to the clear view of anyone in the area.
It doesn't need a special exception, just a sanely worded law. Here in the UK the act prohibiting indecent exposure doesn't mention nudity per se, to commit an offence I need to intend that others will see my genitals and have intent to cause distress. The exact wording:
A person commits an offence if he-
(a) he intentionally exposes his genitals, and
(b) he intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress.
By "disclosing information to another party" I meant specifically the contents of a conversation or correspondance. The logical implication of what you're saying is that any such conversation or correspondance falls automatically under the DPA which is obviously hogwash.
The DPA automatically covers identifiable data, e.g. phone numbers, email addresses etc. so he should be free to publish the rest. Having everything is also automatically copyrighted, so in theory he could be sued for breach of copyright, but any sane court would throw the case out as whilst I can't get to TFA from work, by it's description it seems to be covered under fair dealing as it's both criticism & news reporting.
The Times remains the leading financial paper in the U.K.
Nope, that'd be the Financial Times(IIRC owned by Pearson PLC) is a financial paper, not The Times(owned by News International) which is a normal daily newspaper.
He probably could also have been sued under defamation laws too (claiming to have had sex with the deceased after they died can be seen as a deliberate act of tarnishing their reputations).
IANAL, but you can't libel the dead. To use defamation laws, the family would have to prove they, themselves had been defamed.
Why is it that the Westboro Baptist Church gets away with picketing real-life funerals again and again,...?
Here in the UK (where this story's from) the WBC probably wouldn't get away with it; they'd be prosecuted with constituting a breach of the peace some similar law.
Not really, "great works" could be done in the same way much modern art is created (and all forms of art pre-copyright) - through patronage. I'm not saying this is the way to go, or it's the right way - just saying it's not hard to envision because the world has already been there.
Does anyone besides me think that did not work out for us, relative to the modern model?
Modern patronage could take a very different form to ancient patronage - in the Art world there is actually still some ancient style patronage still around (see Charles Saatchi), at the same time there are still a lot of contemporary artists who make good work but don't charge as much in existence & normal people can still afford to buy art. Mostly because enough people enjoy doing it and it's often not their main source of income.
Let me play devil's advocate - let's hypothetically abolish copyright.
There's no reason the writing couldn't be the same as the art one - the rich will take what they think of as "great", and keep it locked up to stop copying (the general public will probably dislike it anyway, judging by the trend in modern art). The "quite good" to "mediocre" will still get paid by publishers one-off lump sums for their works if they think that they can re-sell enough copies to turn a profit (remember, people are attached to books, they're much harder to replace digitally than CDs so will still sell in numbers). So the "normal people" will still get the latest Dan Brown, whilst the rich keep the "classics" - Dan Brown just won't be as rich unless a benefactor takes a liking to him.
Yes, this is a simplification, but I'm deliberately avoiding the whole copyright debate.
I have a tough time envisioning how the world would work if they only way to charge for a copy of a book was if that copy cost money to create.
Not really, "great works" could be done in the same way much modern art is created (and all forms of art pre-copyright) - through patronage. I'm not saying this is the way to go, or it's the right way - just saying it's not hard to envision because the world has already been there.
I saw the above and thought, "It would be interesting to see the output of two of these bots talking to each other." OK, I am sure it has been done before, but I still think it would be interesting to see what they ended up saying to each other and how quickly the conversation went from one thing to another completely unrelated subject.
Over at www.personalityforge.com, whilst not chatting to humans, they do - you don't even need a huge deal of programming ability to make a bot yourself - though you obviously have to use their engine. I've not made one, but it's an interesting site to visit.
It does make me think about my own "end of life care" situation though, although I'm only 26 and (hopefully) that's a ways off.
No kidding, this whole article has made me think about that unpleasant prospect again; I'm 27. This has reinforced my position that unless there's a cure for dementia\Alzheimers' soon I need to write a living will so that people know that I don't want treatment, instead I want an assisted suicide whilst I can still remember my own name.
*sigh* or, y'know, the editor could have made sure important information like that was in the summary.
Wouldn't it be great if there was a flag and name of country next to each article so that the editors were required to check basic stuff like this out, and make it clear to readers?
Or you could just read the first line which states "...researchers from the University of Gothenburg, Sweden...". Unusually, the editors are not to blame this time, just poor reading comprehension by/.ers.
Personally I can't see lib-dem MPs voting for this
Yeah, just like they're not going to agree the huge public spending cuts, or complain about the increase in university fees, or indeed stick to anything else that was in their fucking worthless manifesto.
Those were compromises made in the coalition agreement and easy to justify on the basis of our structural deficit - this most certainly certainly isn't. Especially as both the Tories and the Lib-dems promised to end "government snooping". There is no mandate from either party for this.
Thanks for that, whilst I have no love for RIPA, I always thought the arguments about having to hand over session keys etc. were not entirely sound, but I've never had the time to look into it myself.
To be honest I'm actually disappointed. I didn't have especially high hopes, but I was expecting a little better than this.
Personally I can't see lib-dem MPs voting for this, it'll only further alienate their wider party; I suspect that the proposed so called "great repeal bill\freedom bill" (name may vary depending on party) will still go through in some sort or another.
Slashdot Mirror
For Yasmin Alibhai-Brown to report a comment like this as a genuine incitement to murder, is dishonest.
Was it her that reported it? It could have been anyone, this is the second dumb twitter trial news I've heard of in the last week; the other is here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/11/twitter-joke-trial-appeal-verdict
Breaking up Ma Bell wasn't the best idea our friends in DC ever had.
Here in the Uk & Europe we've got loads of different phone companies - a monopoly isn't required for standardisation, just sensible regulation. We can standardise multiple companies over 24 countries, somehow you failed to standardise anything over a single country. Amazing.
There's a bit more to it than that. If you travel in Europe for business, you're going to be visiting different countries. They're all on the same GSM standard, but roaming and out-of-network rates have traditionally been extortionate.
IIRC they got so high that they've now been capped by the EU *googles* yep: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8010352.stm the prices were forced down to reasonable levels last year.
The as-yet-unnamed retailers...
Given that there are really only two major retailers in the UK: GAME and GameStation, it's most likely them. Of course, it might be HMV, but they're not exactly specialist game retailers.
Could be Play.com - no one said it was defiantly high-street retailers.
This may sound good and make people who already have jobs difficult to fire. However, the devastating side effect is higher unemployment, especially among the youth and inexperienced. It makes it much riskier to hire if there are high hurdles for firing. Consider that an incompetent employee could do a lot of damage during 3 warnings while costing the employer a paycheck -- and a slick lawyer could keep them at the job. Hiring is critical for a developing economy which have large numbers of young and undereducated people. Policies like this (which are prevalent in third world countries), while well meaning, unfortunately contribute to a country's third world status.
BS. We have very similar laws here in the UK. We're certainly not a 3rd world country & firing total incompetents isn't hard because they tend to leave a lot of evidence. What's hard is firing people just because the boss happens not to like them etc.
It's not that surprising. Remember that they all have some form of ban on public nudity or indecency - it's illegal to just go outside naked. All it takes to go from there to a public breastfeeding ban is lack of an exception and a single precident, as breastfeeding requires a woman expose one breast to the clear view of anyone in the area.
It doesn't need a special exception, just a sanely worded law. Here in the UK the act prohibiting indecent exposure doesn't mention nudity per se, to commit an offence I need to intend that others will see my genitals and have intent to cause distress. The exact wording:
A person commits an offence if he-
(a) he intentionally exposes his genitals, and
(b) he intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress.
source
Some states already have outlawed breast feeding in public areas.
I don't usually swear, but What the fuck? I'm speechless.
At least on youtube there is a comments section
You've never read a YouTube comments section, have you? Also, IIRC it's possible for an uploader to disable it if they want anyway.
By "disclosing information to another party" I meant specifically the contents of a conversation or correspondance. The logical implication of what you're saying is that any such conversation or correspondance falls automatically under the DPA which is obviously hogwash.
The DPA automatically covers identifiable data, e.g. phone numbers, email addresses etc. so he should be free to publish the rest. Having everything is also automatically copyrighted, so in theory he could be sued for breach of copyright, but any sane court would throw the case out as whilst I can't get to TFA from work, by it's description it seems to be covered under fair dealing as it's both criticism & news reporting.
The Times remains the leading financial paper in the U.K.
Nope, that'd be the Financial Times(IIRC owned by Pearson PLC) is a financial paper, not The Times(owned by News International) which is a normal daily newspaper.
It’s just bits and bytes in the Matrix...
Don't forget nibbles.
He probably could also have been sued under defamation laws too (claiming to have had sex with the deceased after they died can be seen as a deliberate act of tarnishing their reputations).
IANAL, but you can't libel the dead. To use defamation laws, the family would have to prove they, themselves had been defamed.
Why is it that the Westboro Baptist Church gets away with picketing real-life funerals again and again, ...?
Here in the UK (where this story's from) the WBC probably wouldn't get away with it; they'd be prosecuted with constituting a breach of the peace some similar law.
The UK has things like ASBOs which the courts there use to ninny and nanny everyone into docile little bastards.
They are being abolished: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10784060
Not really, "great works" could be done in the same way much modern art is created (and all forms of art pre-copyright) - through patronage. I'm not saying this is the way to go, or it's the right way - just saying it's not hard to envision because the world has already been there.
Does anyone besides me think that did not work out for us, relative to the modern model?
Modern patronage could take a very different form to ancient patronage - in the Art world there is actually still some ancient style patronage still around (see Charles Saatchi), at the same time there are still a lot of contemporary artists who make good work but don't charge as much in existence & normal people can still afford to buy art. Mostly because enough people enjoy doing it and it's often not their main source of income.
Let me play devil's advocate - let's hypothetically abolish copyright.
There's no reason the writing couldn't be the same as the art one - the rich will take what they think of as "great", and keep it locked up to stop copying (the general public will probably dislike it anyway, judging by the trend in modern art). The "quite good" to "mediocre" will still get paid by publishers one-off lump sums for their works if they think that they can re-sell enough copies to turn a profit (remember, people are attached to books, they're much harder to replace digitally than CDs so will still sell in numbers). So the "normal people" will still get the latest Dan Brown, whilst the rich keep the "classics" - Dan Brown just won't be as rich unless a benefactor takes a liking to him.
Yes, this is a simplification, but I'm deliberately avoiding the whole copyright debate.
I have a tough time envisioning how the world would work if they only way to charge for a copy of a book was if that copy cost money to create.
Not really, "great works" could be done in the same way much modern art is created (and all forms of art pre-copyright) - through patronage. I'm not saying this is the way to go, or it's the right way - just saying it's not hard to envision because the world has already been there.
I saw the above and thought, "It would be interesting to see the output of two of these bots talking to each other." OK, I am sure it has been done before, but I still think it would be interesting to see what they ended up saying to each other and how quickly the conversation went from one thing to another completely unrelated subject.
Over at www.personalityforge.com, whilst not chatting to humans, they do - you don't even need a huge deal of programming ability to make a bot yourself - though you obviously have to use their engine. I've not made one, but it's an interesting site to visit.
It does make me think about my own "end of life care" situation though, although I'm only 26 and (hopefully) that's a ways off.
No kidding, this whole article has made me think about that unpleasant prospect again; I'm 27. This has reinforced my position that unless there's a cure for dementia\Alzheimers' soon I need to write a living will so that people know that I don't want treatment, instead I want an assisted suicide whilst I can still remember my own name.
*sigh* or, y'know, the editor could have made sure important information like that was in the summary.
Wouldn't it be great if there was a flag and name of country next to each article so that the editors were required to check basic stuff like this out, and make it clear to readers?
Or you could just read the first line which states "...researchers from the University of Gothenburg, Sweden...". Unusually, the editors are not to blame this time, just poor reading comprehension by /.ers.
Same thing that happened to our razor blades.
Yet again, life imitates the Onion: http://www.gillette.com/en/us/Products/Razors/Fusion/fusion-manual.aspx
Personally I can't see lib-dem MPs voting for this
Yeah, just like they're not going to agree the huge public spending cuts, or complain about the increase in university fees, or indeed stick to anything else that was in their fucking worthless manifesto.
Those were compromises made in the coalition agreement and easy to justify on the basis of our structural deficit - this most certainly certainly isn't. Especially as both the Tories and the Lib-dems promised to end "government snooping". There is no mandate from either party for this.
stand living without the bill of rights?
Actually, we got our bill of rights before you got yours: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1689_Bill_of_Rights
This really reads like something out of fiction.
That's because it was published by a newspaper so almost certainly is.
Thanks for that, whilst I have no love for RIPA, I always thought the arguments about having to hand over session keys etc. were not entirely sound, but I've never had the time to look into it myself.
To be honest I'm actually disappointed. I didn't have especially high hopes, but I was expecting a little better than this.
Personally I can't see lib-dem MPs voting for this, it'll only further alienate their wider party; I suspect that the proposed so called "great repeal bill\freedom bill" (name may vary depending on party) will still go through in some sort or another.