Re: Hmm...
The source is the BBC's Annual Report and Accounts.
Look up the sections for audience reach.
An oldie is discussed here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmcumeds/515/51504.htm
1435 publicly visible posts • joined 6 Sep 2006
"Far as I am concerned, to a large extent Google mistakenly behaved as if the legal patent system was sane. That was not clever and it was naive. But it doesn't mean it was morally wrong."
Not sure if copying (c) code is immoral, but it's certainly lazy - and definitely avoidable.
6) was the justification, for sure. But the most popular versions of Android out there will be ones with no upside for Google at all: the Amazon Fire fork, the Chinese forks, etc.
At some point you have to wonder if it isn't cheaper and more effective to do 6) via other means.
That was directed at the music industry.
But I suppose you can:
a) create a ghost Facebook page and never use it, to join Spotify
b) join another streaming service like Spotify
c) don't join a streaming service like Spotify at all
I get by quite happily with c).
There is more great music around that I have time to listen to, if I really like something, I have bought it within two minutes, and don't have to worry about DRM, lapsed subscriptions, etc.
There is a cost to both. There is a limited social cost to giving EMI long-term exclusive rights over a piano knees-up, but a greater social cost to giving Westinghouse long-term exclusive rights over nuclear fusion.
The costs are then weighed against incentives.
The comparison of the two goes a long way to explain how laws like this get passed. Legislators think people proposing them are either really stupid, or a bit mad.
Only a Guardian reader could think that "the original Guardian article" was actually the primary source for an opinion poll.
The Graun did employ the comfort blanket of a "social psychologist" who interpreted the results for us - which is always helpful. And you can't get more patronising than that.
Thanks for joining The Register's comment forums. Welcome!
"The price of energy is set by the market (the real cause of fuel poverty)"
But if prices were left to the market, they would fall, taking people out of poverty. They are artificially high because of the government's policy to bribe (sorry, incentivise!) rent-seeking renewable energy providers. Fuel poverty has trebled.
So your argument is pear-shaped.
"When these fossil fuel based energy source double in cost over the next 10 years, and assuming the figures provided have real factual basis, then you've seen nothing yet!"
Mmm. Homework time.
"We need renewable energy to secure our long-term energy supply, independently of whether we're producing too much CO2"
No.
"We need cheap energy to secure our long-term energy supply, independently of whether we're producing too much CO2"
This could be synthetic hydrocarbons manufactured locally, shale gas extracted locally, or nuclear hydroelectric and geothermal all generated locally.
As long as they're energy is cheap, it really doesn't matter whether it's renewable or not.
Your 1) is false, energy has increased much higher than the rate of inflation.
Go to the DECC front page, click on Fuel Poverty, and there you are: http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/fuelpov_stats/fuelpov_stats.aspx
So your "total bollocks" is in fact "total bollocks"
"Wind isnt deliverable hence why its not controlled by the markets, what will become interesting is mass storage of the power made to allow for the lulls when the wind isnt blowing."
This makes no sense. Wind is a market.
As for stored energy, I'm backing Hamsters.
Very good point Rick: base porting is difficult and a huge expense. ODMs using a fork will have to address it.
But they might have some help. If Baidu and Amazon devices shift buckets, then Qualcomm and others will be happy to help them out. It might be the new norm - we'll only take the chipsets with a working fork of Android.
>> For every low hanging fruit there's probably 5 hardcore pirates who are already "lost" to the MAFIAA - ie, will never pay for anything ever again <<
If your "5 hardcore pirates" want something badly enough they'll pay to get it. If they were never going to buy it in the first place, they are not a lost sale to the entertainment industries.
Many have twigged (in this thread and elsewhere) that the enforcement measures are leaky and incomplete, they CAN'T and WON'T stop determined downloaders. Eg web-blocking - we all know how to get around it.
But that's not the point, because hardcore 'tards are not the target of the measures. It's the 80 per cent, the casuals who will pay a bit more for stuff, but don't have to today because getting it illegally is consequence-free, who are.
That's the logic. It may be crackers, it may be rational, but you helps to understand it before formulating a response.
And no one thinks it will save the creative industries unless they do a LOT more work with new services.
But a right is meaningless unless it can ultimately be enforced somehow. And creators have rights. Their current enforcement options are an ineffective token gesture, something very few can afford, so they want new ones to nudge people into paying.
"The existing laws are perfectly functional"
Semantically, this makes no sense. Did you mean "the existing laws are perfectly adequate" or "the existing laws are perfectly ineffective to stop anyone taking the piss" - and arrived at that as a compromise? :-)
"Possibly Andrew writing that headline"
Not my headline :-)
"But then this is el reg, where ... anyone downloading anything must be a freetard"
You've made 1,780 posts here (all anonymous), Sir, so you should know by now that is false.
Find the cluestick, find your head, acquaint the two.
....so speaks an academic close to government ;-)
Many academics now are, unfortunately, parasitically dependent on government grants for rubber-stamping preconceived social or environmental policies. They are not independent, and are not adding the sum of human knowledge.
Add to that publicity-seeking pseudo scientists with an eye for a press release. The papers are full this junk.
I would suggest you should be thinking about cleaning up your own house. Unless you think an attack on junk science is an attack on you.
Well you don't live here and didn't RTFA. If you assertion is true, Sky would have been sued for the PVR, there would be no tape-to-tape machines etc. CBS vs Amstrad in 1988 cleared that up.
It is really fascinating to watch people invent chills and threats that don't exist.
"but the kind of ecosystem that Apple has built, is very difficult / risky in UK"
The UK has more services than anyone else. The music industry needs to experiment much more, but the ones you describe are plentiful.
Liability for manufacturers was clarified in Amstrad vs CBS in 1988.