175 posts • joined Wednesday 19th May 2010 16:22 GMT
Re: Probably because
I keep reading about this "legal" duty but I am hard pressed to find any legislation that embodies such an obligation and it certainly does not exist in tort.
Companies seek investment from investors (the shareholders) on the premise that if the business is successful it will pay a return to the investor. Any company that is set up without the expectation of making a return that can be passed on to the investors is probably a fraud and the law will deal with such companies.
Even in the US, shareholders cannot sue because the return is not as great as it should have been, they can sue where the information provided by the board of a company is alleged to be false or misleading or where there actions are deemed to be fraudulent or perverse. Again there is no way to sue the company for failing to "maximise" profits.
The determination to minimise tax is something that people will always seek to do simply because no one likes to pay tax. The directors of companies will always look to make the most money available to investors because a)they own lots of shares or will receive lots of shares where they can take steps to boost the share price and b)for most executives any failure to boost profits year after year is likely to reduce the share price thus causing them to lose their jobs (possibly). Therefore maximising the share price is the driving factor not dividends. This is evidenced by the long standing practice of Apple to not pay dividends a practice which failed to stop the rapid rise of the share price.
Of course Apple has seen a fall in the share price following the board's announcement to pay dividends. The approach they are now taking to do share buybacks is aimed to improve the share price by reducing the number of shares.
Hang on a minute
According to recent legal cases in the US, large and small corporations are natural persons which is why they can set up super PACs to fund politicians as well as receive tax breaks as persons contributing to political activity.
I think the professor needs to revamp his view. His argument is based on the premise that all taxes are ultimately paid by real (as in flesh and blood) people either as employees, shareholders, executives, etc of these companies. This is no longer true. The corporation is now viewed, at least under US law, as a natural person (flesh and blood) and therefore the reality is that the corporation should pay the taxes whereas those who benefit from the gifts of the corporation (dividends, wages,etc) should no longer be taxed on such gifts in the same way as I am not taxed when my granny gives me a gift.
Only three infrastructure providers in the UK
The single biggest issue which the EU competition bods and UK govt fail to realise is that the three primary infrastructure providers for public telecommunications are BT together with Virgin and KC. Of these three only BT actually has a network that is capable of being used by all the piggyback providers such as TalkTalk, O2 and Plusnet. Therefore the reality is that if you are going to use state funds to build,extend or upgrade a telecomms network then BT is the company you have to go to.
It is entirely feasible for others to have a go, for example Virgin could extend their networks into new areas or even in to areas where they have the main channel but have never connected the actual houses (and there are a few places like this). KC could look to push out from Kingston Upon Hull and in to the Eastern parts of the UK, but in both cases why bother? Having to open their network infrastructure up in the same way as BT is not in their competitive interest.
Unlike AC I don't believe that there are others out there who want to give it a go. Outsourcing the expensive part of a network (the wires and cabinets) to someone else at a state controlled price is much easier than actually going out and building a new network in a city never mind the whole country. It is therefore time for the EU to face reality, unless national governments can be persuaded to break up existing national telecom infrastructures in to multiple companies (unlikely due to the massive increase in costs that would result from more interconnection charges and traffic routing costs) then we all have to accept that when it comes to a national telecommunications infrastructure the best we can do is negotiate good terms for access with our monopoly providers.
The simple solution
Don't use Google! If you are concerned about their not paying tax then don't use their websites, encourage your family, friends and neighbours to do the same and get them to encourage others to take the same approach. By not using Google you impact on their business and thus their profits.
Of course no one will do the above as it actually means thinking about what your internet usage and maybe finding a UK search engine that can offer similar functions and services as Google but it is the only way to impact on them. It was the reason Starbucks decided to "donate" some tax, they saw a major loss of business on the horizon and acted to try and circumvent it.
Waste is an issue
If publishers want to be allowed to deteriorate a book to force a new purchase then I am fine with that subject to their picking up the following costs:
Disposal of the electronic and paper books that are no longer usable
Disposal of the memory that contains electronic books when the device no longer works or is ready to be thrown away (extend the WEEE regulations so they contribute part of the cost)
A contribution to the clearing up of the toxic processes that are involved in producing the means by which electronic books are made readable
Today publishers pay little if anything of the cost of clearing up the waste created by paper books so the merest hint that they could be hit with landfill charges on a number of books published basis may well encourage them to start thinking differently about the future instead of looking at ways to force readers, authors and libraries to remain stuck in the present.
Once again govt lying about the reality
I have experience of working with Govt depts and can state categorically that Govt depts chat to each other constantly about the service providers they are using, their capabilities and most importantly of all, the prices they are paying for the services including rates and margins. The idea that they cannot share bid information is a non-starter in my view.
As for the confidentiality provisions signed by Govt, if they are bad provisions then the Govt is to blame as they provide the terms and more often than not it is the suppliers who are shafted by the terms not the Govt. As an example of the situation all Govt contracts include open book accounting provisions so the customer can see clearly what the supplier's margins are and how they have been calculated.
I suppose the last thing that suppliers can accept the is honesty from the Govt, they are not honest with any one else.
Is the author a gas trader?
So we have three graphs to purport to show the UK running out of gas; unfortunately that is not what they show at all.
The gas network as operated by our own National Grid is designed to work with a specific volume of gas exerting a level of pressure to ensure that the gas flows around the network. If there is a problem with the pressure then then accidents can happen (like explosions) if to high or the gas will stop flowing if the pressure is to low. This creates a problem for National Grid in that large gas users in industry can be cut off from the gas supply network but people like me (ordinary consumers) can't be cut isolated from the grid and an unreliable supply is likely to cause me and my home problems. Therefore to manage the pressure a certain quantify of gas is required to be stored in order to maintain a safe pressure in the gas network. These charts deal with that problem and not the supply of gas for use.
The gas network receives supplies from a number of sources e.g. the pipeline from Norway (currently providing 113 mcm/day) as well as Belgium and the shipments in to the UK's LNG terminals. Therefore the imports are used to a)feed the gas network and b)the storage facilities used in the safety monitoring system. As the pipes from the continent can be directly connected to the UK gas network then the flow of gas is maintained.
The UK was never in danger of running out of gas. Three shipments are due before the 3rd April 2013 and as the charts show, the cycle of demand v deliverability works around a 1st of the month pattern of peak and run down as gas is used to maintain the pressure and then replenished. If these charts really showed the gas storage for the UK then according to that interpretation between Christmas and New Year the whole gas network would have shut down and there would have been no Christmas lunch (the chart shows no gas in that period).
Suggest people go on Yahoo which reports the deliveries and flow of gas from the continent has caused a 10-12% fall in trading prices of gas today as there is no lack of gas in the UK following the forecasted three deliveries, one or two of which are going to an underused facility called Dragon in Wales.
People need to read the detail plus backing information and not just the headlines.
Moved back to BT
After 2.5 years of crap service from TalkTalk with collapse in speed to less than a 1mb in the evening, problems downloading even Flash player updates and constant router resets, I finally bit the bullet and went back to BT.
Transfer back was smooth from a service perspective but there were problems with some of the administrative bits. Performance is constant over the day at around 3.7mbps - 3.8mbps even in the evening.
I live in a village near to a small town that has fibre to the cabinet but its not for me as their exchange does not include our village. Our exchange is about 1.5 - 2 miles away and we only get copper. But the fact that I can now steam video in the evening as well as download stuff at a reasonable speed and within reasonable time frames means that after many years of complaint, I actually have to say that I am happy with BT.
Ofcom on the other hand seem only interested in making cash for the government and trying to manipulate data to support the Fun House's claims that the UK will have fastest broadband in Europe. It would be better if they focussed on introducing incentives for BT to provide fibre across a wider range of locations which can then be used by all providers.
And in the red corner
It's interesting that in this report and so many other discussions on this topic there is not a single reference as to what the providers of the data think about the proposals. Of course Viviane Reding will be out there saying that the proposal is focused on our protection yet that rings a little hollow when one sees how much data some people are willing to put on line.
Perhaps this might go easier between the EU, national govts and business if they actually went and spoke to real people to see where the actual issues around personal data usage lie and work to deliver a model in line with those views.
Why should this be necessary?
I have seen lots of outsourcing contracts over the last few years and the majority of them have terms in them, provided by the lawyers, that give the customer step in rights or the right to terminate, if the supplier's investment rating falls below a certain level/ Other contracts demand financial guarantees from parent companies or other financial stakeholders and especcially for public sector contracts, open book accounting. So the customer already has the tools to prevent being caught out by these types of events.
Mind you there is the other side of the equation which is customers let their lawyers demand that these thing and then fail to actually exercise their rights or even review the information provided by the supplier. Even on open book accounts where the information has been provided, the customer never really bother to look at them.
There is no need for a fund what is needed is for customers to actually start to meet their obligations under contracts and manage their suppliers instead of ignoring them and only whinging when they can't get to Facebook or Amazon or their e-mail has stopped working so they don't get the links to the latest cute kitten video.
Re: Security issues
"A) Most technical security issues are caused by Microsoft security holes."
I think you mean that a lot of technical security issues can be attirbuted to software that runs on Windows machines including within the Windows software.
"B) An even greater number of security issues are caused by social engineering or by employees making mistakes or up to nefarious activities, either out of incompetence, disgruntlement or out of a desire to defraud."
And such security issues will continue to exist and become potentially more apparent in a BYOD world where users continue to do all of the above plus fail to implement the necessary controls that exist on laptops and desktops which have anti-virus, firewall and malware software installed to minise those risks.
"BYOD is a security concern but generally not as bad as the above security concerns, the extra risk of BYOD is nowhere near as great as fixing the above would reduce risks."
Just not true, the issues in your point B continue to apply in the BYOD world.
"In fact if BYOD meant fewer MS boxes, then it might improve security. iPads and Androids are more secure than windows laptops or tablets "
The problem is that there is no evidence that fewer MS boxes would result. Data still needs to be stored, applications still need to be run, web servers and proxies are still required so why would someone running round with a fancy device they brought in impact on the number of MS boxes? Even in the device area Windows phones are available as is Surface, chances are that like the XBox these products will become more used rather than remaining at their low levels simply because companies will see them as easier to integrate and will therefore incentivise their use as BYOD rather than Apple or Android devices.
BYOD is a complex issue for companies and trying to make it an "easy" decision will simply create more problems down the line
Bit like the parson's egg
Good in parts and awful in others.
The first part fo the article is absolutely correct, far to many outsourcing customers sign the contract sit on their backsides and whinge because the supplier isn't making their mid morning tea like the IT staff did in the old days.
There is a need for outsourcing customers to actually read the contract and do what it says, all those minor things like providing the standards that everyone is supposed to work to, doing the work that is their responsibility, attending review meetings, etc. They also need to recognise where the contract is crap and get their sourcers to update their materials so that the next contract is better. Far to many sourcers never talk to the business and focus on their pet issues which don't help the business but do fit in to current legal fads.
And doing all the above means people talking to each other and lot of that needs to be done face to face. Social media can be used, where it is an internal social media system, to communciate between customer and supplier but believe me outsourcing is far more about relationships than it is about poking each other on Facebook (does anyone do that anymore) or trying to compose a nice 142 character comment that will get a laugh on Twitter.
Oh and not all outsourcing is done from India a fair amount is still done within the UK by UK staff and they don't want people giving them crap on Twitter either.
Snowmen prevent flooding
How interesting that this finding appears just after a senior scientist lik bloke from the Government announced that we should all build lots of snowmen to help reduce the risk of flooding. Apparently compacted ice and snow take longer to melt even under higher temperatures than the loose stuff.
From memory the ice in both Antarctica and Greenland is very compacted having been there for some multi-hundred thousand year period (if not millions) and therefore will take a long time to melt even if the temperature does increase. Of course if it doesn't go down again then there is a pretty strong probability that it will eventually all melt and we will (well unless you live on top of very high hill) be drowned.
On that note I suggest that a)Greenpeace are right and b) that those who deny climate change are also right and that c) this all just goes to show that no-one really has a clue about anything so complex as the weather.
Hungary votes to support proposal
Or I imagine they will since they have recently been rebuked by the EU for doing something similar around freedom of the press.
The upside of this is that it is simply a gang of no-marks providing a report and Steely Neelie is not normally someone who accepts such crap when presented to her if she thinks it has the potential to damage democracy. That said of course some of these things are already in place; for example the UK has a body that can fine newspapers or demand they print an apology.
Overall though this document is written by people who have no understanding of the media (its either to make money or promulgate the political views of the owner), ignore the impact such rules would have on democracy and forgot to review it with the idea of how will this be seen by the European Public. The latter point is quite important because if they had thought about this they would have realised that it was a fail from day one.
VAT = Turnover tax!!
"There is already a tax on turnover in the UK, and it is called VAT."
No it isn't. VAT is a sales tax, paid by purchasers, collected by sellers and paid to HMRC after the seller deducts their own sales tax paid to other companies.
There is a growing claim by tax lawyers and companies that when we assess their tax liabilities we should take in to account all the taxes that they pay to HMRC whether or not they are actually paid by the company.
The only companies in Britain that pay VAT are financial businesses since they cannot reclaim VAT in the main.
Try Peter F Hamilton
Like most good SF writers he uses current knowledge and possible future directions for the basis of his technology and he has covered a good few of the suggestions here including:
Crystal memory stores to aid the brain's natural memory storage
In build communications tech in the brain
Virtual reality interfaces activated by closing the eyes and seeing "ghost" images which provide functionality.
His books are OK but sometimes the ending of the stories leave a bit to be desired. But his approach to the science is pretty good and I do have an old memory that suggests I read an article about tests looking at how technology can be used to enhance/improve memory capture in the brain.
Re: Mobile phones are nothing new
I always put it down to the fact that the other ship had shields and probably proton torpedo counter measures that could be deployed during the battle
And the first prosecution is......
The CIA for the release in to the wild of Stuxnet. The claimant being Iraq.
I think this could be a good laugh since the US are at least as much a threat to the rest of the world as they think everyone else is to them.
Private Enterprise Identity Assurance
Whatever makes the Govt think that the majority of the population would be happy letting private businesses manage our private information? I may use Facebook and Yahoo but the idea I would let them store my sensitive personal information which they can then share with the Govt (without my agreement under the new Data Communications Act and RIPA no doubt) is a none starter from my perspective.
Is this whole policy based on jealousy of the way the US govt can get access to all kinds of citizen data from private companies without the need for court orders or any form of oversight whatsoever?
Nice article but misses the point of Leveson.
This article is not as strong as its author may wish. Claiming that DPA is a statutory regulation of the press is like claiming that the criminalisation of Burglary is a for of press regulation. Neither laws are designed to control or prohibit the right of the press to publish stories that involve information criminally obtained or which contain personal or even sensitive personal information.
The issue of the Leveson inquiry relates to the interpretation of the need to underpin the body that investigates press abuses with a statute. This is a key component of the Leveson report and to my mind politicians and sections of the media are twisting this to present a view that this is a means to allow Parliament to constrain or control the actions of the British free press. The reality is that Leveson is right any body set up to regulate the press must be both independent and have real teeth in dealing with those it regulates (past evidence shows that voluntary regulation not only in the press does not work remember all that voluntary regulation around estate agents?).
What is missing from today's world is the statutory compliance with the rules and regulations of the existing regulatory board (which is made up of newspaper editors), an independent regulatory body (not made up of newspaper editors) and the binding of all the press to the rules of that regulatory body. This does not need to include control of the media just the establishment of a body that does not consist of people who believe that they know (purely on the basis of what will sell a newspaper) what is in the public interest.
But I am not sure that I can support your assumptions. The EU is an attempt to provide an open market between countries and you are correct that the objective in the long term is to allow a company to sell goods and or services to consumers or businesses in all EU countries without having to actually have a presence in that country. However that model will only work with companies that do not need to have an in country presence (i.e. those that can allow software downloads or send paperwork or goods from country A to country B). The EU model also has a drawback since it envisages a uniform tax framework across all member states otherwise countries will skew the concept of a single market. We see the attempt to for a single tax framework coming to the fore quite frequently in Eu dominated questions (Daily Mail headlines about forcing UK to apply VAT on housing like the rest of Europe).
The second fallacy in your argument is to assume that a lack of corporate taxation will result in benefits for all. This is not true. A company should in theory return the maximum amount of profits to its shareholders. However, in today's world most companies seemed to be geared up to return large returns to its management board at the expense of both shareholders and employees. One only has to look at the Banks where shareholder value has been all but destroyed but the members of the management board continue to receive high levels of return for minimal responsibility. This is true also for other companies.
If Apple is keen to reward its investors, especially those who have been shareholders since the 1990s, then why has it only just paid a dividend? This despite having sat on a mountain of cash for many years. Steve Jobs always said his shareholders should focus on the share price as that was their reward, the money was effectively his or at least the board of directors.
Many US companies currently keep large sums of cash offshore rather than repatriate the money back in to the US where it would be taxed. This money is a real dead weight since it is delivering little value to any of the stakeholders involved in a business. Surely if companies are happy to pay tax in their country of operation they should be happy to repatriate and pay the US govt the tax due. On the other hand if they are interested only in tax avoidance then this would explain why they are currently asking the US govt for a tax holiday so that they can use this money. Problem is the US govt has done this before and had to sit on its hands when companies handed this tax free money to management boards and shareholders rather than creating the jobs or making the investments that they had promised would happen.
The one fact I think that everyone needs to take on board is that the likes of Starbucks, Google, e-bay and others are now claiming that they pay huge sums in employment taxes and VAT. The reality is that the majority of employment taxes are actually paid by their employees and other than financial institutions companies pay no VAT since they reclaim it from the VAT paid by the customers which companies collect on behalf of the Government. The person paying the VAT has no option to pay even where it is becoming unaffordable (for example on energy and heating supplies).
Companies being people should pay their taxes and that payment should take place to the extent reasonably possible where the transaction takes place. Both Google and e-Bay employ people in the UK as do Starbucks. They should be paying the relevant taxes on their income just like people because at the end of the day, if they are people who can contribute huge sums of money to political campaigns then they should be treated exactly like ordinary people.
Re: Naughty subs.....
Nice table, love the waterfall effect that it has in the lower half but, and this I think is quite important, it is only a table with no explanation of the figures, has more asterisks than a French comic book and the methodology associated with the reported data is not provided. On that basis I think the the table is, in the context, of your argument useless.
Re: Don't wanna pay taxes
They do although indirectly.
The people who work for companies are assets just like the computer systems, buildings and machines used in those businesses. The health system provides for the people exactly what the maintenance companies provide for the other assets, maintenance services and support to make sure the company assets are capable of being used to allow a return on investment to be achieved through those assets.
Schools are like the people who create the computer systems, buildings and machines. They put out the items that companies will procure as assets in order to operate as part of the business.
Imagine what would happen if people didn't pay for software (or don't just read the register and see what they report on this subject).
It is important to consider all aspects of the issue and not the immediate links.
Ahemm - Don't want to spoil the party
I just want to point out that this design is a direct rip off of my US Patent for a square building with rounded sides such that it forms a circle. Where do I lodge my claim? It may also breach my US Patent for a circular structure for the housing of fanbois and their keepers/feeders.
Are we surprised?
This type of cock up is the can be reasonably foreseen when dealing with people whose only strategy is to buy things at the lowest cost. The idea of actually sitting down, compiling a detailed set of customer requirements (that can be validated across the whole organisation and not just the Cabinet Office or a single department), assessing those requirements, understanding and formulating a strategy for delivering them and then designing, building, testing and supporting an appropriate solution is beyond the politicians and their special advisers but of course they can always blame the civil servants for their ineptness.
The whole reason the govt wants SMEs is not to boost UK industry or even to give business to SMEs. The truth is that they expect SMEs to sign up to unlimited liabilties and onerous contract terms because they are so desperate for the work they will agree anything at any price. Fiascos like this one serve a salutory lesson to the SMEs, consider carefully if you are willing to carry the can for a govt screw up because they certainly won't pay the financial costs of their negligence.
Re: We are
I think your first option falls down, the probability of life on other planets is probably likely since the factors required for life in the universe are very common and as you say the premise is based on a lack of space faring nations.
The fourth option is also probably the most likely in that if other life is based on an evolutionary basis (which is highly probable) then like ourselves it has found it impossible to break out from within its own solar system with manned ships and therefore is setting there having the same stupid arguments and wars as the people of earth.
Universal Provision is still subject to discussion
I am fed up of people saying how Britain will have the fastest broadband or that 90% of the population will have access to 2mbps without actually telling us what our actual (as opposed to forecast or maybe with a good following wind) download speeds will be.
I synch with my local exchange at 5.6mbps and get a download speed after 6 pm of around 1.1mbps on a good day and less most days. What I really want from someone (govt or supplier) is a download speed that is is at least 75% of my synch speed on average over the whole day and not in the 10 mins when I am the only person awake and online.
The theoretical speed of the line is of no benefit if contention rations are huge and the actual available backhaul is the size of a small drinking straw.
You need to check your facts before you post.
If you build a house in the countryside and it does not come with a pre-installed telephone cable attached to the local network, you have to pay BT to run the cable to the property in exactly the same way as the gas or electric companies.
As for using a mobile, some people in the countryside do use a mobile on 2G because for most of the countryside there is no 3G and its doubtful if we will get 4G either.
And your assumption that we are Lib-Con (Con Lib) supporters is also insulting as is the idea that the Tories will provide broadband to the rural areas, they haven't so far and all the plans I have seen thus far don't show that changing (Central Beds council got ~£600K of the £500 million the Govt is throwing around).
Re: Move House
That is why I can live with a 400kbps upload limit on my broadband when I submit the form. However, when I have to download megabytes of code to be able to see the form in the first place or to review the held documentation when checking how to fill in the form then I need a higher download speed.
Even if your original premise had any basis in reality the fact is that even if I moved to a city I would still not be sure to get a decent speed. I have a friend in Milton Keynes (modern UK town built in the mid sixties) who is on the Bradwell Abbey exchange. As exchanges go its brilliant, BT has installed fibre to the cabinet and all those lovely goodies and he still gets less than 1mbps download speed. My dad who lives in Liverpool on an estate larger than my village and gets his broadband through a LLU exchange only gets around 1mbps. So your suggestion is a load of bollocks.
As for me, I live in a village about 1 mile from a BT exchange that will go fttc in a couple of months time. The result is no change for me as I am on a different exchange which just shows how arbitrary such enhancements are and the pot luck you take in choosing where you live with respect to the broadband you can get.
Finally, 2mbps is not for entertainment and niche purposes for many people it is the way to get a better work life balance by being able to work from home, keep in touch with distant family members and to run a business. People like you are obviously envious of those of us who are able to select where we live whilst at the same time pay the majority of the tax that the govt receives but at the same time you ignore the fact that the majority of the people in the countryside are often worse off than people who live on sink estates in London. In my village there are around 75 private properties in a village of 350 homes. This means that the lack of supply pushes up the price. The same rules apply to good schools in towns and cities. At the same time it will also apply to broadband going forward since houses with good broadband speeds will increase in price faster than those with very slow connections. Its called supply and demand is part of something called economics.
One subject multiple stories
Having started to read up on this committee and its findings yesterday I probably have a better view than those who have simply read this particular one.
The Committee has actually said that the current strategy of having the world's fastest broadband does not achieve what is needed for the UK see this story first
As for their current proposal, they are right that using the internet to deliver content is the way forward, ultimately all content (phone calls, video calls, radio and television) will be delivered by this medium. Whether we use a fixed line connection or have wireless connectivity wherever we go is really a matter of choice, the actual medium for delivery will be the given. Freeing up radio spectrum improves the chances of providing high speed internet access to all since it removes a major barrier to achieving it today (lack of spectrum at the right wave lengths). If Arquiva (today's broadcast TV monopolist) had any sense they would already be undertaking the necessary work to allow for their tv towers to be used to provide a high speed wireless broadband backbone network that can be used to support the 4G networks of next year.
As for issues of tv licenses, new models are needed to ensure that people pay for content. If we don't start to think about that now, then like the internet radio stations, tv companies will potentially price the product out of the broadcasters ability to pay (internet radio pays on a per stream basis with each individual user equal to 1 stream). The people who produce the content deserve a real return on their efforts in the same way as people who work in other industries.
I think that this Committee has done something that the last two Governments have failed to do, they have identified a clear vision of the digital future, they have proposed some but not all the actions that may need to be taken to get their and like Paddy Boyle they are attempting to make sure that everyone gets included and not just those who live in the brand new house with a piece of glass fibre linking it to the fibre equipped exchange next door.
As for me I am off to look at business opportunities that will make me rich whilst I live in my little village that as a result of this report may yet get a decent broadband speed which does not vary by up to 60% depending on the time of day.
Re: Damn right
Thumbs up from me on this one. Fed up with getting 4mbps during the day and then watching it slow to a 1-1.5mbps connection in the evening. Stops me from helping to create jobs by buying a Netflix or Lovefilm subscription as I just wouldn't be able to watch the movies.
As to Virgin opening up their network, that would be nice especially since as the sole cable provider in the UK they have a monopoly which unlike BT's never gets referred to the Competition Commission or OfCom
Think people are over complicating this..
Under English law relating to electronic publishing the act of publishing occurs at the computer screen as that is where the browser interprets, processes and publishes the data for the reader to view it. This is why the viewing of pornographic material on a computer screen by an individual makes them liable under the the Obscene Publications Act since they are responsible for publishing the material.
The case in question in the article is as a result of a claim by the defendant that they were not liable as the material was stored by them in Austria but published in the UK and therefore they could not be liable for any copyright breach in the UK as they had not published it. The opinion challenges that view.
The opinion does not say that every router on the network publishes the material. What it is saying (in my view) is that a party who makes available material even where that information is stored on a server in another country (Country A) is still part of the publishing process as a content provider and that where their actions result in an offence in the country where the final publication occurs (Country B), then whilst their actions in Country A may be legal, they are still a joint party to the offence in Country B. Therefore the English courts will have jurisdiction in the trial.
If you think this is harsh, bear in mind that London has become the libel capital of the world because of the fact that the act of publishing material happens on the screen in England and therefore constitutes publication of the subject of the libel claim.
To compare electronic and paper publishing is a nonesense since they are two separate activities which follow different processes and result in different outcomes (one is a tangible unchangeable document) the other is a transient page that can be modified or deleted at any time to stop people reading it.
Data passing through a router cannot be viewed as "publishing" for the simple reason that it is not available to the public or even a private audience since by its nature the data is transient, may not be the complete dataset and is not processed for viewing by the router.
Instead of looking at the worst case actually read what was said
We need to change our consumption levels in the West: not an unreasonable demand. For starters lets just reduce the volume of food we buy that we don't eat (there's few million tonnes of consumption saved), lets stop producing things we don't need (like who really needs a tamagotchi or a furby). Simple steps like these will reduce consumption and in doing so reduce demand and thus prices.
As for resources of course they diminish. Technology replaces the use of but not the actual resource. For example electricity has been around for 100 years and yet whales who once provided the oil for lamps are still an endangered species due to over hunting. If we fail to improve our usage of resources then they will disappear even if we find something to replace them with. And you are betting the house that we can always find the technology to replace our usage before the resource runs out (good run so far but one day we will fail).
Finally, it may have escaped some but pension ages are increasing and the value of pensions decreasing (both state and private pensions) as people are living to long, the means of providing pensions has become inefficient (volatility in bond markets for example). The result is that if you want to survive then you will need to work longer just to make up the cash you need to buy food etc.
The report and suggested changes are not extreme if viewed from a realistic perspective of the world and only idiots ignore the real world
You forgot one
6. when the contract is signed, the govt will put it in the draw and tell you what to do whether it was in the contract or not. They will then complain when you want to charge them more. They will do nothing to determine whether or not you are complying with the contract and then whinge bitterly because you failed to meet one minor requirement which actually required them to provide information but they claim you should know as an expert provider of services to the government.
And of course with new Govt procurement rules.....
these incidents are likely to happen more frequently in the future since more and more government depts are being told not to sign big contracts with single suppliers. Instead they are to break them down in to Service Towers and put each one out to competitive tender.
What is the odds of ATOS getting even more roles as the Systems Integrator and finding that they can't work out how things link together and that the other companies don't want to share information (because they lose competitive advantage when the competitor knows how you do things).
Big deals are often portrayed as expensive and block SMEs from the market but the one thing they do really well is put one neck on the block. Odds are that ATOS has already identified who they think caused the problems and it won't be them.
Rock and hard place come to mind
I certainly have no desire to see the internet managed by any nation but nor do I want it to fall in to the hands of a bureaucratic non-entity like ITU. I don't trust the US any more than I would trust Russia or China or most other countries come to that.
Perhaps we could transfer it Switzerland or Costa Rica with the latter being my preference since they have no standing army and keep their heads below the parapet whereas the latter may well introduce laws based on local referendums.
Catch up tv is only 9.2%..
is this because apart from the BBC iPlayer and a very poor showing from Demand5 no other catch up tv channels exist apart from on computers which are pretty difficult to easily set up on TVs.
I have a Sony TV which I use to watch iPlayer and the occasional movie from Sony. What I would really like is a facility that lets me watch catch up TV from all broadcasters and lets me search for material on line (rather than the walled garden approach that exists today) to that I can watch what I want and not what others want me to watch.
Of course to achieve that delightful scenario I would also need me current ISP or any ISP to upgrade my local exchange so that I can get download speeds in excess of 3mbps (off-peak) and 1mbps (peak) on a regular basis but hey if all the money has gone to Yourview then I suppose I'll have to wait until it turns a profit which won't happen 'cos like me 70% of the UK does not have a decent broadband connection and at current deployment rates probably never will
Do Homeland security and other airport security organisations know about this? I am amazed that anyone managed to get anything liquid cooled on a plane when you remember that you cannot even take a tube of antiseptic cream on.
Re: Poor Siemens...
Or more recently, daddy who did you bribe?
And my ad is
for another credit card. Sorry that's how the world got in to its current economic mess, to much credit.
Perhaps Facebook should do what other sites do and track your interests to provide suitable ads that you might be interested in. Of course I don't click them either so it won't change things but at least I'll be ignoring the things that I might possibly at some point in the future be interested in.
The problem is not really theft
As Anonymous says, there are plenty of other ways to get access to a company's IP if they are manufacturing products so preventing people from stealing and selling it simply hits the thief, the recipients will still get the information elsewhere.
The real problem is that despite some changes to Chinese law and that in other countries (e.g. Russia) getting local courts to actually enforce and then having local authorities implement court judgements to reclaim/prevent the use of, your IP is still pretty poor. It is this weak application of the law or even the fact that the law does not allow you to protect your IP effectively that really causes the problems.
Of course money is more important than protecting IP for many companies (and I see that approach regularly in my work) so moving manufacturing to low cost countries is still justifiable even if it does mean giving up your actual IP because as everyone knows, thinking up new profitable ideas is easy.
And then there is the real story that never gets discussed.
The world evolves and businesses grow and decline because things change. Kodak is on the verge of death because of all those patents relating to photography that have now lost all their value. Meanwhile patent trolls sit on the sidelines waiting for the best moment to make a quick buck from the company who reinvented the invention independently and then actually went to market with it to try and use it to provide value or utility to the public/business. And of course we have the patenting of blindingly obvious and standard processes which abounds in the US.
I have no problem with individuals making money from their own creativity nor corporations who invest billions in ideas and research (and funnily enough that even extends to Hollywood and EMI). My objection is when they use those rights to prevent others from coming to market with better goods or try to make excessive profits because they have no competitors (lets be clear here, Apple does not licence its iPad, iPod or iPhone technology to anyone) that way leads to monopoly power which is wrong and does harm economies.
I also object to people who have not actually sought to exploit a license for their own benefit. Why should they be able to receive compensation for not doing anything (let's be clear someone who invents and is then unable to find a buyer but has taken steps in the right direction does not deserve to be disenfranchised).
The issue with IP today is not that it needs to be made available to the public or that creators need to give it up their rights. The real problem is that people should stop using it to prevent competition or seek excessive profits. Does Hollywood really incur an extra £4 per blue-ray (would love to see what is worth the additional £4 on some of my blu-ray disks). I would also like to see the prevention of patents being granted for commonsense ideas or approaches (like using the finger to push to one side as opposed to swiping the finger, to unlock my phone). Protect creativity but not commonsense.
Re: Double standards
Actually as percentages go yes I did. I paid my 40% plus my 11% NIC up to the 40% mark and then an additional 1% above that. At the same time I saw my VAT payments increase, car tax and fuel taxes increase and half a dozen other little taxes that the govt levies on me each tax year.
At the same time Apple, Google, IBM, Microsoft and co are all paying less tax as a percentage of their income than I do on my salary. Apple in the UK would pay a tax for employees which is employers NIC but they do not pay employee taxes, we the employees pay that money out of our salaries.
In terms of amounts, paying £2 billion would not be a problem for me if I still had £29 billion left to play with, to be honest even paying £30 billion and being left with a £1 billion would be pretty nice.
the big firms get the work not because they are the best or that Government does not look at the offerings of small and medium sized companies, they get it because unlike their smaller competitors they can afford to take on the risks associated with large complex projects with punitive penalties and onerous terms. Go look an OGC contract for a deal over £10 million, it requires the supplier to make sure that they pay their subcontractors within 30 days(surely govt interference in the market!!), it requires them to implement the appropriate security for personal data but with no commitment to pay the costs of doing that and by the way makes them wholly responsible paying the costs related to any data breach (paying for new bank accounts for people, setting up helplines, etc).
If you make contracts onerous and try to force all the risk on the supplier, then smaller companies are never going to be able to compete and G-Cloud and all the other great Govt schemes in this area are never going to lead to the usurpation of the work granted to the so called big 6.
Bradwell Abbey - What a laugh
My mate is on the Bradwell Abbey exchange, a speed check with BT tells him he will be lucky to get 1mb and event then it needs to dry weather and the day needs to have an "x" in it.
Time to save the natin
we who actually live in the reality fo the majority recognise this for what it is, a massive attack on civil liberties by a few brain dead politicians responding to the provision of a nice wedge of cash for the party funds and a directorship of a nice bank or multinational company (who is probably investing in the technology firms making the required products to achieve this, or even the companies doing it). It is time that we rose up and fought for our freedom, demanded that they retract this infamous Act of Parliament and if they don't let us take to the streets and show them that it is we the people who have the power in this country not the so called political masters.
On the other hand on the basis of the governments view of what constitutes a terrorist my next posting may not be for sometime and potentially from a US prison (even though my alleged crime is perpetrated in the UK).
Myth 1. The government acts in the interests of the people
Myth 2. It won't read mails in real time so long as that is defined as while you are writing it
Myth 3. It will help capture terrorists most of whom have been captured in the last 10 years without this level of interference and which interference would probably never have caught the ones who did commit offences
Myth 4. It's for you own good
Myth 5. Theresa May is some sort of attractive looking Tory minister 'cos she wear kitten heels
Myth 6. We will all be on the watch list for having posted on this web site. OOOPS that is not a myth.
Re: False Positives
Isn't that what the US govt does now when requesting the extradition of a UK subject?
Re: when she says
No when they can't find anything else they will flog the information for £2.50 to £3.00 to some private investigator who tells them that he needs to the information because you parked on his auntie's cousin's sister in law's friend's acquaintance's passer by's road where you didn't see the no parking/dogging/feeding the ducks/etc sign and therefore they need to serve you with a civil offence notice just on the off chance you might be suckered into paying their multi thousand pound penalty notice.