17 posts • joined 3 Oct 2012
What a surprise...
Who'd have thought that a technological solution to a social problem would be unsuccessful. Particularly when that technological solution was conceived by non-technical people like politicians.
You seem to have made a mistake in the first sentence.
You wrote: "the free content ad network"; it should read "the content-free ad network".
As I've always said: if you can't fix it with a hammer, it wasn't really broken.
And the prize for 2013's least surprising tech announcement goes to...
If you take homeopathy seriously, then everything is (literally) diluted bullshit - which makes it more powerful.
Re: Throwing mud
Luckily Apple doesn't have form for being aggressively (and often unreasonably) litigious.
Maybe not a mapping fail
Pretty much all of the examples people have given (this one included) sounds like search failures.
In this case, searching for "Mildura" Apple Maps finds "Mildura Rural City" and duly directs the soon-to-be-corpse to that location (which looks to be coded as the centre of the region). Google will do similar things with some UK Postcodes - if you enter the full post code for a postcode, Google may direct you to the centre of the post code sector. The whole Luton or London things are also pretty obviously search failures.
I'm sure there are mapping errors too - but all map data will have some errors in it. If it's a search failure, this is most definitely not the fault of the map data. It is the fault of the search function. And that's entirely the responsibility of the people who wrote the search app... in this case, Apple.
Who'd have thought that Google might be good at taking ambiguous search strings and figuring out what the user might have actually meant? I mean, it's not like it's their day job or anything...
The problem is that if someone relatively minor (like me) gets unjustly attacked by the press, I currently have no recourse. The PCC is weak. I can't afford to prosecute a suit against a big media organisation. And they'd not actually be breaking the law (lying itself isn't illegal - if it was, the Daily Mail wouldn't exist).
A stronger regulatory body is required to protect people against the power of the press - protection that they don't currently have - and statute is required to make sure that regulation has teeth. Statute does not require the Government to actually regulate the press. Of course, the press isn't smart enough to understand the difference.
Either that, or it's against their self-interest to understand the difference and they are deliberately mis-representing the issue.
Did Apple not decline to comment...
... when contacted by The Register?
That's basically Samsung's argument.
Apple has said, "You should have known beforehand! You probably did and you didn't tell anyone." On that basis the Jury's history should not be a valid argument for a mistrial (i.e. it's Samsung's own fault).
Samsung, in response, produced a signed affidavit saying they didn't know (lawyers lying to the court is pretty serious). In turn, they have said, "OK Apple: when did you figure it out? If you knew before the trial, then you had an obligation to tell the court as this was obviously a potential source of bias. If you didn't know beforehand, then is is reasonable to expect us to have done something that you didn't?"
It's not that they're accusing Apple of anything: they're merely attempting to neutralise Apple's argument and keep there appeal alive.
Re: The jury
Is your name Velvin Hogan? You sound just like him!
Perhaps to stop you stupidly throwing it out of a 3rd floor window?
In the earlier case, Apple got spanked by an ITC judge. Samsung said, "you owe us X for these standards essential patents." Apple said, "see you in court." The judge said, "That's not negotiation, Apple. Go away." Microsoft has adopted a similar tactic of trying to dictate rather than negotiate prices. If this judge sees it the same way, it could get interesting.
it's not that simple...
This is a slightly tricky area as this is dealing not with UK tax law, but with international tax law. So it's very hard for the UK to act unilaterally (and, if they do, it gives license for other countries to act unilaterally - which does not end well). To address this requires EU-wide tax laws (many of these already exist, but those are the major loopholes). Should the UK decide to close them all by themselves, it could well have the converse effect of driving businesses currently based in the UK out of the country.
This is even more true as the world changes. Digital and electronic services can be easily produced and consumed in two different places (when you go to a website with some google placed advertisement in it, the servers that performed the analysis and placed the ad may well be located in the US. Or Asia. Or Russia. Or somewhere just up the road. How and where this sort of complex transaction should be taxed is very difficult to figure out and requires at a minimum international co-operation and, as an ideal solution - and international tax framework.
That's unlikely to happen - the nearest we could hope for in the short-medium term is a pan-European tax/regulation system. But the UK is busily pissing off (and on) the EU, so that's not very likely to happen either.
Re: Margaret Hodge - tax avoider
I'd probably look for a more objective - or at least factual - source than the Mail. They seem to shift between Revenue and Profit at will and aren't particularly clear on which is which. They report global revenue, global profits, and the percentage of revenue earned in the UK. They skip profits in the UK (which is the bit they are actually taxed on). Stemcor's explanation is they had a really bad year in the UK - consequently their profits were poor and that's what they paid tax on. They also overpaid in the previous year, further reducing their 2011 tax bill.
There may be a story here but the Mail's penchant for skipping facts to get to sensationalism has left it out.
Re: A tax on a sale...
Amazon also avoid VAT: mostly by selling through places like Jersey, where there is no VAT charged then shipping to mainland UK. This gives them quite an advantage over Waterstones, WH Smiths and HMV - being able to undercut prices by 20%.
I'm not sure if Google does anything similar: they may well do.
"Existing human infrastructure that can cope with these comparatively everyday occurrences will not be much affected by rises on the 30cm scale"
I think the article may have confused mean and variance. An increase in 30cm mean is very different from a variance of 2 meters: the peaks will still occur and those peak level will also rise by 30cm.
I'm not saying that we can't absorb this increase (I really have no idea), but the (very) sloppy thinking leaves me pretty sure that it's not as simple as the article makes out.