Re: Very nice
They also managed to avoid getting any thumb prints on the canopy too.
201 posts • joined 14 Aug 2007
They also managed to avoid getting any thumb prints on the canopy too.
Wasn't it Against A Dark Background?
I'm in the middle of an ongoing correspondence with Dropbox about this. So far they have been unable to list a single concrete example of the specific benefits that being a customer of Dropbox Ireland will give me.
It's rather suggestive to me of the fact that they're doing it for tax purposes rather than out of the goodness of their hearts and concern for their global customers' privacy.
This article might be absolutely on the money, but it feels more like someone's fishing around for a justification after the fact.
It's Tim Langdell, weeping in to his cocoa.
Bugger the story, top marks to that sub.
If you really know what you're talking about though, you use Pulp.
That is absolutely the last of the problems with TTIP.
I'd love that to be true, Tim, but my lefty gut reaction is that the workers are simply paid as little as the corporations can possibly get away with, and the money spirited away offshore is instead used to increase the rewards to the shareholders and the executives.
So it's not as if the workers have anything less that can be taken away from them if as you contest they would end up paying the corporation's tax burden.
However, I would be happy if you can prove me wrong!
That might just get me playing some Minecraft again.
... the main problem is that the "two speed internet" is seen simply - and rightly - as simply a method for corporate interests to rip everybody off. Again.
I'll see your 4g and raise you 3g. Rural high speed broadband? Fixed line or mobile, don't make me laugh.
No, Tim needs to change his view of the market :)
I think the fundamental problem with Tim's argument is that he sees "the market" as perfect when in real life it isn't. Much as it would be lovely to ignore the fact that, for example, "Big Agriculture" fills our meat with steroids and antibiotics, and kills our pollinators with neonicotinoids, in the real world we can't. That's my problem with free market fundamentalists - the clarion call to just deregulate and let the market sort it out is wilfully blind to the human failings of greed etc. which distort the perfect market through monopoly abuse, cartels, unsafe products that we don't know about and all the other underhand goings on that businesses use for competitive advantage.
I flew from Duxford in one of these a while back. One of the finest experiences of my life, without a shadow of a doubt.
That's a little harsh. What about everyone else who lives in San Jose?
There's also the not insignificant matter of CD's (if decently engineered) sounding a damned sight better than most downloads.
I'm not going to argue about relative or absolute poverty here. What I am going to say is that it is inequality that is the pernicious evil in society. People may not actually *be* poor, according to some arbitrary chart, but if they see that those at the top of the ladder are vastly wealthier than they are, and that those people are getting more and more of the pie each day, as inequality grows, then those people *feel* poor, and angry to boot.
I'm talking here about the behaviour of CEOs, bankers, the city "wealth creators" who are seemingly only creating wealth for themselves these days, shipping their profits offshore, avoiding tax and therefore placing a larger burden on everyone else. Philip Green and his Monaco-resident wife are splendid examples.
Societies that are more equal are entirely happier and more pleasant places to live. A multitude of studies demonstrate this. Growing social inequality tends to result in civil unpleasantness.
Where's my MONEY? I want ALL the money NOW!
I'm certainly looking forward to seeing the CPU coolers they'll need...
That is all.
I noticed the Edge whosit sponsorship logo at the bottom of the report and my kneejerk reaction - glad that Tim Langdell's no longer in business.
That's all - carry on.
I'm royally sick of this hi-res audio crap that manufacturers are now flogging - and "audiophiles" are buying into . As has been discussed in these pages previously, the science *proves* that as a *playback* format 16 bit 44.1kHz can't be improved upon. "Hi-res" audio belongs solely in the studio, not in the home.
Fuck these people. If you want to listen to great-sounding music, badger the studios to engineer their recordings properly, shoot anyone who insists on compressing the shit out of the master to make it sound louder, buy some half-decent speakers and ignore the snake oil.
I might be being a simpleton here, but what's to stop a government from simply making it illegal to funnel revenues out of the country (call it tax evasion if you like) and basically say "all revenue raised from business activity in this country is liable for tax"? So with Amazon for example, prevent them using their "Sold by Amazon SARL" wheeze when you buy something from Amazon.co.uk?
The term "boffin" was always used by thick sporty kids at school to insult the weedy academic ones. Usually pronounced "boffeeeeeeeen" for some unfathomable reason.
The EU power structure does have (IMHO) fatally flawed power structures and ambition, but nonetheless, there are some people in positions of authority who do their jobs properly. Guarding the rights of European citizens is taken very seriously indeed, and rightly so.
The global corporations that simply view people as nothing more than wallets to be emptied and product to be monetised should be *made* to behave in a civilised way, if they want to carry out their operations in civilised countries.
There's a lot wrong with the EU, but on this they're spot on.
"My Mother? Let me tell you about my Mother."
We are discussing this within the context of abuse of power within a monopoly. Specifically YouTube. At least, everyone else is. You seem to be upset simply by the idea that corporate monoliths should be prevented from doing whatever they like.
Alternatively, god forbid that we should live in a society without any rule of law, where businesses are free to operate in any way they choose with complete disregard for responsibility, ethical behaviour or anything other than their bottom line.
Read this slowly to aid comprehension:
Because of the vagaries of chance, YouTube has become the dominant player in online music distribution. It's THE website that people go to to play music.
It is unacceptable for a business that has a monopolistic position to abuse that position by forcing smaller customers to accept terms that larger, more powerful, customers will not tolerate. This is recognised in law.
Businesses are free to operate however they choose within the confines of the law. Only when the law is broken do authorities take an interest, and generally only after an aggrieved party has made a complaint.
I don't know what your animus is towards independent record companies or musicians, but they're not the ones who are behaving badly in this situation. Google is. Further, the EU isn't telling Google how to run each and every aspect of its business, and never will. What they are doing is making Google operate within the law.
No, they're complaining that Google is abusing its power and offering them less favourable contracts (and therefore less revenue) than their larger and more powerful competitors.
Foul, monopolistic behaviour, when YouTube is the largest platform for such material and the small fish in the pond don't have a realistic alternative to move to.
Much like Amazon are doing to Hachette and their writers at the moment.
That's what the anger is about, and quite right too.
"legit smut-viewing app"
What, you mean a web browser?
Was it the Spinal Tap "Smell The Glove" worktop?
... and fall on Cupertino. Apple and Beats: a match made in hell.
Even better is the explanation of how it works.
... to a fellow X-Com fan.
Hurrah for marketing.
"I know - everyone's shouting about sample rates and bit depth and other technical stuff that they don't really understand. Well, let's sell them old material in a new 'high-def' format that they won't be able to actually physically gain any benefit from and actually just tinker with the music so it sounds a bit different."
Well they would, wouldn't they?
I have a whole "Yes Minister" Sir Humphrey speech going on in my head about this.
I suppose I'll just have to post to this again then.
An article about scramjets and no mention of lighting matches in hurricanes? I tell you, the quality of reporting here is going downhill rapidly. I may have to cancel my subscription.
So is John Hurt going to build a creature whoa-oh-oh-oh-oh?
...with their bloody fixie bikes.
That would be the UKUSA Agreement.
Have they hired some new coders to replace the bunch who write their legendarily awful drivers?
with Logan's Run and you're nearly there.
So what about my media library on my home server? DNLA will quite happily handle any and all content I have locally. Doesn't sound like DIAL will.
That is all.
I was wandering around on the surface of Tau Ceti III in 1985. Admittedly, I was doing this on a ZX Spectrum.
"Instagram users own their content and Instagram does not claim any ownership rights over your photos. Nothing about this has changed."
Indeed. In fact, as I recall, the problem wasn't that Instagram were trying to claim ownership of one's photos, it was that they wanted to claim a license to monetise those photos without having to make any payment to the owner.
I don't see that the PR fluff from Systrom does anything to change that particular point of contention.