UVB-76

11 ms·

61.
by UVB-76 10y ago
Link to the actual report: https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/freedom-net-2015 Let's not kid ourselves, though. The US scored 19 and UK scored 24 (on the scale of 0-100, 0 being most free) Censorship
62.
by UVB-76 10y ago
Apparently there are many shades of 'free' The UK scored 24 out of 100, 0 being the most free.
63.
Netflix and Amazon face EU quota threat(ft.com)
1 points by UVB-76 10y ago|0 comments
64.
by UVB-76 10y ago
> Police are allowed to investigate, and that's exactly what they failed to do in this case. This stop was part of their investigation. How else are they supposed to eliminate the seller from their enquiries into the stolen laptop
65.
by UVB-76 10y ago
Unless I'm misunderstanding his account of events, the police did not search his property. The person whose laptop was stolen searched it, and the owner of the laptop consented to that search. The police detained him, I suspect, becaus
66.
by UVB-76 10y ago
The matter of consent is much more nuanced than that, but as another comment on this thread points out, the search was not conducted by a police officer, so Fourth Amendment arguments are moot. He consented to a stranger searching his lapto
67.
by UVB-76 10y ago
That's an even better point. The Fourth Amendment doesn't protect you from letting a stranger search your laptop.
68.
by UVB-76 10y ago
Your timeline doesn't match his account. He consented to the search of the laptop before being detained. He did not know it was an undercover police officer conducting the search, but that is not relevant. He was subsequently detained,
69.
by UVB-76 10y ago
Probable cause is not the relevant test for detaining someone. Police can detain with reasonable suspicion alone, and it is entirely likely they had reasonable suspicion in this case.
70.
by UVB-76 10y ago
> Why was he handcuffed and had a taser on his back?? Why was he treated like a criminal in front of everybody? You don't put handcuffs on someone unless you want to detain them. Because he was suspected of handling stolen goods.
71.
by UVB-76 10y ago
> My dad had given me his extra computer, so I decided to sell mine: a 14-inch, 2012 MacBook Pro. Perhaps the cops were going after him for false advertising... Edit: A point made in jest, but in all seriousness, if he had actually adv
72.
by UVB-76 10y ago
Link to the actual article: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/05/10/1508081113.full
73.
by UVB-76 10y ago
In other words, the recipes are likely to be archived, not removed. Existing content is not being destroyed.
74.
by UVB-76 10y ago
Similarly, rather than revealing the names of those the BBC pays more than £450,000 pa [1], why doesn't the BBC just... stop paying people more than £450,000? [1] http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/may&#x2F
75.
by UVB-76 10y ago
So the BBC should make some money off it (at least from users outside the UK), and plough that money back into producing new content. The license fee is so high because the BBC are throwing money at things like this.
76.
by UVB-76 10y ago
Just BBC Food (www.bbc.co.uk/food) BBC Good Food is a commercial offering from BBC Worldwide and is unaffected.
77.
by UVB-76 10y ago
For those interested, a recent piece from the IEA on bias within the BBC, both perceived and actual [1] As always, if you don't perceive any bias, it's probably just because you have the same biases. [1] http://www.iea.
78.
by UVB-76 10y ago
Indeed, there is plenty wrong with what the BBC has been doing.
79.
by UVB-76 10y ago
Agreed. I don't have any objection to the BBC providing the recipes on a commercial basis (via the BBC Good Food website or similar), and even investing in new content if it's profitable, but the license fee should not be used to
80.
by UVB-76 10y ago
> I am very proud of the BBC, especially the news. Finding low bias news is hard. Totally objective news reporting is virtually impossible, and BBC News certainly has its biases.
81.
by UVB-76 10y ago
Removing the recipes entirely (as opposed to shifting them to the commercial BBC Good Food website, or making them available via an archive) when the cost of making them widely available in perpetuity is likely negligible, would indeed be o
82.
by UVB-76 10y ago
The existing recipes will be archived and made available, either officially or unofficially. That is not the issue. The real issue is that, until this point, virtually every British household has been forced (and enforced, by thousands of c
83.
by UVB-76 10y ago
The recipes are likely to be archived, not removed. Existing content is not being destroyed.
84.
by UVB-76 10y ago
A huge number of those companies will be dormant, wholly owned subsidiaries, or one-man-band operations (e.g. contractors with limited companies) Of course it's a moot point because companies don't have citizens' best interes
85.
by UVB-76 10y ago
The interests of corporate bodies and their owners differ significantly from those of ordinary citizens.
86.
by UVB-76 10y ago
If the implication is that his statements in 2011 and 2013 were predictions that turned out to be false, I don't think these quotes are sufficient evidence. That an inevitable correction has been delayed by sustained government efforts
87.
by UVB-76 10y ago
A lot of people repeating that line will change their tune when Spotify finally goes out of business in a couple of years time.
88.
by UVB-76 10y ago
There's still nothing better than iTunes, at least on OS X. It's the best of a bad bunch.
89.
by UVB-76 10y ago
In recent years iTunes on OS X has managed to achieve the feat of becoming more bloated, sluggish, and yet also losing important features. I've spent most of the last five years hoping Apple are re-writing the thing from scratch, and h
90.
by UVB-76 10y ago
Agreed on the cash flow point, although I don't have much sympathy for people who have come into ownership of expensive properties through inheritance, or obscene capital appreciation over the course of several decades. As you mention,

More ›