noun. RDF is a web content syndication format. Acronym which stands for Resource Description Framework
|
|||||
|
Given the importance of tomorrow to our many American readers, I have been toying with the idea of posting the words of the Star Spangled Banner as a Samizdata Quote of the day at a minute past midnight this evening. However, although the anthem is stirring, the words are a celebration of an American military defeat of the British. And while this defeat led to the foundation of a great nation, it is not the whole story. In the longer term the two nations who fought that war have of course become extremely good friends. The country of which I am a citizen, Australia, is today an equally good friend of both. And I would rather be celebrating these friendships. In particular, the third verse of the American anthem is somewhat problematic today.
This is not terribly complimentary to the British enemy, and our American friends note this by generally leaving it out these days. Amusingly, the national anthem of Australia has precisely the opposite problem. The second verse of our anthem is this:
And while many Australians have great fondness for the British (although we still really enjoy it when they lose at sporting events), this verse is today considered a little too sycophantic, as well as being a little out of date about who rules the waves. Therefore, it isn’t normally sung either. In any event, Jonathan Pearce beat me to action, and has expressed the appropriate sentiments about tomorrow already. I would simply like to wish the nation that actually does rule the waves a happy fourth of July. Update: Yes, the Star Spangled Banner was actually written during and about the War of 1812. Notwithstanding that, I still wish everyone a happy Independence Day. July 3rd, 2003 | 45 comments - (Comments are closed)
 At the advanced age of 41 I have some pretty old fashioned ideas. One of these is an absolute belief in the importance of personal privacy. Invading the privacy of celebrities is a long-standing media tradition and one could argue they deserve it. The danger is when ordinary individuals start to lose their privacy – and welcome that loss. It probably started with US daytime TV shows of the Oprah variety. Being “on TV” was so important for people that they were willing to share their most personal secrets with the world. As these shows spread and multiplied, hanging one’s dirty linen out in public started to become a goal in life for some. Privacy was willingly sold for a few minutes of fame. Reality TV shows took this a stage further. People became used to the idea that privacy was something so unimportant that it could be given up in the name of entertainment. Big Brother worked initially because it was new and shocking; now it is commonplace. Most of the “contestants” are canny enough to know they’re playing to the cameras. The danger is the viewing public who come to accept the whole concept as a harmless bit of fun. These attitudes spread throughout society as a whole. Michael Jennings wrote an interesting piece about bag searches in Australia. We don’t have those here without probable cause, however we almost got to the stage where they were unnecessary. A while back there was a fad for using transparent carrier bags and rucksacks so that the whole world could see your baggage. Even that most sacred of receptacles the woman’s handbag was being exposed to all. Why does this matter? What dirty secrets am I trying to hide? Privacy is essential for individuality and diversity. Lack of privacy makes it more difficult to be “different”, it drives people towards uniformity and conformity. If “no privacy” becomes the norm then those of us who insist on privacy will be automatically branded as “suspicious”. Lack of privacy leads to a bland, safe, boring world. No colours, just shades of grey. A stagnant society that is easily led – and easily sold to. A perfect world for government and big business. Which is one reason I’m vehemently against compulsory National Identity Cards. People say “if you’re innocent you’ve nothing to fear”. I fear loss of privacy. Where I go and what I do is not illegal, it’s just no business of the police, the government or anyone else. I don’t want Big Blunkett watching me. Cross-posted from An It Harm None July 3rd, 2003 | Comments are closed
More surveillance, straight from the school locker room to the internet. July 3rd, 2003 | Comments are closed
George W Bush has agreed to send up to 1,000 troops to Liberia. CNN reports that he took the decision after a meeting of his National Security Council. An announcement was expected, possibly today, that the US troops will head an international peacekeeping force. Kofi Annan, the United Nations secretary-general, had urged the UN Security Council to dispatch a force “to prevent a major humanitarian tragedy” in an upsurge in fighting between factions engaged in a 14-year conflict that has killed a tenth of Liberia’s population. Apart from embassy protection detachments, the marines will be the first American soldiers deployed in Africa since the withdrawal from Somalia nearly a decade ago. Britain, France and some African countries had called on America to lead it because of its historical links with Liberia, founded in 1822 as a settlement for freed American slaves. Comments by White House press secretary Ari Fleischer that Bush was considering sending troops provoked a nearly instantaneous reaction in Monrovia, where thousands of people gathered outside the U.S. Embassy to cheer a possible American presence. One man said:
Strange, Liberians do not seem to have a problem with that… July 3rd, 2003 | 37 comments - (Comments are closed)
I post this on Thursday afternoon, just ahead of the day when our American friends take a break from the office, farm and factory to commemorate the birthday of their country. And may these words stand, forever, as the guiding principles of the greatest nation on this planet.
PS. Could we have the tea back from Boston, please? PPS. Could we borrow this when it comes time for Britain to leave the EU, please? July 3rd, 2003 | 70 comments - (Comments are closed)
More on vehicle tracking, linked to by A Small Victory:
With reservations, I supported the invasion of Iraq, and can see the point also of rescuing other places. But this is exactly the sort of thing that the opponents of such escapades abroad have in mind as the reason why they are opposed, and why I also have reservations. Governments acquire the habits of despotism in faraway places where it seems to make sense, or maybe just not to matter. Then they do it everywhere. Surveillance is indivisible, you might say. July 3rd, 2003 | Comments are closed
The EU will shortly announce its plans to more strictly regulate the Budget Airline industry. After decades of nationalised “flag carriers”, which in Europe priced out ordinary consumers from regular air travel, world-wide Thatcherite reforms of this important transportation industry drove prices down, and greatly increased the numbers of destinations and budget price options; this brought a stagnant European industry more into line with a vibrant US. But those heady days seem numbered under the forthcoming EU regulations. These, of course, will be written by many in a corrupt organisation regularly claiming 1st class weekend airfare expenses, from Brussels to home, without the need to produce either receipts, or even without the need to take the flight. Instead of the consumer placing their custom where they will, with different competitors, and companies building up individual loyalty and trust in their brands, the EU has decided, in its wisdom, to crack down its regulatory whip. For those passengers bumped off over-booked flights, compensation levels will be doubled; some claims for compensation may even be several times the original low-budget fare. The new measures will also introduce enforced compensation for delays, whether the fault of the airline or not; indeed the industry claims 75% per cent of delays are caused by the failures of the various European air traffic control systems. Many of the companies involved, such as Ryan Air and Easyjet, have complained bitterly about this planned interference in their market. They argue that if travellers want both low fares and compensation, they should protect themselves through the purchase their own travel insurance. But it seems the EU will have its way. Once again consumers are to be treated as mindless cattle, with an inability to make their own travel choices, change their purchasing decisions, or risk the uncertainties that low-fare travel inevitably brings with it. What’s really sad, is that many consumers in this dirigiste continent will agree with the plan; what many of these supporters won’t realise however, until it’s too late, is that they will also pay for it. It seems certain that fares will rise sharply, to cover the airline insurance necessary to fulfil compensation claims, and the courts will be swamped with form-waving compensation-culture vultures trying to bleed the industry dry. Marginal destinations, such as the many which have recently sprung up in France and Spain, servicing holiday-home Britons, may also be dropped altogether, as their slim potential profits will fail to cover the possible compensation costs or necessary insurance. So, thanks Big Brother EU. Where would we be without you?  July 3rd, 2003 | 23 comments - (Comments are closed)
Used as noun or verb. The willful omission of one or more words so the meaning of the statement is no longer understood but that the statement suits the needs of the writer in launching an ad hominem attack whether or not the construction is truthful or grammatically complete. Named after Maureen Dowd, based on her manufacture of a quote attributed to President Bush in her May 14, 2003 column (as first reported by Robert Cox on TheNationalDebate.com). The term and the practice are often found in the Blogosphere. (Coined by James Taranto) July 3rd, 2003 | Comments are closed
The European Union’s 15 member nations have introduced a value-added tax on digital sales to residents by non-European companies. By 3rd July, non-EU companies have to register with European tax authorities to levy, collect and remit the VAT on sales of various digital goods and services. A directive issued by the EU in May 2002, mandates companies that do not have a physical presence in an EU member nation to assess the tax at the rates charged by the countries where individual customers are located. Computerworld reports that this imposition has forced many U.S. businesses to undertake months of legal and technical preparations. The VAT in the EU countries ranges from 15% in Luxembourg to 25% in Denmark and Sweden and as a result, some U.S. companies have had to choose between two costly alternatives: updating their e-commerce systems to track sales and initiate VAT payments at the various rates, or setting up new operations in one of the member countries so they can apply its tax rate to all digital sales throughout the EU. Scott Pendergrast of Fictionwise, an e-books seller, said it would not have been economically feasible to invest in a European operation. Instead, he is preparing to collect the tax in different countries, although reluctantly.
Others are questioning the ability of the EU to enforce the tax on the grounds that European courts would not have jurisdiction over them. Jon Abolins of Taxware, an e-commerce software developer, has been advising companies not to do so, because there is speculation that EU countries might not fight to protect the intellectual property rights of sellers that fail to collect the VAT. There is so much wrong with this picture one does not know where to begin. First, of all, taxing on-line transactions is not specific to the EU, merely another thieving hand of the state. Secondly, the EU approved the VAT plan after content providers based in Europe complained that they were at a competitive disadvantage because they already have to collect the tax. A classic interference of the political into the economical, so beloved of the EU commissioners. Thirdly, in a typical EU fashion the law is ambiguous as to how companies are to determine the location of the buyer and near unenforceable by the vendors. They will spend hundreds of thousands hard earned profits on installing systems designed to assess and collect the VAT and on third-party vendors tracing the IP addresses of their customers. And, if the EU governments feel they are not getting enough, they can send the tax authorities after the companies for not collecting the taxes for them. Welcome to the EU, the land where business is just another branch of the state.  July 3rd, 2003 | 33 comments - (Comments are closed)
From an Australian newspaper (of all places) a report on a British company offering parents everywhere peace of mind:
I think it is safe to assume that the technology can be applied just as readily to adults. Apparently, the recipient must agree to be traced by replying to text message but I bet that hurdle will prove surmountable with just a little tweaking. July 3rd, 2003 | One comment - (Comments are closed)
Let me see. If I was going to criticise the government of Cambodia for something, what would I choose? It’s obvious, really. From the BBC
(Link via The Gweilo Diaries). July 3rd, 2003 | 4 comments - (Comments are closed)
|
   |
||||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Recent Comments