Completely and utterly wrong! The DAB network covers 99,5% of Norway! It's an improvement over the FM network's coverage. Norway is a very long and mountainous country, it's difficult to achieve the same percentage with FM. The people running the network have people driving around the country to check the reception.
It doesn't cost them anything to keep them going.
The network needs massive investment and the upkeep is higher than before. The new network reduces the cost, improves service and frees up frequencies (for resale). The state will save $25 million/year.
They're private companies.
The [national] network is owned by the state. Private companies pay to use it. The state-owned national broadcasting corporation is the biggest user. Local radio stations may broadcast using their own equipment, but this is about national networks.
if consumers don't really care about digital versus FM - why does the government?
You've misunderstood the situation. The state isn't just "dictating" the terms. The national broadcasting network is owned by the state [indirectly], which means they also have a say in the cost of maintaining and developing it. The national broadcaster (TV/radio), and its many stations, is the biggest user of the network.
The 1700 stations currently in use are due for a massive upgrade. The new DAB network will offer better coverage across the whole country, which is an important goal for the state (rural settlement policy and public information access).
Have the Norwegians solved every more important issue facing their people?
Yes, most of our problems are about spending the tons of money we have.
It's not the NRK that owns the broadcasting network, it's Norkring, a subsidiary of Telenor (Norway's telecom champion).
No, sorry, it's the EEA. The "EEC" is the EU's predecessor. Norway's not a member of the EEA, we're a member of EFTA. The EU and EFTA have an agreement regarding trade and access to the EEA.
You know that you don't have to just add useless and uninteresting words to something that already had substance, right? At least borrow some quotes from Socrates' Dialogues to spice things up: There is admirable truth in that. That is not to be denied. That appears to be true. All this seems to flow necessarily out of our previous admissions. I think that what you say is entirely true. That, replied Cebes, is quite my notion. To that we are quite agreed. By all means. I entirely agree and go along with you in that. I quite understand you. I shall still say that you are the Daedalus who sets arguments in motion; not I, certainly, but you make them move or go round, for they would never have stirred, as far as I am concerned. If you're going to say _nothing_, at least be interesting about it, post anonymously, or risk looking more clueless / foolish. This is why the moderation system is in place, and mods typically don't listen to inanities like "Well said" when deciding on what to spend their points.
1. I'm too busy to sit around thinking up additional words to throw in so I can score "mod" points
2. The people I like on Slashdot are too busy to read a bunch of additional words I only threw in so I can score "mod" points
3. It's not in my nature to waste words, or to waste time
If other posts here on Slashdot are any indication, "Mr. Councilman" is just as likely to lose political points by supporting the poor.
Actually this particular councilman represents an extremely high-rent district--Manhattan's upper east side. I doubt there are many wealthier neighborhoods in the world. He's not doing this to 'score points', he's doing it to do the right thing.
It is my opinion that poverty is partially systemic. Our economic system depends on there being a pool of available workers (unemployed and underemployed). So as long as there is capitalism and a functioning free market, there will always be poor people. That being the case, we have a responsibility to make sure the basic needs of everyone are met. Increasingly in order to succeed in school and in life, Internet access isn't really a luxury.
Well said
Time and again, history has shown a healthy middle class is the best road to alleviate poverty on a grand scale.
Let me fix that for you:
Time and again history has shown the way to have a healthy middle class is to alleviate poverty on a grand scale.
shutup. just shut the fuck up. you neither know you are talking about, nor have any valid point to make. its not about solving the digital divide any more than the housing thing is about solving poverty. its been widely and clearly shown that there is an increase in opportunity and outcomes between homes with and home without internet access. you're essentially complaining about improving someones potential opportunities to enrich themselves and make their life better and maybe even get out of that housing you mock. but again, you have no valid point, so therefore theres little sense in talking sense, like pointing out to you that without subsidized housing many of these people would be on street, homeless, increasing both crime rates and homeless and deaths among the impoverished. Theoretically we are a civilized nation. But a civilized nation doesnt advocate intentionally making it harder if not impossible for those most disadvantaged to improve themselves, nor advocate for them to die quickly and get out of the way.
Well spoken, bro
The summary misses a key point. Yes they scan and store the entire book, but they are _NOT_ making the entire book available to everyone. For the most part they are just making it searchable.
Agreed that it's not in the summary, but as you correctly note, it's just a "summary". Anyone who reads the underlying blog post will read this among the facts on which the court based its opinion: "The public was allowed to search by keyword. The search results showed only the page numbers for the search term and the number of times it appeared; none of the text was visible."
So those readers who RTFA will be in the know.
Kleeneness is next to Godelness.
