Darn right. This is the way to close free wifi hotspots.

Providers will not be able to pay for "approved" filtering, so one dodgy site slipping through would be grounds for prosecution; and so all free hotspot vanish.

I have a cheap fon router which provides two wireless networks. One for my family and one non-encrypted.

The non-encrypted network normally requires a logon, but some IP addresses can be excluded from that requirement. You might choose to exclude all requirements so that your guests get straight access.

You also get to rate-limit the connection too.

If you run a connection and leave it turned on you get free logon to other peoples fon hotspots too - and there are thousands in the UK.

http://corp.fon.com/how-it-works

http://web.archive.org/web/20100131034321/http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553

Because at the beginning they needed cheap to develop and deploy, not fast.

Only because they were successful at the beginning can they afford to buy "fast"

The UK CPS declined to prosecute him originally and further decline to do so now.

This trumps all other arguments.

That word: ballistic, I don't think it means what you think it means

Many "legit" stores do not benefit the artists!

Some sell the artists music without permission and do not reimburse the artists
http://torrentfreak.com/apples-itunes-sued-by-artist-for-pirating-music-110812/
http://forum.tunecore.com/post/Album-on-iTunes-without-permission-5680939

Sometimes the artists get no money because of extraordinary business practices by their music publishers or associations
http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091203/1853507190.shtml
and for interest
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120323/18055718229/how-ascap-takes-money-successful-indie-artists-gives-it-to-giant-rock-stars.shtml

Sometimes the artists get no money because their music publishers instruct them not to register with the copyright agency of that country SO THAT the publisher can claim that the seller is not legitimate because the artists get no money.
http://www.transmissionentertainment.com/entry/russian_based_all_of_mp3coms_former_owner_may_see_jail_time_fines_and_a_mor/
http://allofmp3.ru/press/centre.shtml?s=994&d=66219728 : "Even without an agreement between ROMS and the rightsholders, it is our understanding that ROMS, in particular, has sent several letters to the major record labels inviting them to collect their royalties. Those notices have been ignored."
http://techcrunch.com/2007/07/25/former-allofmp3com-owner-faces-jail-time/

Sometimes it's a choice between
1. not paying
2. paying and the artist gets no money
3. paying and the artist gets no money and you support an abusive music industry
4. paying and the artist gets money and you support an abusive music industry

For mass music I opt for 2 where I can because I think it does least harm.
For less popular music I use CD-Baby and other self publishing sites or buy direct from the artist.

You just struck gold.

MS don't want google to know how many surface tablets they are(n't) shipping, and that may be the reason to avoid the per-device payment.

hah hah

And this type of behaviour is what provides conviction for the deniers.

If the advocates are truly sure and the science settled, why oh why (oh why) do they act like a bunch of guilty liars and keep acting in a sneaky and furtive manner.

It is this behaviour that convinces me that there are dark deeds going on.

But does welcome mere acceptance and yaysaying

On the contrary, he makes perfect sense.

Your behaviour is sadly typical of AGW proponents who fail to understand enough to have a decent discussion and whose subsequent over inflated claims bring doubt to everything however true it might really have been.

And the BBC repeat this behaviour.

If it is true and honest, then why do they act like it is untrue and dishonest?

It is the behind the scenes behaviour of proponents that give strength to the claim that it is a lie!

And then you answer dissent here by picking fault with capital letters and bold type; a confession that it is the only point you have left; and a type of the BBC argument which was: "stop the other side talking then at least without the contrast we will look true"

Thanks for the clarity. I agree with your point "It would be rather peculiar if such a behaviour were confined to Climate change alone"

The decision is worthy of scrutiny. The BBC certainly fear scrutiny on this decision and thus draw attention to it. What are they afraid of is what we ask ourselves and in the answer to that we will find something worth knowing.

Your satisfaction with the BBC is blinding you to the relevance of the story.

> Yes, it looks like they made a sensible, informed decision after this meeting, or perhaps before.

By "sensible" you mean that you think all right-minded people agree with it.

This is not the point. The point is that the decision was not transparent and that the BBC spent an awful lot of money to avoid transparency.
That this is the fist time outside of war where the BBC have made a policy decision to abandon impartiality; and have done so in a blatant non-transparent way.

If the point is actually sensible and science based as they claim, and based on that meeting, how are were so few scientists present?

Their behaviour makes it look like they at least think the science is not settled and are trying to hush it up.

The point here is not whether or not deniers are shysters who should not have airtime, but whether or not this is an appropriate way to make policy and spend money.

Of course, you may feel free to argue a different point that you are more comfortable with, as in fact you are...

The BBC claims to have abandoned impartiality (the only time they have ever done so when not at war) on this topic as a consequence of that meeting.

Why? That is what we wish to know.

It does look like they had abandoned impartiality before that meeting and were just using it as an excuse.

They were hardly journalistic sources, they were policy makers!

The case was not about whether the BBC has a right to protect it's journalistic sources (it is) but whether the right to protect those sources allows them to with-hold these names. Apparently it does but only if the BBC is considered as a private body despite it's public funding.

However, now the names are revealed the BBC has harder questions to answer as it can now hardly claim sound scientific reasons for abandoning impartiality, and this is what most people will now suspect the BBC was afraid of.