I think you mean "pedants".

Before WWII? I think you've been reading the same history book as Dave Cameron (the one where the UK and USA are fighting together in 1940).
There's no question that the UK was a major power 60 years ago.
A better case could be made for ~1955, but even in 1966 Britain was able to argue that its global reach amounted to shouldering enough of an anti-communist burden to justify staying out of Vietnam.
The Falklands War is quite interesting here, not because it demonstrated some lingering imperial might, in fact the opposite - the UK depended heavily on the USA. Where it gets special is that this help was given (initially) without approval from the White House, solely by virtue of long-established intelligence and military links.

Steve Bell

Hmm he has a web site now, great... should be in there somewhere then! (Look for Lord Young hunched over a desk pronouncing his EU vision).

Steve Bell ~1983

What, they should pay you?

Well the stream comes from Squeezebox Server on the PC so it's just a hardware-software match rather than a hardware-hardware one like Sonos.

And they're doing pretty well so far, longevity-wise - my SlimDevices Squeezebox 3 has upgraded itself to the latest Logitech-branded firmware and works with a new Boombox, and the latest software & services of course.

(redundant bit) As someone else has pointed out, this is incorrect - the Squeezebox players decode FLAC, MP3 etc. directly from the stream.

(non-redundant bit) And the Squeezebox Server is a very useful central controller for setting up plugins, playlists etc.

I guess the Sonos players can also synch to each other tightly so that playing the same thing in multiple rooms works nicely? The physical Squeezebox players do, but the version you might run on a PC (Squeezeslave) doesn't as far as I know.

And if you're paying in GBP, you'll probably be interested in the BBC iPlayer plugin which is very convenient. No neat Spotify integration yet but it's on the cards.

Is there a purist option which would allow me to flip between merging sources via mixing/resampling and letting the bitstream through to the digital output unmolested (e.g from a FLAC file)?

Part of my confusion is that I don't know how volume is supposed to work with digital outputs - is the mixer supposed to simply reduce the amplitude or does it encode a separate volume setting in the PCM stream?

Ta for any info - I've looked but not found anything in the PA docs.

The build number might be generated based on the date. So that build may have been produced on June 1st and only now are they able to call it "official". It takes a loooong time to validate any OS prior to shipping.

He isn't.

Essentially, this is to stop the High becoming clogged with appeals that have zero legal merit.

Here is the transcript of the special leave hearing for the IceTV case.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/HCATrans/2008/308.html

To give you a flavour of the arguments being put by MR BANNON appearing for Channel Nine. :

MR BANNON: ... the exercise which was engaged in by the Nine network staff was to prepare a document, which was the Nine weekly schedule, which was a step by step process, as a result of consideration, discussion, working out what statutory obligations had to complied with, what program would be regarded as entertaining for particular ranges of viewers and/or ultimately obtaining advertising revenue. That process ultimately resulted in the preparation of a written document, namely, the weekly schedule, which was available, true it was, in computer format as well, but ultimately it was a standard fare literary work in the form of a compilation.

and later with respect to the program title / time pairings...

MR BANNON: Her Honour simply said it was a question of slivers, they were too small. Well, as the Full Court correctly observed, we respectfully submit, the learned trial judge either discounted or put no account of the skill and labour invested in the association of particular times with particular titles, treating that as preparatory work and work not directed to the production of copyright work.

and

MR BANNON: Well, your Honour, for the reasons I have indicated, we would submit not. As I say, there is no public interest defence of copyright. There are a myriad of fair dealing defences, none of which have been sought to have been taken advantage of. There is no argument about implied licence. To the extent that there is a stepping back to say, well, this is your TV program, how can you stop somebody else using it, we submit to the extent it is â" as we know, copyright is a pure creature of a statute â" to the extent that there is a substantial reproduction, that is the end of it. As I say, there are specific defences which deal with that. It is not a case to be concerned one way or another as to the breadth or the consequences of this. It is a pure question of statutory construction.

GUMMOW J: Yes, you may well be right, Mr Bannon, ultimately, but one is just a little concerned that Justice Bennett in a long and careful judgment came to an opposite result.

MR BANNON: But informed, we respectfully submit, as confirmed by the Full Court, by incorrect considerations. Justice Bennett came to the same result as we sought on indirect copying, it was just a question of substantiality. As the Full Court said, one of the errors her Honour, we respectfully submit, made was to say, to test whether it is a substantial part is â" we have to show that the synopses were more important than the time and title and, we submit, with the greatest respect, your Honour, that is clearly wrong. In other words, her Honour was not assessing the matter by reference to Feist type of considerations.

The other matter which the Full Court identified as an error was her Honourâ(TM)s dismissal of the preparatory work and we say that, apart from being the longstanding authority as a matter of fact here, all this work was directed to the production of this and that is the time and title information. The most original part was the parts they took. It is crucial, it is important, it satisfies the tests long held in this Court and, with the greatest respect, this is a very, very clear case of copyright infringement.