Disqus - Latest Comments for bkwine

Re: Tim Atkin MW | Articles | South African wine's Day Zero

Per-BKWine — Thu, 22 Feb 2018 03:32:47 -0000

Good read. A really worrying issue. Going there tonight to see how it looks.

Re: 5 Things We’re Hoping from Camera Companies in 2018

Per-BKWine — Tue, 09 Jan 2018 04:08:56 -0000

I am much more modest in my wishes. I just want a compact pocket camera with a microphone jack. The phone makers can do it so why can't the camera makers do it?

Re: Amazon Cloud Drive’s Unlimited Photo Storage

Per-BKWine — Fri, 11 Nov 2016 14:03:16 -0000

It's 49 euros in Europe.

Re: Naturvin

Per-BKWine — Thu, 14 Jul 2016 14:02:20 -0000

Att läsa Alice Feiring om naturvin är ju lite som att fråga en katolsk missionär om religionsfrågor. :-)

Re: Låt oss prata "naturvin" | World of Wine

Per-BKWine — Mon, 09 May 2016 14:36:31 -0000

Oj. Det är en hel del saker som inte stämmer i detta. Lite klarlägganden kanske?:

Till exempel:

Ekologiska producenter använder i 99 fall av 100 också pesticider. Men det är ekologiskt godkända pesticider.

Det finns inget som heter eller är ”konstgjord jäst”. All jäst är ”naturlig”. Man kan skilja på vinifiering med tillsatt jäst och utan tillsatt jäst. Att använda tillsatt jäst (kulturjäst / odlad jäst) innebär helt enkelt att man arbetar med en utvald jäststam, en som är utvald som mest lämplig bland många olika naturligt förekommande. Precis som att bagaren tillsätter jäst för att göra bröd. Det anser många vinproducenter ger ett bättre resultat, medan andra producenter föredrar att lita till den jäst som flyger i luften i vinkällaren och vingården.

Ekologiska odlare är ALLTID certifierade av en kontrollorganisation, annars är de inte ekologiska. Det är helt enkelt definitionen på en ekologisk odlare.

Förr i tiden, före 2012, kallades det ”vin gjort av ekologiskt odlade druvor” (wine made from organically grown grapes). Den beteckningen förekommer inte längre. Nu heter det ekologiskt vin.

Naturviner behöver inte alls vara ekologiska eller biodynamiska. Det finns ingen egentlig definition på vad naturvin är så det finns heller inga egentliga krav på vad som ska uppkallas for att påstå att man är det. Men ja, ofta hävdar de producenterna att de har minimalt med ”tillsatser” och ”intervention”. Men vad de menar med det är upp till var och en. Med andra ord, hur de klaras är inte definierat. Och vad som menas i texten med ”animaliska tillsatser” i just detta sammanhang begriper jag inte. Om det t.ex. referera till äggvita för klarning så kan naturvinsproducenter mycket väl använda det, precis som ekologiska, biodynamiska och konventionella.

Det finns inga certifieringsorgan för naturvin (eftersom det inte finns någon officiell definition av vad det är). Det finns vissa privata organisationer som satt upp egna regler, men det är inte de som nämns i texten.

Biodynamiska viner har tämligen väldefinierade regler men det är inte ”samma som för naturvin”. De certifieras av Demeter eller av Biodyvin. Grunden i det biodynamiska är preparationerna. Visst pratar man även om månkalendern men den är sekundär.

Orangea viner är intressant, och det förekommer att de jäser i amfora, men det är ovanligt.

Det är inte bara så att svavel ”kan jämföras med” ett konserveringsmedel. Det är precis det det är. Konserveringsmedel. Det är
vanligt förekommande i andra sammanhang i livsmedelsbranschen.

Visst kanske man kan säga att ”naturvin” är som man gjorde vin förr (för mer än 2000 år sedan – svavel har använts länge). Men det är sällan inom livsmedel som ”det var bättre förr” gäller oreserverat. Snarare tvärt om. Tänk t.ex. på hygien och kvalitet. Så att detta är ett positivt argument är väl tveksamt.

Tanken med ”kvalitetsvin” kontra ”bulkvin” är intressant. Men hur skulle du definiera ”kvalitetsvin”? ”Kvalitetsvin” är oerhört subjektivt. Att t.ex. säga att handskörd är ett krav för kvalitetsvin är absurt. Maskinskörd kan i många fall vara bättre än handskörd. Och bulkvin kan mycket väl produceras med hållbara metoder.

Och detta att ”kvalitetsproducenter” i stora vindistrikt länge har varit ekologiska utan att vara certifierade är nog faktiskt en myt… En myt som man tyvärr hör upprepad allt för ofta. Nej, certifiering är inte särskilt dyrt. Att säga att man är ekologisk eller biodynamisk utan att vara certifierad är på gränsen till att bedra konsumenterna.

Angående Marcel Hårdmarks kommentar: Det där med ”vegan” har du nog fått om bakfoten. Det är inte så att biodynamiska producenter stoppar kohorn i vinet. Inte heller är biodynamiska vinproducenter emot vaccination. Det var verkligen ett märkligt påstående. Väldigt få, om ens några, biodynamiska producenter är antroposofer – om det är det du tänker på – även om Steiner var inspiration för båda rörelserna. Det är helt enkelt att blanda ihop två helt olika saker.

Om man vill förstå mer av fakta bakom allt detta så kan man läsa boken ”Vinet och miljön”.

Re: Do “hand-picked” grapes mean better wine?

Per-BKWine — Tue, 13 Oct 2015 07:55:30 -0000

I admit I was a little bit disappointed. It is a subject that is shrouded in so many prejudices and misinformation so it certainly does merit a good investigation. I agree with the conclusion, that the benefit of hand harvest is mainly in the mind of the person who open the bottle. Or rather, that the answer is: it depends.

But it would have been nice to investigate a bit more the arguments, or let's say the advantages and drawbacks of each method. (And referring to an 80s report is, I guess, more of a curiosity. Like judging today's cars by T-Ford standards.)

Mechanical harvesters can actually pick better fruit than manual harvest. It depends on how the machine harvest is done and on how the manual harvest is done. For example, many pickers are paid by the kilo (or pound). They are not very likely to be very stringent in the selection... You are very likely to see snails, branches and leaves in that too. Modern machines are not very rough on the vines and can have all sorts of add-ons that improves the quality. At least that is what many winemakers say. And machines can also operate in a way that gives better quality than people in some contexts (e.g. at night or covering large areas when time presses).

And vice-versa, manual harvest can be better, but again, only under certain conditions.

What is quite certain, though, is that he who said "I can tell from the taste of the wine if the harvest was manual or mechanical" (a real-life quote) is certainly wrong.

Re: Jefford on Monday: Up The Steep Hill

Per-BKWine — Mon, 24 Aug 2015 05:03:22 -0000

That's an interesting twist on how to look at co-operatives.

But it also gives cause for another reflection. Neither Pinault nor Veyder-Malberg need to make a living from those vineyards. At least that's my guess. Pinault certainly doesn't and hardly V-M either judging from your story.

I wonder if the wine world is more and more moving towards trophy estates and hobbyist winemakers (meaning they're not relying on the wine for their living)... Sometimes it seems so.

Re: Amazon Cloud Drive’s Unlimited Photo Storage

Per-BKWine — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 06:36:42 -0000

You can actually upload folders with the web interface. For some reason it does not work with Firefox. But if you instead use Google Chrome you can drag and drop folders.

I just started testing. (I'm also a photographer.) It seems very, very interesting.

It seems that if you use the desktop app instead of the web interface it loads everything to the root and then you need to move it manually to where you want it. Or perhaps I haven't explored it enough.

I agree with you on the sync. It could be useful, but would have to be done in some intelligent way.

But I can live with a bit of clunkiness. It's the only online service that has a reasonable price for the amount of images I have.

And the upload speed seems quite good.

Re: Amazon Announces Unlimited Photo Storage for Just $12 a Year

Per-BKWine — Sat, 28 Mar 2015 14:01:51 -0000

Thanks Jeri, that seems pretty clear. (After skipping the cookie cutter part 1. Curious that they mention Canon 5D and 5D Mark iii, but not mark ii).

Re: Amazon Announces Unlimited Photo Storage for Just $12 a Year

Per-BKWine — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 18:13:10 -0000

No. They complement each other. Unless you have your Seagate off-site. You need at the very least one on-site backup and one off-site backup.

Re: Amazon Announces Unlimited Photo Storage for Just $12 a Year

Per-BKWine — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:59:14 -0000

smugmug seems to have a max file size that is quite limiting (if you work with tiff). And it is 3.34 times as expensive. And do they really offer unlimited storage space?

Re: Amazon Announces Unlimited Photo Storage for Just $12 a Year

Per-BKWine — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:53:44 -0000

Would you mind quoting the exact wording of your question and their reply? Sound very, very interesting if this is true.

Re: Amazon Announces Unlimited Photo Storage for Just $12 a Year

Per-BKWine — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:51:13 -0000

Yes, that would be very interesting. Please do.

Re: Amazon Announces Unlimited Photo Storage for Just $12 a Year

Per-BKWine — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:49:14 -0000

[removed]

Re: PayPal vs Stripe: Which Payment Processor Should You Use

Per-BKWine — Thu, 24 Jul 2014 09:09:19 -0000

Shaun, I double checked my info.

There is an immutable upper limit of 8000 euro (sounds similar to $10000) for payments into an account.

You have to be a "verified" PayPal member, which is a few loops to hop through, if you want to pay more than (something like) $4000 (I have the number at $CDN 5000) but you can never go above the 8000 euro / $10000. (As always, perhaps this is negotiable if you are a *really* big PayPal customer but that is not what I have been told.)

This is certainly a serious issue for us.

As is the other thing I mentioned, their contractual possibility to withhold for a certain time your money without giving any substantiated motive.

But I certainly agree with you that they have a great advantage in that it is easy to start using them.

So other service providers are indeed interesting: Briantree, WorldPay, PayBox, 2Checkout etc. (and of course Stripe)

Look forward to your future posts.

Re: PayPal vs Stripe: Which Payment Processor Should You Use

Per-BKWine — Wed, 23 Jul 2014 18:05:56 -0000

Cash flow is an important aspect, as you point out. One thing that is important to know about PayPal is that they can "arbitrarily" (ie at their own discretion and without giving any substantiated motivation) decide to hold on to your money for a long time before releasing them to you. Eg. they can say that "we will hold on to 30% of your incoming payments for 180 days before we release them to you". As mentioned, totally at their own discretion.

Second thing: if you are selling things/services that may mean payment transactions that go above ~$4000 per transaction, then you have a problem with PayPal. They do not allow payments above (approximately) that sum. Then you will have to kindly ask your customer to pay in multiple instalments. Not very customer friendly. "Sorry Mr Customer, the $10,000 that you should pay can you please split that up in three payments. Our payment service provider does not allow payments over $4000"

The charges that you mention is apparently much less in the US than elsewhere. We are not in the US and I believe they charge us in the order of 4%.

The customer portal has also been very difficult to deal with, with very unintuitive user interface. It has just recently been changed so perhaps it is better now.

For these reasons I look forward to your future reviews of other payment services.

Re: ”Jag är trött på att bli lunchrånad!”

Per-BKWine — Sat, 05 Jul 2014 05:37:54 -0000

Nej, det är tvärt om.

Lunchpriserna i Stockholm, på restaurang, är för låga. Hur tror du att man kan laga bra och god mat för så lite som under hundralappen? Det blir massproducerad, smaklös gunk.

Se det istället tvärt om, vore det inte värt att betala några tior mer och då få riktigt god lagad mat? Sitta ner och ta det lugnt en lite stund och njuta av maten. Istället för att springa med sin bricka, pressa sig ner på en pall och trycka i sig maten i en hast. Visserligen billigt, ja. Men gott? Behagligt avbrott i arbetet?

Det är märkligt att vi i Sverige tror att man kan laga mat på lokal och det ska kosta i stort sett ingenting. Det är skrattretande låga priser på luncher i Sverige.

Nej, fram för högre lunchpriser i Stockholm så att man kan få mat värd att kallas god mat.

Re: Miracle of turning water into wine too good to be true? | Wine Conversation

Per-BKWine — Thu, 13 Mar 2014 16:12:47 -0000

It seems to me to be a failed attention grabber since in very little of the buzz the water issue came through. In fact, I think very few of those that saw it ever had any clue about what they were really trying to promote. What's the point of a stunt, or a viral video of no one gets the message?

Re: Systembolaget beställer, Kristdemokraterna levererar. | - Another point of view

Per-BKWine — Sun, 05 Jan 2014 08:46:38 -0000

Dessutom: *extremfallet* 28,7 % blir snabbt ”en tredjedel” hos Systembolaget:

”Enligt en HUI Research-rapport kommer kommersiell näthandel att stå för närmare en tredjedel av all alkoholförsäljning till konsumenter om tio år, om inget görs.” säger Magdalena Gerger, vd Systembolaget, och Cecilia Schelin Seidegård, Styrelseordförade Systembolaget (och regeringes representant).

Det är oklart om Systembolaget helt enkelt inte förstått vad rapporten säger, eller om Systembolaget avsiktligt ljuger och förvränger fakta.

Vilket fallet än är så är både ”en tredjedel” och ”kommersiell näthandel” en (medveten eller omedveten?) lögn från Systembolaget. Som tyvärr många i media okritiskt svalt.

Tack för att du tar upp vad HUIs rapport verkligen säger.

Så vitt jag vet är jag den ende skribent som faktiskt läst rapporten i detalj och utrett med HUI vad deras siffror egentligen säger. Här är min ursprungliga artikel om ”Osanningar & sanningar om “skräckscenariot nätvinhandeln 30 %” från Systembolaget, Carl B Hamilton och andra”:

http://www.bkwine.com/sv/de...

Där förklarar jag vad HUIs rapportskribent sa när jag frågade henne om Systembolaget…

Re: The Piano Player of Kiev

Per-BKWine — Mon, 16 Dec 2013 03:42:32 -0000

David,

I use "seem to be saying" because it is not entirely clear to me what your argument is. Therefore I do my best to interpret what you write and restate it so that you can tell me if my understanding is correct or not. But it seems (again) that what I read into your text was not entirely what you intended with it.

I can certainly agree with you on that there is good reason to review copyright legislation. (Just like any other type of legislation it will and should change over time.)

I am less certain that today's technology is a reason to accept as normal wholesale copyright infringement. But I imagine that that is not what you are saying either.

There is a tendency today of people to say "you put it on the internet and then it is OK for anyone to use it". In particular when it comes to photography. Most people still do understand that texts have a creator and that you cannot just copy them. Same thing for music and films. But not for photography.

Re: The Piano Player of Kiev

Per-BKWine — Sun, 15 Dec 2013 12:42:00 -0000

David,

What you seems to be saying is that "the end justifies the means". That is rarely an ethical standpoint, but usually something used to defend a reproachable action if it has a good purpose.

Let's disregard the fact that in this specific case the creator had actually given his permission for everyone and anyone to use it. (If we don't disregard that fact this whole discussion becomes irrelevant.)

Then what you seem to be saying is that "if a photo has 'high and immediate news value' then it is OK to disregard copyright", is that not a correct interpretation?

If so, the conclusion would be that you think that the "Daniel Morel judgement", awarding damages from AFP and Getty is wrong and that you think that AFP and Getty was right in not paying attention to copyright.

In effect, I think it is difficult to claim that "urgency" justifies infringement of copyright. "Urgency" in whose eyes?

Your solution to this "conundrum" (it is not, laws are pretty clear) is to organise a centralised registry for copyright for professional photographers. I don't think that is a good solution, nor a conceivably practical solution. For several reasons. For example:

- "centralised registries" don't generally work on the internet. (Anyone remembers Dmoz, "the Open Directory Project", that aimed to catalogue all internet sites in an organised catalogue/registry? Anyone uses it today? No...)

- copyright is independent of "registration". The creator owns copyright by the simple fact of creation. No need for any registration. (Just for the record, the US system of "registering" copyright has an entirely different purpose and does not have any impact on ownership of copyright. And it is purely US.)

- you say "professional photographers". Anyone, be it a professional or an amateur, owns the copyright of what he has created. Would you expect everyone to register every image in such a centralised registry? It won't happen.
- ...

In fact, the onus is on the user/publisher. It is the user/publisher who must figure out who owns the copyright (just like you did for the piano player). If he can't find out then he should not use the image, not even if he thinks it is "urgent" or "newsworthy".

I can't see any good reason why that should change.

Re: The Piano Player of Kiev

Per-BKWine — Wed, 11 Dec 2013 15:35:10 -0000

I thought hard-core intellectual anarchists were a thing of the past. Apparently I was mistaken.

Re: The Piano Player of Kiev

Per-BKWine — Wed, 11 Dec 2013 08:14:52 -0000

You know, it is not so much a question of belief or a specific world view.

It is a question of knowing and understanding what current legislation says. It seems you may not quite have arrived there. Or you may have the belief that you can ignore current legislation because it does not suit your philosophy or world view.

You may find it costly to have this view of the world, that one can ignore the law when it does not suit one, just as Getty Images and AFP found it rather costly when they followed the principles that you are advocating and were condemned to pay $1.2 million in damages.

If you don't like it you might find it less costly (and more intelligent) to try and change the law instead of ignoring it.

Re: The Piano Player of Kiev

Per-BKWine — Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:23:01 -0000

That is a lot of fancy word for promoting copyright theft. "creation of information does not entail ownership of same" is not correct. Creation of information, or more correctly a creative work like photography (or music), DOES entail ownership of same. You may not like it but that is the current legislation. And that is how artist (be it photographers, musicians, singers, film makers, authors, painters or others) mostly can survive. Because creation DOES entail ownership of what is created. It is just like movies. Copy the movies and distribute them through bittorrent or whatever free sharing tool you can find and you may feel good about it but it is still illegal unless you have the authorisation of the film-maker. Just like copying and sharing photographs without the authorisation of the photographer. Creators who want to share their "art" freely can do so by granting blanket authorisation (e.g. Creative Commons). If they have not, then you are stealing their material if you use it.

Re: The Piano Player of Kiev

Per-BKWine — Tue, 10 Dec 2013 03:56:59 -0000

Interesting story.

I certainly agree that it can be difficult to track down the owner of an image and the copyright holder.

There
are two possible conclusions for someone who wants to publish such an
image, be it online on a blog post or in print on paper:

1.
I can't find the source. I've made a decent effort. [perhaps true or
not] Since I can't find the owner I will use it without authorisation.

2. I can't find the source. Therefore I can't get any authorisation to use it. So I will not use it.

Many will think that #1 is OK. It is not. It is copyright infringement.

#2 is the correct conclusion.