Slashdot Mirror

Sometimes things going the way of the dodo is capitalism as well.

Absolutely. How is the Pure Collector's business model nowadays? Although I can't think what it is about journalism that brought that particular defunct business to mind...

Actually, the "well-known" claim that there is a CCTV camera for every 14 people in the UK, used by the media to put the fear of an omnipotent God into folks, (and believe me, there is plenty of outrage to be found if you read the "right" papers *cough*Daily Mail*cough*) is based on some very dodgy estimates, gathered by researchers from two streets in Putney:

Channel 4 Factcheck

There may or may not be a lot of cameras. No official figures exist to say how many. However, there is good reason to believe that the usual figure quoted in not the correct one, either way.

All what cameras? And anyway, it's only the southern half of the UK that's sinking into the sea, Scotland is very slowly rising.

Reminds me of sites like Channel 4. I wonder if the reason for limiting content to the UK and the Republic of Ireland is also strictly monetary. http://www.channel4.com/video/the-it-crowd/catchup.html

Actually, there is a car manufacturer that tailors its cars so they should sustain an impact with a moose. It is SAAB, and they do this because one of their top execs was killed in a head on collision with a moose.

SAAB tests each car model with a simulated moose coming in through the windshield. If you think about it SAAB cars' windshields are more curved. There is a reason for that.

Not quite the same, obviously it's quite impossible to sit a 1950s kid in front of a 2008 exam (unless you invent time travel first), but Channel 4 in the UK did a series on this going the other way around called That'll Teach 'Em.

I can't remember the outcome or anything but there's a few article on the net about it.

Here is the link to the programmes web site:

http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/T/teachem/series.html

Perhaps your favourite TV download service may have a copy you could 'borrow'.

They must be calling the black hole firefighters. as everybody knows this stuff grows slowly: http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/black+hole+missing+link+found/2459102 "super-massive black holes were thought to grow slowly". Way to go, that'll learn us to put such a facility in switzerland where suicide rates are so high.

Peep Show: http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/P/peep_show/

And you thought you were joking.

We should set up some sort of exchange. Then you could watch the Beeb and I could watch The Daily Show without being redirected to Channel 4's DRMed rubbish. At least they're honest about how they feel about DRM.

We should set up some sort of exchange. Then you could watch the Beeb and I could watch The Daily Show without being redirected to Channel 4's DRMed rubbish. At least they're honest about how they feel about DRM.

Seems mostly aimed at what is discussed in the Fake Trade (http://www.channel4.com/video/the-fake-trade/index.html)

I think we can agree people manufacturing fake heart medicine is a bad thing; and that may have been the selling point.

However, "SEC. 511. LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANTS." does the following:

"(a) Authorization- Section 2 of the Computer Crime Enforcement Act (42 U.S.C. 3713) is amended-- (1) in subsection (b), by inserting after `computer crime' each place it appears the following: `, including infringement of copyrighted works over the Internet';

I sure hope there aren't any congressmen who are violating the terms of CC or GPL. And can you imagine their outrage when their child downloads some songs and they have to forfeit that fancy new laptop? I mean, if enacted this will apply to congressmen, senators, even presidents, right?

Here are some links an asset forfeiture:

http://www.cjcj.org/pdf/civil_asset.pdf (PDF version)
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:57xthSv8mJoJ:www.cjcj.org/pdf/civil_asset.pdf+%22asset+forfeiture+law%22+%22supreme+court%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us (HTML version)
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-rp061197.html
http://law.gsu.edu/library/index/bibliographies/view?id=64
http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/searchseizure/10303leg19990802.html
http://www.fear.org/hadaway.html

Also, aside from writing your congressperson and senator, stop supporting the RIAA/MPAA and the like. Stop enabling these people by refusing to watch, listen, pay or even discuss any of their products.

(Cough)de Menezes (cough) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes
(cough) Abu Ghraib(cough) http://www.channel4.com/news/microsites/T/torture/index.html
(cough) Guantanamo (cough)

Great thing about the internet - almost everything has already been done

Scrapheap Challenge - Car Flinger

Remember, physics is the winner here...

Available at http://www.noliberties.com/

and if you're a UK view, for free here,

http://www.channel4.com/video/true-stories-taking-liberties/catchup.html

(WMP11 unfortunately)

For anyone who's studied the UK constitution, and in particular, Lord Nicholls' dicta in Belmarsh, it is frightening to see so obviously what one Government has done to the UK in a way that will effectively bind successive governments: not for want of power, but for want of justification should they revoke popularist statues that give the illusion of service.

Matt

Oh yes, deal with consumers in a fair way indeed. I realize that those are isolated incidents, but they are the results of playing "fast and loose with the system". People DIE.

Quote: "'You think there are more facts and better facts on your side than on the other side. The very act of giving them equal weight seems like bias. Like inappropriate evenhandedness.'"

However, some facts have more weight than others when judged by objective observer - don't they?

Good example is the (illegal) invasion of Iraq.

The fact that UN1441 required the council to "convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;" i.e. to decide what to do next.

http://community.channel4.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/503603557/m/3490049144/p/1

BTW: I'm MadWorld poster (because it is).

Evidence supporting this statement:

http://www.channel4.com/bigbrother/

Dude, just tell me that someone who is clinically depressed or with some other severe mental disorder doesn't have a disease to my face, ok? ;)

Well, if it makes you happy, I'll tell you to your face that they may not have a disease, depending on how we define it. I'll tell you that clinical depression is a very different sort of entity than physical ailments, since it is diagnosed based on judgments of behavior rather than physical evaluation.

Depression (the disease under discussion) can be very real.

I thought we'd broadened the topic to general "mental illness" by now. And if you don't think anger and depression are linked, ask around. But look, the reality of depression is not in dispute here; what is being questioned is its categorization.

A broken leg is a real problem but is not a disease. (Indeed, I think that the concept of "mental injury" might serve as decent analogy in many cases, such as PTSD.) Various sorts of ignorance are real problems, can even be fatal (e.g., "only gays and drug users get AIDS, so I'm safe!"), but ignorance is not a disease. Depression is a real problem; many people think that categorizing it as a disease is inaccurate and/or not helpful.

One big reason is the sort of interventions it suggests. Diseases don't get better when you learn new skills; but cognitive-behavioral therapies are quite effective at helping people with depression. Labeling depression a disease automatically puts the emphasis on drug therapies (and, gods forbid, on psychosurgery or shock treatment).

Ever seen a person who used to function fine slowly (chemically) imbalance to where they can't get out of bed?

The "chemical imbalance" hypothesis is one of the big questions here. It's pushed by drug companies that make SSRIs, but there's a lack of evidence for it. (Which is not to say that mental activity doesn't have neurochemical correlates, just that they're not as simple as "low serotonin == depression".)

But yes, I've seen people - friends, family members, a housemate of mind - go into serious states of depression where they became unable to function. I fail to see how calling them "sick" would have helped.

Ever felt it yourself?

Self-diagnosis is a minefield. But I will say that years ago, my doctor dropped several gentle hints that I should consider SSRIs. I'm glad I didn't; instead I've made positive changes in my life, and I'm feeling much better now. Probably the most important involved becoming more aware of my body, learning to break the feedback loops of muscular tension. (Which is not to say that some drugs don't help some people.)

(oh, and you can see brain chemistry changes in autopsies http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/S/science/body/depression.html, just like hardening arteries, so, yeah, it's a physical disease)

Autopsies of people who committed violent suicide, which should hardly be taken as representative; and your linked article notes that "post mortem analyses are complicated by factors other than depression that may change brain chemistry. The mode of death, previous drug history, current therapy, and time between death and autopsy can all affect the results."

It may well be the case that some people who are diagnosed with "clinical depression" have a neurological disorder. But what is being diagnosed by the term "clinical depression" is not that neurological disorder, but a behavioral pattern.

Dude, just tell me that someone who is clinically depressed or with some other severe mental disorder doesn't have a disease to my face, ok? ;) The medicines under discussion may be overprescribed (to people who really don't need it, possibly accounting for the placebo effect), but for the people who need it...

You have some very good arguments, please don't weaken them with straw men like "someone lacks normal and usual cognitive and behavioral skills to deal with, say, anger". Depression (the disease under discussion) can be very real. Ever seen a person who used to function fine slowly (chemically) imbalance to where they can't get out of bed? Ever felt it yourself? Sure, there are hypochondriacs who think they have depression (I used to be married to one), and doctors seem pretty willing to go along in our society. But there are hypochondriacs who think that they have "the flu and coronary artery disease", too. That doesn't make those conditions any less a real disease than over/mis-diagnosis of depression make depression something that's [idiom]just in your head[/idiom]. (oh, and you can see brain chemistry changes in autopsies http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/S/science/body/depression.html, just like hardening arteries, so, yeah, it's a physical disease)

Truth hurts, doesn't it? For all your demagoguery, the truth remains is that over 50% of the stuff on your local TV, and over 90% of the stuff on your local "warez" server is produced in America (and copied without permission of the creators/owners).

Ahem, I'm in the UK, and looking at the BBC TV guide for this evening, across three channels, I can only see two episodes of Family Guy, 'Dracula 2000' and a couple of late-night episodes of Star Trek. Not quite what I'd call 50%. Over on ITV, there's a couple of American films spread across four channels of content, and Channel 4 is awash with American-made content, with one whole episode of the Simpsons.

Channel 5 I'll give you, as all I ever see on there is terrible CSI knock-offs and shows about people having nose jobs, but across the board it's about 10% American content, maybe less, and you guys can hardly complain when you have a whole TV station dedicated to showing British content on American TV (though looking at the girls in the Torchwood banner at the top, who can blame you?). Also, I'm sure I read somewhere that France has laws ensuring more than 50% of shows on French television are French language productions produced in France, but I don't have a source for that so I could be wrong, and I can't see the rest of Europe being dominated by American television as you don't actually speak the same language, and nobody likes watching awful dubs all the time.

Then you wouldn't mind people copying your passport, your high school/college diplomas (if any), your date of birth and drivers license, your credit card numbers and bank accounts, your address and pictures of your family and pets in the nude?

There is a not-so-subtle difference between data A (a Metallica .mp3, for example) and data B (my credit card details). It's not like if the RIAA waved a magic wand and stopped piracy tomorrow everyone who would have previously downloaded 'Metallica_Discography_342342Kbps_OGG.torrent' is going to rush out and buy the pieces of crap that were 'Load' and 'Reload', but if I were to publish my bank account details on some identity theft forum, the vast majority of people would go in and steal all my cash. I don't want me or James Hetfield to be deprived of rightfully-earned cash, but the fact is 99% of downloaders wouldn't buy the CD if the torrent wasn't availible anyway, whereas 99.9999% of people interested in my bank account details are only interested in affecting my bank balance significantly and negatively compared to what it would be if that information was not published.

As for the other stuff - and in fact the bank details as well - there is a difference between personal information and creative output. The problem there is identity theft. By downloading The Black Album (to continue the Metallica theme - I don't even like friggin' Metallica) you are not able to steal Lars Ulrich's identity and make his life a living hell to pay for your own enjoyment. You could make your neighbour's life a living hell through the use of the files you downloaded and an amplifier that goes up to 11, but Lars Ulrich wouldn't care. You stealing my identity and using my credit card information to purchase child porn would land me, an innocent party, in deep shit, but I can't think of anything you can implicate someone in by downloading an MP3 of them.

As for pictures of me in the nude... that'd hurt you more than it'd hurt me, but if you really want, I'll bust out the Polaroids.

Sadly, I predict orders from the KGB and CIA.

In the UK, applying for a passport _now_ gets around the UK's ID card laws and it's Nazi-esque data gathering, oh, and is considerably cheaper now compared to IF the ID cards ever come into existence.

As for this security flaw, there was a similar one found a few months ago in the UK's own online visa applications system http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/business_money/online+visa+security+flaw/517157 . Maybe they hired the same idiot programmers?

Thats right, P2P content distributors are nothing more than freeloaders.

I've tried both 4od and the BBC iPlayer, to find that these apps silently start a P2P service (Kontiki) on my computer and will use that to distribute their content, eating as much bandwidth as it can take. Notably this service has no dialog, task tray icon or any other obvious control mechanisms, and always auto starts at boot, re-enabling itself when 4od is launched if it is disabled..

So, if this is what Cuban means by P2P content distributors, I think he's right. Channel 4 is funded through advertising, and forces me to watch ads before any programs I download, while I pay a license fee for the BBC. And I pay for my bandwidth, which is also capped at 20GB/month, so neither unlimited nor free.

Personally I think these video player apps are nothing more than Trojan horses, which undoubtedly are going to cause both consumers and ISPs problems as they wonder where all their bandwidth has gone, or how they managed to exceed their bandwidth cap.

This is from the bureaucracy that thought putting confidential personal details in a public folder on a web server was secure as long as they didn't tell anyone they were there:

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/health/exclusive+junior+doctors+details+exposed+online/469137

and that's currently £6.2bn over budget on implementing a medical record database:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/16/nhsit_budget_overrun/

Why are UK government IT projects always doomed to failure?

Yesterday I sent an email enquiring why Windows OS and IE were stipulated when I could watch Windows Media files on Linux with Firefox. I received this reply. Dear Sid, Thank you for your email regarding 4oD. Unfortunately we cannot say when the 4oD service will be available to users of other platforms, including Mac OS and Linux. The problem is, our content providers (e.g. the production companies who make our shows), insist on using a DRM licensing system. The DRM (Digital Rights Management) system basically protects the video content from duplication and broadcast outside the UK & ROI. Currently they insist on using Microsoft's DRM, and because of this we can only support Microsoft operating systems. Linux currently has no such DRM system available and so our content providers will not allow us to support the Linux operating system. Macintosh do have a solution, however the closed DRM system used by Apple is not currently available for licence by third parties and there is no other Mac-compatible DRM solution which meets the protection requirements of our content owners. Unfortunately, we are therefore unable to offer 4oD and other video content to Mac users at this stage. We are sorry to disappoint on this occasion and assure you that if changes throughout the industry happen, as we would like, we will ensure the support of other operating systems. If you require further information, feel free to email me back or visit http://help.channel4.com/4oD/ Regards, Jack Harrison Channel 4 Customer Support Please read our Terms and Conditions at http://www.channel4.com/4od/terms.html We've updated our website! Check out our new help section and FAQ's for all the things you've always wanted to know about our channels. http://www.channel4.com/help Channel 4 take no responsibility for third party websites Original Message Follows: Type=Email Category=vodfeedback Name: Sid Boyce Problem Summary: 4oD Case: Comments: After seeing 4OD mentioned on TV, I thought I would give it a try. As far as I could gather, the content is in Windows Media format which I am quite capable of watching using the Firefox browser under Linux - I do this all the time with content from other sources, so there is no real need for C4 to specifically support Linux of Firefox. I was greeted by a screen saying that my operating system and browser are not supported and I need Windows XP/Vista and Internet Explorer. This does not make sense and seems very much akin to the BBC's original idea of disenfranchising viewers who do not use software from Microsoft. Why can't you serve Windows Media content to other than Microsoft-based platforms? This appears to be filtering bias rather than practicality. Session Log: http://kana2/SRVS/CGI-BIN/WEBCGI.EXE/,/?St=46,E=0000000000044184530,K=563 9,Sxi=0,T=SESSLOG

Yesterday I sent an email enquiring why Windows OS and IE were stipulated when I could watch Windows Media files on Linux with Firefox. I received this reply. Dear Sid, Thank you for your email regarding 4oD. Unfortunately we cannot say when the 4oD service will be available to users of other platforms, including Mac OS and Linux. The problem is, our content providers (e.g. the production companies who make our shows), insist on using a DRM licensing system. The DRM (Digital Rights Management) system basically protects the video content from duplication and broadcast outside the UK & ROI. Currently they insist on using Microsoft's DRM, and because of this we can only support Microsoft operating systems. Linux currently has no such DRM system available and so our content providers will not allow us to support the Linux operating system. Macintosh do have a solution, however the closed DRM system used by Apple is not currently available for licence by third parties and there is no other Mac-compatible DRM solution which meets the protection requirements of our content owners. Unfortunately, we are therefore unable to offer 4oD and other video content to Mac users at this stage. We are sorry to disappoint on this occasion and assure you that if changes throughout the industry happen, as we would like, we will ensure the support of other operating systems. If you require further information, feel free to email me back or visit http://help.channel4.com/4oD/ Regards, Jack Harrison Channel 4 Customer Support Please read our Terms and Conditions at http://www.channel4.com/4od/terms.html We've updated our website! Check out our new help section and FAQ's for all the things you've always wanted to know about our channels. http://www.channel4.com/help Channel 4 take no responsibility for third party websites Original Message Follows: Type=Email Category=vodfeedback Name: Sid Boyce Problem Summary: 4oD Case: Comments: After seeing 4OD mentioned on TV, I thought I would give it a try. As far as I could gather, the content is in Windows Media format which I am quite capable of watching using the Firefox browser under Linux - I do this all the time with content from other sources, so there is no real need for C4 to specifically support Linux of Firefox. I was greeted by a screen saying that my operating system and browser are not supported and I need Windows XP/Vista and Internet Explorer. This does not make sense and seems very much akin to the BBC's original idea of disenfranchising viewers who do not use software from Microsoft. Why can't you serve Windows Media content to other than Microsoft-based platforms? This appears to be filtering bias rather than practicality. Session Log: http://kana2/SRVS/CGI-BIN/WEBCGI.EXE/,/?St=46,E=0000000000044184530,K=563 9,Sxi=0,T=SESSLOG

Yesterday I sent an email enquiring why Windows OS and IE were stipulated when I could watch Windows Media files on Linux with Firefox. I received this reply. Dear Sid, Thank you for your email regarding 4oD. Unfortunately we cannot say when the 4oD service will be available to users of other platforms, including Mac OS and Linux. The problem is, our content providers (e.g. the production companies who make our shows), insist on using a DRM licensing system. The DRM (Digital Rights Management) system basically protects the video content from duplication and broadcast outside the UK & ROI. Currently they insist on using Microsoft's DRM, and because of this we can only support Microsoft operating systems. Linux currently has no such DRM system available and so our content providers will not allow us to support the Linux operating system. Macintosh do have a solution, however the closed DRM system used by Apple is not currently available for licence by third parties and there is no other Mac-compatible DRM solution which meets the protection requirements of our content owners. Unfortunately, we are therefore unable to offer 4oD and other video content to Mac users at this stage. We are sorry to disappoint on this occasion and assure you that if changes throughout the industry happen, as we would like, we will ensure the support of other operating systems. If you require further information, feel free to email me back or visit http://help.channel4.com/4oD/ Regards, Jack Harrison Channel 4 Customer Support Please read our Terms and Conditions at http://www.channel4.com/4od/terms.html We've updated our website! Check out our new help section and FAQ's for all the things you've always wanted to know about our channels. http://www.channel4.com/help Channel 4 take no responsibility for third party websites Original Message Follows: Type=Email Category=vodfeedback Name: Sid Boyce Problem Summary: 4oD Case: Comments: After seeing 4OD mentioned on TV, I thought I would give it a try. As far as I could gather, the content is in Windows Media format which I am quite capable of watching using the Firefox browser under Linux - I do this all the time with content from other sources, so there is no real need for C4 to specifically support Linux of Firefox. I was greeted by a screen saying that my operating system and browser are not supported and I need Windows XP/Vista and Internet Explorer. This does not make sense and seems very much akin to the BBC's original idea of disenfranchising viewers who do not use software from Microsoft. Why can't you serve Windows Media content to other than Microsoft-based platforms? This appears to be filtering bias rather than practicality. Session Log: http://kana2/SRVS/CGI-BIN/WEBCGI.EXE/,/?St=46,E=0000000000044184530,K=563 9,Sxi=0,T=SESSLOG

I was about to recommend the same thing.

here's the channel 4 site, as well as videos, part one and two.

W

In the UK, we got a new speaking clock earlier this year. It's been sponsored for more than twenty years too.

The BBC said they are going to look at other platforms later. They are just making downloads available to the vast majority of the people who paid for it first, this is normal.

This is like 4oD and SKY Anytime which currently only work with Windows XP (not even Vista). I'm sure they will be updatiung their software for at least Vista and Mac soon enough. It not like they said NO is it!

They made motor powered versions on Scrapheap Challenge a while back.

Actually, the BBC does have a commerical arm which operates outside the uk... it is called BBC Worldwide.

http://www.bbcworldwide.com/

I wonder how BBC Worldwide would feel if the BBC started to give their content for free on the web when they have to pay for their content (which they then sell to others) from the BBC. I'm sure the networks that carry BBC content would be so happy to pay large sums for it but know that it is available for free on the internet (ok, please forget about BT as that is another problem).

Also, remember the fact that the BBC doesn't *own* all the content it broadcasts, and because you pay your "TV tax" it doesn't mean you own the content broadcast either. Most of the BBC's content is produced by other companies which the BBC then aquires certain rights to show (like being able to repeat it for 7 days after broadcasting it). Just becuase it was produced for the BBC doesn't mean the BBC owns it. The rights for these programmes are usually pretty complicated, every time a programme is repeated lots of people end up getting paid again. This causes a problem because the rights to broadcast the programme over the internet means new contracts have to be drawn up. What if say, a show like Spooks/MI5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spooks), wishes to sell the rights to broadcast it over the internet to another company? How would it affect the company that made Spooks if they could not get money for DVDs of the series because everyone downloaded it for free and burnt it to DVD? It isn't the BBC who pushed for the DRM, it was really the production companies who produce the content for the BBC. These companies who produce content for the BBC have to then sell this content to other companies outside of the BBC to get their investment back. What chance would they have to sell these programmes if everyone in the world could get these programmes for free (yes, they can do it via BT, but that is techncially illegal... please don't derail with arguments whether legal or not).

Another example, a music clip is used in one programme produced for the BBC. They are allowed to use the clip when the programme is broadcast, but once it gos to DVD the clip has to be changed due to the rights owner of the clip. The BBC might have a licence to use the clip in a broadcast but not to actually use it on a DVD (that would have cost more for the BBC to use in that way). This happen for the first series of monkey dust (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_Dust). The same has happen when networks like Fox or HBO use a track on their shows. Sometimes when it arrives on DVD the track would be replaced by something else due to rights issues. So imagine now what the rights owner of that clip would demmand if the programme that used the clip was broadcast over the internet (not just UK, but worldwide). The BBC would have to get rights to do this, so would have to pay more and would be forced to adopt things that the rights owner would want. Broadcasting over internet isn't covered by contracts to broadcast over airwaves. Channel 4 has an onDemand service over the internet and because of the rights they bought some programmes under, they can't broadcast certain programmes (check out their help page, http://geo.channel4.com/player/simulcast/help.html ). So it all comes down to rights issues in the end and content producers wanting to make the most money. Remember, the BBC doesn't own all their content as well so they have these same rights issues at Channel 4.

So if you want to campaign for the BBC to drop the DRM from their videos, then contact all the companies that the BBC uses to produce their content. They're the ones that want DRM after all.

Personally, I don't know of any off-the-shelf-and-easy-to-implement open source DRM solution the BBC could have gone for, and given the choice between using Microsoft DRM and getting an iPlayer out the door now or building something in house that could take years I can see why the BBC made the decision they did.

I'm from the UK, love the BBC, not overly keen on Microsoft. The BBC's promise to keep things under review and aim to get something for other platforms out in ~2 years is good enough for me.

Plus, I haven't heard of any rivals (ITV/Sky/Virgin) promising a non-Microsoft implementation and as far as I know the Channel4 on demand software (http://www.channel4.com/4od/index.html) doesn't even work on Vista let alone non-MS platforms.

http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsite s/S/spacecadets/

We're not falling for it twice!

For the Inuit think global warming is a problem:

"For the Inuit, global warming is not a scientific theory"
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/world/kyoto% 20comes%20to%20baffin%20island/107920

The poles see the first and the worst effects of global warming. For me it won't be bad unless (or until) a runaway green house effect occurs. I personally wouldn't mind warmer winters where I live, as long as my taxes didn't go to paying for things like relocating people onto higher ground, or hurricane relief, etc.

Quick Comment:
I feel almost tempted to spend a couple of hours searching for references, etc on all of the very obvious evidence there is of global warming, but I'm sure there would be people as dishonest as Vaclav Klaus who have agendas, and the plain ignorant who have agenda's, who really wouldn't give two shits what I have to say.

His labeling of rational and educated people as "politically correct" and "environmentalists" is one big piece of ad hominem.

Texas alone has 262,000 sq miles, with 5,280 ft per mile that's 5,280 x 262,000 x 5,280 x 262,000 sq ft or 1,913,684,889,600,000,000 sq ft. Now if we moved the
entire 6 billion of the world population into the State of Texas everybody would have 1,913,684,889,600,000,000 / 6,000,000,000 = 318,947,481 sq ft to live in.

Imagine that: Three-hundred-eighteen-million, nine-hundred-fourty-seven-thousand, four-hundred-eighty-one (!!!) square feet for everybody on this planet to live on.

Texas is among other things a great state to live in, but compared to the total land area of Earth of 148,939,100 sq km the 678,051 sq km of Texas only account for .45%(!!!) of it.

-> You could squeeze the entire population of the world into an area half a percent of the entire planet's surface area and with some 319 million sq ft of space allotted to each woman, man and child they wouldn't exactly be breathing down each other's neck, now would they?

Overpopulation is yet another myth. Of course people need roads, factories and agriculture and when they've got that they'll want pools, satellite communications and lamb chops from New Zealand... but still the myth figures do not add up, neither those of the overpopulation crowd nor those of the global warming faction.

In case you haven't seen it btw, do watch Matt Durkin's documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great _global_warming_swindle/index.html

You can also watch it online at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022 478442170&q=global+warming+swindle

People are catching on to these lies pretty fast now so I'm pretty confident there
wont be any suicide booths or other overt population control scenarios, except
maybe for "volunteers" like you who put "freedom" into quotation marks. Human
beings are precious no matter whether there are only a handful or six or
six-hundred billion, if you took the time for some introspection you'd know why.

Here's the latest:

http://www.channel4.com/4car/feature/feature.jsp?i d=740

And, VW's been doing this for ages - I've found evidence of their "single-shaft" diesel-electric hybrid prototype dating back to 1987. I don't know about the function of the Golf ECO.Power, which is VW's latest version, but they claimed an AVERAGE of 3.8 L/100km with that one. (That's 62 US MPG.) Not too shabby.

Hollyoaks and Peep Show are not on the BBC. You're thinking of Channel 4 (C4).

C4 have a TV on demand service now, which works using Bittorrent-style P2P. It is also encumbered with Microsoft DRM, and there is no support for any OS other than XP. Not even Mac. You also have to live in the UK (or use a proxy).

Incidentally the best way to get UK TV programmes is to get an account on a private Bittorrent service, UKN. No DRM at all, and torrents are moderated for quality. As a UK licence fee payer, I see the service as being very much like a large video recorder, and have no ethical qualms about using it. However, you can use it from anywhere in the world, as there is no attempt to prevent non-UK users.

They should be selling this content, DRM free, to the rest of the world, hell, I think they should be selling it in the UK too, then maybe they could bring the license fee down a little to compensate. Selling their content online (for reasonable prices) would allow them to move long-term to a model where they are a content creator and licenser, not a broadcaster.

However just like their archive this has been hobbled by rights issues and silly rules about 'broadcasting' on the internet for 7 days, 30 days, or whatever their limit is now. If it wasn't for those rules, they wouldn't have to use DRM at all. Instead they're stuck in 1996, trying to create an ecosystem that their users couldn't care less about.

They've bought into this Microsoft DRM, and are now going to pay the price of becoming irrelevant to users of other platforms, like OS X, mobile phones, consoles which don't come from MS, Linux etc. Good job BBC. How they will move it to other platforms is anyone's guess - the BBC says it might be difficult within 2 years to move to OS X (which is what the trust wanted) - that's hardly a promising sign. Frankly, I don't think they'll ever make it with their 'iPlayer'. MS certainly has nil incentive to provide a working solution on OS X or Linux.

Quite apart from the DRM I don't want to download another player for every TV station that wants to go online - they should use the outlets currently available, like Microsoft Live and iTunes, to sell their stuff. Instead of using standard channels and outlets they've rolled their own player and bought in DRM. Channel 4 has pulled the same trick and their forum is full of people complaining about how crap it is. The C4 player even installs a P2P client to serve their stuff for you without asking. Nice.

These media creators/outlets are obviously stuck in the 1990s, and they're not going to get the internet till they're dragged kicking and streaming onto it. The fact they still talk about broadcasting when they're actually talking about downloads says everything really. They're trying to hobble downloads to turn them into a broadcast.

What a service like this needs to succeed :

1. Offer downloads of files which will play on any modern video software, on computers, phones etc etc
2. Not time limited
3. Sell the damn content worldwide 1 year after first broadcast
4. Use any sales channel you can get, don't try to limit it to your 'iPlayer'
5. DRM not required, in fact it'd be a huge hindrance because it makes it impossible to do 1 above
6. Don't try to turn the Internet into TV - the obverse is inevitable, and the sooner you get used to it the better.

Channel4 in the UK have been providing a similar service via their 4OD (4 On Demand) software http://www.channel4.com/4od/, you can watch episodes of their 'standard' tv series for free for a week after their first showing. After that, there's a (relatively) small charge of 99p (about $2) to rent it with a 24 hour viewing "window" (you can keep the file for several days, but once you start watching, you get 24 hours to finish it).

We're going to give your website the boot and we're not even allowed to tell you what you did wrong. We're going to hold you without charge in a detention center and torture you for reasons unknown.

Welcome to the land of the fascists, welcome to the USA.

But will it stop me calling for Blair, Goldsmith, Scarlett, Campbell and all the rest of war criminals to be strung up by the neck until they are dead?

Why wait for war crimes trial - they helped to kill thousands of Iraqi men, women, children and babies - haven't we seen enough to know they are guilty?

We know the intelligence was correct - being very shakey - Scarlett simply removed caveats from report - prompted by Campbell.

We know the legal advice was changed after Goldsmith was given a bit of friendly persuation - indeed his own written legal advice is clearly wrong - using opinion in place of fact:

http://community.channel4.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5 03603557/m/3490049144/p/1

OR

http://www.hosted-forum.com/index.php?boardid=notn ews&showtopic=1499

We know these people helped their master, Mr Bliar, to back the Bush agenda.

Hang on - there's a knock at the door....

I like your analogy: learning to read is like learning to drive a vehicle. It takes a whole lot of practice. So, in the US, why does the government hand out driver's licenses so easily, considering that a car can be used as a deadly weapon? Forget gun control when anyone can make a 20gal-gasoline bomb on 2-ton chassis with wheels. They give a piece-o-cake written exam, and eventually a short road test. And almost everyone eventually passes. Why is it so easy? The government needs people to commute, of course, for the economy to run. But also, in this case, the government trusts people to avoid killing themselves. And most people don't want to die, so they've got to take driving, at least a little bit, seriously.

But, why do have all these expert specialists in schools telling kids they've got a problem and will need extensive hours of specialized training, etc.?

Let's take the driving analogy again. What if you've got a parent or a driving instructor that continually butts in and says, "no, you're too clumsy, so you'd better jump rope for a couple hours and take an etiquette class before you learn to drive." Or, "gee, you've a little bit nearsighted, but instead of getting you a $50 pair of eye glasses to correct the problem, let's get you a telescope so you'll be able to see extra well!" With all these experts continually dispensing advice on a problem, is there any time or self-confidence left for the individual to address the problem themself? Many reading problems are easily self-fixed without "expert" interference.

Let's take "dyslexia" again. What the heck is it really? It's definition has been so convoluted that it virtually has no significance. scholar-google it or check out this TV report from the UK:
http://www.channel4.com/news/microsites/D/dyslexia _myth/dyslexia.html

Yes, dyslexia can be neurologically-based, but it's a very small percentage of the population. And a proper diagnosis is extremely helpful. But what about the kids who've got something else going on (some kind of reading disorder) and get misdiagnosed as having dyslexia? Now, they're totally screwed. They're taught to trust an expert, and not themselves. Would you want to learn to drive this way: "I've been told my memory is not so good, and I'm not sure the accelerator is on the right side, so I'd better use my cellphone to ask my driving instructor before I do anything." Yes, some kids see right through the schooling crap, and figure it out for themselves. But, others get stuck in this I-need-help-from-an-expert mentality for perpetuity. Corporations and the health care industry are quite happy with this kind of thinking.

Back to teaching technology in the classroom... Whom would you rather hire as a security consultant: the "perfect" student who obeyed all instructions, completed the required assignments, but had no ambition to learn anything beyond what was taught in class, or the student who completed only some of the assignments because s/he wass too busy figuring out how to bypass security settings, installing software (games or whatever), and poking around on "secured" servers? Frankly, having all kids have ipods for the intended purposes would be a joke and a waste of money. But, the unavoidable temptation for non-sanctioned tinkering would definitely help motivate "unmotivated" kids.

Sorry folks, but as a 30 year weather guy, I have to call B.S.

In the 1970's, the worry was Global Cooling, because global temps were on a down swing, so we're all going to die. Now they're tending upwards, so we're all going to die. Oh, and there was an Ozone Hole, so we're all going to die. You get the idea.

The global temps were much warmer than today from the 1300's to 1500's. Greenland was actually green and you could grow grapes in Scotland. The 1600's saw a cool period -- see Maunder Minimum. Around 14,000 years ago, when Europe, northern Asia and North America were under the ice, Egypt and North Africa were grassy plains. Therer were plenty of rivers through the Saraha, and the Qatar Depression was a lake. The ice age ended and the climate changed. Guess what -- animals and people moved along with it. The melted ice cap meant the oceans rose a few hundred feet, so the coastline changed too. Polar bears still know how to swim.

The Carbon Dioxde and temperature pattern are correlated, but from Statistics 101, day 1, Correlation is NOT causation. BTW -- warmer conditions mean more plant growth, so more C02 is a likely RESULT of a temperature rise, not a percussor. WATER VAPOR is the earth's primary "greenhouse" gas, and many times more significant than C02, because Water Vapor forms CLOUDS.

Without the atmosphere, the earth's blackbody temp would be 255K/-18C/0F. The atmosphere makes the effective temperature 288K/15C/59F, which is why 15C is part of the International Standard Atmosphere.

The point is that warming and cooling are going to come and go because solar cycles come and go. The last 14,000 years or so have been (mostly) warming -- the most recent (of many) ice ages ended. No doubt things will continue to fluctuate, and so what? We'll adapt.

If you were able to watch UK Channel 4's "The Great Global Warming Swindle", it's been pulled from YouTube for copyright issues. Pity. It was spot on.

This a documentary was released in the UK on BBC Channel 4. It does not happen to be independently-produced, YouTube trash as mentioned in a previous comment. It includes interviews with quite a few scientist. Even the co-founder of GreenPeace complains in the documentary about the current Environmental movement.

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great _global_warming_swindle/index.html

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great _global_warming_swindle/index.html

So is this now blasphemy?

Breaking international law and conspiring to deceive the electorate are serious allegations against a PM. There'll be easy political points made by nailing him when the tide turns, as illustrated in a recent drama.

What else do I "want"? ... well there are quite a few TV stations in the UK. offering downloadable "watch again" versions of their TV programmes and films for rent. Not available for Mac users of course because, according to their FAQs there is no viable OS-supported DRM video standard for the Mac.

I leave it to you to decide whether this is a good or bad thing.

See for instance Channel 4 on demand.

Will you offer 4oD for the Macintosh?

Unfortunately not at the launch of 4oD.

This is an industry-wide issue caused because the accepted Digital Rights Management (DRM) system used to protect online video content, which is required by our content owners, is not compatible with Apple Mac hardware and software. The closed DRM system used by Apple is not currently available for licence by third parties and there is no other Mac-compatible DRM solution which meets the protection requirements of content owners. Unfortunately, we are therefore unable to offer 4oD content to Mac users at this stage.

Personal information stored in big brother database