It doesn't really matter as long as the British public pay their License fees to keep the content running.
I wouldn't care if others were to view the content I paid for without paying but it wouldn't stop the British public from paying for a license since its extremely well enforced with everyone in the UK without a license being flagged up in their database.
can get BBC content over the internet for free, without paying their license, they will,
They have a huge database of people's addresses who HAVE and don't have a TV license. If don't get a license you automatically get sent a nasty letter through the post reminding you that if you don't get one you'll get fined up to ten times the amount of the license.
I know because I have gotten the letters myself.
So please tell me again how they can't stop people from not paying their license because they can already stop them now.
Since you obviously don't live in the UK if you don't pay your license and they can prove you are watching their content (either via a TV or a TV tuner in your computer) then you get fined £2000 maybe more. You might even get prison time.
Whats the difference here?
Watch for free over the TV watch for free over the internet, either way they can still track you down. They find violators by those who DON'T have a license registered to their address.
I used to live in a place and not own a TV and I would get nasty letters from them about every 3 months.
There are plenty of ways to only allow licensees to view the content such as making them type in their license number.
Thats besides the point because NO ONE would throw away their TV just so they can watch it on their computer in the study alone. They want to watch East Enders on the big box with their family and thats never going to change whatever you make available over the web.
As a license fee payer myself, I do not care if third parties have access. Good for them!
Although some people will disagree they're more the old moaning grandparent types with their "because I had to pay you do to!" speeches. These old farts need to stop complaining and realize theres a lot of us Brits outside the country wanting to watch the BBC.
This is really what the BBC has needed for a long time. It never made any sense to me that I have to pay this license every year but if I want to watch something I missed I have to buy it on DVD? Whats the point of a yearly subscription if I can't access the content I paid to get produced.
I'm not a big TV watcher anyway as I spent most my time refreshing Slashdot. What I would really like to see from the BBC is high quality video via BitTorrent. Hell they wouldn't even need to use their own tracker they could practically host the stuff for the cost of a few internet connections.
A question for large print graphics designers...
on
The History of Photoshop
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Photoshop is put on a pedestal as being THE ONLY program you should use to edit images.
I was wondering why that is?
Is it because graphics designers who do large print are used to using Photoshop and do not see a point in switching to an unknown program? Is it because there are no alternatives that have the features they need?
Are free programs such as the GIMP just not on par? I have used Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro and GIMP but I don't really see why Photoshop is hallmarked as the best. That being said I am not a graphics expert so I was wondering if someone who is and used these programs for more then 5 minutes could give me a good answer.
1: Mark has stated several times that he has planned in case something bad like that happened. 2: One of Ubuntu's Goals is to sell support for businesses and be self funding so that it doesn't rely on Mark. http://www.ubuntu.com/support/paid 3: He does have other projects. Ubuntu is just one of the projects that he is funding to make a free desktop environment that can be deployed in Africa which Mark comes from.
If you are concerned about the monopoly, how about all governments use an open standard for all government business?
The EU is acting on behalf of complaints from companies such as Sun Microsystems.
You have not been following the debate at all which has been about getting Microsoft to release details on how windows computers talk to each other. Not software or source code.
Of course it can overstep its bounds. Just like the US can overstep its bounds (see Iraq war). Yeah, Slashdot is anti-MS...
How can you compare the US's Decision to attack Iraq to the EU's Decision to fine Microsoft for not releasing protocol specifications on file sharing, etc, etc
You have completely lost the plot.
Just because Microsoft is an American company means nothing to the EU which wishes to see the specifications of protocols to be opened up so that other companies can join in and interoperate with Microsoft Windows. That doesn't mean the EU hates Microsoft or even that they would switch off Microsoft platforms. The EU will probably use Microsoft products for at least the next 10 years.
I just think that we ought to be a little skeptical when a government starts trying to decide how much a company is allowed to charge for their product.
Developer Documents on interoperability with other operating systems isn't a product.
When the news came out that Google was going to censor their search data but inform people they were being censored everyone went nuts.
Yahoo helps the Chinese government put people in prison for 10 years and no one says anything. The Yahoo employees had a choice they could have just said they didn't collect the data that the Chiense government needed. Instead they wasted their time digging out that data and handing it over to the government.
Would Google do the same? The Thai government asked Google for information on who posted the YouTube video of their king and they denied them the information. If they find out who did it they'd probably be in Jail for 10 Years as well.
Maybe I'm being too hard on Yahoo after all "they're just doing their job". Ofcourse the Nazi Soldiers were also just doing their "job" when they killed millions of people.
To me, "truly free" sounds nice philosophically but not practically.
I am thinking about what things are non-free on my Ubuntu Distro and it is only one thing, the Nvidia drivers.
The nouveau team is making great progress with that and Mark has already said that they would be switching the drivers the moment something viable comes out.
Now that doesn't mean everyone will have a completely free workable system, but for me personally I can see it happening soon
Torrellas believes this would give chips a shorter time to market, saying "If they know that they could fix the problems later on, they could beat the competition to market."
Great because software companies rushing out bugger products isn't enough, now this dude has to make away for companies to make my hardware buggy as well.
Its a very bad thing that some people called them idiots, but at the same time its the communities duty to inform companies with decisions they think are wrong.
For example I was watching something on the chocolate companies in America were hiring companies in other countries that use slave labour to pick the coco beans. Now if no one did anything or complained the company wouldn't do anything about that, but because someone, somewhere has complained then "something" is being done.
Now this is a completely different situation from my example but some people feel (very strongly) that this is a bad decision for the company to take. Probably because something will go bad (ie licensing, Microsoft FUD, etc) and then there will be news everywhere saying, "See! Linux Sucks because Microsoft Linux (Micronix? Linusoft?) screwed over this company!!"
Also there are people on slashdot who say crap like "you want people to support Linux but then complain when they do". These people don't seem to realise that there are many different people saying many different things. Both are not the same people.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't really matter as long as the British public pay their License fees to keep the content running.
I wouldn't care if others were to view the content I paid for without paying but it wouldn't stop the British public from paying for a license since its extremely well enforced with everyone in the UK without a license being flagged up in their database.
You can run but you can't hide as they say.
Since you obviously don't live in the UK if you don't pay your license and they can prove you are watching their content (either via a TV or a TV tuner in your computer) then you get fined £2000 maybe more. You might even get prison time.
Whats the difference here?
Watch for free over the TV watch for free over the internet, either way they can still track you down. They find violators by those who DON'T have a license registered to their address.
I used to live in a place and not own a TV and I would get nasty letters from them about every 3 months.
There are plenty of ways to only allow licensees to view the content such as making them type in their license number.
Thats besides the point because NO ONE would throw away their TV just so they can watch it on their computer in the study alone. They want to watch East Enders on the big box with their family and thats never going to change whatever you make available over the web.
As a license fee payer myself, I do not care if third parties have access. Good for them!
Although some people will disagree they're more the old moaning grandparent types with their "because I had to pay you do to!" speeches. These old farts need to stop complaining and realize theres a lot of us Brits outside the country wanting to watch the BBC.
This is really what the BBC has needed for a long time. It never made any sense to me that I have to pay this license every year but if I want to watch something I missed I have to buy it on DVD? Whats the point of a yearly subscription if I can't access the content I paid to get produced.
I'm not a big TV watcher anyway as I spent most my time refreshing Slashdot. What I would really like to see from the BBC is high quality video via BitTorrent. Hell they wouldn't even need to use their own tracker they could practically host the stuff for the cost of a few internet connections.
Photoshop is put on a pedestal as being THE ONLY program you should use to edit images.
I was wondering why that is?
Is it because graphics designers who do large print are used to using Photoshop and do not see a point in switching to an unknown program?
Is it because there are no alternatives that have the features they need?
Are free programs such as the GIMP just not on par? I have used Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro and GIMP but I don't really see why Photoshop is hallmarked as the best. That being said I am not a graphics expert so I was wondering if someone who is and used these programs for more then 5 minutes could give me a good answer.
The whole world maybe? .. Sorry to break this to you but US != world and US Law != World Law
Lucky for me I live in a country that doesn't believe in software patents.
This patent BS only concerns Americans and is a weak argument of not releasing anything.
Why is commercial adoption so important?
Pirates ARE way cooler then ninjas!
Linux... GNU... What the hell are you guys talking about?
:P
It is called Ubuntu!
Joe just bought his new Ubuntu machine off Dell. No need to install an operating system.
1: Mark has stated several times that he has planned in case something bad like that happened.
r view
2: One of Ubuntu's Goals is to sell support for businesses and be self funding so that it doesn't rely on Mark.
http://www.ubuntu.com/support/paid
3: He does have other projects. Ubuntu is just one of the projects that he is funding to make a free desktop environment that can be deployed in Africa which Mark comes from.
Also see:
http://wiki.ubuntu.com/MarkShuttleworth
http://www.ubuntuvideo.com/mark_shuttleworth_inte
They will answer a lot of the questions you have.
Sun Microsystems initiated the complaint against not being able to interoperate with Microsoft windows.
The EU is acting on behalf of complaints from companies such as Sun Microsystems.
You have not been following the debate at all which has been about getting Microsoft to release details on how windows computers talk to each other. Not software or source code.
How can you compare the US's Decision to attack Iraq to the EU's Decision to fine Microsoft for not releasing protocol specifications on file sharing, etc, etc
You have completely lost the plot.
Just because Microsoft is an American company means nothing to the EU which wishes to see the specifications of protocols to be opened up so that other companies can join in and interoperate with Microsoft Windows. That doesn't mean the EU hates Microsoft or even that they would switch off Microsoft platforms. The EU will probably use Microsoft products for at least the next 10 years.
and how does one make a better product that interoperates with Microsoft Windows? By implementing Protocol specs...
and how does one get those specs? From Microsoft who doesn't want to give them away..
It is about Microsoft handing over the damn manual to their protocols so I can do file sharing between my PC and Mac.
Developer Documents on interoperability with other operating systems isn't a product.
When the news came out that Google was going to censor their search data but inform people they were being censored everyone went nuts.
Yahoo helps the Chinese government put people in prison for 10 years and no one says anything. The Yahoo employees had a choice they could have just said they didn't collect the data that the Chiense government needed. Instead they wasted their time digging out that data and handing it over to the government.
Would Google do the same? The Thai government asked Google for information on who posted the YouTube video of their king and they denied them the information. If they find out who did it they'd probably be in Jail for 10 Years as well.
Maybe I'm being too hard on Yahoo after all "they're just doing their job". Ofcourse the Nazi Soldiers were also just doing their "job" when they killed millions of people.
I am thinking about what things are non-free on my Ubuntu Distro and it is only one thing, the Nvidia drivers.
The nouveau team is making great progress with that and Mark has already said that they would be switching the drivers the moment something viable comes out.
Now that doesn't mean everyone will have a completely free workable system, but for me personally I can see it happening soon
Great because software companies rushing out bugger products isn't enough, now this dude has to make away for companies to make my hardware buggy as well.
Its a very bad thing that some people called them idiots, but at the same time its the communities duty to inform companies with decisions they think are wrong.
For example I was watching something on the chocolate companies in America were hiring companies in other countries that use slave labour to pick the coco beans. Now if no one did anything or complained the company wouldn't do anything about that, but because someone, somewhere has complained then "something" is being done.
Now this is a completely different situation from my example but some people feel (very strongly) that this is a bad decision for the company to take. Probably because something will go bad (ie licensing, Microsoft FUD, etc) and then there will be news everywhere saying, "See! Linux Sucks because Microsoft Linux (Micronix? Linusoft?) screwed over this company!!"
Also there are people on slashdot who say crap like "you want people to support Linux but then complain when they do". These people don't seem to realise that there are many different people saying many different things. Both are not the same people.
Yes because everyone who works for Microsoft deserves to die.
You're such a nut job.
HE IS A FUCKING PERSON!!!
What the hell is wrong with you? I mean seriously how deluded can one get it..
... when you build your entire source engine in DirectX. Of course valve's console takeup has been slow.
It only works on two platforms Windows and 360.