just a quick note on virtualization - great, on-chip virtualisation? Class.
However I can do that now. In fact I'm right now setting up a Windows 2003 failover cluster in Virtual Server, with a Linux VM hanging round in the background ready to use if needed.
Do me a favour - link that - I'd like to read more into it. I'll do the craig murray search myself, but if you've seen it you have a better chance (because you've seen it).
But I'm not too terribly worried. There'll always be ways around that dumb flag.
Yeah, but if all the major manufacturers are signed up, you're left with crappy third world hardware or warranty-void gear. whatcha gonna do when it screws up? demand a refund?
While many things aren't videly reported, the information is out there.
I love your first point, but this second point gets me.
y'see, available is one thing. widely available is another, and this problem is quite possibly a major cause of percieved bias. People tend to stick to one or other outlet and if their outlet chooses not to report y then that's as good as (if not better than) doing a story that goes against y
hang on... wait...
I've hit the information overload argument. ugh. my mind is going...
The 'stability of the gulf' statement is very much arguable - look at it there right now - there's a hell of a lot of unrest created directly by intervention. I've heard reports that at least some of the sources cited for 'murdered millions' are leaky at best, and 'routinely tortured children' is mainly appealing to emotion. Checked out Saudi Arabia recently?
Don't get me wrong, Hussein was/is a nasty fucker, and I'd be happy to see him shot in the balls, but there are plenty of othernastyfuckersaround. How come, if the rationale is human rights, is the US not bombing the shit out of these guys?
[think of the phrase "devil's advocate" when you read this]
there are BBC operations abroad which are arguably outside UK regulation, yes. More accurately they may be said to be 'primarily under other regulations'. The details are a bit intricate, I suspect.
I think you might want to look for a copy of The Power Of Nightmares to see how the group of people with a single desire can be manipulated (with malice aforethought) by powerful interests.
only 30p for online? and for that I get to listen to ISIHAC at work and get funny looks for bursting out laughing? bargain. I'm tempted to send a cheque
I quote from this documentary, from an american anti-war protester, who professed to know nothing about Vanunu or his plight:
"Why is our media that's supposed to be free and open not telling us and why is our government not letting us know this information if we're in the home of the free?"
The BBC made and screened this documentary. It's an important issue that has been largely ignored by virtually every other major media organisation worldwide. The fact that this documentary ever aired says a lot about how independent the BBC has already been.
I stand 100% behind the BBC, and I'm very worried about any restraint they may be put under due to this change. I'll be keeping an eye on it, of course.
a small prize to the first person who does an Uncle Leo on this comment, by the way
Wonder if the "buy black and white licence and turn the colour saturation down when the inspectors turn up" trick will still wash;)
Funny, but I can attest it doesn't. A friend got pulled up for it and only got away with it when it was realised that the Landlord had a licence for the house anyway.
The BBC is not entirely funded by the licence fee. They are also massive exporters of content, for which fees are levied, so they do manage to extract a tithe from other media companies.
Luckily, this means they're one step away from being pressured by conglomerates to supress news - it just means the buyer supresses it instead.
Clearly you're not trolling - you make a salient point - Funding must come from somewhere (hell it's obvious that the viewers resent paying for anything).
(the extra channels, are, I believe, not funded from the license fee)
This is correct, however see my post above and note why the licence fee allows the BBC to be free of financial pressure from the likes of advertisers who may put pressure on them financially through withdrawal of funds.
For a real life example of a news channel acting unethically because of commercial concerns, see here. Synopsis: two reporters for a Fox News sub reported on a Monsanto product with serious health issues and were subsequently fired. The ensuing legal cases brought to light the fact that there is no law on the statute books (in the US at least) which censures news channels for lying outright (or technically, concealing the truth). It's a complex issue with many sides but I think it fits the point that commercially funded media has an inherent bias which can be harmful. Government funded stations have no such requirement.
Slashdot Mirror
just a quick note on virtualization - great, on-chip virtualisation? Class.
However I can do that now. In fact I'm right now setting up a Windows 2003 failover cluster in Virtual Server, with a Linux VM hanging round in the background ready to use if needed.
OK, you knew this, but just to stick my oar in...
Do me a favour - link that - I'd like to read more into it. I'll do the craig murray search myself, but if you've seen it you have a better chance (because you've seen it).
But I'm not too terribly worried. There'll always be ways around that dumb flag.
Yeah, but if all the major manufacturers are signed up, you're left with crappy third world hardware or warranty-void gear. whatcha gonna do when it screws up? demand a refund?
...an earlier story on the media
While many things aren't videly reported, the information is out there.
I love your first point, but this second point gets me.
y'see, available is one thing. widely available is another, and this problem is quite possibly a major cause of percieved bias. People tend to stick to one or other outlet and if their outlet chooses not to report y then that's as good as (if not better than) doing a story that goes against y
hang on... wait...
I've hit the information overload argument. ugh. my mind is going...
Duly bookmarked
I have a place on the shelf marked out for it. just as soon as my credit card turns black!
42" plasma screen home entertainment systems
unfortunately, this was before either of us could afford such luxuries^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hnecessities.
No doubt he's now home-theatred up, wheras I'm left with a blown-out amp and a 22" Sony thing from about 1990.
if you find that link, let me know, but in the meantime...
Does the BBC World cable channel come under the same remit, or is it separate?
Godwin!
and the Uncle Leo award goes to....
Alex
For more on Robert^H^H^H^H^H^HRupert Murdoch, check out Outfoxed
btw
The Daily Maul don't like the BBC because they don't like anything or any body
I assume you mean the Mail don't like anything or anybody? Damn English language!
Applause for a great reply
So-called independent, commercial media is not free of censorship
The 'stability of the gulf' statement is very much arguable - look at it there right now - there's a hell of a lot of unrest created directly by intervention. I've heard reports that at least some of the sources cited for 'murdered millions' are leaky at best, and 'routinely tortured children' is mainly appealing to emotion. Checked out Saudi Arabia recently?
Don't get me wrong, Hussein was/is a nasty fucker, and I'd be happy to see him shot in the balls, but there are plenty of other nasty fuckers around. How come, if the rationale is human rights, is the US not bombing the shit out of these guys?
[think of the phrase "devil's advocate" when you read this]
there are BBC operations abroad which are arguably outside UK regulation, yes. More accurately they may be said to be 'primarily under other regulations'. The details are a bit intricate, I suspect.
I think you might want to look for a copy of The Power Of Nightmares to see how the group of people with a single desire can be manipulated (with malice aforethought) by powerful interests.
only 30p for online? and for that I get to listen to ISIHAC at work and get funny looks for bursting out laughing? bargain. I'm tempted to send a cheque
</british expat>
licence fee still stands, but there are quite a few free-to-air stations, especially if you take into account free-to-air digital
... sent to me from the UK at my request, on Mordecai Vanunu, Israel's Nuclear Whisleblower
I quote from this documentary, from an american anti-war protester, who professed to know nothing about Vanunu or his plight:
"Why is our media that's supposed to be free and open not telling us and why is our government not letting us know this information if we're in the home of the free?"
The BBC made and screened this documentary. It's an important issue that has been largely ignored by virtually every other major media organisation worldwide. The fact that this documentary ever aired says a lot about how independent the BBC has already been.
I stand 100% behind the BBC, and I'm very worried about any restraint they may be put under due to this change. I'll be keeping an eye on it, of course.
a small prize to the first person who does an Uncle Leo on this comment, by the way
Wonder if the "buy black and white licence and turn the colour saturation down when the inspectors turn up" trick will still wash ;)
Funny, but I can attest it doesn't. A friend got pulled up for it and only got away with it when it was realised that the Landlord had a licence for the house anyway.
The BBC is not entirely funded by the licence fee. They are also massive exporters of content, for which fees are levied, so they do manage to extract a tithe from other media companies.
Luckily, this means they're one step away from being pressured by conglomerates to supress news - it just means the buyer supresses it instead.
more info here
Clearly you're not trolling - you make a salient point - Funding must come from somewhere (hell it's obvious that the viewers resent paying for anything).
So the money comes from commercial concerns and the next thing you know the channel is covering up reports on dangerous products in order to defend a large commercial interest
Oh come on, like you never killed thousands based on a lie.
Yeah, but we were trying to give it up! And we were doing so well, too.
(the extra channels, are, I believe, not funded from the license fee)
This is correct, however see my post above and note why the licence fee allows the BBC to be free of financial pressure from the likes of advertisers who may put pressure on them financially through withdrawal of funds.
For a real life example of a news channel acting unethically because of commercial concerns, see here. Synopsis: two reporters for a Fox News sub reported on a Monsanto product with serious health issues and were subsequently fired. The ensuing legal cases brought to light the fact that there is no law on the statute books (in the US at least) which censures news channels for lying outright (or technically, concealing the truth). It's a complex issue with many sides but I think it fits the point that commercially funded media has an inherent bias which can be harmful. Government funded stations have no such requirement.