By your definition anything written by HG Wells can't be classified as science fiction. Heck, 2001 fails to meet your criteria, because 2001 has come and gone and it was nothing like the movie (or the book) said it would be.
You really have a very narrow (and flawed) definition of what's science fiction and what's not, don't you?
In Britain, up until 1989, we had ratings similar to the US ones. U (Universal) for films suitable for everyone, PG (Parental Guidance) for films that contained some content unsuitable for very small kids, and 15 and 18, films suitable only for 15 and 18 year-olds respectively.
However, in 1989, the 12 rating was introduced, primarily as a result of the 15 rating that the James Bond movie Licence To Kill received for one or two of the more violent scenes. The first movie to actually receive a 12 rating was Batman, which was released in the summer of that year.
The only real difference between the our rating systems and the US ones are that the age limits are more strictly enforced. Whereas in the US a 14 year-old accompanied by person over the age of 17 can watch a 17 movie (but not a R one, obviously) in the UK every patron must meet the relevant age requirement, not just one out of the group.
Recently, a 12A rating has been introduced, which basically bridges the gap between PG and 12 but is less strictly enforced than a pure 12.
Frankly though, there have been more than a few movies that received PG ratings that shouldn't have done because the studios exerted their pressure one way or another. There's no way that Jurassic Park should have got anything less than a 12, not because you had to be at least 12 to not get scared shitless by it but because with a PG rating it was portrayed as being safe for very small kids to see, which clearly wasn't the case.
Similarly, the Lord Of The Rings movies got PG ratings too, when the content deserved a 12A classification: these movies aren't the sort of thing that every five year-old will sit through without getting unduly scared or having nightmares about for days.
On a related note, I'll just say that anyone who takes kids aged 2-6 to a three hour long film in the cinema is either very stupid or a sadomasochist. Kids that age can't sit still silently for that period of time: they'll cry, scream, constantly need to go to the bathroom, etc. This might not bother you but it sure as hell will bother anyone else trying to watch the film. Yet every time I went to watch a LOTR movie, even in the evening, there were parents doing this very thing. If this is you, or if this is someone you know, please, don't do it again.
Democracy's not perfect, but it is the best system ever invented for doing what's best for the country as a whole rather then what's best for a handful of politicians.
That's my point exactly. When laws are past that serve the best interests of the select few that hold the pursestrings rather than the majority that don't then you don't have real democracy at all.
You have no idea how undemocratic the even "democracies" are. Think. Most people you know oppose things like copyright extensions and the DCMA when it's explained to them, right? Yet how is it these things become law? If it's not the will of the people then it shouldn't be the law of the land, right?
The answer is they become law because companies and organisations with far bigger pockets than the average individual exert undue influence on those that actually legislate within our societies. In effect, through things like campaign contributions and lobbying they buy power.
You don't think that Microsoft's political donations and lobbying played a part in it only getting a slap on the wrist from the DOJ's antitrust lawsuits? You don't think that chemical companies not having to pay for the messes that they make because Newt Gingrich killed the Superfund counts? You don't think the handcuffs placed on the FDA's inspectors when investigating food contamination, which effectively make them powerless to protect consumers from unscrupulous manufacturers, counts either?
It's not in the US's interest to have monopolies abusing their positions in key industries. Or to have no effective safeguards to stop companies from polluting the environment without either effective penalty at the time or having to foot the bill to later clean up the mess. Or to allow contaminated food to reach the plates of average Americans.
Yet these things happen, and they happen even more frequently nowadays because the people who call the shots are effectively in bed with those doing the damage.
The foxes are guarding the coop. That's great if you're a fox, not so great if you're a chicken.
The real agenda is clamping down on the rights of the individual whilst letting companies get away with murder (literally so in some cases). You see, individuals don't make huge campaign donations, or pay multi-million dollar salaries with generous stock options and pension benefits. Companies do.
Some would argue that that's the problem with the way history is taught to Americans. You're led to believe that the US won World War I and World War II when most of the work was done by others.
In particular, the massive loss of live that the Soviet Union suffered in World War II seems to get overlooked, and hence the reason for their establishment of the satellite states that made up the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War is misunderstood: the Soviets simply wanted a buffer between them and any potential enemies.
Also, as well as the level of US involvement during the World Wars relative to those of others, the reasons for US entry into those wars is also often not properly taught. The US sat out WWI until very late in the game, and it was only the interception by British Intelligence of the Zimmerman telegraph from Germany to Mexico, promising German help if it were to invade the US, that prompted US entry into the war. Similarly, in WWII, the US didn't become an active participant until after Pearl Harbour, well over two years into the war. Japan made the first move and in effect declared war on the US, not the other way around, and after the Japanese attack Hitler formally declared war on the US as well.
So, in neither war were the US reasons for entering the conflict as altruistic as either American schoolkids seem to learn* or as Hollywood would like to portray.
(Whilst I was at university I met dozens of American students studying overseas for a year. Most of them, even those majoring in History, couldn't tell you what year either World War started let alone tell you the historical importance of the Zimmerman telegraph, etc. A great many of them were shocked that what they "knew" wasn't really what happened.)
Sorry to interrupt, but I'd like to inform you that the Washington Redskins are located in the state of Washington, not in Washington D.C. which is where the nation's capital is located. It's not like they are close either... they are on opposite coasts.
OMFG. I don't even live in North America and I can tell you that the Washington Redskins play in Washington DC (well, just outside it, if I remember correctly) and not Washington state. The only NFL franchise in Washington state is the Seattle Seahawks.
This is what I just love about Slashdot, and Slashdot ACs in particular: lots of people who don't know shit about a single thing but are willing to open their mouths and remove all doubt that they are indeed idiots.
American Indians consider it to be a racial slur, and that's all you need. They don't consider it to be a tribute, and they find the term very offensive.
Over the years, they've campaigned for the name and the mascot to be changed, just as they've campaigned against the name of the Kansas City Chiefs and the mascot of the Cleveland Indians.
These attempts by the Native American people (some of whom find the term "American Indian", which you choose to use, also offensive) to stop what they see as racist abuse and characaturisation aren't led by "troublemaking, ignorant caucasians", they're led by Native Americans themselves.
But you were quick to state as fact that "most European countries insist on covering up any history of Hitler", weren't you? This is so much bullshit that it borders on the unbelievable.
There's a big difference between not letting people celebrate Nazism (which is what this French law is intended to do, as other laws in Germany itself do) and denying it even existed. How you made the jump in logic from the former to the latter is beyond me. Europeans don't deny that Hitler existed, they deny that he and the Nazis he led should be lauded. There's a big fucking difference and you clearly need to learn that - plus a whole lot more.
Complete and utter crap. You really have no clue about how Europeans regard Hitler, the Nazis and World War II. Europeans don't try to deny Nazism, what they do (and this law is a clear example of it) is deny neo-Nazis the chance to use Hitler's Third Reich as a tool to spread hatred and evil today.
I'm European. WWII history was taught to me at school, just as it's taught to every schoolkid from Iceland to Russia. Delude yourself that Europeans don't learn about Hitler if you want, but don't try and dupe others into believing it too.
And, by the way, perhaps this is a great example of the pot calling the kettle black. Native Americans are so well respected and so well treated in the US today that the name of the NFL franchise in the nations capital is called the Washington Redskins. That's about as racially sensitive as having a team called the LA Niggers, yet nobody seems to give a shit outside the tiny minority of Native Americans still left.
Why do most European countries insist on covering up any history of Hitler?
Could you spout more ignorant bullshit? To the people who moderated this up: this is completely inaccurate. I doubt that the poster could even label the countries of Europe on a map let alone tell you how modern European history is taught on the continent.
Yeah, but I think that even the most stupid person could see that for themselves.
Of course, there are some people that refuse to see the obvious because they're blinded by their own prejudices and rhetoric. Ann Coulter is a prime example.
But, if you want to include that point then for completeness we should also include this one:
4. Not all people with dark skin are Muslim. A great many are Hindu, Pujabi, Sikh, etc. Some are even (shock, horror) Christian.
1. Not all Muslims have dark skin. White people can be Muslims too, you know. I know half a dozen people that fit into this category, so that's your racial profiling screwed right there.
2. Not all terrorists are Muslims. Timothy McVeigh wasn't. The Unabomber wasn't. So assuming the threat comes from only Muslims is just as short-sighted.
Frankly, the odds of a September 11th-type terrorist attack happening again are a million to one. The rulebook on what to do if you're on a hijacked aircraft have totally gone out the window. Whereas hijackers could expect cooperation from passengers and crew, nowadays they can only expect suicidal resistance. The fate of the fourth aircraft hijacked on September 11th showed that.
The bottom line is this: hijacking a plane and flying it into a building is virtually guaranteed never to happen again but assuming that any other type of terrorist attack will only be perpetrated by dark-skinned Muslim men is the kind of dumb, short-sighted and frankly moronic thinking that had the CIA "100 percent certain" that Saddam Hussein was sitting on a large stockpile of WMDs that were in the field and ready to be used.
As well as biometric passports, and biometric scanning until those are available, all visitors to the US from every countryhave to have their own passports regardless of their age.
So, whereas in the past, a family of British tourists to the US would have a couple of adult passports and one or two for the older kids, with the younger kids and the new baby travelling on one of their parent's passports, they now have to all have their own individual passports and all be photographed and fingerprinted on entry.
Now can someone please tell me how requiring babies to have their own passports adds to the security of the US? All this is doing (together with the treating visitors to the US like criminals before they've even set foot on US soil) is giving people every incentive to spend their holidays anywhere but the US. Watch whilst the US tourist industry takes a dive because of this bureaucratic stupidity.
Microsoft needs to realise that Office is firmly fixed in the minds of 99 percent of its user base as an word processor/spreadsheet/presentation graphics/database/email client suite. It wouldn't matter if they bolted a space shuttle onto it, as far as the overwhelming majority of people would be concerned, it would still be all about Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Access and Outlook.
Trying to leverage Office into other roles is not going to work. Yes, some people will make use of a web service feature but it will go virtually ignored by all but that tiny fraction that tries out everything new Office paradigm because Microsoft tells them that it's the best thing since sliced bread.
Office users get what they want out of Office right now. They're happy sharing documents by email and other means. So why would they and their organisations throw all that away and take the time, effort and money to implement a web services-orientated approach? Who wants to explain to the CEO that he's got to stop asking people to email him documents and start asking them to publish them, and that he's got to do the same with his own output too? Who wants to retrain all their end-users to this new way of thinking?
Microsoft has a real problem right now with its Office suite and it knows it. It's not that Office doesn't work, it's that it works too damn well: what virtually every Office user wants to do document-wise has been possible for quite some time now.
There's very little that Microsoft can do to the individual applications to improve them by delivering new features with tangible benefits, and certainly the applications in Office XP weren't significantly better than those in Office 2000, so it's obsessed with "improving" Office by trying to manage how people work. This kind of improvement might deliver results in Microsoft's labs but in the real world, where people are resistant to change and have a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude, it's doomed to failure.
I listed mostly US programmes because I wanted to contrast the experience that American TV viewers have with British TV viewers.
I could have, of course, listed lots of British output, but as the majority of Americans, etc reading this site wouldn't have a clue what I was talking about then that wouldn't have given them a clear indication of what I meant.
I clearly get far more out of the BBC than you do. For one thing, I'm far more appreciative of BBC News 24 than you are, as I find it far superior to the alternatives (ITV's ITN News, Sky News, etc), with the exception of Channel 4's evening news. And for another, I don't agree with your view of the BBC's current drama, documentaries or comedies.
True, few of the modern offerings have the critical or popular appeal that BBC programmes of yesteryear have but expecting all new BBC output to match up to the best of the best from its past is asking a bit much, especially when the BBC's archives are full of programmes that set such very high standards.
In the UK, you don't have to have annoying ads breaking up your programming. Imagine watching Star Trek, Farscape, The Simpsons, Buffy, Angel, The Office, sports or even just the news without any commercial breaks whatsoever. The BBC lets you do that.
The average hour of American TV has almost 20 minutes of advertising. If you watch just 1 hour of TC a day, that's over 2 hours of ads per week. Now, the TV licence here in the UK costs me about 2 pounds a week, which is around $3 US. Wouldn't you pay $3 for 2 extra hours of your life back?
Whichever way you look at it, the BBC is excellent value for money. Six TV channels, about a dozen national radio stations, arguably the world's best newsgathering organisation, one of the best websites on the web, etc.
A lot of the best BBC programming (together with other top-notch British television output) can be had in the US on BBC America.
I'm not sure but I believe that the channel is carried by DirecTV and most cable companies. I'm sure you could find out easily yourself if your local cable operator is one of those.
Uh, isn't it obvious how they determine someone's location? They do it by IP address. Lots of websites have been doing this for years.
For example, MLB.com stops non-North Americans from being able to make purchases from its online store (well, it did when I tried it, even though I intended to provide the address of a US relative for shipping). And Apple's iTunes Music Stores use IP addresses to lock out potential purchasers from shopping at a store that doesn't cover their country, so that Americans have to use the American iTMS, Canadians have to use the Canadian iTMS, Europeans have to use the European iTMS, etc rather than whichever one is the cheapest (or, in some cases, whichever one has the tracks that they want).
It all boils down to distribution rights. The company that has the rights to a band's music in the US might not be the same company that has the rights to that band's music elsewhere, etc. The same holds true for television programming: the BBC has Olympic broadcasting rights for the UK but not worldwide, etc.
Mirrors? Well, we are talking about streamed content here so that's not as easy as it sounds, but neither is it impossible. However video sucks up bandwidth real fast, so if you intend to mirror streamed video content of the kind of quantity broadcast by the BBC (and that's just one broadcaster) then prepare to have a bill so big that even Bill Gates would double take at the cost.
Yeah, if your definition of fairness means giving massive tax cuts to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans at the expense of the rest of them. And letting companies get away with poisoning the environment without penalty either at the time or later down the line. And cutting soldiers pay and veterans benefits right when you're sending them out to war. And reducing public schools to the level where they practically have to throw poor students out of class or else risk losing desperately needed funds because they aren't meeting set targets.
Slashdot Mirror
By your definition anything written by HG Wells can't be classified as science fiction. Heck, 2001 fails to meet your criteria, because 2001 has come and gone and it was nothing like the movie (or the book) said it would be.
You really have a very narrow (and flawed) definition of what's science fiction and what's not, don't you?
In Britain, up until 1989, we had ratings similar to the US ones. U (Universal) for films suitable for everyone, PG (Parental Guidance) for films that contained some content unsuitable for very small kids, and 15 and 18, films suitable only for 15 and 18 year-olds respectively.
However, in 1989, the 12 rating was introduced, primarily as a result of the 15 rating that the James Bond movie Licence To Kill received for one or two of the more violent scenes. The first movie to actually receive a 12 rating was Batman, which was released in the summer of that year.
The only real difference between the our rating systems and the US ones are that the age limits are more strictly enforced. Whereas in the US a 14 year-old accompanied by person over the age of 17 can watch a 17 movie (but not a R one, obviously) in the UK every patron must meet the relevant age requirement, not just one out of the group.
Recently, a 12A rating has been introduced, which basically bridges the gap between PG and 12 but is less strictly enforced than a pure 12.
Frankly though, there have been more than a few movies that received PG ratings that shouldn't have done because the studios exerted their pressure one way or another. There's no way that Jurassic Park should have got anything less than a 12, not because you had to be at least 12 to not get scared shitless by it but because with a PG rating it was portrayed as being safe for very small kids to see, which clearly wasn't the case.
Similarly, the Lord Of The Rings movies got PG ratings too, when the content deserved a 12A classification: these movies aren't the sort of thing that every five year-old will sit through without getting unduly scared or having nightmares about for days.
On a related note, I'll just say that anyone who takes kids aged 2-6 to a three hour long film in the cinema is either very stupid or a sadomasochist. Kids that age can't sit still silently for that period of time: they'll cry, scream, constantly need to go to the bathroom, etc. This might not bother you but it sure as hell will bother anyone else trying to watch the film. Yet every time I went to watch a LOTR movie, even in the evening, there were parents doing this very thing. If this is you, or if this is someone you know, please, don't do it again.
Democracy's not perfect, but it is the best system ever invented for doing what's best for the country as a whole rather then what's best for a handful of politicians.
That's my point exactly. When laws are past that serve the best interests of the select few that hold the pursestrings rather than the majority that don't then you don't have real democracy at all.
You have no idea how undemocratic the even "democracies" are. Think. Most people you know oppose things like copyright extensions and the DCMA when it's explained to them, right? Yet how is it these things become law? If it's not the will of the people then it shouldn't be the law of the land, right?
The answer is they become law because companies and organisations with far bigger pockets than the average individual exert undue influence on those that actually legislate within our societies. In effect, through things like campaign contributions and lobbying they buy power.
You don't think that Microsoft's political donations and lobbying played a part in it only getting a slap on the wrist from the DOJ's antitrust lawsuits? You don't think that chemical companies not having to pay for the messes that they make because Newt Gingrich killed the Superfund counts? You don't think the handcuffs placed on the FDA's inspectors when investigating food contamination, which effectively make them powerless to protect consumers from unscrupulous manufacturers, counts either?
It's not in the US's interest to have monopolies abusing their positions in key industries. Or to have no effective safeguards to stop companies from polluting the environment without either effective penalty at the time or having to foot the bill to later clean up the mess. Or to allow contaminated food to reach the plates of average Americans.
Yet these things happen, and they happen even more frequently nowadays because the people who call the shots are effectively in bed with those doing the damage.
The foxes are guarding the coop. That's great if you're a fox, not so great if you're a chicken.
Terrorism is just a smokescreen.
The real agenda is clamping down on the rights of the individual whilst letting companies get away with murder (literally so in some cases). You see, individuals don't make huge campaign donations, or pay multi-million dollar salaries with generous stock options and pension benefits. Companies do.
Some would argue that that's the problem with the way history is taught to Americans. You're led to believe that the US won World War I and World War II when most of the work was done by others.
In particular, the massive loss of live that the Soviet Union suffered in World War II seems to get overlooked, and hence the reason for their establishment of the satellite states that made up the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War is misunderstood: the Soviets simply wanted a buffer between them and any potential enemies.
Also, as well as the level of US involvement during the World Wars relative to those of others, the reasons for US entry into those wars is also often not properly taught. The US sat out WWI until very late in the game, and it was only the interception by British Intelligence of the Zimmerman telegraph from Germany to Mexico, promising German help if it were to invade the US, that prompted US entry into the war. Similarly, in WWII, the US didn't become an active participant until after Pearl Harbour, well over two years into the war. Japan made the first move and in effect declared war on the US, not the other way around, and after the Japanese attack Hitler formally declared war on the US as well.
So, in neither war were the US reasons for entering the conflict as altruistic as either American schoolkids seem to learn* or as Hollywood would like to portray.
(Whilst I was at university I met dozens of American students studying overseas for a year. Most of them, even those majoring in History, couldn't tell you what year either World War started let alone tell you the historical importance of the Zimmerman telegraph, etc. A great many of them were shocked that what they "knew" wasn't really what happened.)
Sorry to interrupt, but I'd like to inform you that the Washington Redskins are located in the state of Washington, not in Washington D.C. which is where the nation's capital is located. It's not like they are close either... they are on opposite coasts.
OMFG. I don't even live in North America and I can tell you that the Washington Redskins play in Washington DC (well, just outside it, if I remember correctly) and not Washington state. The only NFL franchise in Washington state is the Seattle Seahawks.
This is what I just love about Slashdot, and Slashdot ACs in particular: lots of people who don't know shit about a single thing but are willing to open their mouths and remove all doubt that they are indeed idiots.
American Indians consider it to be a racial slur, and that's all you need. They don't consider it to be a tribute, and they find the term very offensive.
Over the years, they've campaigned for the name and the mascot to be changed, just as they've campaigned against the name of the Kansas City Chiefs and the mascot of the Cleveland Indians.
These attempts by the Native American people (some of whom find the term "American Indian", which you choose to use, also offensive) to stop what they see as racist abuse and characaturisation aren't led by "troublemaking, ignorant caucasians", they're led by Native Americans themselves.
But you were quick to state as fact that "most European countries insist on covering up any history of Hitler", weren't you? This is so much bullshit that it borders on the unbelievable.
There's a big difference between not letting people celebrate Nazism (which is what this French law is intended to do, as other laws in Germany itself do) and denying it even existed. How you made the jump in logic from the former to the latter is beyond me. Europeans don't deny that Hitler existed, they deny that he and the Nazis he led should be lauded. There's a big fucking difference and you clearly need to learn that - plus a whole lot more.
Complete and utter crap. You really have no clue about how Europeans regard Hitler, the Nazis and World War II. Europeans don't try to deny Nazism, what they do (and this law is a clear example of it) is deny neo-Nazis the chance to use Hitler's Third Reich as a tool to spread hatred and evil today.
I'm European. WWII history was taught to me at school, just as it's taught to every schoolkid from Iceland to Russia. Delude yourself that Europeans don't learn about Hitler if you want, but don't try and dupe others into believing it too.
And, by the way, perhaps this is a great example of the pot calling the kettle black. Native Americans are so well respected and so well treated in the US today that the name of the NFL franchise in the nations capital is called the Washington Redskins. That's about as racially sensitive as having a team called the LA Niggers, yet nobody seems to give a shit outside the tiny minority of Native Americans still left.
Why do most European countries insist on covering up any history of Hitler?
Could you spout more ignorant bullshit? To the people who moderated this up: this is completely inaccurate. I doubt that the poster could even label the countries of Europe on a map let alone tell you how modern European history is taught on the continent.
Safari! Need I say more?
I think hunting down IE users for sport is a bit of overkill, don't you?
Yeah, but I think that even the most stupid person could see that for themselves.
Of course, there are some people that refuse to see the obvious because they're blinded by their own prejudices and rhetoric. Ann Coulter is a prime example.
But, if you want to include that point then for completeness we should also include this one:
4. Not all people with dark skin are Muslim. A great many are Hindu, Pujabi, Sikh, etc. Some are even (shock, horror) Christian.
"One in a million" is a figure of speech. Try not to take things so literally.
1. Not all Muslims have dark skin. White people can be Muslims too, you know. I know half a dozen people that fit into this category, so that's your racial profiling screwed right there.
2. Not all terrorists are Muslims. Timothy McVeigh wasn't. The Unabomber wasn't. So assuming the threat comes from only Muslims is just as short-sighted.
Frankly, the odds of a September 11th-type terrorist attack happening again are a million to one. The rulebook on what to do if you're on a hijacked aircraft have totally gone out the window. Whereas hijackers could expect cooperation from passengers and crew, nowadays they can only expect suicidal resistance. The fate of the fourth aircraft hijacked on September 11th showed that.
The bottom line is this: hijacking a plane and flying it into a building is virtually guaranteed never to happen again but assuming that any other type of terrorist attack will only be perpetrated by dark-skinned Muslim men is the kind of dumb, short-sighted and frankly moronic thinking that had the CIA "100 percent certain" that Saddam Hussein was sitting on a large stockpile of WMDs that were in the field and ready to be used.
As well as biometric passports, and biometric scanning until those are available, all visitors to the US from every countryhave to have their own passports regardless of their age.
So, whereas in the past, a family of British tourists to the US would have a couple of adult passports and one or two for the older kids, with the younger kids and the new baby travelling on one of their parent's passports, they now have to all have their own individual passports and all be photographed and fingerprinted on entry.
Now can someone please tell me how requiring babies to have their own passports adds to the security of the US? All this is doing (together with the treating visitors to the US like criminals before they've even set foot on US soil) is giving people every incentive to spend their holidays anywhere but the US. Watch whilst the US tourist industry takes a dive because of this bureaucratic stupidity.
Microsoft needs to realise that Office is firmly fixed in the minds of 99 percent of its user base as an word processor/spreadsheet/presentation graphics/database/email client suite. It wouldn't matter if they bolted a space shuttle onto it, as far as the overwhelming majority of people would be concerned, it would still be all about Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Access and Outlook.
Trying to leverage Office into other roles is not going to work. Yes, some people will make use of a web service feature but it will go virtually ignored by all but that tiny fraction that tries out everything new Office paradigm because Microsoft tells them that it's the best thing since sliced bread.
Office users get what they want out of Office right now. They're happy sharing documents by email and other means. So why would they and their organisations throw all that away and take the time, effort and money to implement a web services-orientated approach? Who wants to explain to the CEO that he's got to stop asking people to email him documents and start asking them to publish them, and that he's got to do the same with his own output too? Who wants to retrain all their end-users to this new way of thinking?
Microsoft has a real problem right now with its Office suite and it knows it. It's not that Office doesn't work, it's that it works too damn well: what virtually every Office user wants to do document-wise has been possible for quite some time now.
There's very little that Microsoft can do to the individual applications to improve them by delivering new features with tangible benefits, and certainly the applications in Office XP weren't significantly better than those in Office 2000, so it's obsessed with "improving" Office by trying to manage how people work. This kind of improvement might deliver results in Microsoft's labs but in the real world, where people are resistant to change and have a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude, it's doomed to failure.
[Rolls D20...]
- make-it-look-like-I'm-doing-something" saving throw!
Why, yes it is!
It even passed the Slashdot editor "have-to-tag-something-on-the-end-of-the-story-to
Dude, you forgot Coca-Cola.
Gotta have a Coke in your hand as you compete or else you'll be disqualified: it's the law. Well, it ain't the law now but it soon will be.
I listed mostly US programmes because I wanted to contrast the experience that American TV viewers have with British TV viewers.
I could have, of course, listed lots of British output, but as the majority of Americans, etc reading this site wouldn't have a clue what I was talking about then that wouldn't have given them a clear indication of what I meant.
I clearly get far more out of the BBC than you do. For one thing, I'm far more appreciative of BBC News 24 than you are, as I find it far superior to the alternatives (ITV's ITN News, Sky News, etc), with the exception of Channel 4's evening news. And for another, I don't agree with your view of the BBC's current drama, documentaries or comedies.
True, few of the modern offerings have the critical or popular appeal that BBC programmes of yesteryear have but expecting all new BBC output to match up to the best of the best from its past is asking a bit much, especially when the BBC's archives are full of programmes that set such very high standards.
In the UK, you don't have to have annoying ads breaking up your programming. Imagine watching Star Trek, Farscape, The Simpsons, Buffy, Angel, The Office, sports or even just the news without any commercial breaks whatsoever. The BBC lets you do that.
The average hour of American TV has almost 20 minutes of advertising. If you watch just 1 hour of TC a day, that's over 2 hours of ads per week. Now, the TV licence here in the UK costs me about 2 pounds a week, which is around $3 US. Wouldn't you pay $3 for 2 extra hours of your life back?
Whichever way you look at it, the BBC is excellent value for money. Six TV channels, about a dozen national radio stations, arguably the world's best newsgathering organisation, one of the best websites on the web, etc.
A lot of the best BBC programming (together with other top-notch British television output) can be had in the US on BBC America.
I'm not sure but I believe that the channel is carried by DirecTV and most cable companies. I'm sure you could find out easily yourself if your local cable operator is one of those.
FYI, Band Of Brothers was co-produced by the BBC in partnership with HBO. So that's partially a British product too.
In fact, the series was shot in Britain and much of the cast, including Damian Lewis who played Maj. Richard D. Winters, are British actors.
Uh, isn't it obvious how they determine someone's location? They do it by IP address. Lots of websites have been doing this for years.
For example, MLB.com stops non-North Americans from being able to make purchases from its online store (well, it did when I tried it, even though I intended to provide the address of a US relative for shipping). And Apple's iTunes Music Stores use IP addresses to lock out potential purchasers from shopping at a store that doesn't cover their country, so that Americans have to use the American iTMS, Canadians have to use the Canadian iTMS, Europeans have to use the European iTMS, etc rather than whichever one is the cheapest (or, in some cases, whichever one has the tracks that they want).
It all boils down to distribution rights. The company that has the rights to a band's music in the US might not be the same company that has the rights to that band's music elsewhere, etc. The same holds true for television programming: the BBC has Olympic broadcasting rights for the UK but not worldwide, etc.
Mirrors? Well, we are talking about streamed content here so that's not as easy as it sounds, but neither is it impossible. However video sucks up bandwidth real fast, so if you intend to mirror streamed video content of the kind of quantity broadcast by the BBC (and that's just one broadcaster) then prepare to have a bill so big that even Bill Gates would double take at the cost.
Yeah, if your definition of fairness means giving massive tax cuts to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans at the expense of the rest of them. And letting companies get away with poisoning the environment without penalty either at the time or later down the line. And cutting soldiers pay and veterans benefits right when you're sending them out to war. And reducing public schools to the level where they practically have to throw poor students out of class or else risk losing desperately needed funds because they aren't meeting set targets.
Oh yeah, Republicans are all about fairness.