BBC has brief adverts for its own programs (and sometimes website and radios stations) but it has no adverts for other products.
Unfortuanately, the BBC's self-advertising is a thousand times more irritating and smug than any commercial adverts. They don't even have any decent programmes on these days either, just auctions, gardening, soaps and repeats.
The BBC is effectively a subscription channel, but you pay the subscription whether you watch it or not.
The BBC has several divisions, the License fee funded departments (gives us BBC1-4) and a profit running arm which drives the BBC [Canada, US etc] channels, when they annoy the viewers changes are made to the delivery / content.
That's a complete joke. The BBC annoys me everytime I watch it, and because their income is guaranteed they are the most arrogant, smug, complacent TV company in the world.
I DON'T care what people do for entertainment purposes
Yet you've started an entire thread about it?
The only reason sportsmen get paid a lot is because people like being entertained by them, so you obviously do care what people do for entertainment, even if you're too dumb to realise the connection.
Envy? No, I'm glad I'm not a stupid (what's the average SAT/ACT score of the average baseball/basketball player?), drug-enhanced, overpaid dolt.
You're glad you're not highly paid? I don't see what's stupid about making millions for playing a game. Seems pretty clever to me. Maybe you're the real smart one though, doing something much duller and less exciting for a tiny fraction of the money.
Yes, because I think it's stupid that entire populations (not just America, the whole world [think of all the crazy World Cup stories, locking spouses in closet so you can watch a game or running into a burning house so you can grab your t.v. to finish watching the rest of a match is STUPID])
What exactly is wrong with being entertained? Seems you're just bitter that the forms of entertainment you enjoy are different to that of the majority and you feel left out. I'm sure whatever forms of entertainment you like are pretty stupid and pointless, but maybe other people have more class than to insult your intelligence because of it.
are so amazed by sports that they don't see a problem in paying millions
I don't remember ever paying millions to a sporting event. Maybe that's in yen?
to people who contribute nothing to the world
If you consider entertainment and excitement to be unimportant, then you have no soul.
while people that are intelligent and pour their lives into their profession (teachers, social workers, doctors, etc) are paid poorly (well, maybe not doctors).
Stop being so bitter. When millions of people want to watch a social worker wipe the arse of a pensioner then they'll get paid millions. Until then stop your tiring killjoy act, you're not impressing anyone by demonstrating how mature and elitist you are.
Try again. Harvard costs 46-48k. And don't even get me started about Harvard Law School. The Ivies (especially Harvard and Yale) fuck the middle class.
The middle class can easy afford that. They can just sell one of their weekend homes or hummers.
Using candles instead of lightbulbs is not for pussies. If you're a pussy, feel free to have electricity. If you're not, deal with the few curveballs nature may throw at you and understand that not all things you can do with a lightbulb are possible with a candle; there are still times for lightbulbs.
Unless you're using the Millenium Dome on a stick, no umbrella in the world is going to keep off anything but the lightest rain.
Cycles can be fitted with special tires for better traction on snow
I don't really have time to do that when I have a ten minute window to leave without being late for work.
That be tricky to answer,because i never went to restaraunt in my life(waste of money/time,and there no vegan restaraunts in existence).I usually eat at home or just take something compact to chew(e.g. cashew nuts).Besides what people going to restaraunt gaining there? There crowded,noisy and the atmosphere would make you leave in second if you haven't ordered food there.
Oh, I thought we were discussing transport options for real people, not a small niche of anti-social vegetarians.
Also, the idea of driving to a special place to exercise rather than exercising during transportation as a means to save time seems kind of silly.
It's not even remotely silly when you realise that this special place offers exercise which is far more efficient, effective and well-rounded tha mere low-intensity, very high-rep leg work. I know some people who cycle to work and none of them look remotely athletic.
Parking space. Fuel costs. Ability to take shortcuts that motor vehicles can't (legally) take.
Parking space is never a problem to me, shortcuts are no use when your journey takes five times longer anyway, and I think fuel cost is worth it for the luxury of not living like a 18th century peasant.
Maybe you don't pedal hard/long enough?
You can pedal as hard and as long as you want, it's too high rep to be of any use for building leg muscles. And still does absolutely nothing for the rest of your body. If you want to get fit and burn calories, I'd say that 10 minutes on a treadmill is worth an hour of cycling.
That's funny. A forty minute ride for me is a 25 minute car ride. Or do you not get traffic where you live? And yes, I sweat. A *lot*. But I dry out fast, and I bring a full change, so who really cares? Only an idiot would cycle in his work clothes.
No, I don't have traffic. Getting changed and showered means you're adding yet more time onto your journey, and having yet more to carry. The list of inconveniences adds up.
Bah, if the weather's like that, I just let myself get wet. It's water, people, it won't hurt you.
Some of us actually don't like standing around in soaking wet clothes, or having to get changed and hang everything in front of the fire when we get home. Maybe you're some sort of masochist freak, but don't expect anyone else to join your cult. Imagine you're going on a date at a posh restaurant and turn up soaked to the skin.
Rain is solved by a biking raincoat, or even just an umbrella
How does an umbrella or a coat keep your trousers/shoes from being soaked?
snow just means you need to prepare your bike for winter, the same way you prepare a car.
Last time it was snowing here, my bike kept slipping up on the ice, instead I came in via car with no problems. Cyling = more hassle.
A bike gives more flexibility also
No, it severely limits your range of movement. And increases the time it takes. There are only 24 hours in a day and cycling can eat several of them up.
I can easily pack up and leave right away with a bike.
No, you need to get changed, check the weather, put everything in your bag. Then you need to find somewhere to chain the bike up, get changed again etc etc.
I even bike to lunch, if I want to go to a restaurant further away.
Does the restaurant allow you to take off your waterproof clothes, have a shower and get changed before you eat?
I live in Japan, and lots of people here ride bikes with none of the above concerns.
And in the stone age people lived without the concerns of electricity or clean water.
You can change when you get there, or alternatively just deal with it.
You need a shower as well before you get there, which means your destination needs shower facilities (rare), and you need to drag changes of clothes with you. A car takes away all these hassles.
Basket.
How do you stop stealing from a basket, or keep the rain out?
It's entirely possible to hold an umbrella while you ride. Ahh, I forgot they don't use those in the states, either.
You're joking right? Even if you had three hands, an umbrella doesn't keep the rain out.
You will sweat if you leave for work with a ride that takes at least 40 minutes and give yourself 40 minutes to arrive at your destination. If you time your ride such that you don't have to hammer up hills and race between traffic lights and stop signs you can ride in most weather without sweating.
A forty minute bike ride is at most a ten minute car ride. Leaving time to go at a snail's pace means you're taking even longer, and also cancelling out any exercise benefits. And you'll sweat at any speed when the temperature gets into the hundreds. Especially when you're wearing work clothes or waterproofs incase a storm breaks out*.
Add a backpack and you're a big rig. If you don't want to put your 30 inch CRT on the rear rack, you could always pick up a gaming laptop with the money you've saved over a year or two in fuel and car maintenance.
Racks are only use for a few small items, and only if the weather is clement, and you're not run off the road by a car. Also it's very easy to steal from them. Try taking your TV back from repair on the back of a bike. Or twenty bags of shopping. Or a nine gallon barrel of beer.
Are you sure you're a geek? Diamonds are a girl's best friend, but second best is buying your woman a nice bicycle she can ride next to you.
Do you live in the same universe as the rest of us?
It is not easy to bicycle with an umbrella, however the same full-body rainsuits that can be rolled into tiny little bags for backpacking work when cycling.
Rainsuits don't keep all the water out, only light drizzle. Absolutely no use in a storm. And that still means more time getting changed, adding onto the already lengthy travel times. You also have to predict the weather, i.e. if sun suddenly turns into rain or vice versa. It also assumes you've got somewhere to get changed at work.
* This actually happened on Sunday when I was at work. One minute boiling hot, the next a thunderstorm and torrential rain. If I was cycling I would have to stop and get changed roadside. Not an issue at all in a car.
As I point out to my wife, unless you live more than 12 miles from work or are in tremendously horrible shape... cycling smokes all other forms of transpo...
What categories exactly does cycling 'smoke' the opposition in?
Speed? No. Reliability? No. Protection from the elements? Fucking hell no. Storage ability? No. Convenience? No.
Cars are wierd... not usre why people use them so much...they make you fat...
I cycle to work every day because I can't afford a car, and I'm overweight and unfit. However I know several people with cars who are fit and muscular. Cars allow you to go to places such as the gym which offers exercise options a hundred times as effective as cycling, which is very low in intensity.
Maybe people use cars because they want to get to work dry and quickly, not spending five times longer, and arriving soaked to the skin because a storm suddenly broke out half way there. Or perhaps they like to take things with them, like shopping. Maybe on a hot day they like to get to their destination not dripping with sweat.
Maybe after a hard 12 hour shift they want to relax on the way home, not spend another hour working in the rain just to get home. Maybe they start work early and using the car means another valuable hour in bed. Maybe they like being able to go to places during a storm or in the snow, or any other conditions in which cycling is not practical.
Maybe they like to be able to go to places after work, such as to play sport, to see a movie, to do the shopping, to visit friends/relatives, all impractical with a bike.
Or maybe they don't want to risk being crushed in traffic every day.
Bullshit. I cycle to work and back everyday, and I've never been more overweight or unfit. Unless you're doing hundreds of miles a day, it isn't very good exercise.
Celebrity actors are usually much more interesting. I don't think Shrek suffered too much for having Eddie Murphy and Mike Myers rather than the person who voiced the third policeman in episode 13 of Futurama.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a complete joke. The BBC annoys me everytime I watch it, and because their income is guaranteed they are the most arrogant, smug, complacent TV company in the world.
It was Nintendo's answer to the 32X.
I wasn't thinking about tax-payer funded stadiums, more about ticket prices. Things like in your link is mainly an American phenomenon.
The graphics.
The only reason sportsmen get paid a lot is because people like being entertained by them, so you obviously do care what people do for entertainment, even if you're too dumb to realise the connection.
You're glad you're not highly paid? I don't see what's stupid about making millions for playing a game. Seems pretty clever to me. Maybe you're the real smart one though, doing something much duller and less exciting for a tiny fraction of the money.
What exactly is wrong with being entertained? Seems you're just bitter that the forms of entertainment you enjoy are different to that of the majority and you feel left out. I'm sure whatever forms of entertainment you like are pretty stupid and pointless, but maybe other people have more class than to insult your intelligence because of it.
I don't remember ever paying millions to a sporting event. Maybe that's in yen?
If you consider entertainment and excitement to be unimportant, then you have no soul.
Stop being so bitter. When millions of people want to watch a social worker wipe the arse of a pensioner then they'll get paid millions. Until then stop your tiring killjoy act, you're not impressing anyone by demonstrating how mature and elitist you are.
Another Americanism:
Baseball player = athlete
My empathy for Kenneth Lays is the same as Kenneth Lays' empathy for his victims.
Using candles instead of lightbulbs is not for pussies. If you're a pussy, feel free to have electricity. If you're not, deal with the few curveballs nature may throw at you and understand that not all things you can do with a lightbulb are possible with a candle; there are still times for lightbulbs.
If the site provides a lot of people with a service they like, who are you to say it isn't quality?
I don't really have time to do that when I have a ten minute window to leave without being late for work.
Oh, I thought we were discussing transport options for real people, not a small niche of anti-social vegetarians.
You can pedal as hard and as long as you want, it's too high rep to be of any use for building leg muscles. And still does absolutely nothing for the rest of your body. If you want to get fit and burn calories, I'd say that 10 minutes on a treadmill is worth an hour of cycling.
Some of us actually don't like standing around in soaking wet clothes, or having to get changed and hang everything in front of the fire when we get home. Maybe you're some sort of masochist freak, but don't expect anyone else to join your cult. Imagine you're going on a date at a posh restaurant and turn up soaked to the skin.
Absolutely disgusting.
Last time it was snowing here, my bike kept slipping up on the ice, instead I came in via car with no problems. Cyling = more hassle.
No, it severely limits your range of movement. And increases the time it takes. There are only 24 hours in a day and cycling can eat several of them up.
No, you need to get changed, check the weather, put everything in your bag. Then you need to find somewhere to chain the bike up, get changed again etc etc.
Does the restaurant allow you to take off your waterproof clothes, have a shower and get changed before you eat?
You need a shower as well before you get there, which means your destination needs shower facilities (rare), and you need to drag changes of clothes with you. A car takes away all these hassles.
How do you stop stealing from a basket, or keep the rain out?
You're joking right? Even if you had three hands, an umbrella doesn't keep the rain out.
Racks are only use for a few small items, and only if the weather is clement, and you're not run off the road by a car. Also it's very easy to steal from them. Try taking your TV back from repair on the back of a bike. Or twenty bags of shopping. Or a nine gallon barrel of beer.
Do you live in the same universe as the rest of us?
Rainsuits don't keep all the water out, only light drizzle. Absolutely no use in a storm. And that still means more time getting changed, adding onto the already lengthy travel times. You also have to predict the weather, i.e. if sun suddenly turns into rain or vice versa. It also assumes you've got somewhere to get changed at work.
* This actually happened on Sunday when I was at work. One minute boiling hot, the next a thunderstorm and torrential rain. If I was cycling I would have to stop and get changed roadside. Not an issue at all in a car.
Speed? No.
Reliability? No.
Protection from the elements? Fucking hell no.
Storage ability? No.
Convenience? No.
I cycle to work every day because I can't afford a car, and I'm overweight and unfit. However I know several people with cars who are fit and muscular. Cars allow you to go to places such as the gym which offers exercise options a hundred times as effective as cycling, which is very low in intensity.
Maybe people use cars because they want to get to work dry and quickly, not spending five times longer, and arriving soaked to the skin because a storm suddenly broke out half way there. Or perhaps they like to take things with them, like shopping. Maybe on a hot day they like to get to their destination not dripping with sweat.
Maybe after a hard 12 hour shift they want to relax on the way home, not spend another hour working in the rain just to get home. Maybe they start work early and using the car means another valuable hour in bed. Maybe they like being able to go to places during a storm or in the snow, or any other conditions in which cycling is not practical.
Maybe they like to be able to go to places after work, such as to play sport, to see a movie, to do the shopping, to visit friends/relatives, all impractical with a bike.
Or maybe they don't want to risk being crushed in traffic every day.
Take your elitism and stick it up your arse.
You do realise that if people set their thresholds at 4 no-one would read any of your posts?
Now it just shows how the academy awards don't reward ham.
Celebrity actors are usually much more interesting. I don't think Shrek suffered too much for having Eddie Murphy and Mike Myers rather than the person who voiced the third policeman in episode 13 of Futurama.