Apologies. Your accent sounds the same on my monitor;-)
The license is paid to 'TV Licensing' a part of the BBC
The BBC has a charter guaranteeing its independence from government which is reviewed every 15? years or so
Given that the maximum possible term a government can serve is 5 years it's quite hard to for a political party (and they've had serious run-ins with all 3 main parties) to bear pressure onto the BBC
Oh. I see. The British government does not control it, the Crown does instead!
Believe it or not, the Crown doesn't really have any powers these days.
But hey, this is/. - where ignorance is a virtue. Yes you're right - the Government control the BBC and Tony Blair is right now deciding what we're going to watch tonight...
WTF planet are you on? There is no monopoly. On Sky I can receive hundreds of TV channels - mostly trash.
I doubt many commercial channels would screen 2 hour quality documentaries on Gaugin, Orwell or Larkin (just 3 examples from the last month or so)
For less than 0.30/day you get a variety of TV stations, radio stations, digital channels, one of the best news websites in the world and relative impartiality
Except he shot the burglar in the back, while he was climing out of a window. Shortly after he begged for his life. Self defense, my arse.
Quite. One of those cases where both sides were in the wrong. However like a scissor-paper-stone game, nutter always beats gippo in the public opinion stakes.
Martin was using an illegally owned pump action shotgun. He had already (allegedly) previously shot his brother-in-laws windows out after an argument. And then let a 16-year-old bleed to death in his garden. Far from a saint.
OTOH the burglers must have expected something if they were challenged by the homeowner. Despite what you read in the rags, you do have the legal right to defend your property, and the right to act in self defence.
I'll buy $5 on the IRA (doubtless funded by Noo Yoikers) bombing a hotel in London
I'll buy $10 on Al-Qaeda blowing up the Golden Gate bridge
You just don't get it, do you...
Re:How to make a TV programme (dummies edition)...
on
Blakes Seven To Return
·
· Score: 1
Just because you followed a link from the article it doesn't mean that you actually read the article and understood it
Fair comment, this is/. after all:-)
I'm not paranoid, or pissed off, I just read these PR announcements which pass off as news with a healthy dose of cynicism.
Truth is, there's no more substance to this PR than the one released 3+ years ago!
Re:How to make a TV programme (dummies edition)...
on
Blakes Seven To Return
·
· Score: 1
Don't worry, nothing was taken personally.
I'd have thought that if you'd have noticed that I'd read the FAQ, linked from the article, then you'd take it as read (so to speak) that I'd read the article!
The article states that:
One of the stars of cult sci-fi series Blake's 7 has signed a deal to bring the show back to screens more than 20 years after it ended.
That quite clearly isn't true. It's a long, long road from signing rights to broadcasting a series.
As someone else has mentioned it's not even new puff. A virtually identical story appeared over 3 years ago.
Again, I'll believe it when it's in post-production.
Re:How to make a TV programme (dummies edition)...
on
Blakes Seven To Return
·
· Score: 1
Try reading the headline.
I've already RTFA and the FAQ on the website thankyouverymuch.
But the./ headline is Blakes (sic) Seven to Return when it is quite clear that it's far from returning.
I'll believe it when it's in post-production.
According to the FAQ, essentially they have no money (yet), no script (yet), no cast (yet) and no broadcasting rights (yet).
Trading on the nostalgia zeitgeist? The plan sounds as shaky as one of their sets!
The Luddites weren't against new technology, per se. The destruction of machinery was one of their sole means of making a stand against poor working conditions, since trade unions were illegal.
The Tolpuddle martyrs were 'transported' to Australia because they swore an oath to someone other than the King of England, namely their union, which was illegal at the time.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, I'm Canadian.
Apologies. Your accent sounds the same on my monitor ;-)
The license is paid to 'TV Licensing' a part of the BBC
The BBC has a charter guaranteeing its independence from government which is reviewed every 15? years or so
Given that the maximum possible term a government can serve is 5 years it's quite hard to for a political party (and they've had serious run-ins with all 3 main parties) to bear pressure onto the BBC
Oh. I see. The British government does not control it, the Crown does instead!
Believe it or not, the Crown doesn't really have any powers these days.
But hey, this is /. - where ignorance is a virtue. Yes you're right - the Government control the BBC and Tony Blair is right now deciding what we're going to watch tonight...
Whilst there is Middle-England, there are few places in England where you can't get decent TV coverage.
Scotland's a different story though...
I'm not normally one to pick on other languages/dialects, but god damn that's funny english.
Fairly standard English. I believe you speak the dialect known as American.
nutter always beats gippo...read in the rags...wtf???
Nutter: idiot, oddball, wierdo
Gippo: gypsy, romany traveller
Rags: newspaper (esp tabloid types eg Mirror, Sun, Mail)
You yanks just don't get it
The BBC is separate from government by issue of it's Royal Charter.
If you think they're government lapdogs, speak to Alistair Campbell.
and the money goes ONLY to the BBC, right?
Nope. ITV, C4 and C5 get some money, as do the various ITV channels
You pay for the fact that with the BBC you're not always getting the lowest common denominator and the fact they're not allowed to use advertising.
BBC Monopoly
WTF planet are you on? There is no monopoly. On Sky I can receive hundreds of TV channels - mostly trash.
I doubt many commercial channels would screen 2 hour quality documentaries on Gaugin, Orwell or Larkin (just 3 examples from the last month or so)
For less than 0.30/day you get a variety of TV stations, radio stations, digital channels, one of the best news websites in the world and relative impartiality
Don't worry, they're plenty of unpatched sendmails out there
Except he shot the burglar in the back, while he was climing out of a window. Shortly after he begged for his life. Self defense, my arse.
Quite. One of those cases where both sides were in the wrong. However like a scissor-paper-stone game, nutter always beats gippo in the public opinion stakes.
Martin was using an illegally owned pump action shotgun. He had already (allegedly) previously shot his brother-in-laws windows out after an argument. And then let a 16-year-old bleed to death in his garden. Far from a saint.
OTOH the burglers must have expected something if they were challenged by the homeowner. Despite what you read in the rags, you do have the legal right to defend your property, and the right to act in self defence.
OT enough?
Perhaps Sky can't get away with anything after all.
Amen to that brother
Sounds very much like Sky+ in the UK
This isn't copyright violation, it's licence infringement.
Sharing music is good
Sharing code is good
No they wouldn't
They could embed it in some copy protected hardware, and still release the code, surely?
Troll?
Someone's lost their sense of humo(u)r
Who let RMS in here?
binaries are compiled with a modified GCC
Could this, plus params sent to ./configure cause the obvious changes?>
Are you sure you're not infringing your countries' laws by fiddling around with the internals of the router
Or is that still legal?
Trrsts don't tend to need that sort of accuracy.
A van packed with explosives parked against a building usually does the trick.
Imagine the outrage...
I'll buy $5 on the IRA (doubtless funded by Noo Yoikers) bombing a hotel in London
I'll buy $10 on Al-Qaeda blowing up the Golden Gate bridge
You just don't get it, do you...Just because you followed a link from the article it doesn't mean that you actually read the article and understood it /. after all :-)
Fair comment, this is
I'm not paranoid, or pissed off, I just read these PR announcements which pass off as news with a healthy dose of cynicism.
Truth is, there's no more substance to this PR than the one released 3+ years ago!
I'd have thought that if you'd have noticed that I'd read the FAQ, linked from the article, then you'd take it as read (so to speak) that I'd read the article!
The article states that:
That quite clearly isn't true. It's a long, long road from signing rights to broadcasting a series.
As someone else has mentioned it's not even new puff. A virtually identical story appeared over 3 years ago.
Again, I'll believe it when it's in post-production.
Try reading the headline. ./ headline is Blakes (sic) Seven to Return when it is quite clear that it's far from returning.
I've already RTFA and the FAQ on the website thankyouverymuch.
But the
I'll believe it when it's in post-production.
According to the FAQ, essentially they have no money (yet), no script (yet), no cast (yet) and no broadcasting rights (yet).
Trading on the nostalgia zeitgeist? The plan sounds as shaky as one of their sets!
destruction of machinery was one of their sole means of making a stand
One of their sole means. I don't even make sense to myself sometimes...
The Luddites weren't against new technology, per se. The destruction of machinery was one of their sole means of making a stand against poor working conditions, since trade unions were illegal.
The Tolpuddle martyrs were 'transported' to Australia because they swore an oath to someone other than the King of England, namely their union, which was illegal at the time.