You misunderstand. Child porn doesn't make people want to go out and rape children, the way certain people claim video games make gamers violent.
Rather, the already existing demand for child pornography leads to people raping children so that they can cash in on that demand.
The logical conclusion of that argument is that you should allow child porn vids, as long as you don't charge for them. No profit to be made then. But I'm guessing you wouldn't support that, would you?
I'm curious as to why all the text is images, and you have top click on it to get copyable text. What are they catering for, browsers that can't render text??
The Avsim people missed a trick here - they should have created a GUI in Visual Basic and seen whether they could trace an IP address. Then they could have viewed the hackers' blog live.
Law enforcement will never stop prostitution, but it looks good to the public to have a decent number of busts. Why kill your easy method of facilitating busts.
I guess they figured the bikini-strewn beaches already facilitated busts well enough.
I agree with most of what you say, except for two things.
1) Labour have not passed most of this stuff 'accidentally'. I honestly think that they don't like governmental and police restrictions, and just don't want to bother with them. Sure, they think THEY'll govern 'fairly', but they seem to have no concept of why we had those limitations in the first place. You wonder whether they wouldn't just support something that literally allows the police to do anything 'in pursuit of justice'.
2) Labour aren't the pleasant bunnies you make out. They've been fine with police arresting people for all sorts of things, like peaceful protests, or hate speech, which I think should be allowed. They have little respect for true freedom and liberty. The BNP may be worse, but don't paint Labour as a bunch of non-assholes.
My father is a really talented guy. But he's 50 now with a Bachelor's and is passed up on every promotion and pay raise. He's already at the top of the metrics for pay and title, he literally can't go any higher because of corporate policy.
Your father should find a better comapany to work for.
I watched the official video. Honestly, am I the ONLY person who doesn't want to type on a fucking onscreen keyboard? Give me a slide-out mini keyboard ANY day. Also, what's with not providing a stylus with the phone? AFAIC those 2 things are major failings of the iPhone. Basically, I'd like a device where I don't have to touch the screen with my greasy fingers. The Nintendo DS and the PocketPC are designed in this way, why the hell does Android have to copy Apple's mistakes here??
All of your criticisms about news channels not being British - so what exactly? That usually makers them better, in my opinion - British news is full of puritanical politically-correct holier-than-thou crap interspersed with trivial, sensationalist, irritating crap like Baby P, Madeleine McCann, or some one-off knife crime (yes, that includes the BBC's news too). That which is actually good or interesting is going to be covered on most of the networks I mentioned. And all over the internet.
I haven't seen 2DTV (despite intending to), and what I remember of BB&F was that it wasn't as good as HIGNFY, or as cutting. BB&F is largely a sketch show.
Ohh, 'not as good'. Personal opinion. Why does your personal opinion have the right to force me to pay for your entertainment whims again? Pay for it yourself.
It's no-win - any programme that the BBC makes which is tawdry crap gets labelled as such and as an example of the BBC wasting money, anything they make which is good is immediately siezed upon as something that the commercial channels could have done without license-fee money.
Mostly, yes, but I will accept that there is such a thing as quality programming that doesn't get good ratings - it's just that this constitutes an incredibly small percentage of what the BBC outputs nowadays. I would support a small division of the BBC doing true PSB from general taxation, say 50 to 100 million. Max. That's what true PSB like BBC Parliament, and those (occasional) hour-long documentaries you mention would cost.
The fact is that the vast majority of the BBC's yearly fortune goes on things like obscene salaries to populist high-ratings presenters, special effects for high-ratings shows, huge payments for high-ratings sports rights, etc. All of this could be supported by subscription/ad funded broadcasting, and IMHO has no right to be publicly funded. And of course, the category of stuff which really is tawdry crap is not something I'm bothered about the demise of.
Watch Sky1 for an evening (say, a Monday evening) Futurama x2, Oops TV, The Simpsons x4, 24, Road Wars x4.
What's crap? Oops TV & Road Wars.
Right... so even if we just accept your (again) personal opinion, what have we? Futurama, 24? Just two examples of quite a few shows that are widely accepted to be genuinely good, which have come from that obscene sesspit of useless, commercial TV - the USA. How does that help your case?
Well that goes to illustrate my point pretty well - I think both of those are shit. If you think that's worth paying a premium for because YOU like it, then so be it, but don't expect me to cough up for it.
I'd never heard of that one. Apparently aired in 2007, can't find any online video of it so I can't evaluate it. *shrug* Maybe it is unpopular enough that a commercial broadcaster wouldn't bother with it. Woohoo.
And let's not forget News 24 (which commercial broadcasters have tried to compete with and failed)
You've got a point there.
Apart from Sky News, CNN Europe, CNBC, EuroNews, CCTV, NDTV 24x7, Russia Today, France 24, Al Jazeera English, Press TV,...
and BBC Parliament (which is made of win).
I agree that BBC Parliament is one of the few true PSB services the BBC offers, and it should probably be funded out of general taxation (not a licence fee, though; that's retarded).
I also doubt that anyone else could get away with making Have I got News For You - it takes the kind of clout that only the BBC has got to make that sort of thing.
Yeah, because you never have political satire like 2DTV or Bremner Bird & Fortune on non-BBC channels.
In any case your question is a nonsense, since it boils down to 'name a popular program which isn't popular'.
Only as much of a nonsense as your statement that they make 'high quality content' that wouldn't be shown by a commercial broadcaster because its high quality apparently wouldn't get good ratings.
At least US television out of the comparison; it's notoriously bad, not necessarily just because it's comemrcial. Find some other countries without TV taxes and check out what THEY'RE like compared to you.
Go on then, name me some programming in the last few years that the BBC has done that a commercial broadcaster wouldn't have done. I dare ya. Or are you just a USian that has no real idea of the crap the BBC puts out nowadays, but just assumes it must be good becuase it's licence-funded? BTW, Dr. Who doesn't count. For one, I fucking hate it anyway. For two, it gets good ratings so a commercial broadcaster could've done it.
Not easy. For a national broadcaster to implement such a system, they would have to deploy a national distribution network for decoder boxes, decoder cards, an administrative infrastructure for issuing and revoking cards and all the associated systems and structures to make it work.
We already have that in the UK. It's called 'top-up TV', and it means that even terrestrial digital channels can be blocked and charged for with a decoder card.
I propose the bollocks-kick for a form of social greeting. It's the only way to connect with someone and really make sure you don't give them swine flu.
How is this factually correct? Corporations can and do hold cash reserves, often very large, in banks (ones that haven't collapsed, anyway). Microsoft hold billions in CASH. As for 'not fulfilling responsibilities to shareholders', there's a lot of debate as to whether the current system is a good idea anyway. Shareholders thinking that they always deserve a great return on their investment often leads to short-sighted decision making / profiteering at the price of long-term stability.
All taxes punish success. You can't get around that fact.
Where did you get that idea? Punishing success would be a rate of over 100% tax, so you get LESS if you're successful. What taxes do is moderate success a little. There's an enormous difference. You still get more if you're successful.
Slashdot Mirror
You misunderstand. Child porn doesn't make people want to go out and rape children, the way certain people claim video games make gamers violent.
Rather, the already existing demand for child pornography leads to people raping children so that they can cash in on that demand.
The logical conclusion of that argument is that you should allow child porn vids, as long as you don't charge for them. No profit to be made then. But I'm guessing you wouldn't support that, would you?
I'm curious as to why all the text is images, and you have top click on it to get copyable text. What are they catering for, browsers that can't render text??
It's like betting on the baseball game when it's 12-0, bottom of the 9th and 2 men out.
And that is why the rest of the world doesn't understand baseball terminology.
And, if that's the case, also why I'm perplexed at why people like the iPhone. This level of obsessive control by Apple pisses me off.
Exactly. I'm surprised Apple are letting this fly as it is. They don't even want you running Flash on your iPhone, let alone using it as a web server.
The Avsim people missed a trick here - they should have created a GUI in Visual Basic and seen whether they could trace an IP address. Then they could have viewed the hackers' blog live.
So it's like having a second mom if your first mom gets raped and killed?
Law enforcement will never stop prostitution, but it looks good to the public to have a decent number of busts. Why kill your easy method of facilitating busts.
I guess they figured the bikini-strewn beaches already facilitated busts well enough.
I agree with most of what you say, except for two things.
1) Labour have not passed most of this stuff 'accidentally'. I honestly think that they don't like governmental and police restrictions, and just don't want to bother with them. Sure, they think THEY'll govern 'fairly', but they seem to have no concept of why we had those limitations in the first place. You wonder whether they wouldn't just support something that literally allows the police to do anything 'in pursuit of justice'.
2) Labour aren't the pleasant bunnies you make out. They've been fine with police arresting people for all sorts of things, like peaceful protests, or hate speech, which I think should be allowed. They have little respect for true freedom and liberty. The BNP may be worse, but don't paint Labour as a bunch of non-assholes.
My father is a really talented guy. But he's 50 now with a Bachelor's and is passed up on every promotion and pay raise. He's already at the top of the metrics for pay and title, he literally can't go any higher because of corporate policy.
Your father should find a better comapany to work for.
I really like Android as concept.
I watched the official video. Honestly, am I the ONLY person who doesn't want to type on a fucking onscreen keyboard? Give me a slide-out mini keyboard ANY day. Also, what's with not providing a stylus with the phone? AFAIC those 2 things are major failings of the iPhone. Basically, I'd like a device where I don't have to touch the screen with my greasy fingers. The Nintendo DS and the PocketPC are designed in this way, why the hell does Android have to copy Apple's mistakes here??
Actually, this is Germany we're talking about, so that should start,
First they came for the Nazis, and I did not speak up because I was not a Nazi...
In other words, a rattlesnake's rattle is only threatening if it hasn't been defanged.
It's never threatening if the poacher already has it by the neck.
Don't worry, though; you should be OK in one. It's India, so you're much more likely to hit a pedestrian than another car.
All of your criticisms about news channels not being British - so what exactly? That usually makers them better, in my opinion - British news is full of puritanical politically-correct holier-than-thou crap interspersed with trivial, sensationalist, irritating crap like Baby P, Madeleine McCann, or some one-off knife crime (yes, that includes the BBC's news too). That which is actually good or interesting is going to be covered on most of the networks I mentioned. And all over the internet.
I haven't seen 2DTV (despite intending to), and what I remember of BB&F was that it wasn't as good as HIGNFY, or as cutting. BB&F is largely a sketch show.
Ohh, 'not as good'. Personal opinion. Why does your personal opinion have the right to force me to pay for your entertainment whims again? Pay for it yourself.
It's no-win - any programme that the BBC makes which is tawdry crap gets labelled as such and as an example of the BBC wasting money, anything they make which is good is immediately siezed upon as something that the commercial channels could have done without license-fee money.
Mostly, yes, but I will accept that there is such a thing as quality programming that doesn't get good ratings - it's just that this constitutes an incredibly small percentage of what the BBC outputs nowadays. I would support a small division of the BBC doing true PSB from general taxation, say 50 to 100 million. Max. That's what true PSB like BBC Parliament, and those (occasional) hour-long documentaries you mention would cost.
The fact is that the vast majority of the BBC's yearly fortune goes on things like obscene salaries to populist high-ratings presenters, special effects for high-ratings shows, huge payments for high-ratings sports rights, etc. All of this could be supported by subscription/ad funded broadcasting, and IMHO has no right to be publicly funded. And of course, the category of stuff which really is tawdry crap is not something I'm bothered about the demise of.
Watch Sky1 for an evening (say, a Monday evening) Futurama x2, Oops TV, The Simpsons x4, 24, Road Wars x4.
What's crap? Oops TV & Road Wars.
Right... so even if we just accept your (again) personal opinion, what have we? Futurama, 24? Just two examples of quite a few shows that are widely accepted to be genuinely good, which have come from that obscene sesspit of useless, commercial TV - the USA. How does that help your case?
Well that goes to illustrate my point pretty well - I think both of those are shit. If you think that's worth paying a premium for because YOU like it, then so be it, but don't expect me to cough up for it.
ok; Never Mind the Full Stops.
I'd never heard of that one. Apparently aired in 2007, can't find any online video of it so I can't evaluate it. *shrug* Maybe it is unpopular enough that a commercial broadcaster wouldn't bother with it. Woohoo.
And let's not forget News 24 (which commercial broadcasters have tried to compete with and failed)
You've got a point there.
Apart from Sky News, CNN Europe, CNBC, EuroNews, CCTV, NDTV 24x7, Russia Today, France 24, Al Jazeera English, Press TV, ...
and BBC Parliament (which is made of win).
I agree that BBC Parliament is one of the few true PSB services the BBC offers, and it should probably be funded out of general taxation (not a licence fee, though; that's retarded).
I also doubt that anyone else could get away with making Have I got News For You - it takes the kind of clout that only the BBC has got to make that sort of thing.
Yeah, because you never have political satire like 2DTV or Bremner Bird & Fortune on non-BBC channels.
In any case your question is a nonsense, since it boils down to 'name a popular program which isn't popular'.
Only as much of a nonsense as your statement that they make 'high quality content' that wouldn't be shown by a commercial broadcaster because its high quality apparently wouldn't get good ratings.
At least US television out of the comparison; it's notoriously bad, not necessarily just because it's comemrcial. Find some other countries without TV taxes and check out what THEY'RE like compared to you.
Go on then, name me some programming in the last few years that the BBC has done that a commercial broadcaster wouldn't have done. I dare ya. Or are you just a USian that has no real idea of the crap the BBC puts out nowadays, but just assumes it must be good becuase it's licence-funded? BTW, Dr. Who doesn't count. For one, I fucking hate it anyway. For two, it gets good ratings so a commercial broadcaster could've done it.
Not easy. For a national broadcaster to implement such a system, they would have to deploy a national distribution network for decoder boxes, decoder cards, an administrative infrastructure for issuing and revoking cards and all the associated systems and structures to make it work.
We already have that in the UK. It's called 'top-up TV', and it means that even terrestrial digital channels can be blocked and charged for with a decoder card.
Not to mention Flash Lite 3. Could easily be on the iPhone but Jobs won't let it because it 'runs too slow'. Goodbye easy streaming audio/video.
The attackers claimed they had deleted the backups, and demanded $10 million for the return of prescription data on more than 8 million Virginians.
Damn, I'd pay $10 mil for data on more than 8 million virgins. That's more than you get for martyrdom in the... oh, read it wrong. Never mind.
I propose the bollocks-kick for a form of social greeting. It's the only way to connect with someone and really make sure you don't give them swine flu.
How is this factually correct? Corporations can and do hold cash reserves, often very large, in banks (ones that haven't collapsed, anyway). Microsoft hold billions in CASH. As for 'not fulfilling responsibilities to shareholders', there's a lot of debate as to whether the current system is a good idea anyway. Shareholders thinking that they always deserve a great return on their investment often leads to short-sighted decision making / profiteering at the price of long-term stability.
All taxes punish success. You can't get around that fact.
Where did you get that idea? Punishing success would be a rate of over 100% tax, so you get LESS if you're successful. What taxes do is moderate success a little. There's an enormous difference. You still get more if you're successful.