The massive public demand for TV and radio over the internet is forcing them to do it. Remember - the BBC is paid for by the public, and so if the public are polled and they say "we want internet TV!", the BBC is obliged to research it and see if it's viable. As it clearly is, we get to this stage, where any move to physically roll this service out has to be investigated to ensure the protection of the BBC's revenue, again at the behest of the general public, as those of us who do pay our license fees don't really want everyone around the world to get the exact same programming for free, as that's just not cricket;)
As for your last point, that will be EXACTLY how it's done. The use of the word "tax" is very misleading here. It will most likely come to us in the form of a membership fee for their website/p2p-app that gives us access to the media. That means, if you don't want to pay for it, just don't sign up, and conversely if you do, do! That way no-one pays for something they don't want, and no-one gets for nothing something they didn't pay for. Everyone's a winner.
It was in England (in 1696), and glass was the subject because just like ferraris these day, windows cost a lot of money. Glass hasn't always been made incredibly cheaply. The tax was conceived in order to provide a proportional taxation, where poor guys didn't pay much (as mud huts rarely have massive bay windows), but rich guys had to pay more (as they DID have bay windows and other extravagant windowry).
Of course, the price of glass dropped considerably over time, rendering the tax less than adequate. It was replaced by the council tax, which is still in use today. It makes sense.
I'm 100% certain if this went ahead, the only "tax" would be a membership to the BBC's website/application, which would provide all their internet-based media to your computer. Your membership will cost per month, and if you can't get any media, you don't sign up. That way, if you want the media, you pay for it, and if you don't, you don't. Everyone's a winner.
Yes, you can get a rebate for the tax. It's called charging for your content, just as the BBC is hypothesised to be considering. If your content is any good, people will pay you for it. If not, then no. Expecting the Beeb to effectively fork out cash because you have a website with a gallery of your cat in period fancy-dress is absurd, quite frankly;)
If you're downloading content from their servers, they can tell that you have a computer. From there, it's just one request to your ISP and they know exactly who you are and where you live.
That also stops the "but my (insert non-Windows machine here) can't play the media!" problem, as they won't charge you if you aren't downloading anything.
Um why, exactly? If you can't play the media on your computer, they won't charge you. It's that simple. Just like they don't come to your house and get you to pay a license fee because you have a shoebox or a six-pack of beer. Neither of those can display TV, and claiming it is your right to get the BBC to develop ways to get said shoebox and beer to receive the media is a tad ridiculous.
I'd rather it wasn't open or free, as it should only go to those who've paid the fee. The problem with the internet as opposed to aerial broadcasting, is that it's very hard to re-broadcast the BBC's TV signal half-way across the globe, whereas with the internet, it's two-clicks away. I'm not sure how I feel about the rest of the world getting the shows for free...
But for a browser to refuse to render non-standards-compliant pages, they're just pissing off the user and making a futile statement. Most people don't care about standards - they just want to surf the internet, and not suffer if the site's coder screwed up a little.
IE is the most robust HTML rendering engine out there. It can render any page thrown at it. That's what people want. They don't care if has a unique approach to tables or various rendering techniques. Most people who surf the net aren't trying to make a statement. They're just trying to use the net.
I hear what you're saying, but most people want to use the internet, not worry if they're being standards-compliant. I don't care if a website is missing all sorts of tags. If my browser can render it fine, that's all that matters to me. I'm not surfing the net to make a statement - I'm using it to make my life easier.
If you're worried about the company selling the data, complain about that. They're well within their rights to collect it. And as for the dorms, they are the university's dorms. They have the final word. The rights they have given you have been formally granted by the university, and are not exact replicas of the rights granted to people in houses owned by themselves.
I get miffed when I see people harking on about people traking them in public. If you don't want anyone to know where you are, don't go into the public. That's the only way. Once you enter the public arena, you are visible to the rest of the world, and hence, trackable. I'm not having a go at you, it just seems some people have excessive views on what privacy should be afforded them.
No, it just means when those people with guns suffer some sort of breakdown, be it emotional or nervous, they have a very quick, clean way of killing people with minimal involvement. They are removed from the killing, as we see. Of course those who have guns and go on killing sprees or murder their acquaintances are not thinking straight. That's the problem. They were probably telling their friends about how much they know about gun safety when he got the call his wife has left him or something.
In the civilised world, people aren't allowed to carry guns on the street. If they NEED to do that, it means the police force has let them down. Instead of just giving everyone the green flag to act as their own vigilante police force (without the training), most countries spend more money on the police force. That's why EVERY developed country has LOWER firearm-related murder rates than the US. Every single one. By your logic, the US would have the lowest. That's clearly not the case.
Do you have any proof of that? Of course not. You can't measure that. You're just guessing, based on some crazy racist anti-Chinese sentiment rushing through your brain.
Get a grip. The US is just another country. There are other countries around the world that beat the US at its own game. Taiwan is one of them.
Seriously, get a grip. Lose the hatred - you'll feel better.
Oh, and what about that study that showed US school kids don't care about the 1st amendment?
They had a show about sex or something *ahem* and it featured footage of people masturbating. They had a warning beforehand (before the show, and after the previous commercial break), but went straight into it. A girl and a guy. Pretty ground-breaking, I thought. That was broadcast on Channel 4, an unencrypted broadcast channel.
Put it together yourself! If it IS out there, it'll be expensive or shit. If you make it yourself, it'll be cheaper, and more suited to your own needs. This sort of technology is classed as luxury in the AV world, so they charge accordingly.
What do you mean privacy? Someone could follow you around, quite legally, and make a note of ALL of that information. That's just as legal.
I'm not being weird here, but if you're in public you don't have a right to privacy. That's why it's called public and not private.
Fair enough if they were spying in your private residence or something, but seeing when you go into a room is nothing. Especially considering it's their university, so like you in your house, can do anything that doesn't violate a law. As they violated no laws, it's all cool.
No, the not-being-called-Sir part is from Britain, not Congress. As he's not part of the commonwealth, he can't call himself Sir. It's nothing to do with America or Congress or Bush or anything, but a British thing. He's a foreign foreigner, and as such, not a Sir.
But it makes no difference to anything. What use is an open system that is less effective? I don't know about you, but my computer is a tool, not a project.
I'm not trying to be rude, but the open bios, to me, sounds pretty useless at the moment. Perhaps an open OS accessible by all would be a good first step. Open the world's eyes to what OSS can do, before asking companies to shell out masses of cash to hand over their hard work.
YOU don't mind, because it's not YOUR money! Ask whether the networks who pile millions of dollars into shows mind that being given away free:) I'm not defending their position, it's just that your post was rather naive:)
Most Brits don't mind, as we get better TV than anyone else in the world. It's not as if we need to get that license, and then be subjected to US TV 24/7. We get what we pay for, and that's the way we like it.
You've been watching the wrong programming, mate. Check out any nature shows the BBC does, or its history. You'll see quality that will smack you senseless.
But no, we don't have massive glitzy written-by-50-people-costing-millions-per-episode sitcoms, just stuff with more content. The money isn't spent on waste like glitz. If the story doesn't cut the mustard, throwing cash at it won't improve it;)
Slashdot Mirror
As for your last point, that will be EXACTLY how it's done. The use of the word "tax" is very misleading here. It will most likely come to us in the form of a membership fee for their website/p2p-app that gives us access to the media. That means, if you don't want to pay for it, just don't sign up, and conversely if you do, do! That way no-one pays for something they don't want, and no-one gets for nothing something they didn't pay for. Everyone's a winner.
Of course, the price of glass dropped considerably over time, rendering the tax less than adequate. It was replaced by the council tax, which is still in use today. It makes sense.
Damn wikipedia is cool.
I'm 100% certain if this went ahead, the only "tax" would be a membership to the BBC's website/application, which would provide all their internet-based media to your computer. Your membership will cost per month, and if you can't get any media, you don't sign up. That way, if you want the media, you pay for it, and if you don't, you don't. Everyone's a winner.
Yes, you can get a rebate for the tax. It's called charging for your content, just as the BBC is hypothesised to be considering. If your content is any good, people will pay you for it. If not, then no. Expecting the Beeb to effectively fork out cash because you have a website with a gallery of your cat in period fancy-dress is absurd, quite frankly ;)
That also stops the "but my (insert non-Windows machine here) can't play the media!" problem, as they won't charge you if you aren't downloading anything.
Um why, exactly? If you can't play the media on your computer, they won't charge you. It's that simple. Just like they don't come to your house and get you to pay a license fee because you have a shoebox or a six-pack of beer. Neither of those can display TV, and claiming it is your right to get the BBC to develop ways to get said shoebox and beer to receive the media is a tad ridiculous.
I'd rather it wasn't open or free, as it should only go to those who've paid the fee. The problem with the internet as opposed to aerial broadcasting, is that it's very hard to re-broadcast the BBC's TV signal half-way across the globe, whereas with the internet, it's two-clicks away. I'm not sure how I feel about the rest of the world getting the shows for free...
It was available when most people used 256 colours on their computers, and due to their branding, has stuck ever since.
IE is the most robust HTML rendering engine out there. It can render any page thrown at it. That's what people want. They don't care if has a unique approach to tables or various rendering techniques. Most people who surf the net aren't trying to make a statement. They're just trying to use the net.
I hear what you're saying, but most people want to use the internet, not worry if they're being standards-compliant. I don't care if a website is missing all sorts of tags. If my browser can render it fine, that's all that matters to me. I'm not surfing the net to make a statement - I'm using it to make my life easier.
I get miffed when I see people harking on about people traking them in public. If you don't want anyone to know where you are, don't go into the public. That's the only way. Once you enter the public arena, you are visible to the rest of the world, and hence, trackable. I'm not having a go at you, it just seems some people have excessive views on what privacy should be afforded them.
In the civilised world, people aren't allowed to carry guns on the street. If they NEED to do that, it means the police force has let them down. Instead of just giving everyone the green flag to act as their own vigilante police force (without the training), most countries spend more money on the police force. That's why EVERY developed country has LOWER firearm-related murder rates than the US. Every single one. By your logic, the US would have the lowest. That's clearly not the case.
Get a grip. The US is just another country. There are other countries around the world that beat the US at its own game. Taiwan is one of them.
Seriously, get a grip. Lose the hatred - you'll feel better.
Oh, and what about that study that showed US school kids don't care about the 1st amendment?
They had a show about sex or something *ahem* and it featured footage of people masturbating. They had a warning beforehand (before the show, and after the previous commercial break), but went straight into it. A girl and a guy. Pretty ground-breaking, I thought. That was broadcast on Channel 4, an unencrypted broadcast channel.
Like the glasses in Hitch-hikers... :) nice :)
Put it together yourself! If it IS out there, it'll be expensive or shit. If you make it yourself, it'll be cheaper, and more suited to your own needs. This sort of technology is classed as luxury in the AV world, so they charge accordingly.
I'm not being weird here, but if you're in public you don't have a right to privacy. That's why it's called public and not private.
Fair enough if they were spying in your private residence or something, but seeing when you go into a room is nothing. Especially considering it's their university, so like you in your house, can do anything that doesn't violate a law. As they violated no laws, it's all cool.
If you take a big shit in there, they have some data to track you down? That's the only thing I can think of...
No, the not-being-called-Sir part is from Britain, not Congress. As he's not part of the commonwealth, he can't call himself Sir. It's nothing to do with America or Congress or Bush or anything, but a British thing. He's a foreign foreigner, and as such, not a Sir.
A net gain for your community doesn't pay your rent.
I'm not trying to be rude, but the open bios, to me, sounds pretty useless at the moment. Perhaps an open OS accessible by all would be a good first step. Open the world's eyes to what OSS can do, before asking companies to shell out masses of cash to hand over their hard work.
YOU don't mind, because it's not YOUR money! Ask whether the networks who pile millions of dollars into shows mind that being given away free :) I'm not defending their position, it's just that your post was rather naive :)
£19.50 a month? You can get Telewest digital for £10 a month, too... it's not that expensive ;)
Most Brits don't mind, as we get better TV than anyone else in the world. It's not as if we need to get that license, and then be subjected to US TV 24/7. We get what we pay for, and that's the way we like it.
But no, we don't have massive glitzy written-by-50-people-costing-millions-per-episode sitcoms, just stuff with more content. The money isn't spent on waste like glitz. If the story doesn't cut the mustard, throwing cash at it won't improve it ;)