I think just over 100 pounds a year is good value compared to the high monthly fees of Sky (100's of channels of which only a couple are any good).
It is excellent. And I support what you say about having a broadcaster (relatively) free from commercial pressures. However, I think that having such a broadcaster gives benefit to the whole population, even those who don't watch TV. Therefore there's a case for paying the fee from taxpayer money rather than from TV viewer money. Currently the TV license is payable by everyone under 75, regardless of income. None of our other taxes work that way.
The BBC as a public institution is bound by law and common custom to be representative of the people and to support/represent equality of religion/race/lifestyle/sexuality.
So you agree that there needs to be public oversight of the BBC. If the BBC was truly independent there would be no way to make sure that it kept to the standards you mention above.
If I said the President of the United States taught me that solving problems with violence was appropriate, which is why I shot my next door neighbor, I'd be called a lunatic.
In Bowling for Columbine, Manson made exactly this point: the government tells people to be violent, by for example bombing Iraq or Serbia. "And who's a bigger influence: The president? Or Marilyn Manson?"
I don't get America.. "Violent video games cause kids to commit crimes, we should ban them." Yet every motherfucking person in the Bible belt owns at least one Gun. Perhaps the kid wouldn't have shot the cops if he couldn't have got access to a Gun.
RTFA. It was a cop's gun that was used in the murders.
Fighting violence with violence doesn't work. Why should fighting spam with spam work any better?
The screensaver didn't send spam.
If this trojan proves that the Lycos thing was a bad idea, do the Microsoft patch trojans prove that patching Windows is a bad idea? Did the Anna Kournikova trojan prove that nude pictures of Anna would be a bad thing? I can't see how the existence of a trojan proves anything.
I'm a Brit, and I may have missed something, but isn't the UoP similar to our Open University? In which case, isn't this statement a bit harsh?
I think the UoP annoys people because it has so many ads online. It is also a favourite study location for PHBs.
My old boss did an MS there, and the course looked pretty good. It was "Information Management", which is not quite computer science, but the CS parts looked OK to me.
Brief update: a few weeks ago Russia ratified the Protocol - way to go USA, even Russia has a higher priority on clima protection than you.
Correction: now that Russia's economy has faltered and meeting the Kyoto targets will essentially be cost-free, Russia has made climate change a priority. Back in the day when Kyoto was signed, and Russia would have had to make some policy changes to meet it, they weren't interested.
I hope you haven't given up on digital altogether. You can do the same "print only these pictures" at about any photo developer nowadays for cheaper than printing them at home, and definitely cheaper than the cost of film plus developing for a whole roll.
I like digital. I bought a colour printer years ago, and I just used it to copy scanned photo prints. I agree that digital pictures are a much better deal, because I can take lots of pictures and just print the ones I like. But I don't do it at home these days.
Here in London it often costs more to print digital photos than it does to develop ordinary photo film. I'm not sure why that should be.
This is especially true if you print them out at home. Which makes me even madder that I fell for that "here's a cheap printer with a gazillion DPI" scam that Epson was running a few years back. Once I added the cost of photo paper and cartridges, it was more expensive than developing the pics.
Dog names really are a stupid thing to be legislating, the choice of software is certainly not. Linux will (if its advocates are right) create jobs and save large amounts of taxpayer money. That could free resources to fight corruption and poverty.
The tool is legal, its what you do with it that counts. Exactly the same as P2P.
"Why it's the AT5000 Autodialer, my very first patent! Aww, would ya listen to the gibberish they've got you saying, it's sad and alarming. You were designed to alert school childern about snow days and such. Well let's get you home to Frinky. Hope your wheels still work. Bwhay!" /Frink
It's often said on Slashdot that the free market will always produce the best deal for people if people are free to choose what to buy. The market needs clear information for buyers to make good decisions, and knockoffs pollute the information in the market. Isn't preventing fraud one of the few government functions that everyone agrees on?
Take batteries, for instance. It's fine to sell a cheap competitor to Duracell, but shouldn't it be clear what you're getting? If Cheapo brand offers a better deal for consumers, then they will gain a good reputation and from there gain market share, so it's in everyone's interests (including Cheapo Inc) for them to be clearly recognizable as Cheapo batteries. If they are crap, then why should they be allowed to poison Duracell's reputation?
Could this be the argument libertarians are looking for? They'll never make the White House, but if they make 15% they'll get into the debates. This is commonly held to be a good thing, even by non-Libertarians, and the Libs could tap into a large pool of disillusioned voters who aren't going to vote anyhow, but who might like the idea of seeing the two main parties face down a third candidate.
Most will vote for life in prison, hoping to tip the scales.
You sound like you're suggesting that the death penalty might be a deterrent!
The original analogy was wrong. Parent's is better. You can't rebut the "lesser of two evils" argument by presenting an analogy where there are two equal (or very near equal) evils. You'd be better off trying to convince people that the lesser evil really isn't a lesser evil, if that's the way you want to put it.
Good luck with that, but for most of us the choice is between the lesser of two evils. Even if the three parties were more evenly distributed in the polls, most of us don't agree with some of the more, shall we say, radical Libertarian policies. So even then, the choice would be the lesser of three evils.
The last one seemed just a tiny bit right leaning, though enough of an equal opportunity offender to just be amusing... This one seems VERY Right leaning. There are shots of B&C with buckets of money but they have Bin Laden and Saddam holding a Pro Kerry banner, and portray Edwards and Kerry as Gay lovers.
I thought This Land hit both candidates equally. This one wasn't as funny. The gay stuff didn't bother me (they did Ashcroft too), but the Osama thing was bad. Especially since some terrorists have endorsed Bush!
And it was supposed to debut on the Tonight Show. Wonder if that had anything to do with the increased slant?
What about $10 million in eduational seminars and ads to inform users on how to protect theirselves?
Ah. you meant anti-spyware education, not education in general. I see your point now. And I think that it is probably a good thing, given how some Americans seem to think about security.
What would you do with $10 Million. Could it be better used for education as these rulings wont cover EULAs nor the 600 North Korea Hackers [slashdot.org].
I'm always seeing these kind of suggestions. "Why are we spending money to do X when it could be spent on Y". Often the cost of X is a tiny fraction of the cost of Y.
The federal education budget was $59.5 billion in 2003. Maybe $10 million fighting spyware (which imposes costs on the economy through crime and lost productivity) isn't such a bad deal.
I agree that Bush is taking the country in the wrong direction, but vague slogans are not very convincing evidence. There are people who compare the European Union to the Third Reich using similar tactics, see for example this guy.
Yes because Israel has proved that killing a movement's leaders is so effective at nullifying the movement.
In the short term, it may be. Something has caused a decline in suicide bombings within Israel over the last year or so. Israelis credit the "security barrier" and the killing of terrorist leaders. Is there some other explanation?
The rebels are scattered, and lack traditional military organization, but they've turned this into an advantage. Their unorthodox fighting style refuses to meet the well disciplined, better armed occupier on it's own terms, and instead strikes by surprise, before blending into the civilian population. It may be dishonorable, but the effectiveness cannot be denied. With each death, the occupier's foot-soldiers are less and less enthused to fight and die on distant soil. These losses aggravate the occupier into foolish civilian massacres which only amplify the resistance against them. Despite their naval dominance, the relentless propaganda defeats mean that the occupiers will probably never succeed in reconstituting a friendly government to export the area's natural resources without demanding a high payment for itself.
You could substitute minutemen or Iraqi insurgent here, I agree. The problem is in the use of the metaphor, that the insurgents are the minutemen. That suggests to me something more than an observation of the strategic situation. But as you say, maybe just me and Dave Kopel take it the wrong way, and Moore isn't suggesting any kind of moral equivalence between Islamist fighters and American revolutionaries.
We called the number, and it was well before Moore decided to make his film. Politicians lie, but not to the degree of simply making up a phone number. (Do you think nobody would ever call it? They certainly never made that mistake.)
Can you point us to a web-based record of this number being available? I can't find any mention of it before the release of Moore's movie.
The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush? You closed down a friggin' weekly newspaper, you great giver of freedom and democracy! Then all hell broke loose. The paper only had 10,000 readers! Why are you smirking?
When an American compares combatants in some conflict to the Revolutionary Americans, I usually take that as an expression of sympathy with said combatants.
Slashdot Mirror
It is excellent. And I support what you say about having a broadcaster (relatively) free from commercial pressures. However, I think that having such a broadcaster gives benefit to the whole population, even those who don't watch TV. Therefore there's a case for paying the fee from taxpayer money rather than from TV viewer money. Currently the TV license is payable by everyone under 75, regardless of income. None of our other taxes work that way.
So you agree that there needs to be public oversight of the BBC. If the BBC was truly independent there would be no way to make sure that it kept to the standards you mention above.
In Bowling for Columbine, Manson made exactly this point: the government tells people to be violent, by for example bombing Iraq or Serbia. "And who's a bigger influence: The president? Or Marilyn Manson?"
RTFA. It was a cop's gun that was used in the murders.
The screensaver didn't send spam.
If this trojan proves that the Lycos thing was a bad idea, do the Microsoft patch trojans prove that patching Windows is a bad idea? Did the Anna Kournikova trojan prove that nude pictures of Anna would be a bad thing? I can't see how the existence of a trojan proves anything.
I think the UoP annoys people because it has so many ads online. It is also a favourite study location for PHBs.
My old boss did an MS there, and the course looked pretty good. It was "Information Management", which is not quite computer science, but the CS parts looked OK to me.
Correction: now that Russia's economy has faltered and meeting the Kyoto targets will essentially be cost-free, Russia has made climate change a priority. Back in the day when Kyoto was signed, and Russia would have had to make some policy changes to meet it, they weren't interested.
I like digital. I bought a colour printer years ago, and I just used it to copy scanned photo prints. I agree that digital pictures are a much better deal, because I can take lots of pictures and just print the ones I like. But I don't do it at home these days.
Here in London it often costs more to print digital photos than it does to develop ordinary photo film. I'm not sure why that should be.
This is especially true if you print them out at home. Which makes me even madder that I fell for that "here's a cheap printer with a gazillion DPI" scam that Epson was running a few years back. Once I added the cost of photo paper and cartridges, it was more expensive than developing the pics.
I felt lucky and got a different conclusion.
If you think that's bad, see this.
Dog names really are a stupid thing to be legislating, the choice of software is certainly not. Linux will (if its advocates are right) create jobs and save large amounts of taxpayer money. That could free resources to fight corruption and poverty.
Windows for warships is scary.
"Why it's the AT5000 Autodialer, my very first patent! Aww, would ya listen to the gibberish they've got you saying, it's sad and alarming. You were designed to alert school childern about snow days and such. Well let's get you home to Frinky. Hope your wheels still work. Bwhay!"
/Frink
Take batteries, for instance. It's fine to sell a cheap competitor to Duracell, but shouldn't it be clear what you're getting? If Cheapo brand offers a better deal for consumers, then they will gain a good reputation and from there gain market share, so it's in everyone's interests (including Cheapo Inc) for them to be clearly recognizable as Cheapo batteries. If they are crap, then why should they be allowed to poison Duracell's reputation?
Could this be the argument libertarians are looking for? They'll never make the White House, but if they make 15% they'll get into the debates. This is commonly held to be a good thing, even by non-Libertarians, and the Libs could tap into a large pool of disillusioned voters who aren't going to vote anyhow, but who might like the idea of seeing the two main parties face down a third candidate.
You sound like you're suggesting that the death penalty might be a deterrent!
The original analogy was wrong. Parent's is better. You can't rebut the "lesser of two evils" argument by presenting an analogy where there are two equal (or very near equal) evils. You'd be better off trying to convince people that the lesser evil really isn't a lesser evil, if that's the way you want to put it.
Good luck with that, but for most of us the choice is between the lesser of two evils. Even if the three parties were more evenly distributed in the polls, most of us don't agree with some of the more, shall we say, radical Libertarian policies. So even then, the choice would be the lesser of three evils.
I thought This Land hit both candidates equally. This one wasn't as funny. The gay stuff didn't bother me (they did Ashcroft too), but the Osama thing was bad. Especially since some terrorists have endorsed Bush! And it was supposed to debut on the Tonight Show. Wonder if that had anything to do with the increased slant?
Is NBC and/or the Tonight Show pro-Republican?
Ah. you meant anti-spyware education, not education in general. I see your point now. And I think that it is probably a good thing, given how some Americans seem to think about security.
I'm always seeing these kind of suggestions. "Why are we spending money to do X when it could be spent on Y". Often the cost of X is a tiny fraction of the cost of Y.
The federal education budget was $59.5 billion in 2003. Maybe $10 million fighting spyware (which imposes costs on the economy through crime and lost productivity) isn't such a bad deal.
I agree that Bush is taking the country in the wrong direction, but vague slogans are not very convincing evidence. There are people who compare the European Union to the Third Reich using similar tactics, see for example this guy.
In the short term, it may be. Something has caused a decline in suicide bombings within Israel over the last year or so. Israelis credit the "security barrier" and the killing of terrorist leaders. Is there some other explanation?
You could substitute minutemen or Iraqi insurgent here, I agree. The problem is in the use of the metaphor, that the insurgents are the minutemen. That suggests to me something more than an observation of the strategic situation. But as you say, maybe just me and Dave Kopel take it the wrong way, and Moore isn't suggesting any kind of moral equivalence between Islamist fighters and American revolutionaries.
Can you point us to a web-based record of this number being available? I can't find any mention of it before the release of Moore's movie.
The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush? You closed down a friggin' weekly newspaper, you great giver of freedom and democracy! Then all hell broke loose. The paper only had 10,000 readers! Why are you smirking?
When an American compares combatants in some conflict to the Revolutionary Americans, I usually take that as an expression of sympathy with said combatants.
BT only filters illegal content. It does not filter porn in general.