Sometimes, the winning move is to not play. I recommend civil disobedience to our corporate overlords - pirate everything you can even if you're not going to watch/listen to it.
I accept the argument that they should be funded as they are good for society, but I think they are very over priced for what they deliver. I'd prefer they didn't waste millions of pounds trying to shoehorn Windows only services everywhere for a start.
I think the initial idea behind the BBC is good, but the implementation leaves a lot to be desired. Unfortunately, now I am forced to pay for a service that I don't particularly want and have no vote or say in.
Incidentally, I don't care how many economic tomes are written - there's gazillions of books about vampires, but it doesn't mean they're real.
I'm not convinced that possession of "pirated" content is illegal. How can they tell whether a particular file is pirated or not unless they can prove exactly where you obtained those bits from and that the person distributing it did not have the right to distribute it?
Also, how can they police the cases where someone legally ripped a CD they owned and then managed to lose their CD? Are those bits legal or illegal?
I just don't agree that the BBC is good value. I don't mind them producing a wide diversity of shows, but the problem I have is with them broadcasting reality tv rubbish that is already shown on other channels.
Also, I don' agree with them paying ridiculous amounts of money to their executives and huge salaries to their stars when they could be encouraging less well known names and nurturing young talent.
I don't think the BBC should get many kudos for their Olympics coverage as it's much cheaper for them to cover sports events than it is for them create new drama.
I don't think that taxes would make too much sense as then you have people paying a different amount according to their salary, rather than how much tv they watch. The other problem with taxation is that the BBC would then be too tightly tied with the political system. Advertising would be my choice of funding for them.
I think he's a brilliant science presenter as his enthusiasm really shines through. Also, he does have a very good way of explaining complex ideas in very simple terms - his explanation of the retrograde movement of mars by drawing a couple of circles in the sand was superb.
If you think it's such good value, then why not give people the choice about funding it rather than forcing everyone? I love some of their stuff, but think it's very overpriced for what they do and if they were allowed to fund via advertising, they'd have even more money to produce shows and it would cost us less.
Sounds like you installed "xfce" rather than "xubuntu" (or whatever version Mint might provide). Try "apt-get remove gnome-screensaver" and see if that improves it for you. If you're brave and have a recent backup, you could try removing gnome (apt-get remove gnome) to see if that helps.
I get your point, but "apt-get install xubuntu" is pretty easy. The multiple versions of programs isn't usually a problem unless you've got a small hard drive.
I tried Unity and didn't get on with it, so I just carried on using XUbuntu instead. If you don't like the desktop environment, it's trivial to replace it with a different one.
I was replying to someone who said that the choice was to use Golden Rice or let people go blind and die, so it's not a straw man, but posted a few parents above this.
What other solutions are we waiting for when there are lots of alternatives available right now? I think a multi-pronged approach will have the most success.
That's kind of my point - we shouldn't treat Golden Rice as the only possible remedy when there's multiple things that can be tried. Looking at global solutions isn't necessarily the answer when often you need to use a variety of techniques that can be applied locally. e.g. Look at that unused dry dusty land over there; let's try planting some sweet potatoes and see if we can get them to grow.
Really? They're entirely different plants, despite the similar name. Sweet potatoes are from the Convolvulaceae family whereas ordinary potatoes are members of the Nightshade family.
I've had kumara (their version of sweet potatoes) chips in New Zealand, but I found them to be a little soggy compared to potato chips (or fries as they are known elsewhere). Still nice though.
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes, the winning move is to not play. I recommend civil disobedience to our corporate overlords - pirate everything you can even if you're not going to watch/listen to it.
I accept the argument that they should be funded as they are good for society, but I think they are very over priced for what they deliver. I'd prefer they didn't waste millions of pounds trying to shoehorn Windows only services everywhere for a start.
I think the initial idea behind the BBC is good, but the implementation leaves a lot to be desired. Unfortunately, now I am forced to pay for a service that I don't particularly want and have no vote or say in.
Incidentally, I don't care how many economic tomes are written - there's gazillions of books about vampires, but it doesn't mean they're real.
Count the number of "reputable" sites linking to it?
I'm not convinced that possession of "pirated" content is illegal. How can they tell whether a particular file is pirated or not unless they can prove exactly where you obtained those bits from and that the person distributing it did not have the right to distribute it?
Also, how can they police the cases where someone legally ripped a CD they owned and then managed to lose their CD? Are those bits legal or illegal?
I just don't agree that the BBC is good value. I don't mind them producing a wide diversity of shows, but the problem I have is with them broadcasting reality tv rubbish that is already shown on other channels.
Also, I don' agree with them paying ridiculous amounts of money to their executives and huge salaries to their stars when they could be encouraging less well known names and nurturing young talent.
I don't think the BBC should get many kudos for their Olympics coverage as it's much cheaper for them to cover sports events than it is for them create new drama.
I don't think that taxes would make too much sense as then you have people paying a different amount according to their salary, rather than how much tv they watch. The other problem with taxation is that the BBC would then be too tightly tied with the political system. Advertising would be my choice of funding for them.
I'd posit that a lot of BBC programming is already like that and that's why I dislike being forced to pay for it.
I think he's a brilliant science presenter as his enthusiasm really shines through. Also, he does have a very good way of explaining complex ideas in very simple terms - his explanation of the retrograde movement of mars by drawing a couple of circles in the sand was superb.
If you think it's such good value, then why not give people the choice about funding it rather than forcing everyone? I love some of their stuff, but think it's very overpriced for what they do and if they were allowed to fund via advertising, they'd have even more money to produce shows and it would cost us less.
Sounds like you installed "xfce" rather than "xubuntu" (or whatever version Mint might provide). Try "apt-get remove gnome-screensaver" and see if that improves it for you. If you're brave and have a recent backup, you could try removing gnome (apt-get remove gnome) to see if that helps.
I get your point, but "apt-get install xubuntu" is pretty easy. The multiple versions of programs isn't usually a problem unless you've got a small hard drive.
I tried Unity and didn't get on with it, so I just carried on using XUbuntu instead. If you don't like the desktop environment, it's trivial to replace it with a different one.
Hey - over here we drive on the left, you insensitive clod!
If you're in that much of a rush, why don't you just leave a little bit earlier and then you wouldn't need to drive like an asshat?
If you type 'bing' into the google, you get taken to a site that can search for things like that.
So, it has come to this.
Nope - that would be ReiserFS. Or at least the crazy people who wrote this haven't been found out yet.
Please leave it more than three years before you come back here next time.
Wow - I didn't realise that top quality proof-readers can earn that amount of cash.
I thought it was Cthulhu.
I was replying to someone who said that the choice was to use Golden Rice or let people go blind and die, so it's not a straw man, but posted a few parents above this.
What other solutions are we waiting for when there are lots of alternatives available right now? I think a multi-pronged approach will have the most success.
Who's they're?
Whose their?
That's kind of my point - we shouldn't treat Golden Rice as the only possible remedy when there's multiple things that can be tried. Looking at global solutions isn't necessarily the answer when often you need to use a variety of techniques that can be applied locally. e.g. Look at that unused dry dusty land over there; let's try planting some sweet potatoes and see if we can get them to grow.
Really? They're entirely different plants, despite the similar name. Sweet potatoes are from the Convolvulaceae family whereas ordinary potatoes are members of the Nightshade family.
I've had kumara (their version of sweet potatoes) chips in New Zealand, but I found them to be a little soggy compared to potato chips (or fries as they are known elsewhere). Still nice though.