The real story: There'll always be idiots who think they can do dangerous things without injury to themselves. And to others, it seems here. Did the guy say he'd put his friend's hands in his pockets for him, along with the rest?
The real issue here, I think, is that the (presumed guilty) copyright offenders are looking at 4 years in a Chinese prison. Is that an appropriate punishment for the offense?
Considering that apparently every street corner in China has guys selling pirated DVDs for thier OWN PROFIT, it does seem a little disproportionate, yes.
Enough of the "first time you used 911/Blue Screen of Literal Death" jokes!
If a Linux co. had patented this idea, I suppose the joke would be that by the time you've found the right RPM, installed it, found the dependencies, installed them all, read the man page, re-read the man page, read the README, read the man page for a third time, searched Google and found the one bit of info you needed, made the symlinks and started the program, your house would be but a pile of ash or you'd have an axe in your head. But I never seem to catch that joke...
So, could someone with a subscription do us all a favor and cut n' paste?
No! You must adhere to the social contract by which you surrender all of your important personal information forever just for the sake of some article which might just say the same as the first one.
The best thing they can do is stop advertising to us and let us make our own choices (which, given other stories today, is what we're supposed to be doing anyway)
Here's the Coral cache should the worst happen, and Doubleclick get/.ed..
That should help out those with the hosts file protection, but not those with adblock stuff that pick out D-Click and the like from content, which maddeningly I fell for... for a few minutes anyway. UGH! Slashdot has ads?!?
On that point - since I'm the kind that deploys ad-blocking measures, and having skimmed the report and seen mention of "impressions", I hope they don't count the likes of me as someone who consumes their ads. Even when I'm on a browser that isn't covered in tinfoil, my eyes tend to keep clear by themselves. How can they class me as a pair of eyeballs? Every "page impression" statistic they publish should be annotated with the following: "All figures inclusive of 20% who use adblocking tech, and 25% who just take no notice"
But all the stories I come across (OK, a lot...) are the same, i.e. identical, all with the (AP) tag at the end. So what difference would it make if they disappeared to an extent? AP must be losing money H over F to try this stunt.
The CD-in-the-mouth thing is a crock though, isn't it. There's no actual drive in there, just a bit of paper! I think a proper translation of the article will include "we tried to rig the CD drive up to his mouth, but it was too hard so we drew some lines on some card instead".
Perhaps someone could explain what is wrong with/. in Firefox - I mean, does it spit fire, or something? What I'm looking at now isn't ablaze, so I'm minded to say that I have the fixed version too. Result!
>Some might argue that based on the above argument, everyone should have the right to own a gun
I hope those that take this view also accept that if someone downloads the latest Scissor Sisters album, no-one dies. The same can't be said of the gun.
This is why the proposals as they stand don't have a hope of becoming reality. I think the suggestion that "broadcast" should be redefined is better, and could actually be a good thing, as it might legitimise the use of p2p for watching TV (an area where, right now, the UK leads the world).
> The point is that the BBC is there to provide an alternative to the commercial broadcasters
That isn't actually true. What you say is probably closer to Channel 4's remit. The BBC existed long before (even American) commerical broadcasters. They exist to provide a broad, accessible range of media outlets. The old "inform, entertain & educate" mantra of Lord Reith, the first D-G. There's nothing in the charter that talks about providing "alternatives" in the sense that you mean, certainly outside of areas like news. This is why it's actually important for the BBC to provide populist (& popular) programmes - if they didn't, less people would watch, which would paint them as increasingly irrelevant, which would lead people to qustion why they pay the licence fee.
Recent channels such as BBC3 & 4 WERE created with a view to providing an alternative to commerical provisions, and they had to seek government approval before they could start. That still doesn't mean that they should stay away from anything that a commercial broadcaster might provide.
That's a problem I have with the "less copycat shows" argument - more often than not, it was the BBC who INVENTED these kinds of shows, in an attempt to appeal to a larger section of the public (something which IS enforced by the charter) - they become successful, and commercial broadcasters copy them cos that's the best they can do. A few years down the line, and people start accusing the BBC of copycat behaviour. It makes no sense. Lifestyle shows like Changing Rooms, or "docu-soaps" like Driving School and Airport are two recent strands of programming that I can think of where this happened.
Thanks for the tip - next time the TV licence man calls, I'll have the VCR & cable box in a cupbard, and I'll claim that I only use the TV for Playstation. He's suuuure to belive me.
You can't get TVs that don't receive broadcast signals - unless it's termed a monitor - depending on signal strength in your area, a TV without an aerial can pick up a signal. So how do you stop receiving broadcast signals - tin-foil house?
>BBC make enough money to either a) scrap tv license or b) give us cheaper DVD's.
The latter might be an option, but the former certainly isn't. GBP2.5billion is quite a shortfall to make up (estimated at 95% of the BBC's income). (source)
The Beeb NEEDS the licence fee - not only to keep us Brits in ad-free TV, but also to give the rest of the world some quality TV to watch as an alternative to their locally-prduced dross (e.g. The Power Of Nightmares, which was a HUGE hit on BitTorrent. But which would never have aired on mainstream US TV)
>Most people spend more on BBC DVD's than they do on licenses nowwadays (only takes one or two Christmas prezzies of the office to do that)
This is also inaccurate, it's more like 10. And yes, The Office was available for free, without ads, long before it was on DVD. Mon, 10pm, BBC2.
A physical bank, on the otherhand, is without fail, a physical bank.
Don't be so sure of this. There was a well-documented case in the UK a few years back - a criminal gang used a fork-lift to steal an ATM from a new bank about to be opened; a few days later, a strange "banking agency" opened on another street, in an empty premises. The bank itself might have been shut all the time, or had some actors standing around telling people that they weren't taking new applications yet... however the ATM was set up outside the "bank".
They rigged it up to spit out any card that was inserted, with a "Sorry, system failure" message... crucially though, this error occured AFTER they keyed the PIN... sure enough, a few days later, those who had used the suspect ATM found big sums lifted from their account - the gang had recorded all the card numbers & PINs that were attempted.
So be careful, even a real, physical bank can be deceiving. Just don't trust anyone ever again.
Slashdot Mirror
The real story: There'll always be idiots who think they can do dangerous things without injury to themselves. And to others, it seems here. Did the guy say he'd put his friend's hands in his pockets for him, along with the rest?
The real issue here, I think, is that the (presumed guilty) copyright offenders are looking at 4 years in a Chinese prison. Is that an appropriate punishment for the offense?
Considering that apparently every street corner in China has guys selling pirated DVDs for thier OWN PROFIT, it does seem a little disproportionate, yes.
So they wake up the 75-y-o in 2400 or whenever, he lasts about a year then pops his clogs. Hardly worth coming in the first place!
Then the moderator gets his door busted down for viewing illegal material. Wh'd be a moderator?
Enough of the "first time you used 911/Blue Screen of Literal Death" jokes!
If a Linux co. had patented this idea, I suppose the joke would be that by the time you've found the right RPM, installed it, found the dependencies, installed them all, read the man page, re-read the man page, read the README, read the man page for a third time, searched Google and found the one bit of info you needed, made the symlinks and started the program, your house would be but a pile of ash or you'd have an axe in your head. But I never seem to catch that joke...
You missed out 9: PROFIT!!!
The best thing they can do is stop advertising to us and let us make our own choices (which, given other stories today, is what we're supposed to be doing anyway)
Here's the Coral cache should the worst happen, and Doubleclick get /.ed..
That should help out those with the hosts file protection, but not those with adblock stuff that pick out D-Click and the like from content, which maddeningly I fell for ... for a few minutes anyway. UGH! Slashdot has ads?!?
On that point - since I'm the kind that deploys ad-blocking measures, and having skimmed the report and seen mention of "impressions", I hope they don't count the likes of me as someone who consumes their ads. Even when I'm on a browser that isn't covered in tinfoil, my eyes tend to keep clear by themselves. How can they class me as a pair of eyeballs? Every "page impression" statistic they publish should be annotated with the following: "All figures inclusive of 20% who use adblocking tech, and 25% who just take no notice"
But all the stories I come across (OK, a lot...) are the same, i.e. identical, all with the (AP) tag at the end. So what difference would it make if they disappeared to an extent? AP must be losing money H over F to try this stunt.
You want an entertaining story? Not any more, old friend...
The CD-in-the-mouth thing is a crock though, isn't it. There's no actual drive in there, just a bit of paper! I think a proper translation of the article will include "we tried to rig the CD drive up to his mouth, but it was too hard so we drew some lines on some card instead".
Perhaps someone could explain what is wrong with /. in Firefox - I mean, does it spit fire, or something? What I'm looking at now isn't ablaze, so I'm minded to say that I have the fixed version too. Result!
Well, that's your own fault. You should get into the habit of using absolute pathnames when rm-ing, and stay away from the handy shortcuts.
>What IS a computer?
This is why the proposals as they stand don't have a hope of becoming reality. I think the suggestion that "broadcast" should be redefined is better, and could actually be a good thing, as it might legitimise the use of p2p for watching TV (an area where, right now, the UK leads the world).
> The point is that the BBC is there to provide an alternative to the commercial broadcasters
That isn't actually true. What you say is probably closer to Channel 4's remit. The BBC existed long before (even American) commerical broadcasters. They exist to provide a broad, accessible range of media outlets. The old "inform, entertain & educate" mantra of Lord Reith, the first D-G. There's nothing in the charter that talks about providing "alternatives" in the sense that you mean, certainly outside of areas like news. This is why it's actually important for the BBC to provide populist (& popular) programmes - if they didn't, less people would watch, which would paint them as increasingly irrelevant, which would lead people to qustion why they pay the licence fee.
Recent channels such as BBC3 & 4 WERE created with a view to providing an alternative to commerical provisions, and they had to seek government approval before they could start. That still doesn't mean that they should stay away from anything that a commercial broadcaster might provide. That's a problem I have with the "less copycat shows" argument - more often than not, it was the BBC who INVENTED these kinds of shows, in an attempt to appeal to a larger section of the public (something which IS enforced by the charter) - they become successful, and commercial broadcasters copy them cos that's the best they can do. A few years down the line, and people start accusing the BBC of copycat behaviour. It makes no sense. Lifestyle shows like Changing Rooms, or "docu-soaps" like Driving School and Airport are two recent strands of programming that I can think of where this happened.
Thanks for the tip - next time the TV licence man calls, I'll have the VCR & cable box in a cupbard, and I'll claim that I only use the TV for Playstation. He's suuuure to belive me.
You can't get TVs that don't receive broadcast signals - unless it's termed a monitor - depending on signal strength in your area, a TV without an aerial can pick up a signal. So how do you stop receiving broadcast signals - tin-foil house?
> More recently we did get a big TV but it's just hooked up to our media server;
That makes no difference. Even if your TV isn't wired to the public broadcast system - eg to a computer or to a "VCR" - you still have to pay.
>BBC make enough money to either a) scrap tv license or b) give us cheaper DVD's.
The latter might be an option, but the former certainly isn't. GBP2.5billion is quite a shortfall to make up (estimated at 95% of the BBC's income). (source) The Beeb NEEDS the licence fee - not only to keep us Brits in ad-free TV, but also to give the rest of the world some quality TV to watch as an alternative to their locally-prduced dross (e.g. The Power Of Nightmares, which was a HUGE hit on BitTorrent. But which would never have aired on mainstream US TV)
>Most people spend more on BBC DVD's than they do on licenses nowwadays (only takes one or two Christmas prezzies of the office to do that)
This is also inaccurate, it's more like 10. And yes, The Office was available for free, without ads, long before it was on DVD. Mon, 10pm, BBC2.
What's taking long, Google?
A physical bank, on the otherhand, is without fail, a physical bank.
Don't be so sure of this. There was a well-documented case in the UK a few years back - a criminal gang used a fork-lift to steal an ATM from a new bank about to be opened; a few days later, a strange "banking agency" opened on another street, in an empty premises. The bank itself might have been shut all the time, or had some actors standing around telling people that they weren't taking new applications yet... however the ATM was set up outside the "bank".
They rigged it up to spit out any card that was inserted, with a "Sorry, system failure" message... crucially though, this error occured AFTER they keyed the PIN... sure enough, a few days later, those who had used the suspect ATM found big sums lifted from their account - the gang had recorded all the card numbers & PINs that were attempted.
So be careful, even a real, physical bank can be deceiving. Just don't trust anyone ever again.