We could do with something to be proud of in this country. There's precious little to recommend being English at the moment. Perhaps if we took some inspiration from doing things for the sake of seeing if we can, rather than pandering to the lowest common denominator, then we might be celebrating some acievements instead of closing down universities and screwing up the economy.
The first step in acheiving anything is to make sure you have a base from which to survive. The government seems to be doing its level best to financially cripple everyone with any creativity or skill in this country, those who might drag us back to something resembling prosperity, to help those who should be helping themselves.
Sorry, that turned into rather a rant. Time for a refreshing cup of tea, methinks.
There's a short monologue by Michael Flanders (of Flanders & Swann fame) about flying, including a short section on travelling to the airport. There's more chance of being in an accident involving a motor vehicle, they say, than one involving an aeroplane.
The airport bus drivers have been given instructions to keep the statistics favourable.
I know the law as it relates to the licence fee; I'm just having trouble discerning what point you're trying to make.
UK law requires you to pay the licence fee in order to legally receive television broadcasting. My gripe is that since no broadcaster other than the BBC benefits from the licence revenue or has the obligations to which you refer, then the viewing of no other broadcaster's output should be subject to payment of the licence fee.
My original post was intended to highlight the responsibilities of the BBC to respond to the needs of the people who have no choice but to pay for their service but may not wish to be locked to a proprietary system. Should I wish to watch a different channel, I should not be financing the BBC. Should I wish to pay the licence fee and benefit from the new technologies, I should not be made to pay again for another product. The fact that these broadcasts are only being made (legally) available to those who have paid the licence fee seems to imply that the viewing functionality is included in the price.
That's what I meant by being forced to pay a licence fee to watch channels other than the BBC. Possibly poor phrasing on my part, but I have no objection to paying for a licence to watch the BBC channels if I did so; however, I shouldn't have to pay the BBC to watch other channels unregulated by them. I do live in England, but haven't read the licence for a while because I don't have one.
But in all honesty, why should the BBC be forced to support more open source? Shouldn't supporting open source be a choice rather than a forced rule?
Why should the British public be forced to pay a licence fee to watch channels other than the BBC? Shouldn't paying for the BBC be a choice rather than a forced rule?
The ten or so people I deem worth communicating with are people I see on a regular basis. I use Facebook to keep an eye on all of the other buggers. You never know what they're up to. I think they're staging a coup.
I make a point of avoiding the places that sell like this because they seem to be run by largely untrained and apathetic staff who don't know how to handle a disk without destroying it. These are the people who use their favourite films as coasters and then wonder why they don't work.
I'd rather the media for which I'm paying money hasn't been lovingly fondled by a teenage moron with seventeen inch painted nails and four scratchy rings from Elizabeth Duke on each finger.
"3. If you run out of bullets, you are requirecd to throw your gun at your foe. You will also never be able to hit him with it."
That was subverted by the latest Bond film, where Bond catches a gun thrown at him and returns it at high speed, whereupon it hits his attacker in the face. I laughed.
Sorry to derail your point. I just like that moment.
"This isn't completely true. You're only obliged to pay the TV license if your equipment is capable of receiving and displaying TV, not for merely owning a TV."
That's still a mite off; you must pay for a TV licence if you use said equipment to receive television signals. This covers display and recording. Of course, you're unlikely to have the rig if you don't plan to use it.
On a ranting note, I'd like to say that I don't mind the licensing. What I mind is the enforcement methods used which deliberately spread misinformation about the powers of the licensing inspectors to scare people into handing over money. Similar to the parent, I don't have a TV connected to an aerial and have informed the licensing scum of this several times. They still keep sending threatening letters. These letters look like final demands, to fool people into thinking that they owe money and are facing a court summons.
Oi! Licensing blokies! You have no legal powers. Get over it.
Rant complete. Your normal programming will now resume.
Amazon is probably one of the most respected online retailers and would probably do better to eat this cost (as you say) rather than risk losing customers through resentment and ill-will.
Anyway, if they play nicely and let the losses go, even more people might pull their browser up at the Amazon store in the hope of an accidental discount.
Though I doubt Stonehenge was built because of that. Wolves are extinct in Britain.
That's cause they killed them all for knocking down early henge attempts.
I've been to visit Woodhenge whilst looking for somewhere to stop and eat sandwiches. It's surprisingly interesting and doesn't have a bloody great fence around it. Obviously, the wood has long since rotted away but it's intriguing to have a peer at.
Slashdot Mirror
We could do with something to be proud of in this country. There's precious little to recommend being English at the moment. Perhaps if we took some inspiration from doing things for the sake of seeing if we can, rather than pandering to the lowest common denominator, then we might be celebrating some acievements instead of closing down universities and screwing up the economy.
The first step in acheiving anything is to make sure you have a base from which to survive. The government seems to be doing its level best to financially cripple everyone with any creativity or skill in this country, those who might drag us back to something resembling prosperity, to help those who should be helping themselves.
Sorry, that turned into rather a rant. Time for a refreshing cup of tea, methinks.
That would be Ernie Hudson, if you're interested. Also seen in 'The Crow'.
That's a lotta nuts! /kungPow
There's a short monologue by Michael Flanders (of Flanders & Swann fame) about flying, including a short section on travelling to the airport. There's more chance of being in an accident involving a motor vehicle, they say, than one involving an aeroplane.
The airport bus drivers have been given instructions to keep the statistics favourable.
No, it isn't, nor has it ever been.
I know the law as it relates to the licence fee; I'm just having trouble discerning what point you're trying to make.
UK law requires you to pay the licence fee in order to legally receive television broadcasting. My gripe is that since no broadcaster other than the BBC benefits from the licence revenue or has the obligations to which you refer, then the viewing of no other broadcaster's output should be subject to payment of the licence fee.
My original post was intended to highlight the responsibilities of the BBC to respond to the needs of the people who have no choice but to pay for their service but may not wish to be locked to a proprietary system. Should I wish to watch a different channel, I should not be financing the BBC. Should I wish to pay the licence fee and benefit from the new technologies, I should not be made to pay again for another product. The fact that these broadcasts are only being made (legally) available to those who have paid the licence fee seems to imply that the viewing functionality is included in the price.
That's what I meant by being forced to pay a licence fee to watch channels other than the BBC. Possibly poor phrasing on my part, but I have no objection to paying for a licence to watch the BBC channels if I did so; however, I shouldn't have to pay the BBC to watch other channels unregulated by them. I do live in England, but haven't read the licence for a while because I don't have one.
Why should the British public be forced to pay a licence fee to watch channels other than the BBC? Shouldn't paying for the BBC be a choice rather than a forced rule?
I'd rather the media for which I'm paying money hasn't been lovingly fondled by a teenage moron with seventeen inch painted nails and four scratchy rings from Elizabeth Duke on each finger.
Jack of all trades,
Master of none;
But oftentimes better
Than master of one.
That was subverted by the latest Bond film, where Bond catches a gun thrown at him and returns it at high speed, whereupon it hits his attacker in the face. I laughed.
Sorry to derail your point. I just like that moment.
That's still a mite off; you must pay for a TV licence if you use said equipment to receive television signals. This covers display and recording. Of course, you're unlikely to have the rig if you don't plan to use it.
On a ranting note, I'd like to say that I don't mind the licensing. What I mind is the enforcement methods used which deliberately spread misinformation about the powers of the licensing inspectors to scare people into handing over money. Similar to the parent, I don't have a TV connected to an aerial and have informed the licensing scum of this several times. They still keep sending threatening letters. These letters look like final demands, to fool people into thinking that they owe money and are facing a court summons.
Oi! Licensing blokies! You have no legal powers. Get over it.
Rant complete. Your normal programming will now resume.
The question should be, "Can it run from Linux?"
Except that when school bullying is being discussed, there is no way to ensure that retribution upon the powerless will not be forthcoming.
American components, Russian components. All made in Taiwan!
I'm all for this e-petition business. It's always nice to have a new forum in which to be ignored by the people who are supposed to be serving you.
Amazon is probably one of the most respected online retailers and would probably do better to eat this cost (as you say) rather than risk losing customers through resentment and ill-will.
Anyway, if they play nicely and let the losses go, even more people might pull their browser up at the Amazon store in the hope of an accidental discount.
You'll have to stave off George Foreman, or he'll try to put his name on it.
You can't fix something if you don't know it's a problem.
That's cause they killed them all for knocking down early henge attempts.
I've been to visit Woodhenge whilst looking for somewhere to stop and eat sandwiches. It's surprisingly interesting and doesn't have a bloody great fence around it. Obviously, the wood has long since rotted away but it's intriguing to have a peer at.
Actually, it's just bankers' rounding to the nickel expressed in the strangest manner I've ever seen.
Are you suggesting that believing what the media tells you is a good idea?
Apparently breasts aren't protected anyway. The article states that the imaging obfuscates the face, groin and armpits.
Ah, there you go, then. They need to get them from Nintendo, not try to grow them on an allotment.