7 posts • joined 5 Nov 2007
...shame on ITV for only providing ITV HD on Freesat. I'll remember that when they hold their hand out for a chunk of licence fee payers money too.
I think this is the first time on the Register that I've agreed with every single comment preceeding mine! :-)
Re: 'bout time
Sky DO have a regulator - it is OFCOM who regulate all commercial communication enterprises (tv, radio, mobile phones, etc, etc.) in the UK.
Also, there is nothing stopping anyone other than Sky broadcasting satellite channels in the UK. Don't forget BSB tried and failed - a shame as they were technically far superior to Sky - yet customers weren't prepared to invest.
Where Sky have a monopoly is in how they operate and control their Electronic Programme Guide - who can get listed, positioning of channels, etc. Then again, you could argue that Virgin have exactly the same monopoly of the Virgin Media Electronic Programme Guide.
Batten down the hatches
There is more to science than a pretty picture.
Would you say the same thing about Voyagers 1 and 2, Cassini or Gallileo or were they a waste of time and money too, because - hey - there was nothing useful or interesting found on those missions was there?
I think it my duty to inform you that the New Horizons Mission will also be a "multi-billion" dollar waste of time to visit a boring "planet" and it's equally boring "moon" because they will look very much like the image from Mercury. Sorry to disappoint you.
Course I could be wrong and there might be a Borg listening post there and then we really will be in the sh*t!
HD is great.
Well I went HD earlier in the year when Sky ran a special offer of free installation and £100 off the HD box.
I love it - HD is excellent.
I don't like the extra tenner a month, but you pays your money and takes your choice. Sky has the best line up of HD channels out there, and the quality is excellent.
More HD content and channels please...
Wheelie Bins, etc.
Hey, a debate! :-) I would prefer to pay a flat fee for my rubbish collection. That's my own view. It's much simpler and overall fairer - everyone is on a level playing field. We are not going to get a reduction in council tax if pay as you throw is implemented, the money will be used to fund other shortfalls in council budgets.
Just consider for a moment... What does everyone imagine will happen when people have to pay as they throw?
There you are with your half empty bin. There is your neighbour with a full bin and some more to throw out. So they go round looking for empty bins in the street and dump their rubbish in those (yours) and therefore you with your half-empty bin will pay more for the extra rubbish that's not yours which is now filling up your bin!
Yeah, that's fair and reasonable!
The solution = lockable wheelie bins.
Would the last person to leave the country, please turn out the light?
And anyway, the actual effort to empty a bin is the same no matter how full it is isn't it? One still has to pay for the lovely bin men/women to come round even if there is no bin to empty? The only difference is the amount collected, so where is the financial benefit?
I couldn't agree more with you.
Slightly off-topic, but it's a damn shame I can't fit my wheelie-bin in the microwave to stop all this blimmin' nonsense!
- +Comment Anti-Facebook Ello: Here's why we're still in beta. SPAMGASM!
- Vid+Pics Microsoft WINDOWS 10: Seven ATE Nine. Or Eight did really
- Analysis Windows 10: One for the suits, right Microsoft? Or so one THOUGHT
- Xbox hackers snared US ARMY APACHE GUNSHIP ware - Feds
- George Clooney, WikiLeaks' lawyer wife hand out burner phones to wedding guests