Request.
When something is "not very good" (and I agree that this sounds "not very good") is it possible to provide links to alternatives that are less "not very good"? Thanks.
882 publicly visible posts • joined 14 Jul 2009
@Nigel Whitfield
Ah. I thought Sky/Virgin PVRs time limited pay-per-view and premium stuff? I might well be wrong.
The basic point remains though, I think: they would all prefer you to use their own boxes and services so that they retain some control over what you can watch and when rather than having you record and horde it all yourself.
@Chet Mannly
You seem to be under the impression that TV license payers somehow own the rights to the material produced by the BBC. Is that your argument?
Could you point me at the items of UK copyright law that lead you to this impression? Because as far as I can tell it is complete and utter bunkum. The TV license is a hypothecated tax, it isn't a share ownership scheme or mutual cooperative*.
Take a different example. Many countries (including the US and the UK) have a variety of hypothecated taxes that pay for the transport infrastructure. No matter how much of that tax you pay, you don't personally own any of the asphalt. If the government decides to use the system in a different way or charge for it in a different way then you don't get a free slice. You just get to vote for or against them at the next election.
(* it might be in Cuba, say, but somehow I don't think you live in Cuba)
Good grief. I'm wondering how many times this point needs to be reiterated in the same thread. I'm going to have a wild guess at thirty times. I think we're already in double figures.
Paying for something once in one format does not mean you have a god-given right to receive it free in every other medium that exists or is yet to be invented.
I paid to see Star Wars in the cinema. It is older than most of the material the BBC is talking about making available with this new service. Should it be placed in the public domain? Should I be given the latest 3D blu ray for free? Derp derp a herp di derp derp. Herp derp?
"iPlayer catch-up is provided as a bonus"
A cynic might suggest that the various catch-up services (including the branded PVRs that time limit recordings) are designed to dissuade people from buying unrestricted PVRs and keeping copies of recorded telly forever and ever and ever.
The current consensus is that the medieval warm period was scattered across the globe but that the warming was not global.
This new data proposes a new local data point where that medieval warm period might have occurred.
To interpret that as "new science contradicts IPCC" is either dishonest or illiterate.
@Sean Timarco Baggaley
You might want to read the original articles rather than Lewis's version before arguing against a straw man and posting a smug "fail" icon. The statistics relate to century-level flood events; this is NOT about the sea gradually creeping up the shore. Hurricane Katrina cost over $100 billion. The ongoing costs for protecting against a similar event in New Orleans will increase personal taxes/insurance in the order of several hundred dollars per year based on current sea levels. Increasing sea levels will increase the likelihood of this type of event and increase the ongoing cost of defending against it.
Do you really think the economies of coastal US will consider this negligible?
... when you misrepresent their output to make it sound more alarming.
The ranges given in that paper 1.25-10mm p/a over twenty years or 2.5-12mm p/a over forty years. Those appear to match pretty well with the aggregate estimates from the first half dozen recent studies brought up by google scholar. Can you explain why you think they're exaggerated?
The study is also talking about flooding from rare (once per century) flooding events rather than a slow and inexorable rise swallowing up houses. I'm not really sure what's so controversial about that either.
I've no idea where they're going with the estimates of number of houses though. I'm pretty certain the inhabitants of those areas of Florida already realise they live at sea level. That's why they retired to the beach.
@Thing
Horsetwaddle. Science uses precise classification because clarity and organisation is absolutely critical in the sharing of complex knowledge. It doesn't matter a jot whether the classifications are arbitrary or intrinsic. What matters is that scientists understand one another without having to write a paragraph-long explanation each time they employ a poorly-defined term.
And I struggle to understand why anybody would choose a netbook over a fondleslab now that they're equipped with relatively meaty processors and grown-up applications/OSs.
It's almost as if people have different tastes and needs.
For most on-the-go applications, screen stroking is a better user experience than key poking. Particularly on the hobbit-size keyboards of a typical netbook.
The Highway Code says don't drink while you're driving. Miserable do-gooders with their sensible advice that's been consistently lowering road deaths for the past umpty years. It's no wonder we lost the empire blummin immigrants can't even sing baa baa black sheep harumph etc.
I'm torn here. On the one hand I'm an easy going chap and believe that people should have as much freedom as society can sensibly allow to make decisions about their lives.
On the other hand, if you enjoy spending time in a tin box sipping tepid coffee then you're an idiot and should probably just donate yourself to the nearest A&E department to patch up somebody who is making proper use of their mortality.