 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25/01/2011 10:47 AM, Invisible wrote:
>> You don't have to prove you're not using iPlayer, they will prove if you
>> *are* using it!
>
> In other words, they will say "you possess a device capable of watching
> TV, give us your money".
From
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/technology-top8/
Many TV channels are now available to watch over the internet. If you’re
watching programmes on a computer or laptop as they're being shown on
TV, then you need a TV Licence. However, you don’t need to be covered by
a licence if you’re only using ‘on-demand’ services to watch programmes
after they have been shown on TV. So, you need a licence to watch any
channel live online, *but you wouldn’t need one to use BBC iPlayer to
catch up on an episode of a programme you missed, for example.*
Does that explain it?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25/01/2011 11:05 AM, Stephen wrote:
> If you’re
> watching programmes on a computer or laptop as they're being shown on
> TV, then you need a TV Licence. However, you don’t need to be covered by
> a licence if you’re only using ‘on-demand’ services to watch programmes
> after they have been shown on TV.
You need a license to watch it live but you don't need one at all to
watch it 10 minutes later? That's just bizarre.
Never the less, I don't /need/ a license, but I will still be forced to
pay for one anyway because I cannot *prove* that I don't watch TV.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Yeah. I imagine that playing Call of Duty might produce light level
> changes that look rather like Secrets of World War II from outside the
> building...
They won't correlate with any live channel though, more precisely the
exact timings between scene changes (where the light level often
suddenly changes) on the live signal won't match with the light changes
from your window. Sure one or two *might* line up exactly, but they sit
there for several minutes to make sure beyond any reasonable doubt.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25/01/2011 11:16 AM, scott wrote:
>> Yeah. I imagine that playing Call of Duty might produce light level
>> changes that look rather like Secrets of World War II from outside the
>> building...
>
> They won't correlate with any live channel though, more precisely the
> exact timings between scene changes (where the light level often
> suddenly changes) on the live signal won't match with the light changes
> from your window. Sure one or two *might* line up exactly, but they sit
> there for several minutes to make sure beyond any reasonable doubt.
Let's hope that the statistics actually works that well then...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25/01/2011 11:13 AM, Invisible wrote:
> You need a license to watch it live but you don't need one at all to
> watch it 10 minutes later? That's just bizarre.
>
> Never the less, I don't /need/ a license, but I will still be forced to
> pay for one anyway because I cannot *prove* that I don't watch TV.
You don’t need to prove that you aren’t watching live TV programmes.
They need to prove that you are. It goes to court if you want and the
burden of proof is on the authorities.
Not all of the world is out to get you. :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> I hear you, and statistically it makes sense. (Even if *nobody* replies,
> what have you lost?) But it still mystifies me that anybody could
> actually believe that a multi-billion dollar transaction could just
> randomly land in their inbox like that...
By far the best programming instructor I've ever had gave notoriously difficult
exams. One could, however, receive five extra points (that's half of a grade
difference)for writing the following, verbatim, at the top of the test page:
The statement "No one could possibly be that stupid," is universally false.
Best Regards,
Mike C.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> The problem isn't that companies are making stuff impossible to copy.
> The problem is that companies *cannot* make stuff impossible to copy.
Tell that to the Grateful Dead.
>>> Yeah, pretty much. I gather zero-day cracks are a relished challenge
>>> for some people. (Then again, most of the DRM I've seen surely can't
>>> be *that* hard to crack in the first place...)
>>
>> You would be surprised. Almost every crack of modern DRM requires
>> someone to void their warranty.
>
> Heh, like a cracker is going to give a damn about a warranty.
Right. But if *everyone* had to do it to use the DRM-free content, you'd see
far fewer pirated movies and games out there.
> Where have they voided a warranty?
Again, I'm not talking about pure-software DRM. I'm talking about things
like game consoles or e-readers.
>>> So the encrypted link from the graphics
>>> card to the monitor is a completely seperate cryptosystem from the
>>> encryption on the disk (or whatever).
>>
>> Yes? And your point is?
>
> Your monitor doesn't decrypt the disk. Your PC does.
In secure hardware, yes.
>> Sure. If they're stored in the silicon, that's not going to be easy to
>> get out.
>
> Not easy, for sure. But still possible, in essence.
I'm not arguing that.
>>> People paying money for computer systems that purposely prevent them
>>> doing stuff? Not gonna be popular. :-P
>>
>> Game consoles? Blu-ray players? DVD players? No, none of those are
>> popular at all.
>
> Last time I checked, a DVD player isn't a "computer system".
Wow. You really think so?
Shit, man, my TV runs Linux. My TV takes longer to boot than my XBox does.
> Oh, you and I know there's a computer in there. But to most people, it's
> just a player, like a cassette machine is just a player.
But the people who don't know there's a computer in the DVD player aren't
the people who will be cracking the DRM on DVD disks, is it?
> (FWIW, *my* cassette machine actually has a computer in it. Not joking.)
So does my vacuum cleaner. Figure that one out. (And not even the vacuum
part. Just the power head. $75 to replace the computer in the brush.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> the exact type of headlight bulb my car needs,
Fun fact: When I was first driving, cars had one of two types of headlights:
square, or round. If you needed new headlight, you went into the store and
said "I need a square headlight" and they'd sell it to you and it would fit.
(Square was actually rectangular, but people just said square. :-)
> If you ask about Bach, they look at you as if you're slightly strange.
I went into one store to see if there was any new Jarre out. Since Jarre
didn't have an apprpriate category, you had to figure out if he was in
classical, jazz, electronic, or what. So I get in line behind another older
woman to ask the young girl working there where Jarre would be.
Older woman: "Where would you have Beethoven's Ninth?"
Girl: "Beethoven's Ninth what?"
Older woman, a bit stunned: "Beethoven's Ninth *Symphony*!"
Girl: "Oh, symphonies are classical. They're over there."
Girl, to me: "Can I help you?"
Me: "I seriously doubt it."
>> That is a model that should also work on the internet (and not only for
>> records but also for books and fashion), yet I have the feeling that it
>> won't.
>
> I have a feeling you're right about that.
The problem is that nobody will pay for it. Would you pay $1 for such a
recommendation? Would you pay to subscribe to a web site for such
recommendations? Would you pay an extra $2 on the price of the CD to buy it
from the site that recommended it, or would you go to the cheapest available
price? Would you believe the recommendations of a site that uses
advertising of music to support itself?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Well, since it's impossible to know how many people are listening at any
> given instant in time,
It's possible to get close.
And I believe it's actually charged on the number of people in range of the
station. I.e., based on population densities and antenna power.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/24/2011 3:09 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 12:56:14 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>> It's a bit like the old argument over TV adverts. Some people skip 'em,
>> but many TV channels couldn't exist without those adverts.
>
> Personally, I don't buy that argument, though. One of the ideas behind
> cable TV here in the US was that since people paid a subscription fee,
> advertisers weren't needed to support the programming.
>
Course.. If all we paid was a subscription fee we would be watching the
"Nazi tomb of Jesus: In stop motion", instead of 15 different programs
running from "The Tomb of Jesus.", to, "Nazi month of History Channel",
to, "The people with fat dogs reality show", to the new, "Vatican
Exorcism Chronicles". Wait.. What was my point again?
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
