Sean
On a point of information:
'Freeview' is free, there is no subscription. That's why its called Freeview.....
|
Aprilia,
What is free?
Last time I looked, you could get a Freeview set top box for £90 and a Sky system installed for £100. The BBC would then supply you with a free to air smart card and you needed to pay nothing extra for the same channels you would get on freeview.
No such thing as a free lunch, but not really the point I was making.
This was more along the lines of "another one buys in haste"
|
The free to air (Solus) cards on $ky will cease soon:
"This card will also cease to function when SKY change their encryption again in the future. We are not able to say at this time how long the dark blue card will continue to function; we will provide further information when it becomes available. When this card ceases to function you will lose ITV, Channel Four, and Channel Five, unless you start subscribing to a pay-TV package."
extracted from
www.bbc.co.uk/reception/dsat_card_never_sky.shtml
As you say
>>No such thing as a free lunch
|
|
|
Sean
The sting in the tail is that sooner or later you will HAVE to go digital, as the analogue service is going to be disabled.
|
" the analogue service is going to be disabled"
2010 at that earliest, and probably a lot later if the 90% coverage required for digital proves difficult to implement. I live in an area that requires a high-gain aerial to receive analogue, and digital is completely unavailable without a dirty digger dish, and I've no wish to line his pockets.
|
|
|
Absolutely right, RF.
I (we) believe that the BBC is breaching it's charter. Your licence fee permits you to receive all their channels by paying for it.
You should have no need to pay Sky, Freeview or anyone else.
People in remote, hilly places, like Wales and Scotland can only receive BBC progs on Sky. Steps have been taken to provide free viewing there.
A chap refused to pay for a TV licence. He quoted the relevant EU directive which said that nobody could prevent him receiving broadcast information.
It went to County Court.
The BBC turned up with 8 barristers, and it's still adjourned.
I don't recall the Article, but it is clearly defined. Why on earth are we still paying licence fees? And Freeview/ sky charges on top.
The last folks who brushed with the Gov't were the miners. where are they now?
David Kelly / BBC.
Where will they be. Review of BBC charter underway now.
Watch this space.
To bring it back to motoring, our UK Co. is Rover.
How would you feel if you couldn't drive/ ride anything on the road unless you paid Rover £100 odd per year?
Meet the BBC. You can watch nothing unless....
|
|
In view of the huge number of repeats/repeats of repeats, it should be sufficient when the licence reminder arrives to respond 'but I paid last year'.
|
|
|
You should have no need to pay Sky, Freeview or anyone else.
You don't pay a subscription for Freeview: you just buy a set top box or a television with a built in digital receiver. I don't see how this is any worse than needing a different aerial in the early days of BBC2, or a different radio to receive FM stations.
|
Why is it people are prepared to pay thirty-odd quid a month for basic Sky services* but object to paying £120 per year or whatever it is for the BBC with its multiple radio channels, multiple TV channels, excellent web service etc etc. The BBC makes CNN look like a bunch of blokes in their garden shed fiddling with a crystal set. It seems like good value to me anyway. And as for buying a freeview receiver, well you have to have some kind of receiver don't you? TV and radio are not free in that sense are they? Very few of us can receive radio signals of any kind using just a cornflakes packet and a garden spade (I was struggling until I realised I had to point the handle of the spade towards Jupiter).
*I have no idea what the actual charge is as I have no interest in Sky.
|
|
I pay Sky 18.50 a month; which I think is pink fluffy dice excessive considering the level of advertising. Personally I would swap to Freeview tomorrow; but the rest of the family would be up in arms about the 80 channels of carp they can't watch anymore. Yes I do agree the BBC is extremely good value when compared with Sky.
|
|
|
We seem to be way off beam here but where I live we have lost all respect for BBC World TV because of it's prejudiced war reporting from Iraq, its blatant anti-American stance and clearly left wing bias, and its PC pandering. Its odious HardTalk interviews are gruesome to watch. I understand that most BBC staff have never held any other job in the real world and I can certainly see why. Their best reporters, Charles Hodson, Richard something, Veronica Pedroza, several more, you see them all on CNN now.
I'll take the O'Reilly Factor on Fox. Love it or hate it, it's good viewing.
|
We seem to be way off beam here but where I live we have lost all respect for BBC World TV because of it's prejudiced war reporting from Iraq, its blatant anti-American stance and clearly left wing bias, and its PC pandering.
It's very odd that while the Tories were in power they complained endlessly about BBC bias against them, and now Labour are in power they do the same. Sounds like balance to me. In common with most of the British public sector BBC salaries are in general much lower than in the private sector, but their training schemes are second to none, which is why the reporters are headhunted. The Hutton Inquiry will no doubt show whether the BBC's scepticism was appropriate. I'd much rather a news service was sceptical about governments anyway.
My experience of American TV news is always frustrating and depressing. Most Americans agree and don't watch it.
|
I'm not talking about political bias, I'm talking about one-sided reporting. Scepticism is one thing, openly taking sides is something else. If you watched that Rageeh Omar and Lise Doucette on the roof of the Al Rashid Hotel in Baghdad you'd have thought the Iraqis had the coalition forces by the short and curlies. I was wondering at one point if the BBC would recruit Comical Ali as well. IT was very clear the BBC reporters were playing to an agenda.
Instead of factual reporting you got these daft questions from that strident Anisha Pillai or Mike Embling in London asking "How would you describe the mood there now?" Then we have the insufferably pompous John Simpson who is the equivalent of the Independent's Brian Fisk, who is treated as the walking encyclopedia and resident guru. I don't care I can flip the channels, but let me say that the serious veteran expats of this world who've been around a bit don't have a lot of time for the liberal arts graduate limp-wristed approach.
CNN beats BBC any time in a real-time reporting situation. They cut their teeth on it in Gulf War One. We were in the middle of that.
As an HR man if the BBC training schemes are second to none thus causing their best people to be head-hunted, then they've got some major disconnects in their manpower planning process. Face it, the BBC is hopelessly politicised, as current events are once again showing. If it was Fox News it is commercial and can take aby stance it wants. Buit teh BBC used to be the world paragon of impartial professional reliable reporting. That stopped about 7-8 years ago. Under its recent incompetent and pliable leadership it has pandered to whatever pressure is the most pressing. In violation of its charter it has also, and continues to do so, played politics itself.
|
I'm not talking about political bias, I'm talking about one-sided reporting.
OK, I misinterpreted you, but let me say that they were top notch compared with ITV. As for Rageh Omah there was one clip that slipped past the Iraqis where the cameraman "slipped" and we had a glimpse of Comical Ali's henchmen pointing guns right at them. Then there was the shot of Ali telling us the Americans were not in Baghdad at which point the camera moved slightly to reveal an American tank right behind him. Biased maybe, but we knew why, don't make any mistake about that. There was a lot of debate at the time over whether "embedded" journalists were a good thing. I seem to remember one of them (not sure if BBC) being torn off a strip by the Americans for saying some of the troops were homesick. Hardly surprising news I'd have thought.
As an HR man if the BBC training schemes are second to none thus causing their best people to be head-hunted, then they've got some major disconnects in their manpower planning process.
They'd agree with you, as would the rest of the public sector--mostly it's to do with pay. But come the next recession it will all go the other way with people clamouring to get back in. Trouble is, recent "reforms" have changed things quite a bit and they won't be able to: most of the BBC's output is produced independently now anyway.
Faceit, the BBC is hopelessly politicised, as current events are once again showing.
Well maybe but they are standing up pretty strongly to the government just now, making them justify themselves in public, and I applaud them for that. Our parliament has singularly failed to do the same.
>>If it was Fox News it is commercial andcan take aby stance it wants.
In theory. Commercial companies usually take the side of (or are at least easiest on) whichever political force they think will benefit them most (pace Murdoch and Thatcher), whether that is Tony Blair, George Bush, or indeed Saddam Hussain--there's plenty of evidence throughout history of that. As I say, many BBC employees would agree with you. But nevertheless in Britain the BBC has gained a lot of praise for the way it has confronted Blair, Bush and their apparent lies. Of course the BBC is about far more than news.
|
Gentlemen,
Enough please. This is not the place for such a discussion and its gone far enough.
Thank you.
Mark.
|
There was a time when the BBC World Service on radio was the absolute paragon of news reporting. In the several wars, coups and one revolution which I somehow found my way into, the World Service was the link with reality. VOA was almost as good but not quite. Embassies are usually worse than useless in serving their compatriots when trouble strikes and the radio was the medium bar none. What you get now is bread and circuses along with sexed-up** news to meet ratings targets.
** you can't edit that out Moddies, it's almost OED material by now....
Anyway some motoring trivia. Our Peso is down to 55.5 to the USD or 89 to the £. Marvellous because everything is cheaper for us pensioners when the Eagle flies every 30th of the month. Bad news: our gas has shot up to 24.7p a litre (sorry about that) but best of all the gov't has reorganised taxation on vehicles to help the little man, so that vehicles costing about £7,900 or less, that would be a Lynx or a Honda City, now only attract 2% VAT. Of course we know Gloria is working up towards next year's elections and the small guys' votes are what count (that's if they ever manage to count them right and not "lose" any). Several bank robberies lately, that's always a sign elections are coming up, the candidates need campaign funds and the Army on their side, so the army and the cops help out with the heists and get their cut.
Meanwhile the traffic is as bad as ever, the beer is icy-cold and the women are lovely. Bafta knows this, he's got one too.
On the Economist BIg Mac Index that makes the price of a McDo Combo Meal exactly £1, so it's cheaper than ever to grease up.
|
Nice try Growler, but.....
"In this thread you may ask any question for which you need help, advice, suggestions or whatever.
It does not need to be motoring related. In fact, in this thread it should not be."
quoted from the thread header note.
|
I'm in the process of upgrading my works email system from Exchange 5.5 to Exchange 2000. I plan to put a firewall in front of everything to weed out spam and provide some sort of anti virus protection. The spam filtering is the most important aspect to me, as we are already well covered virus-wise by McAfee.
Can anyone recommend a hardware (or software) firewall that works with Exchange and has excellent filtering options.
Alternatively, is there a plug in for Exchange that will do the same job?
Thanks in advance...
|
Outlook 2002 has Junk email filtering capabilities (see office.microsoft.com/assistance/9798/junkmail.aspx) and I expect that earlier versions (and Outlook Express) have something similar.
You can also use rules you create yourself to manage all inbound mail (straight to the bin if required)
However professional spammers will no doubt find ways around any filter, so don't expect 100% spam free mail.
You could always implement rules in your mail client, then also have a third party product, which may give you higher success.
Personally I receive about 50 junk mail items a day, but have never tried automatic removal, It doesn't take long to scan and delete.
|
Probably not practical on a 50 user network with varying degrees of ability and involvement though.
May I suggest www.cloudmark.com I've been using the home version although I'm not too happy about it being on a monthly subscription, which it wasn't when it was launched.
It does work pretty well though and is server side. I think 90% claims are a bit optimistic, although 75% is realistic.
|
Has anyone any idea where I could get copies?
On my cable I have 2 S. African movie channels which have been showing a series of first class modern history political dramas re-enacted. The first one I saw was "Conspiracy", an account of the notorious n*** Wannsee conference. I was quick enough to get this on VHS, but I'd like a better copy.
The next was a re-enactment of the Bay of Pigs missile crisis under JFK and I caught another halfway through on the Al Haig powerplay in the White House right after the Reagan shooting in 1980.
The unfolding of events in these is really compulsive viewing, they are superbly produced and enhanced by very credible lookalikes for the characters involved. I believe these may have been produced in Britain, perhaps in conjunction with one of the TV channels.
I looked through Amazon but I don't have enough info to make any sense.
If anyone has info on these or where I could get copies, I'd appreciate it. Out here we're region 3 DVD and NTSC video so that might be a problem but I could probably get converted copies.
|
Growler, for info on films try the Internet Movie Database run by Amazon at www.imdb.com. Also included, amongst other items, are made-for-TV films, straight-to-video stuff and TV series.
"Conspiracy" is listed at www.imdb.com/title/tt0266425/
and is available on Region 1 DVD. (Looks good.)
The Bay of Pigs missile crisis has been covered by several films but you may have seen "Thirteen days" with Kevin Costner which is also rather good.
As for the Reagan one, try a "word search" here: www.imdb.com/search
The IMDB is IMO the best site on the internet (after this one, of course). The site is rather US biased due to the user demographic but if you "filter" that out the site shows the possibility of what the www can offer. For stuff you find missing from the database you can even add it yourself (as I have done). It gets checked by IMDB staff and, if valid, gets added.
Are you saying you don't have a multi-region DVD??? I am surprised ;-)
Oh, and BTW, I think ROBERT Fisk (not his less well known cousin, Brian) is the best writer on the Middle East I have come across.
|
That's helpful, thanks I'll start there. Actually I'm too much of a "kuripot" (Filipino for Cheap Charlie) to buy a multi-region player, most of what discs I buy are pirated VCD's as opposed to DVD's anyway. I think Sony make too much money and a bit of help to the Third World doesn't hurt.....beside we should support local products hehe.
Yes I know the Costner one. The one I saw was gritty, made around more or less unknown actors, thus was the better for it and more believable and very authentic (y'see I'm old enough to remember this stuff :-0)
Fisk is hopeless. Fails totally to appreciate the realities of the ME, another bleeding heart. He should get a job with the BBC. But that's another story. Mark Steyn is the one to read.
Thanks again for the info.
|
|
pulling the volumes together
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
