Price and launch date removed. Mobile Computer has screenshots:
19 posts • joined 3 May 2007
"Getting behind the wheel when pissed should be classed as attempted murder."
That does have a neat logic to it. Under these guidelines someone who glances at their phone to see who's calling and then mows down an old lady crossing the street will be done for causing death by careless driving and could go down for three years. Someone who glances down at their phone and is spotted by a police officer but causes no accident is liable to an on the spot fine of £60 and three points on their license - yet both people have done exactly the same thing. That was why so many people avoided jail in cases of careless driving (as opposed to dangerous driving or driving under the influence, which are more serious) because the law used to be based on punishing the deed. Now it's based on punishing the consequences of that deed, which is probably less 'just' but satisfies our vengeance culture. The flipside would be to punish every careless driver with prison - but then that's probably unworkable, even in this prison happy country.
But it does surprise me how many people in officialdom dream up supposed restrictions on photography. 'Can't take pics of your child playing rugby in the park' or 'in the school play' for instance, because the school/club would need the permission of every parent, etc. Utter nonsense. Anyone in a public area is fair game for having their picture taken - in fact they regular are being photographed thanks to the proliferation of CCTV cameras. I don't remember any councils getting permission slips from every parent and adult. Would be fun if they tried.
Presumably your mobile also makes you look like a twat who thinks they're so important they can't possibly be out of *phone* contact with the office for more than a nanosecond.
I for one use mobile broadband to get freelance work done when I'm away from home. Very useful. And no, I don't feel like a twat for doing it.
As for trying to browse the web on a mobile phone - try Opera.
>The strength of their case seems to hinge on whether signs for private road should have been ignored. But what if the photos had been taken from a low flying plane? The road being private does not necessarily preserve the privacy of property on that road as they could hardly claim the sign covered airspace!
Actually, that's how the press in the UK get around the problem of taking photos of houses, etc, that can't be seen from public land. They regularlty hire helicopters and planes to get the overhead shots of stars' homes and so on. A no-fly zone is the only way around it.
I really have no complaints about DAB, owning two sets and a portable, which I listen to regularly. I like the choice of stations available and the ease of tuning.
On another point, the BBC doesn't advertise DAB as the only way of receiving digital radio. It goes out of its way to point out the many different ways you can listen. Eg, the Five Live stab "On DAB digital radio, digital TV, downloads and online, this is 5 Live". Pretty comprehensive, wouldn't you say?
To assert that OFCOM/the BBC/the Government should have waited for DAB+/Internet radio/direct telepathy is an argument that can always be made. Whichever technology is adopted, there will always be something better 'just around the corner'. In the end you just have to pick a moment to adopt what's available and go for it. I'd say DAB's been a success. Sure there are now better technologies out there but DAB does the job and it'll serve its purpose until we all move on to whatever the next standard becomes. Register or no Register.
"Why fix what wasn't broken? They had DRM, it was restricted to UK only IP addresses, that was the only DRM needed and it worked fine."
This isn't the only DRM that's needed - the BBC needs to ensure that downloads aren't kept for more than 30 days.
"It's the *extra* *crappy* *Microsoft* DRM that causes all the problems. It has never worked anyway, and just makes it difficult to play on all sorts of non Microsoft devices. Largely because Microsoft refuses to disclose how it works doing it's usual attempt at platform lockin."
Microsoft's DRM may be crappy but it's the only way the BBC can ensure its digital rights commitments are met
"Sure UK Linux users could play the files, but then UK Linux users also pay the TV license. So what's the problem with that?"
The problem was that people could keep the downloads and share them around the world. Being a license payer does not entitle you to take DVDs from the BBC Shop and send copies of them to your mates - exactly what people were effectively doing with the iPhone hack.
"Look at it this way, they delivered it in a standard format, Linux users put together a player within a few days. So set top boxes, and UK Tivos and games consoles and networked video players would all be able to play that content, and just like the Linux guys could add support very very quickly.
"This is exactly what the BBC wants!"
And they're working on it. The BBC's said all along that it wants to be on as many formats as possible. It's rolling iPlayer out as fast as technology and resources will allow.
"The IP address restriction is all the DRM they need. It restricts the digital rights to the UK IP addresses without restricting it to Microsoft computers only, which is exactly what is required.
"Ditch the *Microsoft* DRM, keep the IP address verification DRM."
See above. Simple IP restrictions aren't sufficient.
And finally, will people stop whining that they've paid their TV license so are entitled to walk into the BBC archives and take what they want. The TV license does not pay enough for the BBC to pay production companies to hand over all rights to content and paste it up for free. Given that most BBC output is now made by independent producers (at the Government's request) I cannot ever see the BBC simply giving away stuff to everyone. The iPlayer service is fantastic and comes at no extra cost to license payers. Why the hell can't people just be satisfied with the excellent service they're getting instead of constantly whining that they're not being given something for nothing?
"These stations also embarrass the BBC, whose own lacklustre local radio stations too often appear to serve as a home for washed-up Alan Partridges. When given the choice, people prefer listening to real people, rather than the patronising "local" voice of the BBC."
What pure and utter twaddle. Commercial radio is designed to be tapwater - exactly the same whenever you turn it on. Innovation is almost universally lacking from radio bosses who prefer to stick to tried and tested Hot 40 formats rather than invest in a local sound and discovering new music.
People have plenty of choice - and listening figures show that a good many of them choose to listen to well-produced, local-centric, public-service broadcasting. ie BBC local radio.
Jeesh - the Beeb comes up with a truly innovative product that works. Gives it to license payers for free and everyone bashes them for it.
Linux users need to chill. A version is in the pipeline and I don't see anyone else getting flamed for not producing a Linux version of their *free* software.
We the British people haven't paid for it. We've paid for the bit that gets aired on BBC1/2/34 and then cast on iPlayer for a week. The programmes are then resold on to other countries or sold on DVD, Apple TV downloads, etc. This pays a substantial amount of the production cost. Remove this revenue stream and your license fee will either soar or the quality of output will plummet. Just because someone's taken TV programmes and placed them on the Internet doesn't mean they should be free for everyone to pinch. DRM does sometimes have its place.
This isn't new and has been offered by other networks for some time. For example, Vodafone's Pay Monthly Sim-pack offers:
* Fantastic savings on our standard pay monthly price plans
* 30-day contract
* Keep your existing phone
(Taken from the Vodafone website)
ie. exactly the same as this 'unique' O2 offering.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020