100 programming days to fix clock
-
@SEMI-HYBRID code said:
@Lorne Kates said:
ÂLet's argue about date formats!
YYYY-MM-DD HH
ss
2013-06-06 20:02:30any other format inevitably and intrinsically makes less sense (within the context of this planet). end of discussion.
 Except for RTL languages which should use ss
HH DD-MM-YYYYÂ Â <ducking an running>
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@lucas said:
@morbiuswilters said:
Ironically, most real casinos in the US don't have clocks or windows, because they don't want you to realize how long you've been there.
I think that is because the UK Government regulate the fuck out of the gambling industry. There are "gamble aware" adverts in the UK.
We regulate it a lot, too (we don't even have Internet gambling, dude) but where it is allowed it's basically a free-for-all.
If/When it does open up, they are ready to jump across the pond.
Â
-
@Lorne Kates said:
On the flipside, what the fuck is up with forums and shit removing the timestamp from forum posts? I don't care if it was posted "About 8 hours ago", or "2-May". If I read a post that says "holy shit, did you just feel that earthquake", I want the server timestamp as to when it was posted. If "how many hours ago" is so fucking important, then display both for those who can't do 12/24 hour math. "Posted 2 May 2013, 07:45:25 (about 8 hours ago)"
 Just reply to the post you are curious about...it shows the time of the original post. So, available, but not easily discoverable.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
My point was that every few years Republicans get this bug up their ass about PBS and then proceed to completely fuck themselves over. With all the examples of appalling shit the government is doing, they go on the attack against Sesame Street (and while I am iffy on government funding for public broadcasting, you can do a lot worse with government money than on a program that teaches kids to count and read.. for example, nearly every other use of government money, ever..)
Yes, absolutely. I just love to quote Thomas Sowell. Sesame Street is a horrible example of something that would die if PBS went away. It makes huge amounts of money. They have shows on other networks, and I have no doubt they could find another home. And that's before the merchandising extravaganza.
@morbiuswilters said:
Seriously, I don't even care that much about PBS. I think it's an okay use of public funds, at least compared to the other shit that goes on. (Although I'd cut NPR in a heartbeat because it's nothing but government money being spent on a big-government cheer section. It's fucking sick and retarded.) How about tackling some big fish, like the $700 billion in defense spending or fucking food stamps or Medicare or SS. (If I was in charge of the Federal budget, it would be $300 billion /year, and half of that would be defense.)
I generally agree with that. It's actually something that many people come into contact with. Or used to. I have no idea if I can even watch PBS on FiOS. It's probably in there somewhere...But again, it's a great example of how we can't even cut stupid small things. The big things will eventually cause a crisis and they'll either go away or the whole thing will crumble. So, they practically fix themselves!
@morbiuswilters said:
(BTW, this wasn't really directed at you, but was just a general rant about how much I hate the GOP.)
I hear that. Semi-related...I saw a Perot '92 bumper sticker the other day that looked like it was nearly new. I wonder if that guy kept his car in storage or just saved up the stickers so he could put new ones on after elections.
-
@lucas said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@lucas said:
@morbiuswilters said:
Ironically, most real casinos in the US don't have clocks or windows, because they don't want you to realize how long you've been there.
I think that is because the UK Government regulate the fuck out of the gambling industry. There are "gamble aware" adverts in the UK.
We regulate it a lot, too (we don't even have Internet gambling, dude) but where it is allowed it's basically a free-for-all.
If/When it does open up, they are ready to jump across the pond.
It used to be legal, but was shut down a few years ago. I somewhat doubt it's going to be back anytime soon, but if it does, there will probably be some restriction that limits it to domestic companies.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@lucas said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@lucas said:
@morbiuswilters said:
Ironically, most real casinos in the US don't have clocks or windows, because they don't want you to realize how long you've been there.
I think that is because the UK Government regulate the fuck out of the gambling industry. There are "gamble aware" adverts in the UK.
We regulate it a lot, too (we don't even have Internet gambling, dude) but where it is allowed it's basically a free-for-all.
If/When it does open up, they are ready to jump across the pond.
It used to be legal, but was shut down a few years ago. I somewhat doubt it's going to be back anytime soon, but if it does, there will probably be some restriction that limits it to domestic companies.
So what's to stop someone from running a gambling site from a country with no extradition treaties or CyberBunker?
-
@joe.edwards said:
So what's to stop someone from running a gambling site from a country with no extradition treaties or CyberBunker?
They make it illegal for US banks to pay them. And threaten to bomb countries who allow their banks to do so.
-
@boomzilla said:
@joe.edwards said:
So what's to stop someone from running a gambling site from a country with no extradition treaties or CyberBunker?
They make it illegal for US banks to pay them. And threaten to bomb countries who allow their banks to do so.
So they use BitCoi- ahahaha. Sorry, I couldn't finish that sentence.
-
@joe.edwards said:
So what's to stop someone from running a gambling site from a country with no extradition treaties or CyberBunker?
What countries are left that don't cooperate with US law enforcement? Iran? You want to run a gambling site out of the future capital of the Earth Caliphate? The Norks?
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@joe.edwards said:
So what's to stop someone from running a gambling site from a country with no extradition treaties or CyberBunker?
What countries are left that don't cooperate with US law enforcement? Iran? You want to run a gambling site out of the future capital of the Earth Caliphate? The Norks?
Venezuela. They only cooperate with war criminals.
-
@Ronald said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@joe.edwards said:
So what's to stop someone from running a gambling site from a country with no extradition treaties or CyberBunker?
What countries are left that don't cooperate with US law enforcement? Iran? You want to run a gambling site out of the future capital of the Earth Caliphate? The Norks?
Venezuela. They only cooperate with war criminals.
And would you want to run your business out of Venezuela?
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ronald said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@joe.edwards said:
So what's to stop someone from running a gambling site from a country with no extradition treaties or CyberBunker?
What countries are left that don't cooperate with US law enforcement? Iran? You want to run a gambling site out of the future capital of the Earth Caliphate? The Norks?
Venezuela. They only cooperate with war criminals.
And would you want to run your business out of Venezuela?
The day they start cooperating with common criminals, I'm so opening a branch there.
-
@Ronald said:
The day they start cooperating with common criminals, I'm so opening a branch there.
We used to have a forum member from Venezuela. He (claimed he) was a cocaine smuggler. And he played in a punk band!
He's probably in a mass grave now.. D:
-
@morbiuswilters said:
It used to be legal, but was shut down a few years ago. I somewhat doubt it's going to be back anytime soon, but if it does, there will probably be some restriction that limits it to domestic companies.
Quite a lot of the gambling industry think it is going to happen sooner rather than later. Most bookies will just setup shop in the USA and outsource IT back to tax havens.
Â
-
@lucas said:
Quite a lot of the gambling industry think it is going to happen sooner rather than later.
Really? Interesting. I'll admit I don't follow news of gambling, but I figured it would stay banned for a few reasons: 1) we're a pretty anti-gambling country (except for the Lottery, which I guess people think is okay because it mostly preys on the poor and it's run by the government, so it must be good). Conservatives tend to oppose it for moral/religious reasons. Liberals tend to oppose it because they see it as an addiction fed by big businesses which scam old people out of their retirements. (I would tend to sympathize with both positions.) I remember there was a big fight in Massachusetts over whether to allow a couple of Indian casinos to open there. Massachusetts is a very liberal state; they'd probably let you buttfuck a penguin and then marry it, but the resistance to the casinos was fierce.
Now, some places, like Nevada, are very pro-gambling, but that should tell you how weird our attitudes towards gambling are: we have an entire state (with a land area larger than your country) that exists only for gambling. Well, that and testing nuclear bombs. Those are literally the only two reasons Nevada exists.
Reason two I didn't think online gambling would be making a comeback: we're still somewhat moralistic when it comes to the Internet. People gambling away their savings in a smoky casino might sit okay with some people, but the thought of beady-eyed weirdos sitting around in their underwear at 3:00am on the Internet making bets on stuff gives us the willies. Basically, take any seedy enterprise and put it on the Internet, and it instantly seems seedier to us.
Three: there is still a pretty huge gambling industry in the US which does not want to be undercut by easy-to-access, lower-overhead, online competition. There's billions to be made in flying geriatrics to Nevada and sticking them behind a slot machine next to a mediocre buffet.
Four: a lot of online gambling is overseas (or as you point out, would still have lots of overseas operations). The thought of all that money going overseas makes politicians sick. They can't tax it! Shit, they can't even confiscate it anytime they like! Now, if we're sending a barges full of cash to the Chinese to get iPads, well, at least we're getting iPads (at slave-labor prices, to boot!) but what are we getting for sending gambling losses overseas?
So, I dunno. Maybe it will be repealed, but it doesn't feel like it.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Now, some places, like Nevada, are very pro-gambling, but that should tell you how weird our attitudes towards gambling are: we have an entire state (with a land area larger than your country) that exists only for gambling. Well, that and testing nuclear bombs. Those are literally the only two reasons Nevada exists.
You forget the bunny ranch, where one can rent actual pornstars. There is nothing like a night with a girl who made 90 porn movies. So romantic.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Now, some places, like Nevada, are very pro-gambling, but that should tell you how weird our attitudes towards gambling are: we have an entire state (with a land area larger than your country) that exists only for gambling.
A lot of other states are expanding gambling. West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Maryland have been having a sort of low level cold war with opening up casinos. Also, don't forget the Indian Casinos. Part weird legal loopholes, part white guilt, these guys are now a powerful and rich source of influence as far as these things go (remember Jack Abramoff?). I think the existing gambling industry, which is fairly extensive, is going to be more responsible for keeping it off the internet in the US than any actual morality (which is also genuine, where such objections exist, but not as committed to funding politicians as the guys making money off of gambling right now).
-
@Ronald said:
You forget the bunny ranch, where one can rent actual pornstars.
My bunny ranch is called "a handle of cheap vodka and a half-used eight-ball".
@Ronald said:
There is nothing like a night with a girl who made 90 porn movies. So romantic.
It's not about romance, it's about treating a human being like a jizz sponge.
-
@boomzilla said:
West Virginia
"I'll bet my SSDI check against your Medicaid-provided psychiatric meds!"
@boomzilla said:
Pennsylvania
"What's the over-under on number of miners who don't make it out of the collapsed coal mine?"
@boomzilla said:
Maryland
[STEROTYPE NOT FOUND. Probably something about.. crabcakes.. and.. Baltimore's a shithole.]
@boomzilla said:
Also, don't forget the Indian Casinos.
Those are actually the only casinos I've ever been in. They're really weird because they try to have this quasi-Indian feel, with like teepee decorations and crude bear paintings and shit, but the contrast with the flashing slot machines makes the environment all the more depressing.
@boomzilla said:
I think the existing gambling industry, which is fairly extensive, is going to be more responsible for keeping it off the internet in the US than any actual morality (which is also genuine, where such objections exist, but not as committed to funding politicians as the guys making money off of gambling right now).
Yeah, probably, but my list wasn't really in order of importance, just as they came to me. I think all 4 will provide pressure against allowing online gambling back.
-
@lucas said:
That's what I said.@lucas said:@PJH said:
Might as well be; it's funded in the same way - by stealing money off the public using threats.
ÂThe BBC are publically funded.
If you don't own a TV that is tuned to receive broadcast you don't have to pay anything.
Wrong.@lucas said:The BBC costs buggar all a month
Wrong. Again.@lucas said:and makes for the most part pretty damn good television
It might be better if all the BBC channels (TV and radio) didn't have all the adverts in them.
-
I thought of a way to fix this quite easily, and can't really see too much as being wrong with it. Interested to know what you guys think.
After page loads, ajax call to get server time in unixtime. Time how long the call took and keep requesting until it returns in under a second. This way, we know the servertime to an accuracy of up to a second.
At the same time that it returns, get the local time in unixtime. So now we have a pair of datums and can (approximately) correct the user's "localtime".
On an interval timer, keep updating the clock.
To work out what to display, get the current unix localtime and correct it using the datum difference found above.
Now feed the result in to a Date object and display the calculated time. Make sure to include the user's timezone (from the JS Date object) on screen. If they have configured their computer's timezone correctly, they will see a reasonably accurate time along with their timezone. If their local timezone is incorrect - say, GMT instead of EST - what is on screen will STILL be correct and accurate because it will be showing (in this example) GMT.
It's not 100% accurate, but it should be pretty close.
Who can I send my invoice for 100 days to?
-
@MrOli said:
After page loads, ajax call to get server time in unixtime.
ÂWhat the fuck does this have to do with the morality and legality of online gambling in the US? Do you even know what this thread is about?
-
@MrOli said:
After page loads, ajax call to get server time in unixtime.
What the fuck does this have to do with the morality and legality of online gambling in the US? Do you even know what this thread is about?
I know what the thread is about. Your personal wild tangents about gambling, I'm afraid I could not give even half a shit about, Lorna.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Part of it is I think you're not even trying. Like anything, it takes practice to get good at estimating how long a task will take.
Oh totally. I can't be bothered to even try estimating, but thankfully my boss understands this and has stopped trying to make me do it. Instead he just picks a number that he thinks is appropriate for his reports. Everyone's a winner.
-
@MrOli said:
I thought of a way to fix this quite easily, and can't really see too much as being wrong with it. Interested to know what you guys think.
After page loads, ajax call to get server time in unixtime. Time how long the call took and keep requesting until it returns in under a second. This way, we know the servertime to an accuracy of up to a second.
At the same time that it returns, get the local time in unixtime. So now we have a pair of datums and can (approximately) correct the user's "localtime".
On an interval timer, keep updating the clock.
To work out what to display, get the current unix localtime and correct it using the datum difference found above.
Now feed the result in to a Date object and display the calculated time. Make sure to include the user's timezone (from the JS Date object) on screen. If they have configured their computer's timezone correctly, they will see a reasonably accurate time along with their timezone. If their local timezone is incorrect - say, GMT instead of EST - what is on screen will STILL be correct and accurate because it will be showing (in this example) GMT.
It's not 100% accurate, but it should be pretty close.
Who can I send my invoice for 100 days to?
Sure, except that your solution exhibits the same "problem" as the original: If the user's clock has the wrong time, the time on the website will be wrong. Your "correction" for local time merely ensures the discrepancy between local and server time remains roughly constant.
-
@PJH said:
@lucas said:
If you don't own a TV that is tuned to receive broadcast you don't have to pay anything.
Wrong.Well, not perfectly accurate, but not wrong.
You only have to own a licence if you watch (or record) television as it is broadcast. Other stuff like catchup services, 4OD, BBC iPlayers on demand stuff (amusingly), etc, may be enjoyed without the use of a license.
So, if you don't own a TV (on any other device) tuned to receive a broadcast you don't have to pay.
They will probably TRY and say that your PC is "tuned to receive broadcast" at which point you say that it has never been used to watch TV, and that if they want to try and take it to court they'd better be prepared to find a magical law pixie who can conjure up evidence out of thin air.
-
Sure, except that your solution exhibits the same "problem" as the original: If the user's clock has the wrong time, the time on the website will be wrong. Your "correction" for local time merely ensures the discrepancy between local and server time remains roughly constant.
Hi Joe,
It shouldn't do... the idea here is to use the user's local clock to provide the "ticks" on top of the (approximately) correct remote/server time.
So you know the server time was X at localtime Y, you know how many seconds have passed since it was localtime Y, so you can work out what the remote time is now:
Remote time now = (remote time datum + (local time now-local time datum))
It should be fairly accurate if the request to get the remote time datum is fast enough or can be corrected for. After this, convert "Remote time now" to the local timetime and display with the local time zone unit.
But I'm sure I'm missing something obvious, as usual :-)
-
@eViLegion said:
@PJH said:
So you if you (1) don't own a TV but are capable of viewing as-broadcast TV, you require a licence and (2) if you own a TV that happens to be tuned in, but doesn't (say aerial not plugged in) receive as-broadcast TV you don't require a licence. It's nowhere near accurate. And wrong.@lucas said:
If you don't own a TV that is tuned to receive broadcast you don't have to pay anything.
Wrong.Well, not perfectly accurate, but not wrong.
You only have to own a licence if you watch (or record) television as it is broadcast.
-
@PJH said:
@eViLegion said:
@PJH said:
So you if you (1) don't own a TV but are capable of viewing as-broadcast TV, you require a licence and (2) if you own a TV that happens to be tuned in, but doesn't (say aerial not plugged in) receive as-broadcast TV you don't require a licence. It's nowhere near accurate. And wrong.@lucas said:
If you don't own a TV that is tuned to receive broadcast you don't have to pay anything.
Wrong.Well, not perfectly accurate, but not wrong.
You only have to own a licence if you watch (or record) television as it is broadcast.Dude... I'm putting out practical information for the majority of cases, for those people who are unsure where they stand, not the edge cases that don't actually happen. Fact is, if your telly is disabled so that it cannot receive broadcasts, whether because it isn't tuned in, or you have no aerial, or because someone put a jackboot through the fucking screen, they have no grounds to bill you.
However, if you just remove your aerial, an inspector might bring his own, plug it in, and see that it is still tuned. So detuning is the easiest way to ensure they're happy when they inspect. They can't bring a case against you if they find it detuned after you let them into your house immediately, because on modern tellies it takes ages to detune. They CAN bring a case against you if they find it is tuned but with a missing aerial, because it is the work of seconds to remove the aerial and hide it.
And anyway, your #1 is not correct. Any PC is quite capable of watching iPlayer live, and would require a TV licence IFF that is something that you do. If you don't use it to do that you require no licence.
-
@eViLegion said:
However, if you just remove your aerial, an inspector might bring his own, plug it in, and see that it is still tuned. So detuning is the easiest way to ensure they're happy when they inspect. They can't bring a case against you if they find it detuned after you let them into your house immediately, because on modern tellies it takes ages to detune. They CAN bring a case against you if they find it is tuned but with a missing aerial, because it is the work of seconds to remove the aerial and hide it.
And anyway, your #1 is not correct. Any PC is quite capable of watching iPlayer live, and would require a TV licence IFF that is something that you do. If you don't use it to do that you require no licence.
This all seems very absurd from the perspective of an American.
-
This all seems very absurd from the perspective of an American.
These guys have overcomplicated it a bit, though what they said is accurate. Anyone who can watch any BBC channels live on any device (TV, computer, iPlayer) has to pay the TV license fee. It's about £145 / year. (Compare this to a basic Sky package, which is, what, £30/month?). So it's not bad value for what you get. This pays for quite a few TV channels, radio and a huge website. I guess the money stretches a lot further because no one is extracting a "profit" from the business.
It is assumed these days that everyone watches TV, so if your property isn't in their DB as having a license, they'll send you a bunch of nasty letters and give you a chance to declare that you don't watch any live TV (you can declare online these days, takes about 10 seconds to fill in the form). But they might randomly pop around for a look.
-
@joe.edwards said:
This all seems very absurd from the perspective of an American.
From everything I've read, trying to get out of paying the BBC tax is fairly analogous to the crazy Americans who try to get out of paying income tax with an argument that it's unconstitutional.
-
What does it mean to "de-tune" a TV?
-
The abhorrent part to an American is that someone from the Government has the right to enter your personal abode, without a warrant, to check something as trivial as "are you watching TV?" We don't let the IRS enter someone's property even if they owe millions in back-taxes without a court-order.
I mean you guys *fought* Nazis right?
-
@blakeyrat said:
What does it mean to "de-tune" a TV?
Back in the days of really old analogue sets, there would be a panel on the side or back which contained a set of variable resistors attached to rollers, which would be used to physically adjust the tuning on a a channel. So, your set would have 10 buttons on the front, corresponding to 10 switches on the back. If you suspected an inspector was at your door, you could open the panel, mash the switches, then say "look.... not tuned in, Mr TV Inspector sir" and go about your day.
Fuck knows how you tell a modern TV to do it.
-
@blakeyrat said:
We don't let the IRS enter someone's property even if they owe millions in back-taxes without a court-order.
The IRS is allowed to presume guilt, so they don't really need to enter your property. Fuckers.
-
The abhorrent part to an American is that someone from the Government has the right to enter your personal abode, without a warrant, to check something as trivial as "are you watching TV?" We don't let the IRS enter someone's property even if they owe millions in back-taxes without a court-order. I mean you guys *fought* Nazis right?
You been keeping up with the news about the NSA? ;-)
It's never been clear to me whether TV Licensing Ltd have this power or how it would work. The police need a warrant to enter and search. TV Licensing is a private company, so have pretty much no power to do anything but send shirty letters and should need a court order. Ah, here we go...the rules: http://www.televisionlicence.info/tvl/inspectors
-
@blakeyrat said:
The abhorrent part to an American is that someone from the Government has the right to enter your personal abode, without a warrant, to check something as trivial as "are you watching TV?"
Of course it would be abhorrent. If it were true. (1) the people who do the checking work for a private company, not the government and (2) they do in fact require a warrant in order to enter your premises to check. Apart from those little matters, it's very abhorrent.
-
@blakeyrat said:
The abhorrent part to an American is that someone from the Government has the right to enter your personal abode, without a warrant, to check something as trivial as "are you watching TV?" We don't let the IRS enter someone's property even if they owe millions in back-taxes without a court-order.
I mean you guys *fought* Nazis right?
Heres the thing.... they're not from the Government. But also, you don't have to let them in. That's part of the fun.
When I was at Uni, there was a guy in my class who did nothing BUT watch telly. He'd have put Mike TV to shame. He hadn't paid for a license however, and was paranoid as fuck about it... so he specifically got hold of one of the old style TVs so he could detune in seconds, and then engineered a complicated set of locks and barricades to prevent anyone from entering in case they were an inspector. He missed a class once so I took some photocopied notes for him, and had to stand there for about 2 minutes while he penetrated his security for me. After I learned of this, we used to get hammered then go and knock on his door and run away.
-
@eViLegion said:
Fuck knows how you tell a modern TV to do it.
ÂI haven't set up a new TV in a decade, but you don't need a olde tyimey dial TV like you describe. My CRTs were all tuned digitally with tiny stupid-ass buttons on the front of the device, hidden behind some cap.
You'd hit the + button and the LCD display would advance to 10.5 or 10.6 etc etc, and the picture would become progressively clearer or more noisy. Basically a less convenient version of tuning your radio stations.
I can only assume that TVs since 2005 (or perhaps even earlier!) have working auto-tuners. I don't know how digital TV works at all.
-
@eViLegion said:
When I was at Uni, there was a guy in my class who did nothing BUT watch telly. He'd have put Mike TV to shame. He hadn't paid for a license however, and was paranoid as fuck about it... so he specifically got hold of one of the old style TVs so he could detune in seconds, and then engineered a complicated set of locks and barricades to prevent anyone from entering in case they were an inspector. He missed a class once so I took some photocopied notes for him, and had to stand there for about 2 minutes while he penetrated his security for me. After I learned of this, we used to get hammered then go and knock on his door and run away.
Seems like it would be more fun to send in a phony "TV inspector." And since they're not law enforcement, there's nothing illegal about impersonating them.
-
 @PJH said:
Of course it would be abhorrent. If it were true.
Right now I think that even slightly nationalist americans are still so wrapped in their freedom fiction that any country that appears to do it slightly differently must be HORRIBLY NON-FREE, even if it's just a matter of incomplete communication, like here.
-
@PJH said:
(1) the people who do the checking work for a private company, not the government
... that's kind of worse.
-
@dhromed said:
 @PJH said:
Of course it would be abhorrent. If it were true.
Right now I think that even slightly nationalist americans are still so wrapped in their freedom fiction that any country that appears to do it slightly differently must be HORRIBLY NON-FREE, even if it's just a matter of incomplete communication, like here.
Eh, I just thought the idea of being forced to pay for broadcast television was silly. Especially since I can't recall the last time I watched broadcast television; I'd probably have to ward off said inspectors.
-
@dhromed said:
@PJH said:
Of course it would be abhorrent. If it were true.
Right now I think that even slightly nationalist americans are still so wrapped in their freedom fiction that any country that appears to do it slightly differently must be HORRIBLY NON-FREE, even if it's just a matter of incomplete communication, like here.Look at this very thread. We have a couple people saying, "oh you don't need to let them in," then right below that we have a post saying, "he put 2 minutes' worth of locks to prevent them from coming in." Well which is it?
You Euro-weenies figure it out then get back to us.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@PJH said:
Â(1) the people who do the checking work for a private company, not the government
... that's kind of worse.
My water, gas, electricity and apartment building come from private companies, so let's not get worked up about something non-essential like television.
-
@blakeyrat said:
You Euro-weenies figure it out then get back to us.
ÂI dunno, I just got the cheapest All-In package from my internet provider, which includes TV that I don't watch but my roomates do so I don't have to think about these things at all.
-
@dhromed said:
@blakeyrat said:
@PJH said:
Â(1) the people who do the checking work for a private company, not the government
... that's kind of worse.
My water, gas, electricity and apartment building come from private companies, so let's not get worked up about something non-essential like television.
I don't get people from the electric company coming up to my shack in the woods, "ve see you haven't been paying ze electrical bills. Ve know you are using ze electricity. Vould you mind if ve looked around?"
-
@dhromed said:
Right now I think that even slightly nationalist americans are still so wrapped in their freedom fiction that any country that appears to do it slightly differently must be HORRIBLY NON-FREE, even if it's just a matter of incomplete communication, like here.
I consider myself to be a pretty solid nationalistic American. Of course, there are lots of differences, and even with the NSA stuff, I wouldn't trade places with any of you. I was OK with the NSA back when they said they were spying indiscriminately on foreigners or domestically when they had real suspicions. But now they're looking at everyone and citing national security, and I'm calling BS.
I'm usually pretty harsh on leakers of classified information. But this feels different to me than diplomatic cables or assessments of North Korean nuclear capabilities. The people behind it are of course calling national security, but when you classify the entire country as a national security risk that needs to be monitored, you've gone too far. I've read things that say that given the type of data involved, it may be legal. If that's the case then it's just wrong.
I suppose Americans with a sense of history (or even who have been paying attention to revelations of recent IRS shenanigans) may be extra sensitive of anything that smells like a British tax. There is also significant antipathy towards our own publicly funded broadcast outfits. At least Brits have a possibility of evading funding theirs.
-
@boomzilla said:
The people behind it are of course calling national security, but when you classify the entire country as a national security risk that needs to be monitored, you've gone too far.
ÂI stand behind this sentiment.
