100 programming days to fix clock
-
@blakeyrat said:
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?
Well, that paranoid guy was the exception to be honest. I thought it was a bit nonsensical. In the incredibly unlikely event that an inspector does try and get into the halls of residence, if someone spends 2 minutes before they open the door, it is simply going to fuel suspicion. Much better to never answer the door, and eventually they'll just go away.
Additionally, I believe under the terms of the contract with most unis, if you send the housing office a letter saying "I explicitly refuse permission for anyone to enter the my rooms while I'm out", then they can't even ask the uni staff to let them in when you leave. You have to have made this explicit however, or they're allowed to assume that you do give permission, and they can let the TV guy in for you... although they'll almost certainly tell him to fuck off as well because they've got better things to be doing.
Basically, the TV licensing thing is mostly an amusing distraction.
-
@dhromed said:
I 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.
Actually, that is one of the more annoying things about TV licensing... If I buy a cable package, I'd rather pay my license money to the cable company who then pay the licensing agency on my behalf... they can even keep it in their coffers for a few months to earn themselves a bit of cash before forwarding it on if they like, I really don't care. I don't really give a shit about the price, just the effort (albeit minimal) I have to put in to pay two bills rather than one.
It just seems retarded to me that have a cable subscription, and then I get a letter from the licensing guys saying "We think that you're watching TV". Of course I fucking am! Why would I pay for that shit otherwise?
-
@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.
Man, what the fuck? Every time I hear about Britain's TV inspectors who come around to your house and demand to see if your TV is able to receive a broadcast, I get a shiver down my spine. Why can't you be more like us and have your police state operating in the shadows?
-
@MrOli said:
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 :-)
The problem is you assume the timezone is set correctly, which isn't really something you can rely on. Now, admittedly, that's incredibly nit-picky and stupid, but so is insisting that the clock must be 100% accurate.
-
@boomzilla said:
But now they're looking at everyone and citing national security, and I'm calling BS.
[citation needed] I haven't seen any information at all that they're intentionally collecting confidential information of US citizens.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Why can't you be more like us and have your police state operating in the shadows?
They have been.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@boomzilla said:
But now they're looking at everyone and citing national security, and I'm calling BS.
[citation needed] I haven't seen any information at all that they're intentionally collecting confidential information of US citizens.I guess it depends on what you consider confidential information. I've heard some people say that this sort of metadata isn't, but OTOH, they supposedly used to have to get a warrant to get this stuff on a suspect. Now it's collected as a matter of course. Greenwald is now saying more is coming, so I guess we'll see...
Whatever the information is, they're using a court order to compel private enterprises to turn over data. This is a different class of information, I would say, than something you put in a public Facebook post, whatever legal legerdemain the lawyers come up with regarding expectations of privacy. Beyond the actual value / abuse potential of the actual information, I turn a jaundiced eye toward any use of governmental coercion like this.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
[citation needed] I haven't seen any information at all that they're intentionally collecting confidential information of US citizens.
D-:
@EFF said:
via Reason
EFF FOIAIn a rare public filing in the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), the Justice Department today urged continued secrecy for a 2011 FISC opinion that found the National Security Agency's surveillance under the FISA Amendments Act to be unconstitutional. Significantly, the surveillance at issue was carried out under the same controversial legal authority that underlies the NSA’s recently-revealed PRISM program.
@Obama said:
And if people can't trust not only the executive branch but also don't trust Congress and don't trust federal judges to make sure that we’re abiding by the Constitution, due process and rule of law, then we’re going to have some problems here.
Finally, something I can agree with him on!
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Man, what the fuck? Every time I hear about Britain's TV inspectors who come around to your house and demand to see if your TV is able to receive a broadcast, I get a shiver down my spine. Why can't you be more like us and have your police state operating in the shadows?
I suppose when you've been brought up with it like I have, you just get used to it.
To be fair though, other than the BBC News which has a horrendous left bias, they do make some pretty excellent shows which I enjoy, so I
reckon I get reasonable value for money even if I get no say in the matter. For the most part though it is just the punchline to an old bad joke:
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lzS8yW8INA"]Not The Nine O'Clock News[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5MnyRZLd8A]Monty Pythons Flying Circus[/url]
-
@boomzilla said:
I've heard some people say that this sort of metadata isn't, but OTOH, they supposedly used to have to get a warrant to get this stuff on a suspect.
Part of my problem is we really don't know what they're doing. But, for example, if you send a letter or postcard to someone anything written on the outside is not consider private. I honestly don't consider email sender/recipient to be any different, nor call logs. Especially if we're talking about mining the data looking for generalized trends--it sounds fairly anonymous.
But this is the same thing I said during the NSA "wiretapping" scandal under Bush--we need more transparency into what they are doing. One, because of the obvious potential for abuse. I'm sorry, Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama, simply saying "The government isn't going to do anything bad" isn't good enough. And two, because it would prevent these backlashes when people freak out for no good reason.
@boomzilla said:
Greenwald is now saying more is coming, so I guess we'll see...
Glenn Greenwald is a psycho left-wing, water-carrying hack. Who the fuck knows what's coming? Honestly, I'd expect a bit better of you, simply because we went through this shit with the original Bush "wiretapping" thing. It was ignorant, knee-jerk from the Left then, and now the Right has joined in.
Now, don't get me wrong, one the sliding scale of privacy vs. security I'm far, far, far towards privacy. I think we need to accept that terrorist attacks are going to happen and I'm bothered by the further spread of the welfare-warfare-surveillance state. However, there simply isn't enough information known for us to have a real debate on this--to decide what we as a society are willing to accept, where the line is drawn.. Right now it's nothing but hysteria and it really gives me no confidence that we could even have a serious debate.
@boomzilla said:
Whatever the information is, they're using a court order to compel private enterprises to turn over data.
Yeah, but what data? Seems like it's mostly stuff that isn't going to harm US citizens. Also, as far as I know, it's only being used by the Intelligence Community and not by domestic law enforcement.
@boomzilla said:
Beyond the actual value / abuse potential of the actual information, I turn a jaundiced eye toward any use of governmental coercion like this.
So your problem is that Verizon is being compelled to release the info, unlike in the NSA "wiretapping" thing where AT&T was willfully complying? But I thought most of the companies here were willfully complying. Unless I'm mistaken, the court orders would be necessary even for voluntary sharing of data because legally the NSA can't collect data from private businesses without a FISA warrant.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@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.
Man, what the fuck? Every time I hear about Britain's TV inspectors who come around to your house and demand to see if your TV is able to receive a broadcast, I get a shiver down my spine. Why can't you be more like us and have your police state operating in the shadows?
I think the wording in the law "...is tuned to receive..." comes from the days when they would have actual vans drive up and down the streets to detect unlicensed TVs. The theory is that the vans were detecting the emissions from each TV's local oscillator, so they could not only detect an active TV but also which channel it was tuned to. I think the vans were mostly an empty threat but the equipment certainly did exist and was capable of detecting TVs.
Of course, these days with software-defined radios in the front-end of the TV, there may be no local oscillator but most 'digital' TVs would still be detectable this way.
-
@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.http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/what-if-a-tv-licence-is-not-needed-top12/
The law states that you need to be covered by a TV Licence if you watch or record television programmes, on any device, as they're being shown on TV. This includes TVs, computers, mobile phones, games consoles, digital boxes and Blu-ray/DVD/VHS recorders.
You don't need a licence if you don't use any of these devices to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV - for example, if you use your TV only to watch DVDs or play video games, or you only watch ‘catch up’ services like BBC iPlayer or 4oD.
The rest is a matter of debate (cost etc).
However I would like you to check your facts before saying I am wrong, because what I said was a simplification of the quote from the TV licensing website itself because tbh I couldn't be bothered to google the exact wording from the official source.
-
@lucas said:
what I said was a simplification
And in simplifiying it, you made it wrong.:@lucas said:
If you don't own a TV that is tuned to receive broadcast you don't have to pay anything.
@TVL said:if you watch or record television programmes, on any device[i.e. you have to pay something if you don't own a TV but something else], as they're being shown on TV
That looks wrong to me - even your quote from TVL disagrees with you.
-
Sorry but you are being a pedant and a bellend. If the TV isn't tuned you cannot watch a broadcast, therefore it satisfies the exemption requirement.
In anycase the statement was accurate enough to get the general idea across, which is the important thing not that the statement was 100% correct for every situation.
-
@lucas said:
Sorry but you are being a pedant and a bellend. If the TV isn't tuned you cannot watch a broadcast, therefore it satisfies the exemption requirement.
I still don't get how you "de-tune" a modern TV with a digital tuner. Other than sabotage with a screwdriver or something.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@lucas said:
Sorry but you are being a pedant and a bellend. If the TV isn't tuned you cannot watch a broadcast, therefore it satisfies the exemption requirement.
I still don't get how you "de-tune" a modern TV with a digital tuner. Other than sabotage with a screwdriver or something.
And then you'd have to pay the goddamn screwdriver license fee.
-
@blakeyrat said:
I still don't get how you "de-tune" a modern TV with a digital tuner. Other than sabotage with a screwdriver or something.
On my TV I have to have it scan for stations, I expect you just tell it not to scan for them.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@lucas said:
Sorry but you are being a pedant and a bellend. If the TV isn't tuned you cannot watch a broadcast, therefore it satisfies the exemption requirement.
I still don't get how you "de-tune" a modern TV with a digital tuner. Other than sabotage with a screwdriver or something.
Don't try to have a discussion about tv with Europeans, they just don't get it.
Look at this typical French tv schedule. Shows starting at the hour or half-hour are the minority, most are starting at hours like 10:40 or 11:55. It's like the tv schedule is managed by Regal or AMC.
-
@lucas said:
@blakeyrat said:
I still don't get how you "de-tune" a modern TV with a digital tuner. Other than sabotage with a screwdriver or something.
On my TV I have to have it scan for stations, I expect you just tell it not to scan for them.I honestly don't recall the last time I used my TV's tuner to tune to anything. But I do remember having my TV scan for channels when I ran the coax from the cable company directly into a TV and not through a cable box. That was over 10 years ago, though.
-
@lucas said:
@blakeyrat said:
I still don't get how you "de-tune" a modern TV with a digital tuner. Other than sabotage with a screwdriver or something.
On my TV I have to have it scan for stations, I expect you just tell it not to scan for them.Maybe I have a la-te-dah fancy TV, but mine just kind of automatically and silently does that in the background if its memory is ever cleared. AFAIK you can't tell it not to, but maybe there's a way.
And in any case, that's not "de-tuning" the TV-- that's just the TV keeping track of which channels have signal and which ones don't, so it can skip the ones that don't when you hit "channel +" on the remote. The TV's still tuned.
-
The TV in spain I definetely need to tune it.
-
@blakeyrat said:
I still don't get how you "de-tune" a modern TV with a digital tuner.
You don't. Digital broadcasts also changed the way some other things worked with broadcast television. Before the switch over you could actually tune different buttons on a TV to different stations (kind like radio presets).
-
-
@locallunatic said:
You don't. Digital broadcasts also changed the way some other things worked with broadcast television.
You know that and I know that, but do the people saying you have to de-tune your TV before the TV inspector comes to their house know that?
@locallunatic said:
Before the switch over you could actually tune different buttons on a TV to different stations (kind like radio presets).
You gotta go waaaaaaaaay back to find a TV like that in the US. Like one made in the 70s... maybe.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@locallunatic said:You don't. Digital broadcasts also changed the way some other things worked with broadcast television.
You know that and I know that, but do the people saying you have to de-tune your TV before the TV inspector comes to their house know that? @locallunatic said:Before the switch over you could actually tune different buttons on a TV to different stations (kind like radio presets).
You gotta go waaaaaaaaay back to find a TV like that in the US. Like one made in the 70s... maybe.Well they were still doing broadcasts that were non-digital till recently, I remember cause a station picked a channel setting that was at the bottom of the FM dial cause TV license was cheaper than Radio licensing. I took that to mean that there may be a way to disable the autotuner built into your TV; though I've no idea how you would do it.
