On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 10:07:49 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
> William Poaster <wp@xxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>>> William Poaster <wp@xxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>> [H]omer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>>>>>> ____/ Kier on Wednesday 24 October 2007 11:09 : \____
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's time to stop blaming MS for everything
>>>>>
>>>>> Another fine post from Kier the "Linux advocate", who spends his time
>>>>> feeding the Trolls, and apologising for Microsoft and its supporters.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well congratulations, you are no longer simply a Troll feeder IMO, you
>>>>> are now an actual Troll. If you are so in love with Sweaty Ballmer and
>>>>> his violently destructive company, then why don't you piss off to
>>>>> Windows la-la land, and stop criticising every damn word that anyone
>>>>> dares to use against the Microsoft crime syndicate?
>>>>>
>>>>> Go on, let's hear some more apologies and excuses for Microsoft. It's
>>>>> what you're good at.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, first-class corruption. Microsoft is part of a phenomenon and
>>>>>> a pattern. It is not *the* problem, but /part/ of the problem. Being
>>>>>> part of the problem is still being a problem, no matter how you think
>>>>>> about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> £130 Million pounds of taxpayers' money wasted on unnecessary Microsoft
>>>>> technology, and hiring senior ex-Microsoft employees to pervert the BBC
>>>>> media infrastructure, would be major contributing factors.
>>>>
>>>> Twice that amount, I believe. It would seem that at *least* £280million
>>>> has been handed to M$, for one thing or another.
>>>> Put into context, the annual BBC3 budget is £93.4 million, & BBC4 is
>>>> £46.8 million. Just imagine the programs they could have made for BBC1 &
>>>> 2 with that £280 million they squandered.
>>>>
>>>> According to 2006 figures, the BBC had a £4.5 billion budget from licence
>>>> fees *alone*. In 2007 it's estimated to be £4.68 billion. It *also* gets
>>>> revenue from its commercial subsidiary BBC Worldwide.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> How anyone, even Kier, could possibly argue that passing £280 Millions
>>> of our licence-fee cash would not result in layoffs in an environment of
>>> capped licence-fee increases is quite beyond me.
>>
>> Quite amazing isn't it.
>
> Perhaps he has a view that there are just millions sloshing around in
> bank accounts at the BBC, and the layoffs which have been going on for
> the last 10 years, since the government insisted that they bought cheap
> imports instead of making good radio and television, haven't been
> happening. "see no evil".
Stop putting words in my mouth.
>
>>
>>> That the BBC are trying to blame the licence-fee cap for this shows just
>>> how completely dishonest and corrupt that organisation has become -
>>> they've fully embraced the Microsoft Integrity Model.
>>
>> Including getting more bloated too, IMO. They seem to think that they have
>> a "captured audience" in the licence fee payer, who is a bottomless pit to
>> finance every whim that some brainless idiot thinks up. IMO they should
>> just concentrate on *broadcasting* radio & tv.
>
> Well, they've employed failed senior people from Microsoft, so clearly,
> they're looking for an approach where you lock in your customers and
> control their behaviour.
You really are a fool, aren't you?
>
>>
>> Just as an aside, with even more repeats now being shown on the BBC, who the
>> hell would want an iPlayer *anyway* to see something which is repeated
>> again & again, & again? I don't, but that's just my 2p worth. ;-)
>
> We need a reset on the whole model. The *first* thing to do is to
> require the BBC to source no more than, say, 5% of its programming
> externally, staged over a few years, so that they have time to build up
> proper production facilities again.
>
> Then, they can work on selling the excellent material they make abroad
> in order to make up some of the costs of producing good television in
> the first place.
>
>>
>>> I feel very sorry indeed for the 2,500 people who are now going to be
>>> looking for another job, whilst £280 million of our cash is lounging
>>> around in Microsoft bank accounts, for the delivery, of, well, *nothing at
>>> all*. The BBC owns *nothing* from its investment of £280 millions of our
>>> money.
>>
>> Nope, not a penny.
>>
>>> Kier - please, these are *real people* who've lost their jobs, in order
>>> to feed the Redmond machine. They have families, mortgages, spouses,
>>> children, elderly parents, gas, leccy bills, cars and food bills all to
>>> support. This isn't something for you to apologise for, this is *real*.
>>>
>>> Furthermore, it's your money and my money which is being sent to Mr
>>> Ballmer, and Microsoft is delivering, err, it's player which it was
>>> delivering anyway. In binary. Nothing for the BBC to own. No source
>>> code, no possibility of going to another vendor.
>>
>> No, & in effect they're "locked-in" to M$'s merry-go-round. And when M$
>> decide to update their iPlayer to a new version, they could charge the BBC
>> even *more* for using it.
>
> And Kier's answer was... wait for it... "Microsoft people are real
> people too". Basically, he's quite happy for corrupt ex-Microsoft BBC
> executives to shovel our, and his, licence-fee money to a foreign
> company, whilst putting British people out of work, who we then have to
> pay for through social costs. "See no evil".
Still putting words in my mouth? Stop. Now.
>
>>
>>> No possibility to change integrator. Licensing (rtu) fee to pay each time
>>> anyone even views something with the "silverlight" player, pay to whom?
>>> Yes, to Microsoft. So the £280 millions is going to rise rapidly, as
>>> Microsoft own more and more of our licence-fee money.
>>
>> And they won't be able to afford to make new programs, so more repeats &
>> probably more production staff losses....& so on....& so on..
>
> You're quite right - it is very much a downward spiral.
That remains to be seen.
>
>>
>>> What will you say when the last technical people at the BBC are given
>>> their P.45s?
>>
>>
>
> He said "Microsoft people are real people too". He ignored the point
> completely.
No, I did not. I threw you stupid argument back in your face.
--
Kier
|
|
