This message board is post-moderated
Listed below are comments made by bryces between Friday, 4th March 2011 and Sunday, 21st July 2013
You can also view a list of bryces's posts.
@85 What people forget about the Adam West version of Batman is that it is actually pretty close to the look, feel and storylines of the earlier comics. Those of us who grew up reading comics in the 80s, knowing a much darker version of the story find it harder to relate to the 60s TV version. Now the 90s cartoon versions were superb. Mark Hamill - best Joker ever!
@135 And of course "A Death in the Family" was yet another example of Superman and Batman in the same storyline. Superman has to prevent Batman from taking out Joker while he is acting as Iranian ambassador, in order to prevent an international incident.
The Tories legislate for Equal Marriage, showing that they are a modern, forward thinking party who believe in the (very Conservative) principle that the state should in general not meddle in people's lives. Yet scores of their members voted against, reinforcing the view that they are backwards bigots who believe that some of society are less equal than others. Way to shoot yourselves in the foot.
I commented on the proposals - my concern was that without programmes being on the main channel, the BBC is deliberately pushing families apart. Adults watch the main channel in the front room, the kids have to go up to their bedroom to watch their channel on their own. Programmes like "Horrible Histories" are an excellent example of a programme which is aimed at kids but can be enjoyed by all.
My Galaxy S2 also plays high definition content I encoded myself extremely well. Have the BBC maybe selected an inappropriate encoding mechanism?
@7 Try playing the original through emulation on Android (legally - Braben's website has all the original files available to download). Sorry but this is not a game suited to a touch interface. I'd love to have a handheld version, but the only portable platforms that this would work on would be Vita, DS and possibly the Xperia Play with proper controls. Probably a good idea to stick to PC.
Anything has to be better than the current system where MPs can actually be ordered by their parties to vote in favour or against a proposal (called 'whipping'). If this happened with Juries applying the law there'd be an outcry, but this fundamental corruption in lawmakers is apparently accepted. Representative democracy only works if the MPs represent only their constituents, not their party.
Major constitutional change should go to the public in a referendum. Multiple questions - One for elected House of Lords, one for reduced number of MPs, one for equal sized constituencies. They aren't a 'package' - they are all different proposals. Personally I am in favour of reduced number of MPs and equal sized constituencies, but opposed to Lords reform in this form.
@335 Actually recent reports have shown that even in the middle of a recession, that violent crime is down significantly. Taking the argument to the extremes, in earlier generations we had terrible wars which killed millions. These days the connectivity of people playing together around the world is breaking down imaginary borders. The nationality of your teammates is entirely insignificant.
@217 The Anti-Europeans are missing the point. The BBFC rating system was only ever used in a small number of cases which came under their terms of reference (the vast majority did not).
PEGI is a system designed by industry - not the EU - to rate games once and have it apply across Europe - cheaper and easier for consumers.
Govt is now enforcing these ratings. As a 35yo gamer, I support this.
@Patriot - You are aware that the part of the US Constitution which gives the right to bear arms is an AMENDMENT? It is not eternal, it can always be amended again. (Lets ignore for the moment that it's purpose, in an age of muskets, was to enable the creation of a civilian militia in the event that we British tried to come back, not to allow any person to own an automatic assault rifle)
I don't want to replicate the Commons in the Lords where the only barrier to entry is to ingratiate yourself with a political party and then win a popularity contest. I want knowledge and expertise in a revising chamber. Why not allow members of Unions, religions, charities, academic institutions, political parties, etc. to elect members from within their ranks? Democratic legitimacy and expertise
I just think that it is the least worst system. Having the separation between political head of government and ceremonial head of state I think is very useful. At times of national celebration or tragedy, and as head of the armed forces, having an apolitical head of state is really valuable. And look at problems in the USA when the head of state has different politics to the legislature.
The Shuttle was impressive, but it's roots in Government caused problems. It never met it's goals in terms of cost or frequency of use and the need to spread the funding across different states to get political support meant e.g. that the boosters had to be built in sections to be shipped across the country. This design resulted in the Challenger disaster. Private launchers may be more efficient.
I just find the current laws ridiculous. If I want to go out for a walk, or watch the grand prix, or do anything else on a Sunday, I'm always having to think around the ridiculous opening hours if I also need to go to a large shop. And while we are at it - it is absurd that banks and post offices are mostly open only when most other people are work. They need to open all day Sat and Sun too.
I support Braille versions of text and signs being available wherever possible, but I am genuinely puzzled sometimes by Braille signs that I see because there is often no indication as far as I can tell for a blind person that the sign actually exists. I assume that blind people don't go around randomly feeling walls on the off chance that a Braille sign is there, so how do they know they exist?
I'm filling in the Delivering Quality First questionnaire (which I encourage everybody here to do - this is our BBC and they should make decisions based on our views).
One of the points I am making, is that a programme which provides many hours of live entertainment (time which would otherwise have to be filled with other new content or repeats), has terrific ratings (showing that it is enjoyed and appreciated by much of the audience), is particularly suited to the BBC (uninterrupted coverage, ability to show qualifying sessions on red button, free to view) and is of recognised high quality (BAFTA winning no less!) is the perfect example of Delivering Quality First.
On any sensible criteria, it should have been close to the top of the list of programs to be protected, not first on the chopping block before the consultation process had even finished.
What is most depressing is that in the supporting documentation for the DQF 'consultation', the cutting of Formula 1 is held up as an example of "Concentrating licence fee spend on the things which the public most expect from us". Given the numbers of people who actually watch Formula 1 on the BBC, I think that somebody somewhere has a fundamental misunderstanding of what we the public expect. They do not back up the assertions of what "the public most expect" with any sort of polling data.
There is still time (just) for this debacle to be sorted out, and F1 to be brought back to its proper home on the BBC for next season. But only if the BBC is willing to Deliver Quality First.
I'd be happy to take the train to work, but it is more expensive, much less comfortable and takes much longer than by car. Also, a lack of an integrated transport system means that there is no public transport at the station nearest my work, so I need to either walk (add another 20 mins & unpleasant in the rain) or get a taxi (expensive). Trains need to be half the current price & twice as fast.
You 'understand the strength of feeling'. Good. Now get your bosses to go back to the negotiating table and sort out this mess.
A half season is just advertising for Sky who show the rest of the races. This is of course not allowed under the BBC charter.
The Concorde agreement apparently says that in key markets such as the UK, coverage must be free-to-air, so the BBC has no reason to pay over the odds to compete with a non-free-to-air broadcaster such as Sky,
We the owners of the BBC do not accept this decision. In any forum that this is discussed, the licence-fee payers who are opposed to this decision outweigh those who are in favour by hundreds to one.
Has the BBC asked the licence payers how they want their money spent? You currently get some of the best viewing figures for any programme on the BBC, which I think should give you some guidance as to where we, your owners, want our money to be spent.
F1 should also be a huge marketing opportunity for BBC Worldwide - the commentary team is so popular that there should be the same commercial opportunities as for programmes like Top Gear, with books, Mugs, T-shirts and other merchandise that would help to offset the fee paid to Mr. Ecclestone.
I know that you have some hard decisions to make, with funding the way it is. But cutting front-line programmes such as F1 is a bad move. Apart from anything else, you now have to fill many hours of air-time which was otherwise filled by F1. There are better ways to save money - not moving to Salford, not duplicating so much coverage of the same event (why do we need seperate TV and radio coverage of F1, for example?), reducing the number of managers (those who made this decision should be first in line to collect their P45s!), consolidating radio channels and TV channels which are currently failing, etc., etc.
This is a bad decision for F1, a bad decision for F1 fans, and most of all it is a bad decision for the BBC.
@145 - You'll get there quicker too. I'm all for public transport, but it needs to be cheaper, faster (door to door) and more reliable than a car. Until that time we need more roads and widening of existing ones. Many motorways were built in an era when relatively few people had cars. As more roads were built, car ownership also increased. That is no longer the case so more roads will reduce jams.
Some people seem to forget that London has 1.5 times the population of Scotland, 2.5 times that of Wales and about 5 times that of N. Ireland. About 12.5% of the whole UK population lives in London. If you include people who commute, then this rises to over 20% of the entire UK population. The national broadcaster needs to be situated where the largest concentration of people is - London.
I wouldn't call this an example of Government waste - it makes sense to be prepared. I'd put preparing an advert like this to be on a par with stockpiling vaccines. It takes time to write and film an advert, create the voiceover, test it on sample audiences to ensure that the correct message is coming across, etc. And the advert doesn't age much - this would probably remain relevant for 5+ years.
Jake has tweeted that Bahrain is 'weighing heavily' on his mind. And well it should. However F1 has already sold it's soul by supporting and providing international credibility to equally evil and repressive regimes such as China. Just a few choice quotes from the most recent Amnesty International country report:
The Chinese government responded to a burgeoning civil society by jailing and persecuting people for peacefully expressing their views, holding religious beliefs not sanctioned by the state, advocating for democratic reform and human rights, and defending the rights of others.
The authorities continued to repress Tibetan, Uighur, Mongolian and other ethnic minority populations.
[A]ccess to justice remained elusive for those considered a political threat to the regime or to the interests of local officials. Political influence over and corruption within the judiciary remained endemic.
The use of illegal forms of detention expanded, including prolonged house arrest without legal grounds, detention in “black jails”, “brain-washing” centres, psychiatric institutions, and unidentified “hotels”. [...] Hundreds of thousands continued to be held in such facilities.
Torture and other ill-treatment remained endemic in places of detention. Amnesty International received reports of deaths in custody, some of them caused by torture, in a variety of state institutions, including prisons and police detention centres.
I love F1, but am really uncomfortable that Bernie Ecclestone seems to be willing to disgrace the sport by taking money from the thugs and murderers who run some of the world's most repressive regimes. Where next, a new Herman Tilke snoozefest built in North Korea, Burma or the Occupied Territories?
@26 It may be the case that it is not Sony's fault that they were hacked. However it is their duty to ensure that any personal data they store is encrypted so that in the event of a successful hack then the hacker would not have obtained anything of value. Because Sony has not complied with this basic precaution, they may have allowed the credit card details of 70 million people to be stolen.
Does the cost include packaging to deal with rough handling and flying it to places in unpressurised aircraft (which could cause an inappropriately packaged bulb to explode)? Is it really a bulb that can be bought off the shelf, or is it really something specific designed to fit in a small location inside a console or similar? Has it been tested to ensure it is safe for use near explosives etc.?
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.