You guys must be heavy drinkers...

[artie]

A workmate of mine years ago liked to go to town on a Sat morning, place a few bets and bring a few beers home to consume while watching the racing on TV
One Monday morning he related to me how he had followed his usual routine and was watching a particularly close race involving a sum of his hard earned, when there was a knock at the door.
He ran backwards to the door and opened it saying hold on a minute I've got a quid on this race and watched the remaining few mins of the race.
I don't recall the outcome of the race but he told me the first few words from the visitor were. I must warn you that you do not have to say anything but anything you do say etc, etc.
Turned out the guy didn't prosecute on condition that he get a licence first thing Monday,

 

[John Brown]

And very not true.

You need a licence if you want to watch anything broadcast over the air or streamed at the same time as it is broadcast. Or if you want to watch anything on iPlayer (the BBC's own streaming service). But you can watch anything else streaming, whether live or not, without any requirement for a licence.

And they can only enter your house to inspect if they get a warrant, for which they have to provide sufficient eveidence for a judge to believe it probable you are watching without a licence.

There are no terms for opting out. You just don't buy a licence if you don't need one. They will occasionally send you letters, to which you don't have to respond, but if you do, and tell them you don't need a licence, then they will leave it a year or two before sending another.

Interesting phrase, "at the same time". There's a noticeable delay between analogue and digital reception of the same program. It's an unavoidable consequence of the compression and error detection/correction. Streaming over the web likewise.
Not that I'm endorsing licence dodging. You may think the law is wrong, but I don't believe that automatically gives you the right to ignore it.

 

[Chris70]

Are you absolutely sure? I've not heard of your Mormon, but that may well be my lack of education.

Evidently, there were a number of people who ‘invented’ the TV. Wikipedia has an interesting article, quoting Baird and Jenkins as well as Farnsworth. Have a read

Are you absolutely sure? I've not heard of your Mormon, but that may well be my lack of education.

Let’s not forget John Logie Baird John Logie Baird - Wikipedia

 

[JohnPW]

This thread is 2-in-1. Anyhow, the BBC does not use detection (if it exists) as evidence in court because they would have to reveal how it works! I gather the usual evidence is a signed confession otherwise it's the inspector's word against yours.

The detector vans might have worked in theory with one isolated TV set but I read there were only something like six vans for the whole country, the rest were all dummies.

It needs to be repeated, if you don't need a licence, just ignore the letters, they just get sent out automatically.

 

[PhilTilson]

Presume for the UK folks here that there may be a lack of climatological heat to make good wine?

Perhaps surprisingly, the climate here (UK) is proving to be very favourable for white wines, especially the sparkling ones. There are several companies that beat the traditional Champagne makers in international competitions year after year. The only reason I don't drink more of it is that it's too expensive! Can't quite work out why, but I settle for New World wines these days, especially New Zealand whites which are fantastic!

 

[Wildman]

I'm guessing that in greece, you have enough heat to make wines. We used to make jokes about the US wines, because they were really terrible (some still are), but cheap to make up for it.

I don't think I ever saw my parents drink a wine that wasn't on a TV commercial in prime time (yuck). But we've got some wonderful wine and port making on the west coast here. There are local wineries even where I am, and state specific stores (pennsylvania). I don't know if they get favorable liquor tax treatment, but I've never had anything that seemed particularly good - at all. Not into that "support local by drinking something that tastes worse for the same price. Yay!" thing.

Presume for the UK folks here that there may be a lack of climatological heat to make good wine?

No shortage of hard liquor making in the US, though (especially whiskey and the moonshine varieties - now commercially available).

I am in the UK Devon to be precise and have made excellent wines for over 20 years, English wines are taking over in the shops.

 

[D_W]

Thanks for the info on the wines. 30 years ago here, there were local wines - mostly made by individuals, but a few commercial places. They were terrible.

These days, I hear they're fine, but they're no cheaper than wine from california or europe, so i'm out. I guess they got serious about what grapes actually match the climate here and made some better wines.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Yes, everywhere has a grape that suits best - malbec for Argentina, pinotage for S. Africa and also on. The English one is Bacchus - it makes some stunning wines in this Country.

 

[D_W]

So, for the BBC license, let's say laguna seca has a road race in California and you stream it live. It's broadcast in the US but not in the UK (let's not argue about whether or not it maybe, let's assume it's something broadcast live in the US and you can only see it streaming in the UK, but it's live).

This requires a BBC license or no? The whole idea is idiotic, If it needs to be funded, then just add it as a general expense and spread the tax out over everyone.

As far as commercials go, we have PBS here - PBS has fewer commercials, but still some, and then breaks where they toot their horn about their station and talk about how much better it is than over the air TV. I end up watching it rarely because it's no better than network TV, cable or streaming at least 90% of the time and when they do have something good, the horn tooting and interruptions for promotion of the distribution method (PBS in general) is totally intolerable.

 

[D_W]

re: the comment above about expensive wines in PA - yes, in general, anything lower than $10 isn't worth having unless you like fruity wines. The alcohol laws have some nuance by state, and here in PA, wines are sold at wine stores, liquor and wine stores, and in some grocery stores that have a special license. It probably adds about $1 a bottle. There will be $7 or so bottles dotted here in the main wine areas, but most of the cheap wines are in the back of the store near a fridge (where they have wines that are refrigerated), or in the middle where the wine is in boxes.

If you want a good middle of the road wine for a decent price, the black and bota box type stuff in the middle is usually about as good as a $10-$15 wine but for about half the price ($20-$30 for 3 liters). My spouse buys that way, but I think the convenience just doubles the intake.

I'm not a real bit wine drinker. The redder and the drier, the better to me....if it's going to be wine-ish, I'd rather sip brandy.

 

[highwood122]

It's complicated and rather stupid I agree.
As for the inspection, they don't actually have the power to enter your property, it's inspection by consent. Needless to say they aren't ever coming through my door!

they can go get a warrant

 

[John Brown]

So, for the BBC license, let's say laguna seca has a road race in California and you stream it live. It's broadcast in the US but not in the UK (let's not argue about whether or not it maybe, let's assume it's something broadcast live in the US and you can only see it streaming in the UK, but it's live).

This requires a BBC license or no? The whole idea is idiotic, If it needs to be funded, then just add it as a general expense and spread the tax out over everyone.

As far as commercials go, we have PBS here - PBS has fewer commercials, but still some, and then breaks where they toot their horn about their station and talk about how much better it is than over the air TV. I end up watching it rarely because it's no better than network TV, cable or streaming at least 90% of the time and when they do have something good, the horn tooting and interruptions for promotion of the distribution method (PBS in general) is totally intolerable.

No. I think for the scenario you describe, a licence would not be required. Unless it was being broadcast by the BBC at the same time as you were streaming it.

Edit: I think I'm wrong about that.

It is a crazy system. It doesn't bother me, as I do have a licence.

 

[D_W]

OK, that's what I gathered from other people. First, I assumed it would be as you say (only material owned or licensed and broadcasted by BBC, but it sounds like *any* live events anywhere and you're supposed to pay the BBC. If that's the case, it's very stupid).

PBS has attempted to get mandatory dedicated funding as a "public utility" here, but they've had greater challenges than that. There is money given to them, but it's comparatively little.

 

[maitland.selwyn]

I guess some of the "who invented it" is determined based on what's deemed as "TV" vs something far away from being viable.

Philo Farnsworth was the first to transmit electronic images (electronic on both ends - early television as we know it rather than a combination mechanical/electronic process that really had no potential).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo_Farnsworth

If you have nothing better to do, this is an interesting read:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2000/09/01/236187/who-really-invented-television/

 

[Rorschach]

they can go get a warrant

They can, but incredibly difficult for them to get one, they have never managed to get one to inspect my property.

 

[D_W]

If you have nothing better to do, this is an interesting read:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2000/09/01/236187/who-really-invented-television/

Interesting - I found a similar article yesterday. I've never asked the rhetorical question "who invented it" in the first place, so I wasn't aware that RCA claimed it. As a relative of a Zenith dealer, I understood RCA TVs generally to be a second tier brand, and remembered the dog better than anything other than the RCA "Roundies".

But the fact that a dreamer would come up with the method and then the crowd of conscientious society members would take credit is just the way it goes.

That is, I once listened to a psychologist talking about the dynamic between the creative and the conscientious. Business generally values conscientious employees, and likes to steal ideas from the creative. But the creative folks are generally the ones who move society forward in huge steps, while the conscientious tend to run with other peoples' ideas and either make them cheaper or fill in the dots.

Without the dreamers, the conscientious have nothing to work on.

A case of this is the established understanding that landing a launch vehicle descending backwards so that it can be used is too hard of a problem to solve. This becomes accepted fact until someone like Musk comes along, and generates money due to influence and ideas. He has to be reigned in by executives when he gets too far afield, but his ideas push the conscientious. Luckily in his case, he's the public figure, so he won't be lost to history. His idea of sending a craft to mars with freight, but having it be able to generate its own fuel and then return is way out there, to say the least.

The dreamers also tend to be a little crazy and neurotic (not good front runners) - I see Farnsworth lost his marbles from the stress. He got a bead on developing electronic TV and ran with it after that, but his mental tool set was to find something and show it's possible, not to run with it after the fact.

I find this stuff fascinating, but maybe most others don't. It's fairly uncommon for someone to generate the ideas that move society in huge leaps and also be stable and detail oriented conscientious types who can do repetitive things without throwing tantrums or becoming neurotic.

(when you combine an idea guy with greed and aggressiveness - cough--bill gates--cough. You can get far, I guess. Mixing things you lift with things that you came up with. I remember having a PC that ran on MS-DOS and being advised that microsoft got sued and that the pre-suit dos was the one to have because their own after the fact wasn't so great. I think it had to do with compression or some such thing that we never talk about these days).

 

[selectortone]

No it didn't.

Is it possible to see whether a TV is on, certainly you can scan for the frequencies emitted. Is it possible to pinpoint a TV in use to a precision sufficient to secure a prosecution? Absolutely not, which is why a prosecution was never made using detector van evidence. It was a scare tactic, nothing more.

So, you're a TV engineer too are you (as well as an eminent epidemiologist)?

The technology did work. The later systems could detect a working TV within an arc of about 5 degrees, with a range of 50-100 yards, and with the database of TV licences the vans carried, the engineers were able to determine the location of unlicenced sets in many instances (despite what the Daily Mail would have you believe).

As to prosecutions, you're not looking at the big picture. How many people do you think went out and bought a TV licence when it was publicised that the vans were in their area? I remember the TV ads they ran for many years. Those vans wouldn't have been around for over 50 years if they weren't paying for themselves.

 

[Rorschach]

So, you're a TV engineer too are you?

The technology did work. The later systems could detect a working TV within an arc of about 5 degrees, with a range of 50-100 yards, and with the database of TV licences the vans carried, the engineers were able to determine the location of unlicenced sets in many instances (despite what the Daily Mail would have you believe).

As to prosecutions, you're not looking at the big picture. How many people do you think went out and bought a TV licence when it was publicised that the vans were in their area? I remember the ads they ran for many years. Those vans wouldn't have been around for over 50 years if they weren't paying for themselves.

Absolute nonsense. It was PR and nothing else. If it did work then it would have only been possible in the very early days when hardly anyone had a TV, once every house has one the interference alone would be enough to make the evidence useless in court. Hundreds of thousands of prosecutions every year and you tell me they never once needed to use the "evidence" from a detector van. If it was so good and "paying for itself" then they would have been raking it in and showing to the whole country how good the vans were. Also if the vans worked, they wouldn't need to apply for those very tricky to get warrants would they? Use your common sense man, it's a scam, you were duped as were millions more, nothing to be ashamed of.

 

[selectortone]

 

[Concizat]

Oh absolutely,


Speaking of, I had a Jack Daniels this evening point proved I guess

Mine was a Makers Mark.