Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Please do not write below the line

bbctvlicence.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 337 posts

Re: Please do not write below the line

#321

Post by chihuahua »

School-Cotton wrote: post #300
colonwqbang wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate state TV content and watch it regularly. But this argument just doesn't hold water. The service is so wonderful that they had to make it a criminal offence not to be a subscriber? And surely an "independent" TV station would have to be one which is not completely controlled by the state.

It’s not a criminal offense not to be a subscriber… it’s a criminal offense to pirate their content without being a subscriber.

Pretty much the same as using Cable TV or Satellite TV without paying for a subscription. I don't see much difference between paying the BBC and paying Comcast.

In the case of Satellite TV, in the 1990s there were companies that sold decoder boxes so you could use a dish antenna without paying the Satellite TV company. You'd pay the pirating company instead. Lots of cat-and-mouse games involving changing encryption methods.

Re: Please do not write below the line

#322

Post by dusted »

On the surface, this absurdity is entertaining, but it's scary, like, proper actual _SCARY_ because the lack of.. sense, is so all encompassing. It tells the story of how it's simply impossible to get beyond the surface, beyond the dummy front. It reveals that there is no sense to be found. For a TV station, it's not _THAT_ bad, but this type of senselessness is all around us, in large companies, in government systems, in hospitals and on construction sites.. It's a cancer in modern society that has unseen, but grave consequences. This is how we will eventually manage to eradicate ourselves, and in a way, we've deserved it, because we allowed it to happen for so long. (Yes, I spoke with an ISP lately, it brings out the best in me)

Re: Please do not write below the line

#323

Post by axiolite »

frizlab wrote: post #263
axiolite wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I humbly suggest: 3M Thermo-Fax https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZVYRMu6Q9k

I still prefer mine https://vimeo.com/113756330 :)

About all you need to do is increase the volume and run it through a (good) Vocal Remover:

https://github.com/dezonline/Vocal-Remover

Re: Please do not write below the line

#324

Post by chihuahua »

rescbr wrote: post #217
soneil wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who can’t see their colour TV pay more than people who can’t see their B&W TV. Oh to be a a fly on the wall when the inspector has to explain the difference to a blind person. I think it made a lot more sense in the past. The license is set up so it’s a consumption based tax rather than taxing everyone. So only people with TVs paid TV tax. If colour increased the costs, only people consuming colour paid those…

A novelty product opportunity: plug together a Raspberry Pi, an USB TV tuner and a BW LCD display to pay a smaller TV licence.

When I lived in Britain in 1989-1992, at the time the rule was that battery-powered TVs were exempt from the license fees. I had a tiny TV that could be powered by 6 AA batteries. The screen size was approximately 3 inches / 7.5cm.

I don't know if the rules have changed since then, but if they are the same, then a battery-powered laptop would also be exempt (even in color.)

Re: Please do not write below the line

#325

Post by chihuahua »

account42 wrote: post #278
madeofpalk wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do the discounts stack? If you’re blind should you just buy a monochrome tv and pay £28?

On the other hand you might end up paying quite a bit more for a monochrome tv than for the cheapest color tv you can find.

Maybe you can just turn down the color setting to 0, and break off the knob.

Re: Please do not write below the line

#326

Post by chihuahua »

hggigg wrote: post #37

Please don't get me started on these guys. I don't own a television and don't want one (it's a waste of life). I get sent letters all the time. Last year I had an "inspector" turn up who was told to "fuck off", managed to gain entry to the apartment block and then came and knocked on my internal door and refused to show ID, clearly because he was an intimidating arsehole and didn't want to be called on it. He was tol…

You got a license for that bike handle, mate?

Re: Please do not write below the line

#327

Post by eszed »

db48x wrote: post #275
enasterosophes wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, it didn't come across as deliberately evasive. It came across like tier 1 helpdesk not really understanding how a query fits into their pre-defined categories, and trying to be helpful anyway without really understanding the problem. The later reply about it being because OCR does use what's below the line and it shouldn't be obscured looks like the ticket was escalated to someone who understood what was reall…

Except that you might be missing the key fact: the letter is just a letter. It’s not a form that requests information from the recipient, and the recipient is not instructed to return it. Scanning it would be pointless, because all of the information on it was printed out by them!

Ooh! I wonder if most of the letters they send out are forms (expected to be returned), but all of their letters are on the same paper-stock, which is pre-printed with the (intended for forms) "don't write below" message.

Evidence in favor of this theory: the "don't write" message is in red text. It's cheaper to do two (or more) passes on one high-volume print run - and then single (B&W) impressions on the smaller runs for each individual letter or form - than it would be to do multiple passes for each and every order.

The support staff wouldn't be privy to these sorts of economic optimizations, so no wonder they couldn't give the guy a comprehensive answer.

Re: Please do not write below the line

#328

Post by eszed »

frizlab wrote: post #263
axiolite wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I humbly suggest: 3M Thermo-Fax https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZVYRMu6Q9k

I still prefer mine https://vimeo.com/113756330 :)

Hadn't seen either, but man.... That's a good one. Simple idea, great writing, excellent production, superb acting (I love Robert Carlyle).

I've always respected Johnnie Walker, but thought their offerings are overpriced for what they are (brand-name premium, I guess). However, I just discovered Johnnie Walker Double Black, and: wow. It's a nice, smoky whisky for $30-something a bottle. I don't know anything else I like better in that price-band. It's my new "table whisky". Great stuff.

Re: Please do not write below the line

#329

Post by eszed »

dijit wrote: post #8

Likeliest situation is all their stationary destined for send outs have the line; and in situations where the line serves no purpose it does no harm to leave it: so there is little use in having additional process around completely blank stock.

Ha! I made the same guess in a sub-thread a bit further up. You (and the sibling poster) deserve credit for beating me to it.

I agree, and I doubt the support munchkins would know anything about stationery purchase practices, which explains their befuddlement.

Re: Please do not write below the line

#330

Post by db48x »

eszed wrote: post #327
db48x wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that you might be missing the key fact: the letter is just a letter. It’s not a form that requests information from the recipient, and the recipient is not instructed to return it. Scanning it would be pointless, because all of the information on it was printed out by them!

Ooh! I wonder if most of the letters they send out are forms (expected to be returned), but all of their letters are on the same paper-stock, which is pre-printed with the (intended for forms) "don't write below" message. Evidence in favor of this theory: the "don't write" message is in red text. It's cheaper to do two (or more) passes on one high-volume print run - and then single (B&W) impressions on the smaller ru…

That’s entirely plausible, and it was my guess too.
Post reply on HN