|
I try. 
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
|
|
|
|
|
David Wulff wrote:
I try.
Is this actually true?
--------
Daddy help me! I have a wulffle in my bulffle!
Should I email you about it???
--------
|
|
|
|
|
![Rose | [Rose]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)                   -D;P;)
--------
Daddy help me! I have a wulffle in my bulffle!
Should I email you about it???
--------
|
|
|
|
|
Triteness made ascii. Should have sent this via email.
Glano perictu com sahni delorin!
|
|
|
|
|
I've just checked my stats and I've downloaded 759.73 MB of data over my 56k modem connection between 22/Nov and 02/Dec. That's 76 MB per day.
That may not be much to many of you, but I'm on a modem that downloads 5.6kbps on a good day.
I think I can see why BT hated me so flippin' much!
David Wulff Born and Bred.
|
|
|
|
|
It now stands at 1,211.50 MB (1.2 GB) between 22/Nov and 11/Dec. That makes it only 60 MB per day - I must be cutting down.
Live for today and die tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
|
David Wulff wrote:
I've just checked my stats and I've downloaded 759.73 MB of data over my 56k modem connection between 22/Nov and 02/Dec. That's 76 MB per day
Wow. That is certainly a lot.
--------
Daddy help me! I have a wulffle in my bulffle!
Should I email you about it???
--------
|
|
|
|
|
Some of you may remember those Hotmail spam tests I did much earlier in the year, where I created two new accounts, one with a five digit name (but totally random, like g9k1d) and another 32 digits long (i.e. j7sd64we4gw4w43...), to see if any got sent any spam. I didn't dvertise either addresses anywhere but still the 5 digit long account was hit with a load of spam. From this it seemed fairly likely that people were running bots against known e-mail domains to harvest valid (non-bouncing) e-mail addresses, and then added them to various lists. We can only hope that the mail server programmers catch on to this and implement artificial intelligence rules to guard against this sort of thing in the future.
Well tonight I had a big scare. I received about seven million blank e-mail messages sent to a domain I control all sporting a different "To:" address. a, b, c, d, etc, right through to the final one before I got the "catch all" pop3 account shut down of d6l1r. (read about my big scare here). To me this seems pretty obviously a brute force attack to gain valid e-mail addresses or some script kiddie bombing me.
[ edit: it seems that only 24,000 or so messages actaully made it through, the rest were bounced as the space limit on the pop3 account was filling up too quickly ]
I can recall receiving one of these mysterious blank messages to my main e-mail account (dwulff@mydomain.com) about a week ago - was this used to probe the domain and schedule it for a future brute force scan? The similarities of the messages are too much of a coincidence to me, so I am warning anyone who gets what appears to be an innocent blank e-mail (and you'll find the headers - apart from "To:" unlike I originally thought - to be missing) to immeadiately check, double check and tripple check that you do not have a catch-all e-mail account. Whislt they can be very useful (and important) it looks like the spammers have caught onto using them as an easy way to increase their lists (though why is beyond me, they acheive nothing through it ). I shudder at the thought I may now have tens of thousands of e-mail addresses floating round on some spam list somewhere.
Could it be time to push American's out of the top three positions on David's Pet Hate list and fianlly add spammers to the number one slot?
David Wulff Born and Bred.
|
|
|
|
|
Just noticed your sig is working in Mozilla now. Donno if the fix is due to you, or to the new version of Mozilla, but kudos whereever...
---
Shog9
Life seems pretty easy when it's from my easy chair
And you're burnin up inside and no one cares...
|
|
|
|
|
Cool.
David Wulff Born and Bred.
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Josh I've just updated my sig - does it still work in Mozilla?
|
|
|
|
|
No.
But then, it isn't working in IE right now either... I'll try again when i get home, it might be the firewall here.
---
Shog9
The siren sings a lonely song - of all the wants and hungers
The lust of love a brute desire - the ledge of life goes under
|
|
|
|
|
Oh no, I hope I haven't broken it! Does the sig in the first message of this thread work from your workplace?
|
|
|
|
|
Nope.
The Web site cannot be found
The Web site you are looking for is unavailable due to its identification configuration settings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please try the following:
Click the Refresh button, or try again later.
If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that it is spelled correctly.
Click the Back button to try another link.
11004 - Host not found
Internet Security and Acceleration Server
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technical Information (for support personnel)
Background:
This error indicates that the gateway could not find the IP address of the Web site you are trying to access.
ISA Server: laxhnr123
Via:
Time: 1/3/2003 10:52:33 PM GMT
---
Shog9
The siren sings a lonely song - of all the wants and hungers
The lust of love a brute desire - the ledge of life goes under
|
|
|
|
|
Nevermind, works now, IE and Moz 
---
Shog9
The siren sings a lonely song - of all the wants and hungers
The lust of love a brute desire - the ledge of life goes under
|
|
|
|
|
|
:bob::bob::bob:
:bob::bob: :bob:
:bob::bob: :bob:
:bob::bob: :bob:
:bob::bob: :bob:
:bob::bob: :bob: :bob: :bob:
:bob::bob::bob: :bob: :bob: :bob: :bob: :bob:
:bob::bob::bob: :bob: :bob::bob: :bob: :bob:
:bob::bob::bob::bob: :bob: :bob::bob: :bob: :bob:
:bob::bob::bob: :bob: :bob: :bob::bob: :bob:
:bob::bob::bob: :bob: :bob:
:bob::bob::bob::bob: :bob:
:bob::bob::bob::bob::bob::bob::bob::bob::bob:
:bob::bob::bob::bob: :bob::bob::bob:
:bob::bob::bob::bob: :bob: :bob:
:bob: :bob::bob::bob: :bob: :bob:
:bob: :bob::bob: :bob: :bob: :bob:
:bob::bob: :bob:
:bob::bob::bob::bob::bob::bob::bob:
:bob: :bob:
:bob: :bob:
:bob::bob::bob::bob: :bob::bob::bob::bob:
:bob::bob: :bob: :bob: :bob::bob:
:bob::bob::bob::bob::bob: :bob::bob::bob::bob::bob:
So very sad.
David Wulff Born and Bred.
|
|
|
|
|
Wow... a metabob!
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
|
|
|
|
|
Beeb, BBC, free-interest media - they are all the same thing here in the UK, they are all the British Broadcasting Corporation.
I'm sure some of you have been following Paul and my own discussions about the BBC over the past months, with somewhat limited interest, and in particular those related to the license fee which is in my opinion widely and horrendously misunderstood by the more recent generations, so this is for the benefit of you few as well as for Paul and me. I want to take you on a journey – it won’t feature fame, fortune or even sheep and I can’t promise that it will be fun, but I can guarantee it will give you something worthwhile to occupy your lunch hour or evening with.
- - - - -
To start on a simple analogy: think of media in the United Kingdom as a stick balancing on a stone inside a glass tank which we use to observe it. The two extremes of commercialised and free-interest media are ants standing on the two ends of the stick: the free-interest end sports only a single ant whilst the commercialised end is swarming, so in order to create equilibrium the stone must be placed nearer to the commercialised swarm. However on this stick the free-interest ant is one of those big buggers from the rainforest and hence the stone can be placed in the centre to balance the system. What are the similarities you ask? Well the big ant doesn’t have to fight for air (programmes/sponsorship/etc) like the swarm on the other end of the stick, having instead the time, resources and means to create them in addition, and our chubby insect friend doesn’t need to farm many aphids (shareholders) in order to get the food (money) he requires – this is because we regularly supply him with sugar.
Now take away the sugar and the ant will loose weight; he will loose time to farming vastly greater amounts of aphids to provide his food and loose incredible means to keeping the aphids healthy… shortly the stick will tilt over to the commercialised end and our poor ant friend will slide down the stick and into the swarm, creating a frenzy. The swarm will promptly take advantage of his misfortune as they gorge on his aphid farm and steal his air, polluting what he does manage to breathe with their waste gases (commercial-interests) and tipping the stick further and further till it falls from the stone all together.
The poor fellow will no doubt manage to survive, but as the runt of the swarm not the alpha ant, and his dedication and servitude to his keepers will be gone for good.
- - - - -
Okay, so now lets talk about why this is important.
I have been researching for a little while now, through various mediums and sources ranging from newspapers to the Internet, comprehensive information on the BBC that covers all of what I have been trying to explain and more on the issue of what it means to have the BBC and why it must remain publicly funded. I've looked at British Telecom, I've looked at the Post Office, and I have looked in part at our National Health Service and railways. I have also looked at how they have changed and are changing to remain viable entities in competitive markets and how some have adapted to provide profits for their shareholders time and time again ultimately at the expense of the services they are responsible for providing.
My conclusions are clear: forcing the BBC to compete on a commercial level by abolishing the mandatory low license fee for non-unprivileged television subscribers would cripple it on many fronts. No other commercial service in the world is currently able to offer the same level or sheer range of services, so there are none to draw comparisons with. The rest of this thread however aims to explain why I have drawn this conclusion.
I am a strong believer that the BBC should stay publicly funded through the low and rationally targeted license fee system currently in use today, and should not be offered on an opt-in basis. The BBC is not simply another ITV, Channel 4, Fox Network or CNN, the BBC *is* free-interest media for the United Kingdom and the BBC is a British heritage we should not be so quick to disregard. I put it to you that if the BBC was forced to become a viable commercial entity it would firstly and fore mostly fail to meet it's obligations under the Royal Charter, both in services and free-interest media and entertainment, and thus would fail as a true "service of and for the public interest". I also put it to you that the fall of the BBC would be a great loss into a shareholder and profit driven market and a tragedy to the United Kingdom equal in consequence to the removal of the kingdom itself.
- - - - -
Whilst all of the following links are selected from the BBC web sites alone, I believe these to be the most significantly important, most comprehensive and most worth special mention (although I urge anybody with any real interest to research for themselves as far and wide as their means will allow. Be warned though: it has taken me now well over a week to do just this – and I’m still going – so don't make the same mistake I did in thinking it would be an easy topic to conquer). This thread is not designed to trigger debate or conversation; it is designed to inspire thought before blindly repeating the habitual rhetoric that is fashionable to churn out against the BBC; it is designed to make you question and draw your own conclusions using the facts - for yourself. In order to do this I will require your unrestricted concentration. And a Tablet PC (wink, wink).
So without further ado, I now present you with the information I believe to be of most use via a handful of links to documents or web pages listed below. This should take an average reader (like me) about ninety minutes to two hours to complete, so sit comfortably and have snacks on hand. Beware the curious mind for it can take you away for hours! As I said above, there is a *lot* of information here, some of it is mandatory reading some of it is merely supportive or expansive; I’ve tried to annotate them as appropriately as I can to help you choose...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/bbc/acc_how.shtml [^]- A wonderful introduction to the way the BBC is structured and the differing services they provide. If you are going to read only one of these links, make this the one, and make sure you read *all* of the pages linked off the main body.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/bbc/charter.shtml [^]- The Royal Charter and the Agreement (which currently come to an end in 2006 and make very good reading). The Agreement itself is of more significant note.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/forum/1833738.stm [^]- A webcast by the Chairman of the Board of Directors regarding the beeb’s governance, and highly relevant to what myself and Paul have been discussing of late. The further links on this page are also of relevance but essentially just reiterate the same principles.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/bbc/lic_advert.shtml [^] - Simply titled "Why doesn't the BBC take advertising?". In a simplistic way this is the "short course" version of my argument on this topic. If you only read two items on this list, make this the second.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/commercial/index.shtml [^] - The beeb’s commercial policy guidelines. These will take a while to get through and some of it is as tedious as a Microsoft EULA, but they are still in my opinion worth the ordeal. The justification for paying millions of pounds to show the first Harry Potter film this Christmas, for example, is covered here in detail. If you only read three items from this list, make this your third, and read *all* of it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/consult/ [^] - The beeb's proposals for current and future services. Very interesting if you are looking forward to the future of British media and what license money will be spent on. Probably not of much use if you're not though. http://www.bbc.co.uk/consult/ns_results.shtml [^] also has many interesting links to follow (linked from the previous document).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/bbc/app_index.shtml [^] - The BBC's charity work (both airtime and production). This is something that would be impossible to move to commercialised television to the level the beeb currently take it. This is on the list as an example of a service currently provided that would not survive a transition to competitive commercial media.
And lastly...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/thenandnow/ [^] - The BBC Then and Now. An interesting read if you are interested by the history of the corporation.
There are discussions aplenty on the links, documents and videos listed above as to what the licensing fee is spent on and why it is needed; there are discussions aplenty with regard to what it means to have free-interest (non-commercialised) media in an increasingly commercialised market; there are discussions aplenty telling why and what services the BBC provides, both through it's publicly funded and separate commercial divisions. In short, there are discussions aplenty which provide ample evidence to support my claims and my conclusions. If any changes need to be made, they should be made to the terminology of the way we fund the BBC – it should not be a “license fee”, it should be a “mandatory donation for the good of the state” like enlistment during the last World War.
The BBC sum it up themselves perfectly in their own Commercial Policy Guidelines, I'll leave the reader to add the appropriate emphasis at the end:
"The BBC’s core purposes are those of public service: seeking to satisfy audiences with services that inform, educate and entertain; and that enrich their lives in ways the market alone will not."
The defence rests. (Literally!)
"Unfortunatly Deep Throat isn't my cup of tea" - Martin Marvinski
|
|
|
|
|
Why should my tax money and license fee go towards supporting the beeb when I can't get the reception, nor does it enhance my culture. !!!
Regardz
Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining.
Said by Roger Wright about me.
|
|
|
|
|
Are you really required to pay our licensing fee? I wouldn't have thought our monarchy had any power over Kiwis. 
"Unfortunatly Deep Throat isn't my cup of tea" - Martin Marvinski
|
|
|
|
|
David Wulff wrote:
Are you really required to pay our licensing fee? I wouldn't have thought our monarchy had any power over Kiwis.
We did have[^]don't you know about the revolt we had ? Read more here[^]
Regardz
Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining.
Said by Roger Wright about me.
|
|
|
|
|
I had seen the CAL site before but didn't make the connection, possibly because the propaganda on that site surpases even Bill SerGio's homepage enough to nullify any legitmate issues they may raise. Out of curiosity, what services were being provided to you before the change? Read in depth some of the links on my original message that explore just a handful of the public services the beeb provide to us, now, and compare. People often make the mistake that the "TV License" pays for what you see on the TV - CAL included - that is simply not true at all.
I think it is about time the BBC changed their name to disclude the term "broadcasting" from it. That gives the same impression as Oxfam being a chain of second hand stores.
The only real problem with regards to the way the license payers money is spent is that is is horrifically mismanaged, but that is a problem that is constantly being addressed and is not unique to the BBC.
Current polls show less than three percent of Britons, how you guys say, "could care less" about the license fees. They care far more about the taxes levied on cigarettes and alcohol and even hotel charges have more importance that income tax. 
The only way the TV license will be abolished in this country is if The Sun[^] start a campaign on the back of their upcoming 2003 "NAKED BIMBOS" calendar. And even then the only way to motivate them would be through the promise of a suplement in their Sunday paper titled "Britians 100 Top Sexiest Housewifes" if everyone sent in a pre-paid cut-out form to the government. 
Totally off topic, but if you look at The Sun web site today (not that I would ever recommend it under normal circumstances), doesn't that Harry Poter kid look like a lesbian. 
"Unfortunatly Deep Throat isn't my cup of tea" - Martin Marvinski
|
|
|
|
|
David Wulff wrote:
how you guys say, "could care less"
Actually, though most people say it that way, it doesn't logically make sense. It should be "couldn't care less". Cause if you think about it, if you could care less, then you have some level of caring about the situation. If you couldn't care less, then you don't care at all about the situation, and it is impossible for you to "not care" more. Make sense?
Hawaian shirts and shorts work too in Summer.
People assume you're either a complete nut (in which case not a worthy target) or so damn good you don't need to worry about camouflage...
-Anna-Jayne Metcalfe on Paintballing
|
|
|
|
|
I use "couldn't care less" myself, but I have seen an awful lot of CPians using "could care less" for some reason. I guess they were trying to be sarcastic on top of sarcastic remark? 
"I live very much in the real world, it's just not the same world shared by most other people"
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
