billw
The Tattooed One
$150 a month!
Youtube !
- Thread starter Blister
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
I just searched for Brave and clicked on the top search result, but it was a scam site posing as the Brave.com, so be careful if you look for Brave.com.
EDIT: Seems the Tor component may flag as a false positive in some anti virus software, but I also use Tor with no problems from Bitdefender?
Last edited:
Ah, the Licence fee. Such an emotive subject. And way older than that other irritating subject Brexit. I have no TV aerial. I watch BBC iPlayer most of the time and pay the Licence fee because I believe it’s a legal requirement. On balance, 43p/day seems, to me, value for money.
Like probably all, on this wonderful planet of ours, being interrupted by ads mid-programme is a bane. So, we all know “the law is an ass”, but who wants lawlessness? Just be law-abiding and cough up a fraction more than 43p/day. To me, BBC = quality broadcasting, most of the time.
Ha ha, I truly can remember when there was one TV Channel and that was the BBC and ...
Now let’s all calm down and get back to things that really matter. Peace and love and chill. It’s good for your karma. Look it up!
Like probably all, on this wonderful planet of ours, being interrupted by ads mid-programme is a bane. So, we all know “the law is an ass”, but who wants lawlessness? Just be law-abiding and cough up a fraction more than 43p/day. To me, BBC = quality broadcasting, most of the time.
Ha ha, I truly can remember when there was one TV Channel and that was the BBC and ...
Now let’s all calm down and get back to things that really matter. Peace and love and chill. It’s good for your karma. Look it up!
Transit80
Established Member
Adverts on YouTube? What are you talking about?
Have Adblock+, Ghostery and Privacy Badger installed, and not sure which one blocks the ads, but it works like a charm! No ads on YT, no ads on news sites, nada!
Done the same on Faceache as well!!!!!
If you're willing to buy top tier tv and on demand rubbish as well as a bunch of a la carte channels, the sky is the limit. My dad has all of the typical premium unlimited movie channels, the pro sports networks and a few of the full college conference athletic channels. He's bonkers about sports. If a game isn't televised in your area by contract, you can just switch to it no matter the time or location.
For me, you quickly realize the thrill wears off and the stuff is there but you don't watch it. For my dad, sports all day, all night. If he's building something, he dials it up in his work area. Child of the original tv generation, I guess. He goes to the internet only to check email and read sports news.
Trainee neophyte
Established Member
R
An American girl once told me that she could never trust anything the BBC World News put out, because the presenters weren't glossy and shiny and beautiful, in that bizarrely false American style. They are too ugly to be believable, and those teeth! It's all about what you are used to, I suppose. Fake teeth, hair, chest and complexion make for honesty and integrity in some circles.
She must not have turned the TV on here. Most of the people on the local news channels are funny looking, and the older presenters even on cable channels often look funny. They look doubly stupid when they have plastic surgery and look funny and fake at the same time.
There are a few superficial people like that in the US, but they tend to work with each other (as in, sales managers with big sales goals tend to hang out with people who think everyone is looking at them all the time, and impressed by them).
The rest of us don't care. When you get into the rural areas, the people prefer your example of BBC.
corrective tooth stuff didn't become more standard until the last 3 decades. When I was a kid, if it was for cosmetic purposes only, perhaps half of kids got it, the other half didn't. I didn't (but don't have bad teeth - the dentist offered to change the angle of them slightly for cosmetic purposes and my parents told him to pound sand).
There are a few superficial people like that in the US, but they tend to work with each other (as in, sales managers with big sales goals tend to hang out with people who think everyone is looking at them all the time, and impressed by them).
The rest of us don't care. When you get into the rural areas, the people prefer your example of BBC.
corrective tooth stuff didn't become more standard until the last 3 decades. When I was a kid, if it was for cosmetic purposes only, perhaps half of kids got it, the other half didn't. I didn't (but don't have bad teeth - the dentist offered to change the angle of them slightly for cosmetic purposes and my parents told him to pound sand).
The one humorous thing we get from our friends in the UK (who visit us sometimes) is their chiding us over our news channels (We don't watch them).
They quite often tell us that BBC has no biases. I'd imagine BBC is more down the center than our channels that like to pick one direction of weirdness or another, but the idea of any TV program with self-interest in anything being unbiased is funny. I suggested that perhaps folks in the UK tend to have a more uniform acceptance of a certain bias, but I've never met anyone or any company without biases.
The reason I don't watch news here isn't the issue of biases, but rather if there's something on the news that pertains to you (rare) that's worth actually watching, you can often find far better information in the same time by looking online. E.g., at the outset of covid, I wanted to know outcomes for actual spreading. It wasn't difficult to find on our NIH site here - data from italy and china. It spread in enclosed spaces and I instantly stopped with the hand washing foolishness and avoided enclosed spaces with still air and other people in them. Needless to say, we haven't gotten covid despite it being dense here. It took me a 10th of the time to figure that out reading actual study information on the NIH site vs. watching endless news programs changing their recommendations.
When fauci came out suggesting nobody should wear a mask, I said to my wife "that guy right there is an a-hole - he's telling us to wash our hands which doesn't have much to do with transmission, and telling us not to buy or wear masks which does - I'm sure he's protecting the fed gov's ability to buy and hoard masks and I'm sure they'll sit on them". It took a long time for the CDC to finally admit that transmission by touch is unlikely or that outdoor transmission of any type is a very small amount and chance. Meanwhile, the nutballs in my neighborhood are washing their hands all over the place, and having their kids run to the center of the yard any time anyone walks down the street.
My spouse responded "why would they tell everyone to wash their hands then?". To keep people busy and make them think they're doing something productive - just like the WWII scrap drives.
So, if the covid news is like that (inaccurate, constantly changing, not related to reality), what makes us think that other items we haven't researched are reported accurately? It's 90% entertainment, and I guess marketing a product ("summarized news") under the guise that "you won't be informed if you don't watch". It's antiquated and unnecessary and just biased to ratings.
No thanks for any of it.
(also read early chinese study data on hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir and saw that neither did much of anything. Two sides of politics here picked a favorite on each side, all the way up to our government making a spurious recommendation for remdesivir when it showed no significant statistical confidence. That was well received because half of the population hates trump and his ineffective treatment. Meanwhile, a couple of small foreign studies showed steroids and vitamin D in large doses both have significant efficacy. There's still a serious lack of follow-up on vitamin D and your health system - the NHS - sees one foreign study after another with statistical significance and says "we will continue to watch".
Watch what? Watch it work while our two supposedly more advanced governments do nothing to do a controlled study on it and significantly reduce hospitalizations and deaths?
They quite often tell us that BBC has no biases. I'd imagine BBC is more down the center than our channels that like to pick one direction of weirdness or another, but the idea of any TV program with self-interest in anything being unbiased is funny. I suggested that perhaps folks in the UK tend to have a more uniform acceptance of a certain bias, but I've never met anyone or any company without biases.
The reason I don't watch news here isn't the issue of biases, but rather if there's something on the news that pertains to you (rare) that's worth actually watching, you can often find far better information in the same time by looking online. E.g., at the outset of covid, I wanted to know outcomes for actual spreading. It wasn't difficult to find on our NIH site here - data from italy and china. It spread in enclosed spaces and I instantly stopped with the hand washing foolishness and avoided enclosed spaces with still air and other people in them. Needless to say, we haven't gotten covid despite it being dense here. It took me a 10th of the time to figure that out reading actual study information on the NIH site vs. watching endless news programs changing their recommendations.
When fauci came out suggesting nobody should wear a mask, I said to my wife "that guy right there is an a-hole - he's telling us to wash our hands which doesn't have much to do with transmission, and telling us not to buy or wear masks which does - I'm sure he's protecting the fed gov's ability to buy and hoard masks and I'm sure they'll sit on them". It took a long time for the CDC to finally admit that transmission by touch is unlikely or that outdoor transmission of any type is a very small amount and chance. Meanwhile, the nutballs in my neighborhood are washing their hands all over the place, and having their kids run to the center of the yard any time anyone walks down the street.
My spouse responded "why would they tell everyone to wash their hands then?". To keep people busy and make them think they're doing something productive - just like the WWII scrap drives.
So, if the covid news is like that (inaccurate, constantly changing, not related to reality), what makes us think that other items we haven't researched are reported accurately? It's 90% entertainment, and I guess marketing a product ("summarized news") under the guise that "you won't be informed if you don't watch". It's antiquated and unnecessary and just biased to ratings.
No thanks for any of it.
(also read early chinese study data on hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir and saw that neither did much of anything. Two sides of politics here picked a favorite on each side, all the way up to our government making a spurious recommendation for remdesivir when it showed no significant statistical confidence. That was well received because half of the population hates trump and his ineffective treatment. Meanwhile, a couple of small foreign studies showed steroids and vitamin D in large doses both have significant efficacy. There's still a serious lack of follow-up on vitamin D and your health system - the NHS - sees one foreign study after another with statistical significance and says "we will continue to watch".
Watch what? Watch it work while our two supposedly more advanced governments do nothing to do a controlled study on it and significantly reduce hospitalizations and deaths?
NormanB
Established Member
I would not be so mealy mouthed about it. Look at young Leo of Tally Ho. He puts out the standard ‘begging bowl’ and never fails to thank his contributors. If he had not generated the financial support he has has garnered then I doubt the project of ‘restoring’ Tally Ho would have progressed one tenth of the way it has. Leo is a very talented lad and is an inspirational character. It is fortunate that he has many supporters from the USA as for all their faults Americans are much more inclined to be both much more hospitable and generous than say Brits, who by character are more reserved particularly when it comes to putting their hands in their pockets. It is also wonderful to see how this young chap has galvanised and inspired so many other young people who volunteer their time to work on the project.
if this has persuaded you to recalibrate for 2021 and exorcise your ‘Marley‘s Ghost’ then pop over and have a look at his work and maybe bung him some financial support. Leo will make much tangible use of it than the Chancellor.
Tally Ho
Rather than use ad blockers I watch YT on the Brave browser. No adverts.
You Sir are my saviour , Just viewed a YT video and for the first time EVER , NO ADDS , Thanks you
Wow, any more unwarranted insults you'd like to hurl in my direction?
I do actually support a number of YouTubers on Patreon, they are all musicians and sailors for whom YouTube is a minor sideline, not professional 'content creators' who already have a workshop full of tools that most of us could never aspire to.
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-legal-framework-AB16
Further down:
You have to read info from TV Licensing very carefully as they're deliberately vague in places and leave out info.
In summary:
A licence is needed for watching or recording live broadcast TV (any channel including streaming over the internet).
A licence is needed for watching or recording TV from the BBC's iPlayer, both live and "catch up" ie after it has been broadcast.
You don't a licence:
to own or stall or use equipment that is capable of receiving live TV.
to watch catch up TV from any channel except the BBC.
Also you don't need to contact TV Licensing to tell them you don't need a licence, in fact the best thing is to ignore them completely.
The TV Licence is unenforceable and operates on an honour system. TV Licensing cannot enter your home without your permission, and they can only get a search warrant if they have actual evidence that you're watching or recording TV illegally, not simply because you refuse to let them in.
Last edited:
There is two bits to this, the first is if the vehicle was not there the content could not be shared, and the second and the part the first point relies upon is the content.
Both need funding to allow growth, this google allow free access, but you have to put up with adverts, and the content provider can use patron to have the individuals pay for the content and thus allowing them to add more content.
At the end of the day it is down to individuals to pay for their content and chose if and who they pay.
starlingwood
Established Member
I wish the adverts were targeted. I get some silly app game thing or some online casino both of which I couldn't be further from entertaining. At least with Facebook you get the targeted ads and they can be really useful.
The TV licence is an outdated, poor value tax.
I haven't paid it in 18 years, and I don't miss live TV one bit.
I get Netflix and Amazon prime combined for a TV licence cost.
The sooner it's scraped, the better.
Replace it with a BBC subscription service. If the BBC is as good as some people believe, they will be plenty of subscribers.
It's a horrible tax.
I haven't paid it in 18 years, and I don't miss live TV one bit.
I get Netflix and Amazon prime combined for a TV licence cost.
The sooner it's scraped, the better.
Replace it with a BBC subscription service. If the BBC is as good as some people believe, they will be plenty of subscribers.
It's a horrible tax.
they could use that as part of an advertising gimmick. Peace, love and chill....don't forget the license bill..
Peace, love and chill.....don't forget the license bill......
if you do, you'll see...
stars, bars and repossession of your cars.
Happy day, your friends at the BBC!!
As I ditched the TV licence because I don't watch live broadcast TV I put those funds toward YT premium. £11 well spent IMO. No adverts and a tiny slice of that £11 does actually find it's way to the creators.
Bonus is you get YT music which I've found to be way better than Amazon Prime Music.
Bonus is you get YT music which I've found to be way better than Amazon Prime Music.
