On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 10:01:26 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> ____/ Mark Kent on Thursday 25 October 2007 08:29 : \____
>>
>>> William Poaster <wp@xxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>> [H]omer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>>>>>> ____/ Kier on Wednesday 24 October 2007 11:09 : \____
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's time to stop blaming MS for everything
>>>>>
>>>>> Another fine post from Kier the "Linux advocate", who spends his time
>>>>> feeding the Trolls, and apologising for Microsoft and its supporters.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well congratulations, you are no longer simply a Troll feeder IMO, you
>>>>> are now an actual Troll. If you are so in love with Sweaty Ballmer and
>>>>> his violently destructive company, then why don't you piss off to
>>>>> Windows la-la land, and stop criticising every damn word that anyone
>>>>> dares to use against the Microsoft crime syndicate?
>>>>>
>>>>> Go on, let's hear some more apologies and excuses for Microsoft. It's
>>>>> what you're good at.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, first-class corruption. Microsoft is part of a phenomenon and
>>>>>> a pattern. It is not *the* problem, but /part/ of the problem. Being
>>>>>> part of the problem is still being a problem, no matter how you think
>>>>>> about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> £130 Million pounds of taxpayers' money wasted on unnecessary Microsoft
>>>>> technology, and hiring senior ex-Microsoft employees to pervert the BBC
>>>>> media infrastructure, would be major contributing factors.
>>>>
>>>> Twice that amount, I believe. It would seem that at *least* £280million has
>>>> been handed to M$, for one thing or another.
>>>> Put into context, the annual BBC3 budget is £93.4 million, & BBC4 is £46.8
>>>> million. Just imagine the programs they could have made for BBC1 & 2 with
>>>> that £280 million they squandered.
>>>>
>>>> According to 2006 figures, the BBC had a £4.5 billion budget from licence
>>>> fees *alone*. In 2007 it's estimated to be £4.68 billion. It *also* gets
>>>> revenue from its commercial subsidiary BBC Worldwide.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> How anyone, even Kier, could possibly argue that passing £280 Millions
>>> of our licence-fee cash would not result in layoffs in an environment of
>>> capped licence-fee increases is quite beyond me.
>>>
>>> That the BBC are trying to blame the licence-fee cap for this shows just
>>> how completely dishonest and corrupt that organisation has become -
>>> they've fully embraced the Microsoft Integrity Model. I feel very sorry
>>> indeed for the 2,500 people who are now going to be looking for another
>>> job, whilst £280 million of our cash is lounging around in Microsoft
>>> bank accounts, for the delivery, of, well, *nothing at all*. The BBC
>>> owns *nothing* from its investment of £280 millions of our money.
>>>
>>> Kier - please, these are *real people* who've lost their jobs, in order
>>> to feed the Redmond machine. They have families, mortgages, spouses,
>>> children, elderly parents, gas, leccy bills, cars and food bills all to
>>> support. This isn't something for you to apologise for, this is *real*.
>>>
>>> Furthermore, it's your money and my money which is being sent to Mr
>>> Ballmer, and Microsoft is delivering, err, it's player which it was
>>> delivering anyway. In binary. Nothing for the BBC to own. No source
>>> code, no possibility of going to another vendor. No possibility to
>>> change integrator. Licensing (rtu) fee to pay each time anyone even
>>> views something with the "silverlight" player, pay to whom? Yes, to
>>> Microsoft. So the £280 millions is going to rise rapidly, as Microsoft
>>> own more and more of our licence-fee money.
>>>
>>> What will you say when the last technical people at the BBC are given
>>> their P.45s?
>>
>> I am not allowed to comment on this in detail, but it turns out that the crooks
>> at the BBC have become quite fearful of this reaction. Apparently, it's all
>> too real.
>>
>
> I'm quite sure it's very real indeed. They've so far wasted more money
> than the combined BBC3 and BBC4 annual budgets on buying, well, nothing
> at all, they will *never* own anything. What's worse, I discussed the
> Dirac codec with a BBC research chap about 3-4 years ago at the Linux
> expo in London, and he said that they were trying to push their free
> codec because a) it was better than anything else around and b) it was
> proving *too expensive* to even pay realplayer fees.
>
> I cannot imagine just how much Microsoft are charging the BBC for the
> privilege of distributing their own software and the privilege of trying
> to lock BBC Licence-fee payers into using Microsoft Windows.
>
> No doubt Kier will find a justification for them, though.
Stop putting words in my mouth. Now. Not one single word of
so-called 'justification' has ever been posted by me on that subject, and
you know it.
I am just sick to death of hearing MS blamed for every single bad thing
that happens.
--
Kier
|
|
