Jump to content


GR.net Supporter
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About calius

  • Birthday April 19

Profile Information

  • Gender

calius's Achievements

Pointman - 1st Class

Pointman - 1st Class (10/13)



  1. Are you totally blind to what I am talking about here or are you deliberately missing the point? Re-read everything ive posted. Its not thier right to charge for it, its there obligation to secure there data that licence payers are paying for and have a login system, so those who dont want to pay dont get the benefit of it, simple as that, pick the analogy apart how you will. The difference is the example para, its a website with streamed content, the BBC site is the exact same tech, you dont see youtube charging YOU to stream it & forced to do so becuase the site happens to be wide open to view, as you say you "choose" to pay a fee in the way that it works and every passing viewer doesn't, theirs no straws to grasp. My point is just because you can view youtube openly right now you should be forced to pay, im damn sure if they tried everyone would be up in arms. First of all going by your first quote you kind of suggest blanket license is justified which surprises me, IE "fee ride" .. its that hardline view im highlighting. This is fine and im aware of that, if they stick to this then all will be well, but I have heard people to this day tell me "you need a license as you have a PC" and really have the whole thing mixed up. If they stick to this and have a login then that's totally fine as ive already mentioned, and no more comment on the matter, im just waiting to see how they implement it, one thing that has been missed is the slant of the article and the title "suggestion". The reason I made this and posted is I know a lot of UK people are here and I wanted to see thier points on the matter, so far without them realising what you quoted a few openly agreed to the notion of a blanket license for a PC ... that surprised me. And even in other comments about "we pay so you should" (not here but on that news page comments and elsewhere) ... you can see where people other than me should really get that straight. You will be suprised poeple who think a blanket license seems to be the same level for a PC Para. Jesus Para, it was an example not a set in stone absolute fact. Umm, yes, clearly it was, but the internet as you well know isnt and wasn't a "TV" stream device when it started, nor is it now, its a website access point of everything and anything with sites that happen to have this content charging to view that content via login. And as you have pointed out no need to worry as it wont be treated like a PC licence free (not set it stone) .. yet you still use the TV license model as some sort of level playing field later. The point i'm making is, I know for a fact people really do see it as "BBC can be watched online YOU should pay the license like me" when its a completely different situation, only para really spotted the sections ref to the BBC not going down that route (and they better not). But notice the article starts with the notion thats the case, then quotes later something that's not quite so back and white, although those who are "all pay license no matter what" would read that and agree, its been proven here, and if the license payers called for it enough that would help justify the blanket license view, which is wrong. Also whats wrong is that the Iplayer isn't the LIVE signal so a license is never needed for post-live footage. If they introduce Iplayer with full all channel live streams that opens it up to license to view, and then they should, and I hope they will, lock it and they need to revamp the licensing system to incorporate a login number per license user to view the content & a login and basic payment for "online only"viewers, so I hope they do that and do it properly. I just wonder if they really did blanket the license on PC how many in the UK really would dispute it (as it clearly would be wrong) and how many TV licencers would also dispute it even though they dont benefit, proof in some ways was shown a little here, interesting. @Petsfed: Its a UK only player, has never been any different and this is all about UK only license.
  2. Because any other website with this content charge via login (that's your right as an account holder), of which you choose to sign up too that's how the web works and has always done. Currently its not equal and encoded and the license states any medium that can watch "live" broadcast of which nearly all of Iplayer is not, its post broadcast stream. You pay tax and insurance on your car? So should passengers be charged too? On what websites do you know on the internet that show there content for free, start to charge you to view it without a login, which means anyone can see it even if they dont want too, so they must pay or be fined? They are crow barring payment from anyone online in the UK even if you do not want the service ... is anyone seeing this at all? Should I now be forced to pay to youtube becuase they have tv shows on them that I can watch right now? Should I be forced to pay for Spotify becuase I can stream music through it right now without paying (but adverts) simply becuase they brought a service to the internet? Its the principles of payment for content and choice to opt out that is the major point here. If any other company in the world suggested this people would go mad .. "pay me for I exist" .. I pay ISP fee then anything on top I agree to pay for via login to watch, I do not want to be forced into paying a company just because they exist "within" the internet. Even news/media is asking for payment "in order to view" its content online, they are not saying to people becuase we are online and you can possibly view us then you need to pay either way to read our content. You dont see magazine stores charge you on the door becuase "PC magazine" deems it that you might read its content as you browse the shelves. Ive never known the internet to be a TV exclusive BBC boys club before, and it shouldn't start now.
  3. This is the same point about that quote I posted above. Who is it that "lets" it be viewed for free? Is it a non payer? or is it the BBC? So how can you defend a corporation that charges you as a license payer and then insults the license payer by letting anyone else view the content? Its the BBC that needs to sort it out internally and not slap a fee on people because there signals and data gets broadcast out of their control. Then defend the corporations with a notion that becuase the BBC lets other see it, they should now pay? Thats the brainwashed argument, literally arguing FOR them when its the BBC ripping off license payers putting content up for anyone else to watch. Thats the idea, to get license payers calling for it to then justify others paying, when in actual fact its the BBC that need to protect the license payer. Its "live" thats the license is for, not streamed, stream is post live broadcast hence the fact they cant charge you becuase "they" choose to show it open online as a post live stream without login. There is a large distinction. I do not have a TV, I do not watch or want to watch BBC live, and I only check out some things on the Iplayer becuase the BBC placed it online to view for nothing (I never asked them and if it offends license payers they should complain to the BBC to have that content only viewable to them who are paying, and rightly so). Does any other "website" online charge you outside of your ISP fee becuase they have put there content unprotected online that you can browse? <<< this is the point. If you move and have no TV, nor any interest in watching BBC programmes at their website but have an "internet connection" your already swept into the net to have to pay the BBC, that's the point. No choice in the matter, your online you "could" watch, so pay. As I say its for them to add a login for online license payers so they reap the benefits, not a blanket payment to anyone who might possibly view their website. Online is a different way of working as apposed to a television becuase online = I can view anything via paying my ISP, the website owners need to protect the data. they are trying to condition people into "thinking" online = watching TV, its not. Its like me saying to someone "well, amazon are now setting a up a monthly fee that you now need separate to ISP fee becuase they have a website where you can view their content, I use it and pay them so why should you not pay even if you dont look at it".
  4. Its not "yet" but they are trying to crowbar it in. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1297660/The-internet-licence-fee-Viewers-watch-TV-charged-year-hints-minister.html So the BBC lands on the internet and then you pay for it, license is for live signal ... so they simply set up a subscription service for valid license owners to access their data online ... you know, like every other website on the internet, that's how it works. Nice bit of media wording, this actually should read: Iplayer is a stream site not a live site, so they should simply set up a login for all license payers & leave streams online if they want and all live data is login only. This is like having a shopping center/Mall and you access the entrance (IE: your ISP) and browse different shops, you pop in and view and leave, or you buy something. So the BBC open a "BBC shop" in the shopping center along side everyone else and then charge you a fee at the entrance becuase you might walk past their shop and look at the screens in the window. Hmmmm . nice logic. Some of the comments are good: "At the moment you want to watch the programmes but expect the rest of us to pay for them." .... I dont think they thought that through properly somehow, but then that's what they are expected to think, truly brainwashed thinking. So what do UK folks think of this,? BTW I dont have TV or pay the stupid license either because I dont. To US folk we have a ripp off BBC that force a license if you have TV that can watch thier live signal, so now they are trying to suggest those who dont pay it because they have no TV should now pay becuase they can view it online ... and as I say, its up to them to protect thier stream & live data via login for those who are and have paid for a license (IE: payed a fee to watch) I didn't ask them to go online with it. Its like a music shop charging you on the door becuase you can hear the music played as you walk in. Such a draconian old system, and they are trying it on for the 21st century, I hope this gets shot down in flames. Bottom line is whether or not I view their site I have to pay a license fee becuase they leave it open for anyone to view, do any other websites online do this? I think not. Bear in mind this covers anything that can view thier site or they allow to access their site (consoles, handhelds), talk about crowbar themselves into peoples pockets. This was the reason they started all this "player" thing in the first place, try to get people used to it then drop in the fee later.
  5. So did a "passenger jet" smash into the pentagon (it must have to fit the official lines)? And if so show where has it been certified as real, has anything of the evidence looked real as regards a "passenger jet" smashing into it? If they suddenly after all these years miraculously release clear pentagon footage from different cameras, will you then say "here guys look, proves its real" ... becuase that would be a sticky one going by your logic. Or is it that anything that sits perfectly to official sources is selectively the best proof and anything else is filed under must be proven? When in actual fact they have not proven their story either. I dont want to think anything other than that day just happened exactly that way, but im afraid if you really look at it completely there are how you say "red flags" all over it and I for one cant simply stand behind and defend this official angle with so many mismatches, that do speak for themselves theorist or not. Say there were no eye witnesses, and we have the aftermath pics & footage and the security gate (you know the proof that has to fit the official lines) video, as a witness to this evidence can you or anyone certify without doubt/without question 100 percent reliable fact in a court of law that a "jet liner" smashed into that building? This is yet another surrounding one that still makes no real sense, just explained "away". But fret not, simply hire out "Flight 93" and all your of your questions are answered! God bless Hollywood. Hehe I laughed at this (not is a nasty way) I just thought that if nothing else NASA could have made some better holiday snaps the cheapskates! One thing about the moon landing is the tech of that era, I mean its the 60's tech is pretty shoddy and yet we were on the moon driving around on buggy's ... it just seems so odd to me. Personally Im not going to say "we did not go to the moon" I will say ... I was told we did and I reserve the right to not take that as gospel given the era/tech what we were able to do up their and also the whole area about space radiation/sun and the type of suits we had at the time, could we actually make it? REALY? The best we can do now is send satellites and rover buggies, most is the space station, yet the budgets we have had since the 60's and no one has ever returned, no probes or buggies on the moon since (yet we catapult out to the furthest planets) .. yet with some tin foil and flimsy suits a LM macarno set we managed to land run around, take piccies, drive buggy's, go back numerous times and defy the suns radiation with 40 year old tech . As regards the cost, when it comes down to it theirs always enough money to be used when it serves a historic purpose. Pentagon lost track of trillions a few years back, oops. I cant point for point sit and prove every aspect, but I cant quite sit with it and say it was as it was, without scratching my head. BTW I can take a joke and last night oddly enough Mitchell and Webb did a sketch about the moon landings, it was funny:
  6. I dont think anyone has noticed the Irony in the name
  7. Thats exactly what I thought too.
  8. I think its the LM position/turn based on the perspective shift of everything else is what they are getting at. For me the most interesting is the last two images on page two where it "seems" as if the LM is far to the right, then a camera move later (but all the same things in the background) and the LM is bang in front near field. The crater to its left in the second pic is the crater in the first. I think the floor is confusing but the background staying the same makes it odd (all be it the camera is lower down in shot two and moved forward a touch). To me if this was anyone else making moon landing claims today (IE the pics were now of a mission from another country now) most people would look at the background and say "that's photo shopped!?". Well, you can, you can speak about the photos, you dont have to tar the whole thing with anger about how ridiculous it might be, just about the pictures really. Like ive said before to put both scenarios on the table and look at them isn't un-healthy, even if you really do think the whole moon subject is a farce Then again, if you cant muster anything about but not be polite then probably best not too @Crowman .. theirs a lot about the turn/angle and flight management for the pentagon plane too, IE barely well trained hijackers flying better than an ACE pilot to make the turns and to skim the lawn and hit the way it did, or turns that would damage the plane based on speed and force. Thanks for link.
  9. I actually saw this on the player and didn't click to watch it, so I will give it a viewing this eve.
  10. Well its a shame to close this thread on the basis of Trolling or anything such as that, so I hope it stays open, I feel the "noise" as I put it has put it in that area and apologies to a certain extent to continue with direct replying to certain things, ive tried to keep it on point as much as possible. Everyone is entitled to post but a hint of cynicism doesn't really help a debate or a thread of such a topic, a point ive been trying to make (all be it very long winded and a few pages of to & fro) for a while. I guess that draws a line under that side of it, so fair enough. ... I picture a teddy bear troll figure next to a big red button and light at your PC desk So, I though id post something that's very interesting as it has photos to back up the points, and no its not 9/11 related but its all about those "moon landing is fake" claims. So here's a link to some comparison photos of the LM on the appolo photos, it does seem to show the LM has been moved around to set up shots, quite comical to a point, although I will leave it to others to take a peep and see what they think about it. http://www.aulis.com/exposing_apollo1.htm BTW I have certain views on this but I also like to see some pictures, the comparisons here are good to illustrate a point about it (especially page 2), have a look see people and see what you think folks. Though you may like this Rocky Also this site I haven't looked at much just a sub link I found so I haven't looked much into some other things on that site, mainly for me it was the picture comparisons, maybe even the comparisons are faked? The plot thickens
  11. Sure it does ... how? I refuse to accept a kids mobile phone video and a small hole as undeniable evidence of a large jet, well ... yes I dont "accept" that to prove it, not at all. Its really very simple, the case is done, the act has happened official lines made the commission report, nothing to see here, move on people. So, show the old evidence of the attacks and CCTV footage just like the mountains of footage for the towers, its not hard, they have it ... show it, they dont show it .. its not "acceptable". We have footage of the pentagon from the hole in the wall so no security issue showing all that, or any amount of online info about the building so that cant be a valid reason not to show it. You make a claim and present the evidence, same goes with this, they never have. Nothing has shown a large jet hitting that building .. ever. If eye witnesses are unreliable then you have CCTV to back up the claim (the reason they exist), no excuse not to show. Thats solved it then, I need to ask no more. This angle of thought is wearing thin, far to easy to do.
  12. Yes indeed, have you tried out the "Jackal" scenario ... its much like the stealth mission of Arma1 at the militay base, although much better IMHO. That mission with FLIR is such a great example of stealth with new features. Have to say I got this a few days ago, training is so much better improved, FPS and performance is a slight ###### with new houses and AI "thinking" ... used with ambient civy's = nightmare on my system, but that's just one area, its well worth it and puts Arma back on the map so to speak
  13. Im having a good eye ball at the images of these cloud types, very similar yet not exactly what im seeing (although I do see those) when im referring to seeing a "trail" (lets loose the "chem" bit so not to go direct). I have seen these that "are" the ending result sheets IE its those exact trails that are then spreading/lowering and becoming wide spread sheets, but keeping its line form at a distance. Yes im aware of flight plans/flight and general flight patterns. What im referring too is a very specific section in one part of the sky, yet to the right you have standard cloud formations and normal blue sky's. Contrails showing and then large areas of "trails". Ive seen jets (eye-site view) parallel covering the entire sky with a trail that doesn't dissipate as far as the eye can see and then flights where they are very short, also making turns. they are not flight patterns as ive observed flight patterns over my area and they are direct over. As I say when ive seen trails form mid sky, stop (end), a turn, then start again for miles the distance I see them "start stop" unless that plain suddenly free fallen or sharply rose out of its flight dynamic then I cant see how that can be happening naturally. The area I use all plains are a very specific height (size in the sky) 2 trailing along for miles 2 or two small contrails, ive not seen contrails stop start in this way .. ive seen contrails have gaps but its different, I also notice contrails have a thinner line per engine side (so the gap in the center is less) the "chems" ones are much thicker and denser. For me its a case of looking and checking if whats being seen is the natural form, granted I dont assume every one I see to be "it". Its just some days you can get such a messy soup with mass criss crossing its hard not to notice. I did find this link very interesting : http://chemtrailcentral.com/report.shtml .. one of many of course. Then there are the tests with water vapor and barium counts etc which are strange also. Either way Petsfed thanks for posts, I find it all fascinating subject (no just chems area) anyway so I will keep balancing my observations The one million dollar question is, that only crappy video that we have been given ... shows ....... A large jet liner smashing into the building? An orange is an apple and all that. Lets face it if a large jet smashed into that building we would have the CCTV clear as day shown on loop like the towers days and days after that and piled up high on youtube from every media outlet known to man, yet we get something that's not even of the size from what can be described as a 15 year olds mobile phone, and that's proof becuase authority says it is ... !? Would that stand in court as evidence ... me thinks not. People say extra ordinary claims need the exact same proof, yet we have a vey simple thinng of a large jet smashing into the building, we actually get a small hole ... and a kiddy video, wouldn't it be easier just to show clear CCTV from multiple angles of one of the most guarded buildings in the US video of the claim? I would imagine a CGI one being knocked up for later release YEARS after Im not trying to counter anyone (it hold up on its own) but when this is so obvious a point, and nothing has been released to show the "claim" (lets face it its still a claim) that a large jet smashed into it the end result doesn't stack up. And that being the case the story does not tally, and as the domino effect goes IE that's a jet a group of alcieda hijacked to hit it .. if a jet didn't hit it ... was one hijacked? Half the time its more stretched of imagination to explain how else it would happen than actually acknowledging a large jet never hit it, so by just assuming it did it fits and that's easier, yet we have no "proof" it did. Yet people speak of proof for everything else to believe anything other than that and there is not for the current one, Ironic no doubt. Theres about as much theory explaining FULLY the official line too, its a wacky situation. These are the things I have said numerous times about "FULLY" explaining and not "explaining away" and the thing "Surrounding" the events, all the anomalies, official lines do not sort these out, but fix to collapse theory and that kind of answers it all, its but part of it.
  14. Read what I posted ref the plane I was referring too, prove the plane hit (an actual large jet) you get a cookie. If not then its open debate and if its open debate its not a closed case, etc and so on. Its not really about views contrary to my own, you must have ignored every-time I replied to that notion that you brought up. What I'm saying is, every time a conspiracy gets posted from here on in (which is what would be posted hence its title), then its pretty obvious where you will come from with a reply. I wonder when you or some others would get to a point of thinking ... hmmmm, this is odd lets look into this a little further. I think that it will never happen, and that was all my point is. Case in point, I post about chems, you post 1 page with scientific references and shoot it down and others. And yet do you honestly believe its just an observation by paranoids that have no clue with tons of information referencing this and in some way that carry's no weight to it one bit. Would you ever look into it on the basis you dont believe it but its worth seeing what its all about, just in case the scientific data/source is maybe not fully reliable? I personally think you would not, its very clear you would not which is fair enough. I dont work that way, I see BOTH .. and there is no harm in that way of working. I personally can see the differences in the phanomina of what is scientifically standard effects and cloud formations and a mass session of spraying in the sky, you will not, you will "see" the norm ... fair enough. Your view, which realy sets up a debate session doesn't it. Which leads me to ... A conspiracy thread is going to hit a controversial subject or point no matter what, so in essence to reconsider the inevitable would mean not to post, that being my point. If for any moment you think I get upset or sit typing shaking fists or something you have me so wrong Mafia .... haha that dig make me smile The only time I get annoyed is quick sarcastic replies, mentions of mental issues, calling idiots and all that side of it really. Personally or not insinuations are rife and tied to this subject matter so its hard to not be tarred with a brush so to speak even if you not being direct. @Petsfed: First off all thank you, that post was great. the only point im making isn't that this is wrong, or the science is bad .. and natural or similar. But what im seeing and many are large amounts in "sections" of sky of not Cyrus type forms but flat 2d milky sheets that when under a sunset look like a contaminated mess with many lines of flights blatantly criss crossing. For this to be usual flight paths they are far too well structured and happen in bursts or over times at night too. Again clear days then heavy days and can happen on sunny weather. The weather here in UK has been full on sun 29 degrees. Temp changes are not frequents and so far Ive seen a asky full of it, then 2 days blue and standard clouds, then full again ... and all im saying is, I can see a separation from natural and standard flights and "this other area". I'm just reserving the right to understand a difference (my view) is the main thing. Do you mean, not bothered as its UK based, or not bothered in general about surveillance by the state of its own people? I ask that becuase theirs plenty of this spreading to other countries and the U.S is also included. Before you ask im not talking as "them & us" Im speaking in terms of globally (you must have heard that term thrown around in political circles by now, especially now). This is a good example although slightly different, I love the name "City Watcher.com" ... nice. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pri8JQ1nZck The site doesn't show here I did try to look, although I found this about employees getting chipped: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=34751 So does this bother anyone? Is this good, and is it unreasonable to think this is probably the worst thing you could do as a human being? Sell it as cool, make it a permanent feature later. If there is no conspiracy then there's really no need for this particular type of tech.
  15. Todd .... Dead? Coffee & Croissants (Neighbors)
  • Create New...