Joined: 6/11/2006
Posts: 818
Location: Arboga, Sweden
I lost my internet connection for 3 months and when I got it back, I had too much porn to watch for it to be awesome. Also, I found types of porn I wish I never had found.
I get too much, unnoticeable, lag while playing Super Street Fighter 4: Arcade Edition online.
I get pissed off at T. Hawk's grappling range.
My shirt gets wet when it rains.
Etc.
Warp wrote:
omg lol this is so fake!!!1 the nes cant produce music like this!
I made too much food and now I can't finish it so I'm gonna have to throw the rest out.
Edit: Also, I planned to have some ice-cream after the meal but I'm full.
TV inspectors also visit houses that do not pay the TV fee, and ask if they can inspect the house for a TV.
Actually they don't (well, at least not anymore, AFAIK). The inspectors, while often members of the police force, do not have any legal right to search people's homes (because they are not acting in the role of a police officer), and they usually don't even ask that. They simply ask if you own a TV. (In fact, even if you invited them in they usually will refuse. Personal experience.) It could depend on the individual, though.
What does make them obnoxious though, is that they don't actually ask if you own a TV like I claimed above. They just offer you the fee form as if accusing you of owning a TV without having reported it. If you deny having a TV they will insist for a while before giving up. It's like they were door-to-door salesmen instead of inspectors. That's really obnoxious.
As the fee has become more and more expensive lately, more and more people are getting rid of their TV so they also don't need to pay the fee. This has spawned a lobbyist motion that the TV fee should be made mandatory, like a tax, on everyone, regardless of whether they have a TV or not. It would be somewhat cheaper than the current fee (which gains it some support from people who already pay it), while still quite expensive (obviously, present non-subscribers vehemently object to it). They also want to extend it to cover Internet connection ownership (because of Internet TV, so that if you possess Internet connection, you must also pay the TV fee), cellphones and whatnot.
Yet downloading TV series and movies from the internet would still be illegal even if that law passes. Go figure. You have to pay for something you can't do legally anyways. In that sense it isn't even a fee, but a fine (on an assumed crime).
The fee in question is also very unfair. Effectively low-income people have to pay significantly more than high-income people (because the fee eats a higher portion of their income in the former case). Also people living alone effectively pay double compared to couples who live in the same household (assuming both have a source of income), as the fee is not personal, but per-household. And naturally people who don't own a TV or any other form of receiving TV programs would pay for nothing.
The main point of public broadcasting without advertisements is not that you don't have to endure commercials (though that is valuable in itself), but its independence from commercial interests. It will, for example, be in the interest of a television or radio channel that gets most of its income from advertisements to have a level of self-censorship when it comes to material that would be unpopular with its advertisers. In theory, it is also possible for such a channel to run programs which are less popular or (more expensive per viewer) but more informative than commercial channels, though in practice, such channels tend to care a great deal about viewership after all. Publicly funded channels are also valuable as a counterweight to the consumerism-oriented viewpoint necessarily projected by channels with commercials.
However, I don't see why such channels should be funded through TV fees. Such channels are a general public service, just like education, roads, water, etc., and should be financed the same way: Through normal taxation. That would cut down on all the bureaucracy with TV licenses and inspectors. It would also allow progressive taxation, so that the poor would pay less (or nothing), while those who can afford it pay more. As Bisqwit points out, the current TV license fee hits the poor much harder than the rich, since it is a constant amount per year.
"My hot water run out in the shower"? In a first-world country? Seriously?
Maybe I'm just living in a "first-first-world country", as that doesn't seem to make any sense to me.
Most homes (in the united states) have their own hot-water heater - depending on the size, and water flow of the shower, it may last anywhere from 30 minutes to 1h30m.
I couldn't tell if you already knew this, and your post was just meant to be funny.
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
I couldn't tell if you already knew this, and your post was just meant to be funny.
It was meant to be funny. Well, at least half-serious.
As I commented, district heating is (AFAIK) currently the most energy-efficient and least-polluting solution to heat large amounts of homes and other buildings in cities (as well as having a virtually endless supply of hot shower water), so it is indeed a bit strange that so many so-called first-world countries have not adopted this technology. Heating water with electricity is a huge waste of energy.
As I commented, district heating is (AFAIK) currently the most energy-efficient and least-polluting solution to heat large amounts of homes and other buildings in cities (as well as having a virtually endless supply of hot shower water), so it is indeed a bit strange that so many so-called first-world countries have not adopted this technology. Heating water with electricity is a huge waste of energy.
In Finland I have noticed that many houses (not apartments) have a water heater. It is especially common at areas of lower population density, such as the other 90% of Finland.
I couldn't tell if you already knew this, and your post was just meant to be funny.
It was meant to be funny. Well, at least half-serious.
As I commented, district heating is (AFAIK) currently the most energy-efficient and least-polluting solution to heat large amounts of homes and other buildings in cities (as well as having a virtually endless supply of hot shower water), so it is indeed a bit strange that so many so-called first-world countries have not adopted this technology. Heating water with electricity is a huge waste of energy.
I can tell you exactly why. It's really 2 main reasons.
1. It's a relatively new technology compared to the old fashioned water heater. A lot of houses are older and thus are more likely to have the older technology.
2. Everybody sees the upfront cost and doesn't think about the long term, most likely because they're not living in houses as long as they used to 30+ years ago. It's generally 2-3x more for a tankless heater then a tank heater.
That's my thought, anyways.
Joined: 10/27/2004
Posts: 1977
Location: Making an escape
There was a spot of mold on my bread this morning. I bought the loaf from a store. Don't they pump store bread full of preservatives to prevent that sort of thing?
A hundred years from now, they will gaze upon my work and marvel at my skills but never know my name. And that will be good enough for me.
Joined: 6/25/2007
Posts: 732
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
I got upset because someone on the internet discussed temperatures in a format I'm not used to.
Edit: Aww. This is on a new page. It refers to the previous post, so it's funnier with that post visible.
Edit: I just realized the above is also a first-world problem.
Joined: 6/25/2007
Posts: 732
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
I want to watch a movie but I feel like I might have to go to the bathroom in 20-30 minutes, so I don't want to start it and have to get up in the middle.
76° inside. 77° outside. Not really warm enough to put the AC on, not much point in using the fan.
Some people use the wrong units for temperature. And distance. And volume. And weight. And even dates (what's something like "2.3.2011" supposed to mean?)
It's confusing.
The worship of cultural/ethnic diversity has indeed all the symptoms of a religion. It is good and right as a matter of course. This claim does not require any actual evidence or proof. Anybody who even doubts this is demonized and considered a second class citizen. Doubting this universal fact is considered sacrilege.
Radio is free, even the radio channels of YLE (which have no advertisements).
hmm, are you sure? at least in sweden the license is called "Radio and TV licens", so it includes radio too.
it's wrong that people who don't even watch their TV (just use it for gaming) have to pay TV license.
Warp wrote:
And even dates (what's something like "2.3.2011" supposed to mean?)
second day, third month, year 2011.
i think dates like 050711 are more confusing, they should be written 05 Jul 2011, so that you know for sure which number is the day, month and year.
Joined: 11/4/2007
Posts: 1772
Location: Australia, Victoria
nfq wrote:
Bisqwit wrote:
Radio is free, even the radio channels of YLE (which have no advertisements).
hmm, are you sure? at least in sweden the license is called "Radio and TV licens", so it includes radio too.
it's wrong that people who don't even watch their TV (just use it for gaming) have to pay TV license.
There's a good reason Australia got rid of its TV license fee.
i think dates like 050711 are more confusing, they should be written 05 Jul 2011, so that you know for sure which number is the day, month and year.
I think dates should be written as 2011/07/05 - that way it automatically sorts into chronological order by any normal sorting method (until the year 10,000). Either that or it should be mandatory to write out the month's name. These things are confusing.
