Sky News gets in on the Hacking Scandal
Discussion
johnfm said:
Absolutely - I was jesting.
It isn't much different to someone entering your unlocked car - the fact that it is unlocked or open makes no difference.
What I really don't get, is what actionable harm was suffered by the various celebs who have been paid off.
The celebs, not so much - they got plenty of publicity. Ordinary members of the public are more of a concern. It isn't much different to someone entering your unlocked car - the fact that it is unlocked or open makes no difference.
What I really don't get, is what actionable harm was suffered by the various celebs who have been paid off.
carmonk said:
Eric Mc said:
So you've never heard of a Peeping Tom?
No, I've never heard of a person being charged with voyeurism without a sexual element. Please provide some links.http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40/sectio...
Oakey said:
According to the news not only did they hack Darwins email account they then passed on these emails to the police and they were used as evidence in the case against him?
I think that may be the jist of it. At the rate they're going I reckon next week may be a good week to go robbing in London - there'll be no policemen left in the Met...DJRC said:
Not really, its in technical innovation aswell.
Sport coverage on TV is in a different league now to back in the day. Sky+/tivi like stuff and multiroom would be unheard of without Sky in the UK and Europe. There was *no* incentive to innovate before Sky.
That makes no sense at all. How can you say that PVRs wouldn't have been introduced around the same time by another satellite company (as they were across the world)?Sport coverage on TV is in a different league now to back in the day. Sky+/tivi like stuff and multiroom would be unheard of without Sky in the UK and Europe. There was *no* incentive to innovate before Sky.
Multiroom is more of a billing innovation than anything else. And as for any other innovation as regards image and sound quality, such as high definition, you need to look to the BBC and their Japanese counterpart NHK rather than Sky.
What they have done is use existing technical innovations to their financial advantage. There's no shame in that (done properly), but they certainly have not been responsible for very much, if any, technical innovation of their own.
hornet said:
I can't say I enjoy Sky's sports coverage, as they insist on padding everything out with endless punditry and analysis. Very much style over content a lot of the time. Plus of course the presentation style is ludicrously overblown...
"SKY MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL! EXCITING PREMIER LEAGUE ACTION FEATURING...um, Wigan and Bolton".
Their F1 ads are doing it as well, especially on Spotify. It's not "F1 on Sky", it's "F1 ON SKY!".
How would you know what to think otherwise? "SKY MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL! EXCITING PREMIER LEAGUE ACTION FEATURING...um, Wigan and Bolton".
Their F1 ads are doing it as well, especially on Spotify. It's not "F1 on Sky", it's "F1 ON SKY!".
DJRC said:
Because the Uk was and has been and still is a generation ahead of the US in TV tech and when the tv tech big bang kicked off, it was ahead of Japan and the Far East aswell. + ousted TiVo as it is and was a better system. Ive tried em both. They brought the technical innovation to the market and made it work for us.
Sorry, but I fully regard Sky as the best thing to happen to TV in the last 40yrs.
http://support.tivo.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/318Sorry, but I fully regard Sky as the best thing to happen to TV in the last 40yrs.
So TiVo was actually available officially through Sky, until they copied the idea and started pushing them as a loss leader for subscription service revenue. Since Sky controlled the EPG for both systems it would have been trivial for them to make TiVo as good as Sky+, but why would they want to do that?
As I said, not so great at innovation, but very good at making money.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff