What is Digg?43 Comments
- newgoldtooth, on 04/05/2009, -1/+35A likely excuse
- sgtbutterscotch, on 04/05/2009, -4/+34I think I know what happened. Adam Ries was a time-traveler. As a teen, he grew up in that building, but being the genius he was, sometime in his twenties he accidentally proved how one can time-travel. Unfortunately for him, his discovery of time-travel occurred while he was time-traveling and before he knew it, all his notes were left in the present time while himself was transported to the very same spot on Earth, but a little more than 450 years ago.
- Qbryzan, on 04/05/2009, -1/+17He's not dead, he's restin'. Remarkable thinker, the German mathematician, idn'it, ay? Beautiful theorems!
- waydee, on 04/06/2009, -2/+17Having dealt with the UK TV Licensing Authority far too many times it doesn't surprise me that the German branch was capable of this.
- dignick, on 04/06/2009, -2/+17dugg for 'very dead'. Not just a little bit.
- eunrose, on 04/06/2009, -1/+14Seriously ... 450 years dead ... that's 370 or so years before television was invented. Seems like he can get a pass.
- amabaie, on 04/06/2009, -1/+11"Apparently, being dead is no excuse for not paying one’s bill". I guess that uses up my last excuse.
- enkideridu, on 05/15/2009, -1/+9"Adam Reis, did own and live in the home where the Germany's GEZ broadcast fee collection office sent the bill"
How did his address get into their system? - endlessoul, on 04/06/2009, -0/+7It actually made me think- this guy better be pretty freaking dead to be "Very dead"
Turns out, he was. - GrooTheWanderer, on 04/06/2009, -1/+8The theorems don't enter into it. He's stone dead.
- McDutchie, on 04/06/2009, -0/+6He's not dead, he's stunned!
- dazparkour, on 04/06/2009, -1/+6"Marginally fewer" ->
The BBC has NO corporate ads.
Given that some channels have 20 minutes of ads for every hour, that's 8 hours a day less for EACH of the 5 or 6 BBC channels.
Yes, 40 hours a day is marginal. - dazparkour, on 04/06/2009, -1/+5If the commercial system is fair - why do I have to watch the commercials on satelite and cable even though I have to PAY for both?
- Sogui, on 04/06/2009, -2/+6Now if he had only died 5 years before television was invented it would be a whole 'nother story!
- seobro, on 04/06/2009, -0/+3RIAA has competition. Don't worry they want to ban radios to prevent "downloading" of music. Yes, and the local library to stop file sharing.
- hootenanny1, on 04/06/2009, -0/+3The GEZ is a joke. As soon as you have a cell phone you have to pay their fees. It's 20-something euros a month for the state-owned TV stations that in my opinion just aren't up to date. In their reports people playing counter strike are potential mass murderers while people watching porn are rapists. And we have to finance that crap! Thank God they think I don't have a TV, PC, cell phone,...
- CarStan, on 04/06/2009, -0/+3***** the GEZ!
- AtheismFTW, on 04/06/2009, -2/+5This mathemetician reported dead last millenium and never dug up. This comment dugg down for sheer ***** alliteration.
- bono4u, on 04/06/2009, -0/+3GEZ is pain in the ass mostly not for dead germans and by these examples i can see why others see us as pedantic.
- kissedbypixis, on 04/06/2009, -0/+2It seems the GEZ has really out-of-date client records.
- PopcornDave, on 04/06/2009, -0/+2Just like General Francisco Franco's holding on in his valuable fight to remain dead - if anyone here remembers Chevy Chase's bit from Saturday Night Live
- hootenanny1, on 04/06/2009, -1/+3Exactly, the commercial systems seems fair: You watch more TV therefore you have to watch more commercials - If I drive more, I have to pay more for gas. On the other hand the TV station gets more money for a programm that a lot people watch. Seems fair. There is competition between the stations, the one with the better program or at least more viewers gets more money. But wait, there's the state-owned stations who get money from every single household that owns a TV. No matter how much they actually watch their programm or even TV. No matter whether they like the program... they get paid - always!
And then people get so naive and think because they're state-owned and because their financing is secure everything they say is right. Haha! - brandnewx, on 04/06/2009, -0/+2Late April's Fool. His late soul was about to make payment then he realized he has never connected TV cable before.
- OptimismPrime, on 04/06/2009, -3/+5This makes entirely more sense then 95% of all Television, regardless of being news or entertainment programming, and therefore is an acceptable explaination for me,
- reeds1999, on 04/06/2009, -1/+3Not only the US government that is clothed in greed.
- yaosio, on 04/06/2009, -1/+3If your time was not worthless you would not be watching TV.
- dazparkour, on 04/06/2009, -0/+2What about world and business news?
Definately a nice troll - funny too - but it's been shown time and time again that people perform better if they are given downtime. - insanebrain, on 04/06/2009, -1/+3That MUST BE it !
- dazparkour, on 04/06/2009, -1/+3Except that the ads they sell should pay for satelite transmission.
I understand paying to have the dish installed, but if I have a dish installed and all my neighbours also get satelite, they don't have a portion of signal reserved for me. They don't install it every month either.
If you don't want to think about it, you can go with the being ***** at both ends solution we currently have.
Most satelite companies are Public Limited Companies - that means they publish their accounts. Look it up - they don't need to charge you as well.
In fact, since we are one of the first regions in the UK to be hit by the Digital Switchover, Sky is offering FREE installation with some free channels INCLUDING ones which would normally be a subscription extra - the reason - because the more people watch their channels, the higher the value of their ads. - hootenanny1, on 04/06/2009, -1/+3Cause there you don't pay them for creating the shows etc., you pay for the technical transmission of the signal to your house. Running the cable or sat connection costs money and that is forwarded (and someone wants to make a profit) to you.
- Skishy101, on 04/07/2009, -0/+2But how much were they asking for?
- PopcornDave, on 04/06/2009, -0/+2Apparently the house is still standing is how they got the address in to their system. The bigger question is how they associated his name with it after 450 years.
- ekula, on 04/06/2009, -2/+3And I moan when they harass me..
- fishwithaki, on 04/06/2009, -1/+2Hmm. I say they stole Nicolas Flamel's legendary stone or are friends to get elixir of lifes! (That guy was real...not something JKR created). Centuries later people still report seing Flamel and his wife out and about.
- nattybohman, on 04/06/2009, -2/+3Can't believe so many countries actually have TV licensing fees. I like how they have marginally fewer commercials, but it's not worth paying $100 to $200 a year just to own a television.
I'd rather watch a few more ads and spend that money on something else. - blacklilyninja, on 04/06/2009, -1/+2EU and UK television fees are retarded. This pretty much proved its just a blind tax.
- Sogui, on 04/06/2009, -1/+2I was hoping for an awesome story about necromancy or time travel, or both.
But I got neither... - stix213, on 04/07/2009, -0/+1Someone should check his grave.... I'm picturing there will be a downed telephone line directly on his grave site, like that old Twilight Zone episode... And he has been spending his years setting up unlicensed radio and TV broadcasts from the beyond knowing full well he would get away with it due to his easy excuse to avoid payment.
- hootenanny1, on 04/06/2009, -1/+2Claiming they don't have to put up the dish every month, but you have to pay for it every month is a weak argument. They do have to keep the satelitte's up and running. And no don't try and tell me there's no friction and it goes fast enough on a circle to stay up by itself, i know that. But still a sattelite is a veeeery big investment that only pays off over a long period. And at some point it's obsolete, then the need a big new ivnestment.
Anyway, don't know what the british system is like, i can only speak for the german. Here we basically have three systems:
Analog (some now digital) via radio transmission (free*)
Cable (you pay for the connection*)
Sat (you pay for the connection*)
* = With all these systems you include state-owned stations for which you have to pay in any case (GEZ). And with cable and sat you have the option to get additional Pay-TV that brings you additional channels that have no ads. - Origin415, on 04/06/2009, -2/+2One thing I like about mathematics, its theorems are immortal. No one talks about the physics Aristotle and them did, but the mathematics of Archimedes, Euclid, etc. still is some of the most important and will remain that way forever.
- MerchantofPanic, on 04/06/2009, -4/+3WW1....WW2....Now the Germans are trying to rip off TV licences.... there's a very disturbing pattern developing here.....
- dazparkour, on 04/06/2009, -3/+2> but it's not worth paying $100 to $200 a year just to own a television.
> I'd rather watch a few more ads and spend that money on something else.
If you watch one hour a day, which is a LOW amount - bet most people here watch at least 3 times that -
20 minutes * 365 days = 5.4 days.
That means you watched 129.6 hours of ads.
Based on your upper amount of $200, that means you get paid $1.54 an hour.
If you watch 3 hours of TV a day, which I assume most people here do, that means you get paid around $0.50 an hour.
Your only saving money if your time is worthless - frankly, mine is not. - Bobski, on 04/06/2009, -6/+1This story reported to Digg last week twice and never dugg up. This submission dugg down for sheer ***** headedness.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is