BBC Two HD

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:18:53 +0100, Martin wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 12:38:53 +0000, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 11:15:52 +0100, Martin wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 12:58:13 +0000, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 11:22:13 +0100, Martin wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 18:16:36 +0000, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 16:58:32 -0000, "Rick" wrote:



"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
news:[email protected] .com...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 13:18:17 +0000, Scott
wrote:

I see the BBC Two high definition channel is to be launched on 26
March:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/lat...bc-two-hd.html

As I understand it, this is to be a single version for the whole UK
without opt-outs for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

What is the logic behind this? If BBC One Scotland is shown in HD (in
Scotland) and STV is shown in HD in Scotland, why not BBC Two Scotland
rather than BBC Two 'London'? If they are making up a tartan mux, why
not include BBC Two Scotland?

This change applies to satellite channels as well. To make opt-outs
possible for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would need an extra 3
HD satellite channels. This would cost money even assuming that there is
capacity on the transponders.

There may of course be benefits in allowing viewers in Scotland to
avoid Newsnight Scotland in the run-up to the referendum!


If Scotland votes for total independence, then they'll be requiring their
own national broadcaster.


Being proudly and stubbornly independent they will build their own
rocket and launch their own satellite into orbit.

Communication satellites used by UK are launched by Arianespace, with
zero British involvement and either built by Astrium a predominantly
Franco German company or by American companies. BAe sold their
interests in spacecraft production long ago.

Indeed. But I was suggesting, satirically, that Scotland outside the UK
would want to do the whole job indepedently of anyone else.

Just like the French did. Do you find that a bad thing?

There's nothing specifically wrong with it, but Scotland is a much
smaller country that France and it would need a much larger proportion
of its national financial resources to do the job.

20,000 work in the space industry in France. It seems reasonable
to invest in such an Industry. If Surrey University could do it, why
not Scotland?

Surrey university does not have its own rockets.

Scotland could always flog a couple of unused aircraft carriers to
cover the cost.

Always assuming they receive any unused aircraft carriers as part of an
independence deal.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

In article , Peter Duncanson
wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:18:53 +0100, Martin wrote:


Always assuming they receive any unused aircraft carriers as part of an
independence deal.

they might simply hang onto them. They are being assembled at Rosyth.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:47:43 +0000 (GMT), charles
wrote:

In article , Peter Duncanson
wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:18:53 +0100, Martin wrote:


Always assuming they receive any unused aircraft carriers as part of an
independence deal.

they might simply hang onto them. They are being assembled at Rosyth.
If they hang on to property that is not theirs there will be "an
international incident".

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

In article ,
Peter Duncanson wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:47:43 +0000 (GMT), charles
wrote:

In article , Peter Duncanson
wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:18:53 +0100, Martin wrote:


Always assuming they receive any unused aircraft carriers as part of an
independence deal.

they might simply hang onto them. They are being assembled at Rosyth.
If they hang on to property that is not theirs there will be "an
international incident".

one of the two Forth bridges might fall down "accidentally" and thus
prevent them leaving.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 18:25:48 +0100, Martin wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:38:23 +0000, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:18:53 +0100, Martin wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 12:38:53 +0000, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 11:15:52 +0100, Martin wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 12:58:13 +0000, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 11:22:13 +0100, Martin wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 18:16:36 +0000, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 16:58:32 -0000, "Rick" wrote:



"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
news:[email protected] ax.com...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 13:18:17 +0000, Scott
wrote:

I see the BBC Two high definition channel is to be launched on 26
March:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/lat...bc-two-hd.html

As I understand it, this is to be a single version for the whole UK
without opt-outs for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

What is the logic behind this? If BBC One Scotland is shown in HD (in
Scotland) and STV is shown in HD in Scotland, why not BBC Two Scotland
rather than BBC Two 'London'? If they are making up a tartan mux, why
not include BBC Two Scotland?

This change applies to satellite channels as well. To make opt-outs
possible for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would need an extra 3
HD satellite channels. This would cost money even assuming that there is
capacity on the transponders.

There may of course be benefits in allowing viewers in Scotland to
avoid Newsnight Scotland in the run-up to the referendum!


If Scotland votes for total independence, then they'll be requiring their
own national broadcaster.


Being proudly and stubbornly independent they will build their own
rocket and launch their own satellite into orbit.

Communication satellites used by UK are launched by Arianespace, with
zero British involvement and either built by Astrium a predominantly
Franco German company or by American companies. BAe sold their
interests in spacecraft production long ago.

Indeed. But I was suggesting, satirically, that Scotland outside the UK
would want to do the whole job indepedently of anyone else.

Just like the French did. Do you find that a bad thing?

There's nothing specifically wrong with it, but Scotland is a much
smaller country that France and it would need a much larger proportion
of its national financial resources to do the job.

20,000 work in the space industry in France. It seems reasonable
to invest in such an Industry. If Surrey University could do it, why
not Scotland?

Surrey university does not have its own rockets.

Nor does UK. Nor does Surrey University build satellites anymore, but
it did build satellites for a fraction of the cost of commercial
competition. The commercial company it spawned Surrey Satellite
Technology Ltd builds satellites which are launched by Arianespace. I
see EADS has a controlling interest in SSTL too. Building satellites
isn't rocket science :-)

Scotland could always flog a couple of unused aircraft carriers to
cover the cost.

Always assuming they receive any unused aircraft carriers as part of an
independence deal.

The unused aircraft carriers have been delivered to Scotland as Lego
kits. Where is the contract that says they have to hand them over to
the Royal Navy if Scotland gets independence before completion?
Russia had a similar problem with the Black Sea fleet in Ukraine.
"Can we have our fleet back comrades?"

I can't say without knowing the details of the ownership of th "Lego
kits".

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:18:53 +0100, Martin wrote:

20,000 work in the space industry in France. It seems reasonable
to invest in such an Industry. If Surrey University could do it, why
not Scotland?

Scotland could always flog a couple of unused aircraft carriers to
cover the cost.

The Russians have converted some of their surplus submarine launched
missiles to satellite launchers. Scotland could use Trident.

In article , Martin
wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 19:06:23 +0000 (GMT), charles
wrote:

In article , Peter Duncanson
wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:47:43 +0000 (GMT), charles
wrote:

In article , Peter
Duncanson wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:18:53 +0100, Martin
wrote:


Always assuming they receive any unused aircraft carriers as part
of an independence deal.

they might simply hang onto them. They are being assembled at Rosyth.
If they hang on to property that is not theirs there will be "an
international incident".

one of the two Forth bridges might fall down "accidentally" and thus
prevent them leaving.

or they might get stuck in the Caledonian Canal.

there's no 'might' about it. They would get stuck if they tries to use it.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 11:00:29 -0000, "Rick" wrote:



"Paul Ratcliffe" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 11:22:58 +0100, Martin wrote:

Being proudly and stubbornly independent they will build their own
rocket and launch their own satellite into orbit.

But they'd have to put it into orbit above Scotland (at least some
of the time) rather than the equator.

because?

Because they're Scottish of course.


Dunno about the Scots launching their first satellite, but this was the
first Irish attempt to land a man on the moon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nfz9O_mSY1U

LOL

Do you remember Idi Amin's Ugandan Space Agency?


This has got to be my favorite.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd-oFPJl_v0

In message , Martin
writes
"Last Night of the Poms is not available in your region at any
time".
An Australian programme by any chance;-)
--
Clive

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 19:06:23 +0000 (GMT), charles
wrote:

one of the two Forth bridges might fall down "accidentally" and thus
prevent them leaving.

I would have thought the railway bridge must have enough paint on it
by now to prevent that happening.

Rod.