By climbing into bed with Microsoft by choosing Silverlight as the client technology (the commercials of which would be very interesting), ITV have instantly limited its customer base for ITV Player to only those viewers with modern Windows machines.

The BBC have been much more inclusive by choosing Flash for their competing iPlayer; it is supported by other operating systems, some set-top boxes and even games consoles. For example, visit BBC iPlayer from, say a PlayStation 3 and you'll be presented with an interface optimised specifically for viewing on that platform.

Come on, ITV! Get with the picture! If you base your business on advertising revenue, target as many viewers as possible!

In fact, I wonder if ITV Player has been a rush job to get to market as soon as possible after iPlayer? The re-branding of "Catch Up" to "ITV Player" is not complete, there is no ITV Player Help available, posts on this forum point to inconsistent behavior, testing appears to have been limited to a very narrow platform cross-section (even using the Moonlight OS Silverlight add on for Linux, the ITV player doesn't load in Firefox). It would certainly explain the Silverlight choice if Microsoft has offered support to the ITV board to get something to market as fast as possible.

B -

Could do better.

'8.9" screen does not affect the overall weight of the Eee PC 900, which remains below 1kg allowing children and women to carry it with ease.'

Found here.

I heard an article on Radio 4 this morning about a new Conservative report recommending that married couples be given a £20 per week tax break. It really disappointed me.

Faye and I have chosen not to get married. We both decided a long time ago that marriage was just not something we felt we had to do in order to remain in a happy, loving, committed relationship. That doesn't mean, however, that I don't respect the decision made by other people to get married themselves.

I can utterly understand why some couples find it important to marry. Sometimes in order to have their relationship blessed by their chosen deity(ies). Other times because they want to make a public display of their commitment. Many ceremonies include passages about couples asking for the support of friends and family for the duration of their lives together (Faye and I are lucky enough to have an amazing group of friends and family we know for certain we can rely on in a pinch). Others believe (and statistics sometimes agree) that a family unit based in marriage is a better environment to nurture children.

Commitment. Love. Support. Family. Faith. All good reasons to marry.

A £20 a week tax break is not a good reason to marry and for me it really cheapens the whole institution.

One of the interviewees on the Radio 4 article backing the idea said that it was about time married couples were "rewarded for quietly beavering away" in society, largely unrecognised. Commitment? Love? Support? Good environment for raising children? Is this not reward enough for getting married that you also need another 20-quid a week in your pocket? What does that say about what you really think about marriage?  I don't think that a couple who are persuaded to tie the knot in order take advantage of a £20pw tax break is going to be a better environment to nurture children, do you?

Commitment. Love. Support. Family. Faith. You can't buy that for £20.

I wouldn't want £20 "reward" for marrying Faye. My having her in my life at all is all the reward I need.

My respect goes out to all those couples who have married for the right reasons. I hope you are as disappointed as I am at this proposal.