There seems to be a bug in the comment form on their site. It gives me the option to edit/delete the last comment and when it asks me to create an account, it shows me someone else's email address. I feel like this is the major reason for not rolling your own.
I can't fill out the form as I have two major problems. I am legally entitled to work in the USA, but only for my current employer. - there is no option for this. The salary I expect depends on the type of job and total compensation (equity) - there is no way to specify this.
1% at one company vs 1% at another company can vary so drastically we thought it was almost meaningless to ask...we instead prefer to present the whole pitch and let you determine if that equity and everything else that comes with it is interesting. It is preferable if you let us know you want in the goals...something to the effect of "small startup where X, Y, and Z" or something.
Let's travel back in time to a few days ago, before these allegations emerged. Mike Lynch seemed like a guy who'd founded a high tech software company, let it grow, and sold it for billions of dollars. He's got an engineering PhD from a top university.
Over the last 10 years technology like the web, podcasts, home broadband, iPlayer etc have had a lot of impact on the BBC. It makes sense to have someone on the board who has an engineering background and experience managing complex technology projects.
They seem to have a wide range of people from different backgrounds and industries. It's a non executive role, so I assume it's more for 'experience and wisdom' in their respective fields and expertise than anything else.
If he was there to wield influence, he's not done very well this time - otherwise why would the BBC report on possible foul play by his former company? Why would they explicitly mention his connection with the BBC?
>
If he was there to wield influence, he's not done very well this time - otherwise why would the BBC report on possible foul play by his former company
Well it such a big story now, they can hardly not run with it can they?
> Why would they explicitly mention his connection with the BBC?
Again, because they have to. I find it fascinating that private industry leaders would be involved, non-executive or otherwise, in the running of a state broadcasting company. The BBC is spending British taxpayer's money after all. Does not seem impartial.
> The BBC is spending British taxpayer's money after all.
There used to be funding from the Foreign Office for BBC World Service, but that has now ended. There's a tiny payment from Department of Work and Pensions to cover the discount for people over 70.
Watching any live TV in the UK, even when avoiding all BBC channels, is subject to this mandatory payment. Hence it is, by any reasonable definition, a tax.
The real difference between VAT and the TV licence is that VAT goes to the government via the Inland Revenue (?), while the TV licence goes to the BBC via Capita. Because it doesn't go to the government it's not a tax. I've already said it's tax-like.
I realize you're just being funny, the thing I don't get is why the 'vault' isn't air tight. I looked at renting a space that had been a bank, the old vault was literally welded open because it was air tight and if the door closed and locked it would take longer to re-open then a person could survive on the air inside.
