[backstage] Last.fm Radio 1 Profile page stuck
http://www.last.fm/user/bbcradio1/ tells me that Radio1 hasn't played anything for over 6 days. How/Where/Who best to this [to]? (I'm assuming it's the bit at Radio Music online that needs a kick, rather than Last.fm, as other last.fm profiles do appear to be updating). - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Last.fm Radio 1 Profile page stuck
Thanks for getting in touch about this. The Last.fm data is generated from track data published by the Radio 1 playout system. We've been having some problems with the data quality generated for both R1 and 1Xtra, and so have had to pull the track data feeds for these stations while we sort out the problem. It'll be back soon we hope. Jacqueline Phillimore BBC Audio Music Interactive -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Minty Sent: 26 November 2007 13:00 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] Last.fm Radio 1 Profile page stuck http://www.last.fm/user/bbcradio1/ tells me that Radio1 hasn't played anything for over 6 days. How/Where/Who best to this [to]? (I'm assuming it's the bit at Radio Music online that needs a kick, rather than Last.fm, as other last.fm profiles do appear to be updating). - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
Hi, Rob - this is neat, though not entirely sure that it's working entirely as you might want... http://muddyboots.rattleresearch.com/cgi-bin/mb.cgi?action=pageid=701 http://muddyboots.rattleresearch.com/cgi-bin/mb.cgi?action=pageid=701 ...a page about The Sun (and the News of the World) has lots of links off to the NASA website - presumably because of the use of the word Sun... Nice, though - and something to think about. Hi James, Thanks for this, it highlights one of the challenges we face when trying to find correct contextual meaning where ambiguity exists, we haven't got it right in all cases yet :) I thought I'd work it through and highlight areas that could be improved. The initial story has been categorised as being related to the following tags (via the yahoo term extraction service) : (http://muddyboots.rattleresearch.com/cgi-bin/mb.cgi?action=viewid=701) * media ownership * editorial control * ownership laws * communications committee * independent board * evening newspapers * evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence * news corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation * chairman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chair_%28official%29 * mr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MR * house of lords http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords * news of the world http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_of_the_World * mr murdoch * parliamentary committee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee * murdoch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murdoch * fox news http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel * sky news http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_News * sun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_%28disambiguation%29 * news station http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_station * rupert murdoch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch The obvious problem with this is the sun tag, it is an ambiguous term that has many meanings, as evidenced at : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_(disambiguation) Currently we only follow the links off these disambiguation pages to gather external links, however if we were to improve our usage of the disambiguation pages we could cut down on these false positives (in fact that's top of the list of the things we'd like to experiment with). The other problem here is that we display inks if they have any matches in del.icio.us with the story tags listed above. We should probably put some metrics around the minimum number of tags a story must match to be a recommended link, in this case that would have meant we wouldn't have recommended the 'planetary' sun links if we had a minimum match of 2 tags. Thanks for the feedback ! - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
Am I on the right list ? We seem to have ended up discussing the merits, bugs, inner workings of a prototype. Whatever next ! could be used ...) Hi, Rob - this is neat, though not entirely sure that it's working entirely as you might want... http://muddyboots.rattleresearch.com/cgi-bin/mb.cgi?action=pageid=701 ...a page about The Sun (and the News of the World) has lots of links off to the NASA website - presumably because of the use of the word Sun... I had a similar experience- the story about the proposed expansion of Heathrow Airport had a list of links telling me how to configure an Apple Aiprort Express. Understandable, but not relevant. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
Thanks for the feedback ! Muddy boots is cool... TheyWorkForYou.com adds links to Hansard by matching Proper Names with Wikipedia entries. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2007-11-21a.1190.1 The number false positives is acceptable and the wikipedia links are miles better than the user-generated glossary with which the site was launched. But it's still limited since it only parses for Capitalised Phrases or ACRONYMS. Shifting to term extraction seemed an obvious route, but as I think Muddy Boots shows, term extraction tends to throw up unacceptably large number of 'false positive' terms- these result in crappy random links and are user experience poison. However, you can minimise false positive terms by running the copy through several different flavours of term extractor, and only using terms thrown up by x or more of them (where x depends on your appetite for false positives vs false negatives). So, why not throw the copy through several more term extractors then only use the overlapping terms? - The BBC has at least one *excellent* term extractor in house which adds extra metadata like 'this term is a person/place/topic'... would be a lovely API to offer, hint hint... - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
How about using a two-frame page as the link with a rate this link option shown as a one-line toolbar at the top of the page? Users could then rate the appropriateness of the link from wrong to fantastic, which would allow automatic removal of incorrect links and an simple administration list of links considered poor. On 26/11/2007, Tom Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for the feedback ! Muddy boots is cool... TheyWorkForYou.com adds links to Hansard by matching Proper Names with Wikipedia entries. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2007-11-21a.1190.1 The number false positives is acceptable and the wikipedia links are miles better than the user-generated glossary with which the site was launched. But it's still limited since it only parses for Capitalised Phrases or ACRONYMS. Shifting to term extraction seemed an obvious route, but as I think Muddy Boots shows, term extraction tends to throw up unacceptably large number of 'false positive' terms- these result in crappy random links and are user experience poison. However, you can minimise false positive terms by running the copy through several different flavours of term extractor, and only using terms thrown up by x or more of them (where x depends on your appetite for false positives vs false negatives). So, why not throw the copy through several more term extractors then only use the overlapping terms? - The BBC has at least one *excellent* term extractor in house which adds extra metadata like 'this term is a person/place/topic'... would be a lovely API to offer, hint hint... - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
Personally, I'd prefer an XML API for most things like this... no worrying about porting it to your platform of choice, less/no hardware cost, probably (maybe) faster, less maintenance etc. J -- Jason Cartwright Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44(0)2070313161 On 26/11/2007, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 26/11/2007, Tom Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - The BBC has at least one *excellent* term extractor in house which adds extra metadata like 'this term is a person/place/topic'... would be a lovely API to offer, hint hint... API? Nah, it would be a larger contribution if they released the source code. See my sig. -- Noah Slater http://www.bytesexual.org/ Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. - R. Stallman - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
On 26/11/2007, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally, I'd prefer an XML API for most things like this... no worrying about porting it to your platform of choice, less/no hardware cost, probably (maybe) faster, less maintenance etc. No worrying about freedom, either, though... -- Regards, Dave - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
On 26/11/2007, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 26/11/2007, Tom Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - The BBC has at least one *excellent* term extractor in house which adds extra metadata like 'this term is a person/place/topic'... would be a lovely API to offer, hint hint... API? Nah, it would be a larger contribution if they released the source code. Not in this case. Source code isn't that important for term extraction. What matters much more is the dictionary, and this is where the BBC's librarians have added lotsa value. In this case access to the data is more valuable than access to source code. Given you can't have both (the source code isn't owned by the BBC) I'd be happy with open data. See my sig. I did. Cathy Come Home would seem to disprove it as a hypothesis. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
You have complete freedom - you can go and use someone else's API if their terms or tech are better. Just change the URL and a few XPaths in a config file. J On 26/11/2007, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 26/11/2007, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally, I'd prefer an XML API for most things like this... no worrying about porting it to your platform of choice, less/no hardware cost, probably (maybe) faster, less maintenance etc. No worrying about freedom, either, though... -- Regards, Dave - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
On 26/11/2007, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally, I'd prefer an XML API for most things like this... no worrying about porting it to your platform of choice, less/no hardware cost, probably (maybe) faster, less maintenance etc. Me too, great for doing some AJAX. J -- Jason Cartwright Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44(0)2070313161 On 26/11/2007, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 26/11/2007, Tom Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - The BBC has at least one *excellent* term extractor in house which adds extra metadata like 'this term is a person/place/topic'... would be a lovely API to offer, hint hint... API? Nah, it would be a larger contribution if they released the source code. See my sig. -- Noah Slater http://www.bytesexual.org/ Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. - R. Stallman - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
Tom Loosemore wrote: Thanks for the feedback ! Muddy boots is cool... Thanks :) TheyWorkForYou.com adds links to Hansard by matching Proper Names with Wikipedia entries. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2007-11-21a.1190.1 The number false positives is acceptable and the wikipedia links are miles better than the user-generated glossary with which the site was launched. But it's still limited since it only parses for Capitalised Phrases or ACRONYMS. Shifting to term extraction seemed an obvious route, but as I think Muddy Boots shows, term extraction tends to throw up unacceptably large number of 'false positive' terms- these result in crappy random links and are user experience poison. However, you can minimise false positive terms by running the copy through several different flavours of term extractor, and only using terms thrown up by x or more of them (where x depends on your appetite for false positives vs false negatives). I like this idea as obviously the context for the story (i.e. the tags we use to define it) impacts the final link recommendations, it's one of the two weak points in the system at the moment (the other being the previously mentioned disambiguation issues), however it's nice to have a platform that we can start to test these kind of ideas out ... So, why not throw the copy through several more term extractors then only use the overlapping terms? - The BBC has at least one *excellent* term extractor in house which adds extra metadata like 'this term is a person/place/topic'... would be a lovely API to offer, hint hint... - Seconded ! Anybody else have any other recommendations for term extraction services ? Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
On 26/11/2007, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You have complete freedom - you can go and use someone else's API if their terms or tech are better. Just change the URL and a few XPaths in a config file. To talk of the freedom to stop using a data source is absurd. The Ordanance Survey provide very useful data with horribly onerous licencing conditions, are you arguing that all the campaigning to get that data opened up to the public is moot simple because you can choose not to use it? -- Noah Slater http://www.bytesexual.org/ Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. - R. Stallman - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
On 26/11/2007, Frank Wales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: /me sits down with big tub of pop corn and expectantly googly eyes... /me puts on his flame retardant suit and rubs on the troll repellent -- Noah Slater http://www.bytesexual.org/ Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. - R. Stallman - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
Brian Butterworth wrote: How about using a two-frame page as the link with a rate this link option shown as a one-line toolbar at the top of the page? Users could then rate the appropriateness of the link from wrong to fantastic, which would allow automatic removal of incorrect links and an simple administration list of links considered poor. That was another idea we had, both from the perspective of feeding meta-data back to Wikipedia and also getting end-users to moderate links, although in our use-case we had the system helping journalists in finding relevant external link material, the one's they chose from the complete list were marked as known 'good' meta-data for the story and fed back into the system (and if they had the time they could mark 'bad' suggestions as well). So for example if you choose a MuddyBoots 'red' report [1] (i.e. requires moderation) you'll see there are far more links that *could* be relevant to the article and the journalists could choose from these and add them to a news story, thus creating a feedback mechanism into the system. [1] http://muddyboots.rattleresearch.com/cgi-bin/mb.cgi?action=pageid=714report_type=red - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
On 26/11/2007, Tom Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Given you can't have both (the source code isn't owned by the BBC) I'd be happy with open data. Open data would be fantastic, free software + open data would be better. See my sig. I did. Cathy Come Home would seem to disprove it as a hypothesis. I disagree, it can work on many levels. On one level people were free to take the ideas from Cathy Come Home and discuss/loby them to get social change. On another unrelated level would be how society can re-use and remix the original footage. You are conflating too seperate things. -- Noah Slater http://www.bytesexual.org/ Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. - R. Stallman - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
On 26/11/2007, Matt Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We didn't spend 25 years getting faster computers and larger hard disks so we could run all our applications over a network and have third parties store our data. I think having services in the cloud is an immensely useful thing - only that they should also provide free and legally unencumbered access to the data and software that sits behind them. -- Noah Slater http://www.bytesexual.org/ Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. - R. Stallman - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
On 26/11/2007, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 26/11/2007, Tom Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Given you can't have both (the source code isn't owned by the BBC) I'd be happy with open data. Open data would be fantastic, free software + open data would be better. See my sig. I did. Cathy Come Home would seem to disprove it as a hypothesis. I disagree, it can work on many levels. On one level people were free to take the ideas from Cathy Come Home and discuss/loby them to get social change. On another unrelated level would be how society can re-use and remix the original footage. I chose my example with care. People were not free (as in freedom) to choose whether or not they wanted to pay for Cathy Come Home to be made in the first place. It they had been granted the freedom not to pay the licence fee, it would never have been made. This renders discussion of use/re-use freedoms somewhat moot. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
[backstage] Hmm...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/nov/26/bbc.television3 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
No... that isn't what I said. J On 26/11/2007, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 26/11/2007, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You have complete freedom - you can go and use someone else's API if their terms or tech are better. Just change the URL and a few XPaths in a config file. To talk of the freedom to stop using a data source is absurd. The Ordanance Survey provide very useful data with horribly onerous licencing conditions, are you arguing that all the campaigning to get that data opened up to the public is moot simple because you can choose not to use it? -- Noah Slater http://www.bytesexual.org/ Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. - R. Stallman - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
On 26/11/2007, Tom Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: People were not free (as in freedom) to choose whether or not they wanted to pay for Cathy Come Home to be made in the first place. It they had been granted the freedom not to pay the licence fee, it would never have been made. This could be said about the decisions of any public body. This renders discussion of use/re-use freedoms somewhat moot. How so? How are the freedoms of use/re-use ever rendered moot? By saying people were not free to do X hence freedom Y is moot is non sequitur. -- Noah Slater http://www.bytesexual.org/ Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. - R. Stallman - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
On 26/11/2007, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No... that isn't what I said. You said: You have complete freedom - you can go and use someone else's API if their terms or tech are better. I think any reasonable person would paraphrase this as you have freedom to stop using it. To which I replied: To talk of the freedom to stop using a data source is absurd. Please tell me if I am misunderstanding something. -- Noah Slater http://www.bytesexual.org/ Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. - R. Stallman - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
Matt Lee wrote: Jason Cartwright wrote: That doesn't really seem to be the way things are going... It's certainly not the way some would like to take things. It's certainly one of the things that 'Web Twenty' promotes, but I think it's a mistake. We didn't spend 25 years getting faster computers and larger hard disks so we could run all our applications over a network and have third parties store our data. You could argue that computers started this way 25 years ago with a central mainframe storing all the data centrally and we moved away from this architecture due to limited connection speeds. With internet speeds increasing these online systems are very useful for the average user who sends emails, writes letters, etc, as they take away the burden of looking after software and keeping it up to date. This is something that most computer users don't always understand. Plus ask a group when the last time they backed up their documents and a majority would probably say never or too long ago to be useful.
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
I was referring to Term Extraction APIs. There are plenty, so it doesn't really matter which one you use... you are free to choose. J On 26/11/2007, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 26/11/2007, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No... that isn't what I said. You said: You have complete freedom - you can go and use someone else's API if their terms or tech are better. I think any reasonable person would paraphrase this as you have freedom to stop using it. To which I replied: To talk of the freedom to stop using a data source is absurd. Please tell me if I am misunderstanding something. -- Noah Slater http://www.bytesexual.org/ Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. - R. Stallman - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
On 26/11/2007, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was referring to Term Extraction APIs. There are plenty, so it doesn't really matter which one you use... you are free to choose. Yes, but if they are all restrictive with the data silos then all you have is the freedom to choose which person restricts your freedom which is patently absurd. -- Noah Slater http://www.bytesexual.org/ Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. - R. Stallman - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
People were not free (as in freedom) to choose whether or not they wanted to pay for Cathy Come Home to be made in the first place. It they had been granted the freedom not to pay the licence fee, it would never have been made. This could be said about the decisions of any public body. your point being? (The BBC is not 'any public body' - it is unique in being funded by a hypothecated regressive tax. ) This renders discussion of use/re-use freedoms somewhat moot. How so? How are the freedoms of use/re-use ever rendered moot? In the case of Cathy Come Home (the test I set for your hypothesis) you don't get to have the programme at all without societal coercian. Which - in the case of Cathy Come Home - renders talk of 'society being free to use the results of creativity' moot. The lovely magic of digital is that in many cases (software, music, the written word) you no longer need capital to be creative. In such cases, I'd agree with your .sig. But where creativity still requires capital - or has done in the past - then the freedoms which should be granted on use / re-use are less obvious. After all, it's someone's capital (or licence fee) at stake, and human nature has been finely tuned to reject freeloaders. It's my abtuse way of rejecting glib rhetoric. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
With internet speeds increasing these online systems are very useful for the average user who sends emails, writes letters, etc, as they take away the burden of looking after software and keeping it up to date. Or another way of looking it, if you keep building systems with the expectation that people will have an always-on, persistent fast connection - you look out people like me still on 31.2 Kbps dial-up... But in this case, API would easily trump source code and dictionary/thesarus with patches IMHO - API could react within minutes to a sudden change in the significance of a term. Who would want to wait 15 days lag for a patch to keep switching McClaren from being primarily about Formula One, Steve or Malcolm - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
They are restrictive data silos for a reason - they contain proprietary data and code. They contain proprietary data and code for a reason - it was easier and cheaper to build them that way. Given that these systems aren't going to be released in their entirety (at least not in the near future, it would appear), then I think we're in the pretty good situation (given the above constraints) of having a marketplace of different APIs to play with. J On 26/11/2007, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 26/11/2007, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was referring to Term Extraction APIs. There are plenty, so it doesn't really matter which one you use... you are free to choose. Yes, but if they are all restrictive with the data silos then all you have is the freedom to choose which person restricts your freedom which is patently absurd. -- Noah Slater http://www.bytesexual.org/ Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. - R. Stallman - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
On 26/11/2007, Martin Belam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But in this case, API would easily trump source code and dictionary/thesarus with patches IMHO - API could react within minutes to a sudden change in the significance of a term. Who would want to wait 15 days lag for a patch to keep switching McClaren from being primarily about Formula One, Steve or Malcolm Yeah, but what happens when the BBC has technical difficulties, changes it's mind about the licencing terms or is dissolved? Poof! The whole thing disappears! -- Noah Slater http://www.bytesexual.org/ Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. - R. Stallman - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
Adam wrote: You could argue that computers started this way 25 years ago with a central mainframe storing all the data centrally and we moved away from this architecture due to limited connection speeds. Or because the cost of running one big computer and a bunch of dumb terminals became less of an issue, when you can buy a computer in Tesco[1] for 200 quid With internet speeds increasing these online systems are very useful for the average user who sends emails, writes letters, etc, as they take away the burden of looking after software and keeping it up to date. This is something that most computer users don't always understand. Right, this is something that operating system providers can fix, tho. Plus ask a group when the last time they backed up their documents and a majority would probably say never or too long ago to be useful. Again, I'm not arguing against backups. They are useful things and everyone could backup more. [1] other supermarket chains are available -- Matt Lee (mattl at fsf dot org) Campaigns Manager, Free Software Foundation - http://www.fsf.org/ Support our work - http://donate.fsf.org/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
On 26/11/2007, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They are restrictive data silos for a reason - they contain proprietary data and code. This is a tautology. They contain proprietary data and code for a reason - it was easier and cheaper to build them that way. Do you have the research to show that it is cheaper to build proprietary (which is the incorrect term by the way, closed or licenced would be better) data silos? I am willing to bet that in many cases it would either have no effect on the bottom line (how would the BBC loose money by sharing some data?) or would actually improve customer relations and hence, ultimately, revenue. I am willing to be that you can find no research that suggests a closed data silo such as the one the BBC has and is not sharing would harm revenue if shared with the public. I am also willing to bet that there is direct evidence on the contrary. Google's open source software, the New York Times open source software, LiveJournal's open source software, heck even the beeb contributes IIRC. In all of these cases it fosters a community of developers and good spirit around the organisation - not plummeting revenue figures as you suggest. Given that these systems aren't going to be released in their entirety (at least not in the near future, it would appear), then I think we're in the pretty good situation (given the above constraints) of having a marketplace of different APIs to play with. It's better than nothing, but that's no reason to be complacent and say oh well, it'll do because then nothing will happen. You need to speak out if you want things to change. -- Noah Slater http://www.bytesexual.org/ Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. - R. Stallman - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
On 26/11/2007, Tom Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This could be said about the decisions of any public body. your point being? (The BBC is not 'any public body' - it is unique in being funded by a hypothecated regressive tax. ) My point being your point is irrelevant. In the case of Cathy Come Home (the test I set for your hypothesis) It's not mine and it's not a hypothesis. you don't get to have the programme at all without societal coercian. Societal coercian? You mean fiscal coercian? In either case, I fail to see how this is related to how much value it presents to the society when they are free to (re)use. Which - in the case of Cathy Come Home - renders talk of 'society being free to use the results of creativity' moot. No, it doesn't. Just because something exists because of X or is only possible because of Y does not mean that society wouldn't benefit through it's availability for (re)use. You're arguments are a total non sequitur. But where creativity still requires capital - or has done in the past - then the freedoms which should be granted on use / re-use are less obvious. After all, it's someone's capital (or licence fee) at stake, I disagree entirely with your hypothetical link between cost of creative production and the freedoms that should be awarded to society. Copyright and trademark law were specifically designed to give away a little bit of societal freedom in exchange for stimulated creativity. At no point is cost of creative production mentioned nor should it enter the discussion. and human nature has been finely tuned to reject freeloaders. This is a broad generalisation that has nothing to do with the discussion. The job of our government is to protect the the public, not the private entities that expend creative effort. It is not the public who are freeloaders when they ask for freedom to use, reuse and modify - it is the creatives who are asking/expecting too much from society. It's my abtuse way of rejecting glib rhetoric. It's not rhetorical and it's not glib, see the full text here: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html -- Noah Slater http://www.bytesexual.org/ Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. - R. Stallman - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
On 26/11/2007, Matt Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [1] other supermarket chains are available Prove it. -- Noah Slater http://www.bytesexual.org/ Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. - R. Stallman - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Hmm...
Interesting, but lacks the actual detail. On 26/11/2007, Tom Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/nov/26/bbc.television3 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] Last.fm Radio 1 Profile page stuck
On 26/11/2007, Jacqueline Phillimore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We've been having some problems with the data quality generated for both R1 and 1Xtra, and so have had to pull the track data feeds for these stations while we sort out the problem. It'll be back soon we hope. Can I just thank you for having the last.fm profiles, It makes it so much easier to work out which (BBC) radio station you would like the most out of all of them when you can compare your music tastes with that of the radio station. Actually up to this point I thought only 1xtra had one so I am especially interested to hear about other stations having one I look forward to hearing when they are back up. -Tim -- www.dobo.urandom.co.uk If each of us have one object, and we exchange them, then each of us still has one object. If each of us have one idea, and we exchange them, then each of us now has two ideas. - George Bernard Shaw - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Hmm...
Wow, this might mean that we're, er, encouraged to let indies build sites for bbc.co.uk in such a way that their HTML, images, and even server-side code can be picked up and carried away to any other web host in the world... It could call for a new inter-site protocol for describing and building websites... OpenSocial on steroids, perhaps..? Brendan. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Loosemore Sent: 26 November 2007 17:18 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] Hmm... http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/nov/26/bbc.television3 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Hmm...
On 26/11/2007, Brendan Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wow, this might mean that we're, er, encouraged to let indies build sites for bbc.co.uk in such a way that their HTML, images, and even server-side code can be picked up and carried away to any other web host in the world... It could call for a new inter-site protocol for describing and building websites... OpenSocial on steroids, perhaps..? That would be really nice, but it doesn't sound like PACT. There is only one UK social networking site, and ITV owns it! Brendan. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Loosemore Sent: 26 November 2007 17:18 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] Hmm... http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/nov/26/bbc.television3 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
On 26/11/2007, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You have complete freedom - you can go and use someone else's API That's the point - using web APIs is giving up your software freedom, because you are getting someone else to do your computation; you have no way of studying, understanding, or modifying the computation done behind the API. -- Regards, Dave - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
On 26/11/2007, Tom Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's such dogma which gets you described by otherwise pretty measured civil servants and MPs as 'The Copyleft Taliban' lol Do you have a reference for that? :-) http://www.vivisimo.com/search?query=%22copyleft+taliban%22 http://www.alltheweb.com/search?q=%22copyleft+taliban%22 http://www.google.com/search?q=%22copyleft+taliban%22 I guess I'm just bored of placard waving. I want to see stuff actually change. :-) -- Regards, Dave - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
I disagree entirely with your hypothetical link between cost of creative production and the freedoms that should be awarded to society. Copyright and trademark law were specifically designed to give away a little bit of societal freedom in exchange for stimulated creativity. I agree with all of this. Society would benefit from hugely from re-use now digital tech means it can do so widely and (more or less) equitably. Understand where I'm coming from. I'm against glib absolutism, not re-use. And one hard lesson I learned from Creative Archive's failure is that *blanket* insistance upon re-use - or even unrestricted global use - for all works future, present and past *can* mean art isn't made in the first place, or isn't placed in the public domian. If you'd have said to the makers of Cathy Come Home Oh, and by the way, anyone will have the right to do what they want with your work it would not have been made. And today, insistance on global re-use would mean it remained gathering dust in the BBC's archive. It takes patience, time and - most importantly - evidence to demostrate that re-use can be a good thing for all concerned. At no point is cost of creative production mentioned nor should it enter the discussion. Hmm. You don't stimulate much creativity if said stimulation does not cover the costs of production. The job of our government is to protect the the public, not the private entities that expend creative effort. It is not the public who are freeloaders when they ask for freedom to use, reuse and modify - it is the creatives who are asking/expecting too much from society. Rights are a balance - as you say - between societal freedom and creative stimulation. I'd argue that both sides of that equation stand to gain from re-use now media is going digital and the cost of copying, sharing and re-using is tending towards zero. But you don't help rebalance laws by jumping up and down on one end proclaiming your own sacred manifesto to be The One True Word and decrying those nasty private entities at the other end to be ripping off society. It's such dogma which gets you described by otherwise pretty measured civil servants and MPs as 'The Copyleft Taliban' and does the cause of changing the law to enable and encourage re-use nothing but harm. The name of the game is to provide evidence of the benefits of re-use. I'm pretty encouraged that the Treasury is now getting an independent economist to look at the the case for re-use of Government data off the back of the Power of Information Review. It was that sober review, full of case studies and real-life examples of the benefits of re-use that lead to this change of heart. I guess I'm just bored of placard waving. I want to see stuff actually change. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
On 26/11/2007, Tom Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's such dogma which gets you described by otherwise pretty measured civil servants and MPs as 'The Copyleft Taliban' This would be highly offensive and on a par with Godwin's Law. I guess I'm just bored of placard waving. I want to see stuff actually change. Funny that, last time I checked it's the people who protest about things that get stuff to changed - not the one's who sit around saying meh, it's good enough for me. -- Noah Slater http://www.bytesexual.org/ Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. - R. Stallman - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
On 26/11/2007, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 26/11/2007, Tom Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's such dogma which gets you described by otherwise pretty measured civil servants and MPs as 'The Copyleft Taliban' This would be highly offensive and on a par with Godwin's Law. I guess I'm just bored of placard waving. I want to see stuff actually change. Funny that, last time I checked it's the people who protest about things that get stuff to changed - not the one's who sit around saying meh, it's good enough for me. It's always a bit of an uphill battle when you have people who wish to preserve the status quo by using professional lobbyists. I don't think you are in disagreement here, but I have sympathy for both points of view. Many years ago I spent ages outside the Menwith Hill US base waving placards - and look what it achieved... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7111523.stm Oh, that will be nothing at all then... But it is also true to say that if everyone stayed at home nothing would ever happen. In my experience dogged determined reasoned arguments usually win out in the end, not placard waving... The effect of protest can end up doing is curtailing the free speech required for reasoned argument... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7113984.stm -- Noah Slater http://www.bytesexual.org/ Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. - R. Stallman - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
On Monday 26 November 2007 20:20:30 Dave Crossland wrote: That's the point - using web APIs is giving up your software freedom, because you are getting someone else to do your computation; you have no way of studying, understanding, or modifying the computation done behind the API. Wrong - using a web API does not necessarily do that any more than using the POSIX API does in a C application, since it appears to depend on which web API you use. (ignoring the other comments that appear problematic to me in that statement) Example - the open social Web API appears to be a good example here - since you have multiple potential implementors. Some (many) will be closed source, some will be open source. The user could then choose which containers/providers they prefer, perhaps based on that issue, though in all likelihood its likely to be on other aspects. You may wish to qualify your statements more often before making incorrect generalisations. Michael. -- Favourite new idea (to me) of right now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
On Monday 26 November 2007 20:32:49 Tom Loosemore wrote: It takes patience, time and - most importantly - evidence to demonstrate that re-use can be a good thing for all concerned. Even then, consider: * Copyright was created as a mechanism to benefit the public as a mechanism to encourage an author to create work, based on the premise that they have exclusive control of their work's copying which they can charge for. The public benefit because it encourages people to invest time an effort on the risk aspect of producing content (since to do it in a realistic timeframe does require upfront investment of time effort full time, which has a real cost) For the sake of this email, I'm considering that the primary intended benefit to society the author. It appears to have a secondary benefit for an author/originator: * It allows that author/originator to be clear that their work is not misrepresented or changed in a way changing their intent words (either accidentally or maliciously). It clearly has the negative effect: * Derivative works based on another work are generally difficult to do without hitting a licensing nightmare - though CC is making (practical) inroads in changing this. Due to this negative effect, it appears to also be a massive positive boost: * It appears to enforce diversity. If you want to write a new book for example, you have to write a _new_ book. Whatever imbalance in the system at the moment, this last point, to me, appears to be an interesting benefit. It also strikes me as potentially the very most beneficial aspect of copyright, and one that appears very easy to overlook in any rampage to demand everything must be remixable. (even if as noted it seems to have obvious downsides) Michael. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
On Monday 26 November 2007 21:14:20 Noah Slater wrote: This would be highly offensive and on a par with Godwin's Law. Oh, I don't know Mind Performance Hacks has a suggestion based on the analogy of Memes - Enjoy Good, Clean Memetic Sex - which appears to take a couple of analogies one step too far - well, at least in terms of terminology... I find the idea an interesting one, since it explains to me why so many people find evangelists offensive. I personally find the _term_ used too offensive, but as a _concept_, its something I think any evangelist (or salesman :) may wish to ponder on. (especially given the alternative :-) Anyhow, I'm referring to this short excerpt: Respect people's boundaries. A /safeword/ is a real word used during sex that means, Stop, right now! I'm not kidding! In real life, the expression Too much information! or TMI! often functions as a conversational memetic safeword. Unfortunately, some people have memes that they feel compelled to evangelize at all costs, and they won't stop when they're told to. Memetically, this is the equivalent of rape. Avoid memetic rapists, and respect the boundaries that others have set, if you want them to respect you -- from Mind Performance Hacks, Ron Hale-Evans, 2006 As noted above, I find the term here probably too offensive, but it's a useful concept IMO (at least in terms of a behaviour to avoid). You may prefer to have an idea seduce you, not to be imposed on you :-) Michael. -- (Other books are available) - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
On 27/11/2007, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately, some people have memes that they feel compelled to evangelize at all costs, and they won't stop when they're told to. Memetically, this is the equivalent of rape. Avoid memetic rapists, and respect the boundaries that others have set, if you want them to respect you This is a total crock. Basically the author is saying that anyone who has strong opinions is committing the equivalent of rape. Now, ignoring the highly inappropriate analogy to forced sexual penetration, I think that you could sum this up as having strong opinions and sticking by them is wrong. which is clearly brain-dead. I appreciate that some people prefer not to get into politics or ethics or rights or whatever, in which case ignore the discussion and move on with you life. If you have an opinion, voice it, don't be scared. Anyone who relates intellectual discussion with forced sexual abuse clearly has some serious issues. -- Noah Slater http://www.bytesexual.org/ Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. - R. Stallman - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
Basically the author is saying that anyone who has strong opinions is committing the equivalent of rape. Now, ignoring the highly inappropriate analogy to forced sexual penetration, I think that you could sum this up as having strong opinions and sticking by them is wrong. which is clearly brain-dead. No. Banging on and on and on and on about the same tired, laboured point is wrong - and simply blindly quoting Richard Stallman doesn't make it any more likely to have people agree with your narrow viewpoint. You are Dave Crossland in a different hat, and I claim my five pounds. Rich.
