Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
On 27/11/2007, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are Dave Crossland in a different hat, and I claim my five pounds. We are different people; that £5 belongs to me. -- 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
You are Dave Crossland in a different hat, and I claim my five pounds. We are different people; that £5 belongs to me. Hmm. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... :-) Rich.
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
On 27/11/2007, Billy Abbott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 26 Nov 2007, Noah Slater wrote: but what happens when That's the reason why having open APIs that multiple sites conform to strikes me as an excellent idea - if your provider of choice does up and go away you can just switch the URL to another and off you go. It is naieve to think that a choice of providers will have identical functionality. They might be _similar_ overall, and have some basic functions that are exactly the same... But the primary reason to pick one API over another is the functions they offer that are unique. Freedom means more than a choice of lords. -- 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 Tuesday 27 November 2007 09:26:51 Dave Crossland wrote: On 27/11/2007, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are Dave Crossland in a different hat, and I claim my five pounds. We are different people; that £5 belongs to me. I've met both Noah and Dave and can confirm this :-) (both are nice people IRL incidentally for those intimidated by some of the conversations incidentally :-) 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 27/11/2007, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 27/11/2007, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are Dave Crossland in a different hat, and I claim my five pounds. We are different people; that £5 belongs to me. -- Regards,Dave I can confirm that these are real people, not sock puppets. I've met both of them... - 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 27/11/2007, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. This is where our opinions diverge. I, obviously, have some strong view points on freedom and politics. I join /discussion/ groups so that I can /discuss/ the issues that interest me. When a /discussion/ starts that involves freedom or politics I find that I like to join in the /discussion/ by weighing in with my opinion. That, after all, is the point of a /discussion/ list. I only /discuss/ things that interest me when there is direct relevance to the /discussion/ at hand. If a newbie asks how can I get foo driver to work with linux you won't find me correcting his use of the word linux to include gnu but you will find me correcting someone who says tescos should sell and market linux pcs. See the difference? When someone accuses me of banging on about something really they are saying I have heard your opinion before, don't like it and can't be bothered discussing it. To which I have two suggestions: 1) Leave the /discussion/ list you're on. 2) Move to the next message, trash the message and move on. 3) Filter all email with freedom in the body into /dev/null and be done with it. Stop throwing you're weight around because you can't be bothered /discussing/ something on a /discussion/ list. -- 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 Tue, 2007-11-27 at 08:52 +, Michael Sparks wrote: I'd assumed that people would understand the concept of analogy and meme. A generation brought up on Reithian values would, but now it's all East Enders, and other reality shows :^/ - Richard - 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. 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. This is where our opinions diverge. Ah, so continually banging on and on about the same laboured point is OK is it? I, obviously, have some strong view points on freedom and politics. I join /discussion/ groups so that I can /discuss/ the issues that interest me. Yes, I see that. Please note the difference between discussion and repeatedly banging on. When a /discussion/ starts that involves freedom or politics I find that I like to join in the /discussion/ by weighing in with my opinion. That, after all, is the point of a /discussion/ list. Fine, but note that weighing in with is not neccessarily a synonym for repeatedly banging on about. Discussing is a two way process. Standing on a soapbox and shouting LISTEN TO ME! is not. (There's something wrong with your keyboard BTW - it's putting quote marks out as slashes) I only /discuss/ things that interest me when there is direct relevance to the /discussion/ at hand. If a newbie asks how can I get foo driver to work with linux you won't find me correcting his use of the word linux to include gnu but you will find me correcting someone who says tescos should sell and market linux pcs. See the difference? Yes. How is this relevant? When someone accuses me of banging on about something really they are saying I have heard your opinion before, don't like it and can't be bothered discussing it. No. They're saying You've made exactly that point before, there's no need to keep repeating it - it's not going to get any more valid or true the ninth time you make it, and you're certainly not going to convince anyone to change their minds. You're far more likely to alienate people. To which I have two suggestions: 1) Leave the /discussion/ list you're on. 2) Move to the next message, trash the message and move on. 3) Filter all email with freedom in the body into /dev/null and be done with it. That's three. Like the Spanish Inquisition this... I have a suggestion too. Why not limit making the exact same point to, ooh, three times per day, per discussion list? That way it comes across less like bullying. Stop throwing you're weight around because you can't be bothered /discussing/ something on a /discussion/ list. I hope you're not suggesting I have any weight to throw around. I just find bullies, extremists and zealots of any descripton intensely annoying, especially in what's generally a friendly environment. Rich.
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
Noah On 27 Nov 2007, at 10:57, Noah Slater wrote: To which I have two suggestions: 1) Leave the /discussion/ list you're on. 2) Move to the next message, trash the message and move on. 3) Filter all email with freedom in the body into /dev/null and be done with it. My fourth suggestion would be that perhaps the discussion you want to have is not on topic for a list. As such continuing the discussion you want to have may be off topic for most list members. As to whether this list is an advocacy list for freedom I will leave as the list owners' call. Cheers f - 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, Fearghas McKay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My fourth suggestion would be that perhaps the discussion you want to have is not on topic for a list. As such continuing the discussion you want to have may be off topic for most list members. On this list the noise is the signal and you are invited to use filters. On 27/11/2007, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hope you're not suggesting I have any weight to throw around. I just find bullies, extremists and zealots of any descripton intensely annoying, especially in what's generally a friendly environment. Richard, the world is full of people who are going to disagree with you - calling them bullies, extremists and zealots is only going to get you so far. As you only seem to be throwing around ad hominems the discussion is over. /me bows out -- 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 27/11/2007, Fearghas McKay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My fourth suggestion would be that perhaps the discussion you want to have is not on topic for a list. As such continuing the discussion you want to have may be off topic for most list members. As to whether this list is an advocacy list for freedom I will leave as the list owners' call. It seems that software freedom is very much one of the core issues that BBC Backstage tackles. Many of the Backstage podcasts have focused on the BBC's policy that Digital Restrictions Management technology is effective and appropriate, for example. The list owners set up a pure technical discussion list for people not interested in the social and political issues that Backstage is tackling. -- Regards, Dave (Personal opinion only, doesn't not reflect any employers policies or views) - 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
My fourth suggestion would be that perhaps the discussion you want to have is not on topic for a list. As such continuing the discussion you want to have may be off topic for most list members. On this list the noise is the signal and you are invited to use filters. Noise. Note noise. Not Shouting. On 27/11/2007, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hope you're not suggesting I have any weight to throw around. I just find bullies, extremists and zealots of any descripton intensely annoying, especially in what's generally a friendly environment. Richard, the world is full of people who are going to disagree with you - calling them bullies, extremists and zealots is only going to get you so far. Disagreeing is fine - continually banging on without being prepared to listen is not. Look up zealot at dictionary.com, then tell me it's not an unearned epithet. As you only seem to be throwing around ad hominems the discussion is over. I'll take this as realising you can't realistically argue your point any more and are taking your bat home. (However, I'm not convinced you're not going to come back, jabbing a finger into a metaphorical table, shouting and another thing...) /me bows out Bye. Rich.
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
On 26/11/2007, Tom Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...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? This should work (and it's been suggested on the backstage-dev list recently). Though I'm uneasy about a possible situation where one of your term extractors comes up with a great set of terms, but the others miss them completely, and so your output is a bad compromise of terms that aren't that meaningful. Do any APIs let you see the confidence score on their output terms? Having admittedly not thought about this much, it seems to me that a confidence score is key to any realistic combination algorithm. In terms (sorry) of quality of output, people seem to like Yahoo's API. I've come across Trynt's offering too (http://www.trynt.com/trynt-contextual-term-extraction-api/ ), but ominously their website is giving me a 403 Forbidden error right now. http://www.programmableweb.com/api/clearforest-semantic-web-services1/ has also been suggested on the pure technical discussion list. - 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... Ah - has this been used to derive the subject categories and contributors for the web version of Infax, by any chance? If so, and even if not, that would be a gorgeous API to offer - please, BBC... Rhys - 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: 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. If the user chooses an open source API, but doesn't download the software and run it on their computer, they are giving up their software freedom. 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. A choice of providers isn't freedom; freedom is being your own provider. -- 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 27/11/2007, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On this list the noise is the signal and you are invited to use filters. Noise. Note noise. Not Shouting. I THINK WE ARE HAVING A JOLLY OLD TIME DEBATING THE MERITS OF SOFTWARE FREEDOM, AND THAT THERE WILL NEVER BE AN END TO IT IS PART OF THE FUN. NO ONE HAS BEEN SHOUTING SO FAR, AND EVERYTHING HAS BEEN VERY CIVIL :-) -- Regards, Dave (This email is meant to be amusing, and doesn't reflect the views of any employers) - 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
Hi Tim, The 6Music and Radio 2 feeds are working (http://www.last.fm/user/bbc6music/ and http://www.last.fm/user/bbcradio2/). There are also a few show feeds at: Steve Lamacq - http://www.last.fm/user/bbc_6lamacq Zane Lowe - http://www.last.fm/user/bbc_zanelowe (down, sorry!) Ace Vis - http://www.last.fm/user/bbc_acevis (down, sorry!) We hope to have some more of these up soon. Tristan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Tim Dobson Sent: Mon 11/26/2007 7:17 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: 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/ winmail.dat
[backstage] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/nov/27/bbc.itv?gusrc=rssfeed=technology No real technical details, more a re-hashed press release, but an interesting idea nontheless. Cheers, R. (Waits for this news to descend into DRM-Bad, Free-Good!! ranting...)
[backstage] On Demand news
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7114694.stm
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
Fearghas McKay wrote: Noah On 27 Nov 2007, at 10:57, Noah Slater wrote: To which I have two suggestions: 1) Leave the /discussion/ list you're on. 2) Move to the next message, trash the message and move on. 3) Filter all email with freedom in the body into /dev/null and be done with it. My fourth suggestion would be that perhaps the discussion you want to have is not on topic for a list. As such continuing the discussion you want to have may be off topic for most list members. As to whether this list is an advocacy list for freedom I will leave as the list owners' call. Or just change the post title and start a new post : Free Software Nonsense was (Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage) That way this thread about MuddyBoots is actually useful to anyone who wants to find out about it and anybody who wants to talk about Free Software Nonsense can do. - 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
Let me play devil's advocate for a moment. Making more things free and open only benefits a small group of technologists who are clever enough to know how to use the results. The general mass of the population still want finely crafted mass entertainment and other products of a high quality and gloss. Making everything free and open destroys the funding model that makes this happen, which includes copyright and other intellectual property rights. There's a trade off between making everything open and quality and reach. You could argue that news for example should adopt a completely free and open model. But who is going to make the investment to ensure that some stories are still told? Investigative journalism is expensive and often dangerous. Money needs to be spent to do it. While in my heart I'm much taken by the idea of making everything open, I smell a whiff of elitism about some of these arguments (i.e. I want everything free because that's convenient for me and I don't care about anybody else) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Dave Crossland Sent: Tue 11/27/2007 11:21 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage On 27/11/2007, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On this list the noise is the signal and you are invited to use filters. Noise. Note noise. Not Shouting. I THINK WE ARE HAVING A JOLLY OLD TIME DEBATING THE MERITS OF SOFTWARE FREEDOM, AND THAT THERE WILL NEVER BE AN END TO IT IS PART OF THE FUN. NO ONE HAS BEEN SHOUTING SO FAR, AND EVERYTHING HAS BEEN VERY CIVIL :-) -- Regards, Dave (This email is meant to be amusing, and doesn't reflect the views of any employers) - 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] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service
On 27/11/2007, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No real technical details, more a re-hashed press release, but an interesting idea nontheless. DRM is bad. Freedom is good. ;) Best, -- 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] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service
On 27/11/2007, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/nov/27/bbc.itv?gusrc=rssfeed=technology No real technical details, more a re-hashed press release, but an interesting idea nontheless. This was the original plan, wasn't it? It also makes me think that someone somewhere (a certain Scott with the initials GB) has said that there won't be another licence fee after the current one runs out I can only be GB - I suspect he lent on Tessa Shit For Brains* Jowell in the past. * (c) Mark Thompson Cheers, R. (Waits for this news to descend into DRM-Bad, Free-Good!! ranting...) -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
RE: [backstage] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service
why would this mean that there's no licence fee next time? the press release is sketchy but some of the content on kangaroo will be licence fee content (i.e. iPlayer content) - how will this content be paid for without a licence fee? i will bet anyone on this mailing list a fiver that in 2026 there will still be something called the BBC and it will still be paid for by a licence fee From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Brian Butterworth Sent: Tue 11/27/2007 12:53 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service On 27/11/2007, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/nov/27/bbc.itv?gusrc=rssfeed=technology No real technical details, more a re-hashed press release, but an interesting idea nontheless. This was the original plan, wasn't it? It also makes me think that someone somewhere (a certain Scott with the initials GB) has said that there won't be another licence fee after the current one runs out I can only be GB - I suspect he lent on Tessa Shit For Brains* Jowell in the past. * (c) Mark Thompson Cheers, R. (Waits for this news to descend into DRM-Bad, Free-Good!! ranting...) -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv winmail.dat
Re: [backstage] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service
Nick Reynolds-AMi wrote: i will bet anyone on this mailing list a fiver that in 2026 there will still be something called the BBC and it will still be paid for by a licence fee I will bet you the Standard Long-Term Economical Unit of Comparison (one Mars bar) that, in 2026, there will not be a physical object called 'a fiver'. -- Frank Wales [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service
i will take that bet Frank physical money will still exist in 2026 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Frank Wales Sent: Tue 11/27/2007 2:07 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service Nick Reynolds-AMi wrote: i will bet anyone on this mailing list a fiver that in 2026 there will still be something called the BBC and it will still be paid for by a licence fee I will bet you the Standard Long-Term Economical Unit of Comparison (one Mars bar) that, in 2026, there will not be a physical object called 'a fiver'. -- Frank Wales [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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/ winmail.dat
Re: [backstage] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service
On 27/11/2007, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No real technical details, more a re-hashed press release, but an interesting idea nontheless. How can this possible go live in a few months? (2008 starts in a few weeks if I am not much mistaken). The trust haven't even approved it. And the BBC has refused to comply with it's previous ruling. Need I remind you the BBC Trust said you must be Platform Neutral? So will Kangaroo* be Platform Neutral? If not it looks unlikely the trust will sign off on it given their previous comments about the iPlayer (was there ever a huger waste of money? Except maybe the Dome). Is it going to be standards based (only way to actually be platform neutral as some platform consist mainly of custom designed hardware which need to know the precise operating details to get high performance.)? Are we going to be allowed to improve it, bug fix it, security scan it, verify it's not a trojan etc.? Nice to see a complete lack of detail though, now where did I put my document on making an FOI request, (technically a written request here would most likely count, after all it's written, has a name and has an address.) (Waits for this news to descend into DRM-Bad, Free-Good!! ranting...) I see no mention of DRM in either article, neither do I see the term Digital Rights Management. Helpfully the BBC have made sure to hide every single even slightly technical detail from view. What precisely are you hiding? The only vaguely technical detail appears to be that it is designed to work over broadband, wow I couldn't have guessed that! What platforms are we talking about? Is it going to be truly platform neutral or is the BBC going to have to rewrite the old iPlayer to comply with your regulator (or as appears to be the intended plan refuse to comply with the regulator) What protocols and formats will be used? Will it be as awfully as 4OD and iPlayer, using up peoples bandwidth with no control what-so-ever (BitTorrent clients have supported throttling for years)? Odd how the BBC can have such a huge development time, such a huge spending and still end up with a vastly inferior product when compared to free alternatives. Will it permit user written extensions? Will it support third party access via Open API's? Andy * Is the name Kangaroo meant to be some joke about bouncing back after the disaster that was the first offerings? -- Computers are like air conditioners. Both stop working, if you open windows. -- Adam Heath - 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] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service
It would be cool if it were in DivX format. I'm quite liking the services at the moment that allow you the option of playing on demand, or download the lot and 'save as'. Seems to change everyones way of watching 'tv' as soon as they've used it. Ian http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/nov/27/bbc.itv?gusrc=rssfeed=technology No real technical details, more a re-hashed press release, but an interesting idea nontheless. Cheers, R. (Waits for this news to descend into DRM-Bad, Free-Good!! ranting...) - 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] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service
Nick Reynolds-AMi wrote: i will take that bet Frank physical money will still exist in 2026 For the avoidance of doubt, I'm talking about fivers in general circulation, not in the hands of collectors, drug dealers and suchlike. If you're still up for it, I'm willing to gamble a Mars bar over it, since I have more confidence they'll be around. -- Frank Wales [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service
Maybe you should move this over to http://www.longbets.org/ :) Mark. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frank Wales Sent: 27 November 2007 15:08 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service Nick Reynolds-AMi wrote: i will take that bet Frank physical money will still exist in 2026 For the avoidance of doubt, I'm talking about fivers in general circulation, not in the hands of collectors, drug dealers and suchlike. If you're still up for it, I'm willing to gamble a Mars bar over it, since I have more confidence they'll be around. -- Frank Wales [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/organgrinder/2007/11/kangaroo_a_giant_leap_for_tele.html
Re: [backstage] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service
Robert Andrews thinks BBC Worldwide is in it for pay-per-view outside the UK: http://www.paidcontent.co.uk/entry/419-official-broadcasters-join-for-kangaroo-commercial-vod-platform/ - 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] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service
Brian Butterworth wrote: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/organgrinder/2007/11/kangaroo_a_giant_leap_for_tele.html That second commenter seems rather familiar... :-) S - 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
On 27/11/2007, Tristan Ferne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The 6Music and Radio 2 feeds are working (http://www.last.fm/user/bbc6music/ and http://www.last.fm/user/bbcradio2/). There are also a few show feeds at: Steve Lamacq - http://www.last.fm/user/bbc_6lamacq Zane Lowe - http://www.last.fm/user/bbc_zanelowe (down, sorry!) Ace Vis - http://www.last.fm/user/bbc_acevis (down, sorry!) We hope to have some more of these up soon. Awesome! Well keep up the good work! It's really great to see the BBC embracing last.fm in such an innovative way; you don't get enough credit for it. -- 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] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service
On 27/11/2007, Frank Wales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For the avoidance of doubt, I'm talking about fivers in general circulation, not in the hands of collectors, drug dealers and suchlike. If you're still up for it, I'm willing to gamble a Mars bar over it, since I have more confidence they'll be around. Sheesh, and I was flamed for being OT. ;) -- 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 27/11/2007, Nick Reynolds-AMi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let me play devil's advocate for a moment. Making more things free and open only benefits a small group of technologists who are clever enough to know how to use the results. I see no problem with this, in fact it's a good thing, it incentiveises intelligence. A technocracy is much better than the idiocracy that we currently live in. The general mass of the population still want finely crafted mass entertainment and other products of a high quality and gloss. Making everything free and open destroys the funding model that makes this happen, which includes copyright and other intellectual property rights. The general public like fast food too, that doesn't mean that a McDonalds a day is good for them, most people (myself included) are stupid and don't know what's good for them in areas outside of their expertise. I let nutritionists and dietitians recommend what I should eat, I don't see why software engineers, IT consultants etc. shouldn't be able to recommend free software as the best alternative (where and when it is) regardless of the wider consequences to various funding models. That's not their problem, they're being paid to deliver $project on time not worry about copyright law reform. There's a trade off between making everything open and quality and reach. Why? Take Firefox for example, it's open, it has reach and it's a quality product. there's no trade off in fact I can think of quite a few quality open products, reach is a problem to be solved not something that has to to be traded away. You could argue that news for example should adopt a completely free and open model. But who is going to make the investment to ensure that some stories are still told? Investigative journalism is expensive and often dangerous. Money needs to be spent to do it. Free and open doesn't necessarily mean that there is no cash involved, look at the companies that sell support for free products or the way Firefox gets money from Google. as examples. I'm sure news organisations will continue. I read plenty of news on the web every day for free it's mostly ad funded. And i don't see anyone stopping buying newspapers just because they can read it online either. While in my heart I'm much taken by the idea of making everything open, I smell a whiff of elitism about some of these arguments (i.e. I want everything free because that's convenient for me and I don't care about anybody else) elite -noun the choice or *best of anything* considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons.[1] I see no problem with elitism if it means we get the best of anything. [1]paraphrased from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=elitex=0y=0
RE: [backstage] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service
Ashley Highfield has written a blog post explaining how kangaroo complements iPlayer here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2007/11/iplayer_and_kangaroo_1.ht ml it is much better for the BBC, ITV and C4 to have a say in a distribution service rather than leave it just to the likes of Joost or Babelgum to own the relationship with our audiences after the public service window. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Jolly Sent: 27 November 2007 15:52 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service Brian Butterworth wrote: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/organgrinder/2007/11/kangaroo_a_giant_leap _for_tele.html That second commenter seems rather familiar... :-) S - 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] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service
Nick Reynolds-AMi wrote: You really need to be careful with your language Richard That was Andy, not Richard. :-) S - 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] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service
On Tuesday 27 November 2007 15:29:39 Noah Slater wrote: Sheesh, and I was flamed for being OT. :-) People tend to appear to prefer variety in their off topic stuff. 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] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service
On Tuesday 27 November 2007 15:07:48 Frank Wales wrote: If you're still up for it, I'm willing to gamble a Mars bar over it, since I have more confidence they'll be around. Loaf of bread is a better longer term currency IMO. After all, Mars bars today ain't what they used to be :-D 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] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service
Andy wrote: Nice to see a complete lack of detail though, now where did I put my document on making an FOI request, (technically a written request here would most likely count, after all it's written, has a name and has an address.) IMO it might not count if it was unclear as to whether you were addressing a specific BBC member of staff or the list as a whole. But IANAL etc. :-) TBH I think most of the BBC employees here would take it as a kindness if you just emailed [EMAIL PROTECTED] S - 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
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of vijay chopra Sent: Tue 11/27/2007 4:13 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage On 27/11/2007, Nick Reynolds-AMi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let me play devil's advocate for a moment. Making more things free and open only benefits a small group of technologists who are clever enough to know how to use the results. I see no problem with this, in fact it's a good thing, it incentiveises intelligence. A technocracy is much better than the idiocracy that we currently live in. We already live in a technocracy - and look where that has got us - the amount of idiocy has if anything increased The general mass of the population still want finely crafted mass entertainment and other products of a high quality and gloss. Making everything free and open destroys the funding model that makes this happen, which includes copyright and other intellectual property rights. The general public like fast food too, that doesn't mean that a McDonalds a day is good for them, most people (myself included) are stupid and don't know what's good for them in areas outside of their expertise. I let nutritionists and dietitians recommend what I should eat, I don't see why software engineers, IT consultants etc. shouldn't be able to recommend free software as the best alternative (where and when it is) regardless of the wider consequences to various funding models. That's not their problem, they're being paid to deliver $project on time not worry about copyright law reform. mass entertainment is not the same as Macdonalds. its patronising and elitist to dismiss popular tastes. so software engineers don't have to obey the law of the land? - when any group thinks they are above the law problems start There's a trade off between making everything open and quality and reach. Why? Take Firefox for example, it's open, it has reach and it's a quality product. there's no trade off in fact I can think of quite a few quality open products, reach is a problem to be solved not something that has to to be traded away. All I will say about Firefox is that I had it on my desktop - it was a pain in the arse - it kept blocking sites and I had to get it deinstalled - I know you lot love it but to an ordinary joe like me it's just another obstacle You could argue that news for example should adopt a completely free and open model. But who is going to make the investment to ensure that some stories are still told? Investigative journalism is expensive and often dangerous. Money needs to be spent to do it. Free and open doesn't necessarily mean that there is no cash involved, look at the companies that sell support for free products or the way Firefox gets money from Google. as examples. I'm sure news organisations will continue. I read plenty of news on the web every day for free it's mostly ad funded. And i don't see anyone stopping buying newspapers just because they can read it online either. Investigative journalism is not an attractive proposition for advertisers - especially as they may be the ones being investigated While in my heart I'm much taken by the idea of making everything open, I smell a whiff of elitism about some of these arguments (i.e. I want everything free because that's convenient for me and I don't care about anybody else) elite -noun the choice or *best of anything* considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons.[1] I see no problem with elitism if it means we get the best of anything. [1]paraphrased from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=elitex=0y=0 Strange definition of elitism - one I have never heard before - if the result of what you want really meant that everyone got the best of everything then I would support it - but if all that happens is a small group of people like yourselves benefit and everybody else loses out then we will be no further forward winmail.dat
RE: [backstage] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service
sorry - i find this mailing list thing a bit awkward to navigate From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Steve Jolly Sent: Tue 11/27/2007 6:44 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service Nick Reynolds-AMi wrote: You really need to be careful with your language Richard That was Andy, not Richard. :-) S - 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] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service
You really need to be careful with your language Richard BBC management did not refuse to comply with the Trust's previous ruling Both management and the Trust have agreed that the Player will be platform neutral (indeed the management's position has always been that the Player will be platform neutral) - the only question is how and when Kangaroo is a commercial proposition from BBC Worldwide - and these usually don't take as long to approve From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Andy Sent: Tue 11/27/2007 2:29 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service On 27/11/2007, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No real technical details, more a re-hashed press release, but an interesting idea nontheless. How can this possible go live in a few months? (2008 starts in a few weeks if I am not much mistaken). The trust haven't even approved it. And the BBC has refused to comply with it's previous ruling. Need I remind you the BBC Trust said you must be Platform Neutral? So will Kangaroo* be Platform Neutral? If not it looks unlikely the trust will sign off on it given their previous comments about the iPlayer (was there ever a huger waste of money? Except maybe the Dome). Is it going to be standards based (only way to actually be platform neutral as some platform consist mainly of custom designed hardware which need to know the precise operating details to get high performance.)? Are we going to be allowed to improve it, bug fix it, security scan it, verify it's not a trojan etc.? Nice to see a complete lack of detail though, now where did I put my document on making an FOI request, (technically a written request here would most likely count, after all it's written, has a name and has an address.) (Waits for this news to descend into DRM-Bad, Free-Good!! ranting...) I see no mention of DRM in either article, neither do I see the term Digital Rights Management. Helpfully the BBC have made sure to hide every single even slightly technical detail from view. What precisely are you hiding? The only vaguely technical detail appears to be that it is designed to work over broadband, wow I couldn't have guessed that! What platforms are we talking about? Is it going to be truly platform neutral or is the BBC going to have to rewrite the old iPlayer to comply with your regulator (or as appears to be the intended plan refuse to comply with the regulator) What protocols and formats will be used? Will it be as awfully as 4OD and iPlayer, using up peoples bandwidth with no control what-so-ever (BitTorrent clients have supported throttling for years)? Odd how the BBC can have such a huge development time, such a huge spending and still end up with a vastly inferior product when compared to free alternatives. Will it permit user written extensions? Will it support third party access via Open API's? Andy * Is the name Kangaroo meant to be some joke about bouncing back after the disaster that was the first offerings? -- Computers are like air conditioners. Both stop working, if you open windows. -- Adam Heath - 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/ winmail.dat
[backstage] tiresias PC fonts released under the GPL
Dear Backstage folk Tiresias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiresias_%28typeface%29 ) is a font designed by the RNIB for high legibility - allegedly especially good for people with any sort of visual impairment. They've just made PC-specific versions (http://www.tiresias.org/fonts/pcfont/about_pc.htm ) which are released under version 3 of the GPL (http://www.tiresias.org/fonts/fonts_download.htm#licence ) This is interesting for a few reasons. In Interactive TV, we (the BBC) uses Tiresias ( the TV version - screenfont - http://www.tiresias.org/fonts/screenfont/about_screen.htm ) for onscreen display (eg of news headlines, OSDs, etc) - it benefits all viewers, not just ones with vision problems. It's also good to see new TTF fonts under a free (beer/ speech) licence. It might also mean that it's easier to emulate Tiresias, and thus iTV apps, on PCs (at the moment the emmys use a not-quite-the-same substitute, which can make rendering and layout a bit weird) Not everyone thinks it's great though - there's a rebuttal/ critique here http://screenfont.ca/fonts/today/Tiresias/ But, anyway, a new font, and one vaguely of interest to Backstage people maybe? Dunno why the TV version is still (seemingly, it's a little unclear) non-free. The site claims 'Bitstream... have the specialist knowledge needed for implementing this font.' Regards George (disclaimer - I work for the BBC) - 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] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service
On 27/11/2007, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: People tend to appear to prefer variety in their off topic stuff. You're implication is bogus. Like Dave has said before me, I don't consider free culture, ethics or politics to be off-topic for this list - quite the reverse. There is even a list dedicated to people who DO NOT WANT to talk about all of this stuff. But let's not get into this again... -- 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] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service
On 27/11/2007, Nick Reynolds-AMi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BBC management did not refuse to comply with the Trust's previous ruling Sorry. I seem to have a little problem finding the Platform Neutral versions of iPlayer. Could you perhaps provide a URL it would make it much easier to find. And now I quote from the BBC themselves: There may always be a small percentage that one can not also support. The cost of reaching those people is not the best use of the license fee. Mr Highfield from: http://blip.tv/file/get/Cubicgarden-backstagebbccoukAshleyHighfieldOnIPlayer648.ogg (Transcript may not be 100% accurate, transcribing in real time is tricky, and the quality isn't perfect.) So stating there are some platforms that will not be supported indicates platform neutral how? The ruling was to provide platform neutrality as soon as practically possible (correct me if that's not correct.) How long does it take to upload your protocol and format specifications? That certainly would be platform neutral. And where is iPlayer's source code? How on earth do you intend to make a binary platform neutral, isn't the iPlayer binary tied to the x86 platform? Platform Neutral means you can't chose a platform and only support that one. The only real question is time frame, how long does it take to upload the source code (which is the only way to get it neutral of the CPU architecture apart from releasing specifications)? Hmm, let me do some rough maths. Assuming a 1Mbps upload (the BBC almost certainly has that at least internally to the servers) and a maximum source code size of 1 gig (that is many times large than the entire Linux kernel source) you get: 1 * 2^30 / 1 * 10^6 ~= 1074 seconds. thats under 20 minutes. Even if I am a factor of one thousand out that still only takes 2 weeks. iPlayer was launched several months ago and the BBC has not done something that would make iPlayer more neutral despite it taking less than 20 minutes. How is that in any way complying with the Trusts request to make iPlayer cross platform in a reasonable time frame? Both management and the Trust have agreed that the Player will be platform neutral (indeed the management's position has always been that the Player will be platform neutral) - the only question is how and when The above quote would indicate otherwise. You do know what the word neutral means right? If it was always meant to be platform neutral then how did you generate the least portable system possible? Kangaroo is a commercial proposition from BBC Worldwide - and these usually don't take as long to approve Won't the trust find it a little odd that one part of the BBC spent millions producing a Video On Demand Client and now another part wants to spend even more money on producing another client that's not compatible? Why didn't you just do it correctly first time around? And seems the BBC claims it has to obey copyright law, perhaps you would care to explain why you copied my entire email and claimed it was written by someone else? And more importantly, why did you just send a suspicious file in you email? What are you doing sending .dat files anyway? Andy -- Computers are like air conditioners. Both stop working, if you open windows. -- Adam Heath - 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] tiresias PC fonts released under the GPL
On 27/11/2007, George Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not everyone thinks it's great though - there's a rebuttal/ critique here http://screenfont.ca/fonts/today/Tiresias/ As much as I regard Joe Clark to be an asshole he's usually, and annoyingly so, correct about these things. He's also considered a world expert on Typography for the visually impaired so I would not take his criticisms lightly on the subject. -- 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] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service
Thank you Andy! Fantastic email, much lulz were had. -- 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 look-at-me.dat Description: MPEG movie
Re: [backstage] tiresias PC fonts released under the GPL
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 19:46 +, Noah Slater wrote: Joe Clark's... also considered a world expert on Typography for the visually impaired so I would not take his criticisms lightly on the subject. I don't, and didn't intend to suggest that. I am about to email him and request more information. That said, the RNIB are also pretty good too - and we like Tiresias. So it's liberation is a win, I think, even if it merely encourages development of alternatives. The OLPC folk (which is where I saw this news) might be interested in it too. Dave (Crossland), you know about fonts, I believe? Now that its Freedom is assured, any thoughts on it as a font? (me about to add tiresius PC font to my ~/.fonts dir and see what it's like on screen) George (disclaimer - I work for the BBC) - 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] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service
i have no idea what a dat file is so I wouldn't know how to send one anyway so it must have been someone else my apologies for getting the name wrong - i find this mailing list system a bit difficult to navigate of course there isn't a platform neutral Player... yet but you are implying a confrontation between Trust and managment which doesn't actually exist in the BBC management's original submission with the Player it said it would eventually be platform neutral - as soon as practically possible is about right - the Trust are revieiwng this every six months it's the practicalities which are rather difficult! From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Andy Sent: Tue 11/27/2007 7:42 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service On 27/11/2007, Nick Reynolds-AMi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BBC management did not refuse to comply with the Trust's previous ruling Sorry. I seem to have a little problem finding the Platform Neutral versions of iPlayer. Could you perhaps provide a URL it would make it much easier to find. And now I quote from the BBC themselves: There may always be a small percentage that one can not also support. The cost of reaching those people is not the best use of the license fee. Mr Highfield from: http://blip.tv/file/get/Cubicgarden-backstagebbccoukAshleyHighfieldOnIPlayer648.ogg (Transcript may not be 100% accurate, transcribing in real time is tricky, and the quality isn't perfect.) So stating there are some platforms that will not be supported indicates platform neutral how? The ruling was to provide platform neutrality as soon as practically possible (correct me if that's not correct.) How long does it take to upload your protocol and format specifications? That certainly would be platform neutral. And where is iPlayer's source code? How on earth do you intend to make a binary platform neutral, isn't the iPlayer binary tied to the x86 platform? Platform Neutral means you can't chose a platform and only support that one. The only real question is time frame, how long does it take to upload the source code (which is the only way to get it neutral of the CPU architecture apart from releasing specifications)? Hmm, let me do some rough maths. Assuming a 1Mbps upload (the BBC almost certainly has that at least internally to the servers) and a maximum source code size of 1 gig (that is many times large than the entire Linux kernel source) you get: 1 * 2^30 / 1 * 10^6 ~= 1074 seconds. thats under 20 minutes. Even if I am a factor of one thousand out that still only takes 2 weeks. iPlayer was launched several months ago and the BBC has not done something that would make iPlayer more neutral despite it taking less than 20 minutes. How is that in any way complying with the Trusts request to make iPlayer cross platform in a reasonable time frame? Both management and the Trust have agreed that the Player will be platform neutral (indeed the management's position has always been that the Player will be platform neutral) - the only question is how and when The above quote would indicate otherwise. You do know what the word neutral means right? If it was always meant to be platform neutral then how did you generate the least portable system possible? Kangaroo is a commercial proposition from BBC Worldwide - and these usually don't take as long to approve Won't the trust find it a little odd that one part of the BBC spent millions producing a Video On Demand Client and now another part wants to spend even more money on producing another client that's not compatible? Why didn't you just do it correctly first time around? And seems the BBC claims it has to obey copyright law, perhaps you would care to explain why you copied my entire email and claimed it was written by someone else? And more importantly, why did you just send a suspicious file in you email? What are you doing sending .dat files anyway? Andy -- Computers are like air conditioners. Both stop working, if you open windows. -- Adam Heath - 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/ winmail.dat
Re: [backstage] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service
Noah Slater wrote: Sheesh, and I was flamed for being OT. :-) Then I wrote: People tend to appear to prefer variety in their off topic stuff. Then Noah Slater wrote: You're implication is bogus. I wasn't implying anything. You implied others view some of your posts as off topic, and I then made what was intended as a lighthearted comment. So much for humour ... Michael. -- [ The on-topic stuff (from my perspective) was shunted off to the developer list, so whatever views I have on on/off topic aren't even in play here :-) Yes, I *do* find some things boring and repetitive, and if stays boring and repetitive I'll unsubscribe again and probably check back again in a few months time and see if things have improved. That's not the same as being on or off topic - it's more about relevance. If I've heard the same arguments 100 times over the past 10 years, its unlikely to change my opinion and after the first 10 or 20 times the conversation ceases to be relevant to me. Of course you'd rightly say it doesn't have to be relevant to you, which is fine and correct. I'd like backstage to be relevant to me because the list supports a concept of use our stuff to make your stuff, and I'm one of the sources of our stuff. However, I am not the world. It's just personal opinion and nowhere near official opinion. If it hasn't changed to become relevant after that time (or preferably without having to unsubscribe because of irrelevance), then to me an individual, as a developer on my own time and as a developer of stuff the BBC has released as opensource/free software and advocated publicly (and officially with approval) the use, improvement and creation of open source software (all for practical, not dogmatic reasons), the list becomes pointless. But then I am not the world - there's plenty of other places I can go read stuff and discuss stuff. Wouldn't be a big deal, just a pity ] - 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] tiresias PC fonts released under the GPL
Great. Love the font - been using it for years. Even got it on my website for UGC! On 27/11/2007, George Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Backstage folk Tiresias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiresias_%28typeface%29 ) is a font designed by the RNIB for high legibility - allegedly especially good for people with any sort of visual impairment. They've just made PC-specific versions (http://www.tiresias.org/fonts/pcfont/about_pc.htm ) which are released under version 3 of the GPL (http://www.tiresias.org/fonts/fonts_download.htm#licence ) This is interesting for a few reasons. In Interactive TV, we (the BBC) uses Tiresias ( the TV version - screenfont - http://www.tiresias.org/fonts/screenfont/about_screen.htm ) for onscreen display (eg of news headlines, OSDs, etc) - it benefits all viewers, not just ones with vision problems. It's also good to see new TTF fonts under a free (beer/ speech) licence. It might also mean that it's easier to emulate Tiresias, and thus iTV apps, on PCs (at the moment the emmys use a not-quite-the-same substitute, which can make rendering and layout a bit weird) Not everyone thinks it's great though - there's a rebuttal/ critique here http://screenfont.ca/fonts/today/Tiresias/ But, anyway, a new font, and one vaguely of interest to Backstage people maybe? Dunno why the TV version is still (seemingly, it's a little unclear) non-free. The site claims 'Bitstream... have the specialist knowledge needed for implementing this font.' Regards George (disclaimer - I work for the BBC) - 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] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service
On 27/11/2007, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 27/11/2007, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: People tend to appear to prefer variety in their off topic stuff. You're implication is bogus. Like Dave has said before me, I don't consider free culture, ethics or politics to be off-topic for this list - quite the reverse. There is even a list dedicated to people who DO NOT WANT to talk about all of this stuff. Can we stick this information in the generic footer included with each message? But let's not get into this again... -- 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] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service
Nick Reynolds-AMi wrote: i have no idea what a dat file is so I wouldn't know how to send one anyway so it must have been someone else Nick - I think you're using Outlook as your email client. Have you got it configured to send Rich Text emails by default? I believe that can lead to every email you send being given a winmail.dat file attachment that contains the Microsoft-specific rich text version of the email. See http://www.ericphelps.com/tnef/ for some details. S - 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 Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Dave Crossland wrote: On 27/11/2007, Billy Abbott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 26 Nov 2007, Noah Slater wrote: but what happens when That's the reason why having open APIs that multiple sites conform to strikes me as an excellent idea - if your provider of choice does up and go away you can just switch the URL to another and off you go. It is naieve to think that a choice of providers will have identical functionality. They might be _similar_ overall, and have some basic functions that are exactly the same... But the primary reason to pick one API over another is the functions they offer that are unique. I wasn't clear - I meant common open APIs, ie. the same API with different vendors behind it. That way they will offer very similar levels of functionality, with the choice being based on how good they run. Freedom means more than a choice of lords. You can happily run your own things and then be your own lord, but that doesn't mean that everyone wants to. We might as well let those who don't want to get the most reliable service they can. --billy -- #Hotdog, Jumping Frog, http://www.cabq.gov Billy Abbott billy at cowfish dot org dot 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 27/11/2007, Billy Abbott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is naieve to think that a choice of providers will have identical functionality. I wasn't clear - I meant common open APIs, ie. the same API with different vendors behind it. That way they will offer very similar levels of functionality, with the choice being based on how good they run. Sure, and I'm suggesting that a common API will be a base that each gatekeeper will add bespoke features too. I'll be surprised if similar services offered with a common open API from Google and Yahoo and Microsoft do not have any specialist features to differentiate them. Freedom means more than a choice of lords. You can happily run your own things and then be your own lord, ...but not if the gatekeepers continue to offer software to the public without making the source code to that software public. -- 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 27/11/2007, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 27/11/2007, Nick Reynolds-AMi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let me play devil's advocate for a moment. Making more things free and open only benefits a small group of technologists who are clever enough to know how to use the results. I see no problem with this, in fact it's a good thing, it incentiveises intelligence. A technocracy is much better than the idiocracy that we currently live in. I find it midly amusing that most of the things that the idots like is created by us technoloists. I almost want to go hurah to the idea of a technocracy, but I am haunted by that Simpson's episode with Stephen Hawking in it... http://www.snpp.com/episodes/AABF18 The general mass of the population still want finely crafted mass entertainment and other products of a high quality and gloss. Making everything free and open destroys the funding model that makes this happen, which includes copyright and other intellectual property rights. The general public like fast food too, that doesn't mean that a McDonalds a day is good for them, most people (myself included) are stupid and don't know what's good for them in areas outside of their expertise. I let nutritionists and dietitians recommend what I should eat, I don't see why software engineers, IT consultants etc. shouldn't be able to recommend free software as the best alternative (where and when it is) regardless of the wider consequences to various funding models. That's not their problem, they're being paid to deliver $project on time not worry about copyright law reform. I'm not sure if what you say is actually true. Like is not really the right verb, sold is a better one.But Fast Food Nation covers that subject much better than I could. Me, I don't even go into McDonalds to use the toliet. Haven't done for over a decade. It's not hard. Nutritionists and Dietitians are just artisans of couse, whereas we programmers are computer scientists, no? But yes, we are much better qualified than all these (a-hem) greedy arts graduates. I suspect that many of us probably don't have a huge regard (or even interest) in economics, but we are better qualified to understand the technolgical issues. And, of couse, the law could be changed to benefit the people - demoncracy is supposed to be about options, and many people seem to feel that they are none. Just because most people are so stupid to think that what they buy will change the world and defines them as a person, doesn't mean that it is remotely true. There's a trade off between making everything open and quality and reach. Why? Take Firefox for example, it's open, it has reach and it's a quality product. there's no trade off in fact I can think of quite a few quality open products, reach is a problem to be solved not something that has to to be traded away. Let's see .. the camera, the best example of an open system .. seems to be quite popular still. And there is the little matter of TCP/IP of course You could argue that news for example should adopt a completely free and open model. But who is going to make the investment to ensure that some stories are still told? Investigative journalism is expensive and often dangerous. Money needs to be spent to do it. Free and open doesn't necessarily mean that there is no cash involved, look at the companies that sell support for free products or the way Firefox gets money from Google. as examples. I'm sure news organisations will continue. I read plenty of news on the web every day for free it's mostly ad funded. And i don't see anyone stopping buying newspapers just because they can read it online either. Erm, I think that if you look at the figures, there are plenty of people not buying newspapers. While in my heart I'm much taken by the idea of making everything open, I smell a whiff of elitism about some of these arguments (i.e. I want everything free because that's convenient for me and I don't care about anybody else) elite -noun the choice or *best of anything* considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons.[1] I see no problem with elitism if it means we get the best of anything. [1]paraphrased from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=elitex=0y=0 -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
On 27/11/2007, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 27/11/2007, Billy Abbott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is naieve to think that a choice of providers will have identical functionality. I wasn't clear - I meant common open APIs, ie. the same API with different vendors behind it. That way they will offer very similar levels of functionality, with the choice being based on how good they run. Sure, and I'm suggesting that a common API will be a base that each gatekeeper will add bespoke features too. I'll be surprised if similar services offered with a common open API from Google and Yahoo and Microsoft do not have any specialist features to differentiate them. Does the track record of Microsoft not show that they created aparent APIs and then did not use them themselves? The main reason that Word displaced WordPerfect, Excel displaced Lotus 123, Access displaced dBase and P-P-Powerpoint was dominant was that Microsoft had secret - and faster - APIs for their own applications. I remember being at a Microsoft Developer Event where they warned the audience off from even trying to come up with a better word processor! This didn't just apply to the Windows version of the products, this was also true for MS-DOS. As I recall, Peter Norton (of the Utilities and AntiVirus fame) made his name originally by debuninking the hidden MS-DOS APIs. Freedom means more than a choice of lords. You can happily run your own things and then be your own lord, ...but not if the gatekeepers continue to offer software to the public without making the source code to that software public. To be fair, I think that there is an important point missing here. A closed API is fine if the service is best run somewhere remote. For example, if I need to use a database engine, I'm really bothered about how well the API supports my SQL statements, not how they are executed. On the other hand, software that is transferred onto my own machine, I care more about. I seem to have a concept of personal rights that extends to my computer's CPU. If the code is in my machine, I should be able to know how it works, if I so choose. It's a strange concept though. The logic of the argument is that I could, if I had the time, work out how it all works from the assembler code. If it can be run on my computer, then it has to be in a published format. CPUs can't be closed because if the manufacturer refused to let you know the instruction set, they wouldn't sell that many. But is that an API? Where is the boundary between CPU and APIs? At the other level (and bringing it back to backstage) what about the well known API of RSS? Should I care how the RSS feed is created? -- 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/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service
And that's already been pointed out... Sorry! :-) Cheers, Rich. On 11/27/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Um - that wasn't me. My line was: No real technical details, more a re-hashed press release, but an interesting idea nontheless. That was the end of my contribution on this. You've mistaken someone else's quote for me. No problem, but just putting the record straight. :-) Cheers, Rich. On 11/27/07, Nick Reynolds-AMi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You really need to be careful with your language Richard BBC management did not refuse to comply with the Trust's previous ruling snip
Re: [backstage] tiresias PC fonts released under the GPL
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 22:02 +, Richard Lockwood wrote: Not everyone thinks it's great though - there's a rebuttal/ critique here http://screenfont.ca/fonts/today/Tiresias/ As much as I regard Joe Clark to be an asshole Now - who was talking about Ad Hom earlier? Or is this just abuse? Who knows? Your post seems to be OT though. I made no comment about the rebuttal/ critique, someone replied that they thought $foo about him but they thought $bar about his expertise. Seemed fair enough. I cant even see who you're quoting, as your quoting system is v. odd. So what's your post about? Tiresias Screenfont? GPL'd fonts? Joe Clark? Why not take this stuff (accusations of 'Ad Hom'/ 'abuse') offlist ? George (disclaimer - I work for the BBC) - 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] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service
Um - that wasn't me. My line was: No real technical details, more a re-hashed press release, but an interesting idea nontheless. That was the end of my contribution on this. You've mistaken someone else's quote for me. No problem, but just putting the record straight. :-) Cheers, Rich. On 11/27/07, Nick Reynolds-AMi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You really need to be careful with your language Richard BBC management did not refuse to comply with the Trust's previous ruling Both management and the Trust have agreed that the Player will be platform neutral (indeed the management's position has always been that the Player will be platform neutral) - the only question is how and when Kangaroo is a commercial proposition from BBC Worldwide - and these usually don't take as long to approve From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Andy Sent: Tue 11/27/2007 2:29 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service On 27/11/2007, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No real technical details, more a re-hashed press release, but an interesting idea nontheless. How can this possible go live in a few months? (2008 starts in a few weeks if I am not much mistaken). The trust haven't even approved it. And the BBC has refused to comply with it's previous ruling. Need I remind you the BBC Trust said you must be Platform Neutral? So will Kangaroo* be Platform Neutral? If not it looks unlikely the trust will sign off on it given their previous comments about the iPlayer (was there ever a huger waste of money? Except maybe the Dome). Is it going to be standards based (only way to actually be platform neutral as some platform consist mainly of custom designed hardware which need to know the precise operating details to get high performance.)? Are we going to be allowed to improve it, bug fix it, security scan it, verify it's not a trojan etc.? Nice to see a complete lack of detail though, now where did I put my document on making an FOI request, (technically a written request here would most likely count, after all it's written, has a name and has an address.) (Waits for this news to descend into DRM-Bad, Free-Good!! ranting...) I see no mention of DRM in either article, neither do I see the term Digital Rights Management. Helpfully the BBC have made sure to hide every single even slightly technical detail from view. What precisely are you hiding? The only vaguely technical detail appears to be that it is designed to work over broadband, wow I couldn't have guessed that! What platforms are we talking about? Is it going to be truly platform neutral or is the BBC going to have to rewrite the old iPlayer to comply with your regulator (or as appears to be the intended plan refuse to comply with the regulator) What protocols and formats will be used? Will it be as awfully as 4OD and iPlayer, using up peoples bandwidth with no control what-so-ever (BitTorrent clients have supported throttling for years)? Odd how the BBC can have such a huge development time, such a huge spending and still end up with a vastly inferior product when compared to free alternatives. Will it permit user written extensions? Will it support third party access via Open API's? Andy * Is the name Kangaroo meant to be some joke about bouncing back after the disaster that was the first offerings? -- Computers are like air conditioners. Both stop working, if you open windows. -- Adam Heath - 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/ -- SilverDisc Ltd is registered in England no. 2798073 Registered address: 4 Swallow Court, Kettering, Northamptonshire, NN15 6XX
Re: [backstage] tiresias PC fonts released under the GPL
Not everyone thinks it's great though - there's a rebuttal/ critique here http://screenfont.ca/fonts/today/Tiresias/ As much as I regard Joe Clark to be an asshole Now - who was talking about Ad Hom earlier? Or is this just abuse? R.
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
Nutritionists and Dietitians are just artisans of couse, whereas we programmers are computer scientists, no? Dietitians have real courses of study, and qualifications from respectable institutes of learning. Nutritionists don't. (See Gillian McKeith / Patrick Holford etc...) Listen to advice from a qualified dietitian. Don't take it from a self-proclaimed nutritionist. Not on topic, or relevant for this forum, but an important distinction. Cheers, Rich.
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
On 27/11/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sure, and I'm suggesting that a common API will be a base that each gatekeeper will add bespoke features too. I'll be surprised if similar services offered with a common open API from Google and Yahoo and Microsoft do not have any specialist features to differentiate them. Does the track record of Microsoft not show that they created aparent APIs and then did not use them themselves? Right - this is the problem with saying Oh, I _could_ download the source code that runs this API interface, but actually I'm not going to bother and just use the service provided. - there is no guarantee that what you can download is what is running on their server. I'm lumping Google, Yahoo and Microsoft together as all equivalently bad - along with all smaller Web 2.0 API providers who provide computation services through web APIs, making a subtle distinction between those servces and those that are data request protocols more sophsticated than HTTP. Use our stuff to make your stuff, to me, refers to providing BBC data for the British public to do computation with, and where Backstage publishes APIs that take input data, transform that data, and return the result, the source code for the transformations ought to be published as free software - preferably under the GNU Affero GPLv3 or some other network-aware copyleft license. Freedom means more than a choice of lords. You can happily run your own things and then be your own lord, ...but not if the gatekeepers continue to offer software to the public without making the source code to that software public. To be fair, I think that there is an important point missing here. A closed API is fine if the service is best run somewhere remote. Well, if Google is searching _their_ data - their copy of the web, say - and returning the results to you, that's good. Its their copy, afterall. But if you upload your data - say, your spreadsheet numbers and equations - and get them to do your computation for you, instead of using Gnumeric or OpenOffice, that's not good. For example, if I need to use a database engine, I'm really bothered about how well the API supports my SQL statements, not how they are executed. Right - because SQL is a query language for requesting data to be sent to you, for you to do your own computation on. On the other hand, software that is transferred onto my own machine, I care more about. I seem to have a concept of personal rights that extends to my computer's CPU. If the code is in my machine, I should be able to know how it works, if I so choose. Right It's a strange concept though. The logic of the argument is that I could, if I had the time, work out how it all works from the assembler code. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum If it can be run on my computer, then it has to be in a published format. CPUs can't be closed because if the manufacturer refused to let you know the instruction set, they wouldn't sell that many. But is that an API? Where is the boundary between CPU and APIs? Source code. At the other level (and bringing it back to backstage) what about the well known API of RSS? Should I care how the RSS feed is created? Does the RSS feed contain the BBCs news? Or does it contain your data that has been transformed in some way? -- 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] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service
Another : http://www.guardian.co.uk/feedarticle?id=7107677 Not very accurate of course. BSkyB is really only a subscription-and-sport company these days. Hardly anyone watches the Movie channels anymore (1.5%in total), Sky One has no viewers ( 1.2%), only Sky Sports have viewers left (~3%). Live sport (and news) is the only thing that fits well with broadcast-style distribution. http://ukfree.tv/barb/Total_Sky_Movies.png http://ukfree.tv/barb/Total_Sky_Sports.png http://ukfree.tv/barb/Sky_One.png But what of Auntie? Is there now no escape from a wholesale privatization of the BBC or will there remain a cultural organization?
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
On 27/11/2007, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nutritionists and Dietitians are just artisans of couse, whereas we programmers are computer scientists, no? Dietitians have real courses of study, and qualifications from respectable institutes of learning. Nutritionists don't. (See Gillian McKeith / Patrick Holford etc...) Sort of like the difference between a user and programmer then? Listen to advice from a qualified dietitian. Don't take it from a self-proclaimed nutritionist. Not on topic, or relevant for this forum, but an important distinction. Cheers, Rich. -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] tiresias PC fonts released under the GPL
On 27/11/2007, George Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 19:46 +, Noah Slater wrote: Joe Clark's... also considered a world expert on Typography for the visually impaired so I would not take his criticisms lightly on the subject. I don't, and didn't intend to suggest that. I am about to email him and request more information. Cool - hope you'll repost it here :-) That said, the RNIB are also pretty good too - and we like Tiresias. So it's liberation is a win, I think, even if it merely encourages development of alternatives. The OLPC folk (which is where I saw this news) might be interested in it too. They are, yes, it came up on the Sugar (the OLPC interface) list a few days ago. Dave (Crossland), you know about fonts, I believe? I'm doing the MA Typeface Design programme at the University of Reading at the moment, so I ought to in a years time ;-) Now that its Freedom is assured, Well, fonts under all versions of the GPL need the font exception as recommended by the FSF - http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException - and this font doesn't have it, so it seems that all (PDF) documents that embed the GPL version are also licensed under the GPL, or not redistributable. (I have contacted RNIB about this already) any thoughts on it as a font? Its a solid workhorse humanist sans serif. I personally think its a good example. They were fashionable recently but a bit over the hill now. (me about to add tiresius PC font to my ~/.fonts dir and see what it's like on screen) http://www.levien.com/type/myfonts/inconsolata.html is nice for monospaced (code) work. -- 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] tiresias PC fonts released under the GPL
On 27/11/2007, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 27/11/2007, George Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 19:46 +, Noah Slater wrote: Joe Clark's... also considered a world expert on Typography for the visually impaired so I would not take his criticisms lightly on the subject. I don't, and didn't intend to suggest that. I am about to email him and request more information. Cool - hope you'll repost it here :-) That said, the RNIB are also pretty good too - and we like Tiresias. So it's liberation is a win, I think, even if it merely encourages development of alternatives. The OLPC folk (which is where I saw this news) might be interested in it too. They are, yes, it came up on the Sugar (the OLPC interface) list a few days ago. Dave (Crossland), you know about fonts, I believe? I'm doing the MA Typeface Design programme at the University of Reading at the moment, so I ought to in a years time ;-) Now that its Freedom is assured, Well, fonts under all versions of the GPL need the font exception as recommended by the FSF - http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException - and this font doesn't have it, so it seems that all (PDF) documents that embed the GPL version are also licensed under the GPL, or not redistributable. (I have contacted RNIB about this already) any thoughts on it as a font? Its a solid workhorse humanist sans serif. I personally think its a good example. They were fashionable recently but a bit over the hill now. The design of the font is very well though out. There are good verticals in it, so it works well on television sets and the like and there the character widths are very natural and easily disingishable. Also it's got big decenders on g, j, p, q, and y, 1 and I and l are are disinghishable, as are O and 0. But my truetype verson of the font renders quite badly, even with Vista's normally excellent ClearType. (me about to add tiresius PC font to my ~/.fonts dir and see what it's like on screen) http://www.levien.com/type/myfonts/inconsolata.html is nice for monospaced (code) work. -- 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/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
On 27/11/2007, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 27/11/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sure, and I'm suggesting that a common API will be a base that each gatekeeper will add bespoke features too. I'll be surprised if similar services offered with a common open API from Google and Yahoo and Microsoft do not have any specialist features to differentiate them. Does the track record of Microsoft not show that they created aparent APIs and then did not use them themselves? Right - this is the problem with saying Oh, I _could_ download the source code that runs this API interface, but actually I'm not going to bother and just use the service provided. - there is no guarantee that what you can download is what is running on their server. Indeed, this is quite an important considertion in the anti-trust actions that the EU has been persuing Microsoft about. I'm lumping Google, Yahoo and Microsoft together as all equivalently bad - along with all smaller Web 2.0 API providers who provide computation services through web APIs, making a subtle distinction between those servces and those that are data request protocols more sophsticated than HTTP. There would be no problem if these APIs were published and were not broken for competative advantage? Use our stuff to make your stuff, to me, refers to providing BBC data for the British public to do computation with, and where Backstage publishes APIs that take input data, transform that data, and return the result, the source code for the transformations ought to be published as free software - preferably under the GNU Affero GPLv3 or some other network-aware copyleft license. Not sure about ought, other than the grounds that the BBC is a publiclly funded body. Freedom means more than a choice of lords. You can happily run your own things and then be your own lord, ...but not if the gatekeepers continue to offer software to the public without making the source code to that software public. To be fair, I think that there is an important point missing here. A closed API is fine if the service is best run somewhere remote. Well, if Google is searching _their_ data - their copy of the web, say - and returning the results to you, that's good. Its their copy, afterall. OK. I see your point - very funny! But if you upload your data - say, your spreadsheet numbers and equations - and get them to do your computation for you, instead of using Gnumeric or OpenOffice, that's not good. I agree that there are problems with keeping your data in the network. He types into Gmail. For example, if I need to use a database engine, I'm really bothered about how well the API supports my SQL statements, not how they are executed. Right - because SQL is a query language for requesting data to be sent to you, for you to do your own computation on. And HTTP is also a query langage as is SMTP and so on. Also I can use SQL on other people's data, the security sometimes only allows me to SELECT. This, I note, is the problem that Revenue and Customs had. On the other hand, software that is transferred onto my own machine, I care more about. I seem to have a concept of personal rights that extends to my computer's CPU. If the code is in my machine, I should be able to know how it works, if I so choose. Right It's a strange concept though. The logic of the argument is that I could, if I had the time, work out how it all works from the assembler code. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum Perhaps. But I have done it. I recall there was a BBC Micro program called Peeko computer that did it quite well. I've written the odd disassembler too... If it can be run on my computer, then it has to be in a published format. CPUs can't be closed because if the manufacturer refused to let you know the instruction set, they wouldn't sell that many. But is that an API? Where is the boundary between CPU and APIs? Source code. What about the source code of the CPU's microcode? At the other level (and bringing it back to backstage) what about the well known API of RSS? Should I care how the RSS feed is created? Does the RSS feed contain the BBCs news? Or does it contain your data that has been transformed in some way? I use both, but iGoogle doesn't care. -- 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/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] tiresias PC fonts released under the GPL
On 27/11/2007, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now - who was talking about Ad Hom earlier? Or is this just abuse? Neither, it's called opinion. Now crawl back under your bridge. -- 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] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service
On 27/11/2007, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wasn't implying anything. You implied others view some of your posts as off topic, and I then made what was intended as a lighthearted comment. Yeah, of course, you're totally correct. Apologies. :) -- 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/
