Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Dave Crossland 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. That is the obvious point that somehow flew straight over my head. Now I don't like common APIs as much. Boo. 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. In order to get the gatekeepers to offer that software they need to have an incentive to do so. Apart from idealistic ones who are doing it for the reason of wanting the software to be free, I don't currently see what the incentive is for the others. While I'd like to be able to get the software (so that anyone can run their own service and also have the potential to grab the software and run their own service if their provider goes tits up) I can understand why people don't give it out for free. Pleae let me know if I am missing a reason why people should, outside of idealogical reasons. --billy -- Hey, it's our constitutional right to complain about the products we have willingly purchased without any forethought of consequences. 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] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service
my apologies again will have to stay off the backstage list IT helpdesk here says there's no problem but others seem to think there's something wrong with my emails From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Lockwood Sent: 27 November 2007 22:15 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: 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] Muddy Boots on Backstage
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of vijay chopra It was only one idea, I'm sure that there are others. who knows, one of them might even including resurrecting the noble art of journalism as a public service rather than to make money. So can you give us any indication of when the technologists will have completed the prototype of the journalist that doesn't need food or shelter? 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 Not the best of everything, but the best of anything, i.e. the cream of the crop, the best of the best etc. That's the result I want, the best of everything gives you mediocrity. You're not one of those people who moans about Oxford and Cambridge being elitist are you? That's the whole point! Elite means best of the best, and we only want the best of the best going there. In the same way I only want the best of the best on my PC. That means I have to be elitist. But you don't want the best of journalism? Or you think you can get the best journalists by telling them to work for free? Should anyone (other than, presumably, the technologists) be paid for their work? Why should people who do important jobs in the public interest not get paid? My father has worked very hard his entire life as a teacher in an inner city school. He thinks his job matters and takes his work very seriously but he wouldn't have done it if they hadn't paid him. You know, what with kids to support etc. If you think journalism isn't important to society then make that argument. If you think it is, then why blithely assume that other people should do that important work for nothing?
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
Deirdre Harvey wrote: So can you give us any indication of when the technologists will have completed the prototype of the journalist that doesn't need food or shelter? Well, someone here at BBC RD presented a (tongue-in-cheek) design for an android journalist at an internal new ideas symposium a year or so back... I don't think it's got past the concept stage though. ;-) 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
Billy Abbott wrote: In order to get the gatekeepers to offer that software they need to have an incentive to do so. Apart from idealistic ones who are doing it for the reason of wanting the software to be free, I don't currently see what the incentive is for the others. While I'd like to be able to get the software (so that anyone can run their own service and also have the potential to grab the software and run their own service if their provider goes tits up) I can understand why people don't give it out for free. Pleae let me know if I am missing a reason why people should, outside of idealogical reasons. Well, if developers were more cautious about basing their applications on APIs with no Free implementations then that would give API providers an incentive. But they aren't, and I wonder why? As developers, what is it that makes the people on this list trust big web application and service providers to maintain their APIs for as long as you want them? Is it because you have a high level of trust for them, or a very short expectancy of useful life for your applications? 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
Journalists in terms of national newspapers and national broadcasters aren't needed in modern society. We could easily and happily do without them. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Deirdre Harvey Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 11:48 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of vijay chopra It was only one idea, I'm sure that there are others. who knows, one of them might even including resurrecting the noble art of journalism as a public service rather than to make money. So can you give us any indication of when the technologists will have completed the prototype of the journalist that doesn't need food or shelter? 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 Not the best of everything, but the best of anything, i.e. the cream of the crop, the best of the best etc. That's the result I want, the best of everything gives you mediocrity. You're not one of those people who moans about Oxford and Cambridge being elitist are you? That's the whole point! Elite means best of the best, and we only want the best of the best going there. In the same way I only want the best of the best on my PC. That means I have to be elitist. But you don't want the best of journalism? Or you think you can get the best journalists by telling them to work for free? Should anyone (other than, presumably, the technologists) be paid for their work? Why should people who do important jobs in the public interest not get paid? My father has worked very hard his entire life as a teacher in an inner city school. He thinks his job matters and takes his work very seriously but he wouldn't have done it if they hadn't paid him. You know, what with kids to support etc. If you think journalism isn't important to society then make that argument. If you think it is, then why blithely assume that other people should do that important work for nothing?
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
It was only one idea, I'm sure that there are others. who knows, one of them might even including resurrecting the noble art of journalism as a public service rather than to make money. So can you give us any indication of when the technologists will have completed the prototype of the journalist that doesn't need food or shelter? Apparently it's already with us. It's called a 'blogger. Can't generally write for toffee, doesn't check facts, confuses opinion with truth, is credulous as hell, and has nothing worth saying, but hey - if you want everything for free... ;-) Cheers, Rich.
[backstage] Radio One^^^Two Video Feed
(Originally built for the Radio One Last.fm feed, but until that is fixed [1], I've switched this to Radio Two) Thought I'd share this: http://minty.org/player/ ... which aims to play a constant stream of videos (via YouTube) for the music just played on Radio Two. The video play order won't perfectly match the Radio Two play order but you should typically always be watching a video for something played in the last half hour. Give or take a few exceptions I shan't bore you with. I know this isn't all that new or original or special, but it was born out of wanting to get a constant stream of music videos without requiring human interaction. Oddly, neither Last.fm nor YouTube appear to currently let you do this. So think personal itch rather than startup beta :) There are a few things still to do - like reducing the update speed so it more closely follows the actual Radio Two playlist. And let you plug in any last.fm user so you don't have to watch only Radio Two's musical tastes. As well as support a Radio One feed in tandem. [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/msg06621.html - 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
Journalists in terms of national newspapers and national broadcasters aren't needed in modern society. We could easily and happily do without them. Really? Why's that then? Rich.
RE: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
That's more a bald assertion than an argument, but it beats the usual refrain that expecting payment for your work is an old economy anachronism. Deirdre Harvey :: Web Producer :: BBC Newsline :: Newsroom :: BBC Broadcasting House :: Ormeau Avenue :: Belfast BT2 8HQ :: ph. 02890 338264 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 28 November 2007 12:11 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage Journalists in terms of national newspapers and national broadcasters aren't needed in modern society. We could easily and happily do without them. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Deirdre Harvey Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 11:48 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of vijay chopra It was only one idea, I'm sure that there are others. who knows, one of them might even including resurrecting the noble art of journalism as a public service rather than to make money. So can you give us any indication of when the technologists will have completed the prototype of the journalist that doesn't need food or shelter? 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 Not the best of everything, but the best of anything, i.e. the cream of the crop, the best of the best etc. That's the result I want, the best of everything gives you mediocrity. You're not one of those people who moans about Oxford and Cambridge being elitist are you? That's the whole point! Elite means best of the best, and we only want the best of the best going there. In the same way I only want the best of the best on my PC. That means I have to be elitist. But you don't want the best of journalism? Or you think you can get the best journalists by telling them to work for free? Should anyone (other than, presumably, the technologists) be paid for their work? Why should people who do important jobs in the public interest not get paid? My father has worked very hard his entire life as a teacher in an inner city school. He thinks his job matters and takes his work very seriously but he wouldn't have done it if they hadn't paid him. You know, what with kids to support etc. If you think journalism isn't important to society then make that argument. If you think it is, then why blithely assume that other people should do that important work for nothing?
[backstage] Re: Radio One^^^Two Video Feed
Ahem, this may well be Firefox only atm. Oops - 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
There was a great Adam Curtis piece about this on Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe on BBC4 a couple of weeks back. And then it cropped up again during the Register's Beeb Week series of articles. Curtis's reasoning about the presents and future role of both journalists and citizen journalists (always sounds rather French Revolutionary to me, that) was a very interesting read and articulated a number of things I'd been thinking of for a while. Didn't agree with everything, but then wouldn't it be dull if you did? === From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Lockwood Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 12:12 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage It was only one idea, I'm sure that there are others. who knows, one of them might even including resurrecting the noble art of journalism as a public service rather than to make money. So can you give us any indication of when the technologists will have completed the prototype of the journalist that doesn't need food or shelter? Apparently it's already with us. It's called a 'blogger. Can't generally write for toffee, doesn't check facts, confuses opinion with truth, is credulous as hell, and has nothing worth saying, but hey - if you want everything for free... ;-) Cheers, Rich. * To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html *
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
On 28/11/2007, Deirdre Harvey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- ** So can you give us any indication of when the technologists will have completed the prototype of the journalist that doesn't need food or shelter? I believe that it's called the professional blogger; for most news various blogs and bloggers seem to be as reliable as your average daily newspaper, yet they provide their news and comment for free and in an open manner. Now we have a prototype, I'm sure there are areas we can improve features to add. But you don't want the best of journalism? Or you think you can get the best journalists by telling them to work for free? Sure I do, I'm not getting that from traditional sources though, the only printed news media I now trust is Private Eye, traditional broadcast media is rapidly heading the same way. Recent episodes of Panorama are evidence of that (the episode that spewed bollokcks about wi-fi, for example; if they're talking rubbish in areas I know about, why should I trust them in areas about which I know nothing) Should anyone (other than, presumably, the technologists) be paid for their work? Of course, where I've referred to Free in the context of this discussion I have generally meant libre, not gratis. Why should people who do important jobs in the public interest not get paid? My father has worked very hard his entire life as a teacher in an inner city school. He thinks his job matters and takes his work very seriously but he wouldn't have done it if they hadn't paid him. You know, what with kids to support etc. Please point out where I've said that people should work for nothing. I've said things should be open and free (libre) not free (gratis). If you think journalism isn't important to society then make that argument. If you think it is, then why blithely assume that other people should do that important work for nothing? Journalism is vital to a functioning democracy, unfortunately it seems to be a dieing art, and being fast replaced with sensationalists and people who want to make news rather than report it. Vijay.
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
On 28/11/2007, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote So can you give us any indication of when the technologists will have completed the prototype of the journalist that doesn't need food or shelter? Apparently it's already with us. It's called a 'blogger. Can't generally write for toffee, doesn't check facts, confuses opinion with truth, is credulous as hell, and has nothing worth saying, but hey - if you want everything for free... ;-) Cheers, Rich. You description of blogger accurately matches my description of Tabloid journalist. At least your average blogger doesn't ask me to pay for the privilege of reading rubbish. Vijay.
RE: [backstage] Radio One^^^Two Video Feed
Hey, That's cool. Radio 1 feed seems to have come back up if you want to switch. Can't guarantee how long it'll stay up though :( Tristan - Tristan Ferne Senior Development Producer, RD BBC Audio Music Interactive -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Minty Sent: 28 November 2007 12:37 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Cc: Jacqueline Phillimore Subject: [backstage] Radio One^^^Two Video Feed (Originally built for the Radio One Last.fm feed, but until that is fixed [1], I've switched this to Radio Two) Thought I'd share this: http://minty.org/player/ ... which aims to play a constant stream of videos (via YouTube) for the music just played on Radio Two. The video play order won't perfectly match the Radio Two play order but you should typically always be watching a video for something played in the last half hour. Give or take a few exceptions I shan't bore you with. I know this isn't all that new or original or special, but it was born out of wanting to get a constant stream of music videos without requiring human interaction. Oddly, neither Last.fm nor YouTube appear to currently let you do this. So think personal itch rather than startup beta :) There are a few things still to do - like reducing the update speed so it more closely follows the actual Radio Two playlist. And let you plug in any last.fm user so you don't have to watch only Radio Two's musical tastes. As well as support a Radio One feed in tandem. [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/msg06621.html - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
On 28/11/2007, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 28/11/2007, Deirdre Harvey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course, where I've referred to Free in the context of this discussion I have generally meant libre, not gratis. Why should people who do important jobs in the public interest not get paid? My father has worked very hard his entire life as a teacher in an inner city school. He thinks his job matters and takes his work very seriously but he wouldn't have done it if they hadn't paid him. You know, what with kids to support etc. Please point out where I've said that people should work for nothing. I've said things should be open and free (libre) not free (gratis). More to the point, 99.9% of the people on this planet get paid for the work they do just once. But there are some people who think that their work is so brilliant that they should get paid again and again and again. This was a feature of the old, one-to-many broadcast world, or the big-circulation newspaper, as the economics of the situation created this artificial condition. It's pure Gordon-Gecko greed to want to keep being paid for working once. If you think journalism isn't important to society then make that argument. If you think it is, then why blithely assume that other people should do that important work for nothing? Journalism is vital to a functioning democracy, unfortunately it seems to be a dieing art, and being fast replaced with sensationalists and people who want to make news rather than report it. Or perhaps not. Perhaps it is the simple removal of professional (ie, they get paid for it) journalists from the system will cause the people to communicate with each other, which seems to be more like democracy to me. Don't forget that the original democracy in Ancient Greece was a more involved system than we have today. They had great meeting on the hill of all the people where the crowd listened to the speakers debate issues. Each of the tribes took it in turn in rotation to be the parliament, with members having to be on watch 24/7 for 28 days at a time. The senate was voted for very frequency. The civil service was hired on a daily basis using a randomized marble system. The system we have today is a joke by comparison, especially in a world of instant communications. I would start by constructing Acts of Parliament by Wiki for a start. Vijay. -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
On the subject of citizen journalists, if I could generalize, I'd say it's quite true that we work for free and have to support ourselves by other means. Yet we feel that some stories should be covered that both the mainstream press and the specialised press cover superficially, or not at all, or from a traditional angle which misses the mark. And the Internet offers very inexpensive worldwide distribution without the usual space constraints, and led by Google fairly reliable text indexing so people can locate articles. Although I have had difficulty obtaining accreditation once or twice, most of the time press contacts are more concerned with track record and professionalism than the press card -- the Internet lets them find out very quickly how a news blog reports. In this regard, what does concern me is the sorry state of metadata in audio and video, both on the creation side and the indexing side. Almost all podcasts I listen to or download have the bare minimum of metadata, if at all. Video is not much better. Of course, when MPEG-1 was published in 1992, metadata was not a chief concern; the MP3 ID3 initiative has been a useful hack, but I will always prefer Ogg Vorbis and Ogg Theora since metadata can be flexibly added at or after creation with FOSS tools. Of course, Free containers by no means lead today's proprietary and patent-encumbered formats, which all propose some kind of metadata stocking scheme; it's just much harder to find and deploy tools to get to metadata reliably, especially in a workflow. But then, the effort expended to stock metadata such as IPTC -- the most interesting bits of which are often human-keyed at the source, such as names of people, captions, copyright, contact information -- goes to waste, since neither Google nor anybody else I'm aware of indexes it, even on the desktop. I think it's a fundamental problem for finding audiovisual content in any computer-based system. Even machine generated EXIF goes ignored. In this light, Adobe XMP seems to me an interesting approach, to federate media metadata with XML (CC likes it too). I am convinced the solutions to these two problems, at the source and by indexers, are fundamental to developing media online, that it will be far more worthwhile to indicate copyright than to rely on DRM encryption schemes. Sean. - 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 28/11/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would start by constructing Acts of Parliament by Wiki for a start. ROFLCOPTOR!!!1 -- 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 28/11/2007, Sean DALY [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On the subject of citizen journalists, if I could generalize, I'd say it's quite true that we work for free and have to support ourselves by other means. Yet we feel that some stories should be covered that both the mainstream press and the specialised press cover superficially, or not at all, or from a traditional angle which misses the mark. And the Internet offers very inexpensive worldwide distribution without the usual space constraints, and led by Google fairly reliable text indexing so people can locate articles. Not being a journalist actually has it's advantages. Given that the profession is held in low regard by most people these days, you might almost suggest that blogging rises above print journalism. For example, no-one can say that they will ring your editor and get you sacked. The only one I have is inside my head and no-one but me knows his phone number. Also, you often fall under the radar. PR people were, and still are, quite snooty about using professionals for their filthy trade. Bloggers are not mass-market enough for them! And the advertisers who pay my hosting fees do so on a page-impression basis, so there is no cosying up to a single advertiser interest. It's almost impossible to do, in fact. Although I have had difficulty obtaining accreditation once or twice, most of the time press contacts are more concerned with track record and professionalism than the press card -- the Internet lets them find out very quickly how a news blog reports. I've had two knock backs from accreditation, one from ITV and the other from Virgin Media. Both rejected my online application for access to their press site, but both reversed their position when I made a phone call. In this regard, what does concern me is the sorry state of metadata in audio and video, both on the creation side and the indexing side. Almost all podcasts I listen to or download have the bare minimum of metadata, if at all. Video is not much better. Of course, when MPEG-1 was published in 1992, metadata was not a chief concern; the MP3 ID3 initiative has been a useful hack, but I will always prefer Ogg Vorbis and Ogg Theora since metadata can be flexibly added at or after creation with FOSS tools. Of course, Free containers by no means lead today's proprietary and patent-encumbered formats, which all propose some kind of metadata stocking scheme; it's just much harder to find and deploy tools to get to metadata reliably, especially in a workflow. But then, the effort expended to stock metadata such as IPTC -- the most interesting bits of which are often human-keyed at the source, such as names of people, captions, copyright, contact information -- goes to waste, since neither Google nor anybody else I'm aware of indexes it, even on the desktop. I think it's a fundamental problem for finding audiovisual content in any computer-based system. Even machine generated EXIF goes ignored. In this light, Adobe XMP seems to me an interesting approach, to federate media metadata with XML (CC likes it too). I am convinced the solutions to these two problems, at the source and by indexers, are fundamental to developing media online, that it will be far more worthwhile to indicate copyright than to rely on DRM encryption schemes. It really does my head in that we can't have access to the subtitles that are produced by the BBC and others, it would be great to find bits of video by text search. One of the best features of Facebook - the one that sold it to me in the first place before it got covered in terrible childish sub-mobile-phone applications - is the fantastic ability to tag photos with multiple people's identities. I dream of the day when every bit of TV content is tagged, down to frame level, with the actor, presenter, character and other details like the location, date, time etc. I still dream of having the BBC News 24 Aston outputs as a data feed. But dreaming's all I do, if only they'd come true.. ..I should be so lucky Sean. - 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
I would start by constructing Acts of Parliament by Wiki for a start. If that isn't a job creation scheme for lawyers I don't what is... May it please the court to get back to the matter in hand, is a blaspheme against the Flying Spaghetti Monster still a crime if it is was spoken in LOLCAT by a professed Jedi who had invoked Convention 15 of the Shadow Proclamation as defined by the 2009 Act of Parliament Known as Thursday? - 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 28/11/2007, Martin Belam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would start by constructing Acts of Parliament by Wiki for a start. If that isn't a job creation scheme for lawyers I don't what is... May it please the court to get back to the matter in hand, is a blaspheme against the Flying Spaghetti Monster still a crime if it is was spoken in LOLCAT by a professed Jedi who had invoked Convention 15 of the Shadow Proclamation as defined by the 2009 Act of Parliament Known as Thursday? That's just so bloody facetious. What I meant was that when a bill is presented to parliament it should be put up on a wiki, so the points can be clarified, debated, corrected and so on by the public and other interested parties before being voted on by MPs. It would be much better for this to be done in camera as it were, rather than behind closed doors by lobbyists. Whilst were are at it, every room in the Houses of Parliament should be on CCTV, transmitted online 24 hours a day. And Number 10. And all the Ministry's. It sickens me that they put up all those cameras to monitor us, and yet we can't monitor them back. The political process is transparent, but sadly it's a one-way mirror. - 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 28/11/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's just so bloody facetious. Welcome to teh intrawebs: serious business. Whilst were are at it, every room in the Houses of Parliament should be on CCTV, transmitted online 24 hours a day. And Number 10. And all the Ministry's. Even the bogs? ;) -- 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/
[backstage] The BBC Backstage Christmas Party 2007
Hi All, Yes Christmas is a time for peace and humanity across the backstage list :) (Well at least it will be till you all read about Kangaroo Project - http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/organgrinder/2007/06/project_kangaroo_logical_for_w.html Anyway, as most of you know we always try and run a Backstage Christmas Party and this year is no different. After much messing around with venue owners and many false promises, we're happy to announce the Christmas Party will happen at the Ye Olde Cock Tavern, Fleet Street on Saturday 15th December. Obviously we want to make sure you all get in, so we're reserved 100+ tickets for backstagers. You can sign up for the event here - http://cubicgarden.eventwax.com/bbc-backstage-christmas-2007-party/register and if you select the backstage ticket use the promocode *apis*. Why API's? Because that's what you've all asked for and trust me, Santa will deliver *. We expect to have quite a few treats on the nights including Werewolf and the Open Rights Group are going to help us to recreate the speakers corner experience. So I'm looking forward to hearing Dave Crossland and others win the hearts and minds of the tipsy crowd with a breathtaking speech for why any non-Free software is wrong. Its going to be a cracking night and look forward to seeing you all there. Cheers Ian Forrester p.s - more details can be found on upcoming - http://upcoming.yahoo.com/event/321754/ * - I expect santa to be a little late this year ;) - 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] Radio One^^^Two Video Feed
Bug report time... .. It ain't perfect yet, I fired it up and got watching Friends by Middleman played on radio 10 mins ago... .. And this is the video it chose: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fNa28ZUSmv8 Going to wait for the next tune and see if it works a little more accurately ;) (bet it will). -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Minty Sent: 28 November 2007 15:28 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [backstage] Radio One^^^Two Video Feed On Nov 28, 2007 2:53 PM, Tristan Ferne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's cool. Radio 1 feed seems to have come back up if you want to switch. Can't guarantee how long it'll stay up though :( Flipped it back to Radio One and it appears to work in IE7 now. (there isn't anything browser specific, just that the Javascript perhaps needs some debugging or perhaps it works already ) - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
On 29/11/2007, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 28/11/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's just so bloody facetious. Welcome to teh intrawebs: serious business. Whilst were are at it, every room in the Houses of Parliament should be on CCTV, transmitted online 24 hours a day. And Number 10. And all the Ministry's. Even the bogs? ;) Looks like you've been had by the old political game of if you don't vote for me, don't vote at all. How very clever of you to give away the tiny little bit of power you have. That makes you a apathy-collaborator. -- 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
