Hang on, are we playing Finsbury Rules here?
> -Original Message-
> From: Davy Mitchell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 27 February 2007 22:43
> To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
> Subject: Re: [backstage] Tube on Twitter
>
> Mornington Crescent.
>
> --
> Davy Mitchell
> Blog - http://ww
On 27/02/07, James Cridland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's akin to stealing chocolate
from the store because
...because you seem to think that imaginary scenarios - like the
possibility of taking action based on reading sales copy - can be
treated like physical property, which is the only thi
On 27/02/07, James Cridland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/27/07, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The fact you deliberately linked to a torrent site - thus removing the
> chance of the oscar winners to earn money from their films
Well done, Dave. Don't you owe me a drink? ;)
Certa
Hi welcome to the list Jim,
Can I suggest you lurk a little more before posting more.
It tends to be bad form to complain at such a early stage :)
Cheers,
Ian Forrester
Jim Gardner wrote:
I'm not exactly over-the-moon about the idea that everyone's private
email address is visible. What are
Okay sorted - appears that the wonderful hack that places the headlines from
the various blogs contained within backstage had failed to rebuild the front
page / rss feed to update the URL - I've done a manual rebuild and all is
well roll on the new site.
Thanks again James - if you spot an
Hi David - we're looking into this issue - we'll let you know what we're going
to do :-)
m
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Dave Crossland
Sent: Tue 27/02/2007 14:44
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk; Matthew Cashmore; Ian Forrester
Subject: Re: [backstage] Percentage
Joy :-) - Thanks for pointing that out James will try to sort now - I hate MT.
m
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of James Cridland
Sent: Tue 27/02/2007 20:38
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: [backstage] Bug report: backstage.bbc.co.uk
On http://backstage.bbc.c
Mornington Crescent.
--
Davy Mitchell
Blog - http://www.latedecember.co.uk/sites/personal/davy/
Twitter - http://twitter.com/daftspaniel
Skype - daftspaniel
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list
On 2/27/07, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The fact you deliberately linked to a torrent site - thus removing the
chance of the oscar winners to earn money from their films
Well done, Dave. Don't you owe me a drink? ;)
--
http://james.cridland.net/
On 2/27/07, vijay chopra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Take a site like slashdot, I visit, I like the content, so I decide to
white-list. However I find the ads over intrusive so I put it back on the
black list
Ah. Other people might get irritated with the ads and therefore not go back
to Slash
On 2/26/07, Andrew Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Probably even worse. Your hurting the website even more -
> lowering the CTR [1] by registering an impression, yet user
> has no opportunity to click.
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click_Through_Rate
Depends if you ever click ads...
On http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/ there's a blog, and the main item of the blog
is currently 'More Twitter Hacks and BBC Goodness'.
Click the headline, to be rewarded by a 404 error.
(Or, worse, click the 'see original' link in the RSS feed to be rewarded by
a 404 error).
And now I can't blog abou
Jason Cartwright wrote:
I can't receive digital TV, so I'd like a refund on money spent to make
BBC3 and BBC4. Oh, and I can't read welsh so could TV Licencing please
send me a cheque for the money spend on http://www.bbc.co.uk/cymru/
I don't tend to watch any TV anymore. So I just use BBC Radi
Sorry, I seem to have messed up with the tinyurls I gave in my previous
post. Here are the links in their gory splendour:
https://jobs.bbc.co.uk/fe/tpl_bbc01.asp?s=HqSpVAxKiZLqNnZif&jobid=13564,
2395596535&key=1658236&c=653525135614&pagestamp=sehoeqelevzzvayuna
https://jobs.bbc.co.uk/fe/tpl_bbc
I would've hoped that the BBC listserver either washes those kind of emails
or returns them to sender.
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Gardner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 27 February 2007 19:20
> To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
> Subject: Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee goi
On 27/02/07, Jim Gardner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I never did understand keyboard heros. The fact is, if we where
talking face to face in the pub, you wouldn't dream of being so
obnoxious just because you think I'm wrong.
I'd be delighted to prove you wrong.
Just because you can't
counter
I'm not exactly over-the-moon about the idea that everyone's private
email address is visible. What are people still using Windows
supposed to do if someone decides to attach a worm?
On 27 Feb 2007, at 18:13, John Drinkwater wrote:
On 27/02/07, Jim Gardner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
He p
I never did understand keyboard heros. The fact is, if we where
talking face to face in the pub, you wouldn't dream of being so
obnoxious just because you think I'm wrong. Just because you can't
counter my argument with anything doesn't give you the right to
resort to the fail-safe, "I've
Can I hope beyond hope and take it that by "stimulating and
provocative" you mean that the powers that be are actually listening
to what the people who pay their wages want?
On 27 Feb 2007, at 18:31, Jeremy Stone wrote:
Yes even the ones that that harp on
about DRM noon and night ;)
Ac
George Wright wrote:
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 18:09 +, Jim Gardner wrote:
I'm sure Microsoft are desperately pleased with themselves for
"earning" what ever percentage of that £131 million is theirs
Programme ingest, programme creation, programme/contributor rights,
content distribut
On 27/02/07, John Drinkwater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I got similar comments from someone else off-list related to comments
i've made here and on the BBC editors site.
I'm sorry to hear that - I've been quite vocal about my non-mainstream
opinions, and never received such comments.
--
Regar
On 27/02/07, Jim Gardner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Being fairly new to the list I can only imagine that this DRM thing
has dragged on a bit for some of the older members, but I would
remind everyone that it's pretty much universally agreed that this is
the biggest mistake the BBC have ever made
>> Yes even the ones that that harp on
> > about DRM noon and night ;)
> >
Actually the DRM discussions in recent weeks have been incredibly
stimulating and provocative and much appreciated inside BBC towers and I
hope for other subscribers. (I always knew I shouldn't try and make weak
jokes on
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 18:09 +, Jim Gardner wrote:
> I'm sure Microsoft are desperately pleased with themselves for
> "earning" what ever percentage of that £131 million is theirs
Programme ingest, programme creation, programme/contributor rights,
content distribution, application development,
On 27/02/07, Jim Gardner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
He privately mailed me and used words I won't repeat for fear they
trigger the spam filter.
Is he sub-normal or is that the crack on this list? If so I'm not
interested in continuing with it.
I got similar comments from someone else off-list
Being fairly new to the list I can only imagine that this DRM thing
has dragged on a bit for some of the older members, but I would
remind everyone that it's pretty much universally agreed that this is
the biggest mistake the BBC have ever made - so it's not like it
isn't worth discussing a
Hi all,
I just thought I'd mention that there are 2 jobs going in my team. One
is for a Client-side coder (continuing contract), and the other is for a
server-side coder (6 month contract initially). The closing date for
both positions is tomorrow, 28th Feb (as in, 23:59). You can learn more
ab
Thanks for a straight answer at last, it's appreciated.
I'm sure Microsoft are desperately pleased with themselves for
"earning" what ever percentage of that £131 million is theirs. You
have to hand it to them, they certainly know how to charge people
more money for less functionality.
S
He privately mailed me and used words I won't repeat for fear they
trigger the spam filter.
Is he sub-normal or is that the crack on this list? If so I'm not
interested in continuing with it.
On 27 Feb 2007, at 14:44, Dave Crossland wrote:
On 27/02/07, James Ockenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Andrew Bowden wrote:
But then, both of those methods still leave the question -
how do you pay for the unpopular, but worthy, programming?
PPV - you split the programme budget between the expected number of
viewers. As such, EastEnders being a programme with many viewers, would
cost les
> But then, both of those methods still leave the question -
> how do you pay for the unpopular, but worthy, programming?
PPV - you split the programme budget between the expected number of
viewers. As such, EastEnders being a programme with many viewers, would
cost less than a documentary on B
Get back in your perambulators!
And those who can do what ever is needed so that I and other Mac
users, can use BBC services without being forced to download
microsoft products
Does not the Charter cover Discrimination? and giving one product an
unfair advantage?
Phil
On 27 Feb 2007,
It would appear from this and other mails I've received that I have
the same name as someone who has a track record for trolling.
I can assure everyone on the list that this is the first thread this
James Gardner has started or replied to on the backstage mailing
list, and given the less th
On 27/02/07, James Ockenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
pay for your email service, you fucking tightwad, and you might have a
vaguely moral place from which to make your tiny cock point.
"The list's House Rules are simple: Be Nice To Each Other and Don't
Break The Law. If you are rude or spam
Kenneth Burrell-CAPITA wrote:
Hi
Which is like paying income tax for Health Service and then having to
pay for prescriptions? ...
I can choose to go to Boots, or Tesco or one of any number of small
chemists to get the prescription. I'm not forced into going to a single
chemist, which may
Dear all
Can I remind everyone that this is a public mailing list that is
archived and searchable.
Please keep civil to everyone. Yes even the ones that that harp on
about DRM noon and night ;)
Thanks
Jem
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Be
The cost of the BBC's On Demand proposals (including the iPlayer) are in the
public domain anyway as part of our (BBC's) submission to the BBC Trust and the
the resulting Public Value Assessment document.
Its worth a look.
In section 8
"The proposals will cost the BBC an additional £131m ov
Hi
Which is like paying income tax for Health Service and then having to
pay for prescriptions? ...
Can someone suggest a way of how you could efficiently and effectively
collect payment (s) that reflects all individuals use of BBC services
and programmes? Annual packages or subscription based on
I would like to I would like to know what percentage of my license fee
will go towards funding of Seb Potter's employment - so that
I can withhold that amount from my payment, or seek a refund of that
amount back from the BBC.
;-)
Seb Potter wrote:
On 27/02/07, *Jim Gardner* <[EMAIL PROTECTE
I would like to know what percentage of my license fee will go
towards funding the proposed iPlayer services which are only to be
made available to people stupid enough to be using Windows - so that
I can withhold that amount from my payment, or seek a refund of that
amount back from the BBC.
sa
Seb Potter wrote:
Are you a BT customer? If so, you could try to demand a refund of the
part of your line rental that goes towards providing phone boxes for
those people that don't own a mobile, or towards provision of
telephone services in rural areas for those that don't live in a city.
fair point (although the Welsh argument is a canard), but there is a
difference between creating content for a new channel, albeit one that
is not available without purchasing new equipment, and creating a new
platform that is only available if you buy that equipment from a
particular vendor.
e.g.
Jason Cartwright wrote:
This is all my personal point of view.
I can't receive digital TV, so I'd like a refund on money spent to make
BBC3 and BBC4. Oh, and I can't read welsh so could TV Licencing please
send me a cheque for the money spend on http://www.bbc.co.uk/cymru/
Didn't some pe
On 27/02/07, Jim Gardner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would like to know what percentage of my license fee will go
towards funding the proposed iPlayer services which are only to be
made available to people stupid enough to be using Windows - so that
I can withhold that amount from my payment, o
Jason Cartwright wrote:
Oh, and I can't read welsh so could TV Licencing please
send me a cheque for the money spend on http://www.bbc.co.uk/cymru/
Well, the pop-up "Oes gennych chi 5 munud i roi eich barn am y safle hwn?"
(Have you got 5 minutes to fill in a survey on this site, or similar)
> I would like to know what percentage of my license fee will
> go towards funding the proposed iPlayer services which are
> only to be made available to people stupid enough to be using
> Windows - so that I can withhold that amount from my payment,
> or seek a refund of that amount back from
On 27/02/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is all my personal point of view.
I can't receive digital TV, so I'd like a refund on money spent to make
BBC3 and BBC4. Oh, and I can't read welsh so could TV Licencing please
send me a cheque for the money spend on http://www.bbc.co
This is all my personal point of view.
I can't receive digital TV, so I'd like a refund on money spent to make
BBC3 and BBC4. Oh, and I can't read welsh so could TV Licencing please
send me a cheque for the money spend on http://www.bbc.co.uk/cymru/
J
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROT
Jim Gardner wrote:
I would like to know what percentage of my license fee will go
towards funding the proposed iPlayer services which are only to be
made available to people stupid enough to be using Windows
Are you certain Microsoft isn't funding it? I thought most of the
Windows Media to
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To be blunt if it's served to *my* PC I have every right to do as I
> > wish with the content; the same as if I buy a book, I don't have to
> > read it all, why is it different for a website? I don't
> > have to read
> > the adverts in magazines or newspapers no o
> I would like to know what percentage of my license fee will
> go towards funding the proposed iPlayer services which are
> only to be made available to people stupid enough to be using
> Windows - so that I can withhold that amount from my payment,
> or seek a refund of that amount back from
Richard Lockwood wrote:
I don't have to read the adverts in
magazines or newspapers no one considers those "an intrinsic part of
[their]
content"
No - but they're still there. You flick past them, and they don't
annoy you by their very presence, which web ads appear to.
Saying that, ad
On 2/27/07, Jim Gardner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would like to know what percentage of my license fee will go
towards funding the proposed iPlayer services which are only to be
made available to people stupid enough to be using Windows - so that
I can withhold that amount from my payment, or
I would like to know what percentage of my license fee will go
towards funding the proposed iPlayer services which are only to be
made available to people stupid enough to be using Windows - so that
I can withhold that amount from my payment, or seek a refund of that
amount back from the BB
To be blunt if it's served to *my* PC I have every right to do as I wish
with the content; the same as if I buy a book, I don't have to read it all,
why is it different for a website? I don't have to read the adverts in
magazines or newspapers no one considers those "an intrinsic part of [their]
c
On 27/02/07, Sebastian Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not really, why do I need to see a sites ads to evaluate it's content?
Because the ads are an intrinsic part of the site's content. That's what
the owner of the content has decided comprises the full work, and
therefore that's what yo
> Not really, why do I need to see a sites ads to evaluate it's content?
Because the ads are an intrinsic part of the site's content. That's what
the owner of the content has decided comprises the full work, and
therefore that's what you have been granted permission to use.
Consumer choice in
vijay chopra wrote:
Take a site like slashdot, I visit, I like the content, so I decide to
white-list. However I find the ads over intrusive so I put it back on
the black list,
Do you subscribe to slashdot? One of the perks of slashdot membership is
you don't get ads.
Scot
-
Sent via
On 27/02/07, Richard Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Until you show me that your site isn't just a waste of bandwidth,
> > > however, you're Adblocked.
> >
> > If a site's a waste of bandwidth, what are you doing visiting
> > in the first place?
>
> Making his evaluation? Don
>
> >
> > Until you show me that your site isn't just a waste of bandwidth,
> > however, you're Adblocked.
>
> If a site's a waste of bandwidth, what are you doing visiting
> in the first place?
Making his evaluation? Don't criticise something without first knowing what
you're on about, etc etc.
60 matches
Mail list logo
