This always makes me laugh, whether it's Firefox users or Linux users.
Because you *can* change the UA in my favourite software, it
automatically follows that 30% of reported visitors *are* faking it.
I sometimes wonder what these sites are that still need spoofing cos I haven't
been visiting
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of James Cox
'course, bbc.co.uk has had some kind of redirect magic for a while:
http://bbc.co.uk/zanelowe/
First time I've seen a big fat httpd.conf called magic :)
though i suspect the problem (and usage of tinyurl) is that to get
one of those nice
On 06/11/2007, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However that's not always the case. Turnham Green is actually a hell of a
lot closer to Chiswick Park tube station, than Turnham Green tube station.
... and if you get a 27 bus to Turnham Green, it stops at the real
Turnham Green, not the
Sure, and where there is ambiguity there should be a disambiguity page to
sort that out.
J
On 06/11/2007, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Jason Cartwright
The TFL journey planner has such potential, but from what I can see it's
not
terribly
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Jason Cartwright
The TFL journey planner has such potential, but from what I can see it's not
terribly well built. Why does it have to ask me what type of data I'm
inputting? Doesn't it know that SW1W 9TQ is a postcode, White City is a
station, and
Matthew Somerville wrote:
David Greaves wrote:
You want an 8am train from Cardiff to Birmingham?
http://www.traintimes.org.uk/8:00/cardiff/birmingham
The requested URL /8:00/cardiff/birmingham was not found on this server.
Hmm, works fine here. ;-)
Ho Ho!!
Been using the site for
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 08:45 +, Peter Bowyer wrote:
However that's not always the case. Turnham Green is actually a hell of a
lot closer to Chiswick Park tube station, than Turnham Green tube station.
... and if you get a 27 bus to Turnham Green, it stops at the real
Turnham Green,
David Greaves wrote:
then some silly bugger like me will think about it in an entirely different way:
(see above URL)
Okay, but more and more people can only learn about hierarchical-ness - e.g.
the mouse gesture in Opera to go up a level and so on (just thought, I
wonder if that works on
I've read all this with interest and it brings up some interesting points.
The original subjects is with regard to emails, where there is a limit of 78
characters for some (older) systems.
The other use for short URLs is where they have to be physically typed in
because they are on a hard copy.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/06/highfield_tactics/
As the BBC's New Media technology chief, Ashley Highfield has some tough
questions to answer. What is the 4,000 strong division really doing? How did
the BBC manage to burn through £100m - what a Silicon Valley start-up can
spend in ten
Hi all, please excuse the spam - however, I thought this might
interest some people on here (particularly as there'll be some
discussion onf the BBC's Creative Archive Licence project).
Cheers!
Tim
--
CC-Salon London returns with our final event of 2007, for
On Tuesday 06 November 2007 13:34, Brian Butterworth wrote:
I suspect that I would personally make them:
go.bbc.co.uk/shortcode
The shortcode could then also be embedded in any advertising as a 2D barcode
meaning someone could just snap a photo of something and have the shortcode
easily
On Tuesday 06 November 2007 15:42, Kevin Hinde wrote:
The license fee gives you a license to own equipment capable of
receiving broadcast television.
If all you have in your house is a computer (no TV card) and an internet
connection, then you don't have to pay a license fee.
It's not quite
Brian Butterworth said
* Everyone currently has to pay the licenece fee, as long as
they have equipment capable of receiving television broadcasts (from
analogue terrestrial, Freeview, Sky/Freesat, cable or IPTV). Mr
Highfield, as the BBC's representative, is breaking the trust of the
On 11/6/07, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 06 November 2007 13:34, Brian Butterworth wrote:
I suspect that I would personally make them:
go.bbc.co.uk/shortcode
The shortcode could then also be embedded in any advertising as a 2D barcode
meaning someone could just snap
Brian Butterworth wrote:
I've read all this with interest and it brings up some interesting points.
The original subjects is with regard to emails, where there is a limit
of 78 characters for some (older) systems.
True - also if they are visible (and long) they can interfere with
BT Tech Chief: You freetards *do* matter
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2007/11/open_standards.html
On 06/11/2007, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 06 November 2007 15:42, Kevin Hinde wrote:
The license fee gives you a license to own equipment capable of
receiving broadcast television.
If all you have in your house is a computer (no TV card) and an internet
The whole Linux thing is a total red herring.
It is not for you, Mr Highfield, to determine what computers and operating
systems that people who HAVE to pay the TV Licence will use.
The BBC Charter runs for ten years. Can you really say you know what OS and
platforms people will be using in a
Is there a good reason that my posting on the
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2007/11/open_standards.html page has
not appeared.
On 06/11/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The whole Linux thing is a total red herring.
It is not for you, Mr Highfield, to determine what
My 2 cents:
http://digitalrightsmanifesto.wordpress.com/2007/11/02/bbc-iplayer-drm-cross-platform-support-and-peer-to-peer-
–-part-ii/
BBC iPlayer, DRM, cross platform support and Peer-to-Peer – Part II.
The BBC is getting an ass-kicking in the technological playground that is
the Internet at
I suspect it's called an enormous pre-moderation queue
On 06/11/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a good reason that my posting on the
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2007/11/open_standards.html
page has not appeared.
On 06/11/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL
Indeed - comment now posted
Was in a meeting with the OSC
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Loosemore
Sent: 06 November 2007 17:16
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] BBC tech chief: You Freetards don't matter
I
Beyond the debate about security in following email links, redirects and
then the discussion of poorly designed urls the weirdest thing about the use
of tinyurl in the BBC Archive email is that the urls they were substituting
weren't that long in the first place:
http://tinyurl.com/2fkqes
goes
On 06/11/2007, Nick Reynolds-AMi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Was in a meeting with the OSC
Was that just for show or does the BBC intend to actually pay attention?
I think they disagreed with pretty much everything Mr Highfiled has
said (see: http://www.opensourceconsortium.org/content/view/78/55/
vijay chopra wrote:
Of course, this raises the question, is he misleading deliberately, or just
misinformed? Considering his recent faux pas it's not much of a stretch to
believe he's not only misinformed, terminally so (I ascribe nothing to
malice that can be explained by eveyday
The BBC is on satellite using the EU directive Television without
Frontiers, EU (89/552/EEC CHAPTER II, Article 2) directive that states:
2. Member States shall ensure freedom of reception and shall not restrict
retransmission on their territory of television broadcasts from other Member
States
On 6/11/07 18:29, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I notice Ashley's misleading people again. From his blog-post:
We do maximise the reach of our services by distributing our content via
closed or prioprietary networks (Virgin Media, Sky, Tiscali TV/HomeChoice,
mobile platforms, etc.)
On 6 Nov 2007, at 00:07, Andrew Bowden wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of James Cox
'course, bbc.co.uk has had some kind of redirect magic for a while:
http://bbc.co.uk/zanelowe/
First time I've seen a big fat httpd.conf called magic :)
and there I was thinking you had some nice
On 06/11/2007, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh please. Don't try and dismiss the point by picking up on one obviously
illustrative statistic. Of course you never mentioned 30%. But you're
claiming that the actual figures for Linux use are much higher than the
evidence shows.
I stand corrected.
Vijay.
On 06/11/2007, Richard Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/11/07 18:29, vijay chopra [EMAIL
PROTECTED]https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cmtf=0[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I notice Ashley's misleading people again. From his blog-post:
We do maximise the reach
Forget management, I fear you'll find that the BBC Trust's permission
to offer 7 days catchup TV was predicated on using DRM.
Various parts of its non-DRM on demand radio proposals (book readings,
classical music) failed the Public Value Test due to the BBC Trust's
fears over the negative market
Title: Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks
again
At 16:12 + 6/11/07, Brian Butterworth wrote:
If the TV Licence was changed to a BBC Licence, it could be
collected by the Internet ISPs on top of their monthly charges, which
would reduce the collection costs.
No it would just move the
On 06/11/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To my mind, the whole Linux-users debate is a clever way of missing the
whole blooming point.
I broadly agree, although I think the point is that popularity is
unimportant while principle - ie, the principle that software
developers
On 06/11/2007, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
It's not quite as simple as that. It's not to do with receiving broadcast
television anymore, its spec'd as being a television service. A computer
with an internet connection picking up the multicast streams from the BBC
would require
At 01:36 + 7/11/07, Michael Sparks wrote:
Has there been a later act/amendment?
If the apparatus is not installed or used to receive television programme
service then no licence is required.
Unplugging the aerial and detuning the set are sufficient to render the
apparatus un-installed and
Tim,
The rules for this discussion forum is deploy filters. If you are
offended, please stop reading. There is no need to consider flaming.
On 06/11/2007, Tim Dobson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 06/11/2007, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh please. Don't try and dismiss the
On 06/11/2007, Fearghas McKay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 16:12 + 6/11/07, Brian Butterworth wrote:
If the TV Licence was changed to a BBC Licence, it could be collected by
the Internet ISPs on top of their monthly charges, which would reduce the
collection costs.
No it would just
On 06/11/2007, Richard Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/11/07 18:29, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I notice Ashley's misleading people again. From his blog-post:
We do maximise the reach of our services by distributing our content via
closed or prioprietary networks (Virgin
On 06/11/2007, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 06/11/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To my mind, the whole Linux-users debate is a clever way of missing the
whole blooming point.
I broadly agree, although I think the point is that popularity is
unimportant
On 06/11/2007, Tom Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Forget management, I fear you'll find that the BBC Trust's permission
to offer 7 days catchup TV was predicated on using DRM.
Various parts of its non-DRM on demand radio proposals (book readings,
classical music) failed the Public Value
On 07/11/2007, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 06/11/2007, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
It's not quite as simple as that. It's not to do with receiving
broadcast
television anymore, its spec'd as being a television service. A computer
with an internet connection
42 matches
Mail list logo
