RE: [backstage] iPad
The lack of a camera (or two, 1 forward and 1 backward facing) is a shame for augmented reality apps as well chat, it would have been good to see what people could have done here, especially as we’ve already seen good stuff using GPS and Q-codes on the iphone. From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Andrew Macinnes Sent: 28 January 2010 13:37 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] iPad I can see why they didn’t put a camera on it. Who’s going to be bother holding the thing still enough to enable decent chat? It would be a nightmare to try and hold it out in front of your face and even worse for the person getting motion sickness on the other end. From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Michael Kraskin Sent: 28 January 2010 13:28 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] iPad Re camera, I want it for the exact same reason every single apple laptop has one. Not point and shoot, but video chat. And if developers do change because of this, that's great, and perhaps then it will make sense to buy one. - Original Message - From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Sent: Thu Jan 28 07:56:06 2010 Subject: Re: [backstage] iPad On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:20, Michael Kraskin michael.kras...@bbc.com wrote: I think the no-Flash means that it a seriously crippled web browser. Hardly the best way to browse the internet, and thus will be a serious disappointment, not only to power users, but to casual internet surfers as well. As a user, the lack of Flash won't affect me much, if at all. fewer ads, and that's about it. The kids won't get near it, as CBeebies appears to be built almost entirely in Flash (much the same with Club Penguin), but I can't say I'd consider them not wanting to get their grubby fingers on it a bad thing (though there are plenty of games in the App Store they'd like instead). As a web developer, I can't remember the last time web developers influenced browsers and not the other way around. Can't see that one changing any time soon: if the iPad is successful, websites will stop relying on Flash being ubiquitous (either degrading where Flash isn't present, or doing something else entirely), assuming they and the iPad share customer demographics. The no-camera thing just screams wait for the second generation before you buy one Why on earth would you want a camera on a device whose form factor is utterly opposed to the hold-up-point-and-shoot facilities in mobile phones which made digital photography mainstream? Not saying you're wrong, just that I can't fathom it. M. - 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/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this
RE: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Anyone remember this for earlier in the year? Prime example of privacy and personal respect being abused. A company in Prague used a family picture off facebook for commercial purposes without consent, attribution, etc. http://www.extraordinarymommy.com/blog/are-you-kidding-me/stolen-picture / -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of David Tomlinson Sent: 09 October 2009 11:09 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom' Mo McRoberts wrote: On 9-Oct-2009, at 00:21, David Tomlinson wrote: For obvious reasons I do not wish to discuss children as a subject anymore. It's not obvious at all. People need to stop with the nervousness when the words children and photograph appear in a sentence together; it's, for want of a better term, childish and ridiculous. It's also pretty salient, given it's a straightforward example of a copyright-holder having a current ability to exercise control without having to resort to onerous trust mechanisms. Your position has a distinct lack of great upsides as compared to the status quo, but it -does- have some significant flaws, and I say that retaining the view that copyright as it exists today is flawed in some fairly serious ways. No the mention of Children and Photograph just distorts everything it touches, so there are better examples, where privacy or personal images are concerned. Copyright is almost useless for controlling something that does not involve commercial interests in practice. The fact is that most images are not worth anything unless used commercially, except to the owner. And that is a privacy and personal respect issue. This text is copyright, even if I don't care if someone copies it, but that is another thing, attribution and source become important, in other words reputation systems etc. As for upsides, the only one copyright has, is you are familiar with it. The Besson and Mason paper covers the accumulation of rights, that forms a thicket and stops progress (patents). A similar thing applies with copyright. You can find the copyright owner, the rights clearance process is complex. Quintin Tarentino who has resources available talked at length on Radio 4 about the difficulties of getting clearance on original music for films. Having a designer chair in the background of a shot in a film is a nightmare. Speaking of films, they also suffer from the monopoly attributes of runaway costs and marketing so as to limit choice and exclude competition, and thoose poor A lister have to manage on 20 Million USD per film (2 per year ?). I have just started to put the case, to do so requires a book. http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm Here is one that makes the case, it is available free as a pdf from the website. But even this does not cover the whole argument in favour of abolishing copyright and patents. - 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] [Fsuk-manchester] Free for All
The Long Tail is a good book but the idea is facing some criticism http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08%2F12%2F23%2F1745248from=rss Thankfully Chris Anderson is embracing the doubts and it could just be down to a general oversimplification of the primary concept. http://www.longtail.com/the_long_tail/2008/06/excellent-hbr-p.html Robin Doran bbc.co.uk -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Fearghas McKay Sent: 09 January 2009 09:52 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] [Fsuk-manchester] Free for All On 8 Jan 2009, at 21:55, Tim Dobson wrote: Interesting thing to hear.. and the Chris Anderson book on the Long Tail is well worth a read. 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/ - 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] Film Reviews
In theory the polling app, which is a general application across a number of sites, will continue to accept ratings indefinitely. Although the rating data is not easily extractable if there was a strong enough call for it, it could be done. I don't think there are any plans to republish the articles or gateway pages (the people, genre, star, etc index pages) in more open mark up format but there's no reason why we couldn't, if anyone wants to such a thing it could be a fun project for Mashed. I wrote both the polling app and the Films site backend so know both systems quite well. Robin Doran bbc.co.uk -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Brickley Sent: 29 May 2008 16:08 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Film Reviews Andrew Bowden wrote: I see the film reviews are nolonger being updated on the BBC site. Does anyone know why and will this mean that the film reviews xml feeds will no longer be updated. The Movies site (and it's associated section on BBCi) formally closed on 6 May 2008 - they've left the archive online, however there won't be any new reviews. As such, the feeds won't get updated. The ratings DB at http://www.bbc.co.uk/movies/ (assume this is the site you're talking about) still seems open for business. I voted on a couple of movies and it increased the counter, eg. 'Average rating: 4 from 701 votes' in http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2002/03/28/panic_room_2002_review.shtml# Will the system carry on accepting ratings indefinitely? Is there any way to get a movie ratings data dump out of /cgi-perl/polling/poll.pl ? Seems like a nice collection of data, even if it won't be updated. There are people pages too, even enough to play the 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon game, albeit on a dataset much smaller than IMDB: http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/gateways/star/baconkevin/ If http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/catalogue_offline.shtml were back online, it might be fun to match up the identifiers to find other appearances of the same actors elsewhere in BBCland... cheers, Dan -- http://danbri.org/ - 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] Backstage developer lists
That's ok, Dude is still a popular if antiquated greeting :) Robin Doran bbc.co.uk From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Cashmore Sent: 19 October 2007 09:13 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Backstage developer lists Blast. Sorry. Damn. [hangs head in shame] On 19/10/07 09:00, Matthew Cashmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey dude - I'm not sure if you've noticed this or not but your emails you're sending to the bakstage-developer list are bouncing because you're not a member... Are you just replying to all and copying in that list or are you actually trying to post there - if the later shout and we'll work out why it's not working. m
RE: Uploading the BBC programme catalogue to freebase (was RE: [backstage] Programme Catalogue vs. Freebase (was: BBC Programme Catalogue -any APIs yet?))
Hi Graeme, The robots.txt file has been accidentally dropped from the new release and we will be re-introducing it, this is due to initial concerns complaints raised about personal data population in external search engines when the service was launched. On the subject of scraping the data, I've asked the catalogue.bbc.co.uk team to clarify the terms of use on the data to see if that will help answer your question but if you have a specific request then I would recommend using the Contact Us page http://catalogue.bbc.co.uk/catalogue/infax/contact Regards, From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Graeme West Sent: Tue 7/24/2007 20:39 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: Uploading the BBC programme catalogue to freebase (was RE: [backstage] Programme Catalogue vs. Freebase (was: BBC Programme Catalogue -any APIs yet?)) Hi all, Sorry to re-open an old thread - just wondering what the position is on scraping the catalogue.bbc.co.uk test site? I say this because I'm trying a little experiment - ingesting the whole catalogue into our Fedora repository ( http://www.fedora.info ) to be cross-referenced with the 200+ hours of BBC audio and video which we legally hold in our legacy repository as per our deposit agreement with the BBC ( http://www.spokenword.ac.uk/using-audio-video/copyright/ ). The reason I ask is that I've constructed a set of scripts which scrape the catalogue.bbc.co.uk archive's RDF files. I've already got a 'master' list of all programme URLs (the script to generate that took a pretty long time on a JANET connection), but having started the crawler grabbing the actual RDF streams for each programme, I can see that this is going to involve a pretty large amount of data transfer. FYI, my crawler uses Wget and respects robots.txt files. There's no robots.txt file on catalogue.bbc.co.uk so it seems to be fair game, but there is one on open.bbc.co.uk - I'm scraping from the former obviously. Clearly there's a licensing issue with copying the content but I'm only trying this as a technical experiment at this stage anyway - it will not be publicly available. -- Graeme West Spoken Word Services Glasgow Caledonian University Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Project web site: http://www.spokenword.ac.uk/ http://www.spokenword.ac.uk/ On 9 Jul 2007, at 21:30, Brendan Quinn wrote: I was considering entering a hack for Hack Day around that very thing. But then they went and made me one of the judges ;-) Wanna help? A simple set of scripts that scrape the archive (er I mean call that big RESTful API) and post entries/updates to the freebase sandbox server would be an interesting experiment. I agree that freebase is an amazing resource, especially when the programme data is curated properly: compare http://www.freebase.com/view/?id=%239202a8c04000641f80012406 with http://open.bbc.co.uk/catalogue/infax/series/DOCTOR+WHO ! There may be some rights issues around what would basically amount to opening up the programme catalogue under the creative commons attribution license, where the attribution wouldn't go to the BBC but to Freebase... Brendan. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Oliver Cole Sent: 09 July 2007 20:51 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] Programme Catalogue vs. Freebase (was: BBC Programme Catalogue -any APIs yet?) I've been following the Programme Catalogue since it was announced, and its pretty interesting. I do however have a question for the BBC people on the list - have you considered simply uploading all the information to Freebase[1]? I can understand that you might want to keep it in house, but if you merged it with the wealth of information on Freebase you can do exponentially more. For example, if it was properly integrated you could run a query that would tell me how many of the contributors to Spooks series 2 were born in London. Regards, Oli [1] http://www.freebase.com - A very cool structured database, currently handling 2.3 million instances of 870 'types' - 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/ Email has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email management service - www.altman.co.uk/emailsystems
