Andy wrote:
Has anyone here heard of something called email? Oh you have have you?
Well that works cross platform, guess how that was made cross
platform? well the IETF did something exceptionally simple they posted
the spec on a web site.
That's rather odd, given that the specs. for email of
On 30/10/2007, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However it's nowhere near as simple as just copying the files and
burning them to DVD
...
My point? it's not always as easy to take an off air broadcast and put it
online.
I see you've never tried Myth TV, my box is in the process
My point? it's not always as easy to take an off air broadcast and put it
online.
I see you've never tried Myth TV
I have, briefly. I especially liked seeing it run the BBCi service on it :)
However that's following the simple matter of installing the thing. Last time
I tried Myth TV
I'll reverse these comments :)
Andrew Bowden wrote:
I have a PVR which has a USB port on it - which is great cos I can take
files off the PVR if I want to and keep a copy of them.
However it's nowhere near as simple as just copying the files and
burning them to DVD thanks to the fact that
I think the point made is a philosophical one or approach -
incremental rollout is obviously one way - but a decision to design
something for the main 3 platforms at the start is another way - as
was said, using Java and open APIs - even a layman would think that
the BBC approach is eccentric, I
Andrew Bowden wrote:
I'd like to, cos my TV capture card might get some Linuxy usage then.
But I haven't got the time or desire to try and set it up.
If you find the desire then I'll try and help.
David
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit
On 10/29/07, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 29 October 2007 18:47, Dave Crossland wrote:
...
Asking people to agree not share with friends and betray their
community is evil :-(
No, it's not.
Yes it is. Not sharing is a bad thing. If I had a bag of sweets, and
In the BBCs case - as they are using public funds they need to include
everyone as an upfront design decision
Believe me, people in the BBC do - across the organisation and on a variety of
projects. Sometimes things are done for everyone at once, but sometimes you
have to stagger launches.
Ian Ashley,
given the BBCs commitment to Accessibility, did I miss something?
where's the transcript?
what percentage of 'iplayer' content will have a text equivalent?
cheers
Jonathan Chetwynd
Accessibility Consultant on Media Literacy and the Internet
apologies for dupe, hadn't appreciated
Its a bit like saying we'll design a transport system for able-bodied
people first (as they are the majority) - and gradually roll out to
others - this is also thought to be morally wrong, as well as a poor
design decision.
No - it's like designing a transport system, then later on
On Tuesday 30 October 2007 11:24, dantes inferno wrote:
Its a bit like saying we'll design a transport system for able-bodied
people first (as they are the majority) - and gradually roll out to
others
That's _exactly_ what we have with public transport.
Michael.
-
Sent via the
On Tuesday 30 October 2007 10:35, Richard Lockwood wrote:
..
Not sharing is a bad thing. If I had a bag of sweets, and didn't hand them
round my friends, that would be wrong
Dave said:
Asking people to agree not share with friends ... is evil
Sharing is axiomatically good in our society at
My point? it's not always as easy to take an off air broadcast and put
it online.
I see you've never tried Myth TV, my box is in the process of being built,
the only thing stopping me is cash for my ridiculesly over-specced box; not
difficulty. Plucking signals straight out of the air and
On Tuesday 30 October 2007 13:04, Tom Loosemore wrote:
I've commissioned several generations of such multi-channel DVB - Web
systems both inside and outside the BBC.
http://kamaelia.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/kamaelia/trunk/Code/Python/Kamaelia/Examples/DVB_Systems/Macro.py?view=markup
On 30/10/2007, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 30/10/2007, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/29/07, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 29 October 2007 18:47, Dave Crossland wrote:
...
Asking people to agree not share with friends and betray
On 10/30/07, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 30 October 2007 10:35, Richard Lockwood wrote:
..
Not sharing is a bad thing. If I had a bag of sweets, and didn't hand
them
round my friends, that would be wrong
Dave said:
Asking people to agree not share with friends
Dave doesn't mean sharing. Dave means stealing and redistributing
for free. When he says sharing, Dave always means stealing. Dave wants
everything for nothing.
This is simply untrue: non-commercial redistribution allow a lot of
scope for business, without trampling friendship,
On 30/10/2007, Matthew Somerville [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, you'll be glad to hear that Windows DRM uses the non-proprietary
elliptic curve, DES, RC4 and SHA1, then?
Can you point me to the open standard for Windows DRM then, so that I
might perform a security analysis? As we all know
On 30/10/2007, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was making the point that copying someone
else's work when they've specifically asked you not to, and giving it away
is theft - it is NOT sharing.
That's odd, the theft act states:
A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly
On 30/10/2007, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
copying someone else's work when they've specifically asked you not to,
and giving it away is theft - it is NOT sharing.
Rich.
Actually, that's copyright infringement, not theft; big difference, one's a
criminal act, the other is a
Andy wrote:
Copyright Infringement is NOT theft, theft is theft, copyright
infringement is copyright infringement. They are covered by entirely
separate laws, they are described differently in the law, and the
actions themselves differ greatly.
How can educated people confuse the two?
I
On 10/30/07, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 30 October 2007 14:07, Richard Lockwood wrote:
It should also be made clear that that quote from me has been
usedcompletely out of context -
I didn't mean to quote you out of context - my apologies. I thought they
were
two
On 30/10/2007, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's rubbish. Utter, utter rubbish. You copy a CD and give it to
your mate, that's all about money - or rather it's all about not wanting to
pay money. Your friend may think that CD's overpriced and so wouldn't pay
the (say)
As I said in a previous email, as well as the legal differences, there is a
big ethical difference; with one I don't deprive the original owner of use
of their property the other is theft.
Vijay.
On 30/10/2007, Steve Jolly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andy wrote:
Copyright Infringement is NOT
That's rubbish. Utter, utter rubbish. You copy a CD and give it to
your mate, that's all about money - or rather it's all about not wanting to
pay money. Your friend may think that CD's overpriced and so wouldn't pay
the (say) ten quid asking price, but he wants it badly enough to
On 30/10/2007, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Morally, I have no problem with people knocking up mix tapes, samplers etc
to give to their mates.
...
Unless the creator of a work specifically grants you the right to copy that
work, you don't have that right.
End of.
This is
On 30/10/2007, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave doesn't mean sharing. Dave means stealing and redistributing
for free. When he says sharing, Dave always means stealing. Dave wants
everything for nothing.
This is simply untrue: non-commercial redistribution allow
27 matches
Mail list logo
