Re: [backstage] Zattoo - live streaming BBC channels
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 08:02:24PM +0100, Richard Compston wrote: >I don't know if Zattoo are using Freeview or Sky boxes, but I'm guessing >Freeview - the blocking I've been seeing is very similar to what I get on >my telly when a 747 flies overhead ;) > I often see dialogs on the screen which look the same as those my Humax PVR pops up now and then. So I'd bet on the former. Cheers, Al. - 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] Zattoo - live streaming BBC channels
Perhaps someone should tell them about BDA and the WinTV-Nova-T500 cards? Much better to source direct from digital than encode from a STB, surely? 2008/5/17 Alan Pope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 08:02:24PM +0100, Richard Compston wrote: > >I don't know if Zattoo are using Freeview or Sky boxes, but I'm > guessing > >Freeview - the blocking I've been seeing is very similar to what I get > on > >my telly when a 747 flies overhead ;) > > > > I often see dialogs on the screen which look the same as those my Humax PVR > pops up now and then. So I'd bet on the former. > > Cheers, > Al. > - > 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 - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] Stephen Fry: "There is this marvellous idea the iPlayer is secure. It's anything but secure"
2008/5/8 Richard P Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I am still not certain about Dave Crossland's model either As kind as it is to be attributed with the http://freedomdefined.org model of culture that I advocate, may I suggest you call it the "culture freedom" model or similar :-) > as a result it is very frustrating to try to professionally consider why I > should > work so hard when the rules of distribution are clearly so uncertain at > present May I suggest you work hard because you love what you do, and if its just about the money, slack off a bit :-) -- Regards, Dave Personal opinion only :-) - 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] Who spilled coffee on the server?
> But that's not the point of the Birtspeak 2.0 section of the Eye as I see > it, the point is that you shouldn't use technical jargon if there is no need > for it, and from my limited understanding of that email, it wasn't really > needed. I think in this case however, that the technical language *is* necessary. A few phrases like "visual language", "align", "roll out" and "legacy" might sound odd to those who don't know their meaning in this context, but the audience for this email should understand these terms. To explain them in more plain language will just make the email more verbose. Meh, I don't think this is a particularly bad example - I've seen far far worse. On a related note: a Google search for the phrase "visual language" brings up the BBC standards and guidelines (http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/newmedia/desed/visual_language.shtml) as the first site to use it in this context. So perhaps, as you suggested, the BBC has indeed adopted a meaning for this phrase not currently in popular use. I don't see much wrong with that though, it seems quite fitting and self explanatory. - 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] Who spilled coffee on the server?
2008/5/16 vijay chopra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I'd never heard of "visual language" before reading that email; It was a title of a module of my graphic design degree, so it certainly commonly used outside the BBC, although within the graphic design community. -- Regards, Dave - 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] Who spilled coffee on the server?
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&id=108860 seems to date back to 1991... 2008/5/17 Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 2008/5/16 vijay chopra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > I'd never heard of "visual language" before reading that email; > > It was a title of a module of my graphic design degree, so it > certainly commonly used outside the BBC, although within the graphic > design community. > > -- > Regards, > Dave > - > 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 - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] Who spilled coffee on the server?
2008/5/17 Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&id=108860 > > seems to date back to 1991... Oh at least, its a pretty obvious phrase to coin when talking about typography. -- Regards, Dave - 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] Who spilled coffee on the server?
I didn't mean to suggest that it wasn't used outside the BBC, just that it had a niche usage. Ulimately, that email (if I understood it correctly) boiled down to "we're standardising the layout of the BBC website, you may notice some changes; check the attached pdf for details." you could even make the argument that the word "standardising" is superfluous, but I'm a big supporter of the plain english campaign, http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/ *, so feel free to ignore my agenda. *check out their "Drivel Defence" software: http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/DrivelDefence.html for the really obsessive ;p. regards, Vijay. On 17/05/2008, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 2008/5/16 vijay chopra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > I'd never heard of "visual language" before reading that email; > > > It was a title of a module of my graphic design degree, so it > certainly commonly used outside the BBC, although within the graphic > design community. > > -- > Regards, > > Dave > > - > 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] Stephen Fry: "There is this marvellous idea the iPlayer is secure. It's anything but secure"
Thanks Dave, If I slacked anymore, I'd be totally horizontal. :-) The problem isn't money, it is the legal contracts associated with trying to protect created works for use worldwide through the internet, and the derivatives. Personally I would like to see a brand new approach, one that truly protects the rights of the creator against the interests of "big business", as well as this new market. It should be so "simple", especially when the words culture, BBC, and Rights are used within the Backstage list, repeatedly. I'm saddened that the technical and innovational advantage that the BBC had in decades gone by, is now perhaps being lost, under the guise of political and social correctness. when equally we are all becoming more and more aware that the BBC is no longer a single entity, but more a collection of private interest's contracted to work together. :-) This is slowly being extended. Yes, there are parts of the content of the BBC that do belong to the culture and fabric of British society.. but if the archive represents the real model of what is happening now, then we are all going to lose out. I hope that some there are actually debating the future, and whether the return to important culture is something that is worth not only protecting, but protecting for society to represent this time as a stamp for the world. Legally. :-) The BBC should be perfectly placed to promote a new ideal, a new contract between creators and the world of the internet not simply for the UK, or for no financial reward. They themselves fund creations, and therefore have exactly the same potential problems. as well as an incredible opportunity ahead. The connected parts of this debate are amazingly complex, but I have yet to find anyone in the UK who is able to see the internet of 2012 as more open than 1993. Business in the artistic world seems to want to close it all down in to country states. Those borders should not be so problematic by now. Art doesn't respect them. The Bealtles, and British music in general, would have been pretty sad if the guys hadn't "borrowed" from the US Blues and African rhythms.the BBC/UKCentric model of the world wide web does not allow for this innovation to happen freely. I remember time shifting the news on the BBC site back in 1997.. over 10 years ago, and how far have we come? In 12 years I know that there is much that is different in the coding, but very little that has been truly innovative enough to change the BBC's contribution to society as a whole. That is not to bash anyone... radio hasn't changed in essence, nor has TV, but for tinkering to some features and obvious technical advances. I love the net, and I have surfed it since 1989.. it has changed, and is changing as I write. Everyone now has a library of information.. their own as well as the worlds. The structure of business within the net doesn't have to be the same as the real world. can you imagine the Rolling Stones saying that they were only going to play in the UK? Absurd. Same with Hollywood and Cinema. This is only a brief introduction.. I'll happily contribute more if anyone wishes. But briefly, if I pay UK tax, a UK license fee, have a UK home, a UK passport with Europe on it.. why do I still lose the use of iPlayer just because I am overseas? Others have solved this problem without cutting off their "customers" or audience, but I understand it cannot be done if one follows the rules of the real world but meanwhile those who do it illegally tend to get most of what they wish for. Should we all have another slice of cultural anarchy? Google in bondage. :-) Regards Rich On Saturday, May 17, 2008, at 07:22PM, "Dave Crossland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >2008/5/8 Richard P Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >> I am still not certain about Dave Crossland's model either > >As kind as it is to be attributed with the http://freedomdefined.org >model of culture that I advocate, may I suggest you call it the >"culture freedom" model or similar :-) > >> as a result it is very frustrating to try to professionally consider why I >> should >> work so hard when the rules of distribution are clearly so uncertain at >> present > >May I suggest you work hard because you love what you do, and if its >just about the money, slack off a bit :-) > >-- >Regards, >Dave >Personal opinion only :-) >- >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/
