Slashdot Mirror


BBC to Provide Extensive RSS

Georgie2032 writes "The BBC News Online's Editor states that beginning in the middle of May, the BBC will be 'completely liberating the availability of its content' using its Really Simple Syndication (RSS) tool. 'So in May we'll be happy for outside websites to dip in and take our headlines'"

176 comments

  1. But this exists already... by shreevatsa · · Score: 0

    When you install Firefox, there is a BBC RSS feed installed by default (as "Latest Headlines"). So what's new?

    1. Re:But this exists already... by shreevatsa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oops, never mind. What's new is that BBC will now allow external websites to feed on them. But why would they want to do that? Considering AFP's suit against Google and all, it seems rather strange they would allow other websites to have BBC's news on their pages.

    2. Re:But this exists already... by arivanov · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is a long and ongoing conflict between the BBC and the other online media in the UK. BBC has been able to nearly exterminate all UK online news except the specialized ones. Even those have nowdays moved to a subscription model (FT, DT and the like). It is free, it is high quality and it is updated round the clock. This is seriously annoying most newspaper owners and editors who see their circulation dropping and online presence being pushed into the oblivion. Allowing them to feed on an RSS feed is a great marketing ploy. They instead of protesting endlessly will now become largely dependant on BBC news online existing. Once this happens Blair (or any other creature which replaces him) will no longer have the option to exterminate news.bbc.co.uk for "efficiency of public spending" reasons.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    3. Re:But this exists already... by MartinB · · Score: 4, Informative

      The current feeds are made accessible for personal use only. The difference is that the Beeb will now be OK with commercial sites using them without prior agreement/contract.

      --

      The only thing you can accurately describe as "Scotch" is a sticky tape made by 3M. And it's

    4. Re:But this exists already... by henrywood · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The BBC is a well-respected source of unbiased news. (Tony Blair and Alistair Campbell disagree with that, but events have proved how wrong they are.)

      To have other sites using their news feed will enhance the reputation of the Corporation further and can only be a good thing as far as they are concerned. Because they strongly depend upon their reputation when it comes to gettting funding it's a win-win situation.

      That's a very good reason for the decision.

      --
      Something is happening here but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr Jones.
    5. Re:But this exists already... by Uber+Banker · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nearly exterminate? There are still more than a few news organisations with online presences:

      Reuters
      The Times
      The Guardian (interesting... the content is free but if you want to read it in a paper format you can subscribe)
      The Sun
      The Mirror
      ITN Sites, e.g. Channel 4 News
      The Scotsman (a surprisingly large online presence)

      The sites you mention: FT and Telegraph, it isn't surprising they charge as they have concentrated readerships with higher levels of disposable income, so why not go for a straightforward revenue model?

      I have no doubt that the popularity of BBC news is for reasons consistent with the popularity of their television and radio news: high quality and impartial in a way commercially sponsored news could not be (commercial news also remains very popular: the total cross-media circulation of ITN, Times, Sun, etc is massive).

    6. Re:But this exists already... by teh_dg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I read a while ago an article (IIRC from The Guardian, whom almost certainly finds BBC as it's biggest competetor online) complaining how BBC websites are paid by the domestic licence fee and yet a massive chunk of it's cost is from foreign readers.

      You cant just buy that kind of advertising of British culture, or influence of British values. Nobody ever complained about people in Africa learning English (proper English, I might add) from BBC Worldwide. Online: Americans, Chinese, Iraqis, perhaps a few North Koreans read from a perspective alien to their domestic news corporations. Anyway how many of these foreign connections are British overseas? Pretty much every Briton I know who travels reads BBC website every time they get 'net access in order to catch up with whats going on at home.

    7. Re:But this exists already... by STrinity · · Score: 1

      The BBC is a well-respected source of unbiased news.

      No, it's horribly biased by British culture. I remember during the DC sniper case, their American correspondent couldn't get it through her head that Americans weren't going to rise up and demand a national gun ban. She went into a gun-store like it was a weapons depot in some third-world country.

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    8. Re:But this exists already... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BS.

      The BBC was found guilty of being biast against the government in the Hutton report, simple as that. Why don't you wonder off and read it first?

      Secondly, the BBC isn't anywhere near as respected as it used to be. 10 years ago other broadcasters would look on in envy, as media classes throughout the world had complete modules on the running and business of the BBC, nowdays they're looked upon as a joke. Every single news report they have from Iraq is biased, bullshit. Seriously, really listen to the next report comming from Iraq, you'll see multiple digs towards the army, soldiers and the government.

      These links don't exist for nothing

    9. Re:But this exists already... by m4dd00d · · Score: 1

      Maybe this is for ppl who use M$ IE? LOL.

      --

      MGE Viper Case/DFI LanParty UT NF4/3 x WD Raptor 64GB
      AMD Athlon 64 FX-55/ATI Radeon X800 Pro/1GB XMS 3200
    10. Re:But this exists already... by EpsCylonB · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think that is bias. You seem to be suggesting that if it weren't for the BBC the british would love guns just as much as the americans.

      In actual fact here reporting was reflecting the fact that your average man on the street in Britain is opposed to gun public ownership.

    11. Re:But this exists already... by STrinity · · Score: 1

      I don't think that is bias. You seem to be suggesting that if it weren't for the BBC the british would love guns just as much as the americans.

      I said no such thing. "Bias" doesn't imply a deliberate attempt to shape public opinion. An unbiased news source is one that doesn't slant coverage in any direction, even if it conforms to public opinion.

      In actual fact here reporting was reflecting the fact that your average man on the street in Britain is opposed to gun public ownership.

      First off, I was watching the BBC World News intended for a global audience. And who cares what the average Briton thinks? The news is about facts, and facts don't change because 51% of the population disagrees with them. If the reporter wanted to discuss how Americans view guns, fine, but insinuating her own "guns, ooky" attitude into the piece was bias, plain and simple.

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    12. Re:But this exists already... by EpsCylonB · · Score: 1


      I said no such thing. "Bias" doesn't imply a deliberate attempt to shape public opinion. An unbiased news source is one that doesn't slant coverage in any direction, even if it conforms to public opinion.


      Oh I see, a bit like FOX news ?.

    13. Re:But this exists already... by NoMercy · · Score: 1

      BBC does have some bias, it's a bit anti-goverment, which is jsut right for a goverment sponsored broadcaster, even if it doesn't lead to one big happy familly :)

    14. Re:But this exists already... by STrinity · · Score: 1

      Yes, because I see the Beeb as biased, I must automatically be a Fox-drone wing-nut. Absolutely right.

      Oh, no, wait, it isn't.

      Sorry to disappoint you, but real people aren't stereotypes, and you can't defeat them with straw-men. I think Fox is every bit as biased as the BBC, Guardian, NY Times, or Pravda. Try again.

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    15. Re:But this exists already... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it is the British Broadcasting Company so it's perhaps not unreasonable for its coverage to reflect what is of interest to the "average Briton".

      Someone commented that the Hutton Report showed that the BBC was biased. Sorry, but the Hutton Report is just a joke to most of us in the UK. Subsequent events have shown just how much truth there was in the assertion that the Government "sexed up" the dossier on WMD.

      Having seen American News broadcasts I'll rely on the BBC every time.

    16. Re:But this exists already... by henrywood · · Score: 1

      May seem strange but I guess the British Broadcasting Corporation cares what "the average Briton thinks"!

      --
      Something is happening here but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr Jones.
    17. Re:But this exists already... by henrywood · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At the risk of taking this further OT - Hutton Report! That's just a joke to most of us in the UK. Subsequent events have quite clearly shown how much truth there was in the assertion that our government "sexed-up" a dossier on WMD. I'd stand by my argument that the BBC is unbiased. Both the major political parties here complain about BBC bias, a pretty good indicator that it's doing a good job.

      --
      Something is happening here but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr Jones.
    18. Re:But this exists already... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nearly exterminate? There are still more than a few news organisations with online presences:


      the MAIN problem with most of the news providers, reuters, yahoo news, cnn; and repositories like moreover; is that they RESTRICT usage of feeds to non-commercial, personal use only. you cannot use the feeds for a organization or business web site, regardless of size.

      afaik, bbc does not restrict the use of their feeds to only personal, non-commercial use. i see their feeds included in a lot of different programs and scripts, and didn't see any mention of restrictions on their web site.

      now, i could see an outfit like reuters charging yahoo for access to it's feeds, but then, yahoo displays the entire story, not just a headline and link.

      i believe that these feeds SHOULD be freely available for anyone to use in any way, provided that proper credit and link to the source story are intact. after all, these feeds are like free advertising, pushing traffic to the source for nothing.

      the only exception would be perhaps, if the third-party site or software was not FREE to use.

      example: moreover charges for commercial feeds, their sources should be allowed to charge moreover for the use of their feeds; a small local isp that displays reuters feed (headlines and links, perhaps with the provided excerpt; bot not full articles) on their home page and that content is freely viewable and properly credited should NOT be charged by reuters for the use of the feed.

      it would be no different than someone manually coding in the top 5 stories' headlines from reuters and linking to them on their own site. the only difference is, it's automated instead of taking a few minutes every day to do.

    19. Re:But this exists already... by STrinity · · Score: 1

      May seem strange but I guess the British Broadcasting Corporation cares what "the average Briton thinks"!

      All fine and good, but irrelevant to the question of bias. If the average Briton thinks McDonalds is an evil corporation, that doesn't mean the BBC is unbiased if it portrays Micky-Ds as an evil corporation in its coverage.

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    20. Re:But this exists already... by arivanov · · Score: 1

      Out of these:

      Reuters does not put all of its stuff on the web. It is a mixed subscription + free model.

      Sun is not a newspaper. It is a form of porn disguised as news. It does not serve the same audience.

      The Mirror is not a newspaper. It is a form of prudish porn disguised as news. It also does not server audience that plans to read news.

      Times is planning to go to a subscription model. In fact, I think they are trialing a system for charging non-UK subscribers.

      This in fact leaves only the Guardian and the Scotsman who are doing guess what? Campaigning for the extermination of news.bbc.co.uk as unfair competition.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    21. Re:But this exists already... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reuters does not put all of its stuff on the web. It is a mixed subscription + free model.

      Yeah. A Reuters terminal costs $12000/year, about the same as a Bloomberg terminal. We're not talking professional services her, its retail focus.

    22. Re:But this exists already... by teh_dg · · Score: 1
      No, it's horribly biased by British culture. I remember during the DC sniper case, their American correspondent couldn't get it through her head that Americans weren't going to rise up and demand a national gun ban. She went into a gun-store like it was a weapons depot in some third-world country.

      Is this evidence of a culture-biased BBC, or a culture-biased YOU not being able to get it through your head that increasing restrictions on firearms could be seen as a natural and logical result of such an occurance? An event like that in Britain would certainly have led to such calls for banning guns (google Dunblane for example), so it is an interesting aspect worth reporting on when another culture does no such thing.

      Cultural bias comes from every direction there's a culture at. Many countries find American gun ownership laws bizarre in the extreme, and judging by the popularity of Michael Moore, so do quite a few Americans (note I said the popularity of Moore, wether he's right or wrong is irrespective of the point).

  2. Just imagine by katana · · Score: 5, Funny

    If they do this for press releases, Slashdot won't even need editors anymore!

    1. Re:Just imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Slashdot has editors?! All this new information, oh the headache!

    2. Re:Just imagine by Taladar · · Score: 1

      You don't notice them when reading the "News for Nerds" because they are busy editing the "Stuff that matters".

  3. already there by pangoo · · Score: 2, Informative
    1. Re:already there by shreevatsa · · Score: 1

      Hehe, you my friend, made the same mistake I did. Sure the RSS is already there, but right now, it's only for personal use. Starting May, they plan to let other websites take a dip of their news.

  4. Theres only one reasonable explanation.. by ShaniaTwain · · Score: 2, Funny

    But why would they want to do that? Considering AFP's suit against Google and all, it seems rather strange they would allow other websites to have BBC's news on their pages.

    ..Its a trap.

    sure they say its ok now, but just when you feel safe publishing their stories that claim will have mysteriously dissapeared from their site..

    thats when the lawsuits start.

    1. Re:Theres only one reasonable explanation.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful


      Nah, I'm sure it won't be the whole stories, just all the headlines and some snippets so you can send other people to their site from yours. Half-assed viral marketing.

    2. Re:Theres only one reasonable explanation.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you forgot to que admirable akbar

  5. I don't get it by dangitman · · Score: 2, Interesting
    "The BBC News Online's Editor states that beginning in the middle of May, the BBC will be 'completely liberating the availability of its content' using its Really Simple Syndication (RSS) tool. 'So in May we'll be happy for outside websites to dip in and take our headlines'"

    I don't really understand what RSS has to do with this. Why would adding an additional protocol, suddenly make them more amenable to others "dipping" into their headlines? After all, the HTML technology of the web allows others to use their headlines. So, does this statement mean they weren't happy about others using their headlines before?

    What is this magical property of RSS that makes the BBC happier about having their headlines used elsewhere?

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
    1. Re:I don't get it by cranos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Its a hell of a lot easier to parse and put into your news system if its in XML than HTML. HTML makes it look pretty, XML/RSS makes it look machine readable.

    2. Re:I don't get it by Linker3000 · · Score: 1

      If you run an Intranet like I do then RSS makes it simple to provide the users with a summary of news headlines or relevant information on a single page without the users having to visit each individual site - our Intranet's news page pools headlines on specific topics from 5 sites into one summary - very handy and it saves you having to visit multiple sites.

      Incidentally, the BBC has had RSS feeds for at least a year so why this is new news I do not know.

      --
      AT&ROFLMAO
    3. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The RSS isn't news - as others have said, the BBC have had RSS feeds for a long time. The news is that they're now happy for others to use the stories on their own websites, for whatever reason they want, which is a change to their current "Personal use only" policy.

    4. Re:I don't get it by dangitman · · Score: 1
      Its a hell of a lot easier to parse and put into your news system if its in XML than HTML. HTML makes it look pretty, XML/RSS makes it look machine readable.

      Well, yes, but what does that have to do with the BBC's being "happy" about it? What difference is it to them, if someone takes their headline via RSS instead of HTML?

      Why would they be happier have their headlines copied over RSS, but not HTML? Why weren't they happy with people copying their headlines from HTML?

      My question had nothing to do with how easy it is for developers - but why this would change their attitude towards headline usage by third parties.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  6. I wonder... by ral315 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why would they wait until AFTER the U.K. elections? It seems like it would be more advantageous to open it up now, before the elections.

    1. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      "Why would they wait until AFTER the U.K. elections?"

      Because of precisely that. The election part of the BBC's site takes up a considerable amount of resources - ditto Wimbledon and other national events. RSS is the next project in the list and rolling it out mid-election is stretching a little too much.

  7. holy shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    must be a *really* slow news day... In other news, almost every other website on the planet provides RSS feeds.

  8. the BBC by sg310l · · Score: 5, Informative

    The BBC is a public information service and doesnt rely on advert to get money but every english perosn paying for the privilage of having a TV or radio, this may be an alien concept to many americans but this is why the BBC can give other sites access to their RSS feed, because they dont cling to users visiting their site to keep their heads above water and resorting to obnoxious flash adverts and popups

    1. Re:the BBC by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 0

      Yes, they don't rely on money for adverts because if you own a television in Great Britain, you are required to purchase and annually renew a "TV License" that will set you back £126 each year. Click here for more information. Yep, I'm glad I don't live in that country with their sky-high taxes on everything and $8 per gallon gasoline, and the dreaded "value-added tax"! I know it sounds fecitious, but I don't think you get what you pay for when you pay those taxes!

      --
      Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
    2. Re:the BBC by salvorHardin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I willingly pay that sum every year, because I think it's worth it. The quality of programming found on BBC, is generally far higher than what the competition can come up with. And there's the lack of adverts. I like that. I've seen TV in the US, where it seems every 5 minutes, there's yet another ad break. The commercial stations over here leave it about 15 minutes between breaks (excepting sporting events, where it'd be 45 minutes) - and they have to, because they can't push further than what's tolerable in the eyes of the public, in comparison to the competition.

    3. Re:the BBC by silent77 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, I can't wait for the BBC to adopt the American and Australia advertising methods. I've frequently seen a show end, ad breaks come on, return to display the closing titles, and follow with, you guessed it another add break! Yep, as for the taxes, I'll stick with the free education system, free school meals, free health system. I still can't believe people have to pay for an ambulance... is that to subsidise the fuel expenses?!

    4. Re:the BBC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least in America, we have a choice. As a brit, if you do not like BBC, its alleged bias, programming, etc, then you are shit out of luck. If you subscribe to cable or SATtv, you get channels like C-SPAN, which have better and more balanced coverage than BBC can ever claim to. You also have your own media outlets to choose from.

      BBC does some things right, but when it comes down to it, I'll take a few ads with the ability to select from a highly diverse set of choices.

    5. Re:the BBC by Xrikcus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ah, you'll reach $8 per gallon soon enough, 4 or 5 years should do it... maybe sooner

      Many people like a slightly more socialist approach to taxation. Personally I think taxes here in the UK could happily rise a few percent.

    6. Re:the BBC by Xrikcus · · Score: 1

      On the other hand I wouldn't want the ads. The question really is would the majority of the British population agree with me... and that I'm not so sure of these days (admittedly the snob in me hates this because I know the reason most people don't worry about the BBC is that their idea of news is being told when David Beckham breaks his toenail).

    7. Re:the BBC by aaron.rowe · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Every english perosn paying for the privalage of having a TV or radio,"

      Points of correction. Welsh and Scottish people also pay a TV license in the UK. I'm pretty sure they do in Northern Ireland too.

      It's also only one license per household not each person watching TV. I think Pensioners get a free license now and you don't need one to listen to radio.

      It does pay for the BBC and it's a hell of a lot cheaper than cable. Theres more to watch too.

    8. Re:the BBC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is that to subsidise the fuel expenses?!

      no, they invaded iraq for that.

      prbelm is as aresult fuel has gone up in usa and englad where its is expensive already!.
      as an iraqi it disappoints me that no one gets anything out of this.

    9. Re:the BBC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's a tax, not a license, and you don't get to decide what taxes you pay.

    10. Re:the BBC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we have 2 cable companies, analogue tv , digital freeview tv , sky digital satellite

      choice isnt a problem, the £380 per year for sky tv (with adverts) doesnt seem to be for a lot of people either

    11. Re:the BBC by mugstar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      British. The word you're looking for is British, not English.

    12. Re:the BBC by PatrickThomson · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      What happens if you don't like BBC and would prefer to watch a sattelite broadcast?

      Noone ever has...

      --
      I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
    13. Re:the BBC by 9-bits.tk · · Score: 0, Troll

      No, you mug. ENGLISH. It's broadcasted and produced in ENGLAND. Get it?

    14. Re:the BBC by DJCF · · Score: 1

      It does pay for the BBC and it's a hell of a lot cheaper than cable. Theres more to watch too.

      And it's a helluvalot better quality programming. One of the few good things about living in this island really...

    15. Re:the BBC by zebs · · Score: 1

      Well done!!! You just offended the Licence payers who live in Scotland, Wales and Northen Ireland.

    16. Re:the BBC by Tandoori+Haggis · · Score: 2, Informative

      FYI, the BBC have regional production offices all over the UK, not just in England. Not all broadcasts are in English either, e.g., Welsh and Gailic

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/alba/

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/cymru/

      --
      My hyperlinks aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
    17. Re:the BBC by aslate · · Score: 1

      Yea, because it's not like you pay "Sales Tax" on goods, and have to add it on when you get to the checkout is it? Oh wait...

    18. Re:the BBC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In soviet England... BBC not only report news but creates it

    19. Re:the BBC by plumby · · Score: 1

      No. It's the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation, broadcast and produced from all parts of Britain (of which England is only a part). Get it?

    20. Re:the BBC by Pentagram · · Score: 1

      My main problem with the TV poll tax^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H licence is that a billionaire with a huge household, 18 children and 145 plasma screen tellies pays the same as an impoverished student on a single-occupancy contract with a black and white portable.

      I'd like to see the BBC paid for out of the general taxation system. It would be fairer, and they could save money on the ludicrous enforcement system.

    21. Re:the BBC by gclef · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I know this is offtopic, but I'd like to make a request of the Slashdot coders:

      Can we add a moderation type? Specifically, I'd like to add "Wrong (-1)" for posts that are simply factually incorrect. The parent post, for example, I would love to mod "Wrong". It doesn't rise to the level of flamebait, it's not redundant, it's not overrated...it's wrong.

    22. Re:the BBC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      they dont charge for an ambulance if its an emergency (or i didnt when i called one)

      charge people who dont need one and the caller might think twice next time before wasting ambulance crews valuable time on a cut finger or sprained wrist

    23. Re:the BBC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they dont charge for an ambulance if its an emergency

      I don't know where you live, but most places I know in the US definitely do charge. Your insurance may cover it, but they do send a nice hefty bill..

    24. Re:the BBC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sorry iam in the UK, i forgot USA is using the pay-up-or-die method of lifesaving still, civilised country indeed

    25. Re:the BBC by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see the BBC paid for out of the general taxation system. It would be fairer

      Would it? I'd imagine those few Brits who don't own a TV (and thus don't pay for a license) would disagree...

    26. Re:the BBC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'll be seein ya at Gitmo sucka!

      Hope you like fucking pigs while tied on a leash!

    27. Re:the BBC by Pentagram · · Score: 1

      I don't own a telly myself but I still use the BBC website, radio etc. -- arguably it's even less fair that I should be able to do so for free.

    28. Re:the BBC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^H stands for a backspace. It's like striking something out, sort of.

    29. Re:the BBC by darrylxxx · · Score: 1
      --
      -- dc
    30. Re:the BBC by Tandoori+Haggis · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I meant to include a link to BBC in N. Ireland along with Wales and Scotland, to highlight non-English programs from countries in the UK other than England:

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/irish/

      --
      My hyperlinks aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
    31. Re:the BBC by Xrikcus · · Score: 1

      In their defence sales tax on goods is not as high as it is in europe.

      Although if you look at income taxes, ignore national insurance (ie assume an American has to pay health insurance), and count in state income taxes... the difference in taxation excluding VAT is not massive

      I'm not sure how sales tax works over there though, whether everyone has to pay it up the chain or whether it's just (like here) at tax on the added value of the goods above production costs (which just happens to be paid by the purchaser).

    32. Re:the BBC by aslate · · Score: 1

      VAT in the UK is 17.5% on all goods, excluding a few tax exempt neccessities (Bread, Flour, Children's Clothing, etc).

      It's always applied at the end when the product is on sale, however all goods must be priced including VAT (So the price you see is the price you pay).

    33. Re:the BBC by Xrikcus · · Score: 1

      I know how UK VAT works. My question about US sales taxes is one of whether it is paid at each stage. By that I mean that I go into a shop and pay a few percent tax on my purchase... does the manufacturer of that have to pay a few percentage of the cost of the materials he uses to make said product (in the UK the manufacturer will pay, but will then reclaim that tax later so in effect not paying).

  9. I for one... by suitepotato · · Score: 1

    ...welcome our new... no... who cares. Too bloody apathetic at this hour... No, can't even manage a Python reference either.

    Still faster to listen to fellow techs from Britain online and a lot more colourful too. This can go in the "Yes, but can they make it into efficient text for my cell browser?" Department.

    :q

    --
    If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
  10. I'd rather have "Fair and Balanced" news... by bergeron76 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'll stick with my "Fair and Balanced" Fox News broadcasts/websites. Afterall, those evil Europeans are nothing but future terrorists and Christ killers!

    Who do they think they are syndicating content without permission from US Copyright courts? [sic]

    --
    Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
    1. Re:I'd rather have "Fair and Balanced" news... by Pros_n_Cons · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      for a site that lives and dies by "competition is great" you'd think two voices would be welcomed in politics. I watch Fox and BBC, both are full of crap but I'm not so far gone I think Bush is a Nazi, or A Hero. The truth is in the middle somewhere and if you only listen to one side of the argument.. ah hell with it, i bet most of you are the guy that laughs at commercials and repeats things said in advertisements.

      --

      -- "of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
    2. Re:I'd rather have "Fair and Balanced" news... by planetoid · · Score: 0

      Aah hahaha! Yo quiero Taco Bell!! Where's the beef? LOLOLOL.

      --
      Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
    3. Re:I'd rather have "Fair and Balanced" news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bergeron76 avoids the 'fox news propaganda' but believes the 'internet propaganda' and calls fox news evil. im guessing he's never watched a fucking hour of it. yet he's so clever and funny..

      ho ho ho ho..

      he gets his news from the daily show!

    4. Re:I'd rather have "Fair and Balanced" news... by Felinoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      With blatently bies news outlets spining to the left hard when Fox trys to give "fair and ballenced" they end up bodyslamming into the right.

      There is no reasonable guide for what is "fair". The extreams (both left and right) have been bashing away at the means of determining if something has gone off ballence.

      At best Fox provides a diffrent spin from the rest of the news media.

      I've watched the BBC news feeds and while there is spin it's not that bad.

      Between BBC, CNN and Fox you'll have enough peaces to figure out what is spin and what is fact.
      I don't beleave it's remotely reasonable to expect any news agentcy to be entirely free of bies so it's up to the viewers to be fair and balenced due to there being no such animal in the press.

      --
      I don't actually exist.
    5. Re:I'd rather have "Fair and Balanced" news... by alshehab · · Score: 1

      "Fair and Balanced" from a news prospective or public interest ?

    6. Re:I'd rather have "Fair and Balanced" news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to be taken seriously, it would help if you learned how to spell properly. Not everybody has the patience to read your posts out loud to figure out what you're trying to say, besides, if you don't even know how to use language properly, then how do we know that you know how to use the rest of your brain properly, or at all?

    7. Re:I'd rather have "Fair and Balanced" news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, I see you are one of the geniuses who think that when there is a disagreement, both sides are partly right. If you think Bush isn't as bad as the Nazis, I shudder to think what dopes like you would have thought in the 1930s.

  11. Ah, yes, RSS... by Saeger · · Score: 0, Troll

    That nebulous polling 'technology' that almost nobody outside of the 'blogosphere' cares much about...

    --
    Power to the Peaceful
  12. On the same day as H2G2 is released in the US? by PsychicX · · Score: 1

    I think somebody just found their towel...

  13. Great formats and programs, but balance problems by Nice2Cats · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The BBC has some of the best shows around, especially when it comes to natural history, science, and whatnot -- probably the best in th world in fact. And the range of stuff they offer online is unbelievable. Every Thursday, they post their In Our Time program(me) online as a MP3 file. Listen to them all, if you can.

    However, all is not well with the news content. The BBC is famous for switching to "propaganda mode" whenever British interests are involved, as good as they are with things that are far away. Also, there are been repeated charges of a systematic anti-Israeli bias in their coverage.

    They do great work, but for all the gushing, do remember they have their share of problems.

  14. Maybe someone at the Beeb has seen the screensaver by michaeldot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    installed by Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger, and is now all fired up about RSS.

    The screensaver shows a swirling mist of RSS headlines from a selected feed, and every few seconds zooms in on one, lets you read it, then twists it away into vapor.

    Hard to describe, but there's a movie here which shows it in action.

    Pure eye candy of course, but majorly cool!

  15. Contradictory names? by bullitB · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Extensive Really Simple Syndication?" So it's both extensive (Large in extent, range, or amount) and simple (composed of only one element). Hmm.

    Kinda like the MPEG-4 "Advanced Simple Profile," maybe.

    1. Re:Contradictory names? by shish · · Score: 1

      Maybe they'll have one really big rss feed...

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    2. Re:Contradictory names? by brpr · · Score: 1

      Those two properties aren't contradictory, dumbass.

      --
      Freedom is not increased by mere diminuation of government. Anarchy is freedom for the strong and slavery for the weak.
  16. Re:hey why not by planetoid · · Score: 0, Informative

    Because you aren't using Adblock?

    --
    Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
  17. Friends don't let friends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    drink and post on Slashdot

  18. And it's doing a good job. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The BBC is an out of date tax on broadcast media that it morally wrong and uncompetitive. The BBC itself is an organization riddled with beaurocracy, massive egos, huge salaries, unhealthy festering cliques and class A drug habits paid for off the back of the British people.

    Yes, it's all those things, and yet it does a better job than all your free market organizations riddled with their bureaucracy, massive egos, huge salaries, unhealthy festering cliques and class A drug habits paid for off the back of their subscribers.

    You simply don't like the fact that our TV crap is better quality than your TV crap, doesn't irritate the hell out of people with adverts, and is free to RSS to the world. Grow up, and enjoy the competition resulting from a different market model. Oh and by the way, our tax is a hell of a lot less than you guys pay for TV.

    1. Re:And it's doing a good job. by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At least with commercial TV there is CHOICE. You pay for what you WANT to see.

      Is that why I can't get *any* satellite or cable subscription with just the channels I want, and none of the shitty shopping channels, evangelical Christian channels and other crap I'm not interested in?

      Channel 4 do many programmes that are at least as good as the BBC if not better.

      And ITV and Sky show many, many programs that utterly without merit (IMHO, of course). We could throw examples like that at each other all night, but it's essentially meaningless.

    2. Re:And it's doing a good job. by MyGirlFriendsBroken · · Score: 1

      Channel 4 do many programmes that are at least as good as the BBC if not better.

      Bear in mind though that Channel 4 is a goverment organisation of sorts. It is owned 100% by the UK government but operates independently. This is important as it can take more risks as the agreement it has protects its revenue to a point becuase if it falls below a certain level then the taxpayer will step in a make up the difference. This has though never occured in the 20 on year history of the channel.

      It also means that it has a remit as well, different to that of the BBC and thus it would not be possible for it to go off and produce 24 hours a day of rubbish, like commercial channels can

      --
      If you read a speed reading book, does it take you less time to read the second half?
    3. Re:And it's doing a good job. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      "It also means that it has a remit as well, different to that of the BBC and thus it would not be possible for it to go off and produce 24 hours a day of rubbish, like commercial channels can"

      Clearly you've never seen Channel 4's Big Brother then? 24/7 coverage is on E4.
    4. Re:And it's doing a good job. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly you've never seen Channel 4's Big Brother then? 24/7 coverage is on E4.

      You exaggerate. It was only 17 hours a day of BB on E4.

      That alone makes me want to drop £30 a month into Mr. Murdoch's coffers to pick up that channel....

    5. Re:And it's doing a good job. by Albanach · · Score: 1
      Channel 4 do many programmes that are at least as good as the BBC if not better.

      Interesting example. A commercial model but another state broadcaster. Seems whatever way you look at it, companies run by the state produce better television.

    6. Re:And it's doing a good job. by zbeeble · · Score: 1
      You exaggerate. It was only 17 hours a day of BB on E4.

      You obviously don't have digital tv, if you had pressed the red button you could of watched it for 24 hours a day.

  19. Too bad you can't opt out of BBC News by AntonVoyl · · Score: 0, Troll
    I love BBC's entertainment fare, but I just can't stomach its left-of-New Labour newscasts. The Beeb has serious issues with systemic bias and it seems unfair that the entire populace is forced to pay for the relentless promotion of an ideology that most Britons don't subscribe to. Were I a Conservative or a euroskeptic of some stripe, I'd certainly be tired of being taxed in order to hear incessantly about how great Charles Kennedy and the EU are.


    Couldn't there be a Third Way (tm) whereby one could opt out of BBC News but keep the rest of the programming? Or maybe they could create separate news broadcasts for each of the UK's major political blocs?

    --

    sig semper tyrannis!
    1. Re:Too bad you can't opt out of BBC News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either untune it or just dont pay the licence tax and dont keep a tv, life does not revolve around the TV, use the internet for stuff instead. As long as you have no radio tuners capable of TV broadcast reception then you can not pay the tax.

      Or just do what I do, dont pay it anyway :D

    2. Re:Too bad you can't opt out of BBC News by TheoGB · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually I'd disagree that the BBC News is biased. The problem is that all the other news services in this country are obsessively shallow and/or right-wing biased. Just watching Sky News for a bit brings home to you how disgusting they are. I remember the rail crash near Paddington in '99. The hotel only had Sky on and they kept showing footage of the crash interspersed with comments about how this footage was exclusive and brought to them by a loyal Sky News watcher.

      Essentially the BBC's job is to question the government and the opposition. They are a about as un-biased as you will get but the rest of the media makes them seem biased because they follow the route of hounding after 'celebrities' and the money big business provides. Or else they pander (like the Daily Mail) to small-minded thoughts that cease to have any bearing 3 miles outside someone's home: The "lock up the criminal scum (poor/black/non-christian people) but don't you dare build any prisons near MY house" mentality.

    3. Re:Too bad you can't opt out of BBC News by FhnuZoag · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Personally, I'd point to the recent election broadcasts as evidence that the BBC aren't especially biased. If they have any point of view, it is a cynical point of view regarding *all* politicians. Which, in a democracy, is only healthy.

      Relative to the US media, they are left wing. But the US broadcast media is very right wing, in any case.

    4. Re:Too bad you can't opt out of BBC News by Big+Mark · · Score: 1

      You can also watch Fox News on Sky somewhere (channel 524-ish). If that's "Fair and Balanced" then I'm a banana.

      Sky News may be from the gutter but at least they don't get done for lying, unlike Fox News.

    5. Re:Too bad you can't opt out of BBC News by dizzyduck · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What about Channel 4 News? They go into much deeper into issues of the day than any other newcast, and press guests when they don't answer the question asked (i.e. doing a Blair).

      As for papers, have you ever read the Independent? The story on the front page is actually a story. They don't publish stories about David Beckham's latest haircut, and the don't publish idle celebrity gossip (in fact, no mention was made of the Blunkett affair until it transpired that he may have used his powers inappropriately). Admittedly, sometimes they can be a bit heavy with the anti-Bush sentiment, but I think they are the most impartial of the dailies.

      --
      Allergy advice: Contains eggs.
    6. Re:Too bad you can't opt out of BBC News by FhnuZoag · · Score: 1

      Yeah. In my opinion, the news media in the UK covers a fair spectrum. TV news breaks down into: (Warning, ruthless stereotyping ahead)

      Left: Channel 4
      Centre: BBC
      Right: Sky News, ITV news(?)

      The broadsheet newspapers:

      Right: Daily Telegraph
      Centre-right: Times, Financial Times
      Centre-left: Guardian
      Left: Independent

      The tabloid newspapers:

      Erratic whackjobs: Sun
      Far right: Daily Mail
      Left: Daily Mirror
      Don't care so long as we get big breasts: Daily Star

    7. Re:Too bad you can't opt out of BBC News by teh_dg · · Score: 1

      Try Newsnight or Question Time, both essentially news programmes. Not incedentally, it's Newsnight's Paxman who is famous for interrogating guests, particularily repeating a question to Michael Howard 14 times because he wasnt satisfied that he got a proper answer (I think there's a video but I dont have Realplayer). Being interviewed by Paxman is seen like some kind of hazing ritual by policicians. Question Time has the public giving the policicians a hammering - especially the recent election special one.

      FWIW I watch both BBC and Ch4 news, and would agree with you that Ch4 is more analytical, but taken in the context of news coverage rather than just newscasts and I think BBC actually takes it, though both are commendable.

    8. Re:Too bad you can't opt out of BBC News by TheoGB · · Score: 1

      Yes, they work on the priciple of saying 'Fair and Balanced' so that people believe it. To draw a nerdy parallel (this is /. after all!) my SAP program claims to be "SAP Easy Access". I don't think I've ever used a more complicated software package. Utter crap! :-D

    9. Re:Too bad you can't opt out of BBC News by The+Dark+P · · Score: 1

      Seeing as New Labour is now a centre right party, wouldn't that make its news broadcasts centrist?

    10. Re:Too bad you can't opt out of BBC News by The+Dark+P · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but the Independent used to be an independent news source, but in recent months it's really gone downhill. I would describe myself as centre left, but a number of recent front page stories have been more pieces of opinion than news.

    11. Re:Too bad you can't opt out of BBC News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you like to back up your claim that US news is right leaning? or you like to propagate the myth, because it proves your point, by "Everyone knows" cliche?

      In Economist they did a survey a while ago about political affiliation of US journalist and I recall that less then 30% of reporters consider themselves Conservative. I guess in Slashdot you bump someone's post not on merit but on peer bias.

    12. Re:Too bad you can't opt out of BBC News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only true right wing media in the US is talk radio. All the TV networks are left wing. Granted the Beeb may be to the left of them, but only barely.

      The only exception is Fox News which is pretty solidly in the center.

    13. Re:Too bad you can't opt out of BBC News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paxman only asked those questions 14 times because he was told that he had to stall things because the next guest wasn't ready (or a techincal thing, I cannot remember). he admitted this a few years ago.

    14. Re:Too bad you can't opt out of BBC News by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      In Economist they did a survey a while ago about political affiliation of US journalist and I recall that less then 30% of reporters consider themselves Conservative.

      Which means... absolutely nothing. See, there's these people called "editors" and "programmers", and it's *their* responsibility to decide what does and does not get reported. Moreover, they're controlled by people even further up the food chain. Thus, the political affiliation of a particular reporter has essentially nothing to do with the general political bias of the media.

    15. Re:Too bad you can't opt out of BBC News by w9ofa · · Score: 1

      Yes, and I'm sure that the editors and programmers come from vastly different sources other than working originally as reporters. Thus, the editors and programmers are shiny examples of non-bias.

      In fact, I'm going my own media company that hires regular reporters and uses only ex-sushi chefs to run the production room. The wisdom of someone who cuts fish all day is sometimes flooring!

    16. Re:Too bad you can't opt out of BBC News by FhnuZoag · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fox news also considers itself to be fair and balanced. Does that mean it is actually fair and balanced? Self-recognition means nothing.

      US news is right leaning because (a) there is no left wing analogue to Fox news, (b) government has far greater degrees of control (implicit and explicit) on what reports can say. It is further right leaning, because outspoken political criticism is taboo - it simply does exist in the mainstream media.

      Of course, we need major qualifiers on this. Firstly, we need to work out how this lot translates from US politics to the international scene. The US 'centre' generally maps not to the international centre but to the centre right - many of Kerry's policies would have been unacceptable to the European left. The attack that the US media is right-leaning extends beyond the media itself to the way the US political scale is calibrated. Secondly, we may have to concede that the media's right-lean may not be a right lean, but a pro-government lean - a basic lack of the skepticism used by their non-american counterparts on the left, and on the right.

  20. Re:Great formats and programs, but balance problem by planetoid · · Score: 0

    BBC news is also a bit surreal, in my experience; at least its World News portion, when you will on certain occasions hear -- I am not making this up -- music by IDM/electronic artists such as Boards Of Canada and Aphex Twin playing in the background to certain prominent news stories, for no apparent reason. Particularly some of the more sinister-sounding tracks from SAW2 playing whenever they show footage of the Palestinian territories whenever Israel and Palestine get into their usual childish scuffles.

    I can't say I can imagine the BBC's motive in doing this, acting as a sort of subliminal-MTV while presenting news stories, but the British certainly aren't stupid; there's a utilitarian purpose behind it somewhere. I can't say I've ever heard music other than that generic, cliche "deet deet dee-deet deet" inter-commercial news music playing on American news shows.

    --
    Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
  21. balance problem ? by Sad+Loser · · Score: 3, Insightful


    Ummm.

    Maybe I'm missing something, but the 'honestreporting.com' site does seem to have a single aim of increasing the amount of PR favouring Jewish interests.

    If you are after balance, it strikes me as odd that you would refer /. readers to a site which explicitly unilateral.

    I am not a particular fan of the BBC, and its 'youth' shows are shockingly bad, especially radio 1, which is for tards. But its news is pretty good, in an up-itself British sort of way.

    --
    Humorous signatures are over-rated.
    1. Re:balance problem ? by kryptkpr · · Score: 1

      especially radio 1, which is for tards

      The Essential Mix is an awesome show. I've got mixes from some of the world's best DJs they did for TEM on Radio 1 and they're phenomenal.

      "If the bass is too deep, you are to weak.
      If the music is too loud, you are too old!"

      --
      DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
  22. Great job !! by Riiz · · Score: 1

    Great job !! we appreciate it.

    --
    Riiz
  23. Re:Great formats and programs, but balance problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yes, but one can say the same about American media being too pro-Israeli. Notice when you watch American TV, there is little coverage of actions taken by the Israeli army in the occupied territories.

    Example from your link:

    "This is a highly sensitive issue," the narrator says, but "the majority of neo-conservatives have been and remain Jewish...are strongly pro-Zionist and want to topple regimes in the Middle East to help Israel..." Says bbcwatch, "It is hard to find clear blue water between these theories and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

    Umm, why else did the Iraq war take place?

    Suicide Killers: Everyman (4/3/02) : The psychology and ideology of the suicide bomber worldwide. "One is made to feel sorry for and sympathetic with the Palestinian suicide bomber who says he 'loved life and wanted to be a doctor. Occupation has murdered my dreams.'"

    I don't care for suicide bombers, but when your family is killed and their house is bulldozed by Israeli tanks, you do feel bad for them.

    Looks at the build-up of Israel's nuclear weapons program. The documentary begins by asking the ominous questions "Which country in the Middle East has undeclared nuclear weapons?" "Which country in the Middle East has undeclared biological and chemical capabilities?" and "Which country in the Middle East has no outside inspections?"

    This is true though. Israel has a nucleur weapons program in a very heated region, yet other countries around dare to build one because of US pressure. How is this fair?

    The hidden world of Palestinian terrorists (referred to throughout as 'militias' and 'martyrs'). "Terrorist bombings of Israeli civilians are painted as an entirely legitimate activity, almost heroic."

    And the Israeli army do not do the same to Palestinans (killing young children armed with stones)?

    Those arguments presented in the article of the link you posted are very naive....

  24. Re:Great formats and programs, but balance problem by WolfDeusEx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think thats probably due to the israeli's killing their reporters and carmera men. Its kind of a hard thing to get over experically when its all caught on film. Maybe another reason for it is there is a general anti-Israeli sentiment in british society. Note this is not the same an anti-semitism but related to the israeli-Palestinian conflict, which many find abhorrent.

    Considering the amount of disagreements the BBC has had with the goverment of the day durin its time maybe it should be called an Anti-Propaganda Mode. :)

    The BBC while not perfect is generally held to alot higher standard then other broadcasters, and I think that is something to be proud of.

    --
    Shoot me
  25. Re:Great formats and programs, but balance problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It is interesting to note that the website that is given to highlight the anti-israeli bias (http://www.honestreporting.com/) in the BBCs coverage is affiliated to http://www.israelpetition.com/, which has the following quote at the top of their webpage

    "For Zion's sake I will not be silent,
    and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest."
    Isaiah 62:1

    While individual programmes broadcasted by the BBC may contain some bias, I think it is fair to assume that honestreporting.com has an even larger bias, given its affiliations!

  26. Re:Great formats and programs, but balance problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lol. Describing a culture of bias and as your 'evidence' you provide a link to honestreporting.

    Honestreporting is an unvarnished propaganda vehicle for right wing Israelis. Its a joke and has has been discredited numerous times.

    Try here instead.

  27. Re:Great formats and programs, but balance problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Israel doesn't seem to play play nice either, though...

  28. Is that why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The licence fee is likely to turn into a tax on computers at some point? If you have a broadband connection and don't watch TV, they'll be after you. Because, you see, you COULD be using it to watch stuff on the BBC website...

    I don't mind paying a licence fee to watch TV, but I draw the line at a yearly tax on owning a computer. Different market model? Yeah, if you think extending monopolies shamelessly is good, this is a great market model.

    1. Re:Is that why... by jimicus · · Score: 1

      I've heard that one and I'm honestly at a push to see how they can get away with it.

      If it becomes a tax on computers - fine. I'll get a ZX spectrum.

      If it becomes a tax on Internet-capable computers - fine, I'll plug an ISA ethernet card into a 386, put Linux on it and put it on the Internet. "Try watching streaming video on that, your honour."

      Seems to me that we have technology giving us infinitely more flexibility in how we do things and media companies who aren't prepared for this and so are trying to get their income through taxing the technology to death. True whether it's the RIAA, MPAA, BBC, RAC, VGA or XLA.

    2. Re:Is that why... by FhnuZoag · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I dunno. I might support some form of internet licensing.

      We can use this to weed out spammers (if email access has to be tied to a specific license, and mail servers can be set to reject all 'anonymous' receipts), reduce advertising, and maybe enforce some sort of compulsary training scheme for internet newbies. (e.g. don't run email vbs scripts, you stupid, stupid boy....)

      Obviously, there are technical questions that need to be answered, but maybe a little regulation isn't a bad thing, in the right hands.

    3. Re:Is that why... by jimicus · · Score: 1

      There's a problem with "TV license if you have Internet access"; vis: what format will the BBC make its work available in? And, more to the point, what systems will they support? At least all television tuners are much the same - the same cannot be said of computers.

      I am not installing Windows just for the privilege of watching TV over the 'net. And if they won't make a Linux player available for whatever format they choose, I am not paying a license fee. That's not something I'm prepared to negotiate on.

    4. Re:Is that why... by FhnuZoag · · Score: 1

      That's not really what I had in my. I was thinking of an unified internet identity system, which is based on (a) an one-time fee, and (b) some sort of test/training course. It won't be compulsary, but websites will be free to request it, and limit their services to people who can show that they possess such a license.

      Add some sort of extension to the IMAP or HTTP protocols to send this encrypted license information to the server. I don't really have a clear picture of the technical aspect.

  29. Slashdot violating the BBC's license? by DjReagan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Hrm. According to the article, BBC's current RSS feeds are for personal use. However, slashdot has been republishing the BBC Tech News in a slashbox for quite some time.

    Further investigation shows this page which indicates that UK Based sites can also make free use of the syndicated feeds. It seems other sites need to license them.

    --
    "When I grow up, I want to be a weirdo"
    1. Re:Slashdot violating the BBC's license? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how are they going to know ?

      #!/bin/bash
      curl http://newsrss.bbc.co.uk/rss/newsonline_world_edit ion/front_page/rss.xml --user-agent "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4142)"

      curl can use proxies too. 1337

    2. Re:Slashdot violating the BBC's license? by DjReagan · · Score: 1

      How will they know? By looking at Slashdot's front page and seeing the BBC Tech headlines there would be one way.

      --
      "When I grow up, I want to be a weirdo"
    3. Re:Slashdot violating the BBC's license? by TheGatesofBill · · Score: 1

      Yes, but Slashdot is not making use of the feeds, they are using the articles themselves.

  30. Re:Great formats and programs, but balance problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Support ethnic cleansing in Palestine and help censor the American press!
    If you are at an American University or further education college we are currently recruiting active censorship drones to spy on fellow students, lecturers and guest speakers on behalf of the Israeli government.

    We can actively stifle democratic thought and criticism of Israeli fascist oppression.
    -But only with your help!

    Free housing.
    In six short weeks we can show you how to build a rogue state by demolishing existing homes in Palestine and building new houses on top!

    We are currently looking for experienced bulldozer drivers with a large western bank balance to emigrate to the expansionist state of Israel and call it home.

    Simply choose a plot of land and start building! Its easy peesy!!

    If your chosen plot is currently occupied by a Palestinian family, dont worry
    -simply build over them!

    Its as easy peesy as eeny meeny miney mo!


    We can protect your future residential developments on occupied land with fully experienced snipers in full body armour and appropriately armed Apache helicopters kindly donated by the American public.

    If you are an American citizen with a view to emigrating to warmer climes and a view of the Mediterranean, you may also be eligible for a fraction of the 3,000,000,000 (yes thats 3 Billion!) dollars donated every year by American tax payers to help support our broken-ass state.
    Due to our endless appetite for weapons of mass destruction our economy is unsustainable and we require your contribution and support. WMDs don't come cheap you know. It costs a fortune to terrorise a whole region.
    Our military personnel can barely afford to maintain our arsenal of 200 nuclear weapons, spy satellites and attack submarines.

    Give a man a gun and he can kill a Palestinian child. Give him a helicopter and he can kill them all.

    Part-time vacancies available
    We are currently in construction of the world record breaking apartheid wall surrounding the largest ethic ghetto since Krakow.
    The Israeli military is hiring expatriates preferably with a military background to monitor the prisoners and maintain watchtowers and sniper nests. If you are blinded by a covetousness of other peoples land, but yet have a keen eye with a sniper scope you would be the ideal candidate for our border watchtower guard division.

    We need your help. Sponsor an Israeli colonizer.
    Do it today.

    P.s.
    if anybody criticises you, just point a finger an call them anti-Semite.
    It worked for the Liberty.

  31. Well, if both sides hate them... by FhnuZoag · · Score: 2, Informative

    Meanwhile, there are also persistent claims of systematic pro-Israeli bias.

    http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article2402.shtml

    Seems to me, they've got the balance pretty right.

  32. Getting away with it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See here for how it might be done.

  33. BBC started testing a while ago by Phil+John · · Score: 1

    ...and specifically allowed big news sites (like slashdot) to use their RSS to generate news boxes like those found here. They didn't allow every man and his blog to use it (waste of resources) but looks now like they're going to.

    --
    I am NaN
  34. I don't get it-Didn't even try. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well until the semantic web takes off. We'll just have to put up with these "I don't understand, because I didn't try" posts.

    There's a lot of potential in a machine-readable web. But there's always that 'Y2K' style hump to get over.

  35. Right, snooker requires RSS by SpzToid · · Score: 1

    The typical BBC pattern is get everyone hooked on the Sopranos, Twin Peaks, [insert your favorite series here], then once everyone is *really* into it, replace the time slot with Snooker. Happines every single time. Of course they promise to bring the series back 'in the future'... but anyone with a life can't keep up with their whims. And for what? Snooker?! How come Sopranos .torrents are busy(?); ever seen a snooker .torrent? It must be a winning formula though. They are consistent. I love RSS, but can't get into the beeb. Fuck snooker. Can RSS save 'em? RSS is pretty powerful, but I doubt it's enough.

    --
    You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
    1. Re:Right, snooker requires RSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The typical BBC pattern is get everyone hooked on the Sopranos, Twin Peaks, [insert your favorite series here], then once everyone is *really* into it, replace the time slot with Snooker.

      Except The Sopranos is shown on Channel 4.

    2. Re:Right, snooker requires RSS by SpzToid · · Score: 1

      OK, I admit, the two shows this happened to me were Twin Peaks and The Larry Sanders Show. The Sopranos was insterted here as a topical reference. I know of no broadcaster that delivers the Sopronos to Holland; which I did. Point being I doubt snooker requires RSS, although it does seem a beeb pref.

      --
      You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
  36. I'd rather have "Old and Busted" news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Between BBC, CNN and Fox you'll have enough peaces to figure out what is spin and what is fact.
    I don't beleave it's remotely reasonable to expect any news agentcy to be entirely free of bies so it's up to the viewers to be fair and balenced due to there being no such animal in the press."

    Isn't the Internet suppose to be "The great liberator"? And yet complaints about "old, and busted" news sources still abound.

    Maybe a room full of geeks can come up with some way of tapping into sources, and filtering for the wheat.

  37. Re:Great formats and programs, but balance problem by viscount · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There's no anti-Israeli bias in the British media, or indeed the British population in general.

    The reason that these allegations are made is because the Israeli government is used to the overwhelming pro-Israeli bias in the US media. When foreign (not just British) media displays any kind of balance (by, say, criticising a decision made by the Israeli government) then cries of 'Anti-Semite' go up.

  38. Re:Great formats and programs, but balance problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, for one, must be particularly ignorant.

    I have always thought that a semite was someone who spoke a semitic language such as hebrew or arabic.

    I have never understood why a person is refered to as anti-semitic if they are critical of Israel's policy with dealing with Palestinians and not critical of Palestinian tactics towards Israel... after all, they are both semites, yes?

    Oh who cares anyway.

    Back to the Beeb argument, licence fee is about £125 ($250 ish) pa. Subsription to pay tv is a minimum of £20 pcm. Yes, there are more channels, but how many of them do you actually watch? More than the 30 you can get for free or as part of the licence fee? If you do, you should probably get off the sofa before you have a coronary anyway.

    Have a nice day.

  39. Re:Great formats and programs, but balance problem by elem · · Score: 1

    Correct w/ regard to the definition of a semite, but wrong for the definition of an anti-semite.

    Anti-Semitism was term coined to specificaly refer to hatred against Jews, not semites in general. Read that for more info than I can be bothered to type.

  40. Re:Partage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    No wonder "meme" is an English word

    no its greek actually

    [Shortening (modeled on gene), of mimeme from Greek mimma, something imitated, from mimeisthai, to imitate. See mimesis.]

    even the American dictionary gets that right, i guess your schooling didnt though, not suprising though.

  41. Blame Canada! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The CBC has already been doing this for some time. Podcasts, too.

  42. What's a whore to do? by Tsu+Dho+Nimh · · Score: 0, Troll

    With the Beeb GIVING IT AWAY ... are all the hardworking media whores going to starve?

  43. Re:Great formats and programs, but balance problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    aaaaaaaaaah! Fair enough.

  44. Slashdot's angle on the BBC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there any particular reason why every post on Slashdot that offers a critical angle on the BBC is modded down as a Troll ?

    The BBC is run by humans. It has flaws like any other organization. It's funding is often regarded as inappropriate and unfair by many people, and remains controversial to others. It would be nice if Slashdot reflected a broad range of views, rather than trying to silence all and any voice that is critical toward the BBC and rewarding all voices giving praise to it.

  45. Re:Maybe someone at the Beeb has seen the screensa by EpsCylonB · · Score: 1

    thats really cool, wonder if there is one availiable for windows or linux ?

  46. Re:hey why not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft is trying to shoehorn Longhorn into the public consciousness, knowing that Tiger is going to shred them otherwise.
    Is foamy thick and rich enough?

  47. Maybe by Threni · · Score: 1

    now is the time to make it easier to use with Firefox. Instead of that lame error about xml stylesheets, do the obvious thing and offer a bookmark.

    Do you really have to do all that editing of live bookmarks etc to add an RSS feed (on the 99% of sites which don't give you the little icon in the bottom right corner of the screen automatically)?

  48. Re:Great formats and programs, but balance problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think there prefectly fare to the Israeli's, and it's the national viewpoint from most of england, we like to side with the small guy. Though the terrorist attacks on civilians is just wrong.

    Though I really wish after the 2nd world war everyone had gone 'oh thank god were all alive, now lets live in peace, whatever your neighbours belief'

    Hey I'm a dreamer.

  49. Still not British by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 1

    Well done!!! You just offended the Licence payers who live in Scotland, Wales and Northen Ireland.

    You're seriously telling us that a Scot would pay his license fee?

  50. Re:Partage by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    No, Anonymous illiterate Coward, it's English. The Greek word, as you yourself quote, was "mimma". The French word was "même", meaning "same". Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist at Oxford (where they also publish a dictionary), introduced the term as an info parallel to "gene", in his landmark _The Selfish Gene_. But then, your rudimentary grammar is consistent with a mind that doesn't even absorb the other, more accurate, etymologies on the page where you found your inadequate one, because it's not at the top of the page.

    Now that I've schooled you, take another lesson: don't reproduce. You're in over your head, and drowned in the meme pool, Anonymous unfit Coward.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  51. Re:Maybe someone at the Beeb has seen the screensa by hostyle · · Score: 1

    I dont know about you, but i never sit down and take the time to watch or study screensavers. they usually appear when i'm away from the computer. in fact usually when im away poer-saving mode kicks in. in fact i fail to see any point in such frivolous eye-candy. sure you can do it, but why would you want to? plus thats just about the worst way i can imagine to view / read news. its like ads on TV.

    --
    Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
  52. Re:Maybe someone at the Beeb has seen the screensa by Emetophobe · · Score: 1

    There used to be an awesome screensaver for Windows 3.1 when I was a kid. It was a guy on a stranded island (that was about 20 feet wide with 1 coconut tree in the middle). He would do various comedic things. I totally forget the name of it, but it was an awesome screensaver. I used to spend loads of time just sitting there and watching what he did.

    Back on topic though, I think that RSS screensaver is pretty cool. Gives me lots of ideas for future projects. For example, say you're an web page admin and you have multiple monitors. You could have it setup the so the screensaver would show graphs or other statistics related to your server(s) on one idle monitor. I'm sure this has been done before, I just havent heard about it.

    Spiffy looking colours and charts would be pretty cool, kinda like seti@home, it looks neat, even if you don't have a clue what's actually going on.

  53. License fee by pjc50 · · Score: 1

    Actually, the fee is only payable for televisions, radios don't need a license. BBC radio is paid for out of the TV license fee. BBC World Service radio is paid for by the government Foreign Office as a propaganda service (it does a very good job as well).