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'"
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.
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.
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!
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.
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....
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!
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.