Slashdot Mirror
BBC Open Source launched
Elphin writes "The BBC today launched their BBC Open Source website, providing a home for projects such as their video codec dirac , TV-Anytime Java API and Kamaelia network testbed."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
BBC should have called it Dalek!
Good Lord, there's enough stuff here to create a complete, high quality TIVO system with full network/P2P support! If this is any indication, BBC is taking the concept of Internet broadcasting *very* seriously.
A question for those who are in the know: How is Dirac's performance these days? i.e. Does anyone have any good comparisons to MPEG4 compression ratios, encoding times, etc.?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I'm glad to see them doing this. Not only are they smart to support OSS, but I have a feeling they are going to get a leg up on their competion by getting excellent help and feedback from the OSS community. It seems like a win-win.
Voice your opinion!
I applaud the degree to which the BBC is embracing the open-source model. I just wish that some American groups would do the same.
A couple questions, though. What inspired the British Broadcasting Corporation to suddenly leap into the software programming foray? Are they hoping to build some sort of new service out of all of this, or is it just going to end up as a bunch of disconnected apps?
I am scientifically inaccurate.
They're pissed off at having to pay ripoff prices to the people (such as Microsoft and Real) whose audio codecs they use, and they're sure as hell not keen to start paying licensing fees for video codecs as well.
Additionally, they think they can get better performance out of Dirac than is being got out of current codecs, which will save them bandwidth.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
I think it is responsible of them to not refer to the perpetrators as "terrorists". These days "terrorist" is nothing more than a buzzword used by those politicians and businesspeople who participate in deceit and real-world trollery.
But in any case, I do respect the BBC's willingness to contribute back to society. They actively strive to promote the deployment of knowledge, rather than try to restrict and limit its dispersal. But that is most likely because their main goal is not profit. Maximizing profit will always be against what is best for society, as the externalities are not taken into account.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Now I can watch Mr. Bean ANYTIME I want!!!
I love random hex numbers! Just like this one, 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
Wow, I never knew any idiot could have a blog!
No wait, I did.
licensing...at least they didn't introduce a new proprietary license.
But they almost changed it! See the FAQ here.
Looks like they have also released the BBC 'programming language'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/opensource/projects/apache/
Seems like extensions to mod_include to add more logic.
Good Stuff
I look at http://www.bbc.co.uk/opensource/projects/apache/
and I'm thinking, wow, you could really implement some stupid stuff with that.
Some of the more asinine web templating tools available today would look like Knuth's TAoCP in comparison to the potential train wrecks.
Which is not to say that such little gadgets don't have their time and place; my point is that somebody will always take them out of context.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
The Beeb just continue to impress me with initiatives like this - good on them!
We rule world again soon, insensitive clod!
here, in italy, i have to pay for our very low quality public television (more berlusconi's than public), and nothing like this is happening. They just offer a few WMV/Real videos on their website, wow. :)
Wondering why i am doing so strange posts? I am trying to get a "+5,Flamebait" or "-1,Insightful" rating.
Personally, I call them Disgruntled terran co-habitators, or Snuggle-umpkins. It makes them sound less fierce.
I'm very greatful for their very generous contribution, but...
What is that aweful color on their site!
My eyes!
I have this feeling that the word terrorist is going to be a revisit on the dreaded 'communist' of yore actually. It's an entirely social tool to grant the recipient with stigma. But to the topic at hand, I think something that also gives the BBC the objectivity to give back and care not for story bias as much as profit news networks is they know that the BBC is viewed/read/visited from all over the world. They've really extended beyond just the country in terms of their audience and it's kind of hard to not do something good with that when you're not in it for money.
Perfecting Discordia
www.stevenvansickle.com
But that is most likely because their main goal is not profit. Maximizing profit will always be against what is best for society, as the externalities are not taken into account. ...
Erm, their main goal is making sure they maximise the amount of licence fee revenue they get (going by how they behaved during the recent review) - and that includes penalising the poorest in society.
Just some stupid software? Damn! I was hoping to find some episodes of the new Doctor Who for download... ;-)
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
The BBC's guidelines state that its credibility is undermined by the "careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgments".
I agree with this point of view. "Bombers" is an accurate way to describe them. They may also be "terrorists", but this does carry an emotional implication as well. It's a little quirky, but I can see the point of simply reporting events rather than making judgements. It's something the media in general seriously lacks.
How well does BBC's Dirac codec relate to Theora?
Well the didn't actually make it but they made it happen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Micro
I have fond memories of my Model B
If only they would publicize more of the open-source projects they've been doing in order to spur more development from people who would actually benifit from them.
Take for example the Betsie perl script (which the BBC use extensively on their websites, it's an open-source cgi script which can be used to translate pages on-the-fly into a text-only mode. This has been very helpful for me and for a suprisingly large number of other web developers trying to tackle the issue of accessablity.
If they keep on going in this direction with opening up more projects and providing more APIs for developers to use, then I can really see in maybe as short as 2 years down the line it could be actually be worthwile to pay for that damn TV license.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Anews.bbc.c o.uk+terrorist+OR+terrorists+london+july+2005
returns "about 777" pageshttp://savingiceland.org
So has Microsoft retracted their stand on Open Source being a a cancer? They can't possibly stick to that story, specially after so many organizations are seeing the benefits of Open Source. Will MS really and their fanboys ever learn?
[alk]
The BBC is funded by a tax that's mandated on all TV sets in the country and the collection and monitoring process is more than a little nasty--harassement and patrolling vans that can catalog not only that you or I are watching TV, but what we are watching.
The Internet threatens this model. If you can stream video from somewhere else or play DVDs on your computer, what need do you have for a TV set and this infernal tax?
Bureaucracies have as Goal #1 self-preservation. There are indications that BBC wants to stream video/audio, so it can use that as an excuse to tax all computers, or a least all Internet-capable computers. That would let them add to their gravy train of coerced payments. And it would also mean that they deploy the technology to pick up signals radiated by computers and to track Internet connections. They might use that technology to just collect payments, but a country less democratic could buy that same technology for other purposes.
As the old adage goes, be careful about what you want. You may just get it along with something you don't want.
--Mike Perry, Seattle
BBC has been pushing more and more toward internet-based content.
Like their recent move to eliminate their "cult TV" website?
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
Wow, 777 pages! Google says it so. Ahh, the pain. Please. Google isn't always the answer. Just check the first few results. Most link to the very same article, and the word terrorist is mainly used in two occasion: In quotes or paraphrases of quotes, and to show the Anti-Terrorist Hotline, which is presumably not set up by the BBC.. d'oh!
I know this will probably fall under "whining", but I wish there was more hand-holding in the Dirac documentation. Not that there isn't plenty, but I think they could fulfill a somewhat "educational" role there, too, in the sense of bringing people "up to speed", as it were, on the techniques involved.
They do offer some pointers, but still, stuff like wavelets is not your everyday applied math, is it? (Maybe it is, in DSP, I wouldn't know).
What do you think? Have you looked at the documentation? What's your estimate in terms of courses you have to take in order to contribute on Dirac? After Calculus and Linear Algebra, what else?
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
Why doesn't the Beeb do a late night program with open source makers and shakers on the Beeb payroll telling us about themselves and getting people like Alan Cox to talk to us .
This will encourage contributers.
It's called an elephant's trunk whereas it is in fact, an elephant's nose, a nose by any other name would smell as sweet
That said, this site has explainations and code: http://www.bearcave.com/misl/misl_tech/wavelets/
Vuja De: That sinking feeling that this is going to happen again. Often occurs in meetings with Product Managers.
It seems a little wierd to call it a page dedicated to their opensource projects. All the DIRC one serves as is link to their sourceforge project. Not too exciting.
Home page: http://dirac.sourceforge.net/Project page: http://sourceforge.net/projects/dirac
It's terrorism because its goal is to create terror pure and simple. The terrorist themselves make that very point. The means they use is irrelevant, which is why they're are not 'bombers.' Their targets aren't chosen because they have any military or economic value. They're chosen to maximize the number of ordinary, harmless citizens who get killed, creating a much larger number who are terrified into passivity or, like the BBC, into cooperating with their agenda. And in the long term, in the case of Islamists, they hope to 'convert' the UK to their rather coercive variety of Islam. Someday, they hope, you'll hear nothing but them on the BBC. And they may be right.
One of the great cultural divides in Western democracies is between those who still retain a measure of courage or at least respect for those who are brave and those who're simply trying to muddle through life as affluently and comfortably as possible, avoiding all danger and discomfort. Emotional words like terrorist make them uncomfortable, because they suggest the need for decisive actions like helping Iraq become democratic. Risk terrifies them.
A couple of summers ago, I came on someone tossing knives against a tree just a few feet from an extremely busy path in a Seattle park. Knowing someone had to make the weirdo stop, I asked a healthy man in his thirties to just stand by while I talked to the guy and perhaps get help if things got nasty. He fled in terror without saying a word. Since everyone else seemed to be a mother with small kids, I approached the weirdo alone with the suggestion he toss his knives someplace where he wasn't going to get someone hurt. When he refused and began to get angry, I backed off and told him I was calling the police. He started ranting nonsense and coming at me. Since he was bigger than I am and had at least three knives, it wasn't very pleasant. Fortunately, a Very Big Guy intercepted him and cooled him down. Later that guy told me he'd thought himself of talking to the knife thrower and decided to get involved only when I did. In dangerous situations, someone always has to act first.
The guy who ran away is 'Blue America.' They listen to NPR or the BBC and think Pres. Bush, of all people, is a threat. They deplore words like terrorist, and are, quite frankly, cowards. The guy who helped me is part of "Red America." They listen to Fox News and talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh. They call a terrorist a terrorist.
One reason I love Tolkien is that he calls things by their real names. He doesn't not mince words about the terror the Black Riders bring or the horror that would be life under Sauron. His heros fight, they don't "nuiance."
--Mike Perry, Seattle, Untangling Tolkien
The simplest way I think of putting it in essence is that the BBC is oriented as a national broadcaster.
Nation==the people of a given country/realm dispersed worldwide
Other terms such as population and sometimes citizenry==the same people, but only within the confines of that country/realm
The BBC's dedication to fair and comparable service for the British ex-patriates as much for the domestic audience is truly admirable. I'm not British, and I don't have any affinity to the romantic recollections of the days of Empire. However, the community, ideas and ideals of the British character is founded on quite a solid ideological notion and put into practice effectively by the Corporation.
Just my belief, but were there to be no John Motson, every Briton would be a little less British IMHO.
I agree with this point of view. "Bombers" is an accurate way to describe them. They may also be "terrorists", but this does carry an emotional implication as well. It's a little quirky, but I can see the point of simply reporting events rather than making judgements. It's something the media in general seriously lacks.
The problem is that simply using the word "bombers" carries an air of legitimacy about it--as if the attacks were no different from, for instance, allied WWII bombers.
This time is one of the FEW instances, as of late, where the word "terrorist" (and/or "terrorism") is entirely appropriate. Driving an SUV doesn't make you a terrorist. Smoking marijuana doesn't make you a terrorist. Disobeying copyright law doesn't make you a terrorist. But blowing innocent people up in subways and buses to intimidate is the definition of terrorism.
Let's call a spade a spade. If the perpetrators are terrorists, then call them that. And if they're muslim (or Irish), there's nothing wrong in mentioning that too.
-Grym
Take a look at the BBC's Royal Charter and a general PSB Wiki.
Section 3 of the Charter, in its entirety:
OBJECTS OF THE CORPORATION
3. The objects of the Corporation are as follows:-
(a) To provide, as public services, sound and television broadcasting services (whether by analogue or digital means) and to provide sound and television programmes of information, education and entertainment for general reception in Our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and the territorial waters thereof, and on board ships and aircraft (such services being hereinafter referred to as "the Home Services") and for reception elsewhere within the Commonwealth and in other countries and places overseas (such services being hereinafter referred to as "the World Service") the Home Services and the World Service together being hereinafter referred to as "the Public Services".
(b) Subject to the prior approval of Our Secretary of State or within such limits as may be agreed from time to time between the Corporation and Our Secretary of State, to provide, as public services, other services whether or not broadcasting or programme supply services (such services being hereinafter referred to as "the Ancillary Services").
(c) Subject to the prior approval of Our Secretary of State, to provide (whether alone or together with any other person firm or corporation) sound and television broadcasting services and communication services (whether by analogue or digital means) and to provide sound and television programmes of information, education and entertainment funded by advertisements, subscription, sponsorship, pay-per-view system, or any other means of finance whether for reception by the general public free of charge or available on individual demand or encrypted or not in Our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and the territorial waters thereof and elsewhere in the world (such services being hereinafter referred to as "the Commercial Services").
(d) To hold the existing and to construct or acquire or lease and establish and instal additional stations for wireless telegraphy and apparatus for wireless telegraphy in Our United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, and to use the same for the emission and reception of wireless telegraphy for the purposes aforesaid, and for purposes ancillary or related to those purposes.
(e) To hold the existing and to construct or acquire or lease additional equipment and apparatus for the transmission and reception and relaying of telecommunication signals over telecommunication systems or by any other method whether now known or hereafter invented or developed and whether or not over paths provided by any material substance in Our United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, and to use the same for purposes ancillary or related to the purposes aforesaid.
(f) For all the purposes of this Our Charter to acquire from time to tim from Our Secretary of State for Trade and Industry a licence or licences for such period and subject to such terms, provisions and limitations as he may prescribe, and to exercise the powers herein granted to the Corporation in conformity in all respects therewith and with any agreement or agreements which may from time to time be made by Our Secretary of State with the Corporation, and not in any other manner whatsoever.
(g) To develop, extend and improve the Home Services and the World Service and to those ends to exercise such licence or licences in such manner or by such means and methods as may from time to time be agreed by the Corporation and Our Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and to concur in any extension, adaptation or modificat
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah.
BBC One, BBC Two, BBC Three, BBC Four, BBC Five, BBC Six, BBC Seven, BBC Heaven!
BBC, please!
(Listen to austin power soundstrack)
They haven't had a release in nearly two months, though their CVS has activity in it as little as four days old. I wonder when it'll be usable. Sure hope it's soon.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
... You sir are a misinformed twit who is blithely ignorant of any notion of what public service broadcasting (PSB) is about. ...
... and I'm being quite serious; sadly.
And you are the kind of delusional fool the BBC prizes most
I think it is responsible of them to not refer to the perpetrators as "terrorists". These days "terrorist" is nothing more than a buzzword used by those politicians and businesspeople who participate in deceit and real-world trollery.
So the misuse or misunderstanding of a word should negate its existence or appropriate use? If one did that, he might soon have a niggardly vocabulary full of politically-correct buzzwords, signifying nothing.
So I guess we shouldn't call one who robs at sea or plunders the land from the sea without commission from a sovereign nation a "pirate". After all, some politicians inappropriately apply that label to those who disrespect copyright law.
This line of reasoning is the problem, not the solution.
-Grym
I'm sure if you were sitting at home in Berlin between 1939 and 1945 you wouldn't have regarded the bombs raining down on your house as legitimate.
It's all about perspective. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter after all.
Great job on your driving test, Corky.
I completely forgot about VLC! *slaps himself* Bad codergeek! No cookie!
:-)
Thanks, harryk.
Sir, you need a refresher on the definition of "terrorism" and "terrorist". Only once you understand the true meanings (ie. the ones not used by your American media) of those words can you discuss their use.
t
m
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terroris
terrorist
n.
One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terroris
terrorism
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Indeed, notice that the very definition of "terrorism" applies perfectly well to the Blair government that has spoken out so loudly against the recent incidents in London.
The Blair government participated, along with the American government and those of numerous other nations, in the "unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence" (ie. war, bombardment, killings, torture, etc.) "by a person or an organized group" (ie. the Coalition of the Willing) "against people or property" (ie. Iraq, Afghanistan) "with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons" (ie. regime change, forced "democracy", giving up of natural resources, etc.).
Notice that the actions of such government fits the definition of "terrorism" perfectly. But of course you never see the media make mention of that fact. That is because the media, in cooperation with such governments, have distorted the use of such words. They have become buzzwords that are meant to evoke an intense emotional response, rather than accurately describe a situation. As such, any legitimate news organization whose main focus is to distribute the truth should not resort to the use of such buzzwords.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
open source, my arse, when they scrap the license fee then it will be open source.
happy
I'm sure if you were sitting at home in Berlin between 1939 and 1945 you wouldn't have regarded the bombs raining down on your house as legitimate.
Sure I would. I may not like it, but, in this instance, my country would have declared war on them. Moreover, they would be flying according to the generally accepted rules of war--in uniform (marked aircraft), targeting militarily-valuable targets* and under a command structure which is accountable to another society. How isn't that legitimate?
It's all about perspective. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter after all.
As nice as that common platitude sounds, it's utter bullshit. It implies all terrorists are similarly freedom fighters. This isn't true at all! Some people are just terrorists. Moreover, there's a sense of moral relativity in that statement. That, any and everything is morally acceptable, because somewhere out there, somebody else agrees. Example: "One man's pedophiliac is another man's hopeless romantic." This may very well be true, but it still doesn't justify anything or make a moral judgment any less condemning.
-Grym
*Desdon excluded--an instance of allied terrorism, imho. But, then again, you said "Berlin."
The problem is that simply using the word "bombers" carries an air of legitimacy about it--as if the attacks were no different from, for instance, allied WWII bombers.
It doesn't carry an air of legitimacy, merely of neutrality. It's up to us - me, you, other viewers - to apply our values to the circumstances.
Ideally the BBC should report the known facts. They report that the explosions occured. They report that people died. They report that such-and-such a group has claimed repsonsibility. They say that Government ministers have made a statement. And so on.
We listen. Maybe we listen to other sources too. Having heard the reports, WE draw conclusions.
Listening to the reports on this subject I don't think it's hard to make judgments about the people involved, but that isn't a reason for the news reporters to do it for us.
The BBC often falls short of those standards, they often do inject their own values into their reporting (values I mainly agree with), but that doen't mean that objective reporting that gives the viewer the information he or she needs to form their own judgments is a bad thing.
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
Well they didn't correct the old ones. That is used English spelling, licence, rather than the American/Websterised English, license. Perhaps it should be called dewebsterising?
To me, a terrorist is a thug is a thug is a thug, regardless of their ideological bent or their legitimization at law. Whether it's some brainwashed religious zealot blowing themselves up on a bus, some politician deciding to invade a country for no good reason, or if it's some mafia boss. IMHO, they are all thugs, and are driven by nothing but greed.
"Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
It doesn't carry an air of legitimacy, merely of neutrality. It's up to us - me, you, other viewers - to apply our values to the circumstances.
What kind of value judgment is being made here? The acts were unquestionably terrorism at its very definition. All I'm saying is that we call it that rather than use some politically-correct (oh, sorry, "neutral") placeholder. That says nothing of whether the terrorist acts were right or wrong.
If this extreme interpretation of journalistic integrity were such a concern to the BBC, then they should similarly replace other emotionally-charged words such as "murder" or "rape". But they don't do this. Why do you think that is?
Look, I like the BBC. I think they're one of the best (if not the best) major news outlets in the world. But on this issue they're both incorrect and inconsistent.
-Grym
If you want to contribute to Dirac as a programmer but don't want to spend several months studying maths, there's plenty of work to be done outside the field of optimising the codec - interfacing it to every video-related open-source project under the sun for example. There're already Dirac patches for transcode, ffmpeg and mplayer, but that's just the tip of the iceberg...
That says nothing of whether the terrorist acts were right or wrong.
Your concern was that "bombers" implied "legitimacy". If you didn't mean legitimacy to imply a position on right vs. wrong then I've misunderstood you. However, I can see no reason to object to the word "bombers". I also think its absurd that you feel able to accuse someone else of political correctness when it's you that's complaining that their terminology doesn't carry the message that you want it to - how is what you are asking for not 'political correctness'?
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
This refers to the fact that 40% of homes have digital TV capability. However a much smaller proportion of televisions are capable of receiving digital, as most homes have more than one TV. So even if 100% of homes have digital TV, there will still be a public outcry when they switch off analogue transmissions.
I personally don't have either......
43 - For those who require slightly more than the answer to life, the universe and everything.
Oh please, please - can we start some kind of campaign to call all fanatical extremists "Snuggle-umpkins"!!???
That is just genius!
If any organisation knew that its members were commonly known as "Snuggle-umpkin-ites", they would have a dreadful time recruiting.
I pay £10.99 per month for TV I don't watch.
At least some of this is going to help create an open source codec which may catch on.
Go Dirac!
This is freaking retarded. I make a compliment about how BBC is not creating a new proprietary OS license, and I am a troll. Obviously, the moderators aren't on the up and up about how complex the Open Source licensing environment is. This time slashdot moderators got it wrong. I would have thought this was an insightful comment as no one else had made a comment about how they were licensing. And being that I work with Open Source all the time, I somewhat know what I am talking about. I guess it goes to show how intelligent the moderators on slashdot are. Slashdot moderators are retarded. Now that is a troll.
First their free Beethoven symphonies and now this. :)
What is humor if not pain tempered by time?
While Mike's support of the BBC's support of open source is to be applauded, we need to look with a bit of suspicion at his motivation.
Mike Perry promotes a zealous right wing ideology that sees nothing wrong with nasty collection and monitoring process so long as they are run by pri
vate, unaccountable corporations based in India, rather than domestic accountable and democratic public institutions.
But social programs threatens his model. If you provide low cost services to everyone by taking advantage of the cost savings of large scale implemen
tation, what need do you have for expensive and powerful private companies that are answerable to noone?
Corporations have as Goal #1 self-preservation. There are indications that Mike Perry wants to prevent individuals from streaming video/audio, so
his corporate backers can implement their own private and totally closed interface to multimedia computer systems. If you want any media (sound, vide
o, etc), you go through Mike Perry or one of his Corporate friends. Period. That would let him and his special interest buddies add to their gravy tr
ain of monopoly markets and closed protocols. And it would also mean that he could deploy technology to pick up signals radiated by computers and to
track Internet connections. He and his backers might use technology to just collect payments, but a Corporation or special interest group with more m
oney could buy that same technology for other purposes.
As the old adage goes, be careful about what you want. You may just get it along with something you don't want.
--Pike Merry, Redmond
I know that the beeb is not perfect, but as a UK citizen who has been living in the US for 3 years, I know come to appreciate and cherish the commercially unbiased broadcasting from the BBC. Compared to the crap that is broadcast here in the US, the beeb is the best broadcasting corporation in the world. You only have to look at US cable media coverage of the Iraq invasion to see this.
"these people" provide news and media without advertisements and commercial backing, and thus without commercial bias, and that is unparalleled anywhere else in the world.
I fail to see what you complaint is. Subtle and contentious wording after the atrocious attacks in London is understandable. Did they distort the truth? Completely ignore major work events or just outright lie as the US cable networks do on a regular basis?
Try watching Fox News for a day before criticising the good ol' beeb.
-SL
No, you're not misunderstanding me. I was thinking about this after I submitted, and I didn't quite express my point fully.
My issue with "bombers" is that it fails to describe some pretty important and obvious dimensions of the act. It says nothing of their motives, their tactics, and the fact that at least some people were wronged by the act. It's like me calling the Mona Lisa "oil" or an ornate sword simply "metal."
Terrorism is obviously the most appropriate word. Does terrorism, in and of itself, carry a negative connotation? Of course. But does that mean that every act of terrorism is wrong? No. Example: stealing similarly carries a negative connotation. But, for example, the story of Robin Hood stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is generally considered a positive thing. Simply using the appropriate word ("terrorism") in no way makes an absolute value judgment than appropriately using the term stealing does.
The English are known for understatement, and in other contexts, this might be forgivable. However, the intention of this word usage is clearly being done for political reasons--and it has nothing to do with neutrality.
-Grym
OK, let's not call them terrorists.
Would there be any objection to calling them, say, murderers?
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.