As SBS are involved, probably. Siemens (especialy the guys that just took over BBCT) are Microsoft sycophants. If it was a true BBC project - i.e. made within the corporation from R&D or something you'd get a Linux and Mac version because of many R&D guys use those platforms. The media will always be DRMed because of non-BBC copyrights. Even if it's a BBC production like Eastenders or Dr Who, and even if everyones contracts from the writers to the actors to the grips were renegotiated, you'd still have problems with background music in the pub etc.
Yes, BBC Magazines, DVDs etc are sold by BBC Worldwide, a wholey owned company. All profits from Worldwide go back to subsidising normal BBC output (to the tune of several hundered million IIRC)
BBC World is funded by adverts, hence we have advert breaks in the program. The content (not all news from N9) is played out to foreign networks who insert their own locla ads. If you didn't have the ads you'd get a 3 minute interlude with music and various infomation pages like "on this day" etc.
World (theoretically) doesnt get a penny from the license fee. In practice it's hard to see how that works as it's supported as an intergral part of the news facilities in TVC, and sky have complained about sharing resources and cross-subsidy (i.e. World' commercial money pays for UK News output, which is laughable), but that's accountancy for you.
World radio is funded by the foreign office, as is Monitoring in Caversham. Bits of the the corporation (hidden broadcast facilities etc) are no doubt funded by shady budget lines in the defence department etc.
We wont be off air, although I'd expect the daily news (breakfast 1/6/10) to simulcast with News24 for the affected days, and radio 5 to have more phone ins and 4 to have more pre-recorded shows. There's enough non-unionised engineering effort (like myself) to cover.
Long term however, the biggest problem I see is the R&D move to Manchester. They'll lose a lot of R&D engineers, which would be bad, maybe even fatal for the department. TBH the BBC could pay Murdoch for a studio and aupport to run a news channel, and provide the editors to ensure it's impartial. We don't need the facilities we have to output the news we do output. Sky do it (techincally, not content) better, cheaper and faster.
Exactly the same with closed software. You can buy compilers that have, deep in the 5th layer of the EULA, a clause that states you don't own the software you produce, or can't distribute it, or have to pay patent licensing fees or something.
I guarentee you that extending GPL code is no different than extending microsoft's code. You have to contact the copyright holder (e.g. trolltech in the case of QT, Microsoft in the case of whatever they make) and they decide if they want to sell you a license or not.
This is on top of the normal internet delays. A response from the other end will take just as long to come back so your looking at one second delay. Not good for most any use.
Aside from web, email, irc. Even a videophone is still acceptable with a one second delay.
I don't believe this. Not only is this article a dupe [slashdot.org] of an article posted yesterday, but now even posts are being duplicated [slashdot.org]. In other words you actually went and copied my post word for word, aka verbatim, the whole hog. Not only that but you actually managed to get a higher modding (not that I really worry about that) for my own post than I did.
Yup, strangely the mods dont seem to realise about the "Redundant" moderation. Either that or they aren't qualified to answer.
While this is slashdot and rips in time and a certain amount of, uhm, deja vue, is to be expected, it does however raise interesting questions about copyright, don't you think?
Not really, although feel free to issue a DMCA takedown to slashdot, which might be entertaining.
Why would a company spend big bucks on writing software which would then be free to distribute, but not tie the users in to another piece of software hat must be bought?
(i.e. IE Free if you have Windows which isn't)
Disgruntled employees would be free to take that public domain code and share it arround (anonymously too, stick on freenet or similar. As it's not copyrighted there'd be no legal recourse to the distributors)
FTA: But the preference for open-source software has been controversial, with critics inside and outside the government saying Mr. da Silva's administration is letting leftist ideology trump the laws of supply and demand.
I really fucking hate this. This is the typical newspeak propaganda used by companies terrified of losing their stranglehold on consumers by loudly bleating "Communist" into the air in order to get support from the more paranoid fringes of society, such as politicians who get kick backs from such companies.
What Supply and Demand is this guy talking about? Does he mean to infer that all those people should remain uneducated because they can't afford to buy some bullshit company's overpriced product? Tell that to the people yourself, you cunt. Also tell them that buying Microsoft's Windows will make them even poorer than they currently are, since the only way Microsoft is ever going to sell Windows at a low price is to sell some ultra crippled piece of shit such as the Starter Edition which no one wants.
I'm willing to forgive the editors on this one, when you compare it to the obvious trolls, astroturfs and non-storys that make it into other catagorys than "It's funny, laugh"
Slashdot Mirror
Forget that, this is slashdot. It's Perl Harbour
As SBS are involved, probably. Siemens (especialy the guys that just took over BBCT) are Microsoft sycophants. If it was a true BBC project - i.e. made within the corporation from R&D or something you'd get a Linux and Mac version because of many R&D guys use those platforms. The media will always be DRMed because of non-BBC copyrights. Even if it's a BBC production like Eastenders or Dr Who, and even if everyones contracts from the writers to the actors to the grips were renegotiated, you'd still have problems with background music in the pub etc.
Yes, BBC Magazines, DVDs etc are sold by BBC Worldwide, a wholey owned company. All profits from Worldwide go back to subsidising normal BBC output (to the tune of several hundered million IIRC)
The World Health Organisation is running America?
But I've downloaded 1.03(windows) once and installed it on 10 friends computers, and 1.04(linux) once and installed it on both of my computers.
The BBC not only do not advertise, they are not allowed to advertise, and even have to be careful about accidental product placement!
So Fox news would be ripe for government funding
BBC World is funded by adverts, hence we have advert breaks in the program. The content (not all news from N9) is played out to foreign networks who insert their own locla ads. If you didn't have the ads you'd get a 3 minute interlude with music and various infomation pages like "on this day" etc.
World (theoretically) doesnt get a penny from the license fee. In practice it's hard to see how that works as it's supported as an intergral part of the news facilities in TVC, and sky have complained about sharing resources and cross-subsidy (i.e. World' commercial money pays for UK News output, which is laughable), but that's accountancy for you.
World radio is funded by the foreign office, as is Monitoring in Caversham. Bits of the the corporation (hidden broadcast facilities etc) are no doubt funded by shady budget lines in the defence department etc.
We wont be off air, although I'd expect the daily news (breakfast 1/6/10) to simulcast with News24 for the affected days, and radio 5 to have more phone ins and 4 to have more pre-recorded shows. There's enough non-unionised engineering effort (like myself) to cover.
Long term however, the biggest problem I see is the R&D move to Manchester. They'll lose a lot of R&D engineers, which would be bad, maybe even fatal for the department. TBH the BBC could pay Murdoch for a studio and aupport to run a news channel, and provide the editors to ensure it's impartial. We don't need the facilities we have to output the news we do output. Sky do it (techincally, not content) better, cheaper and faster.
right in the middle of the US lunch hours no less.
The continental US covers 4 time zones. With a 4 hour lunch no wonder you're all so fat!
Iron Maiden? Excelent!!
And it fits on two floppies and half a punch card
Shut up and drink your milk
Exactly the same with closed software. You can buy compilers that have, deep in the 5th layer of the EULA, a clause that states you don't own the software you produce, or can't distribute it, or have to pay patent licensing fees or something.
I guarentee you that extending GPL code is no different than extending microsoft's code. You have to contact the copyright holder (e.g. trolltech in the case of QT, Microsoft in the case of whatever they make) and they decide if they want to sell you a license or not.
This is on top of the normal internet delays. A response from the other end will take just as long to come back so your looking at one second delay. Not good for most any use.
Aside from web, email, irc. Even a videophone is still acceptable with a one second delay.
Then you realise you live in a normal town where you're lucky to get a bus at 3PM
I don't believe this. Not only is this article a dupe [slashdot.org] of an article posted yesterday, but now even posts are being duplicated [slashdot.org]. In other words you actually went and copied my post word for word, aka verbatim, the whole hog. Not only that but you actually managed to get a higher modding (not that I really worry about that) for my own post than I did.
Yup, strangely the mods dont seem to realise about the "Redundant" moderation. Either that or they aren't qualified to answer.
While this is slashdot and rips in time and a certain amount of, uhm, deja vue, is to be expected, it does however raise interesting questions about copyright, don't you think?
Not really, although feel free to issue a DMCA takedown to slashdot, which might be entertaining.
Open reply to your closed journal BTW.
This guy knew what I meant.
Or not, damn 18 hour days.
Yup, see my reply to his journal entry. This guy knew what I meant.
Not only that but I LINKED TO THE COPIED POST in my instruction to moderate it up!
Why would a company spend big bucks on writing software which would then be free to distribute, but not tie the users in to another piece of software hat must be bought?
(i.e. IE Free if you have Windows which isn't)
Disgruntled employees would be free to take that public domain code and share it arround (anonymously too, stick on freenet or similar. As it's not copyrighted there'd be no legal recourse to the distributors)
Finally the evil bit is going to be used! They start on Friday.
Which is fine, as the derivations would also be public domain.
FTA: But the preference for open-source software has been controversial, with critics inside and outside the government saying Mr. da Silva's administration is letting leftist ideology trump the laws of supply and demand.
I really fucking hate this. This is the typical newspeak propaganda used by companies terrified of losing their stranglehold on consumers by loudly bleating "Communist" into the air in order to get support from the more paranoid fringes of society, such as politicians who get kick backs from such companies.
What Supply and Demand is this guy talking about? Does he mean to infer that all those people should remain uneducated because they can't afford to buy some bullshit company's overpriced product? Tell that to the people yourself, you cunt. Also tell them that buying Microsoft's Windows will make them even poorer than they currently are, since the only way Microsoft is ever going to sell Windows at a low price is to sell some ultra crippled piece of shit such as the Starter Edition which no one wants.
(P.S. Mods, +5 informative, thanks)
I'm willing to forgive the editors on this one, when you compare it to the obvious trolls, astroturfs and non-storys that make it into other catagorys than "It's funny, laugh"