I can see why you would want to separate broadcast engineering from IT support but one risk is you end up with a corporate IT dept who don't understand broadcast: "oh sure we'll fix that in 24 hours." "but I'm on air NOW." "yeah but you see the sla....". As the line between IT equipment and broadcast critical equipment (and networks) is ever more blurred having everyone understand the nature of the broadcast environment is really important Been there in the BBC. It ain't fun when you're on air, the playout system is down and IT stick to a eight hour response.
"Public education, science education in particular, should not mention gods at all."
I almost entirely disagree with you. You're right that science education shouldn't mention deities at all, just as sport, woodwork and food probably shouldn't be touching on theology, faith and belief or morals and ethics. But to suggest that children shouldn't be educated about religion at all, something that profoundly affects the lives of the overwhelming majority of the planet's population, is just plain stupid.
I'm not talking about preaching... I'm talking about teaching religion/s as a subject. That's a very different and perfectly sensible proposition.
oh absolutely, but you try that in a corporate environment and it gets harder. We archive everything onto DVD - but that's hardly robust. in 30 years time might someone be cursing me because that first ever radio session from One Night Only only exists on DVD, that extinct format that nobody can read even if the disc is still readable. Big hard disks would do the job too, but put it on the self for 10 years and it might not spin up again. That isn't the answer. The benefit of tape is that it decays at a known rate and is relatively easy to store, but takes up too much space. In the current environment the only way forward would be a decent managed storage system.... there just ain't the money for that.
Even now large quantities of broadcasted material isn't kept, mainly because of the resources required to do so. Across the BBC hundreds of hours of radio are broadcast each day. Keeping all of that in a meaningful archive, that's easily accessible, backed up, etc wouldn't pass a 'public value test'.
The problem is that it's very difficult to determine what's culturally significant. For example I present a music show on BBC Local Radio. Some of the bands who've played sessions on my show could go on to be huge megastars. But I don't know which ones. Probably not those I expect.
Deciding what's kept is often down to individual programme producers, and frankly they're busy enough working on the next show. I know I am.
It's not about quality, I can walk the streets with my HTC PDA phone that offers all my contacts/e-mails/calendar/simple browser/audio recorder/document reader & a crap camera. If I want to take pictures, I'll use my dSLR, want a laptop... I'll take my laptop. Want to record high quality sound, I'll take a Zoom H4 (or similar). I couldn't imagine trying to carry all this stuff around all the time... It's just a tool at the end of the day. Have to agree about Windows Mobile though. It's awful.
Whilst the BBC is a cutting edge broadcaster they're slow to take on new technology. Even well established technology like being able to have a national music database (like iTunes for BBC staff) doesn't exist. Then the new stuff is often compromised to fit in with old stuff. The web services are a good example. Good old static html with nothing dynamic anywhere in sight.
Where the BBC has bought in web content systems from companies like Documentum... they're crap and don't deliver. Across the BBC you'd be amazed how primitive most setups are... There's a long way to go to make stuff internally never mind to the masses online.
There's huge potential with Opensource sofware, and I'd rather see the BBC go that way. But with MS being a huge established corporation I can see the attraction.
In one sense you're right. The BBC is not a necessity. But I would certainly fear what would happen to the UK media without the BBC. That special mix of good quality programming, a bit of something for everyone, some high brow stuff that commercial channels wouldn't touch, news reporting that is arguably the best in the world... You wouldn't get that with a commercial organization that has to line the pockets of shareholders rather than please the public...
"The man is the President Pro Tempore. If the President, Vice President and Speaker of the House die... he becomes President of the United States....... oh shit."
Could be worse though... you could have George Bush in power... oh no wait....
Re:more proof the RIAA/MPAA are insane
on
Death By DMCA
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Here in the UK one channel (Five) had a fantastic anti-advert system for a while. They were multiband limiting the audio on the ad breaks with the result that it was so loud, you were forced to hit the mute button.
Marvellous.
Slashdot Mirror
I can see why you would want to separate broadcast engineering from IT support but one risk is you end up with a corporate IT dept who don't understand broadcast: "oh sure we'll fix that in 24 hours." "but I'm on air NOW." "yeah but you see the sla....". As the line between IT equipment and broadcast critical equipment (and networks) is ever more blurred having everyone understand the nature of the broadcast environment is really important Been there in the BBC. It ain't fun when you're on air, the playout system is down and IT stick to a eight hour response.
"Public education, science education in particular, should not mention gods at all."
I almost entirely disagree with you. You're right that science education shouldn't mention deities at all, just as sport, woodwork and food probably shouldn't be touching on theology, faith and belief or morals and ethics. But to suggest that children shouldn't be educated about religion at all, something that profoundly affects the lives of the overwhelming majority of the planet's population, is just plain stupid.
I'm not talking about preaching... I'm talking about teaching religion/s as a subject. That's a very different and perfectly sensible proposition.
oh absolutely, but you try that in a corporate environment and it gets harder. We archive everything onto DVD - but that's hardly robust. in 30 years time might someone be cursing me because that first ever radio session from One Night Only only exists on DVD, that extinct format that nobody can read even if the disc is still readable. Big hard disks would do the job too, but put it on the self for 10 years and it might not spin up again. That isn't the answer. The benefit of tape is that it decays at a known rate and is relatively easy to store, but takes up too much space. In the current environment the only way forward would be a decent managed storage system.... there just ain't the money for that.
Even now large quantities of broadcasted material isn't kept, mainly because of the resources required to do so. Across the BBC hundreds of hours of radio are broadcast each day. Keeping all of that in a meaningful archive, that's easily accessible, backed up, etc wouldn't pass a 'public value test'. The problem is that it's very difficult to determine what's culturally significant. For example I present a music show on BBC Local Radio. Some of the bands who've played sessions on my show could go on to be huge megastars. But I don't know which ones. Probably not those I expect. Deciding what's kept is often down to individual programme producers, and frankly they're busy enough working on the next show. I know I am.
It's not about quality, I can walk the streets with my HTC PDA phone that offers all my contacts/e-mails/calendar/simple browser/audio recorder/document reader & a crap camera. If I want to take pictures, I'll use my dSLR, want a laptop... I'll take my laptop. Want to record high quality sound, I'll take a Zoom H4 (or similar). I couldn't imagine trying to carry all this stuff around all the time... It's just a tool at the end of the day. Have to agree about Windows Mobile though. It's awful.
Whilst the BBC is a cutting edge broadcaster they're slow to take on new technology. Even well established technology like being able to have a national music database (like iTunes for BBC staff) doesn't exist. Then the new stuff is often compromised to fit in with old stuff. The web services are a good example. Good old static html with nothing dynamic anywhere in sight. Where the BBC has bought in web content systems from companies like Documentum... they're crap and don't deliver. Across the BBC you'd be amazed how primitive most setups are... There's a long way to go to make stuff internally never mind to the masses online. There's huge potential with Opensource sofware, and I'd rather see the BBC go that way. But with MS being a huge established corporation I can see the attraction.
In one sense you're right. The BBC is not a necessity. But I would certainly fear what would happen to the UK media without the BBC. That special mix of good quality programming, a bit of something for everyone, some high brow stuff that commercial channels wouldn't touch, news reporting that is arguably the best in the world... You wouldn't get that with a commercial organization that has to line the pockets of shareholders rather than please the public...
"The man is the President Pro Tempore. If the President, Vice President and Speaker of the House die... he becomes President of the United States. ... ... oh shit."
Could be worse though... you could have George Bush in power... oh no wait....
Here in the UK one channel (Five) had a fantastic anti-advert system for a while. They were multiband limiting the audio on the ad breaks with the result that it was so loud, you were forced to hit the mute button. Marvellous.