For those living outside the UK (well so far as our IP address is concerned) watching BBC television via the Web has always been a bit of a challenge. Presumably because of the way that the BBC is funded, a Licence Fee (aka tax!) on those UK householders that wish to watch public broadcasted television, it is deemed ‘unfair’ if those outside the UK, who do not pay this Fee, have unfettered access to the Beeb’s programming. Thus if one attempts to access the BBC online from outside the UK you are met with the following message:
Currently BBC iPlayer TV programmes are available to play in the UK only, but all BBC iPlayer Radio programmes are available to you. Why?
However, the BBC have made a wonderful exception with regard to a series of programmes under the title of The Virtual Revolution. All about 20 years of the World Wide Web.
Most of, if not all, the key players of this last 20 years have been interviewed and the uncut footage of these interviews is here. Fascinating viewing.
And if you fancy making your own documentary using this material, under a unique BBC permissive licence, then here’s where to start.
“Daily Mail”! What on earth are you doing with that?
Well, I thought I’d check it out, Sir.
Check it out?
Yes Sir. People have been attacking it.
Attacking it?
You keep repeating me, Sir …
I’m just stunned Perkins! Why on earth would anyone sane want to “check it out”?
Well, I’ve always been suspicious of situations where the establishment and so-called cognoscenti collectively attack something, Sir.
Why on earth is that, Perkins?
Well, they could have an ulterior motive, Sir.
Ulterior motive?”
You’re doing it again, Sir.
Look Perkins, the Mail is a ghastly, sensationalist rag.
When did you last read it, Sir?
Goodness me, Perkins. I have better things to do with my time.
How can you be sure then that you’re not just baying the mindless mantra of your peers?
Look Perkins. I don’t read the Mail because it appeals to the mob and has no analysis.
But “the mob” are the mass of the people, Sir.
Exactly, Perkins. Now you’re on the right track.
So you don’t believe in democracy, Sir?
Don’t ask silly questions, Perkins. Of course I do, just as long as the people don’t get their hands on government. But seriously, the Mail has little analysis; just a crude statement of facts.
But why are you so attached to “analysis”, Sir? Surely it’s the facts that are most important?
Well if you don’t have analysis then how do you know what’s really going on? You need analysis to explain the headlines.
But surely any analysis depends on the spin of the author? Why can’t people be given the facts and allowed to make up their own minds?
“Make up their own minds?” Be serious, Perkins. The mob hasn’t got a mind to make up; that’s why it’s called “the mob”.
I think you’ll find it was the mob that fought and died in two World Wars to protect freedom and democracy in Britain, Sir.
Aha! That proves my point! You don’t need to understand much to pop your head over the top and get it shot off, do you! The mob is ideally suited to it.
But “analysis” is overrated, Sir. People should be encouraged to think for themselves.
“Think for themselves!” Now Perkins, those who went to public school can be expected to think for themselves, but as for the rest …
I’m sorry, Sir; there is in fact too much analysis. I was put off at school at an early age. No sooner had we opened a Shakespeare play than we had FR Leavis shoved down our throats telling us what to think about it rather than being allowed to interpret and analyze it ourselves.
I’m sorry your education seems to have gone so seriously wrong, Perkins. Did you in fact go to a public school?
Only a poor man’s one, Sir …. but analysis in the press just seems to me a clever way of trying to tell people what they should think. I believe Goebbels was very good at analysis, and of course Tony Blair …
Now Perkins, analysis is all that differentiates us from unthinking morons who cannot understand the law.
You mean British MPs and their expense accounts, Sir?
No … errm …. perhaps I should rephrase that … but really Perkins, this “Defend the Mail” crusade is really a bit OTT, isn’t it?
Perhaps, Sir, but it’s because it is so heavily attacked by verbal diarrhoearists who support totalitarianism. My principle is that your enemy’s enemy is your friend, so to speak. If someone who supports dictatorship attacks it at every chance then it can’t be all bad, sort of thing.
I’m sorry, Perkins. I don’t think I will ever be able to follow the tortured meanderings of your mind.
I think that’s because deep down I identify with “the mob”, Sir, or as I prefer to call them; “the people” ……..
Hmm …… if I were you Perkins I wouldn’t go trumpeting that too loudly round Whitehall. It could put an end to a promising career.
Tim Berners-Lee was, or is, the father of the Internet, that remarkable network that has done to connect millions together. Indeed, my personal view is that the Internet may be the only real tool that people have to protect and defend democracy.
I’m sure thousands know the background ofSir Timothy John “Tim” Berners-Lee, to give him his full name, an Englishman living in the USA.
There was an introduction to the the way that Sir Tim wants to see the web move in yesterday’s Post.
But Tim recently (February 2010) gave a talk in Long Beach, California, entitled The year open data went worldwide. This takes the concept much further.
The greatest danger in scuba diving? You may be surprised!
I learned to scuba dive about 20 years ago. I was certified by NAUI (the National Association of Underwater Instructors) in Chicago, Illinois, and did my check-out dive in a quarry in Wisconsin. It was dreary and raining. The water was cold and the scenery sorely lacking: we dove down to the top of an abandoned school bus! I did just fine as long as I had air; strap a tank on me and I can dive for hours.
But take away the air, and make me go underwater, and I want to surface immediately. It was a huge accomplishment for me to complete my surface dive (where you go fairly deep with no air, just a snorkel, then surface and clear out your snorkel to continue breathing on the surface) although I bit through at least one snorkel before I was through! I blamed it on the cold but the truth is that I was very tense.
Scuba Diving can be fun!
I did a fair amount of diving before I had children and hung up my fins. I dove the Blue Hole, going down 120 feet and getting “narced” (nitrogen narcosis, where you feel “drunk” underwater). I did open water diving with hammerhead sharks off CoCos Island.
My buddy and I were swept away in a current in the middle of the ocean, but so was the dive master and the rest of the dive team, so the boat followed us and we were just fine. I dove with sea turtles, manta rays, eels, and sea horses. I’ve done night diving, which was surprisingly noisy as the fish nipped the coral as they fed. I loved scuba diving. It was a magical, liberating, beautiful experience. But I never forgot how dangerous it was and that it could kill you if you weren’t careful and aware.
I tend to be fairly risk averse so I did a lot of nerdy research as I prepared for my first real diving trip. I wanted to know all I could about how to avoid a scuba diving accident. I learned something that I thought others might find very interesting: that diving as a threesome is the single most dangerous thing you can do when scuba diving! More dangerous than cave diving, ice diving, open water diving, or diving alone! (If my memory serves me right, this result is based on Canadian data on scuba diving accidents, injuries, and deaths. )
It seems hard to believe at first but I think I’ve got it figured out. For one, it happens fairly often. I’ve seen it on many diving trips: someone comes alone or their buddy can’t dive, so they join up with a buddy team. Dive instructors suggest that people join up in threes rather than dive alone. Or the dive instructor joins a pair.
Two, I think people feel safer in a bigger group. Three, I think that when you are diving alone, or cave or ice diving, you are very aware of the risks and take extra precautions to avoid the dangers. But diving in threes doesn’t “seem” risky, so everyone relaxes. And people tend not to clearly lay out ahead of time who is watching whom at the bottom of the ocean where seconds can make the difference between life and death. And that is likely where the danger lives: with a buddy system, there is no question about who is responsible for whom. I am watching out for my buddy, and he is watching out for me. Period. But when diving in threes, the pairing gets muddled. Are you watching out for two people? Are they watching out for you, or for each other? And inevitably someone gets overlooked. And accidents happen.
So, if you ever take up scuba diving, have a blast! But don’t ever dive in threes!
The technology of communication devices, systems, services has changed hugely over the years. There have been lamps, telegraph, telephone, radio, television, and a variety of others (I suppose we should also include smoke signals!).
A replical of a Morse code transmitter of 1844
The characteristics of each technology have dictated the behavioural model of the systems and the services available to users.
With the advent of the Internet, systems have tended to emulate traditional models: bulletin boards, post (email), with the web (world wide that is!) being based on a well-known “request-response” model until relatively recently.
But, now, the gloves are coming off! People are building software-based communication services to provide whatever behavioural model they choose; consider, for example, Facebook, Twitter, FriendFeed and there will be many, many more.
So far, their matching of the models to any specific requirements has been very loose. They build something and then figure out what people use it for!
There is an opportunity to get serious now: to decide whatever experience we want users to have; to design it and build it. Then to iterate models based on live tracking of actual scenarios. This is potentially very big … and keep half an eye on “augmented reality”.
Learning from Dogs 