Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Government approved National Songbook
Apparently, the Government is planning to produce a National Songbook for schools. Supposedly it will contain a "full range of genre of music from classical to traditional folk to pop". Who wants to make a bet that a version of The Internationale is in it?
Usenet, Bulletin Board and Blogs. All the same really.
Reading the comments on Tim Ireland's "Guido deletes my comments" posts, and the posts by the Me-Toos (here, and here), it has suddenly struck me that no matter what the technological medium, the rules of the online community still apply. Anyone who has spent a significant time on Usenet or Bulletin Boards will know that every year or so there will be a thread that starts off a war of words between the opposing sides of the community. The sides of that community are more often than not divided along political lines.
On the one hand you have the freedom loving, libertarian anarchists, whilst on the other you have the authoritarian vanguard elite who want everyone to be very serious to ensure their own intellectual self-importance. The thread that kicks it off will always contain a diatribe aimed at a long time member usually from the libertarian side of the community but not always. The diatribe will always contain fallacy, request proofs of negatives, and usually start that age old Internet classic "who are the alts?".
What are alts you may ask? Well, the Internet is like the side of a house with lots of windows. Each window represents parts of our own psyche, and we can look through whichever window we choose and explore that part of our psyche if we wish. Hence a man can pretend to be a woman, a woman can pretend to be a man, or in bizarre cases a man may pretend to be a woman pretending to be a man. These are your alter-egos, or alts as the community will usually call them.
Fundamental to the diatribe and ensuing flame war (of which yes, this may be considered part), is an edge of paranoia that thinks all is not what it seems. There will be a belief that vast numbers of the "other side" are not really individuals but merely alts of the original target. The intellectual absurdity then becomes present as the paranoia leads to fallacious arguments such as "unless you prove you're not an alt I will believe you are one". This is a bit like saying, unless you prove you don't have weapons mass destruction we will believe you have some. Ah yes, WMD, and Iraq. Where would an Internet flame be without some idiotic reference to Iraq being the real cause of everything in the world ever?
Where am I going with this? Well, the truth is, I don't really think anyone other than intellectual elitist snobs give a shit if Guido does delete comments. I don't actually think anyone in the real world could give a flying fuck if Guido did post anonymous comments on his blog. In fact, the entire accusation, which has been wrapped in pathetically high-minded moral bullshit, is merely a distraction from the headline point of Guido's blog. The story.
This is the Internet, the idea that there is some sort of self-regulatory code of conduct bloggers follow is little more than romanticised bollocks. Blogs are websites, they are websites owned by the author, and the author has every right to do whatever they choose with it. It is their space, just like their house. They have no obligation to anyone other than themselves, and thinking otherwise makes one rather foolish.
Having said all this, watching the toys flying out of the pram, be it on Usenet, BBS's or blogs, never ceases to be thoroughly enjoyable to watch.
NOTE: You cannot comment on this post. I have not turned comments off because I'm afraid of debate, I've done it because I think I'm big, clever, certainly arrogant and actually quite funny really.
On the one hand you have the freedom loving, libertarian anarchists, whilst on the other you have the authoritarian vanguard elite who want everyone to be very serious to ensure their own intellectual self-importance. The thread that kicks it off will always contain a diatribe aimed at a long time member usually from the libertarian side of the community but not always. The diatribe will always contain fallacy, request proofs of negatives, and usually start that age old Internet classic "who are the alts?".
What are alts you may ask? Well, the Internet is like the side of a house with lots of windows. Each window represents parts of our own psyche, and we can look through whichever window we choose and explore that part of our psyche if we wish. Hence a man can pretend to be a woman, a woman can pretend to be a man, or in bizarre cases a man may pretend to be a woman pretending to be a man. These are your alter-egos, or alts as the community will usually call them.
Fundamental to the diatribe and ensuing flame war (of which yes, this may be considered part), is an edge of paranoia that thinks all is not what it seems. There will be a belief that vast numbers of the "other side" are not really individuals but merely alts of the original target. The intellectual absurdity then becomes present as the paranoia leads to fallacious arguments such as "unless you prove you're not an alt I will believe you are one". This is a bit like saying, unless you prove you don't have weapons mass destruction we will believe you have some. Ah yes, WMD, and Iraq. Where would an Internet flame be without some idiotic reference to Iraq being the real cause of everything in the world ever?
Where am I going with this? Well, the truth is, I don't really think anyone other than intellectual elitist snobs give a shit if Guido does delete comments. I don't actually think anyone in the real world could give a flying fuck if Guido did post anonymous comments on his blog. In fact, the entire accusation, which has been wrapped in pathetically high-minded moral bullshit, is merely a distraction from the headline point of Guido's blog. The story.
This is the Internet, the idea that there is some sort of self-regulatory code of conduct bloggers follow is little more than romanticised bollocks. Blogs are websites, they are websites owned by the author, and the author has every right to do whatever they choose with it. It is their space, just like their house. They have no obligation to anyone other than themselves, and thinking otherwise makes one rather foolish.
Having said all this, watching the toys flying out of the pram, be it on Usenet, BBS's or blogs, never ceases to be thoroughly enjoyable to watch.
NOTE: You cannot comment on this post. I have not turned comments off because I'm afraid of debate, I've done it because I think I'm big, clever, certainly arrogant and actually quite funny really.
Monday, January 15, 2007
How green is my car?
The other day, Jonathan Sheppard over at Tory Radio tagged me to say how green my car usage was via the Climate Care website.The answer for me, the owner of a 4x4, is that I pump out approximately 5.83 tonnes of CO2 each year. The car itself is actually painted green though, so in that respect it's OK I reckon!
Anti-Smoking Adverts
Some people may have seen the recent anti-smoking adverts by the Department of Health which feature people with large fish hooks through their mouths (pictured). Apparently theses adverts have received almost 100 complaints from the public for being "disturbing".I can't imagine what those people would think of this anti-smoking television advert from the Czech Republic then?
Will porno kill Sony again?
Whether one likes porn or not, there is an industry that exists which operates in a market that is massively popular. At the same time Sony are entering into a virtually identical video format battle to that which they lost to VHS two decades ago.
Sony Blu-ray versus Toshiba HD-DVD is where the battleground lies, and, if the argument in this article in The Inquirer is right, it will be porno that dictates who wins the battle. For it is, apparently, Sony's stated policy not to allow their format to be used for porn distribution - something they also did with Betamax. In that previous case the market spoke and Betamax died.
There is though a major difference this time round, as the Inquirer points out. This time the battle also has the presence of the Internet in the mix. The Internet provides porn distributors with massively cheaper distribution costs at the expense of minor drops in video quality. Ultimately, whilst Sony are very likely to lose again, HD-DVD may find itself doomed as well, just not with quite the same haste.
Sony Blu-ray versus Toshiba HD-DVD is where the battleground lies, and, if the argument in this article in The Inquirer is right, it will be porno that dictates who wins the battle. For it is, apparently, Sony's stated policy not to allow their format to be used for porn distribution - something they also did with Betamax. In that previous case the market spoke and Betamax died.
There is though a major difference this time round, as the Inquirer points out. This time the battle also has the presence of the Internet in the mix. The Internet provides porn distributors with massively cheaper distribution costs at the expense of minor drops in video quality. Ultimately, whilst Sony are very likely to lose again, HD-DVD may find itself doomed as well, just not with quite the same haste.
Blair misdirects information sharing debate
The headline on the BBC and other news outlets is that Blair and John Hutton have rejected the argument that new proposals for information sharing between Government departments does not represent a step towards a "Big Brother" state. This is a deliberate misdirection from the real problem with these proposals.
The real danger is the fact that these proposals will allow greater access to individuals' information to an ever greater number of people right down to local authority level. The issue is not the possibilty of an all-seeing state but is instead the possibility of large sections of the state-employed population being able to access information about individuals by virtue of the insane relaxation of data sharing rules.
The real danger is the fact that these proposals will allow greater access to individuals' information to an ever greater number of people right down to local authority level. The issue is not the possibilty of an all-seeing state but is instead the possibility of large sections of the state-employed population being able to access information about individuals by virtue of the insane relaxation of data sharing rules.
David Davis takes aim at the Foreign Office?
Having looked at the Question Book, it appears that David Davis may have the Foreign Office in his sights in the ongoing scandal about criminal records not being updated.
Tabled for tomorrow, David Davis has asked the Foreign Office whether consulates abroad keep records of the offences, sentences, names, passport numbers, or DNA samples, of British criminals convicted abroad. Crucially he's also asked what procedures exists to transfer this sort of information back into the UK for dissemination into the relevant Home Office agencies.
Something tells me that the answers will highlight even further incompetence by the Government on matters of law and order.
Tabled for tomorrow, David Davis has asked the Foreign Office whether consulates abroad keep records of the offences, sentences, names, passport numbers, or DNA samples, of British criminals convicted abroad. Crucially he's also asked what procedures exists to transfer this sort of information back into the UK for dissemination into the relevant Home Office agencies.
Something tells me that the answers will highlight even further incompetence by the Government on matters of law and order.
Government to scrap Disney website
Last week that Government announced that it was scrapping 551 of it's 900 websites. A list of some of those sites has been published and it looks like the biggest culling are going to occur in the Department of Transport and the Department for International Development.
There are some rather interesting sites in there. For a start there is this one about HIV research which appears to be hosted on free webspace provided by BT OpenWorld? Then there is Good Humanitarian Donorship as opposed to "Bad Humanitarian Donorship"?
My favourite though is www.cyclesmart.org which actually redirects to a Disney website? Has the Government told Disney of its plans?
There are some rather interesting sites in there. For a start there is this one about HIV research which appears to be hosted on free webspace provided by BT OpenWorld? Then there is Good Humanitarian Donorship as opposed to "Bad Humanitarian Donorship"?
My favourite though is www.cyclesmart.org which actually redirects to a Disney website? Has the Government told Disney of its plans?
Gordon and friends embrace the "celebrity culture"
Over the weekend, Gordon Brown was quoted in more than one paper slamming David Cameron for being part of a "celebrity culture". As the headline in Independent said, 'I'll have nothing to do with celebrity culture,' says Brown.
If that's true, why is Brown's little helper, Ed Balls, putting out a press release about Brown's personal project, the Child Trust Fund, and using celebrities in it? If you scroll down the release you'll see a comment from Sheree Murphy, former Emmerdale star, mother of two, and WAG to Harry Kewell.
If that's true, why is Brown's little helper, Ed Balls, putting out a press release about Brown's personal project, the Child Trust Fund, and using celebrities in it? If you scroll down the release you'll see a comment from Sheree Murphy, former Emmerdale star, mother of two, and WAG to Harry Kewell.
"My children's future is always top of my mind, and the Child Trust Fund is a fantastic way to start saving for them. Harry and I opened a Child Trust Fund account for our daughter Ruby and we encourage relatives and friends to contribute to it for her birthday and at Christmas. Watching it grow together will be a great way for Ruby to learn about the importance of saving."Nothing to do with the celebrity culture? Pull the other one, it's got bells on it. There is a more important point here though. Do the Government really think we'll believe that a Premiership footballer and his soap star wife use Gordon's Trust Fund with it's maximum pay-in allowance of just £1,200 per year? That probably doesn't even equate to half a day's pay for Kewell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)