Friday, November 12, 2010

Don't blame the judges or the state. Blame the medium

Morning all, today is a very important day, because today is the day where the technological step-backward in online communications that is Twitter, killed humour and conversation dead in its tracks.

Let me start by explaining what I mean when I call Twitter a step-backwards. You see, there once was a wonderful age of T'Internet where people used to gather and communicate with each other using Internet-Relay Chat (IRC).

You used to login into IRC and join a channel, #Ilovebigboobs for example. Yes, that's right, the Twitter "hashtag" is a bit of appropriation, you didn't think it was unique to Twitter did you?

Anyhow, once in the channel you chatted with everyone else in there. You weren't limited to what you could say, but being able to type and keep up could be a challenge for some.

Crucially, everyone in there could see what everyone else was saying, and so there was thing called a "conversation" which also had this wonderful little thing called "context". Thus, when someone said something that was amusing it could be contextualised within the conversation. For example,

[Infe] what happens if you try to recharge an alkaline battery
[HomerJ] blows up
[Andrigaar] Don't they explode?
[Andrigaar] I wonder if it's violent or just some leaking battery acid.
[Infe] i think it's all a scam to get you to pay more for 'rechargeables' and ---
[Infe] AHHHHHHHHHHH MY FACE
[Infe] AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH


Now, if you were to strip the whole thing as individual lines and present them as such, they'd either not make sense, or, quite possibly, could be construed as offensive, aggressive, worryingly dangerous or just downright odd.

That, people, is where we are today with the backward step called Twitter. You're in a massive chat room, but not everyone is listening to the whole conversation. It's a bit like listening to one half of a phone conversation, you fill in the blanks, and that can be quite dangerous.

We have two striking examples in the news today. The first is the poor sod who, thanks to snow delaying flights, made a joke on Twitter about blowing the airport in a conversation to the person he was off to meet, and the joke was lost, and he got charged and convicted of threatening some sort of terrorist attack.

Then we have the Tory councillor, arrested yesterday, after he responded on Twitter to something he had heard Yasmin Alibhai-Brown say on the radio. His comment was a sarcastic one about stoning her to death that was really just mocking the sheer idiocy of the argument she had been making.

Not only did we lose the context of his comment thanks to Twitter, but we also had the age old classic assumption that is too often made online in general. That being that when you say something, everyone everywhere in the whole wide world will actually know what you're talking about.

This sort of thing, to be fair, happens a lot with online communities. They tend to assume that they're exceptionally important and that what they say or discuss must be known by everyone else because hey, they're discussing it right? They got it trending on Twitter dammit, it's gone viral, everyone knows! Errrr... no they don't.

Just like the loss of context (and irritating time delay) that Twitter has provided to the once great medium of online chat, so too has it created this disconnect with reality, where the importance of something in the virtual world of Twitter is merged into reality and automagically equated with the same importance even when it isn't.

In other words, not only can a councillor, or some random guy say something in jest in an elongated chatroom where the context is lost, but that thing they say can leak out of the edge of VR and be given prominence that it really doesn't deserve.

Just imagine for a minute a world where everything you said to anyone was recorded and analysed in isolation by the state? A world where you made a joke, but the tone, the intonation and sound of your voice was removed and your words were simply displayed and interpreted literally? That's where we are right now with Twitter.

Of course, there are some out there that argue that this is because of a paranoia about terrorism, that's its all because of the state changing our way of life. They might have a point, but no one seems to be spotting the elephant in the room. It's not a changing a state that's to blame, it's not because of an assault on liberty, its because Twitter itself, by design, has created this situation.

Whilst everyone has got carried away with the idea of "social networking" they've all missed fundamental design flaws of many of the platforms and the unintended consequences they bring. If you have a system of communication that not only limits how much can be said, but also works on a broadcast principle where contextualisation of conversation's can be lost, then what we see in the news today is the result.

The online text-based world has always been fundamentally flawed because tone and intonation of what is said can be lost. However, at least in the old world of bulletin boards, forums and IRC, you could follow the flow and build the missing tone of what was being said in real-time, on Twitter you can't. It lacks the real-time dimension and produces little more than isolated snippets lacking not just the tonal flow but the context too.

Like I said at the beginning, Twitter has killed humour, but it's worse than that. Twitter has killed conversation too.

Imagine there is man with an infinite tape recorder that is omnipresent. We let that man record everything we say, everyday and every minute. He take those recording and breaks them down into 3 seconds chunks, and then, because he's super clever and powerful, plays them through every PA and speaker system in the world, but he does it totally randomly.

That man is Twitter.

That man killed humour.

That man killed context.

That man killed conversation.

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Offensive To All?

True equality is about being offensive to everyone right?

Click Image for Large Offensive Version


Via /r/pics/

Dear Students......

Flippant thought for you but....

There are approximately 2 million University students in the UK. Currently fees are no more than £3000 per year. So, if you were to give the Trotskyites what they want, i.e. free University education, then you need to find, £6000,000,000 (that's £6bn) every year to pay for it. The Department for International Development has a total budget in excess of £7bn per year.

Quid pro quo?

Note: Something tells me lefties wouldn't buy the end of international aid in exchange for free education.

Quote of the Day: Sunny Hundal

Incredible comment from Sunny Hundal.
pah! at violence. There was just a few kids being silly. It’s hardly armageddon. The Tories, police and media are wusses. - Liberal Conspiracy
Fire extinguishers thrown from sixth floor of a building into a crowd of people; fires being lit inside buildings; doors and windows kicked in; police hit with sticks of woods connected to placards; bricks being thrown... but hey it's all just a bit of silliness and anyone mildly concerned about it is just a wuss.

Grauniad: Headline and Report Juxtaposition

OMFG! Tory Tory!..... no wait..... errrr.

Were Special Branch and the Met properly informed?

Today, the morning after the crazy day before, I imagine that NUS President Aaron Porter must be wondering whether he's about to follow one of his predecessors (Phil Woolas) into political career oblivion. He was, naturally, very quick yesterday to run down to the Millbank TV studios and condemn the so-called "tiny minority" (numbering many hundreds) that were taking The Damned's "Smash It Up" just a tad too literally, however, in the cold light of a new day, is it enough?

If you organise a protest, if you put the permission forms in and you sign them yourself, then you are responsible for what happens on the day and the organising you do. As yet, part from saying that the people that kicked off were despicable, we're yet to see any sign from the NUS that they'll even acknowledge they themselves have a role to play in casting the blame around.

Yes, undoubtedly the Police were unprepared, but the question that needs to be asked is why? Why is it, that the Metropolitan Police, a force that is used to dealing with anarchist and trotskyite nutjobs, so hopelessly prepared for a possible trouble at a protest with at the very least 25,000 people present?

Was it sheer incompetence on their part? Or were they misled about the scale of the protest by Porter and the NUS? If they were misled was it deliberate or simply incompetence on the part of Porter and his organisation (I prefer the latter option)? Can the NUS really claim ignorance of what appear to be violent extremist factions within their organisation?

We now know also that, the Tory Party Chairman, and Minister without Portfolio, Baroness Warsi, was in CCHQ during the time of the rioting.

That's a member of the Cabinet who, if I recall correctly, would be afforded some sort of Special Branch protection. Were Special Branch even aware of the potential threat before it occurred? If not, was it because the Met just forgot to tell them a march of students was walking past the front of the office, or was it because the Police were not properly informed by Porter and the NUS?

Perhaps I'm not being fair here, but I'm finding it difficult to believe that a force as experienced in crowd control problems in London as the Met would be so unprepared. After all, we normally hear that they're too heavy-handed, not that there's not enough of them. This begs the question of whether the were so unprepared because Porter and the NUS failed to engage with them properly in the first place?

If that is the case, then Porter might have to fall on his sword before the day out.

Update: More from Tory Bear who asks another question. "Can Aaron Porter be sure that no NUS hacks were involved in the destruction of Millbank Tower and 30 Millbank?" If anything appears that implicates NUS people in the violence then Porter is screwed.

Image listed from Guido

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Pizza Express: Cause and Effect?

Interesting discount offer at the NUS website here.


Something tells me that smashing up a Pizza Express may mean the offer ends soon.

Tip via reader

Students fail to do their research

So it seems the students protesting against tuition fees today have gone to London and kicked off by targeting Millbank Tower, home of CCHQ, and smashing windows.

Slight problem, home of CCHQ isn't actually in Millbank Tower, it's on Millbank. They used to have back office staff in there but haven't for a while now.

So the students have managed to attack completely the wrong building anyway. The state of education in this country is horrific isn't it?

Idiots.

UPDATE: Guido is saying on Twitter that the students are storming CCHQ lobby now. Perhaps they've realised their mistake?

Early Day Motion - Cost Redux (2010 Edition)

Back in 2005-06, the amount of money that the House of Commons erupted up against the proverbial wall on Parliamentary graffiti in the form of Early Day Motions celebrating the life of a celebrity chef's dog and calling for more maggots to be available on the NHS, was in the region of £600,000.

So, where are we now in the "Age of Austerity"© with those costs? Up? Down? The same? Stupid question really because you know the answer, it's up. Actually, it's almost double now. In the year 2009/10 the total cost of Early Day motions came in at a princely sum of approximately £1 million. According to Sir Stuart Bell,
Most of this cost was accounted for by printing and publication of early-day motions, amendments to them, and names added to them, under the House's contract with TSO. This cost nearly £776,000 in 2009-10.

Expenditure is incurred on staff time to process and input notices relating to early-day motions, and to index that material. Staff who deal with EDMs also undertake other duties, but a rough estimate of the full salary costs incurred from the estimated amount of their time spent on EDMs, including employer's pension contribution and national insurance, is of the order of £150,000 for 2009-10.

In addition, technical support for the EDMi database and the Table Office's software application for processing EDMs cost approximately £87,000 in 2009-10.
Yes, we really do have to spend £150K alone on the salary, pension and NI contributions for the poor sods that have to sort out the latest self-congratulatory bollocks that our MPs want to spout off fruitlessly about.

One such recent example would be the ever amsuing Kerry McCarthy MP, who tabled the following about Bristol City FC's proposed new stadium,

That this House wholeheartedly supports England's bid to host the 2018 FIFA Football World Cup; recognises the need to have a range of geographically-widespread, high-quality stadia to attract the bid; supports the A City United group, which is campaigning for the construction of a stadium in Ashton Vale, Bristol suitable for hosting World Cup matches;welcomes the proposed designation of a wetlands and wildlife area on the Ashton Vale site; and calls on the Government to support Bristol City Football Club's new stadium as part of the FIFA World Cup bid.
Why highlight this? Well Kerry seems to be calling on the Government to support something which it is already supporting, given that Ashton Vale is a candidate stadium already - not the Government has any actual power over which grounds get used anyway.

A total waste of money EDM to be sure, although it does give Kerry some free* PR in her local press.

* When I say "free" I obviously mean free in the sense that the taxpayer funds it.

Note: "Age of Austerity" is copyright of GideonOsborne Inc

Update: Edited to correct my misreading of words as per comment below.

Tuesday, November 09, 2010

The Lawyers still get their Vol-Au-Vents

Good to see that some Labour MPs are taking Opposition seriously in order to probe the Government and look for a story. Ian Austin, the MP for Dudley North, has been busy trying to establish how much Government departments are pissing up the wall on vol-au-vents and champagne reception int he new "age of austerity".

Of course, should he find anything his angle would be slightly different to mine. I imagine he would take the view that the evil baby-eating Tories were quaffing it up whilst the put the poor on the breadlines. I on the other hand would be outraged that they were quaffing it up in general with my money irrespective of whether we were in good times or bad.

I might also point out the Vol Au Vent League Table 2006-07 just to illustrate that the previous Government excelled themselves at hospitality on the taxpayer, but that is besides the point.

What Ian Austin has found out is that in the two months leading to the CSR (September and October), which was a prime time for department to have one last splash of the cash as it, pretty much no one actually bothered (a good thing).

Well no one apart from Ken Clarke at the Ministry of Justice, who spent £13,176 on opening the "legal year breakfast", the annual jolly where the lawyers get together for another year of making money from others misery.

In the age of austerity the lawyers are still the only winners huh?