Whose leak is it anyway?
The recent revelation that another underwear bomb plot was foiled was great news for all. Like most people I'm heartened by humanity's response to the threat posed by terrorists. The change in world affairs over the last decade has been largely directed by the acts of terrorism a lot of people have suffered. It is great to know that the security services and people in general are constantly on the tails of the extremists who want to spoil life for all.
So after all the congratulating was done I figured I didn't need to know any more about the how and when this plot got foiled. But to my surprise the information kept coming. Drip, drip, drip. Five days on and it's a miracle we don't yet know what the underwear of choice for these idiots is. Are they still under the influence of Calvin Klein's Marky Mark campaign or have they succumbed to David Beckham's inspiration that has been brought to life by H & M? Y-Fronts or no Y-fronts. That is the question. After all there is no better selling point for underwear than the ability to feel comfortable with a bomb in them.
May contain explosives
For those of you with a sense of humour by-pass, the above is not to take lightly the serious consequences of terrorism. It is merely to highlight the unnecessary risk posed by the chest-thumping officials who leaked the details that the 'bomber' was a plant. A British born guy no less, of the kind that poses most danger in the western world with their ability to be inconspicuous. On the list of special agents, the transformation skills requirement is much less than Martin Lawrence's in Big Mama.
He was so serious about dying that he didn't bother to wear clean underwear
In addition it also turns out that the bomb was an 'evolution' of a prior device probably made by the Calvin Klein of bombs and modified to the extent that it was undetectable by airport security scanners. Again information that you or I don't need to know. Unless you or I are planning on bombing aeroplanes. Unlikely as it is you'd think that would be a basic assumption of all security agents. Otherwise why do we all now have to take our shoes off and subjected to digital stripping before boarding an aeroplane? But no. It turns out that if you put a security agent in front of a newspaper reporter they'll squeal faster than an Al-Qaeda operative being water boarded on a rendition in Libya. The reporter, himself not being able to keep a lid on anything apart from their sources, promptly did what their job title says. They reported. Now at this point I'll hear you suggesting that the aforementioned title of idiots which I applied to the terrorists must be applied to the security agent and the reporter. You are of course right. In fact we should strip the prefix of security from that agent too. This is utter madness of the highest level and I'm sure that I don't need to explain why, except for the fact that this post's purpose is just to rant and rave in the hope that the parties involved somehow stumble upon this article and post their regret in the comments section below.
With all the leaked information it's apparent to anyone how 'improvements' can be made into any future devices from this brand of bombs. I know that the trend nowadays is for an open and transparent world, but I am still firmly in the camp that says I don't need to know everything that happens if it doesn't directly affect me. This is a simplistic statement which I can justify with another rant of it's own so please don't call me out on it lest we get distracted from the rant at hand.
I have no idea what motivated the leaks and their reporting, but if I was to guess I would say it was the desire to say 'hey look at how competent we all are'. Which the reporter instantly one-upped by trying to show his or her own peers how reliable their sources are. All this ignored the reality of the world we live in, to the possible detriment of future security operations. Some things are best not said dear reader. Transparency and openness are generally great but not when they serve no purpose in the public interest as we have seen with celebrity culture or when they unwittingly enable the few bad people in the world to ruin life for all the rest. The ego of a reporter and his source the security agent is no reason to ignore that reality.
Nudists loved the new airline policy until it banned all human flight
Musicians need to be like bloggers and stop whingeing
I've often thought that literature and music share a lot and by that I don't mean the historical links of cheap arty neighbourhoods populated by musicians, artists, poets, actors and writers all scrounging around trying to find themselves.
Just like music, writing has now evolved so much that some old timers would rather terms like literature and chord were not applied to blogging and grime music respectively. And just like it would be churlish to deny that instant noodles are not noodles, it is improper to deny those two their place in their respective cultures.
And so it is that like music, writing is an art form. However apart from a deluded minority you don't get us bloggers thinking that we MUST live off the pen keyboard.
Musicians need to get over that aspect of their art and realise that there are thousands of them out there and that just because they have spent some money on their craft, doesn't mean that the world owes them a living. In the music and bloggers analogy writers who can string two sentences together would try to go professional; and as soon as they try to live off of writing they would start to complain about every aspect of the industry. Spouting on about anything from the 'dinosaurs' who don't get the change that's happening right down to the new school digital gatekeepers who are screwing them on behalf of the dinosaurs (who want to hold onto inflated profits from times gone by).
"To save money we will be replacing our reporters with bloggers, who will work for free."
You only have to look at the blogging world to realise that we too spend money on our craft hoping that one day we'll make it. However making it for most of us just means getting a back-link and getting 100 hits in a day. There are millions of websites out there competing for eyeballs and whilst it would be great for me to be paid to write, I seriously don't lose any sleep over it. I will continue to fork out money to Godaddy (and their girls), theme designers, app makers and anyone else who promises to make my blog look cool or easy to put together. I am prepared to do all this in order to fool a few readers a day into clicking the subscribe button. One day my kids may be mad at me because they missed out on playing time whilst I wrote about my sadness at the death of a dictator but you know what? I don't mind. I blog for the love of it and though my time is worth a lot to me and my family, the fact that I'm doing it for me means that I'm content with not charging you to read it. Link away dear friend. Unless I suddenly become popular and am the subject of a mega-bucks Rupert Murdoch takeover, this website will always be freely available. Though lets face it, everyone has their price so you never know what could tempt me to put up a paywall.
Nevertheless, I am truly content with knowing that the millions of rubbish websites and blogs out there make it much less likely that mine will be found by any significant number of people. Not through a lack of presence of course, but apathy from readers who are tired of being trapped into reading ugly blogs full of unoriginal content churned out by machines. And that's just if you're lucky, because on a bad day surfing the web can result in your computer catching a virus or you visiting a site for paid local (same) sex services which would be impossible to explain if your boss or wife looked at your browser history.
In the end it's clear to me that the internet is full of junk. Millions of rubbish websites with trash-type content strung together by biased writers who stopped learning grammar soon as they finished learning their ABCs and all available through one of the greatest ever innovations in history. The weird thing is that some of that junk is actually really popular and a huge number of other well written and presented content will never be exposed to much more than the writer who wrote it and their long lost ex who is trying to track them down. I'm conceited enough to think that my blog is one of the better ones, but I'm not up-myself enough to think that internet surfers owe me a living.
Despite all this I'm not deterred in my quest to write compelling posts and it's probable that my anti-Apple zeal could have been cured if Steve Jobs had ever said that the Macbook was so magical it could make me write like a latter-day Thomas Hardy. The Macbook is one of the few things that separates me from my very musical younger brother. The fact that he has invested much more in his equipment than I in blogging aids. This could quite easily have been the reverse had I been born in the days of the type-writer, however in terms of time spent I believe I would have no problem matching him or any other arty type. Nonetheless I won't single him out because he has never expressed a sense of entitlement about his standing in the music business. My ire is directed at his up-and-coming peers in general who complain about the state of an industry which they have chosen in all consciousness to be a part of.
As the proprietor of a music related business, I'm not anti-musician nor do I foresee doom and gloom on either side of the music business artist or establishment. I simply believe that people have choices. To work in the industry or not. To view it as a hobby or not. To use certain services or not. To always complain about the state of things and the problems they encounter or to try and effect change and solutions. But most pertinently musicians also have the choice to live in the real world and look around...... or not. Either way I wish they'd stop whingeing about the business!
The screwing game: Cable companies vs Fred Wilson
Perenially on the cusp
Fred Wilson on AVC recently wrote a blog post about how he ended up 'illegally' streaming a New York Knicks match because there was no 'legal' way for him to pay for it without actually going to the match. In that situation he had been willing to pay even $25 for the priviledge. The post is aptly titled #screwcable!
In and amongst the support for what Fred did were some well argued contrarian views. The quote below is not one of them though it raises an important issue.
The players, owners, league spend money to enter into contracts with cable companies and specialized networks, who in turn negotiate with advertisers to bring viewers an entertainment medium. They have real costs to all of this. But because someone doesn't like that there are fees or limitations or other obstacles within the creating group's model, it's okay to simply "hack" in and take what one likes?
I agree that a lot of planning and investment goes into making a profitable business out of a sports team or even any other entertainment performance like a music album or whatever. Those investors and operators are perfectly entitled to charge what they want and how they want in order to recoup their costs.
For me the big caveat in all the above that turns someone like Fred into a 'pirate' is the fact that during business planning a conscious decision has been made to have this sports package not appeal to him. That is through a combination of pricing, segmentation rights, down to stadium capacity, match day scheduling and location. When all is said and done the rights holders have put together a package which they believe will earn them the most revenue possible in order to recoup costs that they have deemed as appropriate for this enterprise.
In simple terms; when selling their package rightsholders are consciously saying #screwyou to a certain percentage of interested parties. Nothing wrong with that. It's their prerogative and a balance HAS to be found.
What I find interesting is that there seems to be a belief that it's okay to then go after these people who have already been told to screw themselves as if they actually mattered to the business model. They don't really; and any plan should not have taken into account revenue from someone who has been told where to go or revenue lost by that person consuming that service in a way that does not deprive other willing buyers. The fact is no business can sell all their products to everybody all of the time. Someone has to be out of the loop even though digital products make that scenario theoretically possible.
Naturally there are people who infringe copyright and would have been perfectly able to legally consume it. It is wrong of course, but I believe that every business model has to try to have low enough barriers to allow people to take up the product. In a previous post I referred to the concept of a consumption threshold. This is something that is generally not a feature of high quality digital content, though Louis C.K seems to have found a balance between price and protection and he is succeeding despite those who are saying #screwyou to him. It's probably because he only tried to 'screw' relatively few people in the first place!
Related articles
- #screwcable (avc.com)
Maybe it’s because we’re less than human
A lot of reason has been lacking amidst all the stories about racism and racist comments by famous people in the media and especially in sport. I guess it shouldn't be expected that the majority of the mainstream media can eloquently state some of the issues surrounding race. In any event apart from the 'racism is wrong because it's wrong argument'; by way of tone a lot of the coverage has been indifferent. The comments of too many readers have been even more unsympathetic than is comfortable for any minority to read. Ay worst racism is still very much alive and at best too many people do not understand why its bad to insult someone by refering to the coulour of their skin.
Human zoo
The major point that I believe has been missed is around the issue of why racism and hate speech is wrong. The belief that some people are inferior or even less than human has for centuries been the cause of some of the most atrocious crimes committed by humanity. Sadly those crimes continue today and it's significant that just as the headlines are riddled with stories of famous people racially abusing other famous people, the murderers of Steven Lawrence are once again on trial for their own horrendous hate fuelled crime.
The media really needs to put across to their readers how there is a direct line connecting the fact that some people are seen as less than human and the way they'll be treated by society. Whole sections of society have been killed, denied their rights, denied a vote and denied access to justice having been categorised as inferior.
Racist words by their nature are meant to spread the same message that has resulted in those great crimes. Standing by and paying no mind just means that another generation will grow up believing that we are not all equal and therefore it is okay to kill or maim people of an 'inferior' race, gender or sex because well they are less than human aren't they?
The stupidity of ad targeting
I've never been annoyed by online ads. I just never really pay any attention to them but the more interesting ones sometimes catch my eye. Whether it's because the targeting has been spot on and I am actually looking for that item or just it's plain eye catching. Consequently I've never installed an ad blocking plug-in in any of my browsers. Until today.
That's because in the last few months I've been bombarded by ads of products I've already taken up or ones I've already decided against. Basically this behavioural targeting stuff just recently seems to have got even dummer. The only criteria they seem to be using is "you visited X site and looked at Y, so we'll keep showing you ads of Y regardless of whether or not you bought it already".
I signed up to GiffGaff (a new UK mobile network) about a month ago and did it from their website. I even managed to convince four people to switch to them, and guess what I get in return? My browser is now polluted with GiffGaff flash ads. WTF? Whose idea is this?
Preaching to the converted
Sadly enough this stupidity isn't just reserved for whatever network is running this campaign but also to Google who also try to get me using Chrome even when I'm surfing on their browser! So now I have been moved to install Ad Block Plus. No more dumb ads for me. Well.... except for the Google Chrome BS.
What came first, the gender or the stereotype
Have a look at the following images of what the most common words in toy adverts are, when split by gender.
First, the boys’ list, available in full size at Wordle:
Now the girls’ list, also available in full size at Wordle:
The result is not really surprising but it really does hit hard and get you thinking.
Does the toy industry reinforce gender stereotypes in their attempts to sell toys?
Is stereotyping pervasive and do parents even recognise how it is ingrained in society? Do parents perpetuate these stereotypes?
Or as one commenter says; What's... "sad about this, is the fact that it is somehow seen to be better playing with fighting toys than with ‘girly’ toys."
Personally I'm going to put my hands up and say YES I play to my* kids gender, by reinforcing all that I know about perceived gender roles. As the father of a young boy and girl I have twice the work in trying to indoctrinate them! I don't see it as a bad thing, because there is a bigger problem out there than whether or not my daughter is a girly girl and the boy is a little rascal.
That problem lies in the way society picks out people who are different. In society anything out of the ordinary is seized upon by kids and like-wise by adults. Some of the time society will put on a pedestal people who are different, but most of the time anyone who is anything but normal will be sought out and laughed at. Being different is a much too arbitrary quality and the treatment that people who are different gets almost never depends on the individual.
Let's face it if they happen to be different and if my son played with girls' toys he would not change society into accepting blurred gender roles. In addition as found by one study, it turns out that even male monkeys prefer boys toys anyway. It could after all be that the Ad-men do all that stereotyping simply because children LIKE that sort of thing and that is the best way to get through to them.
It is for that reason that I pray for my kids to be normal in their infant years, because anything other than that is a risk in terms of will they be admired or (most probably) laughed at. I always try to teach them that there's nothing wrong in being different, but that's only because at their age it's just too hard to explain all the different kinds of different! There's Different DIFFERENT. Different good. Then there's so different you're not one of us and so on. In time they'll get to know all this but preferably not as a result of being laughed at.
In the mean time I'm happy to let the Ad-men play on whatever stereotypes I'm forcing my kids into. I'll also celebrate how ordinary they are, and am even secretly pleased with each one of their very ordinary achievements and milestones. When they are fully grown the only way I want them to differentiate themselves is by having the ability to do something normal much better than anyone.
* 'Er Indoors doesn't read this blog, but she'd kill me if she did for making out as if the kids don't have a mother. She'd probably want me to call them 'our' kids. Women eh?!!
If your kid looks up to Wayne Rooney, you’re to blame
You've got no respect for things son! You know I had to get the bus into town just to nick that aeroplane!
One week after swearing into a live TV camera during a mid-day match, every man and his dog is having his say on Wayne Rooney. The media has been criticizing Rooney for being angry at all the criticism and abuse he gets. They've since been asking everyone their opinion and criticizing them if they didn't give the 'right' answer. It's now turned into a band-wagon and this blog loves to jump on them; so I think we should ride it.
The biggest thing that everyone has been raving about is as usual, 'think of the children..........he's a role model, and that's no way to behave'. I really don't buy into that stuff because as parents we have much more control over what our children take in and what they'll turn out to be than a celebrity they'll never meet. That is still true even in this crazy world of 24 hour kids TV where every inane idea for a show seems to get picked up. I'm looking at you Sponge Bob!
In no way do I want to excuse what Mr Rooney did, because I think it's in-defensible. Understandable maybe, but still not right. However I really want to discredit the notion that kids will look up to someone regardless of what we as parents want them to.
The main problem I think, comes about because as parents we don't teach kids that in life you have to look to lots of different people for inspiration. Just because a kid loves Wayne Rooney doesn't mean he should be taking lessons in TV etiquette from him. And if your kid doesn't know that, then it's your fault. Neither Rooney nor the government should have to tell your kid that Wayne is all about football. It is of course a slightly different story for Wayne's own kids....., but then I don't know anything about how he's bringing them up.
Personally, I apply the same thing even in friendship. It sounds so obvious but you'd be surprised how many people are disappointed in their friend X who they know has always had a habit of doing a particular thing. I'm only ever disappointed in my friends when they do something I wouldn't expect them too. Yes that's right, I have 'allowances' for all my friends. Just like the banks have different over-draft limits for us all I took that and applied it to my life!
Anyway, there should be plenty of good people in everyone's life and we would all do well to highlight the good things they do to our little ones who are just starting out. A child should have as many role models as he needs. Each one for a specific thing. If one of those role models fails at something he never did well that should never influence the growth of a child.
Whilst we're at it, the media needs to stop feeding the myth of the celebrity role model. It doesn't exist. The only thing we should learn from famous people is how to get famous.
Propaganda, counter-propaganda and the cost of war on Gaddafi
With all the reporting that has been going on you'd think that Colonel Gaddafi is the only one who has been cranking the propaganda machine.
A few hours after enforcement of the 'no-fly zone' started with the bombing of Libyan positions that are not controlled by the rebels, it was reported that each cruise missile cost £500,000. By the second night a hundred had been fired. Mostly by the Americans, but I'm sure you get the illustration if you're doing the math by now.
Being that I'm sad enough to have my alarm clock tuned into BBC Radio 4 permanently, this morning I woke up to reports that George Osborne and the UK government were playing down the cost of this war to the UK tax payer and claiming that it would be no more than the low tens of millions. An hour later a spin doctor was duly dispatched onto The Today programme and tried to explain away this absurdly low figure whilst putting in the obligatory fast talk, in-lieu of small print. A double glazing sales man would have been proud.
So why was the forecast so low? It turns out that the missiles being used in Libya are part of the Royal Navy's stock and had already been purchased prior to the Middle Eastern revolutions. It's a shame to say that the presenter didn't then fire back the obvious question that popped into my head i.e.
Are those missiles not going to be replaced at some point, presumably for invading yet another former 'ally' in an oil rich country? And if they are going to be replaced, why is that cost not going to be added to the cost of this war?
Military think-tank/creative accounting department
Mephedrone and Panic buttons. You can’t legislate against stupidity
This week in the UK people have mostly been getting mad about Methodrone and paedophiles. I say mostly because this country loves to get mad about stuff so at one time or another they (and us who live here) will be mad about something or another. One day soon I’m sure we’ll all be mad about why there’s nothing to be mad about. But I guess a little bit of madness does the mind some good. In the least it keeps us from the self-reflection that just might result in a sane and sterile world. To be honest that scenario would be enough to drive me mad!
On a serious note, all the madness and clamouring going on has been the result of tragic deaths of three young people. Two young men died after taking a substance known as Mephedrone which is something of a hit (pun intended) with people seeking a readily, available, cheap high. Note that I omitted ‘legality’ as one of the things drug takers are looking for. Mephedrone like most substances that could get you high, but still kill you was NOT meant to be taken by humans. It is in fact a plant fertilizer. Update. It is sold as a plant fertilizer but was apparently developed for human consumption.
In an unrelated incident a paedophile was found guilty of the murder of a 17 year old who he lured on Facebook. He posed as a teenage boy, asked to add the girl as a friend and after some time arranged to meet her by lying that his father would pick her up. The episode ended with the girl being killed soon after that.
As I’ve already mentioned this is all tragic, just as any death is. However it is people’s reaction to these incidents that really has me shaking my head at the things that we come up with when we go mad. Which to my mind feels like every day.
From the noise, it seems like everyone is now calling for Mephedrone to be banned, including those who have previously been high on it. Others are calling for Facebook to have a panic button so that kids could press it if they suspected a paedophile! I’d expect this sort of thing from the Daily Mail but like I said, it feels like everyone is calling for this.
It’s all really ridiculous if you ask me. Are these people saying that if Mephedrone was illegal they wouldn’t have taken it? If the answer is no, then how did they get the idea that they’d like to get high? Not from anything legal that’s for sure.
The panic button is just as stupid, because I just can’t imagine that anyone suggesting this has ever been out of their house. At which point would they think that a user could reach for the panic button if a sex offender was lurking? No actual crime is committed on a social network. It’s hatched on Facebook or whatever, but not carried out there I’d imagine. So let assume a girl is being assaulted and she reaches for her phone so that she can log onto Facebook to press the panic button. I it logical she'll do all that instead of just dialling 112 or 999?
The weak links as far as I can see are the victims. It’s sad, but very very stupid that young guys want to get high even if it means doing it on fertilizer. No laws can ever save such a person. If they don’t get killed by Methodrone, it’s very much possible they could die from smoking banana leaves or some other plant they’ve been TOLD is legal. Though I can see how kids can be lured on social networks, the answer to both these problems is not to create more legislation.
In addition to all this there’s the media who go around labelling these things. Legal high. WTF? That really isn’t the best way to describe these drugs. Facebook killer? Again WTF? The media should know better and call it like it is. If they did then maybe not so many kids would want to get high like that. That’s because getting high on plant fertilizer is not a legal high. It’s a “Foolish High.”
Woo hoo! Yeah dude, this is awesome! Try it it's legal too!
Zimbabwe and Africa’s children suffering from overexposure
Tonight I lost the remote control wars and paid for it by watching a documentary on BBC 4 called Zimbabwe’s Forgotten Children about...you guessed it....suffering African children. 5 specific kids living in harrowing conditions to be exact. It was quite an interesting programme though and it had decent technical production however in parts it seemed like it was scripted. For those who watched the program, I'm refering to the exchanges between Obert and his Grandma.
Personally I have a problem with programs like these because they’re all about highlighting the problems. I'm starting to find that to be counter-productive because hardly anyone doesn't know that Africa has problems. I’m not sure when this started but I’d guess that the media focus on Africa’s problems has been going on since the Ethiopian famine 25 years ago. I believe that highlighting a problem is for specific disasters like Haiti, the Indonesian tsunami, Ethiopia’s famine, Hurricane Katrina where you want to show the reality so that people respond accordingly. The on-going African tragedy, which has the world rubber-necking at our misery doesn't need this. Now, I’m not saying that we shouldn't see the Africa that is frequently shown on TV with the suffering, crime, corruption, wars and all. I’m realistic enough to know that whatever prosperity we’re building in Africa we must not gloss over our problems.
My issue with all this is that these programs never highlight the solutions to the problems. I know for a fact that there are people in Africa doing something to get out of the mess they’re in as individuals. And I’m not talking about collecting aid from the agencies as this program and others never hesitate to show.
Personally, I end up feeling like the film makers are taking advantage of the situation because they are bringing nothing to the party. Or funeral in this case. We’re no wiser in watching some of these programs except that we now know the name of a particular African who’s suffering. I fail to see how that helps except to feed stereotypes and act as some sort of CV padding for the likes of Xoliswa Sithole, who produced the program. No doubt awards will be forthcoming for ‘braving the conditions’ and ‘daring to show the reality of Mugabe’s Zimbabwe.’ I’m not fooled by this and if it was a beer (something that I have expertise on) I’d call it a chemical beer. One made with no real imagination.
By highlighting the solutions, filmmakers could give us viewers the call to action we frequently need to do something. I know I’m not the only one who sees an initiative and thinks ‘Wow, that’s a good idea. I wonder if we could do something similar in my rural area?’
As an example I read a blog called AfriGadget, which shows some of the ingenious ways Africans overcome their problems with improvised gadgets. What’s impressive about it is the number of readers that feel compelled to do something upon seeing some of these solutions. I’m talking about stuff like giving advice, replicating the gadgets and donating materials. That is because it’s not all about donating money. Not every problem in Africa needs money to be overcome. The media could play their part by highlighting what’s being done and how. That knowledge needs to find its way to other suffering Africans; and the only way it can do that is if those of us watching these programs are informed.
The irony is that if it really is all about showing a skinny African on TV, you don’t lose anything by showing us how others in Africa are overcoming their situations at the end of the program. The TV network gets their skinny African. We see some solutions. Problem solved!
Our code says we can only film but not interfere. So sorry, but if you're dying of thirst we'll just have to keep the camera rolling.
UPDATE: A year later on the 17th of March 2011, the program was screened again with an update on the situation of the 5 kids featured in the program. The 2 girls lost their eventually lost their dad to AIDS.
However all are now in education and cared for as a result of benefactors who came forth after the program was screened. Help is now being administered by local organisations and all the children are well. I feel glad knowing that these kids' situations have improved a lot.
Despite that I feel even more vindicated on the opinions mentioned above. Specifically the decision to highlight Zimbabwe's problems on a national and international level, whilst only offering the experiences of 5 children as evidence of those bigger issues.
The program still offered no facts, figures or trends and I personally feel that the harrowing stories of the 5 featured kids has been used as emotional bait that even now does not result in solutions to the greater problems of African children.
