One Murdoch Down, One To Go

 Media, Politics  No Responses »
Feb 292012
 

According to the news, James Murdoch has decided to resign from his post as the head of News International. About time! But :-

  1. Why was he allowed to resign rather than being fired ?
  2. Why is he being allowed to take up a cushy number with News Corp ? It hardly seems much of a punishment for him to resign from a job in an industry he dislikes only to take another job in an industry that he likes in what is effectively the same corporate empire.
  3. Why didn’t he go ages ago ?
  4. And when is Rupert Murdoch going ?

The two Murdochs (and their countless minions at News International) were the people in charge of a corporate empire that allowed one part of it to break the law not just occasionally but routinely for stories that were not in the public interest (in the sense of stories that the public should know rather than just what they want to know). Whether or not they knew what was happening, they set the tone for a corporation that apparently valued results over ethical behaviour.

They are responsible for allowing such a corporate culture to grow unchallenged for at least a decade.

Did they know what was going on ? Perhaps not – particularly in the case of Rupert Murdoch, but they should have known. And in the case of James Murdoch, it seems probable that if he did not know what was going on, he intentionally avoided knowing.

Both should go.

Dealing With Offensive “Internet Trolls” (or Goblins)

 Computing, Media, Security  No Responses »
Feb 142012
 

This morning I caught an item about how so-called “Internet Trolls” are forcing some famous people to close down their Twitter accounts because of offensive posts in reply to anything they post. Before getting to the main point of this post, lets get one thing cleared up to begin with.

Trolls on the Internet aren’t those who post offensive messages. Sure they’re irritating, but they are disruptive more than offensive. That’s not to say that trolls cannot also be offensive, but most are not.

This is yet another example of the media getting some clueless reporter to write up a story about “new technology” (it ain’t new any more) without checking their basic facts with someone who has half a clue – even checking with Wikipedia would quickly tell someone what the definition of an Internet Troll was (hint that funny coloured word at the beginning of the second paragraph takes you to the definition).

Us old-timers call those who use offensive language inappropriately “offensive little gits” which probably is not cute and cuddly enough for the media to like. Perhaps we should call them goblins (it’s all in the wrong order, but Gits, Offensive, B(onus), Little, INternet, S(omething)) just to keep the media happy.

Now onto the main point … this story was quite right about the fact there is a problem with people being deliberately offensive on the Internet, and it is not restricted to just famous people. There are plenty of examples of ordinary people facing all sort of offensive messages (I was going to dig up an example I know of, but it’s buried too deep).

Now us old timers remember a simpler age where people posting offensive messages would be dealt with quite simply. First the offended person would complain to the organisation (often a University) “hosting” the network address used by the offensive person. Next, the person at that organisation in charge of such things would find the relevant user, and apply the clue stick as hard and as often as seemed appropriate.

Up to and including throwing goblins off the Internet. Of course we also kept an eye out for vexatious complaints – there are some people who will complain about the most ridiculous things.

This was mostly lost when the ISPs started dominating the provisioning of the Internet to most people (although it survives in a few dusty old corners) because it “costs too much” for the ISPs to police their users. But there is no reason why it couldn’t be brought back.

And with careful management it should work quite well – of course some care would have to be taken as regards political activists posting on the Internet. The aim here is not to censure genuine political criticism or discussion, but to apply the clue stick as hard and as often as necessary to the Internet goblins.

The “Strength” of Coffee Shop Coffee

 General, Media  No Responses »
Dec 032011
 

With news like this, my first reaction is: Where can I find a coffee shop that sells coffee that strong ?

It is rather extraordinary that you can find a coffee shop that sells a cup of coffee that is six times stronger than a “standard” cup of expresso. And even more extraordinary that nobody really knows how strong a cup of coffee they’re drinking is – even the proprietors of that shop selling the really strong coffee had no idea it was that strong!

It’s also clear from the interviews carried out by the BBC that people are under the impression that you can tell how strong the coffee is (in terms of caffeine content) by how strong it tastes. That turns out not to be the case – whilst at extremes, it is probably true that watery coffee (“American”) is likely to have less caffeine in, and thick, bitter, and flavourful coffee is likely to have more caffeine in, there are other variables at work too.

The news article concentrated on the potential danger to pregnant women which is your typical media sensationalism – whilst a few pregnant women might well be drinking more caffeine than is good for them (but just how many people have coffee shop coffee everyday?), it is also the case that others might want to know how strong the coffee is – on certain mornings, I’d be willing to go a whole lot further to get a coffee with 350mg of caffeine over a coffee with 50mg of caffeine.

So yes we want better labelling of coffee

 

Western Intelligence Services Doing Business With Gaddafi’s Libya

 Media, Politics  No Responses »
Sep 032011
 

Today (or perhaps yesterday) the news was out that the various western intelligence services – MI6, CIA, and the French Intelligence organisation – were all “doing business” with Gaddafi’s regime in Libya. My first reaction is to say: “And so they should”.

Intelligence services are funded for a reason, and that reason is to gather intelligence on various aspects of world affairs. And that includes doing business with repugnant regimes in order to gather intelligence on them, and to collect information they have that they are prepared to share. Given Gaddafi’s instability (look at his latest pronouncements which seem to indicate that he has lost touch with reality), and propensity to stir up trouble beyond the borders of Libya, the chief of any intelligence agency not doing business in Libya would be guilty of gross negligence and deserves the sack.

When you look into the details of what the intelligence agencies were up to, it becomes clear that the CIA at the very least was going a little too far in abducting suspects, dropping them off in Libya for torture, and popping by a little later for the answers to the questions they asked.

As in all things, if you sup with the Devil, you need to use a very long spoon and the CIA would appear to have become too close to the Libyan regime.

Twenty Years Since “Nevermind”

 Media, Music  No Responses »
Aug 062011
 

It is not often I think how old an album is; to me a great album just is whether it is young or old, but I got reminded recently that Nirvana’s Nevermind album is coming up to 20 years old. When it was first released, I was in two places that stopped me from appreciating the album properly.

Firstly I was too old … even being in my early 20s to fully appreciate the impact of those filled with the rage of the misfit. Secondly I was not really listening to music – in particular new music – during that period because, well frankly most of it seemed like crap to me. But it gradually crept up on me – tracks from the album kept being played in the unlikeliest places, and I eventually got a copy to listen to properly.

Of course “Smells Like Teen Spirit” was played too often especially in the “unlikely” places, which is why I’ve chosen “Come As You Are” although I could have chosen many others.

It is interesting reading about the feelings of those who had their “rage of the misfit” moments listening to Nirvana. They would have you believe that this was a special moment in the history of the music industry and teenagers were in the middle of some kind of ‘special moment’. Well, they’re entitled to their belief but as you can guess I think they’re pretty much totally wrong.

That’s not to say Nirvana wasn’t a special band, and Kurt Cobain wasn’t a special person. They (and he) were.

Firstly the music industry are always keen to pick up on any bands that are appealing to a significant demographic (i.e. making money). Sure they’re also manufacturing bands that have about as musical merit as the sounds effects I make in a boring bath. Sure you can point to individual instances where bands that have later become popular were ignored by the “industry”, although when you look closer it turns out they were ignored by particularly dumb individuals who even the music industry doesn’t like.

Not that I think the music industry is good mind you, but hit them with a 2×4 made out of dollar bills, and they’ll get the point … eventually.

Secondly there seems to be some sort of idea floating around that post Reagon teenagers were somehow “special”. Bullshit. All the best teenagers rage against the conformity of the small town and small thinking. It’s part of growing up for anyone who is inclined to shout “Fuck You” at the establishment. If they’re lucky such teenagers find a contemporary kind of music that appeals to them; if they’re not so lucky, they tend to find something from the past. But either way there’s music there.

It’s easy to look at someone from a different generation and think that they’re so different. I tend to look and see the similarities … well if they share the rage of the misfit of course!

 Older Entries  Newer Entries