A Consuming Experience (full feed)

Powerpoint slides: how to print without dark background

2009-07-12T09:57:00.001+01:00

Here's how to print out Powerpoint slides without dark background which is hard to read on paper.

The problem is that some Powerpoint slides with dark background colour or patterns don’t print out very well (e.g. text is hard to read against the background). They waste printer ink too. Who wants or needs that when you’re printing a hard copy for the text and diagrams?

Conversely, sometimes the text is too light against a light background but you want to print it out with darker, more legible text.

So here's a small tip: there’s a little section in the Print options which lets you print Microsoft Office Powerpoint slides without all the guff.

After you choose Print for the slides, but before you hit OK to print them, check out the “Print what” section (bottom left in PowerPoint 2003 at least).

Under the “Color/grayscale” subheading (outlined in red above), make sure you select “Pure Black and White” before you hit OK - and it should now print without the extra background or text that’s virtually unreadable because it’s the same colour as the background!

This can be a real time and frustration saver, but it only works for slides in Powerpoint, not slides in PDF. Shame.

Google's tips: avoid money / financial scams

2009-07-10T22:49:00.004+01:00

This Google blog post on how to steer clear of money scams seems very sensible, and is certainly timely.

There are too many spam emails and other fraudulent schemes trying to do people out of their cash over the internet, but too many people do get tricked by online or web "offers" and the like.

See also my write up and a fascinating video of a talk by Cambridge academic Dr Richard Clayton about how some of these criminals ply their trade: evil ways to make money on the internet (phishing, pharmaceuticals, cheap electronic gadgets, "high yield" investments / pyramid schemes, and, yes, fodder for Google Adsense ads).

Internet & collaboration - “Us Now” film – free tickets for Parliament or watch on TV / online

2009-07-06T08:36:00.000+01:00

The documentary film “Us Now” is screening in The Grand Committee Room of the UK Houses of Parliament on the evening of Wednesday 8 July 2009 at 6.30 pm - in association with More4 and Reboot Britain.

The “Us Now” blog describes the movie as

A documentary film project about the power of mass collaboration, government and the internet.

Free tickets are still available to see the film live, then hear a panel discussion on the idea put forward in the film that:

“Representative democracy is based on the idea that people are thick."

The illustrious group of panelists: Lord David Puttnam, Douglas Carswell MP, Ivo Gormley (director of the film), Rupa Huq, Chair: Catherine Fieschi (director of the British Council).

If like me you can’t make it, you can still watch Us Now:

online, free
on TV, on Friday 10 July 2009 at 11.10pm on More 4.

For more on the film see:

Us Now site
Telegraph article
Holy Chic blog - which mentions websites covered in the film, not just social media sites but others which arguably have made a real difference to politics and the interaction between citizens and politicians / state, like TheyWorkForYou.com

Brain music – music from brain scans

2009-07-04T19:43:00.002+01:00

A very interesting New Scientist article (video above), about researcher Dan Lloyd’s work in converting functional MRI scans of brains to musical sounds, led me to find the further videos below (see all of Lloyd’s YouTube videos).

It’s fascinating that the brain scans of people with schizophrenia sound distinctly different from scans of mentally healthy people.

More cynically, I can foresee the idle rich paying to have FMRI scans of their own brains made and converted to video / audio, for the edification of themselves or their family / friends. Business opportunity there…

Science & the media: Guardian editor & top epidemiologist discuss + Q&A

2009-07-02T13:44:00.008+01:00

How do science and the media interact, what is the relationship between scientists and journalists, what’s the role of the media, the future of the news business and science news reporting?

The video of this very interesting discussion / Q&A on 3 June 2009 with Alan Rusbridger, editor of The Guardian, and Sir Roy Anderson, top epidemiologist and Rector of Imperial College London, is now available on a general page of online videos of Imperial public lectures; this particular video is available by streaming (best, probably), or as a downloadable M4V file (198 MB).

Below are some selected random highlights. Not verbatim, not 100% in chronological order, from notes only so not necessarily 100% accurate! - for the complete details please watch the video.

Sir Roy Anderson

There should be compulsory communications skills training for undergrad science students. A relationship with the media is not optional.

You should be able to explain your field in words of 1 syllable.

Scientists need to understand the factors dictating pressures on journalists, who are competing to get their article into journals, TV programmes etc, and what journalists need from scientists.

Attitudes to media are changing now with the rise of the Web, it’s not just TV, radio, print; something could get onto the BBC site or Twitter etc if not broadsheets, Today Programme etc.

Scientists should get to know journalists well, it can be very beneficial e.g. off the record discussions, ultimately the relationship is good for both sides.

The BBC site is the best source of quantitative information about swine flu!

It’s a delicate balance - being accurate and clear, and not playing to controversy.

Alan Rusbridger

Henry Porter nagged for years before civil liberties got on the radar.

The role of the media is as an interpretive layer between people who do things and people who may be interested in understanding them – to analyse, comment, explain the complexities and allow the widest possible debate. But it’s difficult to do that with complex areas.

The economics of the news business – apart from the BBC, extremely challenged because the internet is destroying the ability to charge for information, and the recession has delivered a triple whammy.

The Guardian’s trust status allows it to lose money but other serious news organisations like the New York Times, Washington Post etc, who see it as their duty to reflect complex subjects, will find it harder.

Technology has changed things; it’s no longer a 1 way process where they [journalists] tell us and there’s no comeback. Just text is not enough, it’s multimedia. The Guardian’s podcast has 100,000 listeners a week.

The Guardian have a series of deep sites, and a staff of 15 just covering science & the environment.

Smarter journalists are inventing new models, realising that the experts are out there – with skills of aggregating and reporting, tapping into people out there. [Example mentioned later in the session – on the Oracle / Sun takeover a technology journalist in the Guardian asked people to help on a chart; they did it in 2 hours and it was as good as the New York Times’ professionally produced one!]

Comment Is Free site – start with 1000 people interested in science, etc, and open it up to them. About 260 comment pieces are published a week with 85,000 contributors ? each month.

The Guardian’s site is just behind the New York Times’ in terms of English language newspaper sites.

The media no longer have the sole right to report / interpret debate.

There needs to be a partnership between old model and new media.

Other highlights

Sir Roy: swine flu will explode here and be a serious economic issue in the autumn, but the media haven’t picked that up. The vaccines won’t be ready.

Watch the money! eg for a Radio 4 discussion on climate change they brought over a US scientist who was paid for by oil companies.

The media have a responsibility. Scientists should help the media but the first person to call the media does not necessarily have the most accurate opinion. Other scientists have a role too.

Journalists can collaborate with scientists to hype things e.g. MMR.

Some editors are more interested in controversy than accuracy.

Alan Rusbridger: Libel is being used to close down science reporting. [The Simon Singh / chiropractic case.]

Audience member: The idea that everything has to be covered somehow is not healthy. Should help readers understand that science is a process – but there’s no sense of that in the way that science is reported.

Sir Roy: we still hugely rely on the media to distil information we don’t know about.

Alan Rusbridger: Charging won’t work as people are used to “free”. Advertising won’t work in a recession. Maybe there are too many newspapers. Local newspapers will start dying.

We may get to the point where for the first time since the Enlightenment we have to live without verifiable sources of news, and people won’t realise what they’ve lost until it’s gone.

Maybe a membership subscription model? Like national public radio [?] where people value information from one organisation enough to subscribe. The Times are considering a subscription based popular science product competing with New Scientist etc and also with New York Times science pages subscription.

Reporting conflicting versions? e.g. food / health news. Good science journalists will try to find opposing views too. Quality journalists will look into the background. But tabloids…

Curved cucumbers and knobbly carrots are back!

2009-06-30T13:08:00.004+01:00

Photo credit: Chotda

Bendy cucumber fans, rejoice! From tomorrow, EU rules on the size and shape (!) of 26 fruits & vegetables will be updated.

Apricots, artichokes, asparagus, aubergines, avocadoes, beans, Brussels sprouts, carrots, cauliflowers, cherries, courgettes, cucumbers, cultivated mushrooms, garlic, hazelnuts in shell, headed cabbage, leeks, melons, onions, peas, plums, ribbed celery, spinach, walnuts in shell, water melons, and witloof/chicory - they can all be of any size and shape, from tomorrow.

Bet that made your day. As it did mine.

However, apples, citrus fruit, kiwi fruit, lettuces, peaches and nectarines, pears, strawberries, sweet peppers, table grapes and tomatoes will still have to conform to standards (unless individual countries allow weirdly shaped ones to be sold with a clear "product intended for processing" label).

In case you wonder, the "curved cucumbers and knobbly carrots" quote is from Mariann Fischer Boel, EU Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development. Really.

Who says the drive to cut EU red tape isn't going anywhere, huh?

Today, fruit & veg; tomorrow - Eurovision?

Waterskiing granny - video

2009-06-28T10:32:00.007+01:00

I wanna be like that when I'm 77! Heck I wanna be like that now!

What's better still is the name of this "look, no hands!" waterskiing Kansas granny: Avola Fitzwater.

Talking about names, you've probably heard about furniture seller Habitat getting into deep doodoo amongst Net denizens for their insensitive abuse of Twitter hashtags. A big cockup there.

The name of their CIO, who says they still plan to keep marketing via social media?

Dekock.

(If you like funny or apt names, see my posts on nominative determinism and silly names.)

Funny web form: salutations galore!

2009-06-22T10:25:00.010+01:00

Another funny lesson in web design and usability (not!). From the webform that gave us "Unknown" as a choice for gender and the option to locate Akita-ken in the UK, comes another gem - how not to do a dropdown or field for title / honorific!

Start of list

End of list

Anonymous blogging in UK: NightJack / Times – other worrying issues

2009-06-19T10:11:00.004+01:00

You’ve probably heard of the Times outing police detective blogger NightJack in June 2009 (Richard Horton - his name's well known now, so, for searching purposes..).

The Times newspaper was allowed by a judge (Eady) to disclose NightJack's real identity despite his attempts to get a court order to stop publication (full transcript of court judgement The Author of A Blog v Times Newspapers Ltd [2009] EWHC 1358 (QB) (16 June 2009); Out-Law report). NightJack's blog has now been deleted.

[+-] UPDATE: Summary of main decision, skip if you know it, click here to expand if you're interested.

The judge refused to help him because, according to the judge:

“blogging is essentially a public rather than a private activity” – so bloggers have no reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to their real identity, and therefore no right to keep their true name private. A blanket one-size-fits-all statement about blogging if ever there was one! But this was the main rationale for the decision.
even if the judge was wrong at 1. and bloggers do have a right of anonymity, in this case there was a countervailing public interest in revealing that a particular police officer has been making these communications, which justified overriding that right - because NightJack’s blogging and criticisms of police activities / strategy might subject him to disciplinary action under police regulations, and The Times also has human rights i.e. the right to freedom of speech. Now at least this particular ruling, in the context of a serving police officer who is legally required to follow Police Conduct Regulations, isn’t perhaps all that surprising.

A lot’s been said about this worrying decision already, e.g. what about political bloggers in repressive regimes whose very lives are in danger, or whistleblowers whose livelihoods could be (and have been) ruined if their real names are known?

Ironically, the judge said NightJack’s possible breach of police regulations justified exposing his identity because "There is much force in the argument that any wrongdoing by a public servant (save perhaps in trivial circumstances) is a matter which can legitimately be drawn to the attention of the public by journalists. There is a growing trend towards openness and transparency in such matters".

Errr - what about the possible wrongdoing within the police force that Night Jack might be highlighting?

Even more disturbing is that, in relation to point 2 above (which wasn't really the main basis for the final decision), the judge made some incidental but rather sweeping comments which, if they're taken out of context and applied more broadly, or if they truly reflect attitudes amongst UK judges generally, would make things even worse for people who want to write or blog anonymously or pseudonymously.

Yes. Even worse. (Click a heading below to expand it to view the detailed quotes and comments, click again to collapse.)

The troubling incidental comments were the following (my emphasis), where the judge seems to suggest that:

[+/-] 1. Undercover journalists (and even more so, anonymous bloggers) are fair game to have their names revealed, photos published

10. Mr White [Times' lawyer] drew my attention to the case of Mahmood v Galloway [2006] EMLR 26. Mr Tomlinson [NightJack's lawyer] challenged him to identify any useful ratio decidendi from this case, to which Mr White responded by advancing the proposition that a journalist who writes under a pseudonym for the purpose of functioning more effectively in his undercover work has no reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of his identity and, in particular, in relation to photographs which would, when published widely, reveal his identity. It seems to me that Mr White's interpretation is correct and, although the decision is not strictly binding upon me, the reasoning of Mitting J is nonetheless, if I may respectfully say so, entirely persuasive. Although the Claimant here is not a journalist, the function he performs via his blog is closely analogous. I see no greater justification for a reasonable expectation of anonymity in this case than in that concerning Mr Mahmood.

In the Mahmood case the life of Mazher Mahmood, the "fake sheikh" journalist who specialised undercover stings, could have been at risk.

Although I agree that entrapment isn’t the most savoury activity, I still think the judge in the Mahmood case was wrong to allow photos of him to be published just because the judge thought Mahmood was really trying to preserve his livelihood and earning capacity as an investigative journalist rather than protect his life.

This despite the fact that Mahmood’s life had actually been threatened, and that the judge felt the balance of public interest lay in his favour because he'd done more good for the public than harm. Unfortunately, "The mere fact that it might be, in a sense, generally beneficial to the public that Mr. Mahmood's identity should be protected could not itself give rise to or support a cause of action based on confidence or privacy."

The judge there (Mitting) also effectively said that publishing his photo was OK because knowing what Mahmood looked like wasn’t enough in itself to help anyone who wanted to physically harm him, as they’d still have to find him first! Sorry, but giving any help to someone who wants to kill or hurt another person just doesn't feel right.

[+/-] 2. Political / police critics should be identified by name because that makes it easier for readers to assess the value of the writer’s opinions

21. Although Mr Tomlinson [NightJack's lawyer] rather dismissed it, a further argument was advanced by Mr White [Times' lawyer] to the effect that the Claimant's writings [NightJack's blog], being "overtly political and highly critical of central and local policing strategies", are such that the public is entitled to receive information about the author, so as to enable it to make an assessment of the weight and authority to be attached to them. Mr Tomlinson submitted that all the Claimant's readers need to know is that the author is a serving police officer. I disagree. It is very often useful, in assessing the value of an opinion or argument, to know its source. As was pointed out, for example, by Lord Nicholls in Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127 at 205A-B, one may wish to apply greater caution or scepticism in the case of a person with "an axe to grind". For so long as there is anonymity, it would obviously be difficult to make any such assessment. More generally, when making a judgment as to the value of comments made about police affairs by "insiders", it may sometimes help to know how experienced or senior the commentator is.

Uh, what?? That’s completely wrongheaded, to my mind.

A blogger should be free to choose whether to give their real name or not, and how much information they want to reveal about themselves.

A reader, equally, should be (and is) free to choose whether, not knowing a blogger’s real name or exact status, they are willing to trust what the blogger says – and to what extent. It's up to the reader to decide whether to believe the blogger - or not.

In each case, it should be their individual decision, their individual freedom of choice.

Why on earth should a blogger be allowed to be outed just because knowing their real identity would make it easier for a reader to assess the value of what the blogger says? A blogger's not forcing readers to accept what they write or to agree with their opinions: the reader can take it - or leave it.

I know that wasn’t the main issue in this case, I did note it was “incidental”, but I do think what he said here is problematic.

If these comments are confined to the context of a police officer talking about policing, that's fine, they make sense there.

But the judge’s comments seem capable of being applied more widely, and that's what perturbs me. I really hope they won't be.

In relation to my pseudonym, I no longer take much care to hide my identity, so anyone doing some detective work could easily figure out my real name now. But I keep using “Improbulus” because that’s the name which has a reputation in the geek world, good or bad. (People who know my real name never remember it anyway, they can only remember “Imp”!) Now I’m no Cicciolina, Björk, Pink, Beyoncé, Madonna, Cher Bono, Sting, Prince (or even O(+>), Moby, Eminem or Topol (more one-word names) - but if they’re free to use a 1-word moniker that’s more recognisable and memorable than their real name, why can’t I?

The point isn’t what name I go under. It’s whether my blog is interesting, useful, amusing. If following the tips and instructions in my posts has helped people fix their tech problems (and they have), isn’t that good enough proof of my credibility and reliability? Those people won't care what my name is or who I am, only that my suggestions worked (or not) for them.

If someone doesn’t think my blog is credible or interesting, they’re perfectly free to choose not to read it. If they won't trust my writing without knowing my real identity, that's their choice. And if I want to accept the risk that not revealing my true identity may lead people to decide that my blog is unreliable, that should also be my choice - not a judge's.

[+/-] 3. It’s in the public interest to know the real name of anyone criticising police activities etc; if writings in a blog (allegations / observations) contribute to a “debate of general interest”, then the publication of the blogger’s name equally contributes to that debate

22. Mr Tomlinson also submits that there is no public interest in the disclosure of the Claimant's identity and (echoing the language used by the European Court of Human Rights in Von Hannover v Germany (2005) 40 EHRR 1) that the publication of such information would make no "contribution to a debate of general interest".

23. If it were the case that the Defendant's Article 10 right of freedom of expression here is indeed conditional upon establishing a public interest (which I do not believe it is), it would seem to me quite legitimate for the public to be told who it was who was choosing to make, in some instances, quite serious criticisms of police activities and, if it be the case, that frequent infringements of police discipline regulations were taking place. Correspondingly, if the allegations and observations made by the Claimant through his blog were themselves contributing to a debate of general interest, as he undoubtedly thinks they are, I cannot see why the proposed publication in The Times would not be worthy of the same classification.

So just because you write about a debate of general interest, like political criticism, the details of your real name would also contribute to that debate? Uh, really?

I repeat what I said in the previous section. If someone reading a debate of general interest doesn't want to believe what you say because you haven't given your real name, that's up to them. If you want to trade credibility for anonymity, that's up to you.

Again, it would be extremely worrying if the judge's comments here are generalised.

[+/-] 4. Teachers should be constrained in their political speech

24. Much of what the Claimant publishes could be characterised as "political speech", since he criticises and ridicules a number of senior politicians. It is well recognised both here and in Strasbourg that considerable value must be attached to a citizen's right to express his opinions on matters of this kind. Nevertheless, constraints are placed upon the rights of civil servants and police officers to become involved in party political debate. Some such restraint may be regarded as legitimate and proportionate for reasons which are fairly obvious; namely, that for some people the discharge of public duties requires them to stand aside from the cut and thrust of such debate. Such constraints are recognised as appropriate, for example, for judges, teachers and civil servants. I sought assistance from counsel as to the precise nature of the restraints placed on police officers in this respect, but they were unable to provide much information save to the extent that it was accepted that police officers are not permitted to stand for elected office.

Judges and police officers need to be careful about what they say and are bound by legal restrictions such as the police regulations discussed in the NightJack case. That I can understand.

But surely it goes too far to say that constraints on political speech are recognised as appropriate for teachers and civil servants. Who (apart from the judge here) says it’s recognised as appropriate, exactly? And which laws have recognised it as appropriate? (I haven't researched this issue. There may be regulations affecting civil servants as there are for police officers. Does anyone know of cases where civil servants etc have been legally restrained from disclosing or speaking out about something, for reasons other than breach of contract / confidentiality?)

If there's no law to stop them doing it (e.g. breach of confidentiality or contract), why on earth shouldn’t teachers (or indeed civil servants generally) be able to comment on political issues anonymously? Especially if they are whistleblowing, or pointing out things that are wrong with the current system?

It's true that bloggers have always had to watch what they say. For instance, anonymity is clearly not a reason or excuse for revealing confidential information about your employers or their business, or for infringing someone else's copyright, or for defaming someone (see my write up of a guide to legal risks for UK bloggers).

But if a blogger is not breaking the law, surely they should be free to express their opinions anonymously, even (especially!) views about politics or politicians - subject of course to the limits imposed by law to try to strike a fair balance within society as a whole, e.g. forbidding speech that stirs up hate crimes.

With the increase in public surveillance and collection and storage of info on law-abiding citizens and their children (even more so if this government has their way with ID cards and Intercept Modernisation Programme etc), and now these comments in a court case, no doubt Stalin would be pleased.

I'm proud to be British. But our civil rights are increasingly being eroded. I don’t want to live in a police state. I don't want to live in fear that anything I say or do will be recorded in some database, and may be used against me. (Bear in mind Cardinal Richelieu's famous quote: "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.")

You may laugh and say, “C’mon, hey, this is the UK!”. But this sort of thing may just be the thin end of the wedge.

I’m worried. If you’re not – it may be time to start wondering whether you should be.

Funny food expiry date typo

2009-06-15T10:20:00.003+01:00

They must have some powerful preservatives in this sandwich!

Use by, or "Die by"...?