The Digital Prism

Howling At The MoonMoon

ThistleWeb — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:37:57 +0000

For a while now I've had the idea of a planet instance for some projects I'm working on. Drupal can do this, but not elegantly. PlanetPlanet is a Python application designed to do just this, it's a tad clunky to set up and maintain. MoonMoon is as close to perfect as I can imagine this type of software could be.

In simple terms, a planet is an RSS aggregator. It allows you to compile multiple RSS feeds into one feed for people to subscribe to. This allows any communities to combine their members blog feeds for easy sharing. It's an old concept but very effective in some instances.

With PlanetPlanet you have to edit config files to add RSS feeds, then run a setup command to let it create the site for you. You then upload the contents of that output folder to the root of where you want your planet. This is fine, it works but it's not great. As time goes on, and people want their feeds added, it is a hassle to keep doing that each time. I also found it very confusing on where to edit to theme it differently from the default. Any planet is about a community, who have some form of website already in existence, which means you want your planet to look and feel like it belongs.

MoonMoon by comparison is the answer to what I'd brainstorm as my ideal planet software. The key selling points of MoonMoon for me:

No database
No additional cron requirements
Web UI to administer with easy to add feeds
Very easy to theme to match your site

A quick guide to getting you started with MoonMoon:

Download and extract from MoonMoon
Upload the entire contents of that folder to where you want your planet to be ie planet.yoursite.com
Visit that URL in your web browser, it will tell you to install by setting a password
After setting the password, it tells you to delete install.php - DO IT!
Click the administration link at the bottom to access the admin section; the rest should be self explanatory

Think about that for a second. This is the very essence of "good design"; "the rest should be self explanatory". If the design is so obvious and so easy to use that it requires no explanation. In the true UNIX philosophy of "do one thing and do it well", MoonMoon hits this one out of the park too. It's a planet, it's single function is to aggregate RSS feeds into one.

A quick theming guide to MoonMoon:

The CSS is found in /custom/style/default.css, there are different style sheets for dark, mobile etc I've only used the default
The HTML *.tpl.php files that build the complete pages is found in several files in /custom/views/default/* and /custom/views/archive/*

One minor downside to MoonMoon is easily gotten around. The RSS feed that it produces isn't great in some readers. I use Newsbeuter and the feed just throws up errors. I tried it in Thunderbird and it works fine. My solution to this was to use Feedburner to create a new feed, then edit the /custom/views/default/sidebar.tpl.php and the matching one for the archive page to use that Feedburner URL instead.

With a little basic tweaking to the CSS, and the *.tpl.php files you can bend MoonMoon to look like it belongs to your project in no time. If you have a project, have a use for a planet and always figured it'd be difficult to set up and maintain; check MoonMoon out, I guarantee you will be stunned. It's fantastic.

Tags:

Tech

FOSS

Linux

PHP

If you liked this post, buy me a coffee

There Is No Statute Of Limitations On Crimes Against Humanity

ThistleWeb — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 15:12:29 +0000

An interesting point I noted in a smear piece in the Telegraph. It's kind of an own goal, but I agree with it. This is a smear piece written by some arsehole masquerading as a journalist in what they call a newspaper. This isn't about whether you agree or not with Dawkins. One line is: "There is no statute of limitations on crimes against humanity."

Yep, these are the same religious nuts who always smear him for having the temerity to use logic and thinking to counter fairy tales and bullshit. If we want to talk about that statement, think of the centuries of war, torture, rape committed against men, women and children BY the Church.

Even today the Church are still in denial about the pedophile epidemic among it's higher ups. They'd be bankrupt paying for restitution for crimes committed by THIS generations Priesthood, let alone going back through history to pay restitution for all of it.

I agree, there should be no statute of limitations on crimes against humanity. I'd start with the Church. If they really think we are responsible for the crimes of our ancestors, how many of the elite who run and have run the Telegraph are descended from slave owners? Most UK citizens will have some of the Empire's blood on their hands somewhere.

Even if we didn't benefit individually with family wealth or influence, we benefited as a society. Hell, look at all the elite families in the upper echelons of our society, all the Lords, Dames, MPs and even the fucking Royals. They ALL benefited by screwing the people of their era and building their dynasty.

So after the Telegraph take their campaign to the Church for their restitution, next move through every elite family in the world starting with the Royals. Perhaps before they start that crusade, they may want to expose all the the owners of the media outlets like the Telegraph and demand restitution from all of their ancestors crimes.

No? Didn't think so. Fucking hypocritical scumbags. Thank you Adam Lusher for proving you are not in fact a real journalist. Any outlet who gives you a platform should hang their heads in shame.

Tags:

Politics

If you liked this post, buy me a coffee

Fear Of Success

ThistleWeb — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:24:53 +0000

Life is complicated. Everything that goes into every decision we make is complicated; both consciously and subconsciously. Self confidence is one that seems to have a hold on me. I find myself filled with complex ideas I could achieve if only I put the concentrated focus on it. I also find myself with projects almost ready to launch but I'm holding back.

I am my own worst critic when I have ideas. I am also well practiced at being honest with myself on how good an idea or implementation really is or could be with some work. I know that some of my ideas are terrible or pointless. I know that most fit into the "well, it's ok but not spectacular and likely wouldn't go anywhere before I'm bored with them". A rare few are blinders, specially when I've mulled them over from every conceivable angle to refine them.

I currently have four on the go in that last category. One was announced then I got mentally sidetracked leaving it to gather dust (at least from my involvement). One is up and running in Unseen Studio, albeit not given enough love as I'd like (again speaking about my own involvement). One was announced and the site is almost ready to launch but I'm lacking in the confidence to go that extra little bit. The final one could change everything for me; the site is next on the todo list.

The main focus of this self confidence issue is about the final two on that run down. Let's concentrate on the third one for now. I know the idea is solid. I know the site design is well thought out. I know it could grow into something of a cult site without ever reaching mainstream status. I'd be thrilled if it achieved that. I am not a natural salesperson, I don't have the knack of selling anything. This means that anything I do grows organically. The natural extension of that is that I get little in the way of end user feedback and involvement.

I'm thinking this is about being scared if it grows too quick. It's about adding various new skills to be able to grow with it if it grows quickly. With all of these projects I am a "jack of all trades" looking to create projects that you'd expect to be run by a group of people. I am planning for growth ahead of time.

In short, I'm getting sucked into the trap of "always tweaking, never satisfied, never launched". I need to change this habit.

I've known for a long time that I have a short attention span when it comes to ideas. When I think of something that is worth exploring, I usually don't last too long before I'm sidetracked with another new idea. This is all fun when having a laugh or a brainstorming session, in practical terms it's a nightmare. If I want to commit to launching an idea as something others could get into, I need to be able to get way beyond the site building stage and still be enthused about it.

I've always believed in the concept that the idea is worthless, only the execution of the idea has value. As such, the ideas I have, as good as some of them are, are worth nothing in the grand scheme of things unless or until I execute them. With that, I'm hoping to force myself over that last little hurdle to launch the third project on my list of four. It frees me up for numbers four, then a fifth.

I know that talking about them in numbers doesn't explain much, it will make sense in hindsight.

A major enabler in all of this is my finding and learning Drupal. With some basic Drupal skills, I can conceptualize quite a fancy project site, with a lot of appropriate features and build it pretty quickly with off-the-shelf modules and themes. All of these projects fit into that description.

Fear of success is a strange feeling, but one I'm unfortunately all too familiar with. I don't usually do personal posts but I felt this one was important. Hopefully it's a kick-starter post to tick stuff off my list. Nothing is ever perfect right? Especially when it starts out.

I am perfectly at home in nurturing and encouraging self belief in others, I seem to be immune to that same wisdom myself.

Tags:

Random

If you liked this post, buy me a coffee

On Luis Suarez

ThistleWeb — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 20:39:10 +0000

This post is roundup of my thoughts on recent events surrounding Luis Suarez. Let me first get the fact that I am a Manchester United fan out of the way, as well as the fact that Luis Saurez the footballer is an incredible asset to any team with his playing abilities. This will be a long post; sorry in advance.

Every player in every sport is competitive, they need to be. They will go right to the edge of the rules and occasionally beyond for their cause. In some cases this is claiming for every 50/50 decision the ref has to call, or not trying too hard to stay on their feet when tackled in the penalty area. Football is a team sport, which as obvious as it sounds, means that when one of your team is appealing for something, the others jump into the appeal on their team mates side regardless of the incident.

All sports require a lot of training in a lot of little individual skills until they become second nature. Players practice the basics every day over and over and over until they don't even think about them on the pitch. Luis Suarez is a very skilled player. He is a nightmare for defenders to keep quiet and marked. He has excellent touch, vision and timing on when and how to make space, as well as how to use it. He is also a skilled cheat.

All of the same dedication to the basics, he has also given to how to cheat. His approach is to use any and everything to gain an advantage. The professional part of this, is doing it in ways that the officials don't see it during play, and it becomes a battle of players giving two opposite views insisting they're correct and the other bloke is lying. This is where the well practiced innocent face and praying gestures come in.

He is not alone in this, plenty of players do the same thing. Suarez is a master at it.

If you're playing that game, you will use anything you think will get you the edge in that moment. Sledging is an ancient practice in sport, to insult your opponents in the hope that they get angry, lose focus on their role, letting you get passed them. It can be used to provoke a reaction too, whereby the insults are missed by the officials but the reaction is not, flipping around the role of victim.

None of this is unique to Suarez, but this incident is different. Suarez let Liverpool FC and their fans down and here's why.

In every game there's players all stretching the rules, breaking them whenever possible and getting away with it. Usually at full time, it ends. The result is in, some players may be pissed at bad decisions they feel were unfair but the game is over. By the following day, training resumes and they're being prepared for their next game.

I suspect Suarez's comments to Patrice Evra were not intended primarily as racist insults, they were intended to be sledging, to get Evra to lash out or lose concentration. I believe Suarez used whatever he thought would be the most effective tool to achieve that. In this case is was racist abuse. I believe he has done this plenty of times before in other games for club and country, and nothing has come of it. This time Evra decided to report it.

After the game Patrice Evra would have spoken to Sir Alex Ferguson to explain his side of what happened. It would not have been just a complaint on a whim, by someone with an axe to grind. There would have been a meeting with the higher ups at Manchester United with Patrice Evra and Sir Alex Ferguson to hear the full story again, and decide if they want to take it further with an official complaint.

As soon as Liverpool received an official complaint, they would have called Luis Suarez and Kenny Dalgliesh into a meeting to get Luis's version of the story. This is the point where Luis let the club and fans down. I expect that Luis continued his innocence act and spun the club a pack of lies as his version of events. Liverpool and Kenny Dalgliesh expect Luis to be honest with them, so as far as they're concerned Luis is innocent and the complaint is baseless.

Liverpool are at this point quite right to support their player, however the t-shirts were a seriously bad idea.

Until the hearing at the FA, it's two players with differing versions of the story. One is lying, or at the very least exaggerating.

The FA called lots of witnesses, heard lots of testimony from various people and concluded that Suarez did in fact racially abuse Evra multiple times during that game. They concluded that Luis Suarez was not racist. They concluded that the evidence Suarez gave was inconsistent. This tells me that Suarez kept up the innocence act at the FA hearing too. This is just an extension of being spotted by the referee breaking the rules, and extending the innocent act way past the full time whistle. The FA interpreted that as making the situation worse, that he wasn't even able to accept he was in the wrong. The result was an 8 match ban.

Despite a 100+ page release of the FA's findings explaining all the nuances to their decision, some Liverpool FC fans are convinced that Suarez did nothing wrong and is being victimized. I find this really sad. Suarez maintained his innocent act all the way through this at every stage. He lied to Kenny Dalgleish, he lied to Liverpool FC, he lied to the Liverpool fans and to the FA.

In this report the public see the contentious language used by Luis Suarez to Partice Evra, mainly the word "negro" which is just a word. It has no power on it's own. Like everything, context is king. The context of a sporting match with opposing players trying to gain an advantage over each other, it's an insult, it's meant to hurt. The context turns that word into a racist insult.

Like any court ruling, the conclusion is in. A defendant in a court case can maintain their innocence up until the judgement, after that they are in the eyes of the law whatever the judge says they are. If there are grounds for appeal, they will appeal. In the case of Luis Suarez, the 100+ page report laid out the whole thing. He is guilty of what he was charged with, and judged to be guilty.

I can kinda understand some fans refusing to accept the verdict, but the club should have. From the point where they were told of the judgement and ban, they should have accepted it. "We still believe Luis is innocent, but we respect the FA's decision, the matter is now closed." Nothing like that came from Liverpool, Kenny Dalgliesh or Luis Suarez. The official line from the club fuels the fans, resulting in some of them still refusing to accept the truth to this day.

Has he learned from his punishment? Sadly no.

What he and Liverpool should have done is take a different track when the official complaint was received. Luis Suarez should have told the truth to the Liverpool higher ups right from the start. Yes he'd have gotten a bollocking at the time, he'd also have had to release an apology for a misunderstanding of cultures, and that it wasn't intended to be racist just sledging. Of course it'd have been news for a little while, but it'd be yesterdays chip paper and we'd all have moved on. By owning up to his actions at the time, his punishment would have been a lot lighter if at all.

We are where we are. Knowing Manchester United and Liverpool were going to meet at Old Trafford in the league on Saturday, both clubs tried to simmer down the atmosphere although there were still some barbed insults flying about. The handshakes at the start of the game were a chance to put it behind them and move on. Suarez again let down Liverpool by agreeing to shake Evra's hand, then not doing it. This sparks it all back up again.

This wasn't a racist gesture. Suarez feels he's done nothing wrong and got harshly punished for it. The person he blames for that is the person who made the complaint; Patrice Evra. He has a grudge against Evra for this, and refused to shake his hand. The body language is telling. Suarez is a past master at cheating. He does it in ways that people don't see at the time. His eyes, his intentionally moving his hand in line is all just typical Suarez. His aim was to snub Evra, knowing how Evra would react, and knowing the crowd would see Evra's more animated response, therefor painting himself yet again as the victim after provoking the incident.

By provoking Evra at the handshakes, and his team mates by extension, he puts their concentration off. It's aimed at making one or more Manchester United players target him with some rough treatment or anything coming near him that he can use as an acting aid to reduce the team numbers. This is a common tactic employed by many players and many teams. Thankfully this time no Manchester United players reacted to it.

Patrice Evra's decision to celebrate in front of the Liverpool fans and especially in front of Luis Suarez was wrong however. there is no need to do that. I'd expect he'll have to answer FA questions about that. Sir Alex Fergusons comments about "Liverpool should kick Suarez out" are also wrong, this is a matter for Liverpool FC.

Kenny Dalgliesh stating that he didn't know about the handshake incident is bullshit. He may not have been in the dugout during it, but it was a major talking point. There's no way he could have gotten to full time and not had someone at least once tell him what Suarez had done. It's one thing to take the "I need to focus on the game, we'll deal with this afterwards" approach, but unbelievable to claim he knew nothing about it.

The round of apologies are meaningless PR too. Suarez clearly feels he has done nothing wrong, but like a kid forced to say words he doesn't mean, he apologizes......kinda. He didn't do what he should have done when the official complaint was received. He still hasn't apologized for the racist abuse he aimed at Patrice Evra. He sees what he did as just regular sledging of an opponent to gain an edge. This suggests he will do the same again, and some other player from some other club will make a similar complaint against him. If or when that happens I suspect he will continue his innocent act through the whole process again, yet again lying to his employers, his fans and the FA. This will of course be seen by some Liverpool FC fans as victimization. During his ban, Suarez's agent apparently said that his client felt he was being victimized in England, and that he may not stay if that continued.

Luis Suarez is the end result of a culture that rewards footballers who cheat. In public clubs and managers play the moral card, but behind the scenes they welcome it if it gains them an edge. Suarez deliberately handled the ball on the goal line in the World Cup, stopping a goal. The penalty was missed and his team went through with him banned for the next game. He was a hero for this act of cheating.

I really hope both clubs can put this one to rest now that we have at least official (albeit rather weak and insincere) apologies from both clubs. There was a time where games between both clubs were a showcase of fantastic English football. I hope that returns.

Tags:

Football

If you liked this post, buy me a coffee

I Will Make It Legal

ThistleWeb — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 08:27:14 +0000

The day after SOPA would have passed into US law, we saw the US government initiate a worldwide takedown of MegaUpload. As many pointed out, if they could do this anyway, why do they need SOPA. Another thought occurred to me; they wanted to make it legal and create a climate of fear. MegaUpload was supposed to be a trophy show takedown under these new laws.

In the fifth Harry Potter novel "The Order Of The Pheonix" one of the running themes of the story is the Ministry of Magic being thwarted in some crackdown at Hogwarts under some jurisdictional aspect only to have Delores Umbridge write to the Minister resulting in a new law being written and enacted overnight to give her powers she was denied the previous day.

I wonder if a similar thing has happened with MegaUpload.

The case against MegaUpload was apparently in the pipeline for a couple of months before the day of the raids. It was a co-ordinated assault with many countries and warrants for many different alleged crimes. This wasn't an overnight seizure of a domain name like ICE where the URL just shows a new "seized" page. This was a full blown raid, with seizure of assets and individuals, under warrants from evasion of tax, money laundering etc

The copyright mafia are not used to being told "no" from governments. They can set their watches by what their puppets in government will do. You don't pay lots of money to politicians only to have them refuse to do your bidding, that's just not the American way. The SOPA backlash affecting US politicians enough to have them back off the bill was unprecedented.

I am wondering if all of the MegaUpload takedown was timed to happen a day after SOPA was supposed to have been triumphantly passed by a patriotic government, where all of the PR was pre-written to lines of "thanks to new legislation we can now bring MegaUpload to justice". The fly in the ointment was that SOPA didn't pass. It didn't get as far as a vote because of the size and range of the internet backlash.

How much of the powers they used to bring down MegaUpload were not actually legal? Were those warrants written so that if enacted the day AFTER SOPA, they WOULD be legal? It's like officers surrounding a house, waiting for the clock to strike midnight, because a new law comes into force allowing them to storm the building. The problem is that no new laws came into force.

What do they do? Do they postpone the whole operation until they do have new laws to do it? The copyright mafia have long considered themselves above the law so that's not a logical option for them. My guess is that they assume the setback to SOPA will be dealt with behind the scenes, and those politicians who dared defy them will soon pop up in the media with their tails between their legs enthusiastically championing SOPA again. There would have been a lot of legals ducks all lining up in a row to coincide with those raids.

For some reason Darth Sidious comes to mind:

"Is that legal?"
"I will make it legal."

If that did happen, how does that affect MegaUpload's defence? Arrested under laws that don't exist, targeted assault by officers of the law acting outside of it. The US government and it's corporations already have a terrible reputation around the world for abusing the law, this will only add to it.

If they can paint the MegaUpload takedown as legal, just and fair, they can create a climate of fear where others cease operating without any need for the brown shirts to turn up early in the morning to smash their doors in and drag them away.

Tags:

Politics

Law

Tech

If you liked this post, buy me a coffee

Copyright In The Media

ThistleWeb — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 08:01:45 +0000

Every week there are new stories cropping up somewhere on the planet of copyright holders clamping down in some way how people can use their work, or in most cases can't use their work. News organisations are among them. I've noticed something odd here. Well, I say "odd", it's just the usual hypocrisy at work.

They demand they should be paid to be listed in search engines etc even though the world has changed and search engines draw visitors. They demand that "fair use" shouldn't exist, and that anyone who uses their stuff without permission and payment is a theif who should be prosecuted; preferably with jail time. Ignorance of the law is no excuse right?

This is an example from the Guardian. You will spot this theme across all news organisations, across all of their specialist sections from football, fashion, music, movie etc. They happily do stories of compilations "best goals by Ronaldo" "top 10 Phil Collins tunes" "best Twilight moments" etc and embed YouTube clips in the post. In podcasts they happily discuss clips they've seen on YouTube, inviting listeners what to search for to go find it.

Do they have the rights to do this?

The soul singer Etta James died, so the Guardian put together a "10 classic performances" post. All of the clips are from YouTube. Their policy on copyright can be found here, the terms of service can be found here. Take a look at section 3 "Use of material appearing on the Guardian site".

I regularly listen to Football Weekly by the Guardian. It's an excellent football (soccer) podcast but that's a side point. They regularly talk of incidents uploaded to YouTube from games around the world. Those clips will belong to a whole range of rights holders. A clip from Sky with Sky logos, Sky commentators etc belongs to Sky for example. Surely by pointing people to go search for and consume those clips, they are encouraging and facilitating copyright infringement right?

Did they link to any clips uploaded by people who don't have the rights to upload them? How much of the Guardian's back catalogue of posts have infringed like this? How many podcasts have pointed folks to infringing material? How many years has this been going on? I'm sure the legal departments for the copyright Mafia would have a field day multiplying the monitory damages they'd claim for. Keep in mind these people seem to think a single song being shared by a single mother for no financial gain is valued in the $100,000's.

Does this mean the Guardian's staff are unaware of the law? Does this mean the Guardian only care about THEIR copyrights and feel others are there to be used how they like? Should the Guardian have a training session on how to respect copyright law when producing their copy? Of course respecting those laws the way copyright holders want them respected makes for more neutered posts, but that's the point. If they realise this, they will open their eyes to the idea that fair use is actually a good thing for them, their staff and their readers.

Don't get me wrong, I see all of this as "fair use". The problem is that the rights holders don't. The problem is that they are hell bent on clamping down on any fair use for regular folks. The problem is not the actions, the problem is the hypocrisy.

I've only use the Guardian as an example. The entire industry is rife with these double standards.

Under laws like SOPA (that the rights holders are constantly pushing for), the Guardian could easily be shut down for facilitating copyright infringement. No safe harbours, no fair use, wilful infringement (ie not by an anonymous commenter but by a member of staff) and for commercial gain.

Surely if you want others to respect your copyrights, you should set an example and respect others. The same applies to attribution for comments too "Facebook" or "Twitter" is NOT attribution, the USER on those services should be attributed, not the site. By all means show you're one of the news organisations who value accuracy and give their username and site, but not just the site if it's a multi user site like Facebook. By attributing "Twitter" to a Tweet by one of their users, you are implying that Twitter as a company stated that, not one of their users.

Tags:

Law

If you liked this post, buy me a coffee

The Day After The SOPA Blackout

ThistleWeb — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:50:45 +0000

So eagle eyed readers will have noticed some sites had a "stop SOPA" campaign of some sorts, some (like mine) went black for the day to protest it. Most of the techie sites who protested are niche sites. They may be huge well known names within that niche, but the average Joe will never stumble across them. The big changer for the blackout was Wikipedia.

All of the major news networks have been able to simply ignore the protests about SOPA, their paymasters being SOPA supporters is a key part of that decision. At best we get the odd mention as a minor side story to another one. Wikipedia changed that. Wikipedia has a HUGE user base all around the world, from a LOT of different walks of life and interests. These are the people that tech sites just don't reach. Wikipedia can and did.

SOPA is one of many freight carriage bills being sent out by the recording and movie industry to ensure they don't have to adapt to the times, and to allow them to make illegal anything that forces them to. If SOPA dies, they will rename it to something else and start the whole process of deception and corruption again until it passes. When it passes it will confirm all of the oppositions claims to be accurate but by that time......hey, it's the law suckers.

The supporters of these bills have been convincing the only people who matter (the politicians) that it's not only necessary, but it's fair, balanced, and right. Plenty of the politicians supporting it know that's bullshit but they have some reward for backing it so they will. Some will genuinely believe the bullshit the recording industry and movie industry lobbyists have fed them. The Wikipedia effect meant that the staffers and politicians themselves got a bit of a wake up call on a few things:

The true nature of these bills
The public know the true nature of these bills
The public are pissed off at the deception and misinformation used to try and push them through
The public can and will mobilise against those who have sold them out

They now have to start figuring out some new factors into their equations. Do they continue to buy the bullshit sold to them by industry lobbyists and support bills clearly about censorship? How will this affect their reputation and re-election chances? Can they truly say they didn't get the message yesterday? Politicians are cold calculating self serving bastards. Anything that affects their position or influence is something they devote some thinking time to with advisers.

By defending censorship, they are saying either "I ignored the voters who complained yesterday and will carry on as before" or "I heard the voters protests, delved into all the evidence and dismissed all of the experts in favour of the lobbyists and will carry on as before".

The most disappointing part of yesterdays events for me was having my faith in Channel 4 News destroyed. Usually Channel 4 are very rigorous on checking facts, verifying claims and nailing interviewees when they make false claims. So it stunned me to find that Jon interviewed Marietje Schaake in what I can only be describe as unbelievably biased. He starts with the statement from the MPAA who are bullshit artists even on the basics, then his entire interview is one fallacy after the next, with straw men arguments and smears that come straight from the MPAA handbook. Jon, I am appalled that you did this. I held you in VERY high esteem as one of the few proper journalists and a fantastic interviewer who makes a habit of being tough but fair.

I am left asking "why did Channel 4 stoop to the levels of regular news reports on this issue?" It's not incompetence, news networks have a well oiled work-flows to take any breaking story and devle into the facts, claims and counter-claims. As I said, Channel 4 are usually spot on for getting the real story. They're not usually known for just stating "facts" that are not only unproven, but have been proven to be bogus with even the most basic of journalist skills.

Why didn't this happen here? Did they even look? If not, why not? If they did, they'd have seen the MPAA studies, figures and claims to be debunked many times over in many different places with detailed exposes and reasoning. It's not hard. All of that information is on a plate for journalists to check out.

The more serious possibility is that they KNEW it was bullshit, but it's in their interests to spin that line rather than do their job of bringing the actual news to people in as fair a way as possible. This is a story about toxic legislation being rammed through the legislative process by deception and misinformation......funded and pushed by traditional media companies who have no intention of adapting to what their customers want.

I find it hard to believe Channel 4 News is incompetent on this story. I've long held a lot of respect for them and their integrity. I also find it hard to believe that they intentionally took the propaganda line on this story, again because they've built up a history of accuracy. Clearly something went wrong on this story.

Watch the interview and judge for yourself. I'm not sure if their DRM or region restrictions may make the video unavailable but it's embedded anyway.

It did seem to be just one sign that the major news networks had expected the protest to be a damp squib, and preprepared their own "failed protest" pieces, backed by the "facts" as provided by organisations like the MPAA which have more in common with organised crime, than any legit "protecting creatives" cause. Some sites had to hastily rewrite posts after it turned out different to what they'd hoped.

Some have went into face saving mode, with distraction smear posts about Wikipedia, missing the point that the anti-SOPA sentiment is about ALL sites with user generated content, and the abilities of rights holders to abuse their powers in shutting down anything they don't like (ie that threatens their monopolies by offering their customers something they won't do). Wikipedia is one of MANY sites standing up for free speech on the internet. It happened to be one with the largest reach beyond just the techies.

Only because Wikipedia took a stand, did the news networks feel compelled to cover it at all. It'd look odd for a major world brand like Wikipedia to take a stand like this, and the tech journalists in the mainstream news to not cover something that everyday folks are seeing and talking about. It'd not just look odd, but suspicious. "Why don't they cover this? Do they agree with SOPA? Do they want to censor the internet too?"

One criticism I've seen about the various blackout scripts is that some of them allow the site to still work as usual if you disable javascript, so what's the point? That IS the point. The message is that anyone with the slightest technical know-how and the determination to get around a block, will do so. This means that the publicly stated goal of this legislation "to stop piracy" won't even work. People will find ways around it.

Everything has pros and cons. The SOPA supporters constantly try to shift the goalposts when quizzed on the cons of these bills like "no due process" "wrongful site take downs" and a whole lot more. They always exaggerate the pros "fighting piracy". The subtle javascript blackout functionality shows that all they have is cons, because the pros are ineffectual.

Do these people know the cons? Of course they do. These companies used to be gatekeepers, where the only people allowed to play had to come through them, paying whatever tolls they demanded under whatever conditions they set. The internet has evolved us as consumers to a state beyond them. They are no longer required. We now have the ability for fans and artists to reach each other directly, cutting out the middle men.

The SOPA supporters ARE the middle men. They see how the landscape has changed and it doesn't include them. The genie is already out of the bottle. All they can do is try to force it back in with legislation that ONLY benefits them.

The politicians who support these causes are clueless about the modern world and the internet in particular. They exist in a world where information goes one way, that voters, customers etc are all just receivers, and what we receive is the official word that keeps the natural order of things, and the monopolies in place. Yet despite being clueless on how the internet works, even to a basic level, they feel perfectly qualified to decide the laws that govern what it can and can't do. They also feel it's responsible to ignore ALL of the evidence given by experts in favour of their puppet masters wishes.

We (the internet) made a powerful point yesterday. This is not over, do not assume victory if SOPA is shelved for now. like a wart, it will return under a new name with similar wording, pushed by the same names using the same bullshit arguments and "facts". We need to keep fighting these bills as and when they appear. That does not mean blackouts again necessarily, but does not rule them out.

Arguably one of the hardest hitting points made yesterday was that politicians who had been using the "protecting American jobs" mantra were being accused of censorship. The US and it's politicians are loud proclaimers of being "the land of the free" where the constitution protects things like free speech. They use "censorship" as a stick to beat other countries like China with. When bills being debated in the US for US law are being compared to those of China, and even look bad in comparison.....it's a mark of shame for those politicians putting their names in the "I support / vote for this" column of the history ledger.

I applaud everyone who took part in the SOPA protest yesterday in their own ways. Some spread the word, some changed avatars, logos etc, while others went black for a period of time. Keep up the fight to protect freedom of speech.

Tags:

If you liked this post, buy me a coffee

Divide & Rule

ThistleWeb — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 10:23:29 +0000

On 5Live this morning, there was a debate about whether a tweet by Labour MP Diane Abbott is racist or not. Some people have spotted the real issue behind this comment, while others seem to have focussed on the surface meaning. Before we begin, let's look at her words "White people love playing "divide & rule" We should not play their game #tacticasoldascolonialism".

A tweet has a limit of 140 characters, which means some discussions or comments are truncated. This was also a reply to a journalist, not a general remark. The UK has a long colonial history of this very tactic, but even then it's a curve ball. The issue is not about white versus black, Asian or any other racial group. The issue is about the 1% rich elite versus the 99% of the rest of us.

The elite doesn't care about skin colour, religion, gender, age or anything else. They care about money and influence. They care so much about money and influence that they do anything they can to prevent anyone organising to make a system fairer for all, which means they lose some abilities they currently exploit for personal gain.

Imagine a system where tax avoiders are hunted down via Interpol and assets seized for non-payment. That would see a who's who of social, political and royal elite suddenly have their names and reputations on arrest warrants for defrauding the tax payer. The elite exist for one purpose; to maintain the status quo, where they have a personal stake.

The problem I have with Diane Abbott's tweet, is that she is implying that she's one of the groups being divided and ruled by virtue of being black. She is evoking the image of colonialism to add power to that implication. The problem with this is that she is part of the elite. She is part of the 1%. She is privileged. She is part of a system which has always played the divide and rule card to maintain the status quo.

Politicians are very well skilled in manipulating people, they do it for a living. They are very skilled communicators, in picking exact words to use to imply stuff they want you to conclude, while sneakily leaving themselves an out if called on it later. Politicians who develop the art of the non-answer or deflection are those who rise up the ladder. Politicians who attain cabinet member status can be assumed to be skilled in the qualities their parties value......the non-answer.

To some degree, politicians have to be aware of, and stoke their public image. They rely on being a "name" when the election comes round. If your local MP is in the cabinet, or regularly appears on the news discussing stuff, they are a known quantity. To the average voter the challengers are just a photograph and name on a ballot paper. Dianne Abbott spent a while as a regular pundit on a political discussion program, among others. Her public profile has always been a key part of who she is.

To that degree, she is as much a "celeb" as a newsreader or TV host. As such, she knows how to draw publicity. She knows that publicity simply raises her profile. If it's out of context, it is an obvious publicity stunt. Like any politician, the safe assumption is to assume everything they say is lies, deception or misdirection until proven otherwise by some actual proof. The only person who knows is Dianne Abbott.

The other element of this whole concept, is that people are people. Regular conversations are often incoherent and not thought through to the umpteenth degree. As such, we can all put out throwaway comments while not paying attention, or without the context of the conversation, while tired, drunk or just in a bad mood and the world is defined as "a bunch of obnoxious wankers".

Her tweet and the resulting debate has divided opinions. Some agree or disagree on various grounds. The sentements behind it may well be noble but isn't that a textbook example of a politicians use of "divide and rule"? Perhaps we should take her advice, and not fall for it......even when it's deployed by her.

While writing this post Dianne Abbott has posted an update tweet "Tweet taken out of context. Refers to nature of 19th century European colonialism. Bit much to get into 140 characters."

Tags:

Politics

If you liked this post, buy me a coffee

A Symbolic SOPA Protest Takedown

ThistleWeb — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 16:31:48 +0000

Most techy people are aware of SOPA and it's implications. Some have different ways of trying to kill the legislation and expose the numbers behind the support. A few large names have done things like publicly leave GoDaddy because of GoDaddy's support for internet censorship. Other sites like Amazon, Yahoo and Google are talking about going blank for a day with a message to visitors to contact their Senators.

This is all well and good, but why don't we all do the same with sites we have administration and political authority over? I'm not talking about a site you manage for work, where the employer has the political control. I'm talking about blogs, forums, wikis etc. Individually it's a drop in the ocean that won't be noticed by many people. Collectively it will still be a drop in the ocean but it will amplify the message. When people find Google, Amazon and Yahoo down, along with Wikipedia, then sporadiaclly throughout the day as they find a link, only to find it's down too.

If there is a coordinated date for this protest, I will join in with this site and Unseen Studio. I have another site in the making but it doesn't really count when it will still be under construction tucked behind the sanctuary moon of Endor and nobody knows about it yet.

With web software it's a maintenance feature, to put the site into some form of maintenance mode which prevents users from signing in and modifying the database with new posts or comments while you update. This is how I will do it. You can put your message in there, visitors will see that message instead of the site.

Feel free to make your message funny, sarcastic or whatever expresses "you" or "your site". Right now I'm pondering a sorta Tupac "Hit Em Up" style message like:

Fuck the RIAA
Fuck the MPAA
Fuck the technically illiterate Luddites and their puppet masters in the recording industry
Fuck the parasites in suits who leech off both ends of the creative chain, and pretend to be on their side
Fuck the people who can't adapt to the times and want to break the future for the rest of us
Fuck the hypocrites who champion censorship for profit
And if you're down with these asshats; then fuck you too.

I am not as poetic or lyrical as Tupac, I may have to work on it a little. Perhaps a more direct Rage Against The Machine "Killing In The Name" style would be more apt.

FUCK YOU, I WON'T DO WHAT YOU TELL ME!

Tags:

Politics

Law

Tech

If you liked this post, buy me a coffee

Rediscovering ABBA

ThistleWeb — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:40:54 +0000

It's been a while since I listened to any music in a prolonged session, but today I've found myself with a background of ABBA for a while and loving it. ABBA were HUGE in the mid to late 70's which was a few years before my time as a music listener although my sister caught the ABBA bug. I only really found them after they'd split. They were remarkable on several fronts.

On first impression they are a typical pop band, that is just a surface impression. Not only did they pump out thumping tunes time after time, they did it in a language that wasn't native to them. They wrote classic pop tunes in a language they were not able to speak natively. From what I can work out, Benny and Bjorn did the English interviews in the ABBA heyday because they could speak English. Anni-Frid could also speak English, although I think that came later on; Agnetha never learned.

If that's accurate, the two girls were singing in a language they couldn't speak and harmonising like their voices were made for each other. If that wasn't enough, ABBA started as two single men, and two single women. Within the lifespan of the group they became two married couples, then two divorced couples, all in the glare of being the music industry darlings. If that wasn't enough they managed to produce wonderful music about all of that.

Everyone knows the akward silences, the sensitive old wounds, the history etc that steep the atmosphere when couples have issues. It's one thing to do that as one couple, it's something else when it's two couples at different phases, it's another level to have them doing that and churning out incredible tunes in the process.

For some reason Agnetha was always my favourite but until recently I could never put my finger on why. I found out recently that Agnetha hated the spotlight even when ABBA were the hot property around the world, being mobbed by adoring fans at every stop. Apparntly she hated performing. This is the nail in the coffin of anyones hopes of ABBA ever reuiniting. Agnetha has always been a Swedish home girl, happy to live life as a regular person. She never got that while ABBA were in full swing. I feel a kinship with her in that regard, that same feeling put a huge imovable object in the way of me ever having the hope of making money from playing the guitar.

Every creative band or group have a heyday, where everything lines up and they produce their best work. It could be a certain lineup, or a time where they were touring a certain location, or went through a phase exploring a style of music. ABBA had most of their career "in the zone". For me ABBA is all four people, there is no ABBA when one is removed. The chemistry between all four is electric.

The ABBA sound is the harmonising of Anni-Frid and Agnetha, although Benny and Bjorn occasionally do some vocals too. For those who escaped the ABBA experience, here's a couple of tracks via YouTube.

Take A Chance On Me

Does Your Mother Know

Tags:

Random

Music

If you liked this post, buy me a coffee