A Homage to Montage

I've been busy lately but found time to make this. Here's a link to a Spotify playlist I made of overplayed Xfactor Montage songs; songs which never seem to get old and seem to shine a good light on a mediocre contestant. A homage to a show which really does produce a mighty good montage:

XFactor Montage Spotify Playlist

Let me know if I've missed anything...

9/11 Wikileaks - An indecent release?

Today, wikileaks began releasing "pager intercepts" gathered from over 500,000 individually sent messages before, during and after the 9/11 attacks in North America in 2001. Indeed, since 0300 (US Eastern Time) this morning pager records as the day unfolded in New York prior to and following the first plane striking the world trade centre on 9/11 have been released. Furthermore, they're being released in "real-time", in 5-minute intervals, so viewers can follow events as they happened. I must admit to release such information publicly in this fashion seems a little perverse and objectionable. I guess there's no better way to describe this "real-time" leak from wikileaks and the reporting surrounding it than as "morbid voyeurism".

Of course, wikileaks probably justifies its decision to release such information on the grounds of public importance. Apparently, we need to know what really happened that day so we can have a better understanding of how the tragedy occurred and how mankind responded. One thing is certain - you cannot describe their leak as sympathetic. The tone surrounding the release seems to be one of a group that is relishing in their own controversy:

"Due to popular demand we provide a new block of pager data every 5 minutes, synchronized to the actual time of day the message was sent.

This way the world has a chance to objectively see how the tragedy progressed."

"Due to popular demand" - this crudely sounds like they've just released a few extra tour dates for their sold out venture. Indeed, why does the world need a chance to objectively see how the "tragedy progressed" in another form when it already has once before.

Wikileaks can be useful as a medium for the release of valuable information from 'super-grasses' and 'whistleblowers'. However, the release of this data seems to add little to any debate surrounding 9/11 (besides perhaps countering a few conspiracy theories surrounding the days events). Surely in this case, the sensitive issue of releasing personal data from both public and private citizens outweighs any advantages of its release in this format.

An example of some of the data being released:

2001-09-11 08:54:44 Skytel [00455____] B ALPHA opsunit@nypd.org|1 PCT WORLD TRADE CENTER|--- 1 PCT - WORLD TRADE CENTER - POSSIBLE EXPLOSION WORLD TRADE CENTER BUILDING. LEVEL 3 MOBILIZATION TO CHURCH AND VESSY.

View Larger Map

Arguably some data, such as the above which may illustrate the exact time at which NYPD units were paged to the scene of the incident under the WTC, may be useful in piecing together the days events. However, other data coinciding in this release includes private messages from worried children, partners and family who have relatives inside a building or vice versa. For the sake of decency and my argument I will not be repeating examples of some of these messages.

In reality, many spectators to this data release are revelling in discovering messages which record horrific personal details from the incident. In my opinion, these messages should have remained unread and resided with the ashes of the tower itself rather than being churned up for the world to have "a chance to objectively see how the tragedy progressed". The world has already "objectively" witnessed this tragedy in one form or another and this argument cannot be used to defend the release of private information.

You can follow #911txts on twitter as the day progresses if you want. You can witness as the spectacle progresses in "real-time" courtesy of Wikileaks and Tweets.

Thierry Henry Controversy and Roy Keane Empathy (or lack of)

Thierry Henry's Wikipedia gets a make over after his recent hand plucked denial of a France-Ireland fair result:

Need I say any more? Click for a larger view.

Roy Keane typically managed to emphasise with the Ireland squad, fans and country. He had the following to say, "France are going to the world cup. Get over it."

You can "send Fifa an email" here.

Farmville: Is it all a "scam"?

Look at this evil Farmville avatar as he grins widely with your cash in his back pocket. He's got a nice cash crop; over 60million users worldwide are signed up to the "free" social game. But how did the cash get there in the first place? You freely gave it to him. That's right, the impatient amongst us chose to pay for extra features to advance further and faster in the game. So where's the victim?

Social Gaming sites have been around a long time. I remember spending hours on Habbo Hotel when I was younger. And yes, I freely gave some of my money to buy some tacky virtual furniture to pad out my room. I was the sultan in the hotel, spending my parents cash on flash gear through my pay as you go mobile like there was no tomorrow. Should I not have paid for services on the site? Maybe. Should I not have spent with my mobile phone paid for by my parents? Definitely. Did I know I was doing wrong? Of course.

TechCrunch recently broke this story and Guardian have since contributed. Essentially Zynga's  Farmville is riddled with scams, mainly taking the form of surveys where the user gives his mobile details to a company in exchange for currency on the popular game. In some cases, this results in users being sent irrelevant texts charged at premium rates from the survey company, which quickly burns a hole in the consumers wallet. The deceptive nature of these offers, which TechCrunch go into detail clear detail about, certainly make them a "scam" by the very definition.

Scam - verb: to swindle (someone) by means of a trick

However, what I disagree with is the idea that the sheer concept of the game and the fact that it has been monetised makes it all bad. What I don't see as troublesome, is the idea that adults and children freely use their mobiles, credit cards or paypal accounts to directly purchase virtual cash for the game directly from Zynga or other service providers.

The prevailing counterargument is that the game is addictive in nature and set up in order to encourage players to get hooked and give up their own, or their parents, cash. Admittedly, as the game progresses it takes increasingly more effort to reach new levels, which can easily make users feel frustrated and lead them with the urge to use their own cash to enhance their online gaming experience. However, if they do decide to purchase game currency to advance, isn't it their own decision? And as for those young, easily influenced users, isn't it a parent's responsibility to monitor what their children are signed up to and when they are spending money without their permission?

"But wait a second, this product is targeted at children! And it's immoral to pray on a child's naivety," chimes a concerned parent. But since when were 'games' not targeted at children? The occurrence of deceptive behaviour is clearly on a child's behalf and not on the games company or mobile phone payment providers who've decided to monetised social gaming. The child realises there's a technological generation gap that separates them from their parents. They have grown up with the internet, computer games and social networking; their older and non-wiser parents have not. I hedge to bet that in many cases that the child knowingly takes advantage of their parent's ignorance.

Fortunately, their actions can be controlled through proper education and monitoring from their parents, especially in cases where children under-16 freely surf the web and use social networking services without supervision.

What parents should be aiming to do is emulate their child's web activity. They should get stuck into social networking and test the water of these games and their marketing strategies. Only then will they be better informed to advise their children on the suspect nature of online advertising and the importance of retaining important personal information. Most importantly they'll be able to tell them the age old philosophy that "if it looks too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true", which applies in the real world, also applies to the internet.

Parental ignorance is not an excuse. Now I'm off to go plant some Strawberry seeds.

Hipocrisy: The Daily Mail guns down comedy and freedom of expression

Short of wanting to turn this blog into a devotion to Daily Mail bashing, what is it with this paper's attraction toward the demise of the BBC, comedy and Freedom of Expression?

Little more than a fortnight since the infamous Jan Moir publication, which even gained a mention on Question Time, The Mail displays the dials of its moral compass are still working by hounding comedian's for apologies and calling upon their resignation for making jokes,  admittedly offensive ones. Is this familiar Mail approach not clearly hypocritical now in light of recent events?

An article about a "Repentant Jimmy Carr" illustrates the full force of The Mail's agenda; to hush up those who tread on the toes of public decency. In addition to one-sided, hand picked sources, the article is riddled with unnecessary reminders of the 'Sachsgate' affair as The Mail mounts its lobbying pressures against the BBC through tedious links. In case you weren't aware, "Carr is a friend of TV presenter Jonathan Ross, who was last year suspended by the BBC following a row over obscene phone calls...to actor Andrew Sachs" didn't you know? He's a co-conspirator, a comedian sympathiser and to be rounded up and tied to the stake where we will all not laugh at him. Well, maybe if this were an old fashioned witch hunt he would be.

Implicitly, Jan Moir and The Daily Mail used the Freedom of Expression argument, which Bonnie Greer uses in the above Question Time clip, to defend themselves for publishing their article. And rightly so. In my opinion, a regulated world with stringent rules on avoiding offensive would be pretty boring and dangerous, Yet, as The Mail takes with one hand, they are expected to give with the other; they should recognise that Freedom of Expression is also a necessary liberty to be granted to comedians.

If Jan Moir can defend that, "it was perfectly reasonable of me to comment upon the manner of Stephen Gately's death, even if there are those who think that his celebrity and sexuality make him untouchable", then why can't Frankie Boyle defend his right to make inappropriate jokes about a celebrity like Rebecca Adlington - after all that's just his opinion. In case you are yet to read it, this is the latest installment of what we are being told to be offended about by The Mail. Alternatively, you can view the clip and miss out the regurgitation of hapless spoon quotes.

We are told the Adlington row "will reopen the debate over the BBC's handling of its top-paid entertainers and how far comedians should be allowed to go." What The Daily Mail really meant to say is that they will reopen the debate through their publication of this article and similar articles in the past 7-days, such as the one on Carr's amputee joke (which was not featured on television).

I do not deny that Adlington has a right to complain about the offensive joke. Just as Gately's family has a right to complain about the offensive Moir article. That being said, if the representation of her attitude in this article is close to the truth then I would advise her to lighten up. Closely analysed, the clip illustrates an awkwardness with other panellists as Boyle makes his comments, and Dara O'Briain hastily puts the issue to bed through a light joke.

Indeed, one might say that comedy can regulate itself; people laugh if they find something funny, they gasp if they don't. And it should probably stay that way.