OK. I’ve had enough of a post-World Cup

OK. I’ve had enough of a post-World Cup break. Can we get back to #football? Argentina and A-League start this weekend http://ow.ly/2lJFz

 

Maybe it’s not the end of the world as we know it

Robin Williams on Twitter: “What if Shakespeare had Twitter: ‘To be or … that’s it.’”

As someone who works on the Internet and is — usually — excited about new technologies, I sometimes get a little frustrated by the naysayers and anti-tech scaremongers who love to tell people how much better things were when they were young.

The Internet as a whole (and I do realize that “Internet” itself is a such a large and vague term as to be almost meaningless nowadays) has been blamed from everything from the downfall of society to the downfall of language, as well as all manner of sexual, mental and physical perversions. It speaks to the impact of the Internet that at one time or another it has represented the downfall of every significant development of human culture since the Stone Age. (I mean, EVERYBODY knows that fire was much better when you had to rub two stones together, it made the fire more “personal”)

Well, it’s nice to see that there are people out there who can put the whole thing in context and are working to help us all take the leap to the next rung in the evolution ladder together. In this case, Dennis Banner, a professor of English and Linguistics at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign (where the Supercomputing Applications Center is housed!), has written the book “A Better Pencil” to ostensibly demonstrate that every change in the way we communicate has always had its detractors, and that nevertheless had a positive impact upon humanity as a whole.

What I’m dealing with is the way technology affects readers and writers when they communicate. And also how readers and writers help direct the way technology develops. So, what I’m trying to do is put the computer revolution into historical context to see how it fits with previous innovations in communication like pencils, like the printing press, like the clay tablet, like writing itself. A new communication technology does what old technology was able to do – sometimes better, sometimes in a little different way — and I’m looking at how we make sense of all of this.
http://www.salon.com/books/int/2009/09/19/better_pencil/print.html

As Baron points out, even the most basic changes, revolutions that we now consider seminal in the development of human culture and society, had its very high profile critics.

I start with Plato’s critique of writing where he says that if we depend on writing, we will lose the ability to remember things. Our memory will become weak. And he also criticizes writing because the written text is not interactive in the way spoken communication is. He also says that written words are essentially shadows of the things they represent. They’re not the thing itself. Of course we remember all this because Plato wrote it down — the ultimate irony.
http://www.salon.com/books/int/2009/09/19/better_pencil/print.html

I recommend Salon’s interview with Baron for all those of you who, like me, sometimes need a little fuel to light the fire of your responses to criticism of the Internet. Twitter isn’t the end of the world, or even of the English language

Incidentally, if Shakespeare did have Twitter, he’d have enough characters for this:

Since brevity is the soul of wit, And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes, I will be brief. Your noble son is mad.

 

Our new hero

We love Nelson artist Roger Griffiths. Not for his art, which we’ve never seen, but for hitting back at a very deserving target: Westpac.

Defiant Mapua artist Roger Griffiths today made a stand against Westpac by withdrawing his $190,000 savings in $20 notes.

The bank provided a red-and-black carry bag to take away the cash after meticulously counting it in front of Mr Griffiths at its Nelson branch.

Mr Griffiths, a loyal Westpac customer for 25 years, decided to withdraw his money after the bank rejected his application for an $80,000 mortgage. “It’s about time normal people took a stand.”

More here

 

www: the 666 of the media world

Quick quiz — Who said this?

I’m a guy who doesn’t see anything good having come from the Internet. Period.”

Any guesses? No, it’s not some septuagenarian in the mid-90s concerned about all the youngsters firing up their 9600-baud modems with piercing shrieks and seeing if They Have Mail® in their AOL and Prodigy accounts. It was said just a couple of weeks ago, on May 15, by Michael Lynton, the CEO of Sony Pictures.

Now that’s a hugely sweeping statement by someone who really should know better. Mr. Lynton is no doubt concerned about the hugely negative impact that the Internet has had on his poor, tiny, defenseless movie industry.

Just look at the devastating effects: last year (2008) according to The Hollywood Reporter, Hollywood’s revenue was up 2% for the year to a record $9.76 billion.

Wait. Up? Record? But aren’t we in a global recession? … Hang on a minute, here it is:

This tally was generated on 1.36 billion tickets sold across the USA and Canada compared to the 1.40 billion tickets sold the previous year.

See?! That’s, like … (gimme a sec, Wolfram Alpha is working on it) … 40 million tickets less! Good non-existent god! How do they even manage to eat!?

Strange that revenues are up when attendance is down. How is that possible?

The average price of a ticket hit $7.20, or 4.7% higher than the previous  year.

Ah. That explains it.

So, according to Mr. Lynton, Internet piracy is responsible for the drop of 40 million. Just think, his company could be annual trillionaires by now, instead of billionaires.

But wait, here comes Mr. Lynton to explain himself. We’re sure he’ll just tell us it’s all a big misunderstanding, the Internet is a wonderful place and we should all keep coming to the movies … let’s see what he said in an article on the Huffington Post.

Wait. What? He’s standing behind his statement? The Internet is little more than a channel for piracy?!

In March, an unfinished copy of 20th Century Fox’s film X-Men Origins: Wolverine was stolen from a film lab and uploaded to the Internet, more than a month before its theatrical release. The studio investigated the crime, and efforts were made to limit its availability online. Still, it was illegally downloaded more than four million times.

Is that the same X-Men Origins: Wolverine piece of shit movie that has made more than US$166 million just in domestic box-office by May 27? The number one movie in American on it’s opening weekend? Yes, it is.

And it’s not as if Hollywood has had such a stringent stance against piracy during its history. How many writers, producers, actors have had the sweat of their brow used to line the pockets of studio executives who did little creative work of their own? Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks are probably rolling in their grave (though hopefully not together). Getting complaints from a movie studio executive on copyright is like getting suggestions for postal packaging from Ted Kaczynski. Talk about the moral low ground.

Wait, My. Lynton has more to say:

I actually welcome the Sturm und Drang I’ve stirred, because it gives me an opportunity to make a larger point (one which I also made during that panel discussion, though it was not nearly as viral as the sentence above). And my point is this: the major content businesses of the world and the most talented creators of that content — music, newspapers, movies and books — have all been seriously harmed by the Internet.

Some of that damage has been caused by changing business models (the FTC just announced an inquiry into the impact of new media on the newspaper industry). But the primary culprit is piracy. The Internet has brought people with no regard for the intellectual property of others together with a technology that allows them to easily steal that property and sell or give it away to everyone, with little fear of being caught or prosecuted.

OK. We’ve had just about enough of this drivel. For years now, we’ve put up with the movie industry telling us how it’s wrong to steal and how we should never download copyrighter content. “You wouldn’t steal a car, would you?” they ask if their inane DVD pre-roll ouvres. A movie is not a fucking car. But you know what? If we could steal your car we would, because you have annoyed us beyond the point of reason.

The moans and groans from movie studio moguls, publishing magnates, music recording industry executives and TV producers all point to the Internet as the beginning of the end. All due to piracy destroying their hallowed content protection mechanisms.

The arguments against piracy smash themselves against a wall of reality. The fact is that the media industries are doing better than ever. Publishing and radio may not be able to say that at this point, but they are two industries who were in dire need of redevelopment anyway. They are now doing so via the Internet to the general gnashing of teeth and rending of clothes that accompanies every newspaper closing or radio station shutdown.

Piracy cannot be blamed for that. Enhanced competition is the problem there. Radio cannot compete against my iPod. Printed newspapers cannot compete with getting all my news all day each day on my assorted devices. People are still listening and reading, they are just doing it elsewhere. You need to go out and find your audience again, because it’s clear that what you were doing before was not good enough for them.

As for the movies and TV and music sales. Records continue to be broken. You’re doing great. People still want your product. Adapt a little to the new mechanisms for distribution and you will be just fine and, in fact, better than ever.

But there’s another thing that bothers me about Mr. Lynton’s comments. Either willingly or unwillingly, they ignore the core concept of content distribution in this “New Media” age. You do not define content. We do not define content. Content is not a definite object which is ever finished.

It used to be that a journalist went out, talked to a few people, wrote some of them down, created a wider concept around it, packaged it as a story, passed it on to a copy editor who checked for grammar, style, facts, readability and legibility (yes, they are two different things), put a headline on it, passed it to a section editor (and possibly others) who reviewed it, tweaked the headline and possiblity text and passed it to a printer or a digital printing system which all resulted in the story being put on a piece of paper that eventually made its way to you either via delivery or point of sale. And that was it. When the story got there, that was it. That was the story. You could write another tomorrow, but that was, literally, another story.

Is that really true? Is that the finished version of  a story? Certainly not anymore. Now, those stories not only get printed on paper, they are distributed digitally over multiple channels and devices, and appear on computers, phones, and other devices. And from there, you can add to them. Users make comments, or rate stories. Stories are linked from other sites and packaged with other content. They are added by users to the browser favourites.

All of these things fundamentally change the nature of the content. A user comment is also part of the story whether we like it or not, because someone else consumes it with the story. These stories have lives far beyond the section editor’s last tweak.

The same is true for movies. A movie is not just the 100-minute opus that the director has decided to (and studio producers have agreed to) release. It is also all of its marketing, all of the reporting about it, all of the reviews, all of the audience reactions. This is the meta-movie, the overall shared experience of the content as well as the content itself. With the advent of the Internet, these two things cannot become separated.

But that’s not a bad thing. Why do people still go to the movies when they can downloaded them illegally for free? There are several reason, but one reason will always be true, people are still seeking a type of experience. Which is why greedy bastards movie studio executives can get away with increasing prices and still generating a massive audience in even lean economic times.

Mass Media must embrace meta-content, not pretend it just provides the base and complain when it is appropriated by its consumers. Consumers consume, that’s what they do, and you can’t tell them how to do that. Readers read, viewers watch, but when you determine how someone reads or how someone watches and what their minds choose to do with that is run a slippery slope. Our lives and our experiences are fully intertwined, and that includes the content we consume. When we read a story, or watch a movie. It becomes our experience, and we have the ability and, yes, even the unalienable right, to share it.

So take your millions and billions and leave us, the little people (a term you movie-millionaires love to use, because it makes you big in comparison) with our richness of experience. Because that is our only wealth, and because to take it away, truly is to take away who we are.

 

Wellington: Cold, rainy, great coffee

Wellington's best

We visited Wellington recently. A very, very brief visit unfortunately, which hopefully will not be the last and will be followed by longer visits.

It’s hard to look beyond Wellington’s crappy weather. It seems that it is always cold, usually raining and very windy, although www.metservice.co.nz assures us that Auckland gets more rainfall per year. You also wouldn’t want to find yourself in the middle of rush hour. It’s pretty much two lane motorways joining all of the parts of the city, which are usually divided by water. So the train is a common option for a lot of commuters. Fortunately Wellington seems to have a decent public transportation system, unlike Auckland’s nearly non-existent buses and trains.

But if there is one reason we love to spend time in Wellington, it’s this: coffee.

Best coffee, we’ve ever had in New Zealand is to be found in a simple stand at the Wellington central train terminal, just in front of where the trains stop. It’s every coffe should be: strong, aromatic, flavourful and very, very smooth.

And if you think coffee is not a good enough reason to visit a city, well, all I can say is you’re definitely not a coffee drinker. It is, in our humble opinion, the world’s greatest drink. Scotch? Tequila? Tea? Diet Coke? Mere pretenders to the throne. (But let’s just save a little space in the nobility for Diet Coke, coffee’s noble cousin).

And if you still doubt the power of coffee, let me offer this little tidbit from Wikipedia:

Coffee has played an important role in many societies throughout history. In Africa and Yemen, it was used in religious ceremonies. As a result, the Ethiopian Church banned its secular consumption until the reign of Emperor Menelik II of Ethiopia. It was banned in Ottoman Turkey in the 17th century for political reasons, and was associated with rebellious political activities in Europe.

Did you hear that? Religious ceremonies! Banner for political reasons! “Revolution” is not too strong a word when it comes to our unalienable need for the elixir known as café.

 

When is a serial killer like a needle in a haystack?

These days, it seems very hard to come up with an idea, concept, point of view or bit of news that hasn’t been voiced somewhere sometime earlier. With the incredible amount of information (and misinformation) posted on the Internet in all its myriad forms, it seems almost as if there is nothing new under the cyber-sun.

That’s why it feels strange to come across information that you’ve never seen before. Nevertheless, it happened this week.

The latest podcast of the BBC History Magazine (May 2009, part 2 — click here to subscribe/download), tells the story of Paul Ogorzow, a serial killer active in Nazi Germany during World War II.

Apparently, Ogorzow was a railway worker in Berlin who killed 8 women (and also assaulted and raped more than 30 others) from 1940-1941. The most shocking part of the story was how long it took the Nazi authorities to apprehend Ogorzow, possibly because they were convinced that the perpetrator had to be a Jew or a non-German. Neither turned out to be the case, as Ogorzow was a member in good standing of the Nazi party.

There were ample clues pointing to him, as the crimes where usually committed on or around railway stations, at least four of the murders where within a mile of his home and some of the women who were attacked by him but not killed had described their assailant wearing clothing used by personnel of the S-Bahn (the urban railway system in Berlin). Racial stereotypes and political complications (remember, he was a National Socialist party member) bogged down the investigation and its resolution. He was even arrested once in connection with the murders, and was released due to his party membership.

Once the whole thing finally got down to a trial in 1941, it took less than a day to convict Ogorzow and sentence him to death, despite the fact that he tried to mount a defence around the idea that his “illness” had been caused by being treated for gonorrhea by a Jewish doctor. You can imagine that at this point, the Nazi government in Berlin was looking to put this matter quickly behind them when it turned out one of their own “people” was responsible. Ogorzow was executed by firing squad in July 1941.

Following my listening of the podcast, I did a Web search on the case to get more information and could only find two English-language pages on the subject, one being a blog entry by a history student (which was by far the most helpful):

• http://anatheimp.blogspot.com/2009/04/forgotten-serial-killer.html
• http://www.economy-point.org/p/paul-ogorzow.html

The only Wikipedia entry on him is in German: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ogorzow

With the endless amount of documentary and film spent on World War II, Nazi Germany and the excesses and fundamental insanity of the regime (not too mention the also rather significant amount of screen time given to serial killers) it’s amazing that such a curious event has been completely overlooked.

Guess there are some things out there that we still don’t know much about, even in the most talked-about topics. Then again, you could argue that it wouldn’t be hard to miss a single serial killer in a society ran by demagogues who institutionalized serial killing.

We’re also guessing this story won’t make it to a silver screen anytime soon. Considering that the choice of protagonist is between a serial killer/rapist and a group of racist Nazi police officers, audiences may have a hard time finding anyone to care about.

 

The Queen Anne Crazy-Eye

Here's looking at you, king.

Couples tend to develop their own language, unique to them and, often, confusing to others. Much of this comes from shared experience. This is certainly true in our case. Recently, we were asked about the origin of one of our favourite references: “getting the Queen Anne crazy-eye”.

The BBC recently released a series called The Tudors, about Henry VIII and his first three wives, Catherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn and Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman (OK … OK… it’s not *that* Jane Seymour). The series, starring Jonathan Rhys Meyers has been called historically inaccurate and “sexed-up” by critics, though it’s hard to see how you can oversex any story involving Henry VIII.

Personally, we enjoyed the series. It was fun to watch, and we know enough of the history of the period to not be misinformed by the series. But one of the reasons we remember it is the “Queen Anne’s crazy-eye” scene.

Anne Boleyn was played by Natalie Dormer, who did a wonderful job of quickly shifting moods between “coquettish”, “horny” and “psycho”, which is pretty much what the series tells us about the way the real Anne Boleyn behaved.

We won’t go into the background history of Henry VIII and his wives, mistresses and assorted romantic involvements, because that would literally take forever. Suffice it to say that of all the people who founded religions, he’s the only way to get laid more often than he prayed (with the possible exception of David Koresh … good company there.)

There is a scene in the series when Anne (Dormer) — who is seeking to be named Queen and accepted as such by everyone —  is in bed with Henry VIII (Rhys Meyers) and after a rather passionate interlude casually suggests that, you know …  he might, like, …  maybe …  have Catherine of Aragon killed.

The series portrays this as one of the turning points and Henry VII realizes that Anne is a bit psycho and that perhaps he’s made a major mistake in marrying her (a sensation that the historical Henry went on to have several more times). He immediate rolls out of bed and tells Anne, in the most clear and stringent terms, that that is not going to happen.

The scene then cuts back to Dormer who, in a wonderful moment of acting, is looking at Henry with her left eye twitching violently. It just *says* psycho.

So now, any facial twitch which makes us look a little crazy is referred to as “getting the Queen Anne crazy-eye”.

 

Polling the world: interesting, but pointless

This sort of news story, while being very interesting to read, always makes me wonder about it’s purported findings:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/2384717/Kiwis-not-couch-potatoes-study 

Apparently, Mexicans watch the most TV, the Spanish are the biggest sports fans and the French spend the most time eating and drinking.

None of those 3 are particularly surprising results, to be honest. More surprising are the comparisons made when checking data about New Zealanders. Case in point:

Only the Japanese, French and Mexicans spend less time per day than New Zealanders in leisure activities. 

Really? Sounds like they haven’t surveyed the entire world. Funny that in the story, countries like India, China, the UK, or Brazil are never mentioned. Is it really true that those four countries spend less time per day in leisure activities that New Zealand? What about South Korea and Russia?

Makes you wonder what constitutes a “leisure activity”.  I know several people from whom “work” is a leisure activity.

Oh, and this one too:  

And crime is high with New Zealand second only to Ireland in internationally comparable data on vehicle, theft and “contact” crimes. Twenty-two percent of New Zealand experienced such a crime in a 12-month period, compared to an OECD average of 16 percent.

22 percent? Nearly a quarter of the country experience theft? Sounds a wee bit high. In any case, you cannot compare New Zealand in terms of crime with less developed nation. Hell, if you listen to the South Africans who live here, you can get robbed at least four times between the airport and your hotel in Johannesburg. Now that’s just a bit of an exaggerationg but what do you expect from  those racist bas.. South Africans.

Granted, New Zealand’s small population tends to throw off any data, but if that was the only issue, then surely other very small countries would figure more prominently (Uruguay: Tops in mate-drinking). NZer’s love their “per capita” figures, such as the fact that it’s the country with the highest number of “Olympic” gold-medal winners per capita. But, don’t be fooled, that only requires a handful of golds per Olympics. And, according to the survey, it’s only a few kiwis that are involved in sport anyway:

New Zealanders join Belgians, Americans and Mexicans in using only 5 percent of their leisure time in sports activities.

Does fantasy football qualify as a “sport activity’?

 

Today’s Source of Inspiration: Fabio!, from Top Chef

Fabio!

Chefs are egotistical cunts.

No really, they are. But that doesn’t mean that we don’t love them. Hey, we love Gordon Ramsay and he may be the biggest cunt in anybody’s kitchen.

But every once in a while, you get a chef who is not only great but also fun and truly loveable. Michael Symon from Iron Chef makes the grade there, but he’s totally topped by Fabio! from Top Chef.

Fabio Viviani (Fabio!) moved to LA a couple of years ago and opened a restaurant after having a good amount of success back in his native Florence. He is the owner and executive Chef of Café Firenze Italian Restaurant and Martini Bar. He is also a contestant in Season 5 of Top Chef.

Fabio! inspires us not simply because he prepares fantastic dishes to make our mouths water, but also because he’s got the best personality ever witnessed in this ego-rrific and hunger-inducing reality show.

Self-deprecating humour and charm enough for any judge (short of Tom “You Call That Cooking?” Colicchio) make Fabio a standout. Knowing in one episode that his dish really had been quite below-par, he walked into Judges’ Table complimenting the female panelists on how beautiful they looked. (Don’t laugh, it worked).

But what makes Fabio! truly a superstar are the quotes. Just a small sampling:

• (When told that his side salad was “like something served on an airplane”) “Oh the salad! I want to kick my ass so much that I will be in the bathroom later still pulling shoes from my ass.”
• (On competition) “It’s not how many dragon you kill; it’s who takes home the princess—and I go for princess.”
• (On elimination)  ”I’m not going home because it rain in my tiramisu, no friggin’ way.”
• (On his inability to make a decent breakfast that will please the judges) “Next time im gonna do a piece of toast, a bacon, and some bullshit eggs on it… and i’ll prolly be one of the top 3″
• (On other contestants) “This is Top chef not Top Pussy”
• (On cooking American food) “I love hot dog. Do I know how to make hot dog? I know how to make sausage.”
• (On accomodations during Top Chef filming)  ”I am 30 years old and I have to sleep in the bunky bed.”
• (On his flexibility) “But I’m a chef. There’s nothing that can stress me out. If they gonna give me monkey ass to fill with fried banana, I’ll come up with something anyway. It’s not a problem.”
• (More monkey-asses) “I am front of the house. We can serve monkey-ass and empty clam shell and we will win.”

And if you think I’m exaggerating, check out the Facebook banter between Fabio! and Stefan “I am so awesome. You know it. I know it.” Richter.

(Quick side-note, despite Fabio!’s quotability, the quote of the season indubitably has to go to judge Toby Young with this cracker: “When I am faced with a beautiful, well-reared piece of meat, I don’t want to stand back and admire it, I want to have full-blown unprotected sex; I didn’t even get to first base with the pork.”)

So, for inspiring us with your food, your charm and your monkey-asses and bullshit bacon, Fabio you are Today’s Source of Inspiration.

 

When Did We Become Food Snobs?

Walking down to the fish and chip shop for your basic “I’m too tired to cook” dinner makes us perfectly happy, but going to an upscale restaurant suddenly makes us turn into Tom Colicchio with a bug up his ass (OK, that’s redundant, Tom Colicchio DOES have a bug up his ass).

Last night, we partook in the culinary delights of a leading Auckland seafood establishment and, though acceptable, the food was far from impressive. That’s an understatement. The only thing that was anything but pedestrian was the seared tuna. We could feel our noses turning up at this gastronomic peasantry.

But why? Especially when the local fish and chip shop (the shop’s name is BJ, I swear it’s true) makes us happy? And what drives us to use terms like “pedestrian” to describe food? Have we become infected by Tom Colicchio’s ass-bug after all?

One reason, obviously, is the price. When you pay $1 for a rolled up paper’s worth of chips, you can hardly complain. Even if they’re terrible and soggy — and they usually aren’t — you’re certainly not paying for anything more than that. When you’re paying upwards of $20 for a simple soup appetizer, then you expect the best and anything below that becomes fodder for criticism.

The other reason, however, is our love of food TV shows. We don’t expect BJ to serve up something worth of an Iron Chef (today’s secret ingredient: grease!) but when we go to a restaurant, whoever is unlucky enough to be running the kitchen that day is dealing with people who can tell the difference between good chocolate and bad chocolate and have managed to make restaurant-grade food at home. To wit: If we can make it, then it’s not good enough.

That’s not entirely fair to the restaurant chefs perhaps. Our respective workplaces wait with baited breath for the next concoctions and confections culled from our kitchen. But that fact, coupled with the price to be paid, makes it hard to taste a dish for which you’ve just paid a full supermarket visit’s worth and still feel that it’s not any better than what we can knock out for dinner.

So yeah, we’re food snobs. But hey, there are worse things to be. And considering that we’re still paying the bills, we’re hurting no one, right? Now, I wonder what BJ is cooking …