Tech Central - Times Online - WBLG

Something fishy is going on here...

Hmm. See this article.

The headline to the story beloew doesn't exactly match the blandness of the article. My guess is either someone at MSNBC is having a laugh, or someone's hacked the site.

Top 25 most influential internet people

BusinessWeek has published a list of the people its staff consider to be the most influential in the online world. Most of the people are self-selecting – the Google gang, the two Steves (Jobs at Apple and Ballmer at Microsoft), plus representatives from Yahoo!, Wikipedia, Facebook, Amazon and Digg – but a few are more offbeat:

Jonathan Kaplan, chief executive of Pure Digital Technologies, is selected following the success of the company’s Flip camcorder, an ultra-simple device designed to make home moviemaking fun and faff-free.

Maria Thomas, of etsy.com, heads up the arts and craft site that “last year sold $27 million with very little marketing,” according to BusinessWeek.

Also of interest is the inclusion of two figure more usually associated with old media. Jon Stewart, of the Daily Show, gets in because Comedy Central “finally started putting all its shows up for free on its own Web site and allowing people to share”, while Rupert Murdoch makes it thanks to his stewardship of MySpace, part of the News Corp empire (along with Times Online).

Ah, our old friend convergence...

Don't blame the internet for murder

Among the bold claims of the more excitable internet enthusiasts is the idea that the web, with all its power to link people and information and machines, is a revolutionary medium that is changing the way people relate to each other.

Voiced by the enthusiasts, the subtext is usually that this is a good thing, but to some – the people who already fear the internet – it sounds alarming. It plays on fears that the online world has a life of its own: a swarming, seething dangerous life that could spill over into the offline world bringing mayhem and violence.

And so when something terrible happens, like a college massacre or a murderous feud, any connection with the internet is seen as evidence of violence erupting from the online world into the “real” world. And since the internet is, at heart, a growing network of connections, a growing proportion of bad things are connected to it, alongside a growing proportion of good things.

To confuse connections with causes is nothing new. When mobile phones first started appearing, news reports would note with alarm that football violence or bank raids “appeared to have been co-ordinated by mobile phone.” The fixed-line phone was no doubt also once seen as a terrifying means by which criminals could conspire, before it became merely the world’s most efficient communication device. Right now, the internet has taken on that mantle, and just as the telephone changed the way we organise our professional and personal lives, so has the web.

The phone has long retreated into the background of our lives, but the internet is still relatively new and the fears associated with it are fresher. No one would hold the telephone network responsible for a murder that followed an argumentative phone call, but the internet can still be been blamed for a murder that appears to have stemmed from an argument within its chat rooms.

Since most murders result from some kind of social interaction and some social interaction takes place on the internet, a few murders will result from web-based interaction. Eventually that won't seem remarkable.

What more can social networks do to protect us from ourselves?

Over the last few days we’ve seen a glut of official reports and warnings about Facebook, Bebo and the other social networks, and the threat that they pose to children. Or rather, the threat that some children pose to themselves by posting too many details about themselves.

It must be a frustrating time for the networks, who will be tempted to dismiss the reports as scaremongering by people who don’t understand the new phenomenon and want it stopped. A desire to seem sympathetic and responsible will keep a lid on the frustration, but it’s hard to see what more they can do to protect people from themselves.

It is, after all, up to the individual to decide what he or she posts. Where the person in question is too young to make a sensible decision, that responsibility passes upwards to the parents.

Parents may struggle to strike a balance between allowing children freedoms and keeping them safe, but in this respect the internet is an extension of everyday life rather than a world apart. "Don’t talk to strangers" is good advice, either in the street or on the web.

‘I’m on the plane’: the disturbing idea of airborne phone calls

On many flights, the ban on mobile phones is observed only begrudgingly, with cabin crew prising handsets from the fingers of besuited businessmen. Soon, new rules mean they’ll be chatting away merrily throughout the flight, and that’s going to add a whole new kind of pain to the already fraught business of long-haul air travel.

Most of us struggle to believe that something we carry in our pocket could bring down a Jumbo Jet. As Toby Ziegler says in The West Wing: "We’re flying in a Lockheed Eagle series L-1011. It came off the line 20 months ago and carries a Sim-5 transponder tracking system. Are you telling me I can flummox this thing with something I bought at Radio Shack?"

Personally, I’m always happy to turn off my phone, regardless of whether it threatens the navigation system. It’s one of the few times when no one can reach me, and I enjoy the feeling of dropping off the grid. For others, being constantly on call means being constantly productive, and for them making calls in the air could be very lucrative. For the rest of us, it’s just going to be annoying.

Public use of mobile phones has proved beyond doubt that the least interesting people have the most to say and the loudest voices with which to say it. They also tend to have annoying ringtones. Sitting next to one of these people on a transatlantic flight is not going to be pleasant: apart from the usual irritations of an inane and one-sided phone call, which will be the same in the sky as it is at sea level, airborne mobile use will introduce several new annoyances:

Why Blu-ray may not boost the PS3

A big jump in PlayStation 3 sales has been forecast for this year, based on Blu-ray emergence as the dominant format in the high-definition war. If you are after a new player, the PS3 a relatively cheap option, given that it's also a powerful games machine.

This argument raises the question of whether the HD battle was really about disc formats. Personally, I don't own a high-definition TV and I am currently perfectly happy with DVD quality films. By the time I decide to upgrade my TV set, probably in the next year or two, I'm not sure that I'll be looking for a new type of disc to replace my DVDs. What I'll probably want is HD downloads. I already convert a lot of my kids' DVDs to .avi format so that when we go on holiday I can take my laptop and hook it up to a hotel TV, saving the hassle of carrying around a load of discs that won't work in DVD players in other contries.

In the same way that Real, Windows Media Player and Quicktime were all were busy fighting over online video formats while the now-ubiquitous Flash player crept up behind them, Blu-ray may well end up being a format that gets killed off by downloads before it takes hold.

The real boost to the Playstation 3 is more likely to come from the upcoming release of the much-anticipated exclusive, Metal Gear Solid 4, but with other top titles such as Mario Kart and Grand Theft Auto coming out on the other consoles, Sony won't have it all their own way. As for me, I have my Xbox 360 and Nintendo Wii so I don't see the need for a Playstation 3.

Inflated piracy and the silver lining

Nintendo, along with its publishers and developers, claims that it lost $975 million (£498 million) last year due to piracy. Is this an accurate figure for real cash losses? Companies like to talk about all the money piracy is costing them, despite their immense profits. That’s not to say that they shouldn't complain – it is theft, after all, but it may be a form of theft that comes with a silver lining.

I know several people who download films illegally online. They often download movies they would never think of going to see at the cinema, buy on DVD or even renting. So in reality the film company was never going to get their money anyway.

But when somebody plays a game or watches a film or listens to music illegally, it may well open them up to genres they wouldn't otherwise have tried. A pirated copy could actually increase interest in the game and other future games like it. The people who download media online are often large legal media consumers as well. This means the illegal download may convert into a legal purchace where before there was no chance of one.

When record labels sue a 16 year old for downloading music, it doesn’t make people fear they may be next – it encourages resentment of the company and erodes sympathy for their losses. It also makes people lose sight of the knock-on effect of the musicians losing money and therefore struggling to continue making music.

The companies can come across like bullies complaining that they've skinned their knuckles after knocking you out, and nobody likes a bully. Games companies trying to reduce the effects of piracy should avoid going down the route of the music and film industries, which just leads to people feeling justified in stealing their products. Instead they need to make people understand that in the long term, piracy equals no money to invest in new games.

And if they want to go after anyone, I think it should be Johnny Depp. He was the one who made piracy cool with the kids again.

Un-convert the converted

Why is the latest Simpsons game so bad? It's a huge brand with loads of money behind it, yet they have produced a game that plays so terribly in places, you suspect it must be on purpose. It's the same with lots of other TV shows and films that make the jump over to games. The Golden Compass got reviews so terrible you were left with the impression that playing it was an act of masochism.

I do love The Simpsons TV show and think the game has lovely graphics, funny cut scenes and some good ideas, but the gameplay is frustrating and executed in a way that smacks of too much time spent on the concepts and jokes and not enough on the actual game.

Fortunately there is a ray of blocky golden light at the end of the tunnel and it comes from the Danes. The Lego Star Wars series of games is a perfect example of how it should be done. The games are easy enough for a six year old to play but well scripted and fun enough for an adult to enjoy too. The cut scenes have often made me laugh out loud and the way they blends the two brands of Lego and Star Wars seamlessly is perfection.

So why do the film and TV companies feel that it's OK to fob off fans with games that are simply not good enough? Given that games make more money than movies you would think it would be in their interest to make a game that really can compete with the likes of Mario and Call Of Duty. At least games sometimes can get their own back, as anyone who remembers the classic 1993 film Super Mario Bros featuring Bob Hoskins will remember.

The Wii60: a perfect family console

I've got an Xbox 360 and a Nintendo Wii, and I like them both for different things. The Nintendo for the pretty colours and odd games that appeal to my inner child. The Xbox for it's online capabilities that allow me to download demos and kill pixelated versions of friends, which appeals to my inner sociopath.

The problem I have with the 360 is the limited style of games. It seem to me that there is a huge amount of first person shooters and car racing games and very little else that's any good. Running around armed to the teeth is great, but sometimes I want something else. It's aimed squarely at the adult male market, which is a shame as the graphics are great and the ability to chat online to the person you are playing against is also brilliant.

The Wii suffers from the opposite problem. Loads of games for kids and adults but nothing great for the large 'kill them all and let God sort out the rest' market. What's the best recommendation for a family? I think getting both consoles and calling it a Wii60 is the answer. If this seems an expensive option you could always just get the Xbox 360 and send the kids outside to play. After all, they need the fresh air and you've got some killing to do.

Videogames more dangerous than smoking?

Michael Parsons: Why do we play violent games?

According to Cancer Research UK, cigarette smoking is responsible for 30 per cent of cancer deaths per year in the developed world. In Britain in 2005, that would have equated to 46,000 deaths. What's the next most dangerous societal ill? Researchers from the University of Michigan say violent videogames and films.