Not sure if it’s really worth mentioning (I mean, how many people still read blogs?), but I’m still really busy with work, and writing things for the blog is becoming a bugbear. So I’m no-longer going to be going out of my way to put something up every day. Anyway, I haven’t written anything useful for a while, so you won’t miss a great deal.
I’ll still be posting, so please don’t remove the blog from your feed-readers, just not as often. And I’ll still link to interesting webpages and videos when I come across them.
It’s often said that the only reason Iraq was invaded was because of the oil. That’s bollocks. Iraq was invaded to keep people blogging and stuck inside muttering profanities and neglecting their spouses (if they have any). I wouldn’t be surprised if Google was originally behind the invasion. But while almost every angry male (it’s almost always males) is cooped up inside it makes you wonder, doesn’t it? It makes you wonder what is really going on outside.
Another silly season musing: Ros Taylor has written a rather laboured Op-Ed for Comment is Free. She argues, slightly convincingly, that the closed nature of facebook’s UI, provides a set of social rules that hark back to those of Elizabethan Courtship.
In truth, Facebook has conventions every bit as rigid as those of the Elizabethan court or the 18th century salon. The site offers friends a limited range of social interactions - gift-giving, joining groups, writing on friends’ walls - and enforces them strictly. The social codes are as non-negotiable as anything in Austen. Offenders are threatened with exclusion. A range of conversational topics such as photo albums, bookshelves and Scrabble are imported from the real world for mutual entertainment. And then there is poking.
[...]
Facebook friendship is a little like the medieval convention of courtly love, and has about as much in common with the outside world. The strict codes and flirtatious little transgressions are partly a reaction to the anonymous heckling that blogging made possible. But mostly Facebook does what sophisticated, privileged societies do: they codify the ways in which humans can play out their friendships. Don’t knock it. We’ve been doing it for thousands of years.
I must admit that many professionals, who usually steer clear of the increasingly vicious blogosphere, do feel at ease on facebook. And one of the main attractions of facebook, over say the mindless MySpace, is that users can maintain a great deal of control over who can view their profile and interact with them. But I also feel that Taylor is inching herself across a very thin analogy here. Haven’t journos got anything better to write about?
The Mrs. and the kids have been away in Tallinn now for 2-and-a-half weeks, and they’re going to be another month or so before I see them again. I’m really busy so I’ve been sort of okay, but then Mrs. tyger sent me some pics, and now I’m pining for her and my cubs…
Desperate Dave has hinted that he plans to ban violent computer games, as part of a crackdown on violent crime in Britain.
So much for progressive conservatism, eh Dave? *tyger sniggers* Seems to me you’re just another ignorant and conniving politico, prepared to jump on the video games are evil bandwagon, at the very earliest opportunity.
Now. Dave. Let’s go through this veeeeerrrrryyy sloooooowly, ok?
Just because those with a proclivity towards violence, happen to be attracted to violent video games (well, duh!), it does not therefore mean that violent games cause violent behaviour. Have you got that?
We have an age-criterion with regard to gaming. Promote it and enforce it. And stop being such a pompous dick.
Comments