TechTalk: Social not-working: Facebook’s numerous GUIses

Like a group of teenagers with their fads, or a woman with her clothes, social networking giant Facebook has suddenly changed again. If Mark Zuckerberg hadn’t asked his loyal and numerous users to master enough user interfaces already, another one has come along to baffle them and question why they use the site.

We were all used to the Facebook of yore. It had a nice and uncluttered interface, and only had one news feed on the homepage. Now, all [or, as I have found, most] of the users have an extra, mini “news ticker” on the side of their main feed that displays all of your friend’s actions as they do them. Several friends of mine have preferred to call this a “mini-feed”, but I just think it’s an item that can cause more privacy invasions in 10 minutes than a Murdoch journalist can pull off in an entire year. Give it a few days, and this fast-flowing friend feed will be able to publish your visits to the loo- and not only in quantity and length, but probably in consistency and quality, too. For me, this little news feed is a terrifying thing, and could just be a change too far.

Change, in general, though, is a much needed thing in social networking. Much like animals and humans, social networks must compete and adapt to survive and thrive. Both Facebook and Twitter have applied several tweaks to their sites recently, both to improve the user experience and also provide extra revenue, as (and let us not forget) social networks are businesses after all. When social networking sites don’t change, they quickly fade away into the pages of our mind. There was a time when Myspace was the social networking king, and had over 100 million accounts. However, it didn’t change much to the eye; and both the “myspace whores” and casual users posted their last bulletins and picture comments, and left quietly through the back door. Now its disgraced name rests in the same pit as the other casualties: Bebo and Hi5, and is now the realm of indie-kids and retro-geeks.

There is no doubt that Facebook’s constant changes seem to be more applicable to the song “Hot 'n’Cold” by Katy Perry than they are to any viable business strategy. These changes aren’t exactly being loved by users, either. A friend of mine, with a string of non-repeatable words, told me of her disgust for the new site, and the disapproval of the users was even covered by international news network CNN. This isn’t the first time that users have verbally rebelled over changes to the site, and you can count on the fact that it won’t be the last. While some of these changes are incredibly infuriating, Facebook is still the free and convenient way to get hold of all my friends- especially when I, a poor, struggling student, can hardly afford to top up my phone. So for now, Facebook has won this battle- but if they keep ringing these changes, I’m hoping that they’ll lose the war.

Read More

TechTalk: "MySpace Tom" is now just "Tom".

Years ago, when you first logged onto the then social networking hotshot Myspace, you would have had one friend. It wouldn't have been a friend that you knew, a friend that you necessarily cared about, or a friend who impacted your life. It was just a caucasian guy, sitting by a scribbled-on whiteboard in an office somewhere, smiling at the camera in his dazzling white shirt.
That guy was Tom. Throughout the years, he's been known under several pseudonynms, including "Tom Anderson", "Myspace Tom", and "Tom from that old website... um... what's it called again?"
While you may think that he has stayed with the company, and slowly declined with them thanks to their Murdoch purchase and the rise of Zuckerberg and Facebook, it seems as though he, like everyone else, has deserted the struggling and sinking social network, saying that he doesn't "like using it anymore", and that he "is not a fan of what the new guys have done with MySpace". In fact, examining his post on Facebook, which can be seen by anyone thanks to the site's new 'Subscribe' feature, allowing users to see the posts of someone they're not friends with in a Twitter or Google+ type of way, it seems as though Tom Anderson left MySpace in 2009. Strangely, though, he still uses the same profile image wherever he goes... though I suppose that that picture seals [or rather 'is'] his brand identity, which has been posted on other sites, such as Google+ .
So now we know the truth: Myspace Tom is no longer Myspace Tom. He is, instead, "Plethora-of-Social-Networks" Tom. I'd include something speculative on whether we'd see a "Myspace Martin", or "Myspace Martha"- but frankly, there's no point in predicting a pirate for a sunken ship.

Read More

Book Review: One Day [+ A film too far?]

The Book Bit
It's not often that one can read a book that perfectly condenses life, warts-and-all, into 464 pages of paperback perfection. Most authors tend to capture a wonderfully two-dimensional perspective of life. It's either usually too happy, too sad, or too damn boring.
David Nicholls, however, has managed to flesh out the emotions to a tee, making the characters of his lengthy and emotionally dense tail an become immaculately believable in the mind's eye of any reader.
The main characters themselves are perfect representations of the genres that pertain to their gender: Dexter is a lad-lit author's dream, being higher class, rather attractive, and the boy-about-campus who doesn't mind a party or seven. Emma, in a strange yet fitting contrast has popped straight out of a chick-lit novel, with her staunch feminism, 'unconventional-cute-looks' and her permanent and unfailing strength to protest for something or other.
Strangely enough, these two opposite characters find themselves together in a hotel bed on St Swithin's Day, just after they've both graduated from Edinburgh University. While Emma has crushed on 'Dex' throughout the years at university, he is trying to plot an inconspicuous escape from the bed- but both are starry eyed and rather perplexed as to what lies ahead, with their vice chancellor ensuring them that the doors of opportunity are 'flung wide'. To Dexter Mayhew, thinking ahead too far forward in the future is terrifying, being one of those fashionable 'in-the-now' males.
As always, though, the heart-to-heart can't last forever, and we sadly see the pair go their separate ways- thought they vow to keep in contact. Dexter jets off around the world visiting far flung lands across the globe, and Emma keeps her feet on the ground in Britain, starting off by working for a community theatre company along with a closet racist and a definitely-not-closet exhibitionist. Both Dexter and Emma write to eachother furiously; staining pages with messages that tug on the heart-strings and convey that they like eachother just that little bit more than they're letting on. Dexter, too, rather surprisingly offers several poignant letters, showing magnificent care for Emma- though, of course, it could have been the exotic alcohol talking.
Throughout the book, where we see the pair's communications and meetings every St. Swithin's day. Dexter's career runs about as high as the emotions in the book, as he becomes a British television star. Emma's, however, sinks. After the community theatre stint, she ends up working in a cheap Mexican restaurant in North West London, and every day, slowly but surely, becomes another painful chore; serving customers several varieties of tortilla, and having to socialise with Ian Whitehead, a colleague and part time stand-up comedian who just can't find the off button on his 'humour'. Through this time, jealousy floods from the tale like a river flooding from a broken dam, almost to the point where the reader can taste it in their mouth. It seems as though, despite the main characters' blatant hankerings for each other, their paths will never cross in the same way again, as Emma gets involved with Ian, and Dexter gets involved with anything that moves and may have drugs.
Slowly but surely, as in real life, the characters change and adapt, and the emotions they create suddenly create a huge dark hole within the reader, matched only by the voraciously addictive nature of the book. At times, David Nicholls' bracing wordcraft creates massive moments of hunger, with the reader praying for the mental and romantic torture to end as he plays with the lives of Dexter and Emma, bringing them within touching distance of each other, but always, somehow, leaving them miles apart.
The book itself is incredibly well written, and as emotions run as high as the Alps and as thick as treacle, the plot compliments it perfectly, offering several twists that always leave the reader wanting more.
Rating: 9/10

The 'Popcorn Post' Bit
Assuming that you don't live under a rock, you'll probably know that One Day has been adapted into a movie. Living in London, it's hard to escape that fact, with a theatrical poster being cheaply applied to almost every bus in the capital.
For a book that was wonderfully expressive, and left high expectations in the mind's eye, the movie [or the trailer, at least] seems to be desperate and disappointing. While I am an Anne Hathaway fan, and am in awe of her various talents, her casting has been a big problem for me, and her 'Yorkshire' accent sounds like she took cut-price diction lessons from Kate Middleton.
In my mind, I would have preferred a home-grown, English cast to play the major roles, something that worked beautifully in an adaptation of another of Nicholls' books, 'Starter for Ten'.
It's safe to say that the film is a massive let-down, especially when compared to the most graphically pleasing media player in the world: the mind. Whether it ruins the reputation of the fabulous book, however, remains to be seen.

Read More

Clues of the World: Was the closure imminent?

After the intense rollercoaster ride of allegations into the News of the World's phone-hacking scandal, News Corporation and Rupert Murdoch have made the decision to pull the plug on one of Britain's best selling tabloids. A memo was only passed round to staff and press members today, but given the pasting that News of the World has received in the past week, one must wonder if the closure was imminent.
On several blogs and forums, word is buzzing that the domain name "www.thesunonsunday.co.uk" has been bought by News Corp, fuelling speculation that the News of the World will be replaced by a Sunday edition of its sister red-top, The Sun. Indulging in a quick examination of "thesunonsunday.co.uk"'s WHOIS file, being a helpless nerd, I found that the domain was registered two days ago, on the fifth of July. While it's feasible that this was merely purchased as a contingency plan by the ever-business-savy Rupert Murdoch, who must've been no stranger to the backlash towards his publication on social networking sites and the backlash of companies who buy advertising space in his paper, the whole plan seems to be almost directly comparable to that of a pilot who wishes to ditch his plane after the first signs of turbulence. In fact, it could even be likened to a criminal hurriedly fleeing the scene of a crime.
As this sorry affair drags on, with News Corp leaving the corpse and ghost of a popular publication behind, the phone-hacking scandal lives on within it, much like a set of worms devouring the body from the inside out. The closure of the News of the World will do nothing to muffle the scandal, and the disgusting conduct of the journalists and editors in question will continue to be scrutinised. All being well, this will also cause a shakeup to the profession, and will also push for some improvements to be made to the Press Complaints Commission, who are regarded by most papers and their editors as a toothless tiger in the wild world of journalism.
Of course, I feel sorry for everyone who has been hacked in these malicious events. When it was Hugh Grant and the Queen, it was bad enough. But to see that the News of the World hacked the telephones of abductees, bomb-victims, and even the relatives of people who died for our country, is simply sickening. However, a thought must also be spared for the workers at the red-topped rag who had absolutely nothing to do with this affair. Once again, Murdoch has managed to bite the hand that feeds him. The working class are the main target for the News of the World, but as the printing presses whirr to a stop on Sunday morning, several working class people will be stripped of their livelihoods; victim to a scandal that has been triggered by the big-wigs and the editors at News Corporation. Editors such as Rebekah Brooks [or Rebekah Wade as she was once known], who somehow have managed to escape from this incident scott-free, can continue to live lavish lifestyles, despite being at the centre of this scandal.
It'll be a sad day for journalism on Sunday. Although I've never had much of a fondness for the gutter press, red-tops, and tabloids, it's definitely a sad sight to see a publication draw to a sudden halt. But whichever way you look at it, it seems as though the News of the World's card was already sneakily marked.

Read More

Inbox Nasties

Aaah, don’t you remember the good old days? Back when spam filters actually seemed to work, and the only weird emails you’d get were from your long lost Nigerian businessman friend who conveniently chose this time to waltz back into your life so you could transfer him some money, even though he’d obviously pay you back? Or from those pesky people who seemed hell-bent on telling you how to give your girlfriend that bit of extra pleasure, and explaining how you could gain an extra three inches in a week? Well, unfortunately, those rose-tinted and legendary days have now come to an end. Mr Okuma and The Cialis Corporation have since ceased to email me, and I suddenly feel like the ex-boyfriend figure, yelling “Baby, please, come back! I didn’t mean to ignore you!”

“Why,” you ask? Well, there’s a whole new set of meanies that may just be nestling in your inbox right now.

Around seven times a day, I get an email from Scott Brian. If the name wasn’t suspicious enough [my mum always told me that anyone who had two first-names was a greedy little git!], the subject headings are fishier than the tuna salad you ate last week. Apparently, I, an 18 year old university student, hailing from the North West of London, can earn at least 6,000 pounds a DAY just from working in the comfort of my own home! And apparently I’m not the only one, John Carter, a stay at home dad from somewhere in Missouri has done it too, and is now absolutely raking it in! Isn’t that fantastic!?

Not really. Although I’m absolutely ecstatic for Mr Carter [if, indeed, he exists at all], I don’t really want to make a million pounds just by sitting in my room and ‘following a magic strategy’.

But that’s not the only one. There seems to be a whole new generation of spammers out there. As far as I can see, they love absurdist language and abstract comedy. Not only do they send you emails packed so tightly with viruses that it seems that it’s inhumane, but they send you meaningless drivel like “of Them it is YOU I think of Mum said Teapot Happiness.” And if you’re thinking of doing a double-take to try and actually make sense of that sentence… just… don’t bother.

One spammer, though, did catch my eye and almost made me fall in love in an instant. There was creativity, geek appeal, and a certain amount of panache in the email, and it was only made better by the phrase “JESUS TO STAR IN NEW BATMAN MOVIE. CLICK HERE FOR MORE DETAILS.”

Obviously, the link was full of viruses. But the thought of Jesus playing Batman!? That, my friends, was completely worth it.

But the moral of this story is to always keep your antivirus fully updated and running, keep your computer patched and updated, and the number one rule of life: if it looks suspicious, it probably is.

Read More

AV Explained

THE POLITICAL BIT

As most people know, the people United Kingdom went to the polls yesterday, both to vote on the parties that controlled their councils, and to choose a voting system to be used in future elections where MPs are selected to represent their constituencies in the House of Commons.

Being someone who has yearned for a true democratic voting system for a while now, AV is a change that I would welcome with open arms. Even though it's just a small step in the direction of true Proportional Representation voting system, it's still the right way to go.

However, it seems that the "No to AV"/ "I Can't Believe It's Not Tory" campaign's constant streams of fear-mongering, and blatant lying [something that was admitted by David Blunkett], seem to have resounded into the hearts and mind of the electorate, and it looks as though AV won't be implemented for a while. Many people, too, have chosen just to vote no in order to deal a scathing blow to Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, who, I feel, has become a scapegoat, and is being blamed for items of legislation that are simply out of his control. In fact, many Labour supporters have come out to say that Nick Clegg's association with the YES campaign meant that they'd be a loser from the start. What an incredibly funny comment from the same people who promised that they'd install some form of proportional representation all those years ago. That, as we can see, never happened, and Britain didn't even have a referendum on voting systems- another Blair lie that was fed to the masses in this country, just to be a votewinner.

However, the status of the parties and how I feel about the public treatment of Nick Clegg is another matter for another blog post- so here's the bit I planned to come onto in the first place.

THE 'EVERYONE' BIT

As I said above, the "No to AV" campaign has spread dozens of lies and smears, using the same Tory tactics that allowed David Cameron to become Prime Minister in the first place. These lies seem to have got to several people, and I fear that these lies, as well as some other misconceptions, have damaged the YES campaign altogether. Although there are tonnes of videos on youtube, by the electoral commission, by several pressure groups, and one even involving "Reform Cat" [for those who are really into their memes], I thought I'd do my bit, both as a Lib Dem member and a supporter of fairer votes [even though it's a tad late] to clarify some of these thoughts about AV.

AV is the most complicated system that's ever been heard of in the world. Ever.

False. Quoting from my twitter, "AV is just the right amount of complicated- where normal people can understand it, but Tories can't." There isn't really any mind-bending statistics or procedures that anyone needs to get their head around, even though the "No to AV" campaign wants you to think so.

You, on polling day, would go to your polling station and pick up your ballot paper as normal. Instead of writing an "X" in the box of the one candidate that you want to represent you, you use numbers to mark the candidates in order of preference. So you mark a "1" for the candidate you want as first preference, a "2" for your second

preference, and so on until you get to your fifth preference.

Obviously, you can stop when YOU want to, and you don't need to mark all five choices. If you want, you can even just mark your first choice, and leave the polling station.

After this, your job is done.

When the votes are counted, counters will see if any candidate has at least 50% of the first preference vote in order to win. If no candidate has 50%, then counting continues, and the second preference votes are counted. If a candidate still hasn't got 50% of the vote, counting continues on the third preference votes, and so on and so forth until someone gets over 50%.

This means that the majority get fairly represented, and we don't get typical FPTP drawbacks, including tyranny of the minority.

AV will be extremely expensive to implement

False. Ballots will still be counted by hand, and will use the same method as First Past The Post. There is no expensive equipment needed, or specialist people who can somehow read numbers instead of Xs.

AV wouldn't be helpful to me because I haven't got more than one choice

False. If you haven't got more than one choice, or you don't want to mark more than one choice, you don't have to. You can feel free to mark a number "1" next to your chosen candidate, fold your paper, and place it in the ballot box, if you wish.

AV would result in a coalition government every time.

False. Despite that dim-witted quote from Tory MP and chick-lit author Louise Bagshawe on "Have I Got News For You" the other week, this simply isn't true. Although there may be a slightly higher chance of coalition governments, it certainly won't happen every time, and the chance isn't raised by much.

No-one cares about the voting system, anyway, duh.

False. While I'm a bit of a politics geek, and have adored looking into this sort of thing from the age of 10, it's not just me. Louise Bagshawe, who, again, must be some sort of spiritual guide for village idiots everywhere, seemed to show a notion of no-one caring on her TV appearance. 50% of Scottish people turned out for the referendum- I hardly think that shows apathy...

The AV system will allow the BNP, and several other right-wing, weirdo-parties to come into power.

False. AV does not automatically allow the BNP party to get into power and use their malicious ways to change the country. Don't forget that a candidate needs a MAJORITY to get elected. The BNP currently have no MPs, and has been losing council seats, judging by the figures from yesterday's vote. So it seems as though the BNP would lack the necessary support that it would need under the AV system.

AV is a fairer system that reflects the majority's interests

True. As I said above, a candidate needs over 50% of the vote to win.

So there we have it. I hope I've dispelled a few myths and taught a lesson. At the time of writing, it seems as though the YES campaign hasn't done the trick, and once again the Tories have managed to lie their way to victory, rendering this 1000+ word blog post useless. So once again Britain can kiss goodbye to rose-tinted dreams of steps towards Proportional Representation. If anyone knows how I'd be able to autopost this again when Britain has another referendum on AV in the year 3067, drop me a line.

Read More

Popcorn Post: Scream 4

It's the occasion horror fans have been waiting for for years on end. The telephone is back, the mask is back, and so is the haunting question: "What's your favourite scary movie!?"
Despite being parodied several times in the Scary Movie franchise, and with Scream 3 becoming everything the series stood against, Scream 4 [or SCRE4M, as it's snazzily styled in the film] has come to our screens with guts and gore, and just a little bit more.
Those who have seen the first Scream films will remember that they gained cult-status from standing out from the crowd, and having more character development, and more of a plot line than several other co-existing films within the horror genre [a point that is again stressed in the first few minutes of this film, where a character launches a scathing attack on the recently-deceased Saw series. Admittedly she gets stabbed to death by the usually-angellic Kristen Bell a second after, but she makes a valid point nonetheless].
The film begins in its usual way, warming up [or should I say chilling?] the atmosphere and getting the blood flowing with a few gory murders; all of which seem to feature blonde, stereotypical horror-victims; another scathing attack on the horror genre and its little quirks.
From then on, the film gets into gear. For a franchise that was once famed for having thick, moving plotlines, this flick certainly does not disappoint. The cast doesn't exactly make for a downturn, either, with Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, and David Arquette reprising their roles from the earlier movies. Campbell and Cox throw in sterling performances, both play feisty females on the run, and on the hunt, for the killer. David Arquette, however, seems to be quite disappointing. From an audience member's point of view, it seems as though a wooden plank could have played the part of Sheriff Dewey Riley with more confidence. Arquette was trying to play the part of the bumbling Sheriff, but could only manage to play the bumbling actor playing the bumbling Sheriff.
Newcomer and youngster Emma Roberts [who, according to several sources, auditioned for director Wes Craven via Skype] performed well for around 80% of the film; with her portrayal at the end becoming little more than weak, and fodder for laughter in the cinema. There was also solid supporting roles played by once-Heroes actress Hayden Panettiere, and a bit of hit-and-miss acting from Rory Culkin [yes, that is Macaulay's brother].
Although the film does have a strong plotline, most of it seems to be based around call-backs from the old Scream movies, with some killing and action scenes almost becoming exact replications of the ones that adorned the celluloid of the past flicks. However, one thing they forgot to replicate is the tension of the killing- old Scream movies used to have the audience on the edge of their seats, willing the victim on to try and find a way out. This film has lost that tense side to it, becoming a 60% mind-numbingly boring blood-fest. At the same time, drama-fans will probably only find around half an hour of the film watchable- where the middle-to-latter part of the film includes more plot-twists than you can shake a stick at, in an almost "Shutter Island" sort of way [though, this won't make you anywhere near as loopy]. Ghostface obviously makes a return in this sequel, however, most of the film is spent watching him mindlessly cut people open with the skill of a back-street surgeon, rather than provoking any thought as to who might be under his infamous mask.
Whilst Scream 4 has some very clever and snappy dialogue, and also some very intelligent callbacks that will no-doubt please fans of both the genre and the series, it seems to be hoist by its own petard- overthink this movie, and you'll suddenly find various plotholes and mistakes that will make you question how much Scream stands out from the rest of the genre in the first place.
Overall, what was a good series in films 1 and 2 (and pretty much ruined in 3), has started its resurgence, and with talk of this film being the first in another trilogy, one can only hope that they get quite a bit better than this. Oh, and that they find a way to fire Arquette. All in all, a medicore film- some good plot and action that is ruined by most of the footage being a gorefest.
6/10

Read More