ThunderDragon Blog

I’m off on holiday. Like the politicians, I’m going to stay within Britain. I am in fact going up to Scotland, just north of the place of Gordon Brown’s latest disaster.

I’ll be away for two weeks sailing, hill walking, white water rafting, horse riding, and many other activities. The main downside being the eight hour trip on a coach with about 40 Scouts!

I’ve set a few posts up to be published over the next few weeks and hopefully a few guest posts too.

Not the “normal” type of blog - it’s a sing-along! But absolutely hilarious.

Act I and Act II are now up, and Act III is due up tomorrow. And they will all vanish for good on July 20th.

So go watch now!

UPDATE: Act III is up.

XKCD

This video is 15-odd minutes long, but very much worth watching. It is a fantastic evaluation of why and how blogging, and the entire internet, works and is rising in popularity. It also explains why lolcats
exist.

If you only watch one video online today, make it this one.

via benhuh!com

Apparently:

A voluntary code of conduct for bloggers and internet commentators is supported by almost half of all internet users, a survey has claimed.

The researchers said 46 per cent of web users believe bloggers should agree to a set of guidelines which reflected the laws on defamation, intellectual property rights and incitement. (The Telegraph)

First of all: Define an “internet user”. Do you mean anyone who uses the internet, someone who uses the internet a lot, or what? An “internet user” could mean a granny who spends a couple of minutes several hours sending an email on occasion, all the way through to the geek who spends every waking hour online.

This survery also has no numbers for bloggers/blog readers who support a code. So, basically pointless.

Whilst lots of people who use the internet on any basis might support the idea, no-one who understands the dynamic of the medium would.

Let me show you my response from the last time this idea was raised. It is just as applicable now.

Yesterday I bought myself a Wii.

Such fun!

And far more involving than ‘normal’ video game consoles, sicne you have to move with the game and there is an obvious link between what you do and what happens in the game, rather than just button-bashing.

The main downside is that my right arm is now hurting after several hours of nigh-on constant use!

But anyway - great fun! So the quantity and quality, or at least what quality there is, might be hit by the Wii addiction RSI injury game playing.

Back in January on my own blog, I talked about an e-mail that my educational institution had sent round about potential problems with blogging. Employers can (and according to this e-mail do) find out about blogs, and this can harm employability.
To be honest, I wasn’t overly convinced, and thought that there might be scaremongering:

[Blogging's] a way to express yourself. Whilst Asp Bites originally started off as a “This is what I’m doing” blog, it’s developed, and now I explain my opinion on various matters constantly. Some which, it’s fair to say, are controversial.
I imagine that finding a prospective employees blog can also help them get a job. A well written blog, well thought out, can show intelligence. And a hobby outside of work/study.” (Asp Bites - Blogging v Employment)

What I never thought about though was the potential of criminal liability from a blog. OK, obviously if I posted the recipe to build a bomb, perhaps I would attract the attention of MI5. And yes, there’s Civil Liability if I defame someone. But other than that?

Besides, most of us in the blogosphere occasionally use our blogs to let off steam. Have a rant about someone or something. We might not mention names, but whilst in full flow you might not think clearly. It appears that that now may be a problem:

This in many ways is baffling. How did the officer and his wife find the quote to take offence at? How is that sentence, on its own, menacing. Without the benefit of hearing it being said, it could even be a polite thought.

What was interesting though is that the court looked at his site as a whole in answered that latter point. They determined that “the blog was articulate, detailed, specific and critical of the police and the CPS.” Therefore “any reasonable person would find the words about the baby to be menacing in the context of the overall blog.” Which suggests that if we’re always offensive, people are able to consider any comments directed as them as just part of the rest of tone of the blog. Dont b ‘articulate’ in ur posts then [sic].

When he was arrested, Brent is reported to have claimed “You can write on websites because it’s freedom of speech.” Which the court right decided was a load of old nonsense - there’s always got to be limits. But, when directing tirades at public figures, have you considered the option that you might be able to rely on your opinion and “freedom of speech” as a defence.

It’s only a decision by a magistrate’s court - so there’s no binding precedent. Next court could decide differently on exactly the same facts. But, it does make you think. And, perhaps, occasionally stop before hitting “submit post”…

~ Asp

Civil Service blogging is dead. The Civil Serf blog has closed down, presumably either because her identity was discovered and it was the choice of the blog or the job, or she thought that her was likely to be discovered. Maybe the guess that she worked in Department for Work and Pensions was too close for comfort. But now, in a blatant knee-jerk reaction:

And yet, apparently, this no “not a reaction” to Civil Serf. Yes, and I’m a one-legged, wheelchair-bound Lithuanian lesbian called George.

Despite the apparently benign reference to “guidance” and “guidelines”, this almost certainly translates to “written in stone” and “don’t you dare” behind closed doors. This “guidance” will almost certainly result in no other potential Civil Service blogger dare rear their head over the parapet and tell us, the people who pay their wages, exactly how the inner workings of government actually work - or rather, don’t work.

There is a big difference between a private business doing this and the Civil Service/government doing so. A private business earns their own money. They have profits and losses and reputations - and whilst they, too, employ marketing to persuade us to back them rather than their competitors, we can withdraw our money and support from them whenever we like, rather than just every four or five years when they choose to let us.

Consider the evidence: first they publish Janet Street Porter’s absurd diatribe against blogs, in which she asks us all to “Blog Off”. And now they’ve redesigned their website - and cut all the links to articles. As Matt Wardman writes:

So why have they done this? It seems absurd to delete all the links to pages that have ever been made by anyone anywhere across the internet. Surely the whole point of having a web presence is so that people can link to you? Why else would anyone bother?! And, surely, any web developer worth his pay cheque would be able to maintain the original links as active? The only conclusions that can realistically be drawn is that either the Independent hates blogs or are idiots. Or both.

The thing is, the Indy’s new website isn’t even pretty. In fact it’s down-right ugly. It is cluttered, confusing, and what the hell is with that mustard yellow colour scheme?!

The Independent: Blog haters.