Sick Little Tosser Makes Va. Tech Shooting Game

The .au Herald Sun:

A 21-year-old Sydney man has created the first known computer game based on the recent shooting spree at Virginia Tech university in the US, sparking a wave of criticism.

The game follows Cho Seung-hui’s killing spree at Virginia Tech in April, in which he killed 32 people before turning a gun on himself.

The game’s creator, Ryan Lambourn, who lives in Sydney’s west, says he won’t remove the game from his own website or seek to have it removed from amateur game sharing site Newgrounds.com.

Called V-Tech Rampage, the game can be freely downloaded from either site and has made headlines in Australia as well causing a stir on a number of blogs and online news sites around the world.

Mr Lambourn today backpedalled on previous demands for money in exchange for the game’s deletion, describing the ransom as a joke.

He had said on his website googumproduce.com that he would only remove V-Tech Rampage from the Newgrounds website if he received a $US1000 ($1,200) “donation”.

For $US2,000 ($2400) he would remove it from his own website and for $US3,000 ($3600) he would apologise for the stunt.

He said no one had taken him up on his offer.

Read More

Well, That’s Put The LOLcat Amongst The Pidgins

As any fule kno, the internet was invented as a medium for geeks to exchange amusingly-captioned pictures of cats – the rest is just bandwidth noise. This charming folk-custom has over the years burgeoned into a fully-fledged lolcat culture with customs and a language all of its own. Language blogger Anil Dash digs for the roots of lolcat grammar:

If you spend any time at all observing net culture, then you’ll have been unable to miss the recent explosion in popularity of lolcats. This relatively recent phenomenon is the convention of taking pictures of cute animals, most frequently cats, and overlaying absurdist captions on the images.

The core behavior has existed for some time; “Image macro” is a generic term for this kind of folk art, and cats have always featured heavily in these types of Internet in-jokes. But a few distinct categories have sprung up that have helped amplify and popularize the phenomenon.

  • I’M IN UR X Ying your Z. This construct, based on i’m in ur base, killin ur d00ds has morphed into a catch-all structure for annotating cat pictures.
  • Invisible Item. Variations on the seminal Invisible Bike, these are images of cats, usually in midair, with captions that prompt us to fill in imaginary objects or actions that complete the scene. There’s something brilliant to these images, speaking to our mind’s ability to intuitively extrapolate unseen details.
  • Kitty Pidgin. And finally, the newly dominant lolcats, of the family I Can Has Cheezeburger? These seem to be spawning nearly infinite variations, and have exploded in popularity since being named “lolcats” instead of the more general “image macro” or “cat macro”.

The rise of these new subspecies of lolcats are particularly interesting to me because “I can has cheezeburger?” has a fairly consistent grammar. I wasn’t sure this was true until I realized that it’s possible to get cat-speak wrong.

Incorrect kitty pidgin jumped to my attention the first time I saw a reference to Dune being used with a lolcat image. The caption on the linked version of the image, “The spice must flow.” is fine, if not particularly cat-like. But the caption on the version I saw first was much more verbose: “I are dunecat. I controls the spice, I controls the universe.” Besides being an awkward attempt at overexplaining the punchline (I’ve never read Dune or seen the film, but the joke is obvious) this was just all wrong. The fact that we can tell no cat would talk like this shows that kitty pidgin is actually quite consistent.

I was having a conversation with Ben and Ben a few weeks ago where I suggested this consistent grammar for lolcats could be a “cweeole”. Knowing a bit more about such things now, I realize this isn’t a creole but more likely a pidgin language, used to help cats talk to humans. And since “pidgin” is already a cutesy spelling of a mispronunciation, there doesn’t seem to be any really cute way to rename it to reflect its uniqueness. “Kitty pidgin” might be the closest thing we have to a name for this new language.

Go read the whole post

Oh dear, the academics are on it now. I await the publication of the groundbreaking paper, “Towards an etiology of lol and hai – the semiotics of feline imagery and the developent of language in the floating world.” with interest.

Bloody hell, that actually sounds like quite a believable reserach topic. Anyone got a ESRC funding form handy?

The Vanguard of the Online Revolution – Parlour Pinks and MCWAs

Ooh, an online democracy conference! This looks new and shiny and exciting and empowering, doesn’t it? Boing Boing announces:

Personal Democracy Forum, NYC, May 18
This year’s Personal Democracy Forum in NYC on May 18 looks like an incredible show, with speakers like Esther Dyson, Craig “craigslist” Newmark, Eric Schmidt, Larry Lessig, Arianna Huffington and many others, discussing the theme, “The Flattening of Politics.”

Technology and the Internet are changing democracy in America. Personal Democracy Forum is a hub for the exciting conversation underway between political professionals, technologists, and anyone else invigorated by the remarkable potential of technology to engage citizens in the democratic process.

New and exciting for the same old leech-like white faces making money off it, you mean. and by ‘exciting conversation’ they mean over cocktails between those already heavy with money, influence and power.

Arianna, Esther, Craig – same old boomer faces, same old boomer politics, Democrats for ever rah rah rah, sis boom bah, must protect our nice comfortable way of life from scary fundies and scarier anticapitalists. This conference is just another Middlle Class White American (I’d’ve said Middle Class White Assholes, personally, but then I’m uncivil) share-the-profits-circle-jerk.

For ‘democratisation’ of the internets and blogging read: circle the wagons, the natives’re getting uppity.

Here’s an alternative view on the topic from Donna at The Silence of Our Friends. :

What is imperative for everyone to know, is that the majority of middle class white American people are untrustworthy and unreliable. (A handful of these people have discovered this, and those are the ones who tend to be trustworthy and reliable.) The reason for this is that they are completely self-centered. So you ask, “But Donna, isn’t everyone self-centered?” Yes, but it is the extent I am talking about. MCWAs’ are oblivious to everyone else around them and throughout the world. Only their problems, their issues, their concerns matter. Everyone else is just a “special interest”. In the blogging world, the major liberal/progressive/Democratic blogs are close to useless for informing or being informed by anyone but MCWAs. The only time people of color; poor people, including whites; those with disabilities; foreigners; labor, especially blue collar; just about anyone who isn’t a MCWA is mentioned with any concern on their blogs is when that person can be used for their agenda, not because the concern is real. Sometimes appearances is the only agenda, because when they can make themselves appear like they care, they all get to sit around and feel all warm and fuzzy and enlightened.

I gave up on the male-centered liberal mainstream blogs long ago. I thought that maybe since the women had to deal with the oppression of sexism and misogyny that I’d have more in common with them and have a place to work through our issues together. Wrong. Because they are privileged, but blind to it, they only see their issues. Since they are middle class white Americans, usually able bodied, usually heterosexual, usually white collar workers, etc they pay lip service to issues related to poverty, people of color in the US, anything about another country, anything about disability, most GLBT issues (but since some middle class white women are lesbians, this gets a little more interest), or anything having to do with blue collar workers, low level white collar, or part time/temp workers.

No, the big issues on their blogs revolve around preserving only what they already have and getting more for themselves, they really could care less if you are out in the cold looking in. Oh sure, sometimes they talk about poverty, or women in India, or immigrants in America; but look at the framing. Almost every topic leads back to how it affects them, it’s not really about the people they are using. If they don’t center it on the middle class white woman, someone (usually several) will do it in the comments. Even on our blogs, we have white people show up wanting us to reassure them that they are good people. That is tiring for those with little to keep propping up those with much. Figure out another way to work on your self esteem, like maybe doing something to make a difference, instead of whining that you don’t mean to be racist. I much prefer the ones I usually get, if they ask anything, instead of asking me to tell them that they are good people, they ask, Am I doing something wrong? What should I be doing? But I have seen this on other POC blogs and expect it as I continue blogging.

They are untrustworthy and unreliable and we should stop looking to them for any sort of help. It won’t be there. But you know something, in this country they are a minority, just like they are in the rest of the world. So whose issues are “special interests”? We the POC, the poor of all colors, the labor movement, the disabled, people from all over the world, all of us who are oppressed and truly care for each other need to come together and help each other. We don’t need them, they will soon be needing us. We will remember the ones who were by our sides and we will remember the ones who turned their backs or used us. So you middle class white feminists might want to jump on the bandwagon right about now, show some real concern for women who aren’t just like you. I’ll be happy to help you with your problems, but not at the expense of my problems, we will work TOGETHER. It’s not good enough to work on you keeping your privileges at my expense.

Well quite: that’s exactly what this conference is about, the haves keeping their privileges by forming cartels to take control of the technology so that only their voices, and voices of which they approve, are heard.

The attendees as this conference may call themselves the Democratic opposition or the netroots, or whatever they like – but at heart they don’t want to challenge the political status quo at all. They want to use technology to their own political and personal benefit, notto extend democracy to the unwashed toiling masses, who, after all, are too stupid to know what it is they want and who need an Arianna or an Esther Dyson or a John Aravosis to tell them.

No doubt the delegates (though they’re not delegates as such – no-one delegated them, they chose themselves) will feel all smug and ‘vanguard of the revolution’-ish as they network away and contemplate their new exciting roles in the sexy, exciting world of online democracy, but this is not an event for the average blogger or grassroots political activist. Look at how much it costs to go, for a start:

Registration for the Main PdF Conference includes:

Full access to the Main PDF Conference, May 18, 2007
Continental breakfast
Lunch
Networking post conference cocktail hour

Order
at $295.00 each
Price: $295.00 Processing: $0.00 Total: $295.00

Ooh, cocktails, the high life we’re living! Add on to the conference fee however much it costs to travel and rent a room in NYC and there’s not going to be much change from a thousand dollars, at a minimum. And isn’t it cute how they have the Unconference too, for the smelly poor people to maybe lap up some crumbs from the rich attendees tables while being kept away from the real powerbrokers. Isn’t that kind? Noblesse oblige.

God these people make me angry. Democratisation my ass – the MCWAs are doing what they always do, co-opting a movement built by others to their own benefit, while the real voices of the grassroots are effectively silenced. It’s not just the usual suspects either but those who were thought to be sympatico: I’ve noticed recently that the group of blogs that cluster around Atrios and Kos, all the names on the infamous email list, are pulling up ladders, erasing links, purging blogrolls and closing the drawbridges. The reformists are forming cartels and they don’t include us.

And they wonder why we hold them in contempt.

Xenu v Beeb, via YouTube

The Observer reports (yes, I will read other papers today, I promise) that the Scientologists are using Youtube in their continuing campaign against the nosy, critical media, this time against a BBC Panorama reporter, John Sweeney:

John Sweeney has apologised for the outburst against a scientologist which was filmed and then put on the video-sharing website YouTube, prompting criticism of the corporation. The BBC held an internal inquiry but said Sweeney had not breached any guidelines.

The incident is one of the first examples of ‘video ambushing’, where organisations being investigated turn the camera on the film makers. The Church of Scientology, whose members include the Hollywood stars Tom Cruise and John Travolta, shadowed the Panorama team in America with its own camera crew. It has made a ‘counter documentary’, attacking Sweeney’s methods, and distributed 100,000 DVDs to MPs, civil servants, religious groups, media organisations and business leaders.

Sweeney’s a complete dumbass for losing his temper, that’s clear – but the carefully edited clip’s a Scientology hit-piece pure and simple, a preemptive smear. This is the video they put out:

That looks really bad doesn’t it?

Panorama has responded by posting a YouTube clip of its own in which leading scientologist Tom Davis, a friend of Cruise and son of the film actress Anne Archer, also a scientologist, is seen losing his temper at Sweeney’s use of the words ‘sinister cult’ and storming away mid-interview with the reporter in hot pursuit. In a separate clash Archer, an Oscar nominee for her role as Michael Douglas’s wife in Fatal Attraction, is understood to have snapped when Sweeney asked if she could have been brainwashed. The Church has withdrawn consent for the BBC to use the footage and Panorama is being hastily re-edited for broadcast tomorrow, but will still include the Sweeney outburst.

[…]

Here’s the corresponding BBC YouTube clip. Personally I think Sweeney was quite restrained with that asshole and I doubt I’m alone in thinking it.

Here’s what John Sweeney himself has to say:

While making our BBC Panorama film “Scientology and Me” I have been shouted at, spied on, had my hotel invaded at midnight, denounced as a “bigot” by star Scientologists, brain-washed – that is how it felt to me – in a mock up of a Nazi-style torture chamber and chased round the streets of Los Angeles by sinister strangers.

Back in Britain strangers have called on my neighbours, my mother-in-law’s house and someone spied on my wedding and fled the moment he was challenged.

[…]

As often in life, I snapped over something completely different and quite trivial.

Top Scientologist Tommy “Don’t mention the word cult” Davis had been goading me all week, and on the seventh day I fell into his elephant trap. He shouted at me and I shouted back, louder.

If you are interested in becoming a TV journalist, it is a fine example of how not to do it. I look like an exploding tomato and shout like a jet engine and every time I see it makes me cringe.

I apologised almost immediately, Tommy carried on as if nothing had happened but meanwhile Scientology had rushed off copies of me losing it to my boss, my boss’s boss and my boss’s boss’s boss, the Director-General of the BBC.

[…]

Although this appears on the surface to be about journalistic professionalism, or the lack of it, it’s really about whether one of the richest, most influential and reputedly most controlling untaxed pyramid schemes in the world, which has a special position and privileges because of its legal status as a church, can control what a public broadcaster in another country says about it.

The ‘church’ can call on oodles of Hollywood advice from its members. To counteract the documentary in advance they’ve written their own imaginary screenplay, in which the big, bad, communist, no atheist, bully BBC beats up poor the ikkle ‘freedom of religion’ enthusiasts. Oh the poor, persecuted loves, how they suffer for their faith, with no way to defend themselves! Well not quite, if you believe their former members:

[…]

Three days later, Bowers says, a Scientology official named Philip Jepsen paid her a visit. “He comes with two people in uniforms–very intimidating–and he asks me about Tom Cruise,” Bowers recalls. “It became obvious he knew everything I had told ‘Goldman.’ He grilled me for two hours. At the end, he handed me a Declare.”

The charges listed in Bowers’s “Suppressive Person Declare”–essentially an order of excommunication–included “writing anti-Scientology letters to the press or giving anti-Scientology or anti-Scientologist data to the press” and “engaging in malicious rumour-mongering to destroy the authority or repute of higher officers or the leading names of Scientology.” The Declare meant that, in general, no one in Scientology should speak to her again, including members of her family. It was followed by “Disconnect” letters from her sons and ex-husband.

[…]

Sounds like they have the self-defence part pretty well sewn up internally, now if only they could exert the same control over non-members…

Scientology’s use of what’s percieved as a ‘samizdat’ medium like YouTube to give their narrative credibility is a new and interesting twist in the development of online discourse and public media. But I’m definitely going to watch the BBC Panorama documentary tonight, where I might not have before, and I suspect many others will too now – so have the attempted Scientology media psyops actually backfired on them?

Are They By Chance Related?

I think we should be told…. Within the space of 2 days we’ve seen 3 4 relaunches of websites, first from the Guardian:

Then from Gordon Brown’s leadership campaign:

Hang on – that Gordon Brown site looks a lot like the Guardian! Or is it just me?

Don’t think so. Look at the new site from Labourhome:

Well I’ll be blowed. All the organs of the left get a makeover on the same day and what’s more they look like clones of each other. What a co-incidence!

UPDATE:What’s this? I neglected to add the Labour party’s own web redesign:

Dear me. How frightfully similar. What a surprise.