Ben Chadwick

It's hope, that's all...

2010-06-11T11:07:00.000+01:00

King Kenny. Hope. What's the difference? When Rafa Benitez left Liverpool last week by mutual consent, it began. Nobody likes change at the best of times, but usually a managerial change at a football club is a result of things not going too well. In that respect change is easier to accept as it offers hope. And hope is where we all fall down!

To my memory Benitez and his £6million settlement is probably the most expensive scape goat in town. I'd happily do it for half! That Liverpool finished seventh in the league, dropped out of the Champions League early and failed to reach the final of the Europa League are footballing key performance indicators and commonly used to judge the success of a football club. When they come up short as happened this season, the person accountable for the footballing side of the club is the person with whom the failure is laid. That doesn't really tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

That being the unstable ownership of the club, no clear strategy or direction, debt previously unknown and a changing climate in which the economics of football are played out. A club can not aimlessly pay millions of pounds in transfer fees each season regardless of other non-footballing key performance indicators and rightly so. Liverpool it was reported in the Guardian recently suffered from not heeding that principle even under David Moores and Rick Parry so it is not a new practice that should lay accusingly at the feet of the current owners. Spending within your means is valid on a personal level right through to large corporate organisations to governments and countries. That lesson can be seen wherever you turn today.

One of the many issues that contributed to poor on-field results was that of money. How much and how to spend it. Gareth Barry's protracted non-transfer, Rick Parry's departure and Rafa's new contract are all examples of that. One of the clearest mantras a manager in any business can have is 'no surprises'. Ability means you can manage with what you have, so long as you know what you have in a timely manner. That Benitez was perceived to have spent poorly in the transfer market was not a measure of his ability but more an outcome of the lack of timeliness in agreeing what funds were available. A fact that seems lost amongst poor results and a slide down the league table.

So how does all that relate to hope? As a manager sets out the philosophy, identity, values and beliefs of a team he or she managers, then new manages bring about revolutionary change. And if, as is often the case, the old manager left because things were bad, then revolutionary change by default is good, yes?

That leads to hope that things will be better in the future. Sometimes it is, often it isn't. Hope is currently what is fuelling media speculation and more generous journalism. Reality hasn't yet had it's chance. And when it does...?

The reality for Liverpool tempers hope. Same owners, same debt. Same players since no money is available to reshape the team. Less money as there will be no Champions League revenue. So who'd want the job? Speculation in this area is endless but misses the point. Look more closely at Benitez's departure and the clues are there.

Who sacked him (mutually of course!)? Martin Broughton, the new Chariman. And why is Broughton at the club? At the behest of the owners to sell the club. So why is someone who is trying to sell the club sacking the current manager? It would appear there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to suggest in parting with Benitez he was going about his business of selling the club.

If new owners wanted Benitez gone it could have cost £16m. New ownership and new money and Benitez probably would have not taken the £6m compromise. Benitez was also hugely powerfull: first team manager, overseer of the reserves and the academy and solely in charge of transfers. All of which have been shaped in his image. A change of owners and a change of approach and that is a large, well paid obstacle in the way!

So maybe Broughton let Benitez go to satisfy potential buyers waiting in the wings. Or maybe just to get his house in order before attracting investment. Either way it seems it was done for a purpose. Which brings us once again to the issue of hope.

If the above theory is correct, why would Liverpool appoint a manager before selling the club? Unless prospective owners have identified the person they wish to take over? A more sensible tactic would be to appoint someone in the interim. Someone to carry on the work of Benitez without the investment required in huge personnel changes. In my opinion this would be where Sammy Lee would step forward. The media are focusing on King Kenny but I am fairly confident Sammy would be the chosen one, probably mentored or supported in an executive capacity by Dalglish. Keeps things neat, tidy and cheap, and the seat warm for someone else in the future.

Reality versus hope. Who wins? You decide!

The Flickr experiment: part 2

2010-04-19T14:00:00.001+01:00

IMG_0410[1]
Originally uploaded by benchadwick

This post is the output from the Flickr website apps to blog a photo. Just playing around to see how it works. Nice little bit of code given to tag the post, interested to see if that works...?

tags: Technology, Flickr

Finally mastered the Flickr iPhone App!

2010-04-15T10:39:00.000+01:00

I downloaded the Flickr iPhone app around the same time as Adobe launched their Photoshop app. Having played around with both I'd come to the somewhat rushed conclusion that Flickr allowed multiple uploads whilst the Photoshop app allowed you to edit photos. Why I'm not a professional product reviewer I'll never know!

My experience of both apps pretty much stopped in its tracks after that. I'd no real use for them and the experience of using Flickr was still preferable from a laptop as opposed to the iPhone. However a random set of circumstances involving a new personal project (just bought a house) and a boring train journey from Liverpool to London yesterday has changed my perception somewhat.

As many a novice to DIY will testify, speed dial 'home' on your mobile tends to be dusted off form it's University days of calling for money, laundry advice and how to poach an egg! I've found myself constantly on the phone to my Dad seeking advice for the more mature issues of sanding floorboards, using Polly Filler (incidentally this is a great advert that my Dad found!) and finding the right pipes to plumb the washing machine in.

I've also noticed that most of these calls are accompanied by the iphone photo! A picture really does paint a thousand words. I'd call, explain my problem then email over a couple of photos to illustrate my point. It seems to work well and the rates are cheap! All of which has culminated in a growing collection of photos on my iPhone that have a theme, a link and warrant being collated into something approaching a photo set, something the other random photos on there certainly don't.

So, bored on the train, I decided to see what would be involved in uploading the floor renovating photos to Flickr. The results were pleasantly encouraging. You can add each photo to a set, give it a title and description and upload them as a batch instead of singularly (restriction of the Photoshop app). The T-Mobile WiFi on Virgin Trains is flaky at best so I was surprised at how well it coped with the task. The outcome was that I could relatively simply upload albums to Flickr from my phone whilst genuinely on the move.

There were a couple of notable restrictions, however: you can't easily share the album from within the iPhone App and you can only email out one photo at a time. I'm such such basic functionality with be added in due course.

So now I have a couple of sets on flickr, the old floor and the new floor albums which are the final output from an iphone enabled process. Documenting projects and experiences such as DIY using the iPhone camera and Flickr app is a great example of how the iphone technology can really underpin and support day to day activities in a way that is non intrusive and effective. That might sound a little deep, but I think it's important to establish reasons and use cases for technological advances rather than the pure innovation and technical development.

The Google Chrome Comic Book

2010-04-01T10:40:00.000+01:00

I stumbled across this comic and thought it might be of interest. A non-techy story of what Google is doing in terms of browser development.

http://blogoscoped.com/google-chrome/

BBC Test Match Special Widget

2010-03-23T10:55:00.003+00:00

Introducing the new Test Match Special Widget to my blog. You can find it within this post or it's more permenant position at the bottom of the sidebar. If you use it, let me know your thoughts.

The Mendelssohn Effect

2010-03-17T17:02:00.003+00:00

Jakob Ludwig Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy's music is growing on me. I fear it may too be growing on the South Liverpool Rehearsal Orchestra's conductor too, although he probably would not admit to it.

I've always liked Mendelssohn and studied the Hebrides Overture at A Level. Although our analysis focused on the Scottish influences to the overture rather than studying Mendelssohn's music in particular, I find it is easier to identify a piece as Mendelssohn more so than other composers (not least because his name is written on the music in front of me!). With the orchestra we've already played the Scottish Symphony and now we've moved onto the Italian. What stands out is how relatively simple it is to hear the cultural heritage of both symphonies. My immediate impression on the first run through was that this is what the soundtrack to The Sopranos would have sounded like had television and HBO been around during Mendelssohn's time!

Like Schubert's Unfinished symphony that the orchestra played last year, Mendelssohn elicits strong melodic lines that I find myself repeating in the car from rehearsals and over the next few days. I also like the way he tends to couple the Trumpet (I'd say Brass section but there's only me and a Horn!) with the Horn in similar fashion to a lot of music we play by Beethoven, Dvorak, Rossini, Schubert etc., then almost from no-where send them their separate ways. The Trumpet part in particular often bears little resemblance to what's gone before and I confess it often takes me a few passes to piece it all together. The result is often quite an astute and poignant decoration of a more dramatic or climatic section of the music. (I hope I don't insult with the inclusion of 'astute'. It is meant to convey subtle, discrete writing that captures the poignancy of the Trumpet accompaniment).

The Mendelssohn isn't the only piece that has caught my attention this term. I'm really taking a liking to a lot of the repertoire. At the moment Beethoven's Egmont Overture and Tchaikovsky's Orchestral Suite No 4 (better known as 'Mozartiana') in addition to the Italian symphony make quite a set list during rehearsals. The Egmont offers some dramatic Trumpet blowing and the Mozartiana, although lacking in serious employment for the Trumpet, is great to listen to (while counting, obviously!).

The concert is planned for the end of May, more details to follow.

YouTube and the IPL: Error Message!

2010-03-15T14:21:00.001+00:00

I'm not all that bothered about the IPL or indeed T20. I watched a few internationals and a couple of the tournaments on TV but I still find there is something undignified about it. In short, too many 'non cricket shots' for a purist such as myself.

I was however, mildly interested to see how YouTube's handling of the IPL would work out. Streaming competitions on the internet, free to all, is undoubtedly the future and I'm sure for YouTube and some as yet undiscovered start ups there will be a huge amount of commercial success in such a venture. I'm just not convinced the IPL would be the platform I'd choose to launch it.

I've found when trying to catch the odd IPL game over the past couple of years that I simply don't know enough about it for the game in front of me to be engaging. I barely recognise the team names, let alone 80% of the players. That makes it very hard to grasp at a hook with which to become interested. Exposure through YouTube and ITV4's coverage will help in that regard, but it's difficult to watch a game of cricket on TV as a neutral.

Like it's first day coverage (see picture) YouTube's broadcast venture with the IPL may have gotten off to a sticky start, but I'm sure the business model and technical challenges will be established and overcome through the IPL experience.

In a few years when we're signing in to watch the latest stream from the Olympics, the IPL experience will seem insightful.

Is there a Buzz about Google's Social Networking?

2010-02-11T13:41:00.002+00:00

For some reason I'm becoming a fan of the instant impression! My iPad post came hot off the heals of Mr Jobs' comfy sofa seminar and now, less than 24 hours after Google launched Buzz I find myself itching to comment!

In short Google Buzz is Google's attempt to move into the social media scene. I'm somewhat confused by my own statement as a few year's ago now I remember having an account with a site called Orkut that I never used and only signed up to because Google had just bought them. Orkut on the face of it is a social networking site, but I didn't really hang around to find out anymore than that.

So back to Buzz. A lot of people have made a lot of noise about Buzz and a lot of the noise has tended to be negative. That seems to be the trend with new technology. Dismiss it out of hand because it is different. To me, it's precisely because it's different that I often find myself enthusiastic.

My first 'buzz' strangely seems to capture my initial thoughts (it wasn't supposed to!):

I stand by my thoughts that it won't be a flash in the pan because Sergey Brin publicised it (although not necessarily for those reasons) and also my thinking that it will never be able to compete with Facebook because it wasn't around when Soical Media needed defining. Facebook was and as such became the standard bearer (in the same way as Hotmail did for web-based email).

However I think Google Buzz will settle down into a popular and effective Social Media tool in time. As my brother commented (a reply via email rather than a 'buzz', which I found strange):

It appears Google has gone for a Social Media aggregator rather than a separate networking or community environment. The feature that stands out most for me is the ability to add 'connected sites' to your Buzz feed.

The premise seems to be that you connect all of your web based sites where information is dynamic and of interest to other people (the list also includes Blogger, YouTube, Google Chat although crucially not Facebook), and when you change your status on these sites, they are updated through Buzz. The idea being you no longer need to check countless sites to see the latest information, although presumably you need to log into countless sites to update your own status!

If Facebook were added in time this would be a distinct advantage. I can't see Buzz drawing huge amounts of new users to Gmail but I can see it being beneficial to existing Gmail users. My concern would be that this was not the intended outcome Google had in mind when they created Buzz.

I will probably post again once I've had the chance to use Buzz a bit more, see if my experiences change my initial thoughts.

~~ update ~~

This piece has a bit more perspective around the security aspect, something I haven't got round to looking into but would appear important!

http://charman-anderson.com/2010/02/11/google-buzz-not-fit-for-purpose/

iThink iPad iNitial iThought!

2010-01-29T10:21:00.000+00:00

My usual modus operandi is to wait. Wait until the dust has settled, the professionals and 'enthusiasts' have had their say and then have mine. And make it different: a different perspective, approach or in short a view adopted given the benefit of time. I like to mull things over, read opinion, see things first hand and reflect before delivering an opinion of my own. However for reasons I'm not entirely sure about I've decided to leap on the iPad bandwagon and release a few initial observations into the fury of comment, speculation and hype.

I like the iPad. Well what I have seen online and the facts I have been able to gleam from other media reporting. I won't buy it though, at least not at first. I want to and should I have the disposal means I probably would, despite the cautions I can see.

First to the positives:

I like the design and visual appeal. The Apple touch screen technology I think will differential it from other tablet products
I understand the primary use case: to access and browse the internet within seconds
Cater for the limitations of the iPhone: enhanced user experience when using for longer time periods due to improved screen size and ergonomical design
A platform on which to build for the future

The iPad is, in my humble opinion, and aspirational product. I want one because I want the feeling and status it would give me. That is a very strong and emotive reason pull on a product and combined with the pull the Apple brand can achieve for its products will make it a commercial success.

Owning an iPhone I understand how the iPad build upon the concept. I've heard all the Dom Jolly related criticisms about using it as a phone and to be honest I think that's either naive or facetious! In time the iPad will cater for video conferencing and this is where the phone functionality will come into play. Despite the innovate drag, pull and zoom concepts that are expertly delivered into the touch technology of the iPhone when browsing Safari, you can not escape the reality that a bigger screen would help. Not necessarily sat on a crowded tube, but most definitely when sat on the sofa at home. I think it's the 'sat on the sofa at home' users that Apple are targeting.

Despite my subjective attraction to the iPad I do understand some of the more negative coverage it has received. I think this has been summed up well by Russell Beatie (via @jackschofield) when he said that the people who were disappointed with the iPad really wanted a MacBook. I think that's valid and explains a lot of the criticism. No the iPad doesn't have web cams, the first version doesn't have 3G, there's no USB and SD interface and it's not an open platform by any means. In my opinion they're deliberate omissions.

Future releases will have 3G (stated by Apple) and in my opinion cameras. But there are reasons it won't support USB or SD cards and that it isn't an open platform. Not exclusively but I think that reason is Google Chrome OS.

I believe the iPad will go up against Google's Chrome OS powered NetBooks. Steve Jobs' criticism of netbooks: slow and with PC software running them. Google's netbooks? TV like response from power to surfing. That impressive lead time already exists within the iPhone and stated for the iPad. If you consider the iPad from this perspective then you can understand why it doesn't support USB/SD cards and isn't an open platfrom: neither will Chrome OS be! By reducing the variety of components the operating system has to support, it makes it quicker to load, smaller and less prone to errors. In short, quicker to access the internet. It's all about the speed and the internet.

Google stated that the Chrome Netbooks will be a secondary device in the home used for web surfing and other 'cloud' based requirements. The iPad will be used for web surfing and other Apple based uses. The benefit of both devices is that they accompany existing technology and increase user experience but the downside is that because they don't replace existing technology it becomes expensive.

Over time the third type of device that sits in between the smart phone and the laptop will become an amalgamation of the two and laptops will morph into specialist hardware for specialist tasks. Every home that owns hardware to access the internet will use an iPad, Chome OS netbook. Most homes won't need anything else. Cameras and other peripherals will adopt an open and universal protocol for transferring their data to these devices, most likely wirelessly and the days of USB connections and flash based storage media will be behind us.

Until then, the iPad won't suit everyone but it will be a success.

One year and counting...

2010-01-27T12:12:00.001+00:00

Despite this post existing and the novelty candle I've chosen as 'suitable' decor, I'm not really into self indulgence and celebration. However it has been almost a year since my first post and against better judgement I've decided to mark the occasion. My aforementioned concerns duly noted, I'd like to reflect on the past 12 months from a perspective of technological change and how the original purpose of a blog has faired, changed and evolved in that time.

It is with a fair amount of shame that I look back at the screen shots of my first attempt at web development. Even with the caveat of wanting to learn basic HTML it's a poor, poor site! One of the many reasons I decided it had to go was the realisation that it was the experience of creating the site as opposed to the actual use of the site that I valued more (interestingly that's true in part for this blog too). I was happy to take it down and eager to replace it with something more respectable.

From this point onwards desire and outcome started to differ. The stated aim was to develop a content-managed site through Joomla! that would house a more sophisticated website and incorporate a cared-for blog (my previous blog was an aspiration that remained as such). I was undecided as to the content of the website, having no established use case and perhaps hoped rather than anticipated that I'd find uses. I'm still searching today for appropriate uses and this, along with advances in blogger.com since my 2007 attempt at a blog pretty much stopped the Joomla! experiment in it's tracks.

I've mentioned before a couple of sites that I based the structure of this blog around: www.jemimakiss.com is one, Scott Bramley's Blog another and the excellent www.newmusicstrategies.com the third. These sites show that you could include more content than just blog posts to a blog site and as such usurp Joomla! and other such platforms altogether. It's not an approach I'd recommend for corporate websites but on a smaller scale it works well. I was able to include links to other blogs I found enjoyable, my social networking accounts and other links of note under one umbrella. The layout is configured using user-friendly wizards and for a novice there's little chance of causing serious damage.

The end result was a web presence I wasn't ashamed of! That was a good first step. However I very much doubted my ability to write what I would consider acceptable posts that people would actually enjoy reading. To this end and true even as I type, I don't publicise my blog. In fact the only link to it remains in the Bio section of Twitter. The reasons for including it on Twitter I'm not entirely convinced by, except that I can acknowledge that I started using Twitter comfortable with knowing that it wasn't a trend I was following that had been laid out by friends, colleagues or other peer pressures. It was something I was happy to embark upon solo and this perhaps explains why I feel more comfortable linking to the blog there. A stated aim I had (if not publically stated) was to develop new skills that were a move away from my current occupation, skill set and interests. I guess part of that was finding an environment where I could do that semi incognito.

On reflection I think I've achieved what I set out to almost a year ago. If not as all-singing and dancing and in truth probably useless as Joomla! could have provided, but a presence that was easy to create, maintain and develop and in hindsight has allowed me to concentrate on the actual writing elements of the blog (the writing is the main reason I started out). I wanted a place to document my thoughts and 'insights' (probably a definition others will need to vouch for) and develop writing experience and above all a style that at some point in the future, someone might want to pay for (the content editing rather than journalistic side of things). I was happy for these aspirations to be achieved slowly and will be the first to acknowledge that I'm still very much working towards them.

One area that I think has helped me with the writing side of things has been structure. I decided at the start to concentrate my posts to clearly defined subjects. The plural nature was needed to recognise that I had a wider range of interests on which I wanted to write about but also that I didn't feel confident in writing within the confines of a single subject. A jack of all trades approach to a certain extent. I also decided to use labels to categorise these themes and hopefully enable anyone reading my blog to quickly find what the think may be relevant postings.

Eventually I settled on three subjects: Technology, Music and Sport. These cover fairly concisely my interests and the areas I would probably enjoy writing about. Music was included almost as an aspirational target as unlike technology the subject is still very much approached from a historical perspective. I felt that meant that more people were likely to have already covered the subjects I wanted to cover and that added a weight of expectation and benchmarking that didn't necessarily come with Technology and Sport. Over the past year it's certainly been the subject that I've struggle the most to write about.

The second part of the brief for writing was to provide an alternative perspective to the subject being discussed. I like to introduce context and perspective to current topics that often get overlooked in mainstream media reporting and where appropriate relate precedents to situations that have gone unnoticed. I'd like to think my posts regarding Football being a business and how Google's development can be seen to mirror Microsoft's are example in achieving these aims. With Technology in particular I wanted to move away from the descriptive nature of many blog reviews and focus on themes such as impact, effectiveness, world order and in a lot of cases commercial sustainability. Reading a lot of material that documents new technologies it always frustrates me that their impact isn't really explored past the 'with it be a hit or a miss' debate.

I'm happy with the way my blog has progressed to date and have every intension of continuing in a similar vein in the immediate future. I do understand however that technology changes and hope to be able to incorporate some of those changes in due course. In particular I'm looking forward to using Google Wave for future blog postings. However I am also aware that there are issues I need to address in order to progress from what I believe has been a solid start.

The issue I think I'll struggle most to overcome is audience. I'm perfectly aware and content with the fact that my audience is practically non-existent. A friend now and again will read and comment and I've had the occasional conversation about my blog with people through Twitter. Despite knowing that I have no audience I find I can write with one in mind. However I don't know how long that mindset will last and it doesn't really challenge me to improve much. Equally though I don't see any benefit in a blog that has nondescript comments from supportive friends if I increase my circulation and promotion. I'm not sure that the purpose of blogs (and certainly mine) is in essence a popularity contest to see how much reaction you can generate. Even with mainstream blogs from media outlets and more niche offerings from the tech world I see little value in the structure of comments and discussions that follow posts. It is difficult to follow a thread or discussion and rarely adds to the experience of reading a particular post. To that extent I'm still wary of mass publicisation and will for the time being maintain status quo and evaluate some more!

As Confucius' musings on a journey's beginning can be related to many a situation, so to will I endeavour to make a start: any feedback, suggestions, comments, objections, opinions, conjecture or abuse is ready to be received!

Google Voice: A one word confusion?

2010-01-18T14:45:00.001+00:00

As branding goes, Google seems to have hit the jackpot. 'Google' is a noun, a verb, synonymous with 'search' to the extent that most people now confess to 'googling' rather than searching. Part one: success. Part two? Expand into other areas of the web, innovate, keep the google brand and concisely describe new feature. Google Maps, Google Earth, Google Calendar, Google Docs. Check! It does exactly what it says on the tin, and it is clear that it was done by Google.

Moving away from the Google love-in however, and you may well stumble across Google Voice. In theory, voice on the web, by Google. What could be more complicated? Imagine a little deeper and voice on the web can translate into phones, conversations, voicemail. The list is endless. So why has the latest innovation from Google caused so much controversy? Especially as it's not yet here in the UK and most people probably don't know it exists!

A history lesson is called for...

In 2007 Google acquired a company called Grand Central. It was a service that offered customers the opportunity to merge all phone calls to one number. The Grand Central concept and doubtless technology are now the cornerstone of Google Voice. In essence Google Voice lets you filter all your calls to one number and lays out an unprecedented amount of configurable features that govern your entire telephonic communication. Or as their support pages put it:

Google Voice is a service that enhances the existing capabilities of your phone numbers. With it, you can access your voicemail online, read automatic transcriptions of your voicemail, create personalized greetings based on who is calling, make cheap international calls, and more.

Google Voice allows you to have one number to replace all of your existing numbers. When someone calls that number, the phone that rings and the greeting they receive are dependent on the rules you have created. For example, if you contacts are divided into 'work' and 'friends' then you can configure Google Voice to call you work phone if someone calls whose listed in 'work' and your personal mobile if listed in 'friends'. You can even assign contacts individual voicemail greetings and all voicemail is sent to your email in mp3 format and transcribed into text.

At face value that is quite a proposition and one that has interested me for some time. I've been waiting eagerly for it's deployment in the UK (it's out as an invite-only beta version in the US). It even got a mention when I reviewed the impressive HulloMail voicemail offering. So what seems to be the problem? As HulloMail pointed out on their recent blog (and no doubt intended to persuade their customers that Google Voice isn't for them!) the reason it is popular in the States and not yet available in the UK comes down to very different market conditions:

Problem is you can’t map a US solution to a Non-US context and expect it to work. Why not? Cos it’s a solution to their problems and not ours – it’s a superb example of what I call ‘the fallacy of misplaced solutions’. What does this mean? Quite literally – it’s a solution ok, but a solution that’s misplaced – ie ‘out of place’ here in the UK. What I mean is, if you’re stateside then you PAY TO RECEIVE CALLS . So let’s take their universal number for all your life and after concept – OK – so from now on your mum calls this number which then calls you – right so how does that get billed then? Over here mobile has developed with different infrastructure, business models, usage patterns and its our main comms line with the world. So the universalist approach that works for Google in search (ie everyone everywhere searches for stuff and you can advertise to them and build a universal solution on the back of that) won’t work for mobile.

Somewhat 'passionately' put, the salient point appears to be that there are two reasons you would adopt Google Voice in the US: the product features stated above and the many listed here, and secondly, the reduction in cost you would achieve. In the US when someone calls you, you pay. When you call someone else, you pay. A two way call is charged to both people. That's an interesting concept and a post for another day. What Google Voice does however, is absorb the cost of the incoming call and charge you that call at cost. The call from Google Voice to any of your nominated phones is always a local call.

In the UK to adopt this model, you would have to pay a local call rate everytime someone called your Google Voice number. This would add extra cost and seems to be the source of HulloMail's pains. It doesn't want to lose customers (like myself) to Google and so is pointing out the downside of their offering, should the same model be implemented in the UK. This would appear to be a strategic decision of theirs as at present they do not make any revenue from me (not directly anyway).

What I think HulloMail and others miss when unraveling this structure is that Google Voice also offers local rate outgoing calls to all numbers. In the UK that would present significant savings. Whether these savings can offset the costs of receiving calls I have no data with which to start any analysis, but they very well might. Of more interest is the effect this would have on the UK telecommunications market, should Google be successful with Google Voice. I can't see me wanting to pay a monthly fee to a mobile network for bundled minutes that I'm not going to use as my calls will be placed by Google Voice. They would charge me and I would pay them. For receiving calls I'd also be charged by them and be unlikely to be able to use my 'free minutes' from the mobile network to pay. The same would go for personal landlines. I'd want both phones as line rental only and manage call charges through Google Voice.

That's not a situation that is going to be taken lightly I don't suspect. In the US customers already pay to receive calls so the mobile networks can keep that revenue from the end user (Google Voice charges network, network charges user).

I can't find any source to confirm or disprove that this assumption is correct so it will have to stand as supposition. However after a bit of thought it does appear logical. The acid test will be whether the features offered by Google (revolutionary in my opinion) are worth the upheaval. Timing may be an issue and the concept may be received in a couple of years where more mobile phones are 'smart phones' and the distinction between landline and mobile has blurred some (it looks like a Google Voice app would be required to manage the service in the event you weren't near the web). O2 are offering a 'mobile landline' and that seems to point the way the industry is heading.

All of the above I can only assume that Google are aware of and will address should the service come to the UK in the future. An assumption!

Sky Sports on the iPhone. Heaven? (Part 2)

2010-01-13T09:53:00.000+00:00

I had the foresight to end my previous post about the new venture between Sky Sports, O2 and the Apple iPhone by including a caviat that the real value for money could only be seen after I could establish weather the Apple Composite TV Cable would successfully stream the Sky Sport's footage from my iPhone to my TV. If it could, it would save a potential £14 a month in Sky TV subscriptions. If...

I excitedly unwrapped my cable at Christmas (tragic in so many different ways!) only to find that the boxing day test between England and South Africa would stream to my TV the audio only! At first I assumed the cable was faulty, wrong or indeed just plain mis-sold but then other content on my iPhone would stream perfectly. Even the BBC iPlayer made the successful transition. A quick Google search later and it appears the app blocks the streaming of the video for exactly the purpose of stopping me and my experiment. Technically I think streaming only works through Quick Time applications within the Safari browser or the iPod application itself.

I've found this to be a real shame. Not only was the cable expensive but despite the good quality of picture, it is no real substitute for Sky Sports through the Sky box. There's no interactive menu, you can not pause live TV and depending on the network connection the streaming can be flaky.

As in my other post today, broadband usage has also appeared on the horizon with this topic. To make full use of the service (even if the streaming to a TV did work) would probably require an upgrade in broadband subscription (for me anyway).

In conclusion? Back to the pub for important football matches I think. I may be tempted to subscribe to the app on an ad hoc basis, but come the summer cricket season I may bite the bullet and return to my Sky Sports TV subscription!

A Spofity sting in the tail...

2010-01-13T09:39:00.001+00:00

OK so short-sighted it might have been, absent-minded I think I'd prefer but my Spotify experience over Christmas smashed my download limit from Sky Broadband! The 2GB limit that we'd not previously gone anywhere near was pushed to an impressive 4GB. Fortunately a slap on the wrists was all that ensued, although if we do it again we'll be moved onto the next tariff automatically. A fair policy I think by Sky and hopefully one that they'll not need to implement.

It is a value addition to the Spotify debate, however, and broadband limitations should be taken into consideration before embarking on the Spotify adventure!

A Test Team of the Decade

2010-01-07T16:17:00.003+00:00

I've just read the Wisden's various Test Teams of the Decade, and agree with none of them! So I thought I'd put down mine and my reasons for each player.

Hayden, Jayasuriya, Ponting, Tendulkar, Lara, Dravid, Gilchrist (wk), Warne (c), Pollock, McGrath, Khan

Having gone through the process I can now see why I agree with none of the teams offered by Wisden! As you might expect there is a lot of convincing arguments for many players in each position and so it does very much come down to personal opinion.

To quickly rattle through what might be considered as the 'obvious' selections (interestingly all Australian): Ponting, Gilchrist, Warne and McGrath, I'd consider them automatic choices not only because of how good they were during the past 10 years but also because of the success, individually and collectively, that they achieved. I believe these to be beyond reproach in their current positions in any team (with the exception of No.3 where other candidates can bat lower in the order, that is).

My criteria for selection is based on the following:

Personal success during the past 10 years
Contribution to team success during the same period
Success in that particular position
Impact made during a significant part of the past 10 years, if not continually throughout that period

My controversial selections begin I suppose with Jayasuriya. When you consider him alongside Justin Langer, Marcus Trescothick, Virender Sehwag or even Stephen Fleming then stronger arguments can be made for most of the other players on that list. However it is the personal contribution that is the principle reason I've included him. The age at which he continued to play at such a high level is remarkable. His leadership throughout the beginning of the century enabled Sri Lanka to progress from a developing team to a strong contender in every series they took part in and his ethic and influence on the team is showing itself in their current success. His One Day career should not influence a test team but it is an impressive footnote.

Tendulkar and Lara in the middle order I don't think could be surpassed as a combination, no matter what the criteria for selection is. My knowledge of cricketing history does not stretch back beyond the early nineties based on first hand experience, but I'd be hard pressed to think of any others for these positions. I have been privileged to see first hand Tendulkar bat, not so Lara. Ponting at No.3 and Dravid as the extra batsmen at No.6 complement these two perfectly (although Dravid could do with batting higher up the list we it not for Ponting). I remember the England v India series in 2003 when both he and Michael Vaughan were outstanding and Dravid at No.3 really personified his 'The Wall' nickname.

The start of both Tendulkar and Lara's careers came before this century but that should not be held against them. Gilchrist is I think undisputed at No.7 for the runs he makes, the offensive role he plays in that position and his 'keeping ability. Had it not been for him Alec Stewart had success during this period and would be a close call too. He also inspired a generation of aggressive wicket-keeper/batsmen and that as much as his cricket will be his legacy.

Shaun Pollock and Zaheer Khan are probably the debatable bowling options. Pollock became a good all round option at numbers 8 and 9 for South Africa and his bowling record is worthly of inclusion on its own. Captaincy is another notable asset of his and were it not for McGrath then I believe his reputation would be greater than it is today.

Zaheer Khan is perhaps my indulgent choice and is primarily due to his series against England in 2003. His left arm conventional and reverse swing from around the wicket to England's left handers is some of the best bowling I have seen. His temperament and focal point of an Indian team full of batting super-stars made him seem even more exceptional.

Notable by their absence are any English players. Vaughan, Trescothick and Flintoff I would consider to be the best of the past decade (Graham Thorpe mentioned in dispatches). Of these all have their merits and I'm a big fan of Michael Vaughan so he was under consideration, especially for his early decade form and captaincy. All three had their purple patches but also their problems. Maybe I am slightly harder on English players as I tend to be too familiar with them, weaknesses and all?

A final note about the Captain. I've gone for Warne in line with the common belief that he was the best captain Australia never had. I think he would have offered something very different in that capacity. He always appeared to be forward thinking, inventive and not afraid to take risks as a player and captain for Hampshire and I think he'd have been one of the bolder captains of international cricket. I also don't believe there is a natural captain in my team.

As a nod to the next 10, I expect Pakistan's Mohammad Aamer, South Africa's Morne Morkel and England's very own Adil Rashid to feature prominently.

A Spofity'd Christmas and a Happy New Year!

2010-01-07T11:11:00.000+00:00

Firstly, a very Happy New Year to anyone who has read any of my posts over the past year!

This Christmas period I saw for the first time what the fuss about Spotify is actually all about! I've posted before on Last.fm and how I instinctively preferred a web-based model for music streaming and would persevere along that route. Despite having an invitation for Spotify, and even signing up, I hadn't really ventured near it.

That changed when it came to putting up Christmas decorations. As usual, we knew in the flat there was a Christmas album or two of debatable quality and that we'd like to dig it out to accompany the putting up of Christmas decorations. However after a brief search no CD was forthcoming. It occurred to me that there would probably be an album or two on Spotify so I dug the laptop out, hooked it up to the aux port of the iPhone speaker system and searched.

Searching was simply. 'Christmas Music' brought back a host of differing results; traditional to contemporary, some really good, some awful! The lead time between search and playing is extremely quick and the more familiar I became with Spotify, the better the music I was able to chose. A search for 'Traditional Christmas Music' gave an instant playlist of Carols and other choral numbers. Similarly 'Rat Pack Christmas' was a good search as it found all the Christmas numbers recorded by Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Bing Crosby et al.

These simple searches gave hours of play that were really effective as background music around the festive period, especially when we had people round. The vast back catalogue of music Spotify has allowed the laptop to be passed around and other music selected which was also a nice touch. It's not a new concept; going through friend's music collection from vignal to CD or the iPod is a common past time, but with Spotify the choice is impressively wider.

The second use I found for it was for a family party at new year. I was informed a younger contingent had requested amongst others Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga and Pixie Lott. In my defense I'd heard of two of the three and even walked past Taylor Swift at V Festival during the summer! Spofity was excellent in accommodating these requests. A search of each artist gave an impressive list of songs which could be dragged into a playlist and set to shuffle and repeat. Job done. Later in the evening once again the laptop was passed around and songs added to the queue in the playlist. I'm not sure Pixie Lott will following The Smiths in many people's playlists!

The positives of Spotify have genuinely impressed me and I will use it more in the future. I can see myself checking out new music there before buying it as being a traditionalist of sorts I like to own music and believe it's important to buy music.

There were, however, some notable drawbacks of Spotify. Regardless of the standard line that the adverts 'aren't very noticeable and don't come along very often' I did find them intrusive and annoying. I'm minded that I'm not a fan of commercial radio because of the adverts so I know I'm not particularly objective. I also found the visual adverts that would occupy the entire screen were extremely annoying because there didn't seem to be any obvious way to deal with them. Again maybe I was just missing something? In Spotify's defense there is a premium subscription for people like me who don't like the adverts, and the iPhone application that comes with this subscription is attractive, but at the moment I can not justify the expenditure. I guess that means I'll put up with the adverts.

Again I'd reiterate that a web-based application would be ideal and would greatly improve the appeal of the service. However the quality of continuous playback over WiFi using a client application is exceptional so I guess that is a price worth paying.

My friend who introduced me to Spotify was right: Last.fm does seem so 2008 (said in 2008)! It's got a lot of work to do to either catch up or significantly differential itself. One note on Last.fm, it does now incorporate copious adverts so at least a commercial platform is being established.

South Liverpool Rehearsal Orchestra Christmas Concert 2009

2009-12-15T10:34:00.000+00:00

A couple of weeks ago I posted my initial thoughts on Schubert's Unfinished Symphony. To this day I'm still confused as to whether what we played was his seventh or his eighth? Perhaps someone will be able to enlighten me?

The opening movement of the symphony was used as the opening to our Christmas concert. In a similar setup to my previous concert with SLRO, it was held at Allerton's United Reform Church in Liverpool and was a joint concert with the Liverpool Oriel Singers. The programme consisted of five traditional Christmas Carols arranged by Sir David Wilcox, the first movement of Schubert's symphony, The Minuet and Trio from Haydn's 101 Symphony and four movements from Handel's Messiah. The Oriel singers also performed a couple of songs (the names of which unfortunately escape me) and the concert ended with a rather dubious 'horse whinny' by yours truly. Unforgettable that was not!

The concert on the whole was a success. More audience participation seems to help, as they stood and sang the carols and had bits and pieces to do in some of the songs (12 Days of Christmas was particularly good). With only four movements of Messiah performed I can duck out and say there wasn't enough on which to base an opinion! I was also solely concerned with the rather exposed, high and prolonged Trumpet section in the Hallelujah chorus to really take anything else in. For those in the know, they'll agree there's a lot to be said for shallow mouthpieces!

I really like the Schubert, especially the opening movement. From the first time I heard the main theme I was hooked. I think my previous posting was after the first week or rehearsals and I'd deliberately held back from voicing too much of an opinion. The more we played the movement the more I started to really appreciate it. The themes are very lyrical and capture a conservative sense of adventure; engaging and driving yet refined and alluring to deeper, more exiting things.

I enjoy playing Trumpet parts in orchestras. There's often not a great deal to do, but in music such as the Unfinished, the fanfare nature of the trumpet part really adds to the music. It also gives me an opportunity to listen to other parts of the orchestra. I like being able to hear how the first and second violins interact with each other, how the viola bridges the gap between violin and cello and how 'good' cello writing can be listened to all night! This was something as a school pupil I knew I was supposed to be able to appreciate, but I've found it wasn't until joining this orchestra that I do.

There was also an unexpected development that came out of the concert: playing carols and melody in general really emphasised that orchestral playing hasn't returned me to the level I was playing at when still at a school and university level. My lips are woefully short of stamina! I suppose there's a few options I can take to address that, most of which will require more commitment to playing.

I do like playing Christmas music. It reminds me of standing on the corner of Doncaster's main High Street interchange alternating between Traditional and Contemporary Christmas music to appeal to all passers by, counting our rewards with frozen fingers before retreating to the pub! Happy Days!

Sky Sports on the iPhone. Heaven! (Part 1)

2009-12-04T16:23:00.006+00:00

It's nothing short of miraculous. Sport, on a phone. The holy grail of a geek in denial!

Last month Sky Sports and o2 got together to offer this excellent innovation in broadcasting, offering an initial 3 month free trial as the carrot to the £6/month stick to view Sky Sports and ESPN through an iPhone! My first impression was somewhere along the lines of 'that looks cool and it's free, I'll give it a go'. However I had my suspicions regarding watch TV and live sport, on a phone. Following the success of TVCatchup.com, I perhaps shouldn't have been!

Somewhat masked by a live shot of cricket, the photo doesn't do the quality of picture justice. It would also have helped with my 'real time' plug had there actually been any live cricket, but the match today against South Africa was rained off (still we won).

So far about 3 weeks into my trial I've watched a few cricket games and a couple of football games. The only stipulation o2 have made is that it needs a WiFi connection to stream, which I can understand, even if TVCatchup.com doesn't. As long as there's a good signal the streaming it perfect.

There is one further test I'd like to do before passing final judgement. I'm trying to get hold of an Apple Composite TV cable to see what it's like streaming the iPhone feed onto a TV. If that's successful I might be tempted to pay the £6 charge (more than 66% cheaper than the cost for Sky Sports on the TV).

I'll post again after testing...

Welcome to Stanley Park, home of Leverton!

2009-11-26T10:17:00.000+00:00

Is it the truth that dare not speak it's name? The facetious merging of Liverpool and Everton Football Clubs aside, is a Stanley Park ground-share not just the obvious solution to the cities stadia problems, but the only solution? I believe it is...

Traditional views, stereotypes and negative thinking often hampers change; especially volatile and dynamic change that challenges the way the world is today. This is particularly evident when discussing the taboo that is a shared ground in Stanley Park for both Liverpool's football clubs. The reason for the taboo: the fans don't like it. I can probably be rightly accused of having a bit of an issue with football fans and their positioning within a football club, my post outlining essentially why football fans aren't important would be a good indication. It's not that a hate football fans (I consider myself as one), more the outdated way in which they are perceived and the influence they have upon how a football club is run.

Looking at the ground share concept, that fans do not want to share a stadium with their city rivals is a reasonable concern. In an ideal world they would not need to. However the utopian Liverpool as depicted by so many of the football fans of the city is about to held up to scrutiny.

A consultation period has been afforded and the views expressed but that should not stop the concept being explored further. In particularly I'd like to see the city, the football clubs and the fans look into the consequences of a ground share. Doom and gloom will inevitably be the predication but objective analysis and rational thinking may well prevail. For example, a common argument is that 'I could not sit in the Liverpool home end during an Everton match where the away fans didn't take up their allocation of tickets'. Why? Would it really be that bad? The colour of the seats is also a common concern - paint them all black then!

The identity of both clubs isn't primarily associated with their grounds anymore. Both have new and modern training facilities that act as a strong-hold for the club. An oasis and somewhere they can call home on a day-by-day basis. The clubs train there, eat there, relax there and only use the stadium to play matches. Having a stadium as an identity is nice but both clubs are beyond nice in their searches for improved facilities. Facilities is also a key word in the debate: a football stadium alone is no longer sufficient for the 21st century. Additional, complementary facilities are required as well: community centre, conferencing, hospitality, retail...the list goes on!

Tackling each issue such as the example above will only help gain a consensus on whether a ground share really would be feasible. Would the fans boycott? Perhaps for the first game or two, but forever? And even if they did, would there be other fans waiting to take their seats? Arguably yes there would.

Again in reference to early postings of mine, the fans aren't the most important stakeholders of a modern premiership club a the mission, objective and strategies of these clubs are more wide ranging that just football (if you think that sounds like business-speak, there's a reason for that!). Sponsors, TV companies and other sources of commercial revenue are what makes the business of a football club run. These stakeholders do not come with the same amount of sentimental baggage as a football fan. That isn't a criticism of fans but a fact.

Radical change is sometimes needed to achieve the progress and change that is desired. Incremental change has it's place and is effective in lots of situations. I'd like the catalyst for change to determine the method used to achieve change and for that to be driving force of change.

Share a ground, realise the benefits and act accordingly. The fans will follow suit...

Geek Alert: Google Chrome OS

2009-11-20T09:58:00.002+00:00

I absolutely love Google. I'd like to think I can still be objective when talking about their products and services, but as I agree so much with their philosophy and innovative view of the future I'm not sure whether I'm being objective or subjective! In short I like Google so much because they are the future, they are going to revolutionise the way we use technology and unlike Microsoft before them, I'm able to be a part of it. That sounds yuk, but you get my drift!

That's why I'm so excited to get my hands on Google's Chrome OS. Chrome OS is basically an operating system (alternative to Windows XP and 7 etc.) for people who spend all of their time on the web. It has been designed with the Netbook computers in mind. Netbooks have become increasingly popular in the past 12 months as they strip away non-essential hardware, weight and functionality from a laptop that is only used to browse the web. They become lighter, smaller, more portable and most importantly cheaper than conventional laptops.

The Chrome OS builds upon the successful Google Chrome web browser, expanding it to become an entire operating system. It's key feature is that everything is web-based and run from within a web browser. All applications run within the Chrome OS are web applications. This fits nicely with Google's strategy for Mail, Calendar, Docs, and photos through Picasa etc. It also replaces the need for traditional applications like Microsoft Office that need installing and updating from CD. As Google have stated in the video and link below, the aim is to get connected to the web as quickly as possible. In essence Google Chrome turns the desktop computing concept on it's head in a similar way that Client/Server architecture did to Mainframe computing. Ironically the mainframe concept is not dissimilar to the 'cloud' concept and Software as a Service (SaaS) concepts that Google is developing.

There will inevitably be a downside: specialist computing such as music composition and photoshop editing will still require traditional laptops with sufficient processing capabilities. If netbooks do become mainstream then the traditional laptop is likely to become more niche and therefore expensive, which won't suit everyone. However Netbooks will allow affordable computing to households that we previously priced out of the laptop market and Chrome OS will further breakdown traditional barriers with its free web applications replacing paid for software such as Office (sorry to be so hard on office, but you're time is nearing an end!). Adverts while typing your letter or balancing your finances in web based spreadsheets will become common place, but that's a small price to pay for more affordable computing.

The excellent Official Google Blog introduces the new Chrome OS here, and the video below is taken from that post. It's one of the best explanatory videos for a new concept I've seen, and no surprise it's being used already in blogs and news reports all over the internet.

A defence of Thierry Henry

2009-11-19T15:20:00.006+00:00

I'm fairly certain that this is going to be a controversial posting. Not least because a defence of cheating isn't really going to be water tight. On which note I have a couple of caveats! Firstly the YouTube clip will probably disappear from the site as soon as TFL get round to complaining so apologies if the link is broken at some point in the future. Secondly, yes it's in French (all the English ones have already gone!). A full transcript is proving hard to come by, but The Globe and Mail have some quotes here:

“I will be honest, it was a handball. But I’m not the ref,” Henry said. “I played it. The ref allowed it. That’s a question you should ask him"

"We suffered for two years, we have been having some problems with our press, our fans, with other people,” Henry said. “It would have been better to do it in another way, but as I said, I’m not the ref...If they had got through it wouldn’t have been robbery (lucky)."

"We have a lot of respect for this team,” Henry said. “We knew they play long and like a physical battle. You saw tonight that they are a very good team. I played eight years in England and I can tell you they are.”

Cheating in sport is always an emotive subject and divides opinion. It is generally unwelcome yet common place, a juxtaposition that often leads to subjective and wide ranging guidelines on what is acceptable to form. A quick search in Google for 'examples of cheating in sport' returns examples of more famous acts of cheating, with The 7 Ballsiest Sports Cheats Ever and Cheater, cheater...The worst cases of sports cheating being the most prominent search results. However these 'famous' examples mask the regular examples of cheating that occur in sport, and football in particular, every week.

Robbie Savage was interviewed on several media outlets a couple of weeks ago insisting he would do 'whatever was necessary' to help his side (no quotes available on the internet unfortunately) in what was an uncommon admission that the people who play sport don't always play within the rules. I won't name them hear but there are at least two English International players who have a reputation for diving during games. Michael Owen 'went down easily' I think is the euphemism in order to win a penalty against Argentina at the 2002 World Cup and Sven Goran Eriksson was widely quoted by his players as having encouraged them to seek free kicks within David Beckham's range for free kicks. Neither example sending the nation into outrage.

Much effort has gone into addressing the issue of cheating in sport. The World Anti Doping Agency is probably the most prominent and professional organisation that exists to reduce cheating in sport, but regulation is increasingly being used in an attempt to combat cheating during play. The problems encountered through using regulation is that in order to apply it, the referee or official administering the laws is in effect calling the player a cheat. The concept that a professional sports person does not cheat therefore calls into question that players professionalism and ethical standing. All on the strength of someone else's subjective interpretation of their behaviour.

This is a particularly complex issue for an official to navigate through when players employ tactics to hide their cheating. A footballer who 'falls' over an opponents leg yet leaves their own leg trailing in order to make contact with their opponent is a particularly difficult person to discipline. At high speed and with only human judgement to aide, is it possible to decide in a split second whether the incident be a genuine foul or an act of 'simulation'? [introducing a euphemism for cheating isn't in my view making a clear statement that deception is cheating]. There isn't a retrospective science that can be applied to cheating within football that WADA benefits from in Athletics. Technology can provide more information on which a decision can be made, yet that decision is still a subjective one, even when it isn't (when is there ever a consensus on what 'obvious' is?).

So to Thierry Henry and his self-confessed act of cheating...

I can not and do not condone cheating and my defence of Henry here will not amount to such. My defence of the player is aligned to the media hysteria that has been generated and then venum that has been directed towards him as a result. It is also a defence against the disproportional view of his action that has been taken by a large amount of stakeholders for the sport.

There are several factors that need to be taken into consideration when viewing the incident yesterday (during the France v Ireland second leg play-off for the 2010 World Cup Final). Circumstance, timing, impact and consequence are factors that are used (rightly or wrongly) in the judgement of a person's cheating within sport. When W.G Grace was bowled first ball in an exhibition match and retorted the bowling elation with 'Young Lad, they've come to see me ball not you bowl' before retaking his place at the crease, hysteria was not forthcoming (yes a different age a different media, but...). Hysteria was not appropriate because it was an exhibition match, it was the first ball he'd received, it would have caused a major disappointment for the people who had paid to watch him bat and there was little in the way of consequence (unless you were the bowler or his team mates!).

The reaction in England to Michael Owen's penalty against Argentina? Nothing compared to the reaction given to Diego Simeone who fell to the ground after David Beckham had kicked him four year's earlier. The reasons for such a difference in feeling relate to the factors identified above.

When a player handles the ball on his own half way line when 3v0 down, what happens? A free kick. Same player, same incident in the opposition penalty area? A free kick with perhaps a few acknowledging voices from the opposition defends, glad the dangerous play has ended. So to the same incident in that player's own penalty area? Mayhem? Hysteria? Arm-waving? Gesticulation? Suddenly the circumstance, the impact and consequences have changed. A theoretical example it may be, but one a lot of people will be able to relate to.

Intention is another factor that has to be considered. The general view is that positive intent coupled with cheating is the worst form of cheating. I would not counter that. I would, however, refer back to the subjective nature of determining intent as an issue to consider before passing judgement.

Thierry Henry handled the ball twice, in the opposition penalty area, in the last minute of extra time to create the goal that knocked out Ireland and sent France through. The only factor missing is intent. The most subjective factor and the most difficult to prove. General consensus deems the second handball to be deliberate. Again, so difficult to prove but even if it was a conscious act it was almost certainly not premeditated. The reaction time between Henry seeing the ball, it hitting his hand the first time to him handling the ball the second is factions of a second. How much time does it take to make a conscious decision? Is it understood what effect the first handball has upon players who then handle the ball a second time? In such a short period of time do they feel justification? Just scraping the surface of the issues that surround those two acts bring doubt.

The second part to examine is reaction: the reaction of the player, the officials, media and fans. What should Henry have done after the goal was scored? How should he have reacted? There are no rules, no guidelines and little precedent of action other than that of which he took. To deem his actions as wrong is to apply your own personal rules and guidelines and then judge accordingly. No-one would want that to happen to them in other areas of their lives.

The only stakeholder in that situation that does have rules that govern how they react are the officials. The officials reacted to the best of their ability and the rest, as they say...

I understand the arguments that surround cheating, that you should not do it and that no matter what mitigating arguments I put forward here, it was still cheating and as such is wrong. My defence of Thierry Henry is based around the fact that cheating is an accepted part of sport, if it wasn't it would not happen and that a player should not be vilified because his cheating came at a prominent part of an important game.

Only if it is ever proven that it is feasible to remove cheating from sport will there ever be any real attempt to remove it. Until such time, please lay off Henry because you feel aggrieved. After all, he was dignified enough to admit it.

Beyonce: 2 hour master-class!

2009-11-17T10:44:00.000+00:00

There's a lot to be learnt from being under the influence. Decisions made in such circumstances always allow the inevitable get out of jail clause to be used alongside the 'perception' of hindsight, but sometimes the truth of the matter is that inebriation can offer judgement more astute than the conscious mind. That explaining the reason I found myself at a Beyonce gig, the scepticism was left at the proverbial door.

Granted I didn't really 'get' quite a few of her songs, the screaming kids or incessant military policing of said 14 year old's, but that aside I found her show a thorough masterclass for others to aspire to. Comparing dishcloths to cravats isn't always helpful, but the last ever [question mark] gig of Oasis' at the V Festival that I witnessed left me feeling that even as an aspiration Beyonce was just too ludicrous to even contemplate.

My expectations admittedly were low; a Kylie-inspired dance-a-thon and upmarket karaoke perhaps? It didn't even enter my mind there may be a costume change! (I stopped counting at 10) and as for singing live......? My ultimate feeling was that I wasn't sure what a singer such as Beyonce could offer that was worth the cost of attending. I found out.

The dance routines alone were worthy of commendation and the live singing flawless but the enegry and execution at which they were both seamlessly combined left me feeling very humbled. Not that I can properly comment having only seen it on YouTube out of curiosity, but Cheryl Cole's 'live' performance on the X Factor leaves so much to be desired.

Beyonce sang for a full two hours, with the occasional song's rest to accommodate costume changes. Her ballads had a air of Whitney Houston about them, thankfully minus the contemporary tendency to 'over-blow' (she avoids screaming merely because her voice can) and offers genuinely lyrical melodies that even in a huge reverberating stadium are fantastic to experience. The more up tempo numbers are delivered with a commanding control that belies the rigour of the dance routines and are appreciated beyond belief by a hugely energetic, shrilled audience.

Her band was the single most impressive band I've heard since (and I almost dare not say) some of the latin numbers executed so exceptionally by the Strictly Come Dancing house band! (Both bands really are that good!). The fact Beyonce employs an all female band is secondary to their talent and the only worthy observation on the subject is other musician's reluctance to follow suit. They were tight, dynamic and played a range of different styles. For all the dancing her Trumpet player indulged in whilst performing, I would have had to mime!

Stevie Wonder aside, I can't think of an artist currently performing who could achieve the same level of success and produce quality in so many different areas: vocals, dancing, style, stardom, humility were all on show in abundance and you left feeling privileged to have experienced them. A gentle dig into her background and upbringing suggest a Michael Jackson-esque talent nurtured and guided from an early age that involved primarily hard work and talent. Whatever the cost of such upbringing it has paid untold dividends.

A hugely likeable personality with a show second to only the legend who is Stevie Wonder. It was not what I was expecting but I'm extremely happy it's what I got!

[YouTube clip is taken from Tara Welsh, shot at a Beyonce gig in Liverpool and chosen virtue of the only clip I could find of any quality and primarily to showcase live vocals]

Tasks v Calendars: Why can't tasks have reminders?

2009-11-04T15:37:00.008+00:00

** WARNING: RANT ALERT! **

I've tried hard to keep rants to a minimum: suppressing anger until it can be reflected upon and emerge as a coherent and consise (if a little damning and judgemental) posting. Posts on Referees in Football, Cricket Referrals and Why Fans Aren't Important in Football spring to mind. I hope others agree that they're more thoughtfull than spleen-venting electronic anger! Up until now these postings have been reserved for sport-related topics but I can't hold back on my loathing of tasks any longer!

If I had one question to ask anyone in the world right now it would be this:

"Why can't tasks have reminders in them?"

I've searched the web a bit for a definition of Tasks and Events (or more a distinction between the two) and not been able to find any. However I don't think it's too difficult to suggest a couple myself. I believe an event can be described as 'something that has or will happen'. A Task in contrast is probably adequately described as 'something that has to happen'. That's adequate in respect that it could be more concisely described were I not to make the link between the two obvious ('something' and 'happen').

Definition aside the real differences between the two categories is functionality: events have people, places, resources and reminders associated with them, whether you are in Microsoft Outlook or Google Calendar. Likewise, non-application specific Tasks share descriptions, due dates and status categories. These seem like sensible enough features and appropriate to each category. I doubt a task (cancel the milk, phone the estate agent or finish the draft strategy document) really needs people, resources, scheduling re-occurrences etc. Neither would you expect to need to mark off an event 'corporate hospitality at the football' as complete after the final whistle! I do believe, however, that there is a place for reminders in tasks.

As someone capable of forgetting my front door in the event I'm not actually looking at it, tasks are important to me. I write down almost everything that is asked of me in a working environment, less I would forget the instant my mind wandered inevitably towards food! Anything not work-related tends to end up as an event in Google Calendar as I use the SMS reminder feature. But they're not events as such (and defined above) they're most definitely tasks. When Google released their Task application I was excited and started to use it. After a couple of days I forgot about it and it wasn't until a chance encounter a week or so later that I remembered it even existed and then came the realisation of what I'd forgotten to do. Each tasks was neatly described and assigned a due date, for what is was worth. That worth turned out to be nothing as it relied on me checking the list every day to see what needed to be done.

For me a task is not something that should take a large amount of planning, if any. Therefore I find it's best to schedule it for the time I want to execute the task. Having a reminder go off at that time allows that to happen. I get a text, it reminds me to book the tickets so I pick up the phone/find the website and away I go! It seems such a logical and obvious feature I can't believe it's not standard across all applications. Tasks invariably live with Events so the capability is there. It leaves me at an infuriated loss!

I would love to know why reminders are included in Tasks. Does anyone know?

Catch Up by Name, Real time in everything but...

2009-10-15T09:34:00.013+01:00

Like most people I suspect, new technology tends to politely step forward and introduce itself in a couple of ways: RSS and other internet related mediums and the good, old fashioned word-of-mouth. Through an old friend from my music days in Doncaster on Facebook, I was introduced to TVCatchup.com. It appears that I'm slightly behind the times as browsing some of the forums it seems like the site has been up for well over a year! However a new and recent addition to their service offering, and the way I stumbled across TVCatchup.com is their iPhone offering. Although currently in beta, my first impressions are that you could not wish for a more simple yet effective service. Simply navigate through your safari browser on the iPhone to iphone.tvcatchup.com and from the main menu select the channel you wish to watch. A video stream then loads and away you go!

As of posting the channels available on the iPhone are: BBC's One/Two/Three, ITV's 1 and 2, Channel4, Five, Film Four, E4, More4 and 4Music. The website has a few more channels to offer, listed here.

I've tested the service on my phone a couple of times now: firstly in the office on a 8MB connection, then my home network which is 2MB. Connection over WiFi seems fine. The feed is naturally a few seconds behind that of live TV. While watching the England v Belarus game on ITV1 the TVCatchup feed on my phone was 40 seconds behind. Football is a useful medium to compare as it has a timer on the screen! In the office I could only compare what was on the BBC's website for BBC One and that was a shorter delay, maybe 10 seconds. In the grand scheme of things the delay isn't really any sort of issue, such is the quality and near real time programming provided.

I've heard a couple of other reviews from people using it in more remote locations: The BBC's Rory Cellen-Jones used it on the train with a 3G connection

and had a few time-out issues. In his defence he also said the iphone radio service WunderRadio (another fantastic iPhone app) suffered a similar fate. I can testify to as much when using it on trains. Other tweets experienced similar success to mine, as @allaboutiphone's screenshot can testify.

Overall the iPhone offering (it's not technically an app as it's only available through the safari browser) is in my mind a success; especially considering it's still in beta. I was a bit surprised that I didn't have to sign up to anything to view the iPhone feed, and there were also no signs of commercial revenue generation either (sign-up fee, ads etc.). Perhaps this is still due to the service being in beta. Singing up for an account on the website did answer a lot of my questions, if leaving the biggest one unanswered.

The website is sleek and simple. You can view the channels that are available and a TV guide without needing an account. You can also view the forum messages without signing up. Understandably to watch any channels, sign in is required. This is why my questions began to flow and answers became slightly confusing.

Upon signing up the first thing you encounter is a message congratulating you on your ISP (named) is compatible with TVCatchup. Good to know in that I can use the system, but I'm extremely intrigued as to why this is an issue. I can assume it has something to do with rights or access, but it is bemusing why this is decided at the ISP level? I've looked through the forums but can't find any answers there either. Will probably post a message and report back...

Signing up for the website did answer questions as well as creating them. Before watching my first stream there was a 30 second TV advert (for Smirdoff Vodka). That's the business model and revenue generation thing addressed. As part of the sign-up states they will never charge for the service, I guess all their eggs are in the advertising basket.

T+C's were interesting: small capital letters with a grey font against a white background. In other words 'we don't really want you to read these'. Naturally I did, as I wasn't sure whether this service was a) legal and b) underpinned by the TV licence. It appears the answer to both is yes, although interestingly there is no burden of proof to ensure you have a valid licence to watch the channels. This is not dissimilar to the BBC iPlayer or 4onDemand, although both offerings are provided by organisations that already adhere to licensing. Students are exempt from this provided a pre-requisite check of 1000's of loopholes can be satisfactorily answered!

I've only used the site for a very short space of time so I don't know the frequency of adverts or any other restrictions. I will report back these in due course. Even though the football was not a major international match, I was pleasantly surprised the system stood up well and didn't crash. That's in no way vindication of the rest of the site but it's a good omen that reliability issues will be kept to a minimum.

So the big question: why is it called catch up TV when you can't watch any historical programming? I'm not complaining as I'd much prefer a live feed over an amalgamated 'on demand' service, but it does interest me (infuriate if I'm honest!). Again the website doesn't provide any answers so I'll keep working away at that one too.

To conclude then, an excellent first impression of an innovative and void filling offering. I do hope it's legal and that they continue to innovate and improve their service offering. Hopefully technological advances can iron out some of the 3G issues reported by some users when on the move. That'd be good for more than just this application.

UPDATE: Bizarrely, no sooner had I posted this then I followed a link on Twitter to TVCatchup's FAQ's. These answer a lot of my questions! (thanks to allaboutiphone.net)

HulloMail is good, but is it a short-term answer to Google Voice?

2009-10-07T16:17:00.008+01:00

Yesterday I stumbled across HulloMail for the first time. (To reference all my sources correctly, it was through an article in The Register that had been posted on Twitter by @allaboutiphone). In short, HulloMail is a service that diverts your voicemail away from the default offering provided by your mobile phone provider to HulloMail. The primary advantage of such a service is that is offers the next generation of voicemail; something only O2 in the UK through the iPhone can even attempt to match through their Visual Voicemail. Essentially visual voicemail works like email in that it gives you a view of who has left a message and the date/time so you can choose what messages you listen to.

Not subscribing to the O2 pay-monthly iPhone tariff visual voicemail is one of the few features of the iPhone that isn't available to me. HulloMail offers a free workaround of this service, and in my opinion it is already better than the iPhone's offering. Firstly, HulloMail uses Gmail technology to store your voicemail messages as mp3's and then emails them directly to your Inbox. You can access your voicemail from any internet enabled location, even when you don't have your mobile to hand. It also offers a customisable text messaging service which is similar to O2's, in that when you have a new voicemail, it send you an SMS and you can call the phone number (local 01 number too!) and listen to your message. It will also tell you if someone called but didn't leave a message. This doesn't interfere with the missed call function on your iPhone, so a full audit of sent/received calls is still available.

An impressive additional feature is that you can sync your contacts with Google and other providers, so instead of a list of numbers you can see names of people who've left you a message. This sounds straight forward when you consider listening to messages from your phone, but it takes on a different and more impressive function when you're checking your messages through your email! In Gmail, HulloMail will also create and label and label all messages as well; keeping things neat and tidy!

The upshot of this new approach is that your voicemail is now more accessible, with greater control over how you listen to your messages and has the added, and

probably key, benefit of being stored forever and simply to retrieve! It's a bold and innovative move from HulloMail and one that I'm sure will catch on to other, bigger players in the market place before too long. Which brings me to my second point...

Like most people who consider themselves to be cool, but in fact others would probably judge as Geeky or techy, I sign up to a lot of innovative service in the beta stage. (I'm currently waiting either to be invited by Google directly to test Google Wave, or for my invite from a very kind @artinliverpool for the invite they sent me to come through!) One service I was looking forward to getting a sneak preview of was Google Voice. Unfortunately when it did come through I was left disappointed as it's currently only available in beta in the US. (I might change my language settings to US, see if that works!)

From the preview information and marketing copy I can find of Google Voice, it's very similar to HulloMail. However and unfortunately for HulloMail, the list of additional features is also very impressive! In addition to shared features of being able to listen to voicemail on the web and receive notifications via email and SMS, Google offers voicemail transcripts to SMS and email as well as a host of calling features, conference calls, call screening and just about everything else you could wish for! The demo really does look exciting (if you like that sort of thing).

I've always been something of a loyal customer when it comes to technology: not afraid to change, but willing to stick with what I've found good service in the past. In theory that should persuade me to stick with HulloMail over Google Voice, but I suspect I won't. As I've posted about previously, I'm a big Google fan. Not only do I like their approach and the applications and services they produce, but increasingly it is becoming easier to adopt Google's version of the latest technology because I'm using so many other Google applications already! (one notable exception is the Andriod phone, but I'm not ruling it out). People may cite Microsoft as a dangerous precedent, but I believe that Google leant many lessons from how Microsoft developed during the 90's and have built a strategy that tries to ensure they won't repeat their mistakes. Their pricing and commercial model, for example, is so different, they shouldn't be labelled as Monopolists (is that a correct noun?) quite as readily as Microsoft were.

However, no amount of Google praising and reassurances that they will be a 'different' will be of much comfort for the likes of HulloMail. A great, innovative product built by small team of both technical and entrepreneurial minds, but still under a very real threat of trailing in the dirt of the new corporate machine.

Schubert: Symphony Number 8 in B Minor (Unfininished)

2009-10-02T09:21:00.002+01:00

The season has restarted for the South Liverpool Rehearsal Orchestra (SLRO) so I thought I'd continue to discuss the repertoire as the year progresses. First up is Franz Schubert's Symphony Number 8 in B Minor. My limited knowledge of Music History (A Level Grade C) informs me that this is the 'famous' Unfinished symphony. It's left to Wikipedia to provide further explanation: to summarise no-one really knows why it remained unfinished, despite Schubert living a further six years after the first two movements were written. Of all the reasons suggested (a finale was written but used in his incidental music to Rosamunde and a scherzo does exist but only sketched in Piano form) the theory that seems most realistic is that the form of the symphony was not common for a Viennese composer of his time:

One possible reason for Schubert's leaving the symphony incomplete is the predominance of the same meter (three-in-a-bar). The first movement is in 3/4, the second in 3/8 and the third (an incomplete scherzo) also in 3/4.

In terms of my first impressions of the symphony (we've only played it once thus far), I'm primarily glad my part is written in Bb! I've always struggled with transposition and this hasn't changed since starting to play regularly again. I haven't really formed an opinion as of yet and will probably update this post over the course of our rehearsals. This post is primarily a selfish one in that it affords me an opportunity to look into the background of some of the music we play, hopefully in an attempt to enhance my interpretation and own performance. This is something I've decided might be a good idea having heard Alison Balsom's rendition of Haydn's Trumpet Concerto during the Last Night of the Proms. My Grade 6 and 8 recitals weren't quite the same!