Dave the Chameleon

Dave the Chameleon, absolutely brilliant stuff from the people that brought us such classics as the war in Iraq and Third World debt cancellation. A very cute mini-film ala Pixar about David Cameron and the very much hyped belief that he changes his opinion depending on whom he is addressing (isn’t that the very definition of a politician?). I really like this, among the style of recent ads where political parties realised that no one likes nasty, this ad manages to be appealing and negative (and seems to be and idea the Tories had themselves).

DaveDaveDave Dave Dave

I see the point made by Mark Lawson that people may think this a little too cute and think higher of Dave than is intended:

In short, Dave is the kind of character that viewers may well love. An office straw poll suggests that the message – you can’t trust the Tories – is undermined by the essential charm of mini-Dave, and the reliance on an overly complex idea. Yes, his namesake is transforming the party, but it’s only superficial. The danger is that the first part of that proposition is more striking than the second. The advert even highlights one of Cameron’s assets – his green credentials, reinforced by his willingness to cycle to work.


However, a point made later in the article, and a viewpoint I share, is that political advertising rarely makes much of a difference anyway.

“There is a myth about political advertising,” warned Philip Gould, New Labour’s polling and marketing guru, in his book The Unfinished Revolution. “Advertising has an effect but it is small and rarely decisive. It is certain that in four of the last five elections, advertising did not materially influence the result.

So if advertising doesn’t really matter then one might as well make it fun eh? In much the same way that large corporates don’t really advertise to increase sales, more remind people of their status and power. I for one think this trend should continue. Gordon Brown and John Prescott anyone?

web two point oh

As much as I am excited about new developments in the world of the interweb; flickr, youtube, digg, delicious…etc. I can’t but help think that the rush towards web 2.0 gold might have a touch of the March 2000s about it. Sure these services are really good and there is definately a tidal shift occurring in how we interact with the internet, but myspace worth gazillions? del.icio.us worth $15-20 million? I know markets just lurv growth rates and tend to dislike guaranteed sales within a narrow profit margin, but everyone made this mistake 6 years ago.

web 2.0

Yes, 25 people can run a company that has millions of users, and yes they can be loved and regarded as brilliant. But when you have 35,000 videos being uploaded a day with very little money incoming (apart from VC cash) then surely there is only so long this can last? Ah yes, advertising, that’ll save us. But why is this always seen as the golden child? If in doubt, google ads, but when do most net savvy users actually click on them? I am all for hyper targeted advertising, but probably will trust a blogger’s recommendation, than the ads placed on their site.

As you can see, it’s not that easy to get on a growth path and keep going. As for those spikes? Well, that’s just us (the technophiles) screwing around and playing with this stuff.

From: Reality Check 2.0

Maybe I am being a bit ‘bah humbug’ about this all, but I just can’t see how these companies are supposed to make any profit beyond covering the costs of hosting.

Don’t get me wrong, I think we are really in a web renaissance at the moment and are on the verge of seeing the web operating at its much hyped potential. Many of the new services have made my web experience much richer, but would I pay for them? Would I accept massively intrusive banner ads? Generally I see the system working on a socially beneficial level and on a much more micro level, not a monetary behemoth one. The moment people feel a service has been compromised by over-advertising, overly harsh controls or simply overuse, then a clone will pop up somewhere else (facebook, magnolia, google video) and the process will start all over again. I suppose my main beef with the way web 2.0 is going, is the hijacking by greedy corporates looking to make a quick buck.

I suppose that’s the nature of the beast, where there is genuine excitment and inovation, there will be dollar signs flashing in people’s eyes.

Hache – burgerlicious



24 Inverness Street – Camden

Wow, now that’s a burger. Its my birthday today, so I decided to treat myself to a lunch. I had heard that Haché in Camden is meant to be the best gourmet burger restaurant in London, so there was really no competition to where I was going to go today.

The place is an excellent little restaurant (in the true sense of the word, not the McVersion), very cosy and comfortable yet still remaining functional (in a naughties eclectic, Japanese/Conran fusion sort of a way). Service was excellent and the choices wide, although for me it wasn’t difficult, always in these situations I plan to go for the exotic, only to come back to the down right traditional (The Canadian – steak, cheese and dry cure).

The food was quite excellent. Although a traditional construct, the taste was anything but, the addition of rocket really balanced the taste (as in many burgers the meat can sometimes be a little overpowering). All in all it was quite incredible. I had to take a break from time to time just to allow the two opposing forces inside me to decide on whether to devour the burger or simply marvel at it.

Of course the devouring won.


Really like this concept, imagining a world where objects, all objects (or at least a lot of them) produce data.

In everyware, the garment, the room and the street become sites of processing and mediation. Household objects from shower stalls to coffee pots are reimagined as places where facts about the world can be gathered, considered, and acted upon. And all the familiar rituals of daily life, things as fundamental as the way we wake up in the morning, get to work, or shop for our groceries, are remade as an intricate dance of information about ourselves, the state of the external world, and the options available to us at any given moment.

In all of these scenarios, there are powerful informatics underlying the apparent simplicity of the experience, but they never breach the surface of awareness: things Just Work. Rather than being filtered through the clumsy arcana of applications and files and sites, interactions with everyware feel natural, spontaneous, human. Ordinary people finally get to benefit from the full power of information technology, without having to absorb the esoteric bodies of knowledge on which it depends. And the sensation of use even while managing an unceasing and torrential flow of data is one of calm, of relaxed mastery.

The appeal of all this is easy to understand. Who wouldn’t desire a technology that promised to smooth the edges of modern life, subtly intervening on our behalf to guide us when we’re lost, and remind us of the things we’ve forgotten? Who could object to one that dispensed with the clutter of computers and other digital devices we live with, even while doing all the things they do better?

Similar to this pdf titled ‘A Manifesto for Networked Objects- Cohabiting with Pigeons, Arphids and Aibos in the Internet of Thingsby Bruce Sterling. by Julian Bleecker, a professor at USC.

Could you imagine the shear amount of data that is going to be available and accessible? At first I found it difficult to understand how we could possibly manage this torrent of data and I still have concerns about how we could process such a volume.

How do you avoid being flickr’d? How do you insure that you get flickr’d? Will flickr’ing cameras self-aggregate their photographic coverage, automatically discovering the flickr feeds of all the other cameras that were nearby them — at the fireworks show, or during the firehouse picnic — using NFC or Bluetooth
proximity-based networking?

All of these possibilities seem great, but I still see the need for an extremely powerful and knowledgeable layer that sits between this ‘Internet of Things’ and ourselves. In the same way that many people currently experience the Internet from a core base of about 5 websites (or so I have heard), a kind of self-imposed filter allowing access to the wider web. This relationship between user and website is extremely trustful and a similar relationship would need to exist between the user and this filtering layer (whatever form that takes). Due to the amount of data, this layer would need some form of programming about the users preferences and needs. Such needs would naturally change throughout the day, depending on mood, anxiety, personal and professional needs as well as other criteria.

Such needs seem to suggest that this layer would need to learn and grow with us, its teacher, constantly adjusting it’s knowledge about ourselves.

That level of interaction is somewhat interesting and many questions raise themselves. It questions the notion of our perception of ourselves, for example if such a layer exists and must learn from us, it is in essence part of us (or at least a microcosm of our identity), what if we don’t like what we see in said layer. What if it is fundamentally different to what our own perception is of ourselves? Also, what level of emotional training is necessary. Should the layer need to know when we are angry, happy, sad etc, should it make suggestions based on these moods, does it need to?

Maybe I am taking this issue a little far, but for such an interaction to be useful there would need to be a level of automation. It’s how far that level is taken that decides the complexity.

Pick two

old consultant’s addage … fast, cheap, good … pick 2

Why oh why is it so difficult to get that concept across? I always try to convey this concept when working on a project but its like some kind of mental block. Like…..’why can’t we do it like Google?’…..’er because thier R&D budget is $.5billion ours is $0 (GDP0)’.

List of English words invented by Shakespeare

List of English words invented by Shakespeare

Originally via Wikipedia

William Shakespeare introduced more words into English than all other poets of his lifetime combined. Although it is often difficult to determine the true origin of a word, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) verified the following words Shakespeare originated or words that he was the first to use in print.

  • Academe
  • accessible
  • accommodation
  • addiction (Shakespeare meant ‘tendency’)
  • admirable
  • aerial (Shakespeare meant ‘of the air’)
  • airless
  • amazement
  • anchovy
  • arch-villain
  • to arouse
  • assassination
  • auspicious
  • bacheolorship (‘bachelorhood’)
  • to barber
  • barefaced
  • baseless
  • batty (Shakespeare meant ‘bat-like’)
  • beachy (‘beach-covered’)
  • to bedabble
  • to bedazzle
  • bedroom (Shakespeare meant a ‘room in bed’)
  • to belly (‘to swell’)
  • belongings
  • to besmirch
  • to bet
  • to bethump
  • birthplace
  • black-faced
  • to blanket
  • bloodstained
  • bloodsucking
  • blusterer
  • bodikins (‘little bodies’)
  • bold-faced
  • braggartism
  • brisky
  • broomstaff (‘broom-handle’)
  • budger (‘one who budges’)
  • bump (as a noun)
  • buzzer (Shakespeare meant ‘tattle-tale’)
  • to cake
  • candle holder
  • to canopy
  • to cater (as ‘to bring food’)
  • to castigate
  • catlike
  • to champion
  • characterless
  • cheap (in pejorative sense of ‘vulgar’)
  • chimney-top
  • chopped (Shakespeare meant ‘chapped’)
  • churchlike
  • circumstantial
  • cold-blooded
  • coldhearted
  • compact (as noun ‘agreement’)
  • to comply
  • to compromise (Shakespeare meant ‘to agree’)
  • consanguineous
  • control (as a noun)
  • coppernose (‘a kind of acne’)
  • countless
  • courtship
  • to cow (as ‘intimidate’)
  • critical
  • cruelhearted
  • to cudgel
  • Dalmatian
  • to dapple
  • dauntless
  • dawn (as a noun)
  • day’s work
  • deaths-head
  • defeat (the noun)
  • to denote
  • depositary (as ‘trustee’)
  • dewdrop
  • dexterously (Shakespeare spelled it ‘dexteriously’)
  • disgraceful (Shakespeare meant ‘unbecoming’)
  • to dishearten
  • to dislocate
  • distasteful (Shakespeare meant ‘showing disgust’)
  • distrustful
  • dog-weary
  • doit (a Dutch coin: ‘a pittance’)
  • domineering
  • downstairs
  • East Indies
  • to educate
  • to elbow
  • embrace (as a noun)
  • employer
  • employment
  • enfranchisement
  • engagement
  • to enmesh
  • enrapt
  • to enthrone
  • epileptic
  • equivocal
  • eventful
  • excitement (Shakespeare meant ‘incitement’)
  • expedience
  • expertness
  • exposure
  • eyeball
  • eyedrop (Shakespeare meant as a ‘tear’)
  • eyewink
  • fair-faced
  • fairyland
  • fanged
  • fap (‘intoxicated’)
  • farmhouse
  • far-off
  • fashionable
  • fashionmonger
  • fathomless (Shakespeare meant ‘too huge to be encircled by one’s arms’)
  • fat-witted
  • featureless (Shakespeare meant ‘ugly’)
  • fiendlike
  • to fishify (‘turn into fish’)
  • fitful
  • fixture (Shakespeare meant ‘fixing’ or setting ‘firmly in place’)
  • fleshment (‘the excitement of first success’)
  • flirt-gill (a ‘floozy’)
  • flowery (‘full of florid expressions’)
  • fly-bitten
  • footfall
  • foppish
  • foregone
  • fortune-teller
  • foul mouthed
  • Franciscan
  • freezing (as an adjective)
  • fretful
  • frugal
  • full-grown
  • fullhearted
  • futurity
  • gallantry (Shakespeare meant ‘gallant people’)
  • garden house
  • generous (Shakespeare meant ‘gentle,’ ‘noble’)
  • gentlefolk
  • glow (as a noun)
  • to glutton
  • to gnarl
  • go-between
  • to gossip (Shakespeare meant ‘to make oneself at home like a gossip—that is, a kindred spirit or a fast friend’)
  • grass plot
  • gravel-blind
  • gray-eyed
  • green-eyed
  • grief-shot (as ‘sorrow-stricken’)
  • grime (as a noun)
  • to grovel
  • gust (as a ‘wind-blast’)
  • half-blooded
  • to happy (‘to gladden’)
  • heartsore
  • hedge-pig
  • hell-born
  • to hinge
  • hint (as a noun)
  • hobnail (as a noun)
  • homely (sense ‘ugly’)
  • honey-tongued
  • hornbook (an ‘alphabet tablet’)
  • hostile
  • hot-blooded
  • howl (as a noun)
  • to humor
  • hunchbacked
  • hurly (as a ‘commotion’)
  • to hurry
  • idle-headed
  • ill-tempered
  • ill-used
  • impartial
  • to impede
  • imploratory (‘solicitor’)
  • import (the noun: ‘importance’ or ‘signifigance’)
  • inaudible
  • inauspicious
  • indirection
  • indistinguishable
  • inducement
  • informal (Shakespeare meant ‘unformed’ or ‘irresolute’)
  • to inhearse (to ‘load into a hearse’)
  • to inlay
  • to instate (Shakespeare, who spelled it ‘enstate,’ meant ‘to endow’)
  • inventorially (‘in detail’)
  • investment (Shakespeare meant as ‘a piece of clothing’)
  • invitation
  • invulnerable
  • jaded (Shakespeare seems to have meant ‘contemptible’)
  • juiced (‘juicy’)
  • keech (‘solidified fat’)
  • kickie-wickie (a derogatory term for a wife)
  • kitchen-wench
  • lackluster
  • ladybird
  • lament
  • land-rat
  • to lapse
  • laughable
  • leaky
  • leapfrog
  • lewdster
  • loggerhead (Shakespeare meant ‘blockhead’)
  • lonely (Shakespeare meant ‘lone’)
  • long-legged
  • love letter
  • lustihood
  • lustrous
  • madcap
  • madwoman
  • majestic
  • malignancy (Shakespeare meant ‘malign tendency’)
  • manager
  • marketable
  • marriage bed
  • militarist (Shakespeare meant ‘soldier’)
  • mimic (as a noun)
  • misgiving (sense ‘uneasiness’)
  • misquote
  • mockable (as ‘deserving ridicule’)
  • money’s worth (‘money-worth’ dates from the 14th century)
  • monumental
  • moonbeam
  • mortifying (as an adjective)
  • motionless
  • mountaineer (Shakespeare meant as ‘mountain-dweller’)
  • to muddy
  • neglect (as a noun)
  • to negotiate
  • never-ending
  • newsmonger
  • nimble-footed
  • noiseless
  • nook-shotten (‘full of corners or angles’)
  • to numb
  • obscene (Shakespeare meant ‘revolting’)
  • ode
  • to offcap (to ‘doff one’s cap’)
  • offenseful (meaning ‘sinful’)
  • offenseless (‘unoffending’)
  • Olympian (Shakespeare meant ‘Olympic’)
  • to operate
  • oppugnancy (‘antagonism’)
  • outbreak
  • to outdare
  • to outfrown
  • to out-Herod
  • to outscold
  • to outsell (Shakespeare meant ‘to exceed in value’)
  • to out-talk
  • to out-villain
  • to outweigh
  • overblown (Shakespeare meant ‘blown over’)
  • overcredulous
  • overgrowth
  • to overpay
  • to overpower
  • to overrate
  • overview (Shakespeare meant as ‘supervision’)
  • pageantry
  • to palate (Shakespeare meant ‘to relish’)
  • pale-faced
  • to pander
  • passado (a kind of sword-thrust)
  • paternal
  • pebbled
  • pedant (Shakespeare meant a schoolmaster)
  • pedantical
  • pendulous (Shakespeare meant ‘hanging over’)
  • to perplex
  • to petition
  • pignut (a type of tuber)
  • pious
  • please-man (a ‘yes-man’)
  • plumpy (‘plump’)
  • posture (Shakespeare seems to have meant ‘position’ or ‘positioning’)
  • prayerbook
  • priceless
  • profitless
  • Promethean
  • protester (Shakespeare meant ‘one who affirms’)
  • published (Shakespeare meant ‘commonly recognized’)
  • to puke
  • puppy-dog
  • pushpin (Shakespeare was referring to a children’s game)
  • on purpose
  • quarrelsome
  • in question (as in ‘the … in question’)
  • radiance
  • to rant
  • rascally
  • rawboned (meaning ‘very gaunt’)
  • reclusive
  • refractory
  • reinforcement (Shakespeare meant ‘renewed force’)
  • reliance
  • remorseless
  • reprieve (as a noun)
  • resolve (as a noun)
  • restoration
  • restraint (as ‘reserve’)
  • retirement
  • to reverb (‘to re-echo’)
  • revokement (‘revocation’)
  • revolting (Shakespeare meant as ‘rebellious’)
  • to reword (Shakespeare meant ‘repeat’)
  • ring carrier (a ‘go-between’)
  • to rival (meaning to ‘compete’).
  • roadway
  • roguery
  • rose-cheeked
  • rose-lipped
  • rumination
  • ruttish
  • sanctimonious
  • to sate
  • satisfying (as an adjective)
  • savage (as ‘uncivilized’)
  • savagery
  • schoolboy
  • scrimer (‘a fence’)
  • scrubbed (Shakespeare meant ‘stunted’)
  • scuffle
  • seamy (‘seamed’) and seamy-side (Shakespeare meant ‘under-side of a garment’)
  • to secure (Shakespeare meant ‘to obtain security’)
  • self-abuse (Shakespeare meant ‘self-deception’)
  • shipwrecked (Shakespeare spelled it ‘shipwrackt’)
  • shooting star
  • shudder (as a noun)
  • silk stocking
  • silliness
  • to sire
  • skimble-skamble (‘senseless’)
  • skim milk (in quarto; ‘skim’d milk’ in the Folio)
  • slugabed
  • to sneak
  • soft-hearted
  • spectacled
  • spilth (‘something spilled’)
  • spleenful
  • sportive
  • to squabble
  • stealthy
  • stillborn
  • to subcontract (Shakespeare meant ‘to remarry’)
  • successful
  • suffocating (as an adjective)
  • to sully
  • to supervise (Shakespeare meant ‘to peruse’)
  • to swagger
  • tanling (someone with a tan)
  • tardiness
  • time-honored
  • title page
  • tortive (‘twisted’)
  • to torture
  • traditional (Shakespeare meant ‘tradition-bound’)
  • tranquil
  • transcendence
  • trippingly
  • unaccommodated
  • unappeased
  • to unbosom
  • unchanging
  • unclaimed
  • uncomfortable (sense ‘disquieting’)
  • to uncurl
  • to undervalue (Shakespeare meant ‘to judge as of lesser value’)
  • to undress
  • unearthy
  • uneducated
  • to unfool
  • unfrequented
  • ungoverned
  • ungrown
  • to unhappy
  • unhelpful
  • unhidden
  • unlicensed
  • unmitigated
  • unmusical
  • to un muzzle
  • unpolluted
  • unpremeditated
  • unpublished (Shakespeare meant ‘undisclosed’)
  • unquestionable (Shakespeare meant ‘impatient’)
  • unquestioned
  • unreal
  • unrivaled
  • unscarred
  • unscratched
  • to unsex
  • unsolicited
  • unsullied
  • unswayed (Shakespeare meant ‘unused’ and ‘ungoverned’)
  • untutored
  • unvarnished
  • unwillingness (sense ‘reluctance’)
  • upstairs
  • unsolicited
  • unvarnished
  • useful
  • useless
  • valueless
  • varied (as an adjective)
  • varletry
  • vasty
  • vulnerable
  • watchdog
  • water drop
  • water fly
  • well-behaved
  • well-bred
  • well-educated
  • well-read
  • to widen (Shakespeare meant ‘to open wide’)
  • wittolly (‘contentedly a cuckhold’)
  • worn out (Shakespeare meant ‘dearly departed’)
  • wry-necked (‘crook-necked’)
  • yelping (as an adjective)
  • zany (a clown’s sidekick or a mocking mimic)

Define: Postmodernism

Postmodernism: according to its protagonists, a completely new way of looking at the world, academic study, philosophy, artistic production etc, arising from the ‘discoveries’ of Foucault, Barthes, Derrida, Lyotard, Baudrillard (in France) and Jameson (in America) and the so-called ‘linguistic turn,’ supposed to have happened in the late 1960s or early 1970s, and maintaining in essence that ‘everything is constructed with language,’ that is to say that outside language there is really no reality. Postmodernism derives its view of the world from Marxism and maintains that the societies we live in, being bourgeois, are evil; while some postmodernists take up an entirely nihilistic position, most support radical political action and aim at the destruction of all traditional or modern modes of thought and study (dismissed as ‘grand narratives). In reality, postmodernism is a totalising belief system based on faith alone. It is distinguished by elaborate rhetoric and a specialised jargon, which fails to conceal the essential naivety of its basic ideas, derived from a discredited Marxism. It often sounds like nonsense that is because it is nonsense.

Source: The New Nature of History by Arthur Marwick.

‘Course the bourgeois would say that.

Some stats (ARP05-MAR06)

Month Monthly Totals
Mar-06 805 617262 1299 3606 10425 19321
Feb-06 1672 1192074 2552 4988 15727 19814
Jan-06 1387 1000271 2546 4001 17224 21231
Dec-05 1021 758728 1854 3465 11325 15419
Nov-05 1339 1144525 2724 6144 23574 36199
Oct-05 1866 1517431 2495 7037 21419 26681
Sep-05 2325 1421019 3331 6481 25069 32646
Aug-05 10781 6463924 12186 20808 250686 265851
Jul-05 3001 1713853 3515 6463 57011 60511
Jun-05 409 151156 443 855 1537 2096
May-05 477 340664 829 1908 3542 4502
Apr-05 522 227459 712 1506 5008 14229
Totals   16548366 34486 67262 442547 518500
2020 2019 2017 2016 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004