I’ve been a staunch defender of the Royal Mail, and am against privatisation. But then stuff like this happens:

A delivery wrecked because the (Fleet-based) postie was too fucking lazy to post this and another item separately. Instead, he did what he always does and shoved everything through together. This from a local depot whose employees have already smashed to pieces one letterbox (which Royal Mail eventually grudgingly agreed to pay for) at our address through similar deliveries.

I get that these people are in a hurry, but it would actually be quicker to post each item individually than to pile them up and wedge them into the letterbox, before shoving them through. Sadly, I’m still pro-Royal Mail, if only because the other delivery companies in this area somehow often manage to be worse.

This month’s MacFormat includes a feature called Top of the class, where I interview Fraser Speirs about his project to supply every pupil in his school with an iPad and how this is affecting teachers and kids alike.

The article provides insight not only into the iPad’s potential as a tool to aid schooling, but also its scope in general as a device for media consumption and creativity.

Speirs:

The iPad beats a PC because it removes that whole layer of ‘we’re doing computers now’, and you end up with ‘we’re doing maths’ or ‘we’re doing music’.

In traditional teaching, you spend time learning how to write a sum properly, how to lay out a jotter, how to lay out text on a page. You must do that before you’re expressing thoughts and ideas. But with an iPad, you open Pages and you can immediately start writing an essay or play.

Some choice quotes on Cult of Mac from RIM CEO Jim Balsille:

For those of us who live outside of Apple’s distortion field, we know that 7” tablets will actually be a big portion of the market

That must be why the iPad’s been beaten into fifth place by 7-inch tablets. (No, wait.) And it’s also why everyone loves using 7-inch tablets, rather than thinking them a cramped mess and rubbish form-factor that’s got more in common with a big smartphone than a tablet. (No, wait.)

and we know that Adobe Flash support actually matters to customers who want a real web experience

Fair enough. I don’t know how I’d do without Flash for my “real web experience”. It’s not as though Flash brings my Mac to a grinding halt every damn time it’s used, forcing me to use a Flash-blocker on all browsers these days, leaving poor old me with websites using rubbish technologies like HTML, CSS and JavaScript. (No, wait.)

Do you need a set of proprietary tools to bring existing assets on to a device, or can you use known tools that you use for creating websites?

Yes, because if there’s one thing the iPad does, it’s block websites. Man, if only there was a really good browser engine on the device, which not only gave you a decent browsing experience, but also provided the means for standalone HTML5 (etc.) web apps. (No, wait.)

Cult of Mac reports:

RIM released a video of its unreleased PlayBook tablet appearing to show faster web browsing capabilities. However, Balsillie refused to answer just when its tablet would go on sale.

Gosh! That’s showing them. You’re sure to smash the iPad to pieces, RIM, by not yet having your ‘better’ competing device in the market, perhaps instead releasing it when the iPad 2 arrives in April, which will of course be faster than the iPad 1.

…

…

(NO, WAIT.)

Recap: a couple of weeks back, Cooks Source was caught red-handed, having pinched an article from the internet. When the author complained, the editor argued that online content was “public domain” and ‘joked’ that since the publication had edited the content, the author should compensate the publication.

Today, bastion of perfect journalism TechCrunch says “Congrats, Self-Righteous Internet Mob. You Killed a Magazine“. The reason? Cooks Source editor Judith Griggs has now posted a sob-story statement, arguing that the event will “end us”.

I agree that the self-righteous mob aspect of the internet is one of its worst qualities, and I certainly don’t envy anyone caught on the wrong side of it. But what’s most amazing here is that Griggs still doesn’t seem to get why everyone got so annoyed, and the new statement, while making apologies, seems to simultaneously fan the fire.

The complicating issue was that one of the businesses we worked with had closed without notice, just a sign on the door—leaving several people, including a chef who had relocated to this area from Florida—out of work. I do not offer this as an excuse, but that, when she wanted money for Columbia University, it seemed ironic because there were all these people in this small town going into the holidays with no jobs, and no, well, nothing.

I’m not sure how that qualifies as ironic. Sad, perhaps, and coincidental, possibly. But if one of Future Publishing’s magazines goes under, I don’t expect the ones I write for to stop paying me for my work.

I really wish she had given me a chance to respond to her before blasting me. She really never gave me a chance.

And yet the original post by author Monica Gaudio states Griggs did respond, arguing online content is “public domain” and that the original author “should be happy we just didn’t ‘lift’ your whole article and put someone else’s name on it!”. Classy stuff.

If my apology to Monica seemed shallow it was because I was angry about the harm she has inflicted on others on behalf of her own agenda.

This is the bit that gets me; the author’s ‘agenda’! What agenda? Her wanting to be compensated for her work being used, without permission, in a publication? Man, that Monica seems like a devious sort! Also, she didn’t ‘inflict’ any harm on others—she requested that she be paid and then posted online when she got a rude response to said request. The author is the original victim here; that Cooks Source has turned into a victim also isn’t down to Monica, but the actions of Cooks Source editor Griggs.

So let me say this now: Monica I am so sorry for any harm I caused you. I never ment to hurt anyone, and I think I did a nice job for you, but the fact remains that I took this without asking you and that was so very wrong.

And there we have it again: another apology wrapped around an excuse. “I think I did a nice job for you.” If you take something I’ve written, without me giving permission, and then include it in your publication, even if you edit it to perfection, that’s not doing a nice job for me—it’s doing a nice job for you.

This is how it happened […] But one night when working yet another 12 hour day late into the night, I was short one article… Instead of picking up one of the multitude of books sent to me and typing it, I got lazy and went to the www and ‘found’ something. Bleary-eyed I didnt notice it was copy written and reordered some of it.

And there, in a nutshell, is the crux of the matter. The editor didn’t realise the article in question was “copy written”; but then everything online is under copyright by default, and so unless something specifically says you can use it, you can’t. This is Copyright 101—the absolute basics. This is something Griggs still seemingly fails to grasp. And being tired after working long days is no excuse for stealing someone’s work. Some of my editors work ridiculous hours, and yet they don’t get near to deadline and pilfer articles from websites.

I did keep the author’s name on it rather than outright ‘stealing’ it

No, you outright stole it, but retained the author’s name. There’s a difference.

[…] and it was my intention to contact the author, but I simply forgot, between proofreading, deliveries, exhaustion.

Top tip: contact an author before you decide to use their content.

The bad news is that this is probably the final straw for Cooks Source. […] This will end us. […] Thank  you to all our readers, thanks to all our advertisers and writers… and to everyone who has been supportive and who has been a part of Cooks Source. To one writer in particular, Monica Gaudio, I wish you had given me a chance.

She did give you a chance, when she initially contacted you, but you blew it. Subsequently, you had a chance every single day to put things right, but you didn’t. Had you paid and issued a simple, frank apology, you’d have gotten away with it, and I’m sure there wouldn’t be a 200-post thread on Facebook unearthing all the other times your magazine took content without permission.

So, what lessons can we learn from this incident? First, if you screw up, admit it, apologise, make good and move on. Had Griggs not been a smart-arse and just paid for the article her publication ‘stole’, this incident would have gone no further. Secondly, don’t make excuses for wrongdoing. Don’t say you were tired or busy. Just apologise, make good and move on. And thirdly, don’t take what you don’t have the right to take. Online content is not in the public domain—it is owned by its creators, unless otherwise specified.

Despite being firmly positioned on the south-west of the political compass, and generally being liberal, I’m quite happy that we have the royal family, which, judging by reaction to the Prince William/Kate Middleton engagement announcement isn’t exactly a majority view these days.

The thing is, while one can rattle on about becoming a ‘modern’ republic and the ‘parasitic’ nature of the royals, doing so often misses important points:

1. The royals cost British taxpayers about 60p per year. Yes, you read that right—we are ripped off by royal scum to the cost of a medium-sized chocolate bar. In return, the royals drive a ton of tourism to the country.
2. A UK president wouldn’t necessarily be cheaper. Given that the UK of late clearly looks towards the US rather than Europe, it’s safe to say—also when considering our mental media—that any British presidential election would be close to what the Americans have to suffer. It would be noisy and expensive, and the tax-payer would likely end up covering much of the bill. In the long run, there’d also be costs relating to ongoing engagements, security and so on—it’s hardly like we ditch the royals and replace them with nothing at all (or Timmy Mallet offering to be president for free).
3. The royals are largely impartial. The UK’s head of state is not affiliated to a political party. Although that might officially end up the case with a UK president, it’s unlikely. We have such reactionary politics in the UK that any elected president would likely side with the Tories or the Labour Party, whether through official means (as in, an election rather like the mayor of London) or unofficially (technically impartial, and without ‘political power’, but nonetheless backing—or not—the current government).
4. Elizabeth II’s been a pretty good head of state. While the royal family’s had its fair share of scandal, the queen’s largely done a good job. I’m not sure replacing her with whoever Rupert Murdoch decides wants to be head of state would benefit the UK in the slightest.