Transferable assets

Just thought I'd point you in the direction of these two articles about transfer deadline activities and some background to them.

UGC - not the cinema chain

I realise that this entry is contradictory to the precepts of blogging, but bear with me and consider it to be an example of postmodern irony. Or something.
These days UGC is the buzz-acronym for our media, particularly television, and especially on the BBC.
Born of the internet, User Generated Content allows a return path along which an audience can respond to the information provided and contribute to it. On the web it would be through adding comments to this blog, for example, while on TV or radio it's usually via SMS and email, though MMS and video clips are bound to follow shortly.
I have some issues with this.
I don't watch the news to find out what the populace thinks about NHS postcode lotteries: if I wanted to know that I'd go down the pub. I don't care for uninformed opinions on the Middle East from people who've never been there. I'm still more sceptical about how much value there is in the amount of social commentary that you can fit into a text message. Isn't this all just a way of journalists not doing their jobs?
How much investigative research do you need to do if everyone just sends you in text messages some lackey can trawl through? How many five second links in live news programmes can editors fill with a quirky SMS from a member of their audience? And as content is sourced and aggregated from increasingly diverse sources, how long until news broadcasts are just a variant of youtube?
I was wondering if there were fundamental differences between the web as a news medium and television, such as a sense of community. But it's all content for the self-content. There's no reason why TV shouldn't encourage greater interactivity with its audience.
Except that I want substance not opinion. I want curiosity not prejudice. Journalism should be about discovering things that are hidden from the public, not telling the public what it knows already and then what we think about what we know.
Without wishing to sound like a Tonbridge colonel writing into the Telegraph or a self-righteous academic, UGC in television news sounds a death knell for informed journalism and, by extension, a significant shift in the intellectual episteme for the 21st century. In western Europe, we can point to various modes of thought: contemplative theoretical epistemeology through Aristotle, acceptance of scholastic hegemony through Roman Catholic doctrine, a protestant autonomy of thought through empiricism... and now I guess in an extension of hermeneutics it's all about how we each read what we're told and the opinions we form. It's a move away from trying to discover objective truths. UGC reflects a self-confidence about audiences today that we hold the answers to all questions already. But the media should be asking not what we know already, but what we don't know yet. And in a wider philosophy of progress and ambition, we should be asking ourselves the same questions too rather than blogging facile opinions that extend no one, least of all ourselves.

Device convergence

I've been considering a converged device for some time now; for so long that they were still referred to as converged devices then, or perhaps smart phones. Now they're just phones for business. The better of these devices are characterised by a number of features:

• email, usually through "push" technologies like Blackberry
• PIM (calendar, tasks, addresses) integration with desktop applications like Outlook
• full web browsing through Wi-Fi, or 3G where no Wi-Fi network is in range
• a range of input methods, usually including some form of QWERTY keyboard
• Microsoft Office tools
• extensibility, both through provision of extra flash memory and through an OS that allows other applications to be run on the device
• a broader aspect screen with sufficient real estate to enable email, Office and browser use

On the market now, or over the next quarter, there are at least four devices with different operating systems that meet these criteria:

• Nokia's Symbian-based E61
• the Windows Mobile 5 HTC TyTN, to be sold as the Vario II by T-Mobile, the SPV M31000 by Orange, or the Vodafone v1605
• Sony M600i, which runs on Sony's Symbian-based UIQ interface
• the Palm Treo 700

So why haven't I bought one of these already? Three answers: cost, form factor and requirement.
If you buy one of these devices under a decent 3G contract, its going to cost in the region of £35 per month, or £420 a year; you could get a PDA with all the features listed above but without the phone for half that price.
The form of these phones has, historically, not been conducive to both data entry and review as well as phone use. Some of the phones above are a bit cleverer, with sliding or tilting keyboards, but fundamentally the screen still needs to be big enough to browse on while the phone is small enough to use regularly.
But most importantly, are all the features that these phones provide really required? I do use the PIM information every day, but that's available on any mobile these days. I also use Word and Excel on the go and want to have other applications I can install. But email and web browsing? Is the always-on wherever-you-are internet really feasible or indeed desirable? Will I still be able to capture a 3G connection while I'm on the train and what advantages does it bring over plucked subscriptions to the sites I read daily? It's pretty rare that I actually need to get online to the latest news or extended link from the news I've downloaded to my PDA.
When I'm sat reading this news or making notes, is usually when I've nothing else to do but commute in an environment with poor network connectivity, so I want to be able to browse off-line. So what do I want my device to do? Would I make use of Wi-Fi and 3G if I had it?
As is often the case with anyone purchasing a new product, some features appear desirable but really won't be used that often even if you have them. So perhaps for the moment I should concentrate on a truly decent mobile computer -- a UMPC perhaps -- and a phone with a good camera and some memory for MP3 playing.

To HIV and to HIV not

Yesterday I went for an HIV test. There's a drop-in centre at the Royal Free: not that you'd know it's there unless you'd been told about it. There's no sign saying gays, sub-Saharans and the promiscuous this way. You're directed to the relevant common waiting room where you can speculate on each other's reckless shame. And of course, it's impossible to tell who's reactive just by looking. Strikingly impossible.
Here's an obviously gay couple being tested in tandem. A guy who looks west African. A young bloke who may have sniffed too much glue. Four young women of varying ages who appear distinctly un-slutty; I suspect one of them is a virgin, or maybe a one time only. Another guy in his forties who seems very straight. All of which reinforces the theme that you just can't tell and how glad I am that my wanton days are behind me.
So why was I there? I have cancer. I take interferon to treat it. Interferon lowers your sperm count, so I need to deposit some for future expenditure. The bank requires an HIV test. This rather long-winded explanation earned me the sympathy of of the nurse, who let me off the £30 fee to certify my negative result. So from the land of the incurable, I receive sympathy.
Clearly there's still a perception that people infected with HIV deserve it whereas people with cancer don't: people are victims of cancer but suffer from HIV. Yet for all he knew I could be a chain-smoking supplier of DDT. And the 25 million people who died over the last 25 years from AIDS-related illnesses weren't all reprobabtes.
Nevertheless, while I was surprised by his tea and sympathy, I want to highligh what an excellent service this is. It took about 45 minutes from walking into the clinic to getting my result and it's free (unless you need a piece of paper to prove your health). There's nothing that goes on your medical record, so it's as anonymous as you want to make it. If only it were advertised more heavily.