Are you blind, ref?

It is rare that I venture into the subject of football (soccer for my American friends). Last time I did so here was to query the (low) value being placed on Michael Owen. I'd like to think that I was proven correct when Newcastle paid a much higher amount for him, and he went on to prove that worth with some excellent goalscoring. Of course, now he's broken his foot and is out for two months perhaps proving the opposite (of course injuries can happen to any player which just questions the whole approach to valuing a player).

Anyway, I digress. Despite (or perhaps because of?) my poor knowledge of football, I was incensed watching my team (Everton) on Match of the Day at the weekend. Apart from the sending off of the goalkeeper which was highly and rightly criticised by both Alan Hansen and Gary Lineker, I was in fact more upset at the offside decision which cancelled what looked to be an excellent goal by Tim Cahill (one of 3 Everton "goals" disallowed). The commentator brushed over the decision, and it was not covered afterwards. But to me it was a perfectly executed goal, and one that should be allowed even if it isn't in the current rules. So, football experts, please tell me why it was disallowed, and if this decision was correct, why that rule is beneficial to the game of football?

For those that didn't see it, here is (my version of) what happened:

A pass from deep in the Everton half by Tony Hibbert found James Beattie running onto it clear of any opposition player. He was definitely not offside when the ball was played, and indeed the flag did not come up. On his left was Tim Cahill. Tim had also been onside when the ball was first played. Now he, like Beattie, was clear of the opposition. BUT, and this is what I hinge my argument on, he was ALWAYS behind Beattie and indeed the ball was played slightly backwards to him. Even if not, Cahill remained behind the ball at all times. According to my interpretation of the rules:

A player is in an offside position if he is nearer to his opponent's goal line than the ball unless...

That did not appear to be true in this case, and therefore it didn't matter where Cahill was relative to opposition players. Strangely, the commentator seemed to imply that by Beattie passing to Cahill, then it became offside. But unless Cahill was in front of the ball (by being in front of Beattie), then he could not be offside, is my interpretation.

So, my friends, I think we was robbed! (But we did go on to win 1-0 despite having 10 men for 80 minutes, so in the grand scheme of things, it was perhaps a minor aberration). Can anyone explain to me why I've got it wrong?

I wonder also whether we are reaching a point at which some decisions must be referred to a 4th official who can use video evidence. In this case, play could have gone on, and the goal cancelled on review.

Origami-ing

Just to prove to you that my interests aren't as narrow as you might think, or to re-affirm your view of me as a complete anorak, just a quick post on our first experience of an Origami bicycle ride on Saturday through the historic area around Market Bosworth (home of the infamous Battle of Bosworth, amongst other things).

We had our Airnimal Rhino bikes, and were surprised to see two other similar bikes on the ride. It was fun to be in the company of so many folding bikes - some really eclectic machines indeed, and we got a fair number of strange looks and inquiries as we pedalled along the lanes. Our own bikes were a bit overkill for the ride which was just around the 25mile mark, and we struggled to keep warm with the temperatures not much above freezing. But the interesting company, good real ale and historic sites made for a fun day out. We hope to join another few this year. Those in the greater Midlands area of the U.K, with an interest in folding bikes are highly recommended to join the fun. Information on the rides is now carried over on the new Folding Society blog

Not forgetting a little Google observation

This one almost slipped under the radar screen last week. Again, from Ars Technica, it covers Google's introduction of Google Desktop Search 3.0.

Should we be cynical? If you consider the explanation behind some of the new services, then on the surface perhaps we shouldn't. But this is as slippery a slope as there is, surely? And, even if we trust Google to do only good with our data, can we trust everyone else? At what point will we wake up to find we haven't paid Google a cent, but we've instead donated our soul?

More on DRM and the real agenda

Yes, it's been pretty quiet over on this blog for a week. There hasn't been too much in Appleland to get me commenting on (we'll leave the rumours of a real video iPod with "gesture" interface for another day).

So, for my main technical commentary of the week, I'm going to refer you to a couple of Ars Technica articles that I found interesting.

The first is about HBO's plans to stop you recording their shows on your Tivo/DVR. As usual, the comments noted in the discussion after the article are as interesting as the article in their uniformity of opinion. I can't get over the breathtaking arrogance of the companies that take this view. Do they really believe that this will usher in a new generation of people paying the subscription price AND paying for it again? While the site itself is clearly a self-selecting group high on the geekiness quotient, I think that Joe Public will also see these policies for what they are. A business model based on taking away capability from its user base is never succcessful.

The second article is around the same topic - this time about how, in the view of the MPAA, DRM actually HELPS honest users . Yes, really. We are in need of moral guidance and DRM helps us really see what the right way is as our natural inclination to be pirates would otherwise takeover. Towards the end of the article comes...

Hollywood never got over Betamax and VHS being legal, and DRM is their plan for an 11th hour victory.

Given the first story (same site admittedly, but different authors), we see how this is being played out. Will we as consumers vote with our wallets? Will we do anything else about it (contact our representatives, get consumer advocates fighting our corner)? Or will we meekly accept what we're given?

The source of inspiration for the FT's Lex...

In my Lex Live e-mail from the FT today, I received this...

Lex live


MAGIC_SERVER_FAILURE

The normal entries for the day were missing. I can only conclude that Lex's real powers have failed. It is not yet clear how this will affect the markets. Quick, where's the magic 8-ball backup?

Britain into battle in the 21st Century...

I enjoyed this story from the Times of our latest feat of military extravagance, er, I mean, engineering. A brief quote from the official PR for HMS Daring:

Mess decks are replaced by individual cabins, each with their own I-pod (sic) charging points, CD player, internet access, five channel recreational audio and larger berths.

What's with this naming scheme? HMS Duncan? It will be HMS Trevor next!
But back to where I'm really focusing on, as commented on by DailyTech:

Over the 25 year development of the Type 45 destroyer, people won't remember that the $726M USD (actually DailyTech, according to my calcs it's not $726m - it's more like $1,750m) warship has the most advanced surface to air missile system in the world capable of tracking and destroying a grapefruit from 200 miles, or that the Type 45 is the first new warship design for the UK Navy in 40 years. What people will remember is that the Type 45 is the first iPod enabled warship.

It actually sounds to me that in fact they've just put a power outlet in each crewmember's cabin, and the inclusion of the word "iPod" is just so the story will be picked up by lots of media outlets and gullible bloggers (!) who otherwise wouldn't care a hoot. But if not, I have the following questions:

1. What type of iPods are supported?
2. When Apple changes the dock connector/charging system, will this vessel require an extensive/expensive refit and be recalled from duty, thus losing us the war?
3. Who will crew members sue when their hearing is damaged - not from munitions of course - but from playing their government-sanctioned mp3 player too loud?
4. Why would you want to blow up a grapefruit from 200 miles?

Makes me proud to be British when I can rejoice in the superlative hi-tech skills of our designers (or should that be MOD PR?).

The Media biz stuffs the consumer

If you're a regular reader of Ars Technica, you'll have seen this coming. And the headline of this article doesn't necessarily imply just how draconian some of the limits are. But if you read the article and, especially delve into some of the comments/discussion (which are many and almost totally against the move), you will realise how the consumer's rights are being severely limited again. Those who have invested in certain equipment as being suitable for future HD use for instance should feel rightly very upset. And, this is not just for those who are Cable users in the US.

I really don't think there's any positive spin you can put on this. The corporate oligopoly that is the media business is going to ensure that there is no disruptive technology effect on their business allowing them to essentially maintain that oligopoly going forward without trying too hard. On the other hand, the people that could fight this for the benefit of the consumer are not going to do so. Who are they? And why not?

1. Microsoft could make the biggest impact here by not playing ball. But even if we gave Microsoft the benefit of the doubt in terms of pro-consumer (not clear - it has typically aligned itself with big partners), it would almost certainly be accused of being a monopoly by the (mere) oligopoly media business. So, it is caught between a rock and a hard place.

2. Apple. They are too small in reality to fight this battle. If they win it, they would have lost the war as MS focuses on products and Apple is distracted. So, they will probably follow the Microsoft line and accept the limitations with a few sops to the consumer (providing that involves an iPod somewhere).

3. Open Source community. They are absolutely stuffed here. They do not have the resources to battle and cannot enter into commercial agreements. No wonder MS has even less incentive to fight.

4. Google, Yahoo etc. Not in that business in reality - software alone is not going to make it happen.

5. Dell, Sony, HP. Can't do it without MS' help.

Any combination of the above (eg Apple + MS) is again going to fall foul of competition laws - they would be accused of being a cartel.

Ultimately, the unwillingness of the incumbents (media business) to embrace what COULD be done will be their undoing of course, but by then, they'll have made their monopoly profits and moved on. When you upset the people that are the early adopters (see comments on the Ars article), then you potentially kill it dead, which of course is what they want.

All this shows what happens when major business sectors are dominated by just a few players (in this case Media and Computer Operating Systems). An uneasy truce will have to exist between them.

How can the logjam be broken? How, as consumers, can we experience new ways of delivering media to us in ways which are exciting, which allow us freedom of access and storage (within reason), and ways of sharing and interacting with others on it?

I'm not too optimistic in the short term. But I do see that it may be the public broadcasting systems that have the opportunity to do right for the consumer. In our case, here that means the BBC. They have experimented a lot with new ways to access material, and with free-to-air, unencrypted content, they make things easy for the consumer to access the material. For the public broadcasters, their mandate is to make the people happy. But they are hamstrung by a public sector mentality, which is still not changing fast enough, and are often comparatively short of funds. A major problem for the BBC is how it can move to HD broadcasting for instance.

But if the BBC (and similar) in conjunction with services like iTunes or a Google service etc can start to show how it's done, and if people (like in the Ars discussions) get so upset with their cable/satellite providers and vote with their wallets, then these may be the forces that help disintermediate all this stuff and connect the consumer with the content originators in ways in which we ultimately all benefit.

As consumers, this is just another example of the ways we are getting stuffed by laissez-faire competition policy by governments to promote national champions etc. When concentration is in the hands of just a few, true innovation goes out the window. It took just five DRAM manufacturers to put the kibosh on Rambus RDRAM, and in the process stuff the consumer through high memory prices. While they may have paid the fines, did we get anything back from this? It is time we put the consumer at the heart of all competition policy globally, and we must not discourage small companies from challenging the status quo by making it impossible (via power concentration and complex, slow and expensive legal system) to bring true innovation to market.

What do you think? Would you be happy with having to show your HD material in lower res format, even if the monitor is capable? What about having your recordings wiped off automatically? What about not being able to watch a recording you've made on a different device at a different time? Is it reasonable to pay multiple times to watch the same material? Would you really consider cancelling your pay-TV subscriptions if some of these limits were applied or will you just shrug your shoulders and accept it?