For me, social networks are not always social. This is a reflection of me, but it is also a mirror of the problems this type of networking can cause.

So what have I learned from Twitter?

People are Dull
Now if you haven’t stopped reading, this is not a negative. We’re all convinced everyone else had more interesting and exciting lives. Even though people put up masks to hide behind, it’s clear most people are just watching TV and worrying about the mortgage. How reassuring.

People think Twitter exists outside of normal life.
We all post random stuff from time to time which alienates and upsets. I have a tendency to do it to try and express my wishy washy liberal viewpoint. I hope its honesty rather than for effect that drives me to tweet it, but in the main we’ll all hoping we’ll get a retweet, a few more followers, a LOL. Otherwise why tweet? The original concept of twitter was as a micro-blog site, so you could let folks you know, know what you were doing. It’s out grown its humble origins, since most people are followed by people they don’t know. The standard response to criticism of tweeting what you want, when you want, is to “It’s my Twitter, people can unfollow”. Frankly thats just bollocks! If you wouldn’t walk into a crowded place and shout it out, or turn to face an individual and tell them they are wrong in the street, then you really shouldn’t do it on Twitter.

People lie
Given we all can hide behind abstract avatars and made up names and quite a few of us do, it’s no wonder people lie. It all feeds into points 1 and 2. I am dull, I want to be interesting therefore I need to lie.

Twitter is not populated by liberals
Early adopters of modern technologies tend to be more liberal in their outlook. A sweeping generalisation maybe, but liberal minded people tend also to be more open-minded and therefore more open to new experiences.In my early days on Twitter, when I swaggered around under a different name, it felt like we could save this or that and whilst we were at it change the world. Once something becomes popular and everyone and his wife takes part, things change. Loud shouting voices begin to overwhelm. bully and cajole, people disappear, something is lost forever.

However some people defy these Twitter conventions and although social networking can infuriate me there is a reason I don’t ditch it. Apart from the need to massage my ego by posting random musings to a wider audience or discovering interesting, stupid or news worthy things I’ve also found decent, funny and open people. People who have a genuine love of music or art or film, who share their passion, who don’t degenerate you for your choice of culture.

That in the end is what social networking should be.

#twitrelief was/is an obviously well-intentioned, but misguided attempt, to raise money for those in desperate need in Africa and at home. The premise seems to be that by bidding a suitably large sum (out of bounds of most ordinary working folk) some “celebrity” will follow you on Twitter for 90 days, Retweet you once and send out a tweet with your username. Wow, really, no you shouldn’t.

For me It’s possibly the 2nd most ill-conceived and utterly pointless twitter thing I’ve seen, but hey It’s all for charity, so what’s my issue? A much better concept would to make it a raffle, so everyone on Twitter had a chance, not just those with the deepest pockets of biggest egos. I suspect more cash would of been made that way too. I don’t want a celeb to follow me as a charity case but I have no issue with anyone who wants a piece of a celebrity but alas they will not have a chance.

Unfortunately the relentless charity fascism that has become the normality in society has found its way onto social networks like Twitter. If anyone attempts to be negative in anyway they are met with the chorus of “…it is for charity, you know!” as if that alone makes it okay.  “Sorry”, Colonel Gaddaffi will say, “I didn’t mean to wage war against and persecute my fellow countrymen, but I have raised £15.20 for charity”. And then we all clap our hands and say how wonderful it is.  Okay I’m being flippant but it feels that if you don’t immediately fall to the feet of whatever is the latest charity wheeze you’ve got a heart of stone.

Now I know that to raise money for a concern you need to advertise it. Twitter (other social networks are available) are wonderful resources in doing this but these high profile cause’s drown-out the just as essential,  but lesser known, charities who are desperate for you attention and your cash. I’ve seen plenty of good individuals do runs or bike rides for small worthy causes and receive nothing from their followers. That’s fair enough, you can’t support everything. But those same individuals who ignore these little campaigns get terribly excited by the mob mentally of charity giving as they are swept along in retweet crescendo of back patting that comes with potential twitter glory. It makes no difference what they charity is but usually includes one of the big 5 that already make more money than all the rest.

But there’s another point about Twitter charity gigs; quite often money is raised but not awareness. You’ve got an audience, you’re free from the constraints of media broadcasting, tell us about the charity, what it does, what it achieves, how it will make a difference. But no, it’s give us another £5 and we’ll make it to £1000, then we’ll all feel very good about ourselves.

It also fails to acknowledge the contribution people make to charity regularly. This is the bread and butter of organisations, the guarantees that allow them to run their programmes from day to day and support those who need it.

I hope you do, if you can afford to, donate to comic relief, not because these “Celebs” will tweet you, but because its the right thing to do. But more importantly, instead of getting all excited and giddy next time a twitter charity event happens, can I suggest that you pick a charity and give it your full support.  Donate regularly and raise its awareness with the people in life and on Twitter. That’s what I’m going to do.

Rant over, please return your seats to the upright position.

But is it any good? Well my initial reaction was lukewarm and, to be fair, that hasn’t changed.

Now don’t get me wrong, this isn’t a bad album. It’s a well produced, well arranged and musically accomplished piece of work that recalls the electronic sounds of the early eighties. (Hints of Pet Shop Boys, Go West, Depeche Mode, Tears for Fears, Spandau Ballet, Duran Duran and even Bros!, abound). There is a certain naivety to lyrical constructs, almost too clean, occasionally lapsing close to teenage poetry as they search for an appropriate rhyme. More than once I felt my hand wanting to reach into the air and do an 80’s style power grab (You know, the one where you put your fist above your head then, slowly, pull close to you chest in a demonstration of pain and passion) and in fact in some tracks, most notably “Stay”, are a little boy-bandish. I can almost visualise the “stand-up at the key change moment” perfected by Westlife.

But, that’s not to say there aren’t some stand-out tracks. The two singles mentioned above coupled with tracks such as Evelyn and Devotion (with Kylie Minogue) hint of real potential and, for me, a missed opportunity for the album.

In the end Happiness is a pop record, and knows it with more than a passing nod to the eighties. It’s not without merits and I’d happily listen to it from time to time. It wouldn’t surprise me if one of the more melancholy tracks is played over the final 5 minutes of some American drama as characters look forlornly out into the rain or hug their families as though their life depended on it. It has that sort of feel.

There is enough here to convince me they can do better and I look forward to that difficult second album. But it the end, Happiness, as with the band themselves, is a well polished, nicely presented product that doesn’t (quite) deliver.

Rating 3 out 5

So following where the Wii led, motion control is about to become a three way battle for Nintendo, MIcrosoft and Sony.

First up comes the PlayStation Move, which from photographs looks like a jet black Wii controller with a brightly coloured ping pong ball sat on top. Sony claims it gives better more precise control, but initial reports claim for the camera and controller to work, you need to be a significant distant away from the screen, in some cases 8ft. I don’t know about you, but I don’t have that space. There are other significant problems. They’ve forgotten to launch it will any “killer’ games for a start, any games that are available seem to be Wii clones and finally, and most significantly, it doesn’t come bundled with games as standard, just a demo disk. However I know that @dairyofaledger is purchasing next week. I trust his opinion so I’ll wait for his review.

For now Sony seem to be spending most of their time dismissing its main rivals offering launching in October; Xbox’s Kinect.

Kinect is Microsofts controllerless attempt at motion control. Announced last year under the name Project Natal it was quick to make all sorts of claims. Whilst a lot of these ideas won’t be available straight away you can see they’ve been working hard with developers to ensure games are available on launch. There are concerns, as with the Playstation Move, that there needs to be distance between player and camera, and whether you can play it without standing up. However with an eight year old in the house it does look fun, so come November I will be purchasing, you’ll just have to check back for my review.

The funniest thing is seeing the number of gamers already dismissing both concepts, claiming they are not for the hardcore gamer, before they’ve been released. But they are missing the point, since Microsoft and Sony must have looked with growing envy when a less powerful, less graphically capable machine stole their thunder and eclipsed there sales by huge margins. The Wii was taken up because it offered, for the first time, a chance for everyone to experience gaming, to jump up and behave in a natural(ish) way, to play short, satisfying burst of gaming that fitted in with their hectic, family orientated lives.

And so here comes Sony and Microsoft to offer their takings wanting a piece of that actio. Some claim its a flash in the pan but its clear than motion control is being considered seriously across the board. Already 3-D (without glasses) is becoming a reality, and development is well under way for holograms you can touch, as today’s Observer explains:

“Researchers at Tokyo University, meanwhile, are developing touchable holograms. Using ultrasonic waves to give the sensation of pressure, users are able to feel 3D holographic characters running about on their hands, or touch holographic rain drops as they fall. This still feels like the stuff of science fiction, but such technology will surely soon filter into the market.”

Gaming is changing. I’m excited by that.

My second jumper in a week; at least I’m still in contact with the 2nd, seeing as she’s my wife. I suppose what was the most shocking was the speed of the Twitter abandonment. Up to six months ago it was all casual use, checking in with various contacts and following a few choice celebrities. We followed different paths and she knew that the people I followed were both more dedicated to Twitter, more fun and to some extent more annoying. So she came over to the dark side, quietly at first, then with more speed. There is no doubt that some of the twitterers she picked up became firm favourites (and I found new ones through her) and we’d often talk about the ones we liked, the ones we didn’t. She’ll miss some but with the other social media, and technology, she’ll be able to keep in contact with the ones that really matter.

But I know exactly how she feels, I was so tempted yesterday afternoon to abandon Twitter, but as usual I didn’t and she beat me too it. I’m not the only one that feels this way, skirt over to various blogs of the people I follow and you’ll find stuff about negativity and “losing the mojo”. Even today I had a follower in my twitter feed contemplating leaving – again! Over the past few months I’ve seen people step away from Twitter for long periods of time and even when they come back they don’t tweet like the used to.

Has Twitter come of age? Has it been spoiled in some way? I can only compare Twitter to an addictive drug; the first wave of euphoria, the rush of finding interesting and stimulating people, suddenly replaced by the need to be entertaining and interactive, to paranoia and anger, until finally you can’t sustain it anymore. Okay, that’s all a little over dramatic but anyone who has spent any serious time with Twitter will understand what I’m saying.

So what’s wrong with Twitter? Is it the loss of social niceties? Those who feel they can be as rude and obnoxious as though twitter exists outside of normal life? Is it the casual misogyny and the collusion of followers in this? Is it tweets being constantly ignored by individuals who continue to interact with others in front of you? Is it people objectifying themselves as a way of demanding attention? Or maybe the constant sneering tweets about crap TV that could, after the first watch, be switched off.

So if people are my issue, maybe I should just unfollow? I don’t know the majority of them. So the options are to unfollow or block. But I know from the reaction in my twitter timeline how negative this can be for those unfollowed. How they soul search on why they’ve lost a follower, or have been blocked. I did, after all, follow them for a reason originally. I don’t want to hurt their feelings. If Twitter would let me hide their tweets, like I can to status updates on Facebook, all would be good. But I can’t, so it seems the only option is Twiticide.

The beauty of Twiticide is I can rise again, under a new name and new avatar. I can track down the people who I want to connect with and follow. I can learn to re-use and re-enjoy twitter once more.
That time may be upon me soon.

Don’t. Look. Down.

And then something happened, in combination with the arrival of Peter Moore from Microsoft, EA raised its game and 2 years ago FIFA’s offering was better. They way it looked, the way it played. Not only did it challenge the mighty PES it overtook it, offering a better experience for the player. PES was still okay, but it was looking and feeling its age, built on the same engine with nothing new to offer. And FIFA built on this success with last year’s offering and the surprisingly excellent World Cup game which could have so easily been a simple port.

But that was then, this is now. It’s nearly October and the latest incarnations of PES and FIFA are ready for launch. And with any launch comes the Demos, both released for Xbox, on the same day.

So what do I think? Well trying to determine the strength and weaknesses from a game after a few plays on a demo is never easy but here are the things I did notice.
I played FIFA first. And it’s FIFA of the last two years. Maybe slightly more polished but everything you expect is still there. The commentary, the stadiums and the official licences. Passing is same, through balls, chips and tackles all present and correct. It’s still a very polished, adept piece of software, fast paced and mostly exciting. It still has a tendency to get bogged down in midfield but all in all…well its FIFA, and that’s not a terrible thing. There is an option to play as the keeper, but this is only in the arena on the demo. It’s a nice little touch but is it more a novelty than an actual step forward.

It been a couple of years since I played PES and the last experience had left me underwhelmed and disappointed. But straight away I could see the vast improvement. The game felt more expansive, I had more time on the ball, players moved into space as I expected. One game in and I was certainly impressed and once it had finished I wanted to step back in. Except I couldn’t because Konami insisted on showing me a video of all it can do. That annoyed. Eventually I stepped back in and played another couple of games (there would have been more if they hadn’t played the video every time) and I discovered I really liked what I was playing. Directions of balls need to be thought about and correctly weighted, long shots are more rewarding and dribbling feels natural. It felt and looked like football. However it’s by no means perfect. Sometimes it felt as though the game was confused as to whether you were attacking or defending when the ball fell lose. Every foul/offside was rewarded with a free kick and replay, missing the free flowing football introduced by FIFA. And the dreaded, classic cutback (which guaranteed a goal (against me!) nearly all the time) is back! There were other issues niggling at me but I need to play more to know what they really are.

What will I do this October? I like both games but the single player experience has never been the most important thing. For me football games are about the multiplayer experience. This used to be about getting your mates around but, with the rise of broadband, it’s all about online. I know that EA delivers here offering an online experience second to none. Konami’s online offering has been poor in the past.

The question I need to ask myself is, “Is PES significantly stronger than FIFA to persuade me to return?” At the moment the answer has to be no BUT I know there are others who don’t agree.

I will read the reviews an continue to play the demo’s but I’m pretty sure I will be buying FIFA come October 1st and then rely on other people to persuade me that coming over to Konami Online is a worthwhile exercise.

At the end of the day these are just demos and deeper more prolonged play is required. I suspect I will eventually own boht there games. And I’m happy to be persuaded either way.

I watched the news on Thursday morning and noted they had discovered a wooden henge next to Stonehenge. Amused by the idea I commented to my wife:

“I see a wooden henge has been found next to the stone one. If they find a straw one, we have our answer!”

So happy was I with this, I then tweeted this to the world and with joy to my twitter ego it got retweeted several times. I then thought nothing more about it.

Later in the evening, one of my followers @lynngus1002, tweeted me saying she was fuming that someone had copied my tweet. I dismissed this, although quite pleased with my tweet, I didn’t think it was particulary uniquie and an obvious leap for someone of average intelligence to make. She was insistent. (I later realised she was pulling my leg and was already aware of the following)

After the Chegwin debacle of the previous week, where the hapless presenter was accused of stealing material then suffered a bilious attack from the Twitter community, I sent a Jokey tweet out saying someone had stolen my tweet (but dismissing it as a coincidence) and jokingly made mention of forming a lynch mob.

But I wanted to know more.

So I did a google search and soon found a reference to Eddie Izzard. Had he stolen my tweet? I then did a video search and there was Mr Izzard, from “Dress to Kill’ doing his “Henge” routine. I’ve seen Dress to Kill, once, we own the DVDs somewhere. So the question is, did this throwaway observational comedy lodge in my sub-conscious or did, as i said earlier, make the simplest of leaps for someone with (above) average intelligence?

I don’t know. But I am happy to credit it to Eddie (I’m a fan), but it just goes to show that once stuff is out there, its out there, and people, intentionally or not, will use it.

Either way, let’s not get precious about humour, it is possible to make the same observations.

And I’m sure someone else said that better than me!

Inception is a big idea. Almost too big for one film to handle. Thankfully with the deft touch of Christopher Nolan, good writing and the some stand out performances (most notable from the leading man) its an idea that works. Just.

I say just because whilst in the middle of the film, such is the pace and panache of what you are watching you swat away any niggles.

You see, sometimes, to get from here to there, to bring you along on this journey, Mr Nolan has to use some very broad brush strokes. This is not necessarily a bad thing and there may be a couple of reasons for this. Firstly, such is the complexity and imagination around the central conceit, the film could find itself weighted down, getting lost and muddled, especially in then hands of a lesser director. It would be easy to confound and bore the watcher. This does not happen. For a film of two and a half hours long, I was not bored, I was not fidgety, and for someone who believes most films do not need to be longer than 90 minutes, this is a testament to the quality of the experience. Secondly, given the subject matter, those broad strokes could be viewed in a different way, as part of the bigger whole, as exactly what the film is trying to achieve. This can be reflected, more than anything, in how it ended. Exactly how it needed to end.

Either way the film has invaded my sub-conscious. As time passes the gaps, the leap of faiths, the inaccuracies come to the fore and I find myself pondering them more and more. This is not a bad thing. I know I need to see this film again. I know I need to sit in a pub afterwards with other people and discuss it long and hard. I know that I throughly enjoyed the ride I was taken on. Some people will feel cheated when they are asked to think. This film is much cleverer than your standard summer blockbuster, more cerebral. However, it can just be enjoyed on the simplest of levels, but thats missing the point.

I don’t get to the cinema as much as I like. I was determined to see this because of my respect for Christopher Nolan as a director. Film of the year? Absolutely.

The 11th Doctor Who Tardis

I’ve been meaning to blog on Dr. Who for a while now, even before the last series ended. I am not a fully fledged geek. I have a passing interest in, and an understanding of, the sci-fi offerings that have flicked across our screens in the last 40 odd years. I do understand the passion this produces in men (mainly) of a certain age. I am that “certain age” but i don’t own a collection of Dr Who action figures, or a Dalek towel or Blake7 alarm clock. I do have a Shaun of the Dead film reel, but that’s another story.

I have, however, watched Dr. Who since its re-imaginging by Rusty (Thats Russell T. Davies) and for the most part it been the highlight of many a Saturday evening. I’m fortunate I have young son to watch it with, so I not only view it through my cynical adult eyes but through his sense of wonder, fear and joy.

Many have dismissed Dr. Who as a kids show. They’re wrong, its a family show aimed at kids and it works. The original series with Christopher Eccleston was great but then David Tennant came along and made the role his own, gurning, flirting, emoting – making the Doctor his own. Girls (and boys) swooned, children clapped and the whole thing was a brilliant ride.

When Russell announced he was stepping aside and handing the reins of the show to Stephen Moffat, who for many (Including myself) was the writer of some of the better, darker, edgier and more compelling episodes, there was much rejoicing.

However, the announcement that David Tennant was also going wasn’t greeted with the same indifference. The slightly overwrought ending of the 10th Doctor proved though it was time for a change.

I feared for the 11th Doctor, after the rock star style adulation of his predecessor it was always going to be a tough act to follow. Two things were in his favour. Firstly Matt Smith is a terrific young actor, secondly Stephen Moffat, is a brilliant writer.

And what a series, a terrific rollercoaster ride from start to finish (with the one mis-step in the recreation of the Daleks). The whole series felt darker, edgier, sexier and entertaining. It had a great storyline, strong female characters, a quirky, twisted Doctor and some proper scary enemies. In the course of the run, mini-me crawled on to my lap at least three times (assuring me he wasn’t scared but just wanted to sit with me).

I love the new Doctor and I think Amy Pond is great (not in a sad dad pervy way) and glad they chose a sidekick who could properly act this time.

In the end, given the weight of expectation and pressure to “follow that”, Stephen Moffat guided the programme superbly.

Bravo Doctor, you’ve saved Saturday teatimes, again!.

Interestingly, my views haven’t changed much. Apart from the fact I have to put Twitter down occasionally (for my own sanity).

So can I offer you this and ask for your views:

1. Tweet, often and honestly.

That doesn’t necessary mean you tell the truth it just means tweet things from the heart, things that you care about, things that amuse or entertain you or, if you must, things that will get a re-action.

2. Follow

Find people you like and follow them. It doesn’t have to be famous people, just ones that say things you can connect with. They might follow you back!

3. Don’t Tweet because you want more followers!

There are millions of Twitterers, they will follow you because they like what you say in 140 characters, not because you’re trying to sell yourself or other stuff.

4. Show people cool stuff.

Stupid photos, interesting links, things that make you smile or angry, music tracks (see blip.fm) and other peoples blogs!

5. Re-tweet.

Seen a Tweet you like? Make sure others know about it. That’s what makes the Twittersphere go round.

6. Respond

You don’t have to re-tweet everything, but letting people know you’re there and like what they say is always good, so hit reply. Don’t worry if they don’t answer back – it’s not about how they interact with you, but how you interact with them. (But if you chat to someone, a follow back is always nice!).

7. Block and move on

Don’t get sucked into a flame war. While it’s good to have people with different opinions on your follow list, there’s no need to put up with those you find offensive or annoying. That’s what blocks for.

8. Use hashtags (when necessary)

Hashtags are excellent for grouping comments together. Why is this important? It makes it easier to find items on similar themes; it also helps identify what are the most important issues on twitter (Trending topics).

And finally and most importantly:

9. Its not JUST about your blog.

I know – I know this is a blog post linked from Twitter, Oh the irony! That is why I have emphasised JUST. When people follow me, I like to follow them back if, and only if, I like what they are tweeting. The number of times I’ve been to individual twitter pages to just find no other interaction, no re-tweets, no hashtags just a Tweets of “Hey, new post today!” Why would I want to read that?

I do, because of Twitter, read other people’s blogs when they post. Why? Because they interact, they communicate, they re-tweet, they hashtag; basically they get out there and are part of the community and I find what they have to say interesting.

In conclusion, Twitter is all about interaction. I only started to blog because of Twitter, I found I had more to say and 140 characters is not enough sometimes. I hope people read it, hey that’s surely the point of blogging, but that’s not why I Tweet. Yes it’s handy for letting people know I’ve blogged a new post (and it’s worth retweeting several times, such is the transitory nature of Twitter) but if that’s all it becomes about, then maybe Twitter isn’t for you.

Tell me, have I missed anything? Please leave a comment (or tweet me at @fatmanslimming) and let me know.