Saturday, April 1, 2006

Chemicals, which the Auckland City Council said are a suspected cause of cancer and are considered toxic, have been found in soil at a children’s playcentre in Auckland. The contamination was found at the Auckland Central Playcentre in Freemans Bay, and the Council will now spend $100,000 removing the top 50 cm (about 20 in) of soil at the playcentre, doing landscaping and replacing playground equipment.

The presence of “polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, including benzo-a-pyrene,” was suspected at the school playground and was confirmed by a chemical analysis on Tuesday. The chemicals may cause temporary digestive and respiratory distress, as well as irritation of the eyes and skin. The levels of benzo-a-pyrene found were between 0.06 and 4.82 milligrams per kilogram of soil at surface level, according to the Ministry of Education. A potential risk is present at levels above 3.5 mg.

Saturday, August 12, 2017

Yesterday, the state government of Victoria, Australia announced their decision to trial self-driving vehicles on two of the state’s major connecting motorways, the CityLink and Tullamarine Freeway. The trial is to use autonomous vehicles from automobile companies including BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Volvo, and Tesla. The two-year trial is to have three phases.

The cars are to drive alongside commuters, but in public testing a driver is always to be present, as Victorian law requires drivers always keep a hand on the steering wheel. However, in occasional closures of the Burnley Tunnel, with no other drivers to endanger, the cars are to be tested with nobody in the vehicle.

Lane assist, cruise control, and recognition of traffic signs are in the trial’s first phase, expected to complete before the end of the year. This includes monitoring how the driver-less cars respond to road conditions, including lane markings and electronic speed signs.

“Victoria is at the forefront of automated vehicle technology — we’re investing in this trial to explore ways that this technology can be used to reduce crashes and keep people safe on our roads”, said Luke Donnellan, the Victorian Minister for Roads and Road Safety. He noted, “Ninety per cent of the fault of accidents is human error […] so we know that if we can take out human error we will have less accidents”.

Tim Hansen, Victoria Police’s Acting Assistant Commissioner, said that police had founded a project team to investigate how self-driving vehicles would change policing on roads. “Can we intercept vehicles more safely to avoid pursuits and ramming?”, he asked.

The trial is a partnership between the state government, Victoria’s road management authority VicRoads, owner of the CityLink toll road Transurban, and insurance company RACV.

Tuesday, June 7, 2011

Jai McDowall, a Scottish man who works as an assistant to disabled individuals and performs a singing act, has been declared as the winner of the fifth series of televised talent competition Britain’s Got Talent, broadcast on ITV1 in the United Kingdom. The final took place on Saturday night. As the winner of the show, McDowall will receive a prize of £100,000 (US$164,270, €112,252), as well being able to participate at the Royal Variety Performance – which will be attended by British Royal Family senior members – later this year.

In the final, McDowall – who lives in the South Ayrshire village of Tarbolton – had sung To Where You Are, which was originally performed by Josh Groban. McDowall’s victory was calculated via a public telephone voting system. The number of votes he received was a margin of under three per cent greater than the act who achieved second place: a 12-year-old male singer named Ronan Parke. According to BBC News Online, Parke had been considered the most likely act to win this series by bookmakers. A short time after his victory was announced, McDowall commented that he was feeling “absolutely amazing, fantastic…it’s so much more, absolutely so much more”. When interviewed afterwards, Parke said he “loved it, thank you to everyone who voted. Congratulations, Jai.” Simon Cowell acknowledged “there was going to be a shock result” and that McDowall “wasn’t one of the favourites coming in but tonight we could feel he nailed the song. He came in believing that he could win and I think he’s a worthy winner.” Meanwhile, on-air, judge Amanda Holden admitted that she “really, really wanted Ronan to win.”

The finale consisted of one programme featuring the finalists performing, which was broadcast from 1900 – 2100 BST (1800 – 2000 UTC) and a second programme, announcing the positions of the finalists; the latter was broadcast later in the night, from 2130 – 2200 BST (2030 – 2100 UTC). The programme also featured performances from two guests. Jackie Evancho, who achieved second place in the fifth season of America’s Got Talent, performed Nessun dorma on the first programme. US singer-songwriter Nicole Scherzinger, scheduled to appear as a judge on The X Factor (U.S.), appeared in the second show and performed Right There, the latest single to be released from her.

In the run-up to the final, five semi-finals were broadcast live on ITV1 each night from Monday to Friday. A total of 41 acts appeared between them. British stand-up comedian Michael McIntyre and American actor David Hasselhoff made their debut appearances on the show’s panel, alongside British actress Amanda Holden, who has judged for all the series so far, and British music executive Simon Cowell, who only judged for the semi-finals and the final.

Earlier in the week, an unidentified Internet blogger, who stated that they were an employee of music corporation Sony Music UK, claimed that the programme had been unfairly pre-arranged due to Parke allegedly being familiar with Cowell and Syco for two years, already having a record contract, as well as prior arrangements being made for his appearance, including his clothing, hairstyle and behaviour. Parke achieved the largest number of public votes in the semi-final he appeared in on Monday, allowing him to earn his place in Saturday’s final.

On the fifth Britain’s Got Talent semi-final on Friday, Cowell addressed these allegations and publicly denied them, stating: “There has been an allegation made in the papers – not in the papers actually, on the internet by somebody – that Ronan Parke had a previous recording contract with my record label, that I’d met him beforehand, both of which are complete and utter lies. The first time I met Ronan was the first time he appeared on this show. He entered the show of his own accord. He’s 12 years old. This is a deliberate smear campaign.”

In a statement, Syco – a British entertainment company which Cowell is the chief executive officer of – responded by claiming that “[t]here is no truth in this story whatsoever. Ronan first came to Syco/Sony’s attention when he entered this year’s competition. Syco/Sony Music will not hesitate to take whatever legal action is appropriate to prevent further publication of these unfounded allegations.” The Metropolitan Police Service have also reported that “[a]n allegation of malicious communications was made to Kensington and Chelsea police on Thursday 2 June” and that “[t]he allegation is being considered.” In an interview with BBC Radio Norfolk, Maggie Parke – Ronan’s mother – called the allegations “laughable” as there “couldn’t be further from the truth”. “There’s no foundation in it whatsoever,” said Maggie.

In the final, Parke performed a cover of the Kelly Clarkson song Because of You and placed second in the contest, behind McDowall. However, British tabloid newspaper News of the World has reported the intentions of Sony Music Entertainment to provide a record contract for the 12-year-old singer, allegedly valued at £1,000,000 (US$1,641,681, €1,123,711). Speaking to the paper, a source familiar with Cowell commented: “We are not going to let malicious claims about Ronan impact his entire career. That would not be fair. The fact is, he is a little star. He’s like our Justin Bieber. He launched his career on the internet. He is self-made.” Musical manager Jonathan Shalit claimed that Parke “will be the most successful BGT winner ever, bigger than Bieber. I’d take him to Hollywood, straight to Disney.” A source related to Britain’s Got Talent cited the aforementioned fix allegations for Parke’s failure to win the series, mentioning: “Sadly, the result had nothing to do with Ronan’s talent. A lot of people believed the completely false smears on the internet and wanted to punish Simon as a result. The public are against him at the moment. This was their revenge.”

A London-based act named New Bounce achieved third place in the competition. Their act consists of four male singers: Mitchell, aged 16, 12-year-old MJ, Kuan, aged 13 and James, aged 12. In the final, the group performed a cover of the Bill Withers song Ain’t No Sunshine. Simon Cowell subsequently compared their potential to that of JLS, who have achieved number 1 on music charts, claiming that “[t]his is a group that would work in the real world”.

Other acts who appeared in the final included Michael Collings, who is also a singer and plays a guitar for his act. Razy Gogonea performed a form of breakdancing known as body-popping. James Hobley was also an act who danced, performing contemporary dance routines. Steven Hall was another dancer, albeit one who performed for comedic effect, dancing to the sounds of various famous pop music tracks and lip-syncing the lyrics. Les Gibson performed a comedy act involving him making impressions of various celebrities, with Cowell, McIntyre and Hasselhoff amongst them, as well as Ant & Dec, who host the programme. Paul Gbegbaje and Jean Martyn were both musical acts, with the former playing the piano and the latter using an organ to make music. Gbegbaje played piano music which he had composed himself, while Martyn performed a medley of songs, amongst which was the John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John song You’re the One That I Want. Martyn sang along to the song but was not clearly audible due to the absence of a microphone during her performance. She later explained that her performance had been previously rehearsed without the singing included.

Below is a table addressing the rank the finalists of the fifth series of Britain’s Got Talent achieved in Saturday’s final.

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

In a 7-2 decision handed down on Monday, the US Supreme Court struck down California’s violent video game law and ruled that video games are protected speech covered by the First Amendment. The California law banned the sale and rental of violent video games to minors.

The underlying question was whether the violence in video games has the ability to affect children more than violence in other media, such as books, movies, plays and other forms of entertainment.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said that depictions of violence have never been regulated by the US government. Thus violent videos are not to fall under government control as does pornography but is to be accorded the same First Amendment protections as other forms of entertainment. The sale of violent video games is not to be criminalized and California’s attempt to do so was “unprecedented and mistaken.” Scalia noted, referring to fairy tales, that “the books we give children to read—or read to them when they are younger—contain no shortage of gore.”

The beginning of the decision states, “Video games qualify for First Amendment protection. Like protected books, plays, and movies, they communicate ideas through familiar literary devices and features distinctive to the medium. And ‘the basic principles of freedom of speech…do not vary’ with a new and different communication medium.”

“The most basic principle—that government lacks the power to restrict expression because of its message, ideas, subject matter, or content, Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U. S. 564, 573—is subject to a few limited exceptions for historically unprotected speech, such as obscenity, incitement, and fighting words. But a legislature cannot create new categories of unprotected speech simply by weighing the value of a particular category against its social costs and then punishing it if it fails the test.”

The justices were not convinced by the existing research that the interactive nature of video games pose a greater risk to society because of their interactive nature. None of the results of the existing research put before the court showed that violent games cause violent behavior. “Psychological studies purporting to show a connection between exposure to violent video games and harmful effects on children do not prove that such exposure causes minors to act aggressively. Any demonstrated effects are both small and indistinguishable from effects produced by other media. Since California has declined to restrict those other media, e.g., Saturday morning cartoons, its video-game regulation is wildly under-inclusive, raising serious doubts about whether the State is pursuing the interest it invokes or is instead disfavoring a particular speaker or viewpoint.”

According to Nadine Kaslow, professor and chief psychologist at Emory University Department of Psychology and Grady Hospital, the evidence regarding the effects of violent video games is mixed. While there is evidence to suggest that exposure of children to violence results in more aggressive and less pro-social behavior, some studies show there is no negative effect, she said. She point out that toy guns were popular and parents monitored whether toy guns were allowed in the home.

This ruling does not prevent private retailers from placing restrictions on their sale of video games. The video game industry currently has its own rating system, much like that used for movies, and educates retailers in using the rating system to prevent minors from buying mature-rated games. According to PC World the industry’s compliance is better than that of other entertainment industries. Further, parental controls have been added to game consoles.

The view of the Entertainment Software Association that a better strategy is the education of parents rather than court battles.

Thursday, June 22, 2006

The Creative Archive project is a BBC led initiative which aims to make archive audio and video footage available to be freely downloaded, distributed, and ‘remixed’. The project is still in a pilot stage, and is only available to UK residents, but the long-term future of the project could have a major impact on the way audiences interact with BBC content.

The project is partly inspired by the Creative Commons movements, and also by a general move within the BBC to be more open with its assets. Additionally, educational audiences such as schools have expressed an interest in using BBC content within the classroom, both to watch and to create multimedia content from.

So far, clips made available under the licence have included archive news footage, nature documentary footage, and video clips content designed for educational uses. “It’s done very well with the audiences we’ve directed them towards – heavy BBC users,” says Paul Gerhardt, project leader. Users downloading the clips are also prompted to fill in a questionnaire, and so far 10-15% of people seem to be doing something with the material, although the BBC can’t be sure what exactly that is.

One of the biggest limitations within the licence as it currently stands during the pilot scheme is that the material is only available for use by people resident in the UK. The BBC’s Creative Archive sites use ‘geo-IP filtering’ to limit downloads to the UK, but there is some confusion over whether people who create their own content using the material can upload their creations to their own websites. A question within the FAQs for one of the more recent selections of clips suggests that this isn’t possible, saying “during this pilot phase material released under the terms of the Creative Archive Licence cannot be used outside the UK – therefore, unless a website has its use restricted to the UK only, content from the ‘Regions on Film’ archive cannot be published on it.”

“We want people to make full use of this content, whether they cut and paste it or whether they share it, and we completely accept that we’ve got a bit of a contradiction at the moment by saying UK-only and yet encouraging people to put it on their sites to share it with others, because you can’t expect people to have geo-IP restriction technology,” admits Mr Gerhardt. “We’re thinking hard about how to deal with this after the pilot – at the moment it’s quite likely that we’re probably going to need to find a distribution partner outside of the UK, so that if you’re outside of the UK you’ve got roughly the same experience as in the UK, but the content could be surrounded by sponsorship messages or advertising or whatever. Once we’ve done that then leakage from one to the other won’t really matter very much.”

The Creative Archive project has not been without critics from the commercial sector, worried that the BBC giving away their content for free would make it difficult for them to be able to make money from their own content. The BBC has explained to some of the commercial players that the content would be limited during the pilot, would not be available in broadcast quality, and that watermarking technologies would be trialled so that content could be recognised when it crops up elsewhere. The BBC is also investigating a business model for the future where there would be a “close relationship between public access to low-resolution content and a click through to monetising that content if you want to buy a high-resolution version”. People who want to play around with the material might discover they have a talent and then find they need to get a commercial license to use it properly, Mr Gerhardt explains, and the project wants to make it easy for this to happen.

Before the project can go ahead with the full scale launch, it will have to go through a ‘public value test’ to assess its overall impact on the marketplace, and commercial media companies will have a chance to input at this point.

For ease in clearing the rights, all of the content available under the pilot project is factual, but in the future the project could include drama and entertainment content. The BBC may also, in the future, work the Creative Archive licences into the commissioning process for new programmes. “This raises some really interesting ideas – if you have a documentary series, you could use the Creative Archive to release the longer form footage, for instance – that would create a digital legacy of that documentary series,” Mr Gerhardt explains. “The other interesting thought in the longer term would be for the BBC, or another broadcaster, to contribute to a digital pool of archive material on a theme, and then invite people to assemble their own content out of that. We could end up broadcasting both the BBC professionally produced programme accompanied by other programmes that other people had made out of the same material.”

One of the ways that the Creative Archive licence differs from the other ‘copyleft’ licences like Creative Commons, aside from the UK-only limitation, is that the licence currently allows the BBC to update and modify the licence, which may worry those using the licence that their rights could suddenly become more restricted. “The licence at the moment is a draft, and we’ve given warning that we may well improve it, but we wouldn’t do that more than once or twice. The ambition is that by the time we scale up to the full service we would have a fixed licence that everyone was comfortable with, and it wouldn’t change after that.”

“The ambition is to think about creating a single portal where people can search and see what stuff is out there under the same licence terms, from a range of different suppliers. The idea is that if we can create something compelling like that, we will attract other archives in the UK to contribute their material, so we’d be aggregating quite a large quantity.”

The Creative Archive project has captured the interest of many Internet users, who are growing increasingly, used the idea of being able to ‘remix’ technologies and content. Some groups have been frustrated with the speed at which the project is developing though, and with some of the restrictions imposed in the licence. An open letter to the BBC urges the dropping of the UK-only limitation, the use of ‘open formats’, and to allow the material to be usable commercially.

Mr Gerhardt has publicly welcomed debate of the licence, but makes it clear to me that the whole BBC archive will never all be available under the Creative Archive terms. “We will make all our archive available, under different terms, over the next five to ten years, at a pace to be determined. There would be three modes in which people access it – some of the content would only be available commercially, for the first five year or so after broadcast, say. The second route is through a ‘view again’ strategy where you can view the programmes, but they’d be DRM-restricted. And the third mode is Creative Archive. Over time, programmes would move from one mode to another, with some programmes going straight to the Creative Archive after broadcast.”

Others who disagree with the ‘UK-only’ restriction within the licence include Suw Charman, from the Open Rights Group, who has said “it doesn’t make sense in a world where information moves between continents in seconds, and where it is difficult for the average user to exclude visitors based on geography.” On the project generally, though, she said “I think that it is a good step along the way to a more open attitude towards content. It is a toe in the water, which is far preferable to the attitude of most of the industry players, who are simply burying their heads in the sand and hoping that lawsuits and lobbying for new legislation will bolster their out-dated business plan.”

Other organisations currently participating in the Creative Archive scheme include the British Film Institute, the Open University and Teachers’ TV. Two artists have been awarded scholarships to create artworks using BBC archive material, and BBC Radio 1 has held a competition asking people to use the footage in creative ways as backing visuals to music. The process of making the BBC’s archive material fully available may be a long one, but it could end up changing the way that people interact with the UK’s public service broadcaster.