(no subject)

Okay, so the news that the Pentagon plans a cyber-insect army might seem a little unsettling at first, but it should be at least some comfort that cyber-insect armies are prey to the exact same problems as regular ones:

"A similar scheme aimed at manipulating wasps failed when they flew off to feed and mate".

Incidentally, the above picture comes from a stock photo website. You have to applaud their covering every base—or possibly the nervous breakdown of one of their art editors—for the inclusion of a "stock" "photo" of, and I quote, a robotic armoured cyber wasp.

Remuneration, remuneration, remuneration

Labour's treasurer has revealed that he and other elected officials did not know the party had secretly borrowed millions of pounds last year.

Jack Dromey said he will investigate the issue with the party's general secretary and report next Tuesday. His comments follow a furore over three men recommended for peerages after lending Labour money. Unlike donations, loans do not have to be declared.

Mr Dromey said Downing Street had not shown enough respect for the party... Downing Street must have known before him about the loans - which amounted to "millions" of pounds, he said. [BBC]

Wait; the whole party has been acting like Tessa Jowell?

“Where did we get all this money, darling?”

“Oh, from the account with the people, for the thing. And the other stuff. I'm a top international businessman, you know.”

“I know, honey. Aren't we lucky.”

Why isn’t this called Stuff Magazine?

A salutary tale of not understanding how the world of television works, told in the direct, unforgiving style of Ofcom Bulletin 55:

Complaint by Mr Christopher Elliot on behalf of the Guild of Taxidermists
Taxidermy: Stuff the World, BBC1 and BBC2, 6 September 2005 and 22 August 2005

Summary: Ofcom has not upheld this complaint of unfair treatment made by Mr Christopher Elliot on behalf of the Guild of Taxidermists (the Guild). The Guild participated in the programme Taxidermy: Stuff the World which documented the work of several taxidermists from around the world as they prepared to compete in the 2005 World Taxidermy Championships. The Guild complained that: relevant information and footage was not included in the programme; the programme referred to taxidermy as “stuffing”, the programme portrayed the Guild as a “sad bunch”; and, the programme unfairly associated UK taxidermists with the work of American taxidermists.

Ofcom found the following:

* There was no case of unfairness to answer in relation to the allegation that “the programme was a poor representation of taxidermy in the UK” as there was no obligation on programme makers to represent “taxidermy in the UK” [( * )

] within the programme.

* The programme’s use of the term “stuff” did not result in unfairness to the Guild. Ofcom concluded that the use of the term “stuff” by programme makers was warranted to increase audience understanding of the content of the programme. Further, Ofcom noted that there was no evidence to suggest that programme makers had given the Guild any assurances that they would not use the term “stuff”.

* The programme makers’ decision to not include footage of winning UK taxidermists did not result in unfairness to the Guild as programme makers were under no explicit obligation to include winning footage of UK taxidermists, nor was the footage required to meet their stated objective for the film.

* The programme makers’ decision to not use footage of Mr Carl Church, a Guild member, in the programme as broadcast did not result in unfairness to Mr Church or the Guild. Ofcom found no evidence that programme makers told the Guild or Mr Church that Mr Church would be the main subject of the programme or that his inclusion was guaranteed. Further, the release form signed by Mr Church gave permission for the programme makers to use and edit footage of him as they wished.

* Programme makers were under no obligation to include information specific to the “art of taxidermy in the UK”. However, programme makers did successfully meet the objective of the film as stated to the Guild of documenting the “art” of taxidermy in general. Ofcom found no unfairness to the Guild in this respect.

* There was no obligation for programme makers to include information about the Guild relating to the intricacies of taxidermy, or the guidelines adhered to by the Guild, when collecting animal specimens. As such, Ofcom found no unfairness to the Guild in this respect.

* The programme’s portrayal of the Guild’s UK Conference was fair. Ofcom was satisfied that the footage of the Conference was fairly edited, and accurately juxtaposed the UK Conference against the bigger and much more competitive World Championships. Ofcom found that it would have been unlikely that viewers would have formed an unfair or negative impression of the Guild based on the footage taken from the UK Conference.

The complaint of unfair treatment was not upheld.