All the while, he and others fail to realise that these media organisations are not made up of a monolithic institution that despise the internet, but a huge number of very talented individuals (admittedly flanked by an equally large number of talentless chancers) who are engaging enthusiastically with the new web 2.0 world, but are justifiably worried about jobs (and paying mortgages, and feeding families).

Why does the new breed of media professional seem to so aggressively hate or brush off the skills of the old?

The fact is, if there were no dead-tree merchants left, Jeff might be worrying about the income from his blog: no book, no column income from the Guardian, or elsewhere.

I think it is inaccurate to state that the case is closed. This terminology expresses finality. As I understand it the case has stalled, no obvious progress is being made, therefore it has been shelved indefinitely. The case can be brought off the shelf and continued at anytime.

I would also question the use of no leads. In so far as finding Madeleine is concerned, I feel this is correct. However, this is not the case with no leads in relation to the McCanns being child neglectors, and being involved in the disappearance of Madeleine.  Which leads the PJ to consider whether the McCanns have committed homicide and then disposed of Madeleine's body. The McCanns claim that there had been a break in was a cover up, this leads the PJ to conclude that the McCanns had lied. This leads to the abductor story having no credibility. Therefore, it all leads back to the McCanns being suspects. They cannot officially be cleared of no involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine without an official inquiry of the facts surrounding the case. The McCanns must answer those questions they refused to answer put to them by the PJ. Only then, depending upon their answers can they legitimately be eliminated as suspects.

Brilliantly interesting from a nerdy point of view - thought provoking from a cartoonist point of view.

Listen again online before it's taken off iPlayer (in four days time).

to whom God's love commits me here,

Ever this night be at my side,

to light, to guard, to rule and guide.

I was listening to this weeks Guardian Media Talk podcast and it seemed almost entirely devoted to the troubles that lie ahead for newspapers.  I have to say that The Guardian is one of the only papers that seems to get stronger as each digital day dawns.  This aside it seems that print journalism may be doomed. 

The rise of online journalism through news sites, blogging, independent journalism (Nowpublic) and of course word of mouth news through social media has meant people get their daily dose of info in a totally different way and in fact, some would say, better way.

Is there a price issue involved?  Well one of the interesting points raised during the podcast was that free papers such as the London Lite or London Paper are enjoying ever increasing readership. It is evident that even the hard nosed capitalist right winger will have a quick gander at the gossip sections or the sport of these papers.

I may be alone here, however I have noticed a distinct lack of papers, other than the Metro (another freebie), on my daily commute into the city.  In fact people of all ages are using their shiny new iPods, Blackberrys and other media devices to keep them up to date on current affairs and essentially entertained.

This raises another issue, are the papers losing money because they are expanding their market too far, in the attempt to cast their nets far and wide. Jeff Jarvis, a prominent media blogger, believes that newspapers should focus less on website building and effectively outsource this aspect of media to those that do it better, such as Google. It may be that if newspapers outsourced this work they could devote their sole attention to doing what they do best, report cutting edge news with superb comment thrown in for good measure.

I still have warm fuzzy feelings for newspapers, there is something wholesome and obviously tangible about picking up a paper and having a good read.  That said it's been months since I bought one.

Since the show opened a while back, I had already read most the reviews in the newspapers. Obviously I made up my own mind about the show and as if often the case, there was plenty that I didn't agree with... so I've decided to write this post as a direct comparison of my views compared to the critics.

In summary (Coloured Lights)
In short, I loved the show. It might not be perfect, but then whay show is? Perhaps my expectations had been lowered by the critics, but I think Marguerite is an excellent new musical, which merits real praise.

In summary (The critics)
Rather surprisingly, there was quite a high level of consensus between the critics - no dreadful reviews, but no superb ones either. In fact, of the 5 newspapers that gave ratings to the show, all of them considered the show to be worth three stars. In case you're wondering, the papers in question are the Sunday Times, Guardian, Independent review, The Times review and Evening standard.

The music (Coloured Lights)
I thought the music was good, clever and likeable, with a range of styles that demonstrates wriging versatility that is rare in today's West End. Personally, I think it's the jazzier numbers that Legrand does best.

If there's a weakeness with the music, it's that the show lacks any true 'anthems' that will have the audience singing as they leave the theatre. Whilst I'm not looking for everything to be boiled down to a catchy tune, the show would almost certainly have got better reviewers with a few more stand-out songs. Whilst the repeated use of 'Day by Day' was effective, as a stand-alone number it doesn't have the same power as a song like 'One Day More' from Les Miserables.

The music (The critics)

• "Legrand's eclectic score ranges from a pointillist Sondheim-style starter to forties jazz, romantic ballads, including the haunting China Doll, and rousing ensembles." (Guardian)
• "The music is listen-able, but only a couple of songs strike you as being truly catchy - you can’t help thinking of Verdi." (Sunday Times)

Direction & design (Coloured Lights)
The show is visually beautiful, and takes full advantage of the amazing height and depth that makes this venue so special. Both the staging at the design felt somewhat opera-like, which shouldn't come as a complete shock, given that both director and designer (Jonathan Kent and Paul Brown) have worked in opera.

The sheer scale of the setting occasionally made it hard to focus in on the more intimate one or two person scenes, perhaps not aided by my seat in the circle, but this is a minor gripe.

Direction & design (The critics)

• "Kent's fast-moving production also boasts a clever set by Paul Brown framing the action in a seductively mirrored salon." (Guardian)
• "Jonathan Kent's fluent, strikingly designed production" (Independent)

The cast (Coloured Lights)
Ruthie Henshall might be the leading 'name' in this show, but it was Julian Ovenden who stood out. His voice is absolutely sensational - given his choral training as St Pauls, Eton and Oxford, not entirely surprising. He is also a mean jazz pianist - I honestly couldn't tell if he was faking it or not, and it took a chance encounter with one of the show's orchestra afterwards to discover that he is not faking it... apparently he is a brilliant pianist as well as singer.

Ovendun's brilliance shouldn't detract from Ruthie Henshall's performance though - it might not have been the best voice for her voice, which was really strained, she still gave an excellent acting performance. Despite what the critics might have said, I felt sympathy for her, which says more about her quality as an actress than it does the writing itself. Whilst I'm not convinced that her part lends itself perfectly to her voice, I'm still keen to go back and see the show again when she's on slightly better form. I can only imagine how good she'll be then if this was an off-night.

Alexander Hanson was a last-minute addition to the cast of The Sound of Music, after teething troubles with the original leading man, but I'm sure he'll be getting more calls after this performance. The rest of the cast also deserve real praise - it's one of the strongest choruses I have seen in a musical for a long time - there really are no obvious weak links.

The cast (The critics)

• "Henshall and Ovenden are pretty impressive in both the acting and the singing departments. She can be haughty but also broken, forlorn, poignant. He manages to be intense without being sententious and rapturous without seeming wet." (The Times)
• "Ruthie Henshall's worldly but vulnerable Marguerite is in ravishing voice. She eschews standard-issue belting and is all the more moving for the delicacy and range of colour of her delivery." (Independent)
• "Julian Ovenden is a charming and convincing Armand, doing an excellent mime job on the piano, too." (Sunday Times)
• "And I have rarely heard singing of such ardent, youthful rapture as that which pours from the ridiculously talented and handsome Julian Ovenden, who, as Armand, also plays a mean jazz piano." (Independent)

In conclusion (Coloured Lights)
The more I think about the show, the more I want to see it again. Whilst the critics might have focused on whether they felt moved by the character of Marguerite, I'd rather focus on all the good things about the production: some beautiful music, particularly the jazz numbers; a stunning set; a brilliant leading trio, especially Julian Ovenden.

Most of all, Marguerite is an intelligent musical that actually requires a little thought on the part of the audience. At a time when increasing numbers of shows in the West End are 'jukebox' musicals or adaptations from film or TV, audiences and critics should be embracing truly new work.

Unfortunately, I think the critics were too quick to find fault, and I worry that audiences will contuinue to flock to Never Forget or Dirty Dancing, when they'd be far better off making a trip to the Theatre Royal Haymarket.

In conclusion (The critics)

• "I found myself unmoved when Henshall’s Marguerite, by now as fragile and pale as any trad TB victim, leaves her pianist, her Paris and the planet." (The Times)
• "can you have a musical with a heroine you don't learn to love?" (Guardian)
• "this is a compelling, if flawed, new work" (Independent)
• "a decent, enjoyable but not exactly thrilling show." (The Times)
• "Despite weaknesses, this is still a musical with real integrity, intent and substance." (Sunday Times)

*************************************************************************************

If you'd like to see what the critics wrote, then follow these links:
Sunday Times review - 3 stars
Guardian review - 3 stars
Independent review - 3 stars
The Times review - 3 stars
Evening standard review - 3 stars

For another blogger's view, check out An American Look at London Theatre

http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2008/07/gordons-imperfect-economic-storm.html

I must apologise in advance for any trauma caused by either of the above links, but rest assured that I'm in no fitter state after reading about what's going on in the background of Labour finance and the incompetent cabal who determine how it's run. I had promised myself not to read so many of the more depressing articles about the economic situation in the UK, but I was reenthused when I read the profoundly dim-witted article on the BBC entitled "Five reasons to be cheerful amid the gloom" - if you want to see what they're on about and, like me, question their sanity, go to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7513563.stm

Suffice it to say that anyone who now claims that 1) making the Bank of England independent was an all-round good idea; and 2) the UK economy can and does survive under a political policy of splendid isolation actually needs serious medical attention. I can't reproduce The Devil's Kitchen's spectacular analysis nearly as well as he can, but in essence, the new decision on the part of the government to rewrite its own borrowing rules (quite apart from undermining its integrity) renders the attempts by the Bank to combat the causes of the current inflationary spiral increasingly futile. The causes are reasonably easy to enumerate (which is a start, at least): a rising cost of living through trend increases in oil and food prices, which may lead  to demands for increased wages and thus further inflation; the demise of the housing bubble eating away at people's incomes, particularly those with sizeable mortgages; falling confidence in the banking sector after Northern Rock; and falling confidence of the banks in both their overseas cousins and our very own fiscal and monetary institutions.

Not a pretty sight, by any means. What the UK economy needs is (obviously) for prices to stabilise, after which the flurry of panic in the financial sector will calm down as consumer expectations stop going haywire. This is infinitely easier said than done - unfortunately the biggest worry, oil, is completely outside of our control, while the average house price in recent years has been miles above even optimistic versions of a sustainable level. So as long the iron grip of OPEC continues to choke crude oil supply, and the housing market nosedives towards long-term equilibrium, those are variables we can only accept and observe.

Where food prices are concerned, on the other hand, there is something we can do, and it's called Growing Up. I notice, to start with, that the usual deluded idealists of the Guardian or Indepdent ilk who chastise the reading public on a near-daily basis for not spending a fortune on Fairtrade goods from former colonies are keeping a wonderfully low profile now that food costs are soaring, along with those ignorant enough to believe that anything organic is infintely preferable to anything genetically modified, rather than just being more expensive. That's mainly because, in times of economic hardship, consumers subconsciously revert to a much more animalistic, economically model-able attitude of seeking low-cost, high-yield goods, and all the petty moralising goes straight out of the window. It sounds cruel and very un-PC, but I don't actually see any problem with that - the dilemma the West faces is of how to balance its notional 'responsibility' to supporting the economic viability of poorer nations against the immediate (and sociopolitically more pressing) needs of its own citizens. And while it's controversial to say so, until someone comes up with a better answer, and until we're back out of our economic black hole, the welfare of the West's citizens must come first.

I don't know if it's because I'm a student on a budget, or just that I'm an omnivore, but this is an attitude I find very easy to sustain even when we're not in obvious times of hardship. And travelling around different corners of the Western world (EU, Russia, N.America, to put it broadly) drives it home time and time again how much lower the cost of living is compared to the UK. Not just food and oil, but public transport, entertainment, clothing, all the basic mass consumption goods are qualitatively equivalent or superior yet less expensive than anything on the UK market. If I knew why that was, I'd probably already be working for the Bank of England, but I somehow suspect it's partly down to a more sensible attitude to general consumption. So if you want my $0.02, I suggest that 'watching what we eat', in a beautifully ironic way, is a good place for the UK to start fighting its way back to a healthy economy.

[Guardian] Still, the most likely scenario for a torture prosecution is something like what happened to ex-Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. His own country wouldn't touch him, but an industrious Spanish prosecutor - aided by the work of human rights activists and backed by international opinion - indicted him for torture and war crimes and nearly snared him. If Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld faced a similar indictment from abroad, Americans would be outraged - but not really. The US government would try to head it off, but wouldn't be able to do much.

The rest.

"Thelonious Monk wrote Bemsha Swing, not Beshma Swing (Corrections and clarifications, page 36,  July 18 ) " - Guardian Corrections and clarifications, July 1 9.

photo credit: Huntz

The main hindrance to striding bravely into the future is the necessity of dragging the fearful along with us.  This fear is usually a result of plain old superstition based on false information.  Ulrich Beck, writing in the Guardian, provides a perfect example:

Are we witnessing the beginning of a real-life satire, at once amusing and terrifying? Its theme is the smothering of the nuclear power risk by catastrophic climate change and the oil crisis.

. . .

The incalculable dangers to which climate change is giving rise are supposed to be "combated" with the incalculable dangers associated with nuclear power plants.

Beck cites two reasons we should be fearful of the inevitable nuclear renaissance: Chernobyl, and our inability to create an adequate symbol that will warn humans away from stored nuclear waste - ten millennia hence.  These betray the underlying superstition that nuclear power is dangerous, and both can be refuted through simple observation of the facts.

As a European living in close proximity to Chernobyl, Beck should know better than most that the release of fallout from reactor four was the direct result of an unauthorized experiment performed by technicians unfamiliar with the technology, solely to impress a visiting party boss.  He should also know that Chernobyl style RBMK reactors - the epitome of communist design principles - are "generally considered one of the most dangerous reactor designs in use" and as such aren't found outside the old Soviet Union, where only a handful remain.  Conflating those monstrosities with modern Pressurized Water Reactors or Generation IV technology in order to justify one's fear of nuclear power displays either ignorance or dishonesty.

Similarly, objecting to nuclear power simply because we can't invision a reliable warning sign for our far-flung descendants exposes an underlying lack of understanding of the nuclear cycle and nuclear power generation in particular.  Fast breeder reactors don't create waste - they recycle it and in fact create more fuel in the bargain.  "Spent" fuel rods only arise in nuclear programs run by countries (like the United States) that don't reprocess fuel for political reasons, and at any rate they still retain 90-95% of their uranium content.   This is fuel to be stored for future use, not waste to be dealt with.  Treasure, not trash.  The likelihood of any nuclear debris laying about in 10,000 years is pretty slight for this reason alone.

Ulrich Beck might object to nuclear power for a number of reasons.  He might question the ability of the superstate he champions to behave in a responsible manner, for example, or object on the grounds that safe nuclear power requires both competition and transparency, qualities anathema to the superstate he champions.  He might even realize that the type of independence implied by domestic nuclear power programs will dilute the political and economic power of the superstate he champions, but he can't possibly object over obsolete Soviet reactor designs and our perceived failure to communicate across five hundred generations.  That's just silly.

It is also exactly the kind of disinformation that most hinders progress toward a truly green future, because it denies reality.  We can squeeze our eyes tight and wish real hard that solar, wind, and hydrothermal power can replace fossil fuels either separately or together, but that don't make it so no matter how bad we want it.  The cold facts are that there are six billion people on this planet - soon to be ten - representing a demand for energy that simply cannot be met without nuclear reactors.  Renewables aren't a complete solution unless one is willing to sacrifice half the population and condemn the remainder to an 18th century existence, and no amount of magical thinking will change that.  Since neither of those solutions appeal to me personally, I tend to view nuclear power as the backbone of our future energy supply, supplemented by smart use of renewables as appropriate.

In conclusion, it is useful to consider the future Ulrich Beck implies by invoking the need to warn its inhabitants away from nuclear storage sites.  This is a future in which humanity has lost the atomic fire, and presumably much else.  Cultures that don't understand nuclear fission aren't likely to get general relativity or quantum mechanics, after all, and they sure as hell aren't going to be space-faring.  Instead of a noble, mature and confident humanity taking its rightful place among the stars, Beck gives us broken, ignorant and fearful men cowering in the face of natural forces they no longer comprehend.

I absolutely reject this grim vision of the future, and I can think of no better way to ensure it than to turn our backs on reason and allow ignorant superstition to guide our actions, in precisely the manner Ulrich Beck advocates.

Die Idee war lange verschütt bzw. out.

ABER. Ich muß an dieser Stelle darauf hinweisen, dass wir bei nordbayern.de, der Website, mit der ich beruflich zu tun habe, schon 2001 ein Farbleitsystem eingeführt haben. Vielleicht wird die Sache mit dem Guardian ein Anlaß sein, über das Thema neu nachzudenken.

Gleichzeitig lese ich in einem britischen Journalistenblog, dass auch der "Daily Telegraph" im Moment relauncht. Kommende Woche sollen die ersten Sektionen im neuen Kleid erscheinen.

Dieses Layout ist auch sehr schön, verzichtet aber bis auf blau fast komplett auf Farbe als Gestaltungsmittel. Dafür ist den Kollegen eine sehr gute Lösung gelungen, wie man eine riiiiieeeesige Homepage mit Hilfe verschieden großer Bilder bzw. Bildleisten gestalten kann. Denn beim Guardian sind alle Bilder prinzipiell gleich groß, es gibt dort keinen "richtigen" Aufmacher mit einem größeren Bild. Und ich finde, die Bildgröße ist für den User ein guter Anhaltspunkt für die Bedeutung des jeweiligen Themas.

Also mein Favorit wäre eine Mischung mit den Bildelementen des Telegraph und vielleicht einer noch etwas abgespeckten Farb-Navigation a la Guardian.

Visite Warlic no seu Shop para aprender a arte do SpellCraft!
Visite Ballyhoo para terminar a quest do Space Chimps! Todas as partes da quest agora estão prontas!!
Viaje para Leste(East) e vá em Paxia para a batalha final contra o Shadowscythe Mecha!!
Viaje para Leste(East) E vá em Deren para jogar novamente a Saga de Devourer em um só lugar (Pessoal, melhor lugar apra catar exp é aki!! ^^)!
Use o 'Event Button' na cidade para ir na Batalha contra o GRANDE CHEFE da guerra Firespawn Part 2!!
Fale com Valência na cidade e para comprar a nova arma chamada The Gasparian no shop de Z-Tokens. com grande poder e uma incrível animação special!

GRANEMOR REBORN! (Granemor Renasce!)
Vá para Granemor no Mapa e veja a nova cidade totalmente renovada! Essa atualização tem 2 novas quests, 5 novos mosntros, 6 novos NPCs, e muuitos novos items! A Maior atualização de uma cidade desde que foi feita a Isle d'Oriens!

HOUSE ESTATES! (Estado/Modelso das Casas!)
Fale com Valência na cidade para você a nova versão de moradia! Tendo como você por vários intems pela casa e criar seus proprios recursos aumentando seu level de "moradia"! Veja os Items de Moradia Aqui
Mais detalhes vejam aqui

WORLD OF SPELLCRAFT! (Mundo do SpellCraft!)
Visite Warlic o Arquemágico em sua loja de magia e encontre a nova e especial quest no qual você pode aprender a arte da magia Spellcraft. Compre a magia "Spellcraft" de Warlic, e junte o iram para transormar o Spellcraft em 9 distintas magias à sua escolha! Incluindo uma única magia que só pode ser descrita como Aporkalyptic Hammageddon!
Saiba como usa-lo, use o TUTORIAL

THE GASPARIAN WEAPON IN THE Z-TOKEN SHOP! (A Arma de Gasparian na loja dos Z-Tokens)
Visite Valência na cidade e entre na loja de Z-Token, cheia de Elite e itens raros! NOVO: Encontre a Gasparian, a nova bem-designada lâmina(espada) com um verdadeiro poderoso atraque especial!
http://www.battleon.com/aq-tokens-list.asp

Vamos lá pessoal, aproveitem essse maravilhoso update!!

(c) Tradução toda feita por FelipeMasterX (c)