The Weekly Round-Up: 19.08.05

"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it... "

You've got to hand it to Winston Churchill - he was the king of sound bites, and this week his role in shaping history was once again recognised.

A survey of 1,000 industry leaders, high-profile business executives and chairmen, and company directors from European blue chip organisations this week determined the greatest 50 leaders of all time - finding Churchill to be top of the tree.

But given the apparently infinite time span of the survey - which included God, just sneaking in at number 50 - there was a good showing from figures who have made their names in the past 20 years, including some from the high tech sector.

Microsoft boss Bill Gates came in at 26th place and IBM boss Lou Gerstner came 44th.

But in a very mixed list Bill Gates actually found himself next to Moses - though to be fair to Moses, he did come up with the Tablet concept long before Gates, even if his crude early version only had the capacity for 10 short messages.

The survey press release, issued to promote the Leaders in London conference, also showed a remarkable lack of respect or reverence to those people it claims symbolise greatness, by spelling three of their names incorrectly.

Albert Einstein, Charles De Gaulle and Julius Caesar all suffered this indignity.

The Round-Up urges all three of them to now boycott the event in protest.

But back to tech, there were all manner of other lists to get excited about with this survey.

The Round-Up says "excited" - meaning it very much in a tutting, eye-rolling, summer's here so there must be some dodgy surveys knocking about, kind of way.

For example, Bill Gates came eighth in a list of leaders whom the respondents would like to see as the next British Prime Minister.

That's worth knowing, given the likelihood of the position interesting him.

He was also voted the greatest business leader of all time, overhauling Richard Branson's nine place lead in the main list to win this category. IBM's Gerstner came fifth.

The survey then trundles on through ever more bizarre categories, pushing the Round-Up from thinking 'I see the silly season has begun', through 'what where they thinking?' and well beyond 'this is 10 minutes of my life I'm never going to get back'.

And while the survey managed to ascertain that Forrest Gump and Gandalf the Wizard were among the movie and TV characters who display the greatest leadership qualities - a category won by Mel Gibson's Braveheart, narrowly ahead of Oprah Winfrey (no, really) - it thankfully stopped just short of asking respondents for their 10 greatest leaders from the animal kingdom, or similar.

Though just for the hell of it - and picking names almost at random with similar disregard for any sensible criteria such as them actually having to be real - the Round-Up would vote for Rin-Tin-Tin, Lassie, Godzilla, Top Cat, Yogi Bear, Nemo, Uncle Bulgaria, Roland Rat, Skippy and Bugs Bunny... though not necessarily in that order - obviously.

Just missing out would be George, the bear from the 1980s Hoffmeister adverts, who frequently urged others to follow his lead but apparently to no avail - after all, when was the last time you drank Hoffmeister?

And speaking of bears - or rather, having slightly awkwardly brought the subject around to bears - one tech company has found itself in trouble this week over the part played by a bear in its adverts, this time a real bear, rather than a failed actor who may or may not have been paid in beer, wearing an unconvincing bear suit, pork pie hat and gold bomber jacket.

Animal Defenders International has hit out at Sony Ericsson, condemning the use of a bear in the advertising for its latest camera phone.

You may be familiar with the advert, airing on UK television at the moment.

Here's a quick synopsis. A woman takes a photo of a dragonfly feeding on the small insects which doubtless live on a pretty riverbank flower. Her boyfriend (though it could be her brother or just a platonic friend, the Round-Up is interpreting this as it sees it) then grabs the phone just in time to take a photo of a leaping salmon eating the dragonfly.

She then snatches it back to photograph a bear running in and grabbing the salmon and then, to cap it all off, the boyfriend goes one better yet again, seizing back the phone to capture the moment as an eagle comes in and flies off with the bear in its talons.

We're not sure whether Animal Defenders International actually thinks Sony Ericsson set up this elaborate set piece with real animals in situ, in which case the Round-Up thinks the salmon and the dragonfly actually got a far rougher deal than the bear, based on what we actually see in the advert.

Jan Creamer, CEO of ADI, even calls on consumers to boycott the handset company if the powers that be at Sony Ericsson refuse to accept that the use of performing bears is no longer acceptable.

At this point the Round-Up wonders whether the well-intentioned, if slightly misguided, folks at Animal Defenders International are familiar with CGI.

If not, then their excitement at the discovery of a new species is going to be very quickly tempered by concerns of cruelty towards the latest great ape when the new King Kong movie comes out.

However, staying away from any contentious pronouncements which Sony Ericsson's lawyers may rightly take issue with, the Round-Up thinks there is plenty more to pick holes in as far as this particular advert is concerned.

Such as, what is this teaching the kids? Dragonfly eats small insects (presumably just out of shot). Salmon eats dragonfly. Bear eats salmon. Fair enough, at this point kids are learning a great lesson about the food chain and Darwinism in all its glory.

Then, eagle eats bear.

Say what?

Putting aside the physical impossibility of an eagle being able to pick up a bear and fly off, and assuming the creative brains behind the advert don't expect us to believe the eagle is giving the bear a lift to higher ground, it just isn't an accurate portrayal of the food chain in action.

That's going to confuse young minds.

What they could have done is shown the bear slipping on a wet rock, hitting its head and passing away naturally through blood loss or major head trauma. Then any number of large scavenging raptors could have flown down and picked at the prone corpse, without challenging credibility too much.

That'll be why the Round-Up doesn't work in advertising.

Secondly, and this is important, dear readers. If you see a hungry bear coming towards you, your first instinct shouldn't be, 'quick take a photo'. It should be run, and run fast.

Therefore that advert may have formed a far more credible basis for an advert for a decent pair of running shoes.

Of course the man may not be able to outrun the bear (they are quicker than they look) but, of course, he only has to outrun his girlfriend. And if the one-upmanship of the whole photo scenario is anything to go by then he seems the type to fancy those odds.

(At this point the Round-Up must clarify that 'run, and run fast' is merely a reference to a presumed first instinct and should not be taken as a definitive guide to what to do when approached by a bear. silicon.com and CNET Networks assumes no responsibility for injuries resulting from bear attacks.)

And staying with animals - as Saint Francis of Assisi may once have written on his CV - 'the internet' has been accused this week of acting as a black market for the trade in endangered species.

The International Fund for Animal Welfare (Ifaw) claims to have found 9,000 live animals or animal products for sale in one week on websites such as eBay. And we're not talking cats and dogs here - among the lots for sale were a gorilla, a Siberian tiger and four baby chimps.

It's a shame PG Tips no longer films those great TV adverts with the chimps dressed up as removal men and the like, else they could offer a good home to the four babies - not to mention regular employment, clothing allowance and all the tea they can drink.

(The Round-Up is joking, before Animal Defenders International fires off angry emails, the exploitation and mistreatment of animals is of course abhorrent.)

Though speaking of angry emails, crack open the champagne - hot on the heels of winning the Olympic bid, Londoners have this week been awarded the honour of 'senders of the most profane emails in the UK'.

And about F#@*ING time too, says the Round-Up!

(The survey also discovered that men are more likely to steal company data than women)

And speaking of theft and foul-mouthed parts of the country, there has been a backlash this week against websites which, heaven forbid, allow users to work out whether they are about to move into a hellhole of an area before they go ahead and put in an offer on a property.

Potential homeowners are increasingly using websites which provide detailed statistics on issues such as crime to determine whether they want to live there - and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation is up in arms about it.

Apparently such responsible research is set to prove the death of society because it means bad areas will stand even less chance of pulling themselves out of a spiral of decline at the hands of the Burberry-cap-wearing teens currently ripping up a bus shelter hopefully nowhere near you, while decent areas will continue to thrive, creating a "digital divide" which may eventually mean quiet, kind, conscientious, respectable people could soon lose what little chance they have of being stabbed on their doorstep by an ASBO kid.

Of course there is a serious issue here, which needs to be addressed but the Round-Up doesn't really think we can blame the websites, or the people using them who funnily enough don't fancy running home from their burned out local railway station under a hail of bottles and abuse.

Is it just the Round-Up, or would it be a better idea to try to change the people or the problems which make these areas so unappealing, rather than blaming the people or the websites which chose to highlight such issues?

(Apropos of nothing, look at aerial photography of the lovely, leafy York suburb where the Joseph Rowntree Foundation is based, here)

And finally, a story which really takes the piss, quite literally, if you'll forgive the Round-Up's crude language (we are emailing you from London, don't you know).

How do you fancy a urine-powered battery for your mobile phone?

It could one day be a reality.

The Institute of Bioengineering and Nanotechnology in Singapore is working on that very innovation in the ongoing pursuit of renewable energy sources.

The Round-Up is the first to admit the science of the thing gets a little tricky but essentially the credit card-sized battery includes paper-thin layers of copper, magnesium and paper, coated with copper chloride. It is the chemical reaction of the urine with this 'sandwich' of layers which creates the electricity, according to New Scientist.

Apparently a single drop of urine is all it takes - so happy days for all those of us capable of generating more than that, though it could change our rules of social and workplace interaction.

It's one thing to send around an email asking 'Does anybody have a Nokia charger?' It's another altogether to send one saying 'My mobile battery has just died [or should that be dried] and I can't manage even a drop - anybody on the verge of going?'

Fortunately we've likely got some years before we need worry about such things.

Until next week, here's some news: