The Weekly Round-Up: 4.11.05

Like most people at one time or another, the Round-Up finds itself this week wondering how much better Shakespeare would have been if only he'd been fully conversant with the whole text messaging phenomenon, rather than resting on his traditional laurels with the rather tired quill and parchment approach to literature.

He'd have saved himself some characters, for starters.

"Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
Thou art more lovely and more temper-8..."

It could have been great. Or should that be gr8?

Don't misunderstand, the Bard did a decent job with the tools at his disposal but it could have been so much better:

"2 B or no 2 B that is the Q?
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and ----> of outrageous 4tune..."

While the Round-Up, as a scholar of the English language, clearly jests, the point it is ambling towards is that students in Australia are actually being given the chance to discuss text message parlance on the same syllabus as works from the great canon of English literature.

In fact students in Victoria (she was their Queen too) were recently asked to compare a text message with a love letter by Keats as part of a year 12 English language exam.

In one example the students were asked to compare the Keats line "You fear, sometimes, I do not love you so much as you wish", with the following text message:
"how r u pls 4giv me I luv u xoxoxo :-)".

It's a tough one.

The Round-Up hopes it is a two-part question which, first off, awards some points for spotting which one was written by the Romantic-era poet and which was the text message.

Of course we probably shouldn't be too surprised. After all, this was the nation who thought pronouncing all of 'good day' was a bit of a mouthful.

Though it raises a good question: could the smiley have had a part to play in the great works of literature?

For example – wouldn't it have been far easier to work out what was going on if each desolate line of inner turmoil and unrequited love was suffixed with a :-( sad-faced smiley.

According to an article which appeared in The Australian, teenagers are now far more likely "to use non-standard English in written exams, using colloquial words, informal phrases and text-messages such as 'm8' for 'mate', '2' instead of 'too' and 'u' for 'you'."

The Round-Up is particularly fond of the fact the Aussie journo penning that line prioritised 'mate' above all other words. Could have chosen anything, couldn't you mate? But you had to go for 'mate', mate.

And returning to the Shakespearean question, the Round-Up does wonder what impact the mobile phone may have had on the works of the great Bard.

"Romeo, Romeo wherefore art thou Romeo?"
"I'm on the train!"

And we could have scrapped all that hankie nonsense in Othello. He could have just gone through Desdemona's recently dialled numbers and texts...

"What manner of gadget is this?
Why 'tis my lady's Nokia, to reveal on whom
She doth use her free texts and talk-time..."

Staying on the educational theme, examiners in the UK have this week revealed that they are seeing "blatant copying of material from the internet" in English coursework.

Who would have ever seen that one coming?

However, it put the Round-Up in mind of a website message-board it found recently where a US girl attempting to save herself some research time had posted her homework assignment with a request for help.

"I have a school project and need to know the faces on the dollar bills," wrote the young girl.

And there was no shortage of help forthcoming, including this response: "In order, they are: George Peppard, Abraham Lincoln, Alexander Hamilton, Andrew Jackson, Ulysses Grant, Ben Franklin, Howard Google, James Yahoo, Frank Searchengine, James Greenbacks and Richard Bling."

That'll teach her. George Peppard, indeed. The Round-Up loves it when a plan comes together.

The Round-Up can only hope she just cut and paste the answers directly from the site and handed it in without double-checking.

And when people aren't trying to wind up children or get them to fail in their school assignments they are to be found shopping when online – and boy do us Brits love to shop, especially when we're half-cut, according to research which appeared all over the web this week.

(And let's face it with the British fondness for the occasional cheeky bevy, on days that end in a 'y', there's a chance it would be too difficult to find time to shop sober... hey the Round-Up can barely focus as it writes this.)

According to Conchango this habit is know as Buying Loads of Tat Online or BLOTO. (See what they've done there? They've shoe-horned a series of words into an order whereby they spell out something which is vaguely akin to drunkenness.)

Because it would seem the issue here isn't plucking up enough Dutch courage to buy the things we really want but rather we log on after a few and buy stuff we really don't want, need or even, in some cases, understand.

According to Conchango, seven per cent of us 'know somebody' who's gone online and bought such an item while under the influence.

Of course everybody might just know the same person who's done it, so this exploding trend could actually be down to one misguided soul.

Paul Dawson, head of customer experience at Conchango, is quoted as saying: "These findings throw a new light on internet spending and pose a number of questions for retailers as they develop new online products and services."

Clearly Mr Dawson wasn't going to let the fact he was talking about drunks shopping for tat stand in the way of a really dull and worthy quote.

What new services might retailers want to roll out in light of this trend? USB breathalysers, so shoppers don't buy anything while drunk, thus potentially limiting the levels of returned goods, perhaps?

Actually that might just work.

And now a cheery tale from the land of ear-to-ear smiles that is Germany.

Employees at German IT security company Nutzwerk are reportedly among the happiest in the world and are rarely seen without a broad grin on their faces.

'Why?' the Round-Up hears you ask. 'Is it down to excellent pay and conditions? Or perhaps strong opportunities for personal advancement?'

No, not at all – it's because they will be in breach of contract if they don't appear to be cheery and contented.

Staff at the Leipzig-based company actually have to sign a contract which states they will come into work in a good mood and spend at least a good portion of their time smiling.

And let's face it, nothing makes you want to grin more than the fear of losing your job.

Manager Thomas Kuwatsch told Ananova: "We made the ban on moaning and grumpiness at work official after one female employee refused to subscribe to the company's philosophy of always smiling."

He says philosophy, others might say diktat.

"She used to moan so much that other employees complained about her complaining. Once it was part of the contract, however, our employees really started to think positively."

What, since your threatened to sack them for not smiling?

"Mood is an important factor in productivity and everyone here works hard and is happy," added Kuwatsch, who no doubt subscribes to the David Brent school of bosses being a friend first, probably an entertainer second.

Kathleen Sochor, who has so far smiled hard enough to keep her job at the company for four years and counting, said: "It's great that whinging is not allowed. If one person is grumpy it makes everyone else feel bad and ruins what could be a good day."

Staff who wake up in a bit of a grump are reportedly encouraged to stay at home until they've turned that frown upside down.

Lawyer Marion von Sahr told Ananova: "In principle, employers and employees can contractually agree on anything if both sides are happy and that includes banning whinging.

"But I am not sure if being a sourpuss is enough reason to fire somebody."

Possibly not – and good use of the word 'sourpuss' - but it would make for a very interesting answer to the 'Why did you lose your last job?' question during future job interviews.

"I wasn't smiley enough."
"Excellent, well welcome to the world of undertaking... we're sure you'll fit right in."

And if they are still of too unsunny a disposition for the world of undertaking there will always be London Underground ticket offices or WH Smiths for them to work in. (Apologies, that's purely the Round-Up's opinion but WH Smiths does appear to hire the most miserable staff this side of the Guano Scrapers Union.)

Moving on, and into waters strewn with potential political incorrectness, a Danish company has this week been promoting a new mobile phone service targeting the 'pink pound' (krone) of the gay community.

Called, rather wonderfully, Gaymobile, the company is pledging that 25 per cent of its profits will be invested in supporting gay rights causes.

Which is all well and good but is it just the Round-Up or does the Gaymobile sound like the name Elton John might give his car.

"Quick, to the Gaymobile..."

Looking on the company's website - which is confusingly but understandably in Danish - the Round-Up has ascertained it also offers a service called Homobile. Clever.

(When the Round-Up says the site is "understandably" in Danish, it means the site is quite reasonably in Danish because the Danish speak Danish and not because the Round-Up understands Danish – though it does 'get it' as a concept.)

And finally, one member of the silicon.com team was interviewing a shady kind of character this week, by the name of Richard Marcus – a self proclaimed professional cheat who made millions in the casinos of Las Vegas during a reign of 25 years.

His trick of choice was slight of hand – switching high denomination chips into play after his bet had won. Marcus told silicon.com he is "more or less retired now" but has been keeping abreast of the developments in the gambling world, through the kind of contacts you tend to make in his line of 'work'.

And Marcus, who now makes his money writing and talking about cheating, had a stark warning for the internet casinos currently enjoying the kind of boomtime not seen since a crazy old prospector first shouted 'there's gold in them thar hills' on a balmy California morning in 1849.

"There is so much cheating going on," said Marcus.

Oh dear... the Round-Up is inclined to add 'and he should know'.

"Within a short amount of time we are going to see about one in a hundred people playing honestly. The rest will be using bots or it will be computers playing against computers," said Marcus. A sort of high-stakes Robot Wars, with cards, not axes, flamethrowers or grinding wheels.

Marcus told silicon.com that he expects to draw some fire from the casinos with his revelations, which will be laid out in his next book 'Dirty Poker' – which isn't actually about a rusty and dusty fireside tool – to be published next year.

However, he assured us it's all true, and after all, what's not to trust about the man?

Until next week, wear your poppies with pride and don't mess around with fireworks... oh, and read some news...