I think this is a film we all wish we made. The rude policeman at the end was presumably filmed before the ridiculous laws on photographing the police were introduced.

Either the Internet’s broken or Google’s broken. Either way, it’s clearly the end of the civilised world and time to head for the supermarket to buy all the tinned food and bottled water you can possibly carry.

When you Google something (at least at the time of writing), each site listed is accompanied by the ‘This site may harm your computer’ message:

This site may harm your computer.

Needless to say, this message is designed for web-based malware, but it seems that Google have broadened the definition of malware to include any site that contains even a smattering of HTML. And when you click on a result, you don’t get the website you were looking for, but this:

The Google blog offers no explanation so far, people around the world are all on Twitter, tweeting their blind panic in various languages.

In the meantime, just think of the millions of Google users turning to long forgotten search engines today, and the fortunes lost in advertising. Google must be fuming. Heads will roll.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got some looting to do.

[Update: The problem seems to have lasted for about 30 mins, so panic over people. Now move along, there's nothing to see here.]

I love the 50 Questions series. It’s great the way the answer to a simple question can reveal so much about a person’s life. Enjoy.

Finally, YouTube has woken up to the fact that just about every video camera sold over the last couple of years uses the 16:9 aspect ratio.

Yes, there are still some people shooting in 4:3, particularly on mobile phones, but anyone with even a half-decent modern camera would like to display their videos in 16:9.

That’s why anyone who wants embeddable HD video has been using the magnificent Vimeo, who still offer superior HD quality and service (if you find a flaw in their service and ask for it changed, they actually listen to you and follow through if your request is reasonable). However, YouTube is still where the vast bulk of the audience is and so it’s (sadly) still home to most online videos.

Larry Dignan, Editor in Chief of ZDNet, just doesn’t seem to understand that YouTube have been lagging behind, and strangely he seems to think that widescreen is just for big budget motion pictures.:

Hmmm. Has anyone said ‘man I wish this Obama girl video was on a wider screen’? Didn’t think so. Amateur content may look fine on a wide screen, but 960 pixels isn’t exactly a requirement.

The bigger picture here is that YouTube is going to start cutting deals with content producers–the Hollywood types.

Which is utter nonsense dressed up as pseudo-insider knowledge about YouTube’s strategy. While it’s true that YouTube is making deals with content producers (and not just the Hollywood types - remember that YouTube’s most subscribed user is in fact the incredibly annoying Fred, a YouTube partner), the lack of widescreen on YouTube has been irritating the hell out of all content producers everywhere for years now.

Dignan goes on to say that ‘YouTube’s latest move is all about the pros’, which goes to show that he knows nothing - absolutely nothing - about video. I’d bet my left arm - literally, if it were possible - that his own example of ‘Obama Girl’ was shot on cameras that were capable of shooting 16:9. And that it would have looked bigger and richer on the viewer’s computer screen, with less white space irritating their eyes while watching.

Would it have improved the content? No. Obama Girl was rubbish anyway, and I don’t say that for political reasons. But the viewing experience would have been improved for those who did.

Imagine the scene. You’re in court. You’re on trial, along with two friends of yours. For very serious offences, child abduction and sexual assault, no less. Your future lies in the hands of the 12 jurors sitting across from you. You’re hoping and praying the jurors will study the facts carefully. But, unbeknownst to you, on of the jurors has opened up a Facebook poll to the public, as she’s incapable of reaching a decision herself.

If this was a plot for a low budget Channel 5 drama, you’d write it off immediately, yet this was exactly what happened in Burnley. Thankfully she was caught and kicked off the jury.

Full story here.

The BNP’s Nick Griffin takes on the role of Lolcats, in Lolgriffin, a link that has been flying around Twitter. It’s also the last BNP story I’ll be doing for quite some time.

Google have taken the blog with the list down, and rightly so considering that the BNP aren’t the only group with a lunatic fringe.

Anyway, I think it might be worth considering that all political parties should be required to publish their member lists. If we demand transparency of our politicians, why not demand it of party members (and donors) too?

After all, what’s there to hide, unless of course you’re in a position of power? In which case you’d be a person in power who may (or may not) be pursuing a hidden political agenda, which it might be healthy for society to be aware of.

While I’m certainly no fan of the BNP, I’ve met all sorts of people who hold similarly ridiculous religious or political beliefs, and the fact is that no matter how much you want to demonise a group of people - whether they’re Muslim immigrants or BNP members - they’re usually nice enough people when you get to know them on a one-to-one basis. The only way to change strongly held views is through dialogue and debate, not by pushing groups of people aside.

According to the Telegraph, some of the people are worried about losing their jobs, but I honestly doubt they have anything to worry about if they aren’t being actively racist at work. If they are unfortunate enough to be made redundant, they could always open up a corner shop, provided they’re willing to take the financial risk and work the long hours.

[In the spirit of what I've just written, I'll start. I'm not a member of a political party, but am an active member of Facebook and Twitter. I also aspire to join LA Fitness, but that's probably best left to the new year. My own political influence has never gone further than a little bit of volunteering for Greenpeace I did a few years ago, some work for London Citizens, and the occasional anti-war rally.]

I finally got my hands on the Google Voice search app for iPhone this morning. For the most part, it does what it says on the tin, so there isn’t much need to go into detail.

The app is optimized for North American accents, so my (increasingly Anglicised) Irish accent probably threw it a bit off.

Below are the words that I searched for, followed by what Google Search gave me:

Hullabamoo = Hana Beaman (she’s a female snowboarder)

Porn = Chords (really surprised Google didn’t make sure they sorted that one out)

London Travel Information = London Travel Information

TechCrunch = tech crunch (which of course brought up TechCrunch as the first result)

What is the capital of Peru = sears (don’t know what was happening there)

Wordpress = Word Press

Twitter = Twitter

Grrrrrrrrr = Pearl

Meow Meow (in a cat voice - my flatmate in the next room must be thinking about moving out at this stage) = Birmingham (would be clever if LOLCats could have Meow Meow work for voice search)

Imperial War Museum = Imperial War Museum

BBC iPlayer = BBC Archive

The Brown Cow Project = Superintendent Contract (very worrying, hope this app doesn’t catch on)

How big is a giant squid? = Heavy is a tool and equipment (Techcrunch got “public citizens time square”, thought I’d see if I could get it)