Monday, January 31, 2005

Taking the long way home


Fate seems to be too final. Too absolute.

I don't like the idea. Also, it's too much of a reach to think everything is predetermined. The whole idea doesn’t sit well with me and it just doesn’t make any sense.


Besides the fact that such an idea would mean free will is merely an illusion, why would anyone want to live a life they have no control over the outcome of?

I prefer to think that rather than being a passenger in the vehicle of my life, I'm firmly at the wheel.

Taking that analogy one step further, I believe that instead of a rigid fate, there is a series of sign posts. These signposts are places that travelers will often converge and sometimes .. just sometimes, your life will be touched by another, for better or for worse.

So your route is still undetermined, you have many roads to choose from, and the number of possible routes is almost infinite, but they're roads non the less. Each road being a well-defined, narrow passageway leading to yet more roads.

Right now, I’m traveling alone...

Saturday, January 29, 2005

A matter of life & death


In recent times, a topic that has simmered under the surface of society, and a topic that sits only just out of reach of polite conversation is that of euthanasia. It is a topic that is of keen interest to most of us by virtue of possessing a quality that moves the subject uncomfortably close to our own mortality.

Rare is the man or woman that has the power to influence the meandering course of their life in such a way as to be sure of time and means of their own demise.

I’m not going to run off and dig through recent stories, naming names and circumstances. I find that kind of thing to be intrusive and undignified, given the nature of the most recent cases in particular.

So for those who might doubt me, maybe a visit to the BBC News website would help corroborate the following circumstances that happen to recollect.

A recent case was that of a woman in her forties who was struck down by an irreversible and progressively degenerative decease that had already taken away her ability to take care of herself.

She required constant care, and although her husband doted on her, her condition would only ever get worse until her body eventually gave up and she died.

The saddest thing is that her mental faculties were untouched. So she had to ignominious and unenvious fate of watching her own body descend into decrepitude.

So, she decided that she wanted to die.

However, the courts saw differently and she was refused the right to die a death of her own choosing and in a time of her own choosing. So instead, she was doomed to die a slow and undignified death.

Reasons for and against

I’m at a loss as to why the courts simply refuse to allow euthanasia when it is used so responsibly in other countries around the world. And given the shear weight of medical evidence showing that her condition would only worsen and that the quality of her life would grow inexorably worse.

There is the argument that euthanasia could be abused. For example: a family wishing to get rid of a wealthy family member so that they might inherit their fortune. With the help of a complicit doctor, between them, they could manufacture a way of dispatching said relative to a less than timely death.

I’m no news hound, but I’ve yet to hear of such an instance taking place. But that does not preclude the possibility of such a thing taking place. So I do not discount the possibility, but I would contest such an occurrence would be uncommon.

My reasoning is simple: in you imagine such people banding together, people so obviously prepared to end a life for simple material wealth, I feel sure their greed would ultimately betray them one way or another.

The other obstruction is one posed by those people that feel that euthanasia is just wrong. This mindset bares additional scrutiny in its own right, because it’s a point of view that owes more to an emotional response than an opinion couched in logic.

There is such an organization in Britain that is run by christians that opposes euthanasia vehemently and often instigates a media campaign as a means of attack against such people as those discussed above.

I’ll leave that aside for a second and move onto something else.

More recently, a couple went to court to fight for the right to travel abroad to a country that allows the controlled and managed practice of euthanasia so that they could find the dignity they were looking for. For a while, it appeared that the couple would be prevented from traveling abroad.

In the end, it was decided that the courts simply could not prevent them from doing so.

As expected, the aforementioned organization took exception to this finding and were suitably outraged and saddened by the decision.

I have to ask a very simple question: what would have been the alternative, given this could were so determined? Place them under house arrest? Place them into some mental care facility?

There is a wealth of ethical duscussions to be found on the BBC website -- and almost anywhere else you might choose to look. But I’m not particularly interested in that kind of thing.

Why? Well lets go back to the issue I left open earlier, the issue of the christian organization that so opposes euthanasia.

I’ve often found that those who stand highest on the moral high ground, those that see themselves as the pious curators of all things moral and ethical are usually those that have the most tenuous grasp of the depth of the problems they oppose. Or if the depth and scope of the issue is not being lost on them, they instead prize something else in higher regard.

When you press these people harder, forcing them to base their opinion more in logic, you will find them curiously reluctant to do so.

I found this deeply suspicious, and on occasion, I’ve managed to force them to verbally paint themselves into such a dilemma-ridden corner, that they have resorted to something akin to what you’d expect from a petulant child. They would promptly fold their arms and make some spurious rebuttal coloured in its entirety by their religious beliefs.

And therein lies the problem.

It seems that in their mind, belief and the rigor in which they choose to follow their belief should not be questioned. In fact, in their mind, their belief is exempt from the scrutiny of logic and is, as such, unimpeachable.

Suffice to say, this is a deeply flawed way of thinking.

To place religion before the well-being and the welfare of your fellow man is to divorce yourself from logic in its entirety and to abandon common sense all together.

Worse still -- given that both the courts and medical establishments of Britain are conducted under principles that are secular in nature -- having such people infiltrating these establishments only undermines the efforts of those having more objectivity in their decision-making processes.

This troubles me deeply, because we enter into a world where human suffering is tolerated because it is seen as less sinful to allow someone to die an often miserable and agonizing death than it is to oppose the will of one god or another.

To simplify the point, the avoidance of guilt is a more desirable course of action.

I do not filter my perceptions in such limited and coloured ways. Objectivity and an adherence to logic and the needs and wishes of the sufferer are paramount, not an option to be considered secondary to your beliefs.

However, I hasten to add, this is not representative of all of ethicists. That would be both incorrect and unfair. There are some truly great minds out there.

Regulation of the practice of euthanasia

There’s no doubt that in light of such a contentious issue, regulation would be difficult. However, I believe it to be an attainable goal.

To begin with, we must first make the simple -- and yes, blatantly obvious -- assumption that human life is precious.

If the death penalty was still active in Britain, it would be a decision often not arrived at lightly. The sentence of death would be arrived at after an extensive trial which involves evidence presented by both sides for and against.

In that same way, euthanasia deserves, nay commands a similar level of scrutiny and deliberation.

To that end, would it not make sense that there be an extension -- or at least a provision -- be made in law whereby a judicial hearing be formed to oversee the submission of by a sufferer for the right to end their life?

A panel of experts in law, medicine and ‘clean’ ethics who would be able to pool their expertise and preside over each case in a more timely and focused manner.

After all, if we deny someone the right to die, then who are we to consign them to a living death?

Friday, January 28, 2005

A desire to speak in tongues


I would like to learn to speak both Spanish and French.

Obviously, not at the same time or that would be silly, wouldn’t it?


Anyone know of any books entitled: ‘Lazy bastards learning Spanish and French without really making all that much effort: An illustrated guide.’?

Thursday, January 27, 2005

And then it occured to me...


"... The only worrying thing about a really good idea is that someone else could be thinking the same thing."
~ Wayne Smallman (1975 - )

Wednesday, January 26, 2005

Thought of the day


"Failure has a thousand explanations. Success doesn't need one."
~ Alec Guinness de Cuffe (1914 - 2000)

Tuesday, January 25, 2005

The people versus humour...


Yesterday, I read with a good deal of amusement, the tumult surrounding a spoof advert for a Volkswagen Polo.

In the advert, a terrorist suicide bomber -- of Mediterranean or North African origin, no less -- steps into his Volkswagen Polo, drives up along side an al fresco dining area, stops and then promptly blows himself up .. himself only, not the car.


The idea being the car is so sturdy, the explosion simply occurs within the confines of the interior of the car. Presumably the car would need a thorough valeting before a second owner could be found.

Anyway, this spoof advert has spread like wildfire across the internet and has landed the producers of this clip in a spot of bother with the lads & lasses from Wolfsburg, Germany.

The interesting thing here is that there are two distinct veins of bullshit being touted by both sides. Along with the canned responses from both parties only adding to the preposterousness of the whole thing, making it all the more amusing.

Speaking in the digital newsletter Brand Republic, Dan (of Dan and Lee; the two guys behind the advert) said: “The ad got out accidentally and spread like wildfire.”

Really. He goes on to add: “We’re sorry if it has caused any offense.”

OK. That’s just bullshit from top to bottom. These guys aren’t that naive, and neither am I or the people at Volkswagen for that matter.

Clearly, they’re angling for some lucrative deal or for the two of them to be ‘headhunted’ (in a nice way) by larger marketing agencies.

Lee refused to say who funded the £40,000 film. He said: “We never really intended it for public consumption but it got out somehow.”

Quite.

So given they spend no less than a rather considerable amount of money on .. what? A portfolio piece? Something for them and their mates to have a good giggle about? Who the fuck are they kidding, here?

When the people at Volkswagen slapped eyes on this, they became quite vocal, also. Spokesman Paul Buckett said: “We were horrified. This is not something we would consider using.”

Oh, of course.

He adds: “It is in incredibly bad taste to depict suicide bombers.”

All standard damage-limitation stuff and publicity-posturing so far.

But then he says: “It gives the impression we have condoned or supported it, and it is potentially damaging to Volkswagen.”

How?

How would anyone come to the conclusion that Volkswagen support terrorism?

Let’s dignify this silliness for a second, step into an alternate universe where such a small car could be tough enough to withstand the full force of an explosion in such a confined space and ask this simple question: if the terrorist knew the car to be so bloody resilient, then why use it the first place?

The car foils his attempt to kill civilians, Volkswagen save the day!

Of course, the people at Volkswagen know this. And I’d wager that the point I make above isn’t lost on them, either.

I’d also go on to say that when they first say it, they fell about laughing.

Either way you slice this, Volkswagen get an enormous amount of PR, non of which is even remotely bad.

So we have the dynamic duo, Dan and Lee lurching towards cult success, fame and fortune and Volkswagen picking up a short but welcome spike in sales.

Everyone wins .. or do they?

“In the advert, a terrorist suicide bomber -- of Mediterranean or North African origin, no less...”

Public perception is further polarized and skewed. A majority are remembered unfavorably for actions of a minority.

Everyone looses...



























Monday, January 24, 2005

oh ohh, telephone line...


To the strains of the Electric Light Orchestra getting louder and louder in the back of my mind, I start my day in the support tree of hell.

Them: “Good morning, this is <<female name>> on reception, how can I help you?”

Me: “Yes, hi. I’d just like to confirm your address please.”

Them: “Oh I’m sorry, we can’t do that here.”

Me: “I just want your address, that’s all.”

Them: “No sir. I can only re-direct your call.”

Me: “[Sigh]”

Them: “What network are you with?”

Me: “BT Mobile.”

Them: “I’ll put you through to 02.”

Me: “Eh?!”

Some god-awful soft rock holding music.

Them: “Good morning this is <<male name>> can I take your mobile phone number please?”

Me: “I just want to confirm...”

Them: “I need to your mobile phone number, first sir, please.”

Me: “OK my number is <<telephone number>>”

Them: “Err, I don’t seem to have you on my records.”

Me: “I know. I’m not with 02.”

Them: “But you’ve come through to 02.”

Me: “I was sent here. I didn’t ask to be here.”

Them: “I’ll need to be...”

Me: “Whoa, whoa .. whoa! Hang on. All I want is for you to confirm your address for me.”

Them: “I’m sorry, sir. I can’t do that. You’ll have to call support.”

Me: “What?!”

Them: “We only deal with 02 customers.”

Me: “Can you put me through?”

Them: “No sir. You’ll have to go back to reception.”

What the fuck are they doing? Talking to each other on paper cups and wet string?!

I hang up and call reception again.

Them: “Good morning, this is <<female name>> on reception, how can I help you?”

Me: “Hi. I was wondering if you could confirm your postal address for me?”

Them: “No. I can’t do that from here. But I can put you through to the right department? What network are you with, sir?”

Me: “Hold on. I’ve just been sent through to completely the wrong department. I’m with BT Mobile...”

Me: Them: “If you have a billing enquiry with BT Mobile, then you need to call them direct.”

Me: “I don’t have a bill enquiry. I just want your address.”

Them: “I can’t give you that, unfortunately.”

Me: “I just want the address of the right department so that I can send a letter to you requesting a redemption on my bill.”

Them: “You will need to speak to BT Mobile direct.”

Me: “But it’s your offer!”

Them: “I’ll put you through to the support team.”

Eventually, I get to speak to someone with a brain, which was a relief at the time.

I find it staggering that they are unable to provide me with the address of the building they work in.

Are we to presume that they parachute in every morning? Or maybe they have such exotic means of conveyance as teleportation? Or maybe they’re abducted and taken blind-folded in the back of a dirty white van?

Yes, this is Monday alright...

Thursday, January 20, 2005

Do the iPod Shuffle...


I'm not the gadget fiend I used to be.

I like gadgets that, 1) are useful [not always a given, but you know this], 2) aren't too fiddly [hephalump-thumbs-r-us], 3) not too expensive that I would fall to my knees, head held in hands, crying like a baby if said gadget got broken.

So the iPod Shuffle fits the bill.

Now that there's a 4 week waiting list, I'm going to have to sit out the storm that is the current buying frenzy and wait...

Quantum leap or lurch?


Scientific American claims that advances in commercially available quantum encryption might obsolete the existing factorization-based solutions: ‘The National Security Agency or one of the Federal Reserve banks can now buy a quantum-cryptographic system from two small companies - and more products are on the way. This new method of encryption represents the first major commercial implementation for what has become known as quantum information science, which blends quantum mechanics and information theory. The ultimate technology to emerge from the field may be a quantum computer so powerful that the only way to protect against its prodigious code-breaking capability may be to deploy quantum-cryptographic techniques.’"

OK, so for now, we have quantum encryption devices to put data & information [please note: they’re not the same thing] beyond the reach of either informed or brute-force decryption mechanisms.

And this all sounds excellent. At last, a secure and reliable means of passing your important stuff from one location to another.

The principle is far simpler to describe than explain [yes, sounds silly, but think about it]. As I understand the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle, you can know where something is and where something is going, but you can’t know both at the same time .. or something like that.

This something being a particle -- or in the case of quantum encryption, photons of light. So the idea is, the moment you scratch a quantum-encrypted line, you’ve already fucked up the data stream and it’s integrity of unrecoverable.

Anyway, mechanical minutia aside, how long will this lead last? I mean, if we have quantum doohickies to encrypt stuff, how long before we have quantum computers in the hands of the crackers to decrypt them? The balance of power thus redressed.

How long away quantum computers really are depends on who you speak to. But they’ll all tell you one thing with unwavering certainty: quantum computers will one day be a reality...

Link: 'Quantum leap or lurch?'

A divided 'Net?


Karl Auerbach's prediction that the internet is balkanizing into groups of people who only accept traffic from each other took another step closer to reality today. The veteran TCP/IP engineer and ICANN board member has warned of the effect for years.

"The 'Net is balkanizing. There are communities of trust forming in which traffic is accepted only from known friends," Auerbach told Wired last year.

This is worrying. And it’s a trend that could be enforced if the new link attribute, "rel=nofollow" becomes popular. Given that the likes of MSN, Yahoo! and Google intend backing the use of this new attribute, their search algorithms will not give weighting to the target URL. In addition, the major ‘blog vendors have given the nod that they too will follow suit.

Given that this very ‘blog is part of the ever-expanding Google empire, it seems that a wire fence could be drawn up around the ‘blogger, separating us from the broader internet.

The purpose of this new attribute is to kill off comment Spam, but some think it will do little to stop the problem.

I simply don’t know enough about this topic to even begin to have an opinion. So I will read and I will learn and I will return with my findings shortly...

Link: 'A divided 'Net?'

Tuesday, January 18, 2005

Apple to do for video what they did for music?


Could well be. Like the author of this article states and I myself have pondered several times, it seems an inevitability.

Now with Apple incorporating the new and vastly superior H.264/AVC video format into their new operating system, it seems even more of an inevitability that Apple will build a video version of iTunes...

Psst! They're listening...


You ever hear that feint but definite click on your phone line when you mention things like al-Qaeda, nuclear missiles, the Kennedy assassinations, the moon landings and the deepest and most perplexing mystery of all: why do people find Friends, funny?

They’re listening.

They’re watching.

They’re wearing your underwear.

But there are those among us, those brave / foolish souls who dare strike back against ‘the man’. Let’s have a hearty hurrah for Robot Wisdom, Cryptome and Cartome.

Without them, our self-induced paranoid fantasia would have no focus at all .. real or otherwise...

Monday, January 17, 2005

Lost in translation?


Ye know, sometimes, it’s just as well you can’t speak the language. But then sometimes, the language needn't be a barrier to anything at all.

If the selection of, shall we say: ‘eclectic’ images is anything to go by, I think we may be able to put our words to pictures...

And on a lighter note...


I am not a curmudgeon .. honest! I am opinionated, I’ll grant you that much.

I look at it this way: if I’m not getting mad about stuff, then I’m going to be indifferent and apathetic .. clearly not an improvement on matters.


I’m working on bringing to you less confrontational topics. Or to intersperse the unwieldy diatribe with more verbal fluff.

So, if you have any suggestions for topical topics, please feel free to post them and I’ll be all argumentative about stuff that I don’t know the first thing about...

Sunday, January 16, 2005

Really bad design versus very good programming


Originally posted on Always-On

As a designer and a programmer, I get to see things from a pretty unique position. And as a business owner, my view is sometimes a lofty one, coloured by the varying issues that I need to keep in mind when engaging in a project. Within each project, there is a triumvirate made up of a designer, a developer and the client.

The client has needs, these needs are communicated to both the designer and the programmer. But, the way in which these needs are interpreted by the designer and the programmer are often quite different.


The two worlds of the developer and the designer are quite different: the developer deals with parameters, perimeters and usually quite rigid rules. The designer however has very few restrictions and has ‘creative license’ to indulge themselves in the ephemeral, the intangible and the implausible.

There are rules for the designer, but if the designer is of a certain ilk, they can dismiss such rules and make there own. For the developer, this isn’t an avenue free to them to explore. Such departures from the riggers of the rule of programmatic law are seldom walked and usually exploratory and may only fleetingly yield value.

So again, two worlds collide.

There was a time when I would deride the developer for their limited imagination, but then I started teaching myself to be a programmer, and I could then see into their world through their eyes. Needless to say, it was an eye-opener.

But then over time, as I become a more accomplished programmer, I saw that the rules of the world of the programmer were no less prone to adjustment and in some ways, no less malleable than that of the designer.

This might not make sense to seasoned programmer, because they may well be reading this and saying: ‘You’re talking crap, and lots of it, too!’ But I would ask that they bear with me before committing their expletive-ridden rebuttal to the comments section of this article.

There is one thing that shouldn’t be forgotten when either designing or developing: the needs of the client. And by extension, the needs of their customers -- which is often the case with my clients, given that they’re usually businesses who deal with consumers.

I enthuse in user interface design. There is an enormous amount of leeway between extremely intuitive usability and abject failure. I love the exploration of the twin towering tenets of user interface design: design communication and design aesthetic. That is, the function of design married with the look of design. Not always mutually accepting of one another, not always in agreement, and therein lies the challenge.

So as both designer and developer, I can see where a design is likely to break functionality, or where functionality imposes unreasonable effort on the design and the user.

Now, getting back to the issue of the rules of the world of the programmer, it’s worth clarifying now what I mean by the rules being adjustable: in and of themselves, they aren’t really, but how you present functionality and you coerce logic is.

And I see this because I keep the needs of the client central to the task at hand. I might develop something that in terms of functionality is seemingly overly-complex and in need of revision, but the sum of this complexity is simplicity for the end user.

There is a certain reluctance on the part of some developers to break with the rules of programming laid down to them, even if the goal of meeting the needs of client would be fulfilled. So this may very well be an issue of purism versus liberalism.

I’m probably neither a liberalist or a purist. Because I’m self-taught, I sort of sit outside of both camps. No one ever sat down with me and said: ‘... And these are the rules, just don’t go and break them, OK?’ I did break them, and that’s not because I’m some maverick programmer, I broke them because I didn’t know any better at the time.

I have a rule when dealing with my clients: never tell them too much about what you do, or how you do it. There are many reasons for this, non more important than preserving the mysticism of your black art, but one equally important reason being, if they know enough to know they’re making you’re life hard, then they may choose to limit their imagination simply to make your life easier.

This may then have far-reaching repercussions. They may choose to scale down or dilute an idea just to keep things simple. So knowledge isn’t always a good thing, especially if that knowledge is in the wrong hands.

Sometimes however, a client does need to know more. Especially when you get: ‘Yep. Love the design. But .. [pause for thought] could we change the green to blue? That’s not too hard, is it?’

Usually, it is extremely hard. And in times gone by, it’s meant completely ripping up the design and starting from scratch. Worse still, if you’ve gone beyond the design stage and have entered into development, such a sudden change can become an Herculean task. Which is sad. So, a little education used judiciously can help more than it hinders.

I imagine some of you are wondering how the title of this article ties in with any of this? I shall clarify. In my years of designing and developing, I noticed a repeating rule. It’s a rule that doesn’t always apply, simply because there are too many factors beyond the project itself, such as who the end user is, quality of marketing et cetera, but the rule is quite simple, and it is as follows:

You can have an average design and poor functionality and the thing will probably work. But if you have a poor design and excellent functionality, it will usually fail.

Like I said, this isn’t always the case, but I’ve seen it work out that way many, many times both within my own work and with work from other agencies I’ve either worked for, worked with and watched from afar.

I’d like to think that I’m able to provide good and sometimes excellent design with some times above average, other times pretty good functionality. But that’s not for me to say, modesty prevents, you understand...

Saturday, January 15, 2005

Consider the birds...


Continuing my theme of sort of trying to get my head around some of topics people are ‘blogging about. By far the most common theme is religion, or pseudo-religion at any rate.

There’s a lot of people who seem confused about simple things like laughing because they saw a fat woman fall down, or because they saw someone they didn’t like crying.


So their thoughts become quite confessional and as the reader, you feel more like a priest during confessions and the anonymity of the internet is the veil between the two of you. Strangely cathartic and often it’s a mixture of incredulity, discomfort and good old-fashioned fun.

I wouldn't worry too much about doing stuff that is either ‘good’ or ‘evil’. Consider the following:

"For there is nothing either good or bad, thinking makes it so."
~ William Shakespeare 1564-1616, Hamlet, II.ii

Do you see evil birds or dogs? Do butterflies have good thoughts? No, of course not.

For me, it's all very simple, you do stuff for only three reasons: pleasure, profit or self-perpetuation. Or a combination of the three. Either way, Good & Evil don’t quite fit into things.

Like the man sez: don’t worry, be happy...

Move along now, there's nothing to see


I’ve heard a lot of people talking about ‘blogging and the suggestion that it’s the true emancipation of the decimation of information.

While that might sound like some lyric from a 80’s protest rap song, it’s certainly covers some of the positives of ‘blogging.


With an opinion and a ‘blog, someone can publicize their thoughts in a truly democratized way: if someone disagrees with you, they’ll tell you as much. Thus, my ‘blog exists as a means for me to store my opinions and allow those like-minded to read and comment.

But there is a flip-side to all of this, and it’s a dark one. What if your ‘blog is never seen?

For example, consider the observations of this fellow 'blogger who has seen things in a similar light to myself. Rather than creating an immediate forum for ones opinions / rants / rambles / insights et cetera, the internet can simply become an even larger room to be stood in a corner feeling even more alone.

It’s sad, and it’s also a reflection of a community on a global scale: there are always lonely people who -- no matter how they thrust themselves into a vast crowd of people -- will always stand alone.

This ‘blog is purely experimental. Getting the traffic of people through needed to make my ‘blog rise through the ranks is not going to be easy -- if it ever happens. But this ‘blog represents more than a hand held out in a dark room, I have a voice that I know is heard in the real world if not this one...

Friday, January 14, 2005

Life, desire, truth and some other stuff...


Having spent a few hours [on and off, and in between doing stuff that pays the bills] I’ve found a few ‘blogs that seem to think they are the definitive insight into spiritualism, faith, religion and all other fatuous ills that plaque the human mind.

Here’s my perspective on matters that matter in the really real world:
If you’re looking for answers, you’re in for a long wait.
If you feel that life is preordained, then you’re a fool.
If you want the true meaning of life, you’re missing the point.
If you feel that there must be more to life than this, you’re doing something wrong.
If you’re of the belief that all of your worthy efforts will be rewarded in the afterlife, you’re missing all the fun.
If you want truth, go find a theologian.
If you believe life is what you make of it, you’re spot on.

You get just the one life, so make the most of it. At some later date, I’m sure some event will trigger my fury and wrath and I will descend yet again on religion with a vengeance.

But for now, stick to the things that matter. If you’re struggling in life, surround yourself with your friends and your family and those that can help you through the hard times.

If you’re alone, make a list of all of the things you need to do. Do them, stick to it, work through the shit and make it work and you will find your own reward for your own efforts.

You’ll soon find that you don’t really need anyone else to hold your hand.

I see life as a race. The starting pistol is the last push of your mother and your first step is your birth cry.

It’s a marathon and in truth, it’s a race no one can win. But the goal isn’t in the getting there, it’s the journey that’s the real prize...

Product Review: SonyEricsson T610


I’ve had my SonyEricsson T610 at least three months now, and I have to say, I’m quite impressed.

I don’t ask too much of mobile phone, I’m not into all of the ring tones, polyphonic tunes and the like. I have simple needs and I’m no longer a teenager, so I like to keep things simple.

However, this is the second handset I’ve had. The first one had to be sent back. Now, I could go into a long rant about what happened, why the first handset had to go back and how the customer support I received was utterly ridiculous, and how I told them as much to their faces in the store in town, making them look quite stupid. But I won’t.

Suffice to say, this handset is fine. So we’ll leave it at that. I run my own business, so I have a defined set of needs straight away. My requirements are simple: I need to be able to send text messages, I need to make calls, I need voice mail, I need to be able to check my email on the road and I need to be able to connect my mobile to my computer to synchronize address books, calendar events, notes and the like.

So the choice of mobile was quite limited, but I feel that I made the right choice. I’ll dispense with any insight into tariffs and other trivia, this review is about the phone.

The handset has a pleasing weight to it, and given that some of the carcass is metal, there’s a qualitative feel as well. However, the upper portion is made of plastic, and quite thin plastic at that. This being a contributory factor in the return of the first handset .. but I did say I wouldn’t go into that.

But, it’s worth noting, the upper portion of case can be fragile, so be careful when messing around with the battery compartment, and just generally throwing the thing around.

Being an old Nokia user, I was concerned about ease of use. I’ve not found anyone else come close to Nokia in that department. So when I knew my new mobile phone wouldn’t be Nokia -- mainly because of connectivity and cost -- I had to be very careful.

In the end, the user interface isn’t all that bad. There are some moments of strange feature grouping and some features are so buried, there’s nothing left to do but to dip into the manual to figure out where the design team have squirreled the thing away.

Thankfully, things like Bluetooth, Internet connection, silent mode and Infrared are all a single button away. This a bonus for me. I go to the cinema quite a lot, so I really don’t want to be that ignorant bastard with their phone going off at that crucial point in the film.

Connecting the phone to my computer is a breeze. I use Bluetooth to synchronize data between the two, which is so much more convenient than cable connections.

I had to pick my phone from the list of supported types and manufacturers which isn’t all that restrictive, given my needs. So being able to synchronize so seamlessly was just sublime.

The battery life is bit of a joke. The colour screen is an enormous problem in this particular equation. I have all of the power saving features on, but I still don’t get a full week of mild usage and standby, which is a shame.

Using such things as the built-in camera will knock the crap out of the battery in no time, and sending picture messages and the like will only add to that. By way of a smooth segue, that brings us to the built-in camera.

It’s rubbish. If you’re in the business of taking poor-quality passport photographs, you’re in luck. If you’re wanting to take spur-of-the-moment snapshots of your hectic and fun life -- as the marketing drivel would have you believe -- then forget it.

There’s no compression settings, so the images degrade noticeably before your very eyes. Still, if you want that kind of thing, you go for the models up an above this one. They support higher resolution images, as you’d expect.

But this is all academic, I don’t use the camera. If I had a need for such things, I’d have bought one of the other models and not this one.

In conclusion, the SonyEricsson T610 suits my needs quite well. It’s simple enough to use and other than the frivolous inclusion of games, tunes et cetera, there’s no feature bloat, it’s compact, doesn’t look like a girls phone and has the bells & whistles that will suit the suits down to the ground...

The people speak


By way of an update to an earlier 'blog, some details in a morning newspaper have emerged that could well cause Home Secretary Mr. Charles Clarke some problems. And so they should, because he has now to prove why he feels that the people are wrong and he is right.

Apparently, 3 in 4 people, or to put it another way, 75% of householders feel the law should protect them if they attack or kill an intruder in their home. The overwhelming consensus is that the public should have an ‘unqualified’ right to protect themselves, their family and their home.

Another 83% felt that the current law favoured the intruder and another 93% felt that the intruder should have no legal right to sue. These figures were derived from a poll of 2,000 people conducted by the ITV1 current affairs program, Tonight with Trevor McDonald.

Clearly, this demonstrates the feeling and the sentiment of the people, but I’m in no doubt that this will fall on deaf ears. The government would rather ignore the people than be seen to be doing something that would otherwise alienate the politically correct sentiment that seems to overwhelm anything and everything, regardless of whether it is meritorious or not...

Thursday, January 13, 2005

Crazy like a fox


It’s a wind-swept morning, a steel grey sky masks the best efforts of the rising sun. It’s warmth, hidden and unknown.

The sound of the wind and drifting sheets of fine rain are intermittently broken by the distant howl of hounds and the shuddering thunder of hooves driven hard into the soft earth.


Emerging from the clearing mists, men and woman alike in crisp red jackets, sat bolt upright on horseback ride with a sea of dogs chasing exuberantly but with chilling purpose about their feet. They pursue their quarry with determined strides, ever closer with each footfall and each sudden, shrill burst of the hunt horn.

In front of them, their tired and terrified prey is chased and harried for miles. For all of its guile and wisdom of the land, it’s end draws nearer.

Finally, through exhaustion and sheer, soul-destroying fatigue, she can run no more. Death seems like a fair trade for eternal sleep. Maybe death will come quickly in the jaws of a hounds single, sudden bite and the blackness will consume all the sooner.

If only.

What year is this? Two-thousand and five. Not the seventeenth or the eighteenth century. This is our time, right now.

Apparently, this is a humane way to ‘cull’ and naturally manage a troublesome pest of the fields. Besides, it’s tradition, and tradition is like stone: immovable and stoic.

Grown, mature, [seemingly] educated people chasing up and down fields, hills and valleys, vaulting hedgerows and slashing through narrow, cold streams of melt water from the hills above, in pursuit of a small, feral, predatory canine that has somehow been labeled as a pest and a nuisance to wildlife, farm stock and anything else these people choose to prize and respect more than animals less productive.

These people are, without a shadow of a doubt, one of the leading reasons why I’m sometimes ashamed to be English. Let’s put this in perspective: they kill defenseless animals for pleasure.

What the fuck is wrong with these people? What is it in their nature that compels them to contrive such a worrying, frankly pathetic reason to just kill?

The fox is no more a threat to the wildlife than a brass door handle. They do not need culling. That happens often enough when the poor bastards wander onto arterial roads leading out of the countryside and into towns and get swatted by motorists.

Yet these people banded together and created scenes of chaos and violence outside the Houses of Parliament in their feeble and vile attempt to stop a nationwide ban on fox hunting being made into legislation.

How on earth do you justify killing an animal for no other reason than a so-called ‘sport’ that is nothing more than legalized blood lust?

Easy, you give yourself an obfuscating and softly-softly title like ‘The Countryside Alliance’ to confuse the great unwashed electorate into thinking they are the moral and ethical caretakers of our green and pleasant land and that we should all defer to their better knowledge because they know best.

What utter and unadulterated bollocks.

In desperation, they throw up a miasma of fear, uncertainty and doubt by fawning to the media and feigning impending death at the hands of the heartless politicians conspiring to wipe out their livelihood.

Apparently, if fox hunting is banned, jobs will be lost, thousands of hunt hounds will have to be destroyed -- that one cleverly and may I say, cynically constructed to slap the likes of the RSPCA and the Animal Liberation Front with some bitter-sweet irony -- because an entire industry will have been destroyed.

Really?

Isn’t that like the Third Reich complaining to the Allied forces that closing down the extermination camps would mean mass unemployment amongst their soldiering employees?

These hunters are worse than any animal. They are filth and they dishonor every one of us every time they mount their horses, charge their hounds and form a hunt to kill yet another animal.

But the landscape has changed about their feet. People are polarized by the images of savagery and wanton violence. And we the people want an end to this despicable act.

The law has now changed and the hunter has now become the hunted...

Clients, anagrams, aggressive nymphomaniacs et al...


I entered the name of friend of mine into an on-line anagram .. thingy. So the name Stuart Bull suddenly become Brutal Slut.

I’m not sure if Stuart would appreciate any of this, but the tedium of waiting for clients to get back to me was shrunk to the size of a small tropical island for a moment or two.

Work now beckons...

Left-field or just off-side?


Wherever I look, I see wheels within wheels. Sport is no exception. In fact, sport is probably second only in terms of political complexity to politics itself. While I will wander into some of the superficial mechanics of football for a moment, please bear with me, there’s a story within the story.

While FIFA seem preoccupied with fixing what isn’t broken -- or more precisely, pandering to those that can’t sit through a football game without wanting a basketball score line -- it seems that they’re on target to score an own goal.

So imagine my disgust when discovered that FIFA wish to revise the offside rule to encourage higher score lines. Is this a democratic decision? Of course it isn’t. Again, it’s pandering to those who’re not interested in football per se, but have a vested interest in growing audience figures -- the media.

The offside rule has always been an enigma, so if you’re unfamiliar and you’d like to know more, you can appraise yourself with either the full-fat or light version.

The real story

Anyway, this isn’t the real story. The story behind the story is the toothless nature of FIFA and by extension the FA. The real issue here -- for me at any rate -- is the lack of appetite for the fight. And the missed opportunity to score the winning goal for the rest of us.

It seems that a week doesn’t go by where we don’t have one top-flight footballer or another caught speeding in their Bentley / Mercedes / Porsche et cetera. Caught doing a line of cocaine from the inside thigh of some woman or just killing people out right while drink driving.

If the FIFA want to be seen to be doing the right thing, these players should be served a lifetime ban from all sporting activities. What?! That’s a little draconian, isn’t it?

You’re damn right it is! These feckless oafs hold the gaze of billions of kids around the world. Their stupidity can have a tremendous impact on young people during the most formative part of their lives.

Now it could be argued that we can’t expect footballers to be the moral guardians of our children -- that’s a difficult enough job for their mums & dads, let alone anyone else -- but they should be at least capable of conducting their lives in an orderly fashion.

These people, once convicted should not be allowed to participate in any sport, in any country. They should not be allowed to advise on or to any individual connected to any sporting event, body or organization. They should no be allowed to provide sporting commentary or offer any printed or internet-accessible content related to sport.

If it were left to me, they wouldn’t be able to run in a bloody egg & spoon race without getting a hefty fine.

The only looser here is the rest of us. Not what I call a winning score...

An Englishman's home is his castle, right?


Not quite. Well, best ask the Home Secretary Mr. Charles Clarke who has decided that householders should not be given more powers to defend themselves against intruders in their own homes.

Is that right, Mr Clarke?


I was watching Newsnight on BBC 2 earlier tonight and one of the correspondents said something that really got my blood up: [I must paraphrase, but the wording is right] “Charles Clarke wishes to appear less popularist [sic] and more liberalist.”

Now, this brings us into an area I have had good cause to put thought to in recent times, something that I feel very strongly about. For example, let’s assume that there are but two ways of thinking: old-fashioned and progressive.

It appears to me that if the above assessment of Mr Clarkes’ thinking is to be believed, then the likes of Mr Clarke are those that choose the progressive route to success. Well, I say success, but any success is entirely subjective and utterly relative.

The progressive thinker, presented with the above dilemma will nearly always choose the option less likely to offend their sensibilities. This to me is utterly abhorrent. The very idea that someone would make a decision in such a way is beyond belief.

Surely, a decision should be arrived at based on the merits of the option in fair and contrasting comparison with all other options? Whether the solution is progressive or old-fashioned is an irrelevance, surely?

I posed this question to my dad, he replied simply: ”There’s only a right way and a wrong way.“

While that might sound prosaic, it’s actually quite simple: as a person, you know what is right and what is wrong. If you don’t, you need help. If you’re a politician and you still don’t know, you should be removed from your seat of responsibility forthwith.

Further to this, my dad began with a very functional scenario that I myself had seen: he’s fast approaching his mid sixties, so he’s no longer the lithe young thing he used to be. I’m out on the razzle, he’s at home on his own. He hears a noise and goes down stairs to investigate.

He comes face to face with some smackhead twat brandishing a knife. Now, we have yet another dilemma: this young but ultimately shit-faced goit could easily over-power my dad, but my dad would struggle to wrestle this sack of shit to the ground. So my dad simply must use more than ‘reasonable force’ to knock the smoke out of the intruder to subdue him. But now, he’s outside of the law!

Who care’s whether you’re seen as being popularist or liberalist! The point is, are you doing the right thing?

Fuck dogma! Fuck the politik! Go with the logic and the rule of common sense. Or is that me being old-fashioned?

Wednesday, January 12, 2005

An arresting attitude


I read today that former television presenter Esther Rantzen saw her attempt to overturn a £60 fixed penalty for a minor traffic offence issued by traffic officer Sergeant Kevin McKeown fail.

Sergeant Kevin McKeown, a traffic officer, was behind Rantzen's BMW 750i on a police motorcycle, in central London last June when he saw her drive over the crossing, causing two woman pedestrians to "slow down".

She told the court: "I was distressed because his tone was so antagonistic and bullying. This is why I'm here."

Now, I can empathize with Sergeant Kevin McKeown, I too would be infuriated by this kind of thing. Apparently, Rantzen was distracted by her daughter reading poetry.

For the life of me, I fail to see how the hell that could be used as an excuse. It’s more weight to the case against her. She as much as admitted she wasn’t paying: “due care and attention” to the road in front of here .. a road soon to be populated by pedestrians.

However, my inevitable behavior against Rantzen -- had I been the officer in question -- would have underlined one thing: I’m not police material. Whatever is happening around you, as an officer of the law, your feelings and opinions are irrelevant. Your job is to match your observations against the various statutes of law. If you bring emotion to a scene, you do so at the expense of logic and risk inflaming a situation further.

I’m reminded of an incident in 1995 when I too was stopped and fined. However, the incident was much different to that which saw Rantzen fined.

I’d recently broken up with my girlfriend and my mind was a bit of a wasteland. I was on my way home from work; I was working in Leeds at the time, and I was just getting onto the newly-completed M1 / M62 link road, the M621. Essentially, it’s a stretch of motorway, so normal rules apply .. don’t they? Apparently not.

I was caught doing 80 miles per hour while performing an overtaking maneuver, which is allowed so long as you decrease your speed to 70 miles per hour as soon as you have completed the maneuver. Unbeknownst to me -- and everyone else on this stretch of road -- was that the speed limit of 50 miles per hour.

So, when I was eventually ‘pulled’, I was asked to step into the patrol car -- As a side note, the traffic officer was driving an unmarked Vauxhall Astra .. an Astra! The ignominy was beyond belief. Now, if it’d been a Volvo T5, I wouldn’t have minded as much, maybe.

Anyway, I digress. The point is, his attitude was pretty shit. He was jumping to all kinds of conclusions, being condescending and otherwise not very professional.

This royally pissed me off, so I fitted him up. My reply went something like: “Hey! As much as you’d like to think I’m some kind of boy racer, I’m going to have to disappoint ye, mate! I’m a graphic designer, I’ve just finished with my girlfriend and I’ve got a lot on my mind, but not so much that I didn’t know what I was doing. And if you check your records, you’ll not find a single mark against my name or my driving record. And that’s not because I’ve been lucky enough not to get caught before now, it’s because I’m a bloody good driver and it’s something I'm damn proud of.”

He was pretty stunned and he just didn’t know what to say. He began fidgeting with his pen and he was clearly rattled. I don’t need a bad event in my life to set me off, so it’s a bad idea to get in face when something has.

“And, do ye wanna tell me where I can find a sign telling me this stretch of road is fifty miles per hour? There certainly wasn’t any sign getting onto the motorway, and I don’t see any now.”

There wasn’t any signs at all. But this didn’t cut it. Apparently, as drivers, we must be psychic and just know the speed of a particular piece of road. I pointed out to him that in the time we’d be sat there, four cars had thundered by doing at least ninety, while I was actually slowing down when he pulled me.

I paid the fine, but I stood my ground, and that made me feel proud enough to stomach the fine and points on my license knowing I’d done the right thing.

But this wouldn’t be the last time I stood my ground, dug my heels in and made it difficult for the authorities...

Monday, January 10, 2005

Justice done?


There he lay, in flames in a heap on the floor at the foot of the building out of which he leaped to his death. Only, he didn't die straight away. He lay there, still burning, most probably wracked with excruciating pain, both from the injuries brought on by being on fire and the many injuries as a result of falling from the seventh floor of a hotel, and the knowledge that death was yet to come.

"Lieutenant Corporal David Atkinson, 31, is thought to have murdered Miss Geeson, 22, after she vanished on New Year's Day." said the BBC News article.

It seems his involvement is still not confirmed. However, his actions appear to speak of his guilt, and the knowledge that he would not evade justice.

There's more to this sorry saga than I feel I need to go into here, what concerns me is that if Lieutenant Corporal David Atkinson, 31 was responsible for the death of this young woman, then justice has been done. But that's my opinion and it certainly doesn't reflect that of Miss Geeson's parents, to whom I extend my deepest sympathy.

In the last hours of this young womans' life, she would have known terrible fear and pain. Poetically, the last few days of David Atkinsons' life would have been lived out in utter terror, culminating in him dowsing himself in petrol, setting light to himself and then flinging himself from a high building, and then to lay dying in agony.

If I were the unfortunate parents of this young woman, I would call that closure enough...

Link: 'Justice done?'

When technology and people meet


Originally posted on Always-On

God is in the detail but the Devil is in the design.

I recently attended a seminar, the theme of which was basically an investigation of where technology is going and are we likely to keep up with it.


Many things happened, many things were said and ultimately, society -- the perennial injured party in many topical issues of late -- got dragged kicking & screaming into the threaded conversation and was used as a convenient foil for any kind of well-intentioned defense of technology.

So here's my take on things: technology is not evil, nor is it good. Technology is needs-driven and is ultimately the product of a market niche being identified and then filled with one gadget or another to fulfill the needs of that market.

Whether success or failure is the reward for these efforts is another issue all together.

Now, I've no doubt any number of you will fill in the gaps in the above summary of the purpose of technology, but that doesn't matter. I'm not that precious, so if you feel you can fill it out, go for it.

For me, the meat & vegetables of this issue is that of technology being labeled as some kind of socially exclusionary device designed to further fragment our society.

When I hear this kind of thing, it puts me in mind of some James Bond Ubervilain intent on inflicting mass, world-wide misery on each and every one of us. Needless to say, it's nothing like that. Technology in itself does not exclude anyone.

Recently, an article ran through the press calling for the Friends Reunited website to be closed down because of its hand in allegedly causing divorces among its frequent visitors.

That's not how it works. If people choose to re-kindle childhood acquaintances and turn them into something more meaningful, then that's a person issue, not a fault of technology. What if they happened to find each others telephone numbers? Do we then ban telephones?

We all see people sat on trains and buses listening to their personal stereo, or kids disappearing into their bedrooms after school to play on a games console. Is this them being shepherded into isolation by technology?

No!

I recently went to my sisters house to see my nephew. When I entered his room, he was sat there with three other friends playing a team game on his games console. That's technology enabling group activities, not excluding people from participation.

What about 'virtual' chat rooms with animated avatars for the participants. What's so virtual about any of this when we have real people conversing and socializing? Do we call telephone conversations 'virtual talking'?

The bottom line here is that there is no profit to be made in creating technology that makes misery and hardship for those who dig deep into their pockets to buy this stuff.

Technology comes bad only because people choose to do bad things with it, either to themselves or others. But why do I feel like I'm stating the obvious, here?

Virtually everyone knows this, right?

Are we learning yet?


Originally posted on Always-On

Consider the following: if error is the mother of creation, who's the daddy?

Seriously though, while you're here, you might as well as read on.

Recently another blog prompted me to put into words my way of thinking: I'm a optimistic pessimist. In the sense that if you expect the worst of everyone and everything, when things go right, you're always due for a pleasant surprise.

We're an odd species, we dance around comfortable in the pretend world of knowing better than nature and that somehow, we will overcome the 'flaws' in nature and improve upon the grand scheme of things.

While this day may come, it's not a day with a big fat red ring around it on any calendar in my lifetime. We're still learning, and we're still playing catch up.

Recently, I had the chance of putting my two-peneth [two pence worth] in on a BBC World News radio call in. I put forward the idea -- that in my mind seems universally true -- that people will continue to do bad things while ever doing bad things is easier, quicker and more profitable than doing the right thing.

In the case of the BBC radio phone-in, this idea was put within the context of the recent and on-going situation is Darfur, Sudan. To get the bad guys to play nice, you have to make being nice easier, quicker and more profitable than doing bad things.

It may over-simplify a complex problem, but the mechanics are sound, and this theory is true for many things, not least our continual abuse of our environment.

Why do we do this? And I ask this question in an inclusive sense since as consumers, we are all responsible to varying degrees.

The answer is painfully simple: because it's easier, quicker and more profitable doing bad things and to do them with ignorance and / or impunity.

We now live in a world where we are more painfully aware of our errors than at any time, but we still allow the abuse to continue.

There's many reasons for this, and this blog isn't even going to begin the insurmountable, nay Herculean task of listing them, let alone forming any kind of critique of them.

I don't know which is worse, not knowing and doing it anyway or knowing and still doing it regardless.

But there is light at the end of this circuitous and ever-ascending tunnel. Rather than believe we know better, we are now diligently watching and learning like any good child should do.

Take heart in a tiny organism by the name of Pseudomonas Putida strain CA-3. This little miracle, discovered by Kevin O'Connor and Patrick Ward, of the Department of Industrial Microbiology at University College Dublin, Ireland has the remarkable ability of using the highly toxic and far too abundant plastic, styrene as fuel to make a type of biodegradable plastic, Polyhydroxyalkanoate, known as PHA.

While this story hardly made a ripple with any of the mainstream press, it is an amazing discovery that demonstrates clearly how we are able not simply to learn from our mistakes, but take command of the mess and make good of it.

While, admittedly, the process is still quite crude, it offers the potential of removing a major pollutant from our world .. our world!

This is a small step, but a significant one that fills me with a growing confidence in our largely too cocky species.

If we don't surcome to one religious war or another, yet another virulent pandemic, premature ice age or apathy & indifference, we might just .. just be able to hand this world over to our children with pride rather than shame...

The one predictable thing about tech markets...


Originally posted on Always-On

... Is that they're unpredictable.

Making predictions about anything is a tricky business. It's often fraught with problems and compounded by two factors: too many variables and too many people.


Making predictions in the world of technology is about as rough as it gets. You see a trend, a fad, or a new craze, jump on it, extrapolate, and then go and get it all totally wrong.

As an example, at the turn of the 20th century, it was predicted that passenger air balloon travel—pioneered by the likes of Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin—would be commoditized and become the pre-eminent means of mass transit. In fact, it would be so popular, by the 1980s, people would have their own personal air balloon as their primary method of conveyance.

Obviously, this gaze into the future didn't take into account the airplane, which put an end to that pearl of foresight.

The main problem with looking forward is that people do it in such painfully straight lines, as the previous example demonstrates. The telephone is another useful example; who could have predicted mobile phones at the time Alexander Graham Bell was fussing around with the technological equivalent of paper cups and wet string?

No one could have. Furthermore, how could anyone have predicted that these mobile telephones would one day have cameras built in? Or that you could send written messages on them? You only have to go back 10 years, and such ideas would be derided as foolish drivel.

The future is a curly thing, and in the wonderful world of information technology, the driving force behind much of the confusion is convergence.

Now there's a buzzword if I ever heard one. And this becomes the next big problem with predicting future trends in technology: let's get two really cool gizmos and merge them; people'll love it!

Err, no! What drives desire is anyone's guess. What drives need is utility: two very different parts of the brain are being exercised, here, one more than the other!

If something doesn't fulfill a practical purpose, then it's neither use nor ornament.

This future-predicting thing is even harder these days, but in a way, even the most outlandish theory could have its day. Things are changing so quickly that new technologies are emerging literally overnight. And given that people's needs are also changing, evolving, and emerging, who knows?

Going back even further, desire, need—call it what you will—has a common source. The very engine of change is people, society, lifestyle, and a requirement to manage, re-route and/or if need be, delegate all of this data and information.

The Apple Newton was way ahead of its time. A bunch of clever guys 'n' gals sat in a room and made a remarkable prediction about how people would "consume" data and information, and they were right on the money—the only problem being that they were over 10 years early!

Now, people are on the move. People work on the move, hold down long-distance relationships, work with colleagues across time zones, and manage bank accounts in a cafe while drinking a cup of chai.

The only certainty is the same one that has been pontificated upon since time immemorial: things change. Things often come together in intriguing, mysterious, and eminently useful ways.

So here's my prediction: things will never be small enough, big enough, fast enough, cool enough, or cheap enough! Am I wrong?

Social engineering


Originally posted on Always-On.

Most people now accept that our world is in one way or another tied or driven by technology, be it your mobile/cell phone, your computer, or even your video recorder. I for one see technology as an enabler. My business relies on various technologies for its very functionality. So technology has become a necessity of my working life.

Technology is now fashionable. Mobile phones are the very epitome of this techno trend and they have become social thermometers of one’s trendiness. Among a wide age group, and from one end of the social spectrum to the other, they are the accessory of choice.

But in the mad rush to get the latest gizmo into the pockets of everyone between the ages of six and sixty, something got lost in translation. So when did technology go bad? No, we're not talking about The Terminator or The Matrix, we're talking about the gross neglect committed by manufacturers when they choose not to consider the social implications of their devices.

For instance, the Internet was devised as a research tool for academicians. In this scenario, there was no security model, as there was no need for one. Now, all and sundry traipse up and down the information superhighway and we see the smog of data, a pall of effluence rising from the most infamous traffic jam in history: the head-on collision between the juggernaut that is spam and the long yellow bus full of noobs all traveling along the information superhighway.

So we soon begin to see how the Internet has become a tool for pedophiles, criminals, bulk spammers, and other digital detritus to ply their trade. If the rules are weak, bad things will happen.

Who could have foreseen this? In the very early ‘80s, no one. But that was then, this is now. Surely we've learned our lesson? Er…no!

The fact of the matter is, even knowing what to avoid is not enough of an impetus to effect change. Especially when the next new whizz-bang feature on the current gadget is so alluring and appealing.

By way of example, look at the camera built into mobile phones. In Japan, children and teenagers have been banned from news agents because of a spate of thefts involving kids photographing entire magazines and then sending the pages onto friends to read later. However you choose to look at that, it's stealing, plain and simple.

But there's a flip-side to this: the knee-jerk, political reaction that rushes legislation into place to fill holes that either can't be filled or weren't there in the first place.

In the UK, it seems that using a mobile phone with a hands-free kit is far more dangerous than talking to a passenger in the car you're driving. Apparently the research supports this, but common sense doesn't. And in the end, which do you think will win out?

So you thought Microsoft was going to get away with it this time around? Wrong!

Within Microsoft Windows is a tiny little feature that can have a potentially ruinous effect on your life. A small option with big ambitions: a messenger system that allows for the instant pop-up of banner adverts and other nausea.

To the best of my knowledge, this problem has been fixed. But this demonstrates that no matter how egalitarian or philanthropic your ambitions are [or aren't, in the case of Microsoft ;-)] someone will be waiting to exploit whatever system you put in place.

Now we're on the verge of the next craze with mobile/cell phones: push ring tones. Sounds great on the face of it. You get to choose and send the ring tone to the recipient’s phone, so you dictate what their ring tone sounds like when you call.

Does this not sound like the perfect vehicle to terrorize someone with crank, vile, and odious sounds, grunts, and other offensive expletives?

I could be wrong, but the difference here is that I've thought clearly about the social implications of what these people are throwing into a forest of waving arms, all eager to seize whatever is new this week, regardless of how it might change their lives...be it for better or for worse...

Link: 'Social engineering'

Saturday, January 08, 2005

A window of opportunity being closed?


Continuing on from my last post, as we all know, there's been a lot of talk about the new headless [i|e|x]Mac and to be honest, if the rumours are true and it's just a cheap Mac, I have to wonder who the market is.

After all, the specifications of such a machine preclude one activity with immediate effect: playing games.

Now, if this new Mac is some kind of home server appliance with a built-in PVR and all of the stuff you need to store all of your music, pictures and movies and serve them wirelessly, I'm up for it.

Better yet, if you can stick this under the television where it belongs, then Apple have got themselves a winning package.

One thing that makes me think this might be the case is the recent launch of TiVoToGo for PC only.

Now, given the high-profile gestures TiVo have made towards Apple with regards to Rendezvous wireless networking, one could be forgiven for thinking TiVo may well have done some back room deal to get TiVoToGo into the new Mac.

The point of all of this is that Apple can explore myriad options that are otherwise closed to Microsoft because they can't really do the hardware thang.

With the Xbox not withstanding, it's something that Microsoft will have to rely on their partners to do. In fact, the Xbox is a good example of the schism within Microsoft. Steve Balmer hated the idea and Bill Gates loved it.

The reason Steve Balmer hated it is because the Xbox wasn't ripe for Windows -- it just didn't have a place. Even more so now since the Xbox has gone all PowerPC on us and the up-coming Xbox is expected to ship with a couple of IBM G5's.

Now, unless Microsoft have abandoned development of both Windows Longhorn [read: Longyawn] and Windows XP to pool their army-like ranks of programmers to re-write Windows to work on the PowerPC architecture .. I think you know where I'm going, here.

So for Microsoft, you have a situation where you identify a new market, you know that you have to squeeze Windows in there somewhere, you also don't fully know where this nascent market is going because it's all still very fluid. Plus, it's a strategy you have to share with your partners and hope that they're going to go with the figures you're flashing under their collective noses, hoping that they will commit production time to make something to fit the trend.

Meanwhile, in comes Apple who have a knack for spotting trends, have the wherewithal and the resources to act quickly enough to get a foot in the door and do it cheap enough that if it doesn't work out .. so what?!

The more I think about it, the more I see emerging markets in consumer electronics being Apple's renaissance period...

Motorola shows off new iTunes mobile phone


Speaking during a keynote at the International Consumer Electronics Show here, an executive demonstrated the phone, which by all accounts functions in a similar way to the iPod.

Not only synchronizing with a computer and the iTunes Music Store, but also incorporating the iPod interface, said Ron Garriques, a Motorola executive vice president.

"You'll know we hit 2.0 when the Internet is no longer visible … and the PC is a peripheral," Said Ron Garriques, president of Motorola's personal devices business.

I do like the comment by Ron Garriques. That is precisely the kind of talk Microsoft do not want to hear.

The dilemma for Microsoft is that almost everything they do is a franchise of Windows. If it's not a franchise, it's a derivative of Windows, or peripheral to Windows. Thus, the Media Center Windows PC.

Some research organization made an observation a couple of weeks ago that Microsoft aren't going to steal a march into the living room with the Media Center. For the most part, PC's are still too complicated, the Media Center in particular is more complex because of the amount of stuff they're trying to make it do, plus it's just not one-click reliable.

Whereas the likes of Apple can sneak in under the radar with the iPod because they can create a billion dollar business model that doesn't have to tie in with an existing business model, like that of operating system licensing.

At the time Bill Gates, with the aid of his newfangled Media Center PC were amusing the crowds at the Consumer Electronics Show with blue screens and the like, the TiVo and the iPod were the stars of the show .. not what Microsoft want people to see.

Apple have done an amazing thing -- they're beating Microsoft with their own strategy: come up with an idea, one that doesn't have to be amazing but it helps, then foster an ecosystem around that strategy.

The telling difference here is, the idea is amazing. And it's worth noting this is the only deviation Apple make from strategy when compared to Microsoft: Apple come up with a great idea, while Microsoft just have an idea.

Look at the plethora of gadgets and gizmos that you can buy and connect to the iPod? It's amazing. Now, you don't just have Apple selling the iPod, you have Apple at the middle of a thriving ecosystem, surrounded by partners who rely on the iPod to extend it's utility with their gizmos.

So when you have the likes of car stereo manufacturers producing break-out cables so you can connect your iPod, for the likes of Microsoft and their partners, they're already pissing against the wind.

Now look at the new Motorola / Apple phone. If this were Microsoft, number one priority would be to squeeze Windows CE onto it and all of the incumbent bloat and lack of device one-click reliability that brings with it.

A friend of mine had a 'Smart Phone' which ran Windows CE. When he was out and about, he kept a straightened out paperclip in his pocket. Why? Because he kept getting a blue screen on his 'Smart Phone' and he needed the paperclip to force restart it from the tiny reset button at the back.

That's not what Microsoft want you to see. Most importantly, that's not what the consumer wants to see...

Link: 'Motorola shows off new iTunes mobile phone'

Friday, January 07, 2005

Traveller beware


The tragedy in Asia almost unfathomable.

So far, the number of dead is estimated to be well over one hundred thousand, hundreds of which are British, among other nationals on holiday in the region.


However, there are inevitable financial complications that will resound well after the final street has been cleared from the remaining towns & cities hit by the disaster.

Quick to capitalize on this tragedy will be the holiday insurance companies who will no doubt increase the premiums of those traveling into 'the ring of fire'

Most travel insurance policies will cover situations where the traveller is moving through regions beset by war and the like, so this will be yet another extra consideration.

What is most upsetting is that the network for the detection of such events already exists. However, those nations caught worst by the tsunami were the ones who could not afford to make use of such a vital infrastructure.

It's further saddening that in some cases, a man in a boat with a two-way radio would have sufficed.

Political correctness: a growing evil?


Those who know me, know my views of political correctness and so-called: 'progressive thinking'

My loathing of such things is matched only by their contrived, expensive and usually utterly catastrophic failure, that on imploding, usually take out what good remained in spite of their best / worst efforts.


Here are a few cases in point:

The case of the not-so-hard worker
A woman places an advert for a job in the local job center. Among other things, she asks for: 'a hard-working individual'.

The job centre call the woman to inform her that her job offer cannot be placed on the grounds that the advert: 'discriminates against less industrious individuals'.

Opinion: isn't that the whole point?

The case of the banned dad
Recently, it was reported in The Mirror tabloid daily newspaper that a father had been banned from seeing his own son, and from visiting his own home for six months because he smacked his child.

Opinion: apparently, this seemed an appropriate and measured response to his so-called: 'crime'. Meanwhile, his family are without a father and husband for half the year.

It seems that such laws are there to prevent the abuse of children. Yeah! Like the laws preventing gun ownership in England, Scotland and Wales stops people shooting each other.

The case of dead utility customers
An elderly couple were found dead in their own home. An investigation into their deaths showed that they had died of exposure.

This didn't quite sit well with the authorities until they discovered the couple had been disconnected by their gas / electricity provider.

Obviously, the utility provider were contacted by the authorities and asked why they didn't inform the appropriate services. They were told that because of the Data Protection Act -- and all of its incumbent incongruities and ambiguities -- they weren't sure if it was legal for them to disclose their confidential details to the appropriate services.

Opinion: indeed!

The case of the black DJ and the white supremacist
The British National Party -- which is a political front for the far-right -- had themselves a pre-chistmas bash.

One of their members booked a local DJ to provide the music. People arrived and started to fill the venue and all was looking good .. until the DJ arrived.

Being a political party with ambitions of ridding the whole of Britain of people of foreign decent [a curious theory as it would call for the whole the population to leave forthwith, but I digress] one of their manifesto offerings being that they would pay Pakistanis, Indians, Asians et al to go to their place of racial origin [bang goes the economy, but I digress yet again]

Anyway, the DJ turns out to be a black African, so it was apparent that the wheels had well and truly come of the christmas get-together.

However, as much as they would have liked to, they couldn't ask the guy to leave. Obviously, he'd want to know why .. ehem!

That would be racial discrimination. So half of their number flounced off in a huff and the rest sat around presumably listening to: 'ethnic music'.

Opinion: I just wish I could have been there!

The case of the thug and the fairy lights
A local council isn't entirely full of festive cheer this year. They've been told to use low power bulbs, which means they have to use dimmer fairy lights in the towns municipal christmas decorations.

Why? In case those who make it their duty to damage and destroy anything within arms reach go and get themselves electrocuted while they're at it.

Opinion: let the bastards fry! All I want to see left behind is a scorched Burberry baseball cap and a dollop of molten bling-bling...

On the face of it, you get the impression of a bunch of well-meaning but ultimately clueless middle-aged, middle-class spinsters trying to put the world to rights with a good cup of tea, a big hug and a sing-along, hoping that we will all set our differences aside and just get along.

The fact is, they are a sinister, motivated, faceless band of people with a truly unknown, shared agenda who often occupy positions of high office.

This may well read like paranoia -- and that could be a fair assessment -- but what good has ever come of any of this movements nauseous, saccharine endorsements of "live and let live" and other feckless, shitty-minded thinking?

These people are often more bigoted and intolerant than any of the far-right and admittedly wayward bodies / people / organizations they seem to gravitate towards.

There are people who I know who I utterly despise and to be honest, I resent sharing the same air as them. Should their lives come to an abrupt, shuddering and violent end, I really couldn't care less. In fact, it may even please me.

You see? That's my right! I have the right to harbour such thoughts. However, acting on those thoughts is something I'm quite clear with regards to the implications of. So they remain thoughts, not deeds.

I don't want to resolve these thoughts with some even-handed arbitration. I don't want to find any common ground. Nor do I want someone to sit with and "feel" my angst and help me overcome these issues.

We don't live in a soap opera! We don't all feel the need to say sorry, or kiss and make up, or empathize, or sympathize, or visualize how our anger might be "negatively impacting" those who are the focus of our rage.

But it's not just your thoughts these people wish to "sanitize" and / or inhibit, they want to interfere with your every act and deed.

So smacking children is now a bad thing, how long before we can't even shout at them because of the "trauma" brought on by sustained verbal abuse?

You might laugh, but here's another case for you to consider that should wipe the smile clean off your face:

The case of the cleric and the commedian
A few years ago, a senior religious figure [probably a Church of England minister, but I'm not sure. This is from recollection] put forward a proposal that all humour that included the ritualistic harm and humiliation of others should be band.

Given that this would unseat probably the whole entertainment industry, a bunch of comedians stepped forward to inform this: "well-meaning but ultimately clueless middle-aged" cleric that his idea is firstly unenforceable and secondly, quite moronic.

One particular comedian, a certain Rowan Atkinson: a.k.a "Mr Bean" was quite vocal in is condemnation of this ludicrous proposal.

However, there have been recent rumblings within the British entertainment industry that some watered-down measures might well be implemented that would in part introduce some of this thinking into the programming of tele-visual entertainment.

Opinion: the whole idea smacks of censorship and pandering to the sensibilities and sensitivities of wooly-minded dolts who get to burp into a microphone for radio or television or scribble in a few column inches of a newspaper every now and then and don't quite know what to say, so they say the first fuck-witted thing that slides into their vacuous bonce.

These people don't even watch or listen to the same things we do! They're most likely to be found listening to Classic FM or watching The South Bank Show or re-runs of All Creatures Great And Small.

So who are they doing this for? They actually think they're doing the right thing for us, "the great unwashed".

This is no laughing matter...

Thursday, January 06, 2005

'A' is for annoying and NOT accessibility...


I'm a web developer, I write websites and web applications.

As a web developer, certain things that I produce are subject to various accessibility laws. I make a note of pointing out that not all of what I produce is subject to those laws since not everything I write is publicly accessible, and the brief of a particular project might be exclusive of such things.


Anyway, this legislation is often quite vague: 'we're not sure what we want, but if you don't do what we want, we'll take you to the cleaners...' or something to that effect.

So, as a developer -- and as a developer who tries to keep at the pointy end of technology -- I try to act in such a way as to anticipate the whimsy and capricious thinking of the legislators and cover as many options as is practical.

With this in mind, I invested in a number of books discussing proper, valid use of Cascading Style Sheets [CSS] and valid Hypertext Markup Language [HTML]

All was good. I've since developed some nice, standards-compliant and wholly accessible web applications .. but wait!

There's a fly in this otherwise, soothing ointment. A fly by the name of Microsoft. Yes, the Beast of Redmond has decided that their browser; Internet Explorer, isn't going to support the standards properly and break just about every damn thing you put in front of it, much like a petulant 3-year old with his most expensive toys from unwanted relatives, arms folded and pet lip inclusive.

This is particularly annoying -- thus, the title of this discourse -- because how the hell am I meant to produce standards-compliant and wholly accessible web applications when the company responsible for the market-leading browser has no intentions of producing an up-to-date version of their software?