I was reading about the Khmer Rouge today (as you tend to do) and thinking about Hell - or rather, an appropriate hell for the type of people involved in that appalling mess.
You kind of wonder what special hell could be lined up for someone like Pol Pot (or Hitler or Stalin or Cheney). Given that most of those people don't believe in God, hell might come as a bit of a surprise if there is one. But when you think of what punishments might come up - their own seem the best.
For most of them, as they pass into the netherworld the best result would be if they turned up in one of their own prison camps/concentration camps/gulags/Gitmos knowing (unlike most of their victims) that they were trapped, doomed and due a life (death) that was going to be extremely unpleasant to say the least.
That made me think of my own life (no, I don't think I've done anything worthy of a negative article in Wikipedia!) and how all of us might be effected in our own personal hells. From harsh words said in unjustified ways, to people leaving mess knowing cleaners are cleaning up after you, to looking at photos where models pose scantily dressed (as much in women's fashion magazines as men's titillating titles) and in reality they're freezing their butts off, to every aspect of someone "hurting" to make your life easier or more enjoyable, imagine if the "punishment" was to be that person when "reckoning" came.
It certainly gives a view to "treat others as you would want them to treat you". Given everything I've seen on the Internet (or even at the movies), I might have a grim future ahead. Maybe the things I do good (small and large) can counteract some of these things? Are things really about balance?
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Friday, February 22, 2008
Very basic guide to newspapers: The page
This is the first post of a very basic attempt to describe how a newspaper gets from nothing to something you hopefully read and enjoy. It may end up in multiple parts if I can get the enthusiasm to finish it! It isn't in any kind of chronological order.
When you look at a newspaper page, you see stories (usually by seeing headlines). Some that you might want to read, some that you might skip over, and occasionally a picture will draw your attention enough to read the caption, if not the story itself.
From a newspaper's point of view, that's a page with boxes on it - text boxes or pictures boxes, or, in the case of plain good design - just coloured boxes. The page layout (where all the boxes of text, etc go) is designed by an Art Desk - yes, they've usually been to art school and everything! (How it's designed is another post.)
A large newspaper, like the one I've worked on, may have had numerous people working on the page you're looking at (not right now, you're reading this blog - sorry for boring you!).
Once the story's reached the page (yes, that's another post too) one person may be editing (checking for spelling mistakes, accuracy, fact checking, good word flow, getting it to fit the available space, making sure they won't be sued, and more) the story itself, someone else might be writing a headline to attract your attention or at least describe what you're going to read (a very important talent), another might be writing all the captions on the pictures on the page, and people making sure the pictures are placed on the page correctly (and in an interesting way). If they have capable software - this may all be happening at the same time in different seats in an office (or in some cases somewhere else).
There's often people checking the work of these people once they've completed it and someone to make sure the page looks perfect (or at least try to) before it is sent off to its next destination (and eventually you).
Depending on the newspaper (daily or weekly, etc) and the type of news (news, features, sport, etc), that page you've read may have taken weeks, days, or even hours to be created. That same page might indulge your attention for a few minutes or you may not even bother to read what may have taken numerous man (person) hours to create. Possibly a good thing?
When you look at a newspaper page, you see stories (usually by seeing headlines). Some that you might want to read, some that you might skip over, and occasionally a picture will draw your attention enough to read the caption, if not the story itself.
From a newspaper's point of view, that's a page with boxes on it - text boxes or pictures boxes, or, in the case of plain good design - just coloured boxes. The page layout (where all the boxes of text, etc go) is designed by an Art Desk - yes, they've usually been to art school and everything! (How it's designed is another post.)
A large newspaper, like the one I've worked on, may have had numerous people working on the page you're looking at (not right now, you're reading this blog - sorry for boring you!).
Once the story's reached the page (yes, that's another post too) one person may be editing (checking for spelling mistakes, accuracy, fact checking, good word flow, getting it to fit the available space, making sure they won't be sued, and more) the story itself, someone else might be writing a headline to attract your attention or at least describe what you're going to read (a very important talent), another might be writing all the captions on the pictures on the page, and people making sure the pictures are placed on the page correctly (and in an interesting way). If they have capable software - this may all be happening at the same time in different seats in an office (or in some cases somewhere else).
There's often people checking the work of these people once they've completed it and someone to make sure the page looks perfect (or at least try to) before it is sent off to its next destination (and eventually you).
Depending on the newspaper (daily or weekly, etc) and the type of news (news, features, sport, etc), that page you've read may have taken weeks, days, or even hours to be created. That same page might indulge your attention for a few minutes or you may not even bother to read what may have taken numerous man (person) hours to create. Possibly a good thing?
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Shooting stars over London
For a person who's lived in London for 8 years now, there has to be something about it that keeps me here. For all my raving about how good NZ is to the locals, and all the crap and bad weather London can bring sometimes London can present you with glorious moments.
Today, on a day off, I walked home from Covent Garden to Kensington. After a quick visit to Liberty (I'd seen it a million times but never gone into it), a quirky department store that seems half traditional high class shop and half quirky, off beat, alternative store. Worth a visit, just for the wooden beams.
Then a trip to the Apple Store and a first hand look of the MacBook Air. Many drawbacks but the thinness is magnetic. Endangering wallets everywhere.
But the glorious bit was walking across Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens as the sun sunk into the western sky over Heathrow. Unlike, most days, the flight paths were in reverse meaning we weren't looking at a plane on final approach to Heathrow every 30 seconds - just an occasional small jet coming in to land at London City.
London's buildings were in a golden glow, the traffic like the sound of surf on a beach in the distance. Long distance flights leaving glowing vapour trails high above the city.
Today, on a day off, I walked home from Covent Garden to Kensington. After a quick visit to Liberty (I'd seen it a million times but never gone into it), a quirky department store that seems half traditional high class shop and half quirky, off beat, alternative store. Worth a visit, just for the wooden beams.
Then a trip to the Apple Store and a first hand look of the MacBook Air. Many drawbacks but the thinness is magnetic. Endangering wallets everywhere.
But the glorious bit was walking across Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens as the sun sunk into the western sky over Heathrow. Unlike, most days, the flight paths were in reverse meaning we weren't looking at a plane on final approach to Heathrow every 30 seconds - just an occasional small jet coming in to land at London City.
London's buildings were in a golden glow, the traffic like the sound of surf on a beach in the distance. Long distance flights leaving glowing vapour trails high above the city.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Things that p*&s me off - part 1
There's many things that p*&s me off but I suppose I can start with a select few:
I'll need to post a things that make me smile to balance this :)
- Since this is online - the New York Times. It's a great paper, a great website, but do I really need a pop up definition of every word I click on in an article? Maybe the NY Times thinks Americans can't spell? Well...
- Car drivers that don't indicate their turns - or if they do, they do it right as they are turning. How hard is it? Grrrr! Related group - who are these idiots that get hit by trains at level crossings? Usually having ignored flashing lights, ringing bells and sometimes driving around the barriers - what are these people like driving in cities? "Oooh, look at those pretty lights!" [If you want to commit suicide, do it where you're not going to stop a train full of travellers - suicide should be solitary]
- Overall group - British plumbing. Careful flat searching can avoid this but Britain seems to have a lack of: reliably flushing toilets (a button flush? How hard is this?!); water pressure in taps (and notably showers); a lack of mixer taps (and some that look like them but don't actually mix!); crappy electrical in-shower heating (power shower my foot!); and unreliable water heating. How hard is it to have a good shower here?! [touch wood, my flat seems OK at the moment]
- People who use the speaker phone capability of their mobile phones in public. Not only do we not want to hear who you're talking to (anything really interesting is probably being whispered into a phone) but it's a speaker phone - you don't need to speak louder - that's the point of a telephone!
- British bureaucracy (well, some noticeable examples of it) that, by default, will say no to any question if they don't know the answer rather than finding out if they can say yes. If you don't know, say so and find out. Rare but notable exception - the Post Office, despite being unglamorous, usually seems to actually have lots of answers (and help) once you've made it to the front of the queue.
- Tourists who come to London and complain about the weather - if you want sun go to Greece.
I'll need to post a things that make me smile to balance this :)
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Feminism
It has been said that as soon as men and women are truly equal there will be no need for feminists - kind of like how China isn't keen on revolutionaries as they're supposed to be the revolution. The common view is that the opposite of feminist is a chauvinist (I'm sure the dictionary wouldn't approve) but we can do without them now really.
While some countries have appalling equality (and I hope we do get equality - although that doesn't mean men can't be men and women women - or women men and men women, etc, etc) most western countries aren't too bad (although this is a man talking).
As I was walking though Sloane Square and Chelsea (posh and trendy shopping areas in London) I realised that I'd know there was equality when I saw lots of horrendously good looking men walking around with successful (and probably unattractive) women i.e. the reverse of the situation now.
While some countries have appalling equality (and I hope we do get equality - although that doesn't mean men can't be men and women women - or women men and men women, etc, etc) most western countries aren't too bad (although this is a man talking).
As I was walking though Sloane Square and Chelsea (posh and trendy shopping areas in London) I realised that I'd know there was equality when I saw lots of horrendously good looking men walking around with successful (and probably unattractive) women i.e. the reverse of the situation now.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Back to Macs
After my brief dalliance with financial commentary it's back to Macs - yesterday was the annual Macworld keynote speech by Steve Jobs.
Some can be letdowns and some can be exciting. This year's seemed to be somewhere in the middle.
Apple seems to be more and more about strategy rather than just releasing cool boxes and software to run on them. The original iPod turned into a major industry irritating the music labels to the point that they've dropped DRM (and they were the only ones to want it) just as a way to spite Apple (which may have very little effect anyway). The Apple TV is turning into something that may be the future of video viewing - or maybe not. Either way, Blue Ray or HD DVD may not necessarily be the future of HD viewing in our homes or on the road.
The big new items from Macworld were movie rentals through iTunes (from all the major studios), the iPhone update (heavily leaked earlier), the Time Capsule (an Airport base station with a hard drive you can back up to), and the MacBook Air.
The MacBook Air looks delicious although it's bigger that I would have thought - pretty much the same depth and width as my existing MacBook but much, much thinner. If you were to look at it entirely on specifications you'd probably buy a MacBook Pro or even a MacBook but if you travel a lot, have another Mac you'll be keeping, and if you just want a simple life - the MacBook Air looks ideal. It'll certain make most Mac users think about buying it.
As a person who troubleshoots Macs for a job, and a person who only has a laptop, there are a number of issues with troubleshooting. It has no optical drive (barring major software updates I've barely used mine in the last year but I did need it when I did) and no Firewire ports (invaluable in helping a sad Mac by booting from a Firewire hard drive).
Despite working in an office full of Macs, if I was to buy the Air I would need to buy the external optical drive. The Macs in my office don't have wifi (yes, they are that old) so I'd want to be able to fix my own Mac in an emergency.
I wonder if the Air can actually boot from that optical drive (if so, that would be new on Macs)?
The Air also suffers from only one USB port. If you charge an iPod, then you can't plug in a camera to take photos off it or anything else for that matter. A simple life is required - or an equally sexy USB hub.
The announcement of the Time Capsule seems to go hand in hand with the Air - a great wireless backup option (Time Machine isn't nearly as convenient for laptop users) although being able to boot from the Time Capsule would be a revelation as you may not be able to boot from anything else in an emergency.
The hard drive in the Air is smallish though (and slow) and as we transfer more of our lives into these machines, I'm seeing an increasing need for a "server" of a sort. Time Capsule may be that (can you partition it so one could be a simple drive and one could be dedicated to Time Machine itself?).
One day I can see that there may be a need to have an iTunes for Macs (no, not for music ON Macs - for the whole Macs). On an iPod that won't fit my music collection (it's not a big collection I've got to admit) I make playlists so I can sync a subset of my library to the iPod so it will fit. I can see the need (and am already archiving stuff off from my existing laptop) to do that on laptops.
Whether the Time Capsule can act as that server or maybe a souped up MacMini could play the role is another question. An ideal world would have a "headless" MacMini (with a huge hard drive) that you could netboot (via wifi) off - now that would be cool. I want that extra storage (and ability to install software) but don't want to buy a keyboard, mouse and screen just for a few occasions - that, and I don't have the space for it.
The iPhone update is a great improvement although, like the update to the iPod Touch, could be seen as delivering what should have been on the iPhone already (texting more than one person at a time is hardly revolutionary). It is good though and the iPhone is still proving a temptation even though I'm in the harder to sell to UK market. Maybe when there's 3G or a newer model?
The movie rentals in iTunes is fundamentally a good idea - and definitely a challenge to the new HD formats and the declining world of shop-front video stores. I can't help thinking it may have arrived too early though. The questions are: how big are the movies to download (especially the HD versions) and how long will the average user take to download them? If they are as enormous as I would expect (especially with the HD versions), it could take hours (if not the whole day) on many DSL connections to download a full movie.
When you normally rent a movie you tend to do it in an opportunist way (go to video store - choose one you think won't bore you to death - go home and watch) - you don't want to have to set the download going and watch it tomorrow. Most people aren't going to get instant satisfaction and they tend to like that.
Who knows how it will go and how will this go in international markets? It takes long enough to get licensing sorted out in the UK (which shares the same movie companies and is a big market that doesn't need language customisation) let alone smaller markets that tend to come at the end of a long slow Apple delivery line (like my native NZ or places with different languages).
It may take a few more years for that to be viable. Then again, Apple always has had an eye on the future.
Some can be letdowns and some can be exciting. This year's seemed to be somewhere in the middle.
Apple seems to be more and more about strategy rather than just releasing cool boxes and software to run on them. The original iPod turned into a major industry irritating the music labels to the point that they've dropped DRM (and they were the only ones to want it) just as a way to spite Apple (which may have very little effect anyway). The Apple TV is turning into something that may be the future of video viewing - or maybe not. Either way, Blue Ray or HD DVD may not necessarily be the future of HD viewing in our homes or on the road.
The big new items from Macworld were movie rentals through iTunes (from all the major studios), the iPhone update (heavily leaked earlier), the Time Capsule (an Airport base station with a hard drive you can back up to), and the MacBook Air.
The MacBook Air looks delicious although it's bigger that I would have thought - pretty much the same depth and width as my existing MacBook but much, much thinner. If you were to look at it entirely on specifications you'd probably buy a MacBook Pro or even a MacBook but if you travel a lot, have another Mac you'll be keeping, and if you just want a simple life - the MacBook Air looks ideal. It'll certain make most Mac users think about buying it.
As a person who troubleshoots Macs for a job, and a person who only has a laptop, there are a number of issues with troubleshooting. It has no optical drive (barring major software updates I've barely used mine in the last year but I did need it when I did) and no Firewire ports (invaluable in helping a sad Mac by booting from a Firewire hard drive).
Despite working in an office full of Macs, if I was to buy the Air I would need to buy the external optical drive. The Macs in my office don't have wifi (yes, they are that old) so I'd want to be able to fix my own Mac in an emergency.
I wonder if the Air can actually boot from that optical drive (if so, that would be new on Macs)?
The Air also suffers from only one USB port. If you charge an iPod, then you can't plug in a camera to take photos off it or anything else for that matter. A simple life is required - or an equally sexy USB hub.
The announcement of the Time Capsule seems to go hand in hand with the Air - a great wireless backup option (Time Machine isn't nearly as convenient for laptop users) although being able to boot from the Time Capsule would be a revelation as you may not be able to boot from anything else in an emergency.
The hard drive in the Air is smallish though (and slow) and as we transfer more of our lives into these machines, I'm seeing an increasing need for a "server" of a sort. Time Capsule may be that (can you partition it so one could be a simple drive and one could be dedicated to Time Machine itself?).
One day I can see that there may be a need to have an iTunes for Macs (no, not for music ON Macs - for the whole Macs). On an iPod that won't fit my music collection (it's not a big collection I've got to admit) I make playlists so I can sync a subset of my library to the iPod so it will fit. I can see the need (and am already archiving stuff off from my existing laptop) to do that on laptops.
Whether the Time Capsule can act as that server or maybe a souped up MacMini could play the role is another question. An ideal world would have a "headless" MacMini (with a huge hard drive) that you could netboot (via wifi) off - now that would be cool. I want that extra storage (and ability to install software) but don't want to buy a keyboard, mouse and screen just for a few occasions - that, and I don't have the space for it.
The iPhone update is a great improvement although, like the update to the iPod Touch, could be seen as delivering what should have been on the iPhone already (texting more than one person at a time is hardly revolutionary). It is good though and the iPhone is still proving a temptation even though I'm in the harder to sell to UK market. Maybe when there's 3G or a newer model?
The movie rentals in iTunes is fundamentally a good idea - and definitely a challenge to the new HD formats and the declining world of shop-front video stores. I can't help thinking it may have arrived too early though. The questions are: how big are the movies to download (especially the HD versions) and how long will the average user take to download them? If they are as enormous as I would expect (especially with the HD versions), it could take hours (if not the whole day) on many DSL connections to download a full movie.
When you normally rent a movie you tend to do it in an opportunist way (go to video store - choose one you think won't bore you to death - go home and watch) - you don't want to have to set the download going and watch it tomorrow. Most people aren't going to get instant satisfaction and they tend to like that.
Who knows how it will go and how will this go in international markets? It takes long enough to get licensing sorted out in the UK (which shares the same movie companies and is a big market that doesn't need language customisation) let alone smaller markets that tend to come at the end of a long slow Apple delivery line (like my native NZ or places with different languages).
It may take a few more years for that to be viable. Then again, Apple always has had an eye on the future.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Buying lemons - banking in the US
I've watched the housing market for years (having been left behind by it, it has to be said) and laughed as people (seemingly everywhere in the world) have insisted that property couldn't go down in price. They justified this in so many ways - stable investment, shortage of houses, huge immigration. But what they never did is realise that like most "fad" markets, it was people investing in a market just because there is a "guaranteed" crazy profit. It may have taken longer for it to happen but just like time shares, calling card collectors (remember them?), and any other seemingly one way market - it burst.
If any idiot can make a profit by doing the same thing as everyone else then that profit will stop. Simple. Just like in any free market, if the barriers to entry in a market are low, anyone making large profits in a market will cease to as competition arrives to take their share of that profit. The housing market is hardly a place of restrictive entry (barring the ridiculous prices now), and certainly not with today's (or rather last year's) credit controls.
I've just read an article where an eminent economist said that the Federal Reserve should admit to its part in causing the credit bubble. A good point but there are a number of other perpetrators out there - unwise investors (one can side with a poor family trying to get a roof over their heads but not a person buying and selling their home every 2 years for the "guaranteed profit" - they should face the possible loss too), governments who do nothing to stop the bubble (why don't they base the property rates on the last sale value of your home - in England they certainly don't), and especially banks.
Banks should know better. Their business is lending. They should know who is a good person to sell a credit card, a loan or a mortgage to better than anyone else. That may not be exactly what a sane person might think (credit card companies seem to love people "on the edge") but it is fairly clear.
However, they have marketed mortgages with ridiculous entry requirements: bad credit history, no saving, little or no down payment and the most serious error of them all (and so far mostly unique to the States) not holding onto the loans themselves. This gave the lenders little reason to care about the quality of the loan. When a huge proportion of lending gets sold onto Fannie Mae or whoever, where's the incentive to make sure you're lending money to good risks?
If it was as simple as that, we'd just watch Fannie Mae implode and watch the US government sink further into the red (with the respective fallout for that), but banks went one better - they repackaged bad loans and sold them on with a top credit rating. Not only does this show that the credit rating agencies ought to be sued into destitution, it show how bad banks are - creating these things - then actually buying them themselves. Not only American banks but supposedly intelligent foreign ones like UBS, Barclays and HSBC.
Now, just to make a few more idiots in the world, the biggest losers of the lot (and if you count monetary performance as the way to measure a business - especially a bank - then the companies who make the worst losses are the worst of the lot) are repackaging themselves in a way. Selling themselves off to rich sovereign wealth sums at billions of dollars a pop.
Is it just me or is selling spectacularly badly run businesses for sums that previously hadn't been thrown around banks a great case of the Emperor's New Clothes again? "Please invest in us - we're spectacularly good at making losses small countries would be scared of, so we're a great bet for your investment dollars."
Maybe the sovereign wealth funds think it's a better option than leaving the money in a US bank...in US currency? Funny world.
If any idiot can make a profit by doing the same thing as everyone else then that profit will stop. Simple. Just like in any free market, if the barriers to entry in a market are low, anyone making large profits in a market will cease to as competition arrives to take their share of that profit. The housing market is hardly a place of restrictive entry (barring the ridiculous prices now), and certainly not with today's (or rather last year's) credit controls.
I've just read an article where an eminent economist said that the Federal Reserve should admit to its part in causing the credit bubble. A good point but there are a number of other perpetrators out there - unwise investors (one can side with a poor family trying to get a roof over their heads but not a person buying and selling their home every 2 years for the "guaranteed profit" - they should face the possible loss too), governments who do nothing to stop the bubble (why don't they base the property rates on the last sale value of your home - in England they certainly don't), and especially banks.
Banks should know better. Their business is lending. They should know who is a good person to sell a credit card, a loan or a mortgage to better than anyone else. That may not be exactly what a sane person might think (credit card companies seem to love people "on the edge") but it is fairly clear.
However, they have marketed mortgages with ridiculous entry requirements: bad credit history, no saving, little or no down payment and the most serious error of them all (and so far mostly unique to the States) not holding onto the loans themselves. This gave the lenders little reason to care about the quality of the loan. When a huge proportion of lending gets sold onto Fannie Mae or whoever, where's the incentive to make sure you're lending money to good risks?
If it was as simple as that, we'd just watch Fannie Mae implode and watch the US government sink further into the red (with the respective fallout for that), but banks went one better - they repackaged bad loans and sold them on with a top credit rating. Not only does this show that the credit rating agencies ought to be sued into destitution, it show how bad banks are - creating these things - then actually buying them themselves. Not only American banks but supposedly intelligent foreign ones like UBS, Barclays and HSBC.
Now, just to make a few more idiots in the world, the biggest losers of the lot (and if you count monetary performance as the way to measure a business - especially a bank - then the companies who make the worst losses are the worst of the lot) are repackaging themselves in a way. Selling themselves off to rich sovereign wealth sums at billions of dollars a pop.
Is it just me or is selling spectacularly badly run businesses for sums that previously hadn't been thrown around banks a great case of the Emperor's New Clothes again? "Please invest in us - we're spectacularly good at making losses small countries would be scared of, so we're a great bet for your investment dollars."
Maybe the sovereign wealth funds think it's a better option than leaving the money in a US bank...in US currency? Funny world.
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Queuing at the Statistics Department
Most governments have departments dedicated to statistics. Some are even called the Statistics Department (mathematicians aren't known for being creative) and like any other government department they have offices and waiting rooms.
It did cross my mind that if they were really well organised (it is statisticians we're talking about here) they'd have a much improved queuing system to other departments.
You take your number and the screen shows not only who's being served but the chances of when you'll be served. "If your number is between 119 and 126 you might be served in 30 minutes...almost definitely served within 45 minutes...and definitely in..."
Or maybe they're just as normal and energy sapping as every other department.
It did cross my mind that if they were really well organised (it is statisticians we're talking about here) they'd have a much improved queuing system to other departments.
You take your number and the screen shows not only who's being served but the chances of when you'll be served. "If your number is between 119 and 126 you might be served in 30 minutes...almost definitely served within 45 minutes...and definitely in..."
Or maybe they're just as normal and energy sapping as every other department.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Chewing gum conspiracy
I don't know if it's because I live and work in a - let's admit it - posh part of the world that I haven't seen this but I think there's a conspiracy when it comes to "chewing gum droppings".
Chewing gum droppings = chewing gum on the footpath (and in innumerable other places).
Every year the local council - Kensington and Chelsea - must spend a LOT of money removing chewing gum off the footpaths/pavements in the main shopping areas. Some guy goes around with some kind of turbo-powered water blaster and takes seemingly a day to do about 10 meters of the footpath.
From the view point of our office it leaves "negative droppings" - where the bit where the chewing gum was is now wonderfully clean and the rest of the footpath isn't.
Now, the question is, has anyone actually seen anyone throwing their chewing gum on the footpaths? I'm pretty aware of the world around me and I can honestly say I've never seen anyone dumping their used chewing gum on the footpath here (there's no shortage of litter/trash cans around - and I have seen smokers dump their butts around the place). I'd like to say that maybe it's because we're classier here and don't do that sort of thing (yeah, right)....but there's a phenomenal amount of gum on the footpaths.
Where does it come from? Does someone gradually sneak it onto the footpaths in the middle of the night?
Chewing gum droppings = chewing gum on the footpath (and in innumerable other places).
Every year the local council - Kensington and Chelsea - must spend a LOT of money removing chewing gum off the footpaths/pavements in the main shopping areas. Some guy goes around with some kind of turbo-powered water blaster and takes seemingly a day to do about 10 meters of the footpath.
From the view point of our office it leaves "negative droppings" - where the bit where the chewing gum was is now wonderfully clean and the rest of the footpath isn't.
Now, the question is, has anyone actually seen anyone throwing their chewing gum on the footpaths? I'm pretty aware of the world around me and I can honestly say I've never seen anyone dumping their used chewing gum on the footpath here (there's no shortage of litter/trash cans around - and I have seen smokers dump their butts around the place). I'd like to say that maybe it's because we're classier here and don't do that sort of thing (yeah, right)....but there's a phenomenal amount of gum on the footpaths.
Where does it come from? Does someone gradually sneak it onto the footpaths in the middle of the night?
Supporting terrorism
If a terrorist uses open source software does that make every contributor to the code a supporter of terrorism - I hear Firefox is really popular these days!
...for the sceptical out there you might want to see what people ARE arrested for in the way of supporting terrorism like the guy who gave his cousin a SIM card that WASN'T used in a bombing.
Then again, to be fair, maybe if Microsoft or Apple aren't actively trying to crack down on piracy in the Middle East, maybe they're participating too if they use Windows or OS X.
Oh, the dilemmas!
...for the sceptical out there you might want to see what people ARE arrested for in the way of supporting terrorism like the guy who gave his cousin a SIM card that WASN'T used in a bombing.
Then again, to be fair, maybe if Microsoft or Apple aren't actively trying to crack down on piracy in the Middle East, maybe they're participating too if they use Windows or OS X.
Oh, the dilemmas!
Sunday, February 18, 2007
British Law
One thing I've noticed about British laws since I've lived in London (and it has to be noted that NZ law is originally based on British law) is that the British tend to legislate for specific instances rather than broader reasons.
An example for this is there are laws effecting parks...and laws effecting Royal Parks. Why do there need to be separate laws - stuffed if I know?!
This can be increasingly stupid when you start to wonder a) why the law wasn't implemented in a universal nature in the first place and b) that when it does need wider application it requires a new law (and all the legislative hassle to go along with it).
This has come to light recently in a spate of shootings in South London - we've had about 4 in the last few weeks. It has to be pointed out that British people (like NZ people) generally don't own guns and are not allowed to. This is so we don't go around shooting people all the time and generally works a treat.
Well, to address this spate of gun crime effecting mainly young men, the Prime Minister Tony Blair (and some other politicians) want to change an existing law which makes it possible to send a person to jail for 5 years if they are illegally carrying a gun. The existing law has the proviso that the law effects people over 21 (I'm guessing that that may be the case because you can't get a gun licence under 21).
Now, this law was most likely introduced to catch people who don't have a gun licence and can you imagine the law making process - "Hmmm, maybe we should let teenagers roam around with guns? That's OK isn't it?". So why with the age limit?!
Now they're talking about changing the law so the "limit" is reduced to being 17 years or older. When all the murders have effected people under 17! Are these people stupid or what?
An example for this is there are laws effecting parks...and laws effecting Royal Parks. Why do there need to be separate laws - stuffed if I know?!
This can be increasingly stupid when you start to wonder a) why the law wasn't implemented in a universal nature in the first place and b) that when it does need wider application it requires a new law (and all the legislative hassle to go along with it).
This has come to light recently in a spate of shootings in South London - we've had about 4 in the last few weeks. It has to be pointed out that British people (like NZ people) generally don't own guns and are not allowed to. This is so we don't go around shooting people all the time and generally works a treat.
Well, to address this spate of gun crime effecting mainly young men, the Prime Minister Tony Blair (and some other politicians) want to change an existing law which makes it possible to send a person to jail for 5 years if they are illegally carrying a gun. The existing law has the proviso that the law effects people over 21 (I'm guessing that that may be the case because you can't get a gun licence under 21).
Now, this law was most likely introduced to catch people who don't have a gun licence and can you imagine the law making process - "Hmmm, maybe we should let teenagers roam around with guns? That's OK isn't it?". So why with the age limit?!
Now they're talking about changing the law so the "limit" is reduced to being 17 years or older. When all the murders have effected people under 17! Are these people stupid or what?
Monday, February 12, 2007
Hindsight
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Despite thinking that George Bush was wrong all the way from the start (not that it makes any difference - I can't vote in the US) him losing the 2000 election (well, I mean, not stealing it) could have resulted in a few notable bad things happening.
Like having a Vice President and possible 2008 president of that prime example of the Democrat party - Joe Lieberman. What do you call someone who sounds, and acts, and votes like a Republican? A Republican - perfect for a Democrat Vice President and possible President. That was a lucky escape.
And the topic that is being brought up more and more - that if Bush hadn't screwed up the Middle East (well, made it more screwed up) and made the US economy a walking disaster area, the stage wouldn't have been set for needing alternative fuels - and for making those alternative energy supplies cost effective enough (or cost effective enough that your average Joe - obviously not Joe Lieberman) to put into practice.
Aren't we all lucky.
We'd probably be more lucky if Al Gore announced for 2008 (sans Joe) - and by "we" I mean a global "we". The "told you so" part of me can appreciate Bush's screw ups coming home to roost but having a failing US doesn't benefit the world in the least.
Despite thinking that George Bush was wrong all the way from the start (not that it makes any difference - I can't vote in the US) him losing the 2000 election (well, I mean, not stealing it) could have resulted in a few notable bad things happening.
Like having a Vice President and possible 2008 president of that prime example of the Democrat party - Joe Lieberman. What do you call someone who sounds, and acts, and votes like a Republican? A Republican - perfect for a Democrat Vice President and possible President. That was a lucky escape.
And the topic that is being brought up more and more - that if Bush hadn't screwed up the Middle East (well, made it more screwed up) and made the US economy a walking disaster area, the stage wouldn't have been set for needing alternative fuels - and for making those alternative energy supplies cost effective enough (or cost effective enough that your average Joe - obviously not Joe Lieberman) to put into practice.
Aren't we all lucky.
We'd probably be more lucky if Al Gore announced for 2008 (sans Joe) - and by "we" I mean a global "we". The "told you so" part of me can appreciate Bush's screw ups coming home to roost but having a failing US doesn't benefit the world in the least.
Pre-news
One thing that really irritates me about English news (and it probably happens elsewhere too) is what I call "pre-news".
This is characterised by news articles that start like "Today, Tony Blair will announce..." but instead of just giving a rough outline, it goes into complete detail about what he will announce (not speculative but accurate). You have to wonder why they actually have a press conference - why don't they just do the press release and be done with it?
I'd guess this will eventually mutate into "Next week, David Cameron will announce..." where, if the pre-announcement goes down particularly badly, they actually won't announce the announcement and go back to the drawing board and media organisations will stop reporting on the pre-news.
I hope so.
This is characterised by news articles that start like "Today, Tony Blair will announce..." but instead of just giving a rough outline, it goes into complete detail about what he will announce (not speculative but accurate). You have to wonder why they actually have a press conference - why don't they just do the press release and be done with it?
I'd guess this will eventually mutate into "Next week, David Cameron will announce..." where, if the pre-announcement goes down particularly badly, they actually won't announce the announcement and go back to the drawing board and media organisations will stop reporting on the pre-news.
I hope so.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
da iPhone
Well, it's finally here. The iPhone from Apple. As an Apple geek and a phone geek it is technically gadget nirvana. That said, I know enough about mobile phones and their technology to be very sceptical about the iPhone - at least version one of it.
Thoughts:
It needs 3G for the rest of the world. The US's rollout of GSM 3G is at least a year behind Europe. Most high end phones come out with 3G in Europe. It has to be noted that 3G (300Kb) is UMTS or W-CDMA (not to be mistaken with normal CDMA which is the opposition to GSM). The often mentioned HSDPA (often mentioned in regard to iPhone) is a kind of upgrade to UMTS - more 3.5G (1Mb). With regard to the European markets (huge mobile phone users), a lot of the networks never bothered with EDGE as they'd spent so much buying up 3G licences. So the iPhone would be very slow here as it is now (it may have to do GPRS data - often as slow as 28Kb or, God help us, normal GSM 9Kb) - I'd expect an upgrade to 3G by the time of the European rollout though.
For places outside the US, texting is more the "killer app". This is because all networks are on GSM and they all interoperate when it comes to texting. No worrying about whether your friend is on the same network or technology - texts just work. Because of that, a lot of the people who have tried the iPhone mention the on-screen keypad has limitations because of the size of the keys and the lack of tactile response (which obviously can't be helped). Maybe they can make a landscape keyboard view for people who want to run off an email? That'd make the keys bigger.
They better have a good battery indicator - you'd hate to have your phone die on you because you've been enjoying your music or videos too much!
Do the contacts have default phone numbers (i.e. double click on the contact to dial their default number instead of having to choose every time). Nokias do and that was always the flaw when I synced my contacts over - I'd have to choose my defaults again.
According to reports - no flash or Java yet. I hope they're working on a iPhone version of Flash or many websites are going to have problems (Flickr?) and I'm not sure if JavaScript is supported, which again is heavily used in websites these days.
Nobody's really tested the actual mobile reception yet - that could be a make or break for most heavy phone users. The question of Cingular is a US specific one - GSM coverage is pretty much everywhere in the rest of the world. You expect your phone to work anywhere in Europe. The move by Apple to go GSM may be another nail in the coffin for CDMA (and EVDO) - already the few other countries in the world that use it are having second thoughts - like places in South America, Australia and NZ where other GSM networks compete. Nokia (the biggest handset manufacturer) also seems to have ceased making phones for it.
Are the other international networks going to have to engineer the "visual voicemail" function from scratch or are Cingular or Apple going to sell the work they've done to them to save time and effort? That would also reduce the rollout time.
As a person who has been severely stung (i.e. I could have paid for the iPhone with change if I hadn't got the phone bill) by data charges on 3G in the past, the data plans on this would be very important. Not only does it make using data services practical (and networks have discovered that nobody really cares about video calling so need other uses) it could make it pervasive. If they continue to have "deadly" call plans, there could be a number of very angry (and broke) subscribers after the first month rollout.
Only having a 2Mpixel camera seems a bit light - maybe this will be upgraded when (or if) they upgrade the phone to 3G (which will be able to handle the bigger file sizes better). Think photoblogging to Flickr. Maybe Yahoo (Flickr's owners) will make a custom application for the iPhone since they're currently friends with Apple?
I'd guess this will be like the original iPod (and Mac) that later versions will fix a lot of problems - more storage for video; smaller phones for people less keen on video and more keen on compactness; price; attachment viewers if they really want to take on Blackberry.
Nokia's already have a number of the facilities available to them - especially on the N95 coming out soon - just not the extreme ease of use. They already use a Safari (well, WebKit) based browser on their new phones - and apparently don't need a special version of Google Maps to see them. It does however make Motorola's and even Sony Ericsson's phone interfaces look exceedingly poor.
Overall, I'd say highly appealing - and also curious for version 2.0. Software upgrades are also an interesting matter.
Pity that MacWorld didn't actually have any Mac announcements though! :(
Thoughts:
It needs 3G for the rest of the world. The US's rollout of GSM 3G is at least a year behind Europe. Most high end phones come out with 3G in Europe. It has to be noted that 3G (300Kb) is UMTS or W-CDMA (not to be mistaken with normal CDMA which is the opposition to GSM). The often mentioned HSDPA (often mentioned in regard to iPhone) is a kind of upgrade to UMTS - more 3.5G (1Mb). With regard to the European markets (huge mobile phone users), a lot of the networks never bothered with EDGE as they'd spent so much buying up 3G licences. So the iPhone would be very slow here as it is now (it may have to do GPRS data - often as slow as 28Kb or, God help us, normal GSM 9Kb) - I'd expect an upgrade to 3G by the time of the European rollout though.
For places outside the US, texting is more the "killer app". This is because all networks are on GSM and they all interoperate when it comes to texting. No worrying about whether your friend is on the same network or technology - texts just work. Because of that, a lot of the people who have tried the iPhone mention the on-screen keypad has limitations because of the size of the keys and the lack of tactile response (which obviously can't be helped). Maybe they can make a landscape keyboard view for people who want to run off an email? That'd make the keys bigger.
They better have a good battery indicator - you'd hate to have your phone die on you because you've been enjoying your music or videos too much!
Do the contacts have default phone numbers (i.e. double click on the contact to dial their default number instead of having to choose every time). Nokias do and that was always the flaw when I synced my contacts over - I'd have to choose my defaults again.
According to reports - no flash or Java yet. I hope they're working on a iPhone version of Flash or many websites are going to have problems (Flickr?) and I'm not sure if JavaScript is supported, which again is heavily used in websites these days.
Nobody's really tested the actual mobile reception yet - that could be a make or break for most heavy phone users. The question of Cingular is a US specific one - GSM coverage is pretty much everywhere in the rest of the world. You expect your phone to work anywhere in Europe. The move by Apple to go GSM may be another nail in the coffin for CDMA (and EVDO) - already the few other countries in the world that use it are having second thoughts - like places in South America, Australia and NZ where other GSM networks compete. Nokia (the biggest handset manufacturer) also seems to have ceased making phones for it.
Are the other international networks going to have to engineer the "visual voicemail" function from scratch or are Cingular or Apple going to sell the work they've done to them to save time and effort? That would also reduce the rollout time.
As a person who has been severely stung (i.e. I could have paid for the iPhone with change if I hadn't got the phone bill) by data charges on 3G in the past, the data plans on this would be very important. Not only does it make using data services practical (and networks have discovered that nobody really cares about video calling so need other uses) it could make it pervasive. If they continue to have "deadly" call plans, there could be a number of very angry (and broke) subscribers after the first month rollout.
Only having a 2Mpixel camera seems a bit light - maybe this will be upgraded when (or if) they upgrade the phone to 3G (which will be able to handle the bigger file sizes better). Think photoblogging to Flickr. Maybe Yahoo (Flickr's owners) will make a custom application for the iPhone since they're currently friends with Apple?
I'd guess this will be like the original iPod (and Mac) that later versions will fix a lot of problems - more storage for video; smaller phones for people less keen on video and more keen on compactness; price; attachment viewers if they really want to take on Blackberry.
Nokia's already have a number of the facilities available to them - especially on the N95 coming out soon - just not the extreme ease of use. They already use a Safari (well, WebKit) based browser on their new phones - and apparently don't need a special version of Google Maps to see them. It does however make Motorola's and even Sony Ericsson's phone interfaces look exceedingly poor.
Overall, I'd say highly appealing - and also curious for version 2.0. Software upgrades are also an interesting matter.
Pity that MacWorld didn't actually have any Mac announcements though! :(
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Ballet
I went to see my first ballet this year. A friend got some free tickets so off we went to the Royal Opera House in Covent Garden - if you're going to do it, you may as well do it right!
My attitude on ballet at that point was much like synchronised swimming - yes, you have to be amazingly fit and skilled but it still looks stupid.
Well, my attitude changed.
Despite having some of the worst seats in the house (near the stage at the side so we could only see half of the performance) I had a great time.
The ballet was Giselle (the same production was filmed and shown on the BBC this Boxing Day) and the costumes were adorable, the women beautiful and gorgeously made up (and incredibly muscular - especially their backs!), the guys strong (and yes, seemingly, mostly camp), the dancing enjoyable to watch, and to my surprise, the acting great too - which made all the difference.
The bad seats (they were free so I can't complain) actually made it easier to see the all the details - especially the performers. It was great and I left the Opera House humming the tune (the music was uplifting).
I have to say the, the plot was pretty implausible. Village girl gets romanced by mysterious gentleman, falls in love, then when she finds out said man is spectacularly rich and powerful, kills herself in despair. Then part two includes him chasing her in the afterlife. I can surely imagine someone these days being horrified to find the love of their life is rich! Go figure.
My attitude on ballet at that point was much like synchronised swimming - yes, you have to be amazingly fit and skilled but it still looks stupid.
Well, my attitude changed.
Despite having some of the worst seats in the house (near the stage at the side so we could only see half of the performance) I had a great time.
The ballet was Giselle (the same production was filmed and shown on the BBC this Boxing Day) and the costumes were adorable, the women beautiful and gorgeously made up (and incredibly muscular - especially their backs!), the guys strong (and yes, seemingly, mostly camp), the dancing enjoyable to watch, and to my surprise, the acting great too - which made all the difference.
The bad seats (they were free so I can't complain) actually made it easier to see the all the details - especially the performers. It was great and I left the Opera House humming the tune (the music was uplifting).
I have to say the, the plot was pretty implausible. Village girl gets romanced by mysterious gentleman, falls in love, then when she finds out said man is spectacularly rich and powerful, kills herself in despair. Then part two includes him chasing her in the afterlife. I can surely imagine someone these days being horrified to find the love of their life is rich! Go figure.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
iTunes 7 - what's to dislike?
I like iTunes, I like Macs, I like the Mac OS, and I like progress, but when I downloaded the new version of iTunes - version 7 - I found a lot not to like.
There are a number of improvements in iTunes 7 - namely gapless playback (great for those classic albums - not that I've tried that yet), visual browsing of albums (like in a record store), a reorganisation of the interface to support all the media iTunes now supports, and other bits and pieces.
Sadly, almost at first glance, it looks UGLY. All caps sums it all up - all caps is all over the iTunes application and in the iTunes Store (now, not just the iTunes Music Store). Almost anyone who's been on the Internet for any length of time know that all caps is SHOUTING!
Sadly, it's not just that - the colours (or colors for you Americans) look like some kind of Windows Vista advance release; the icon looks uglier (somehow looking like it was designed in 256 colours); the handy import/burn/update (depending on which screen you're in) button has gone; the visualiser button has gone (I know not everyone uses it but I miss it); there's a new button which looks like the visualiser button that lets you browse your library (if you're too lazy to hit the library in the top left); I now have to go to a separate view to see the progress of my downloads; and that doesn't begin to hit the lack of visual consistency between applications (queue another refit of the entire iLife application set which will be out of whack until it comes out).
Then there's the bugs (and the stupidity) - this release seems incredibly buggy. I'm not an iTunes power user but I've already come across the inability to edit my Shuffle's playlist offline (very important if you want to get your playlist right) - the option's disappeared. Updating of your PodCasts has changed to refreshing - and the button's moved. And then we hit what I haven't encountered yet like authorisation problems; increased skipping/processor use; and more (see MacFixit or other Mac - and Windows - sites).
Oddly though, it's the ugly stick it has been hit with that gets me the most - this is an Apple application after all. Please, Leopard (Mac OS X.5), don't look like this!!!
There are a number of improvements in iTunes 7 - namely gapless playback (great for those classic albums - not that I've tried that yet), visual browsing of albums (like in a record store), a reorganisation of the interface to support all the media iTunes now supports, and other bits and pieces.
Sadly, almost at first glance, it looks UGLY. All caps sums it all up - all caps is all over the iTunes application and in the iTunes Store (now, not just the iTunes Music Store). Almost anyone who's been on the Internet for any length of time know that all caps is SHOUTING!
Sadly, it's not just that - the colours (or colors for you Americans) look like some kind of Windows Vista advance release; the icon looks uglier (somehow looking like it was designed in 256 colours); the handy import/burn/update (depending on which screen you're in) button has gone; the visualiser button has gone (I know not everyone uses it but I miss it); there's a new button which looks like the visualiser button that lets you browse your library (if you're too lazy to hit the library in the top left); I now have to go to a separate view to see the progress of my downloads; and that doesn't begin to hit the lack of visual consistency between applications (queue another refit of the entire iLife application set which will be out of whack until it comes out).
Then there's the bugs (and the stupidity) - this release seems incredibly buggy. I'm not an iTunes power user but I've already come across the inability to edit my Shuffle's playlist offline (very important if you want to get your playlist right) - the option's disappeared. Updating of your PodCasts has changed to refreshing - and the button's moved. And then we hit what I haven't encountered yet like authorisation problems; increased skipping/processor use; and more (see MacFixit or other Mac - and Windows - sites).
Oddly though, it's the ugly stick it has been hit with that gets me the most - this is an Apple application after all. Please, Leopard (Mac OS X.5), don't look like this!!!
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Iran's "confrontation" with the West
Not one to support every fruitcake leader known to man but all the press (and government grandstanding) about Iran's nuclear ambitions seems over the top.
Hypocrisy seems the right word to describe a government led by a corrupt, inept, religious zealot who is responsible for the invasion of two countries (Afghanistan and Iraq) and the military and diplomatic support of another invasion (Lebanon - by Israel - a country that also has nuclear weapons) in the last 5 years and who has weapons of mass destruction of their own calling for a country that hasn't been at war for 18 years to stop developing weapons.
This is compounded by both India and Pakistan developing nuclear weapons in recent years and getting no effective sanctions for that. No threats of invasions or bombings. Just let them do it.
And the one country that is actually making threats with nuclear weapons - North Korea - certainly isn't being threatened with invasions or air strikes. Even though a person on the board of a company (ABB) who supplied them with nuclear technology, is now a senior US Administration member.
No wonder most of the Middle East thinks the US (and Europe - especially the UK) is full of...it.
No, I'm not advocating the spread of nuclear weapons or technology (at a time when Tony Blair is advocating renewed nuclear power developments), but you haven't got a moral leg to stand on when you're responsible for illegal acts around the world and supporting or ignoring other countries who are doing the same things as Iran.
Hypocrisy seems the right word to describe a government led by a corrupt, inept, religious zealot who is responsible for the invasion of two countries (Afghanistan and Iraq) and the military and diplomatic support of another invasion (Lebanon - by Israel - a country that also has nuclear weapons) in the last 5 years and who has weapons of mass destruction of their own calling for a country that hasn't been at war for 18 years to stop developing weapons.
This is compounded by both India and Pakistan developing nuclear weapons in recent years and getting no effective sanctions for that. No threats of invasions or bombings. Just let them do it.
And the one country that is actually making threats with nuclear weapons - North Korea - certainly isn't being threatened with invasions or air strikes. Even though a person on the board of a company (ABB) who supplied them with nuclear technology, is now a senior US Administration member.
No wonder most of the Middle East thinks the US (and Europe - especially the UK) is full of...it.
No, I'm not advocating the spread of nuclear weapons or technology (at a time when Tony Blair is advocating renewed nuclear power developments), but you haven't got a moral leg to stand on when you're responsible for illegal acts around the world and supporting or ignoring other countries who are doing the same things as Iran.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Mirrors - Left wing liberals and the religious right
I've always had an interest in environmental "stuff", not necessarily because I'm enlightened or anything, but because environmental things can lead to greater efficiency and health. I am a bit of a lefty but only a bit.
Environmentalism also interests me because done sensibly it can be done by the general public (without great disturbances to their lives) and by good government planning.
Examples being simple things like dual flush toilets (common in NZ but rare in the UK - queue more ranting about British plumbing), public trash cans with three compartments instead of one (for bottles, cans and the rest - common in Germany), anti-GM sentiment (all through Europe despite the chemical companies "owning" the governments), and general recycling.
However you get silly things too (we've all seen the "don't generate jobs for thousands because it will destroy the Northern Spotted Ant" stories) and it isn't always black and white either. Sometimes one environmental victory causes another environmental defeat. Recent examples here include species of butterflies dying out (well, they are photogenic) because of people (of course) AND replanted native woodlands.
But when you see a story like the Montana Governor suggesting Montana's coal as a cure for America's oil addiction which I recently saw reported on the BBC you get some strange things happening.
The governor outlined his side of the story: no reliance on horrible places with dictators; keeping payments within the US; generating jobs; Montana is full of coal, etc.
Then, to balance the story, the BBC got comment from an environmentalist (which are probably just like economists - each have a different story) and he pretty much said pretty much "no, we all need to conserve energy".
This immediately sounded like a Christian fundamentalist (and the American government these days) saying the cure to teenage pregnancy, STDs, etc is abstinence. You all know it has as much chance of working as George Bush's plans for Iraq.
So why, given the small sound bite available, didn't he actually come up with something practical? Even I, from my casual but interested observer status, know about Ethanol.
The BBC have had a number of stories on it and how it's worked in Brazil - 2 million cars running dual fuel with Ethanol being much cheaper than imported oil and cleaner too.
And if you're thinking "yeah, but that's them", Google recently had a lecture by Vinod Khosla who as an obvious bumbling amateur (he founded Sun Microsystems!) saying that it could be done in the States for around $30 - $70 a car (some notable cars are already capable of running dual fuel but nobody realises it), and a state the size of Montana (he actually used the Dakotas as an example) could generate enough raw material to replace oil almost entirely - eliminating the need for a lot of expensive wars, propping up very evil dictators (in the name of supporting the spread of democracy), and also eliminating America's expensive (to your tax payer) agricultural subsidies.
So all around good news (except maybe the oil companies - whose refineries could actually make ethanol).
His video is here and it is HUGE so only click if you're on broadband, have a lot of spare time, have a tolerance for un-flashy presentations (needs Steve Jobs's help), and an interest in this.
So to badly sum up this waffling post: "just say no" doesn't work for sex or the environment. Making it easier to say no (either to sex or to driving gas guzzling SUVs) or say yes in a less destructive way (contraceptives or cleaner fuels) is a much more pragmatic idea - one that has a hope of working AND doing good.
[I need to edit more - and to get a cleaner line of thinking]
Environmentalism also interests me because done sensibly it can be done by the general public (without great disturbances to their lives) and by good government planning.
Examples being simple things like dual flush toilets (common in NZ but rare in the UK - queue more ranting about British plumbing), public trash cans with three compartments instead of one (for bottles, cans and the rest - common in Germany), anti-GM sentiment (all through Europe despite the chemical companies "owning" the governments), and general recycling.
However you get silly things too (we've all seen the "don't generate jobs for thousands because it will destroy the Northern Spotted Ant" stories) and it isn't always black and white either. Sometimes one environmental victory causes another environmental defeat. Recent examples here include species of butterflies dying out (well, they are photogenic) because of people (of course) AND replanted native woodlands.
But when you see a story like the Montana Governor suggesting Montana's coal as a cure for America's oil addiction which I recently saw reported on the BBC you get some strange things happening.
The governor outlined his side of the story: no reliance on horrible places with dictators; keeping payments within the US; generating jobs; Montana is full of coal, etc.
Then, to balance the story, the BBC got comment from an environmentalist (which are probably just like economists - each have a different story) and he pretty much said pretty much "no, we all need to conserve energy".
This immediately sounded like a Christian fundamentalist (and the American government these days) saying the cure to teenage pregnancy, STDs, etc is abstinence. You all know it has as much chance of working as George Bush's plans for Iraq.
So why, given the small sound bite available, didn't he actually come up with something practical? Even I, from my casual but interested observer status, know about Ethanol.
The BBC have had a number of stories on it and how it's worked in Brazil - 2 million cars running dual fuel with Ethanol being much cheaper than imported oil and cleaner too.
And if you're thinking "yeah, but that's them", Google recently had a lecture by Vinod Khosla who as an obvious bumbling amateur (he founded Sun Microsystems!) saying that it could be done in the States for around $30 - $70 a car (some notable cars are already capable of running dual fuel but nobody realises it), and a state the size of Montana (he actually used the Dakotas as an example) could generate enough raw material to replace oil almost entirely - eliminating the need for a lot of expensive wars, propping up very evil dictators (in the name of supporting the spread of democracy), and also eliminating America's expensive (to your tax payer) agricultural subsidies.
So all around good news (except maybe the oil companies - whose refineries could actually make ethanol).
His video is here and it is HUGE so only click if you're on broadband, have a lot of spare time, have a tolerance for un-flashy presentations (needs Steve Jobs's help), and an interest in this.
So to badly sum up this waffling post: "just say no" doesn't work for sex or the environment. Making it easier to say no (either to sex or to driving gas guzzling SUVs) or say yes in a less destructive way (contraceptives or cleaner fuels) is a much more pragmatic idea - one that has a hope of working AND doing good.
[I need to edit more - and to get a cleaner line of thinking]
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Terror - or inconvenience? A ramble
Well, almost 13 months after the London Tube bombings, we have another major terrorist incident in London.
Supposedly, the terrorists were going to blow up liquid based bombs kept in their carry on luggage on up to 10 planes.
This resulted in police raids and an effective lock-down of most of the UK's airports. You have to remember that London has 3 of the largest airports in the world - Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. It also has two other commercial airports - Luton and London City. A LOT of people go through here.
Most airlines cancelled flights - especially to the US. Extra-ordinary security measures were in place - especially having to check in carry on baggage and any carry on goods having to be taken in see through bags. No liquids, no electronic devices. Goodbye cellphones, iPods, laptops, contact lens fluid!
Compliments to the intelligence services (MI5 actually have a nice website) and the police if this is proven. Security and deterrence is good. Terror, fear and a police state is bad. London (apart from an in-depth media "autopsy") seems to have returned to normal. The British are used to terror groups - we had the IRA here for years. But we haven't turned into a psychopathic police state with secret prisons and rights removing insane laws like the Patriot Act. We continue to live - we are still Britain.
Up yours terrorists!
...
On the other hand I was debating asylum seekers and immigrants with a friend and thought how easy it is to feel marginalised and isolated in this country (any country).
If these "British born terrorists" were attacking Israel (maybe firing these Hizbollah rockets) would Israel try to rain destruction on the UK? If the same applied to maybe France would the UK government still NOT be insisting on an immediate ceasefire? And how does this double standard make British Muslims feel? Does this breed more "British born terrorists"?
We live in a strange world but one that hasn't changed much - except everything has got closer and bigger. I (currently) still feel extra-ordinarily lucky (touch wood - really touch wood) that I live in a generation where I haven't had to go to war. My parents didn't but their families did and just about every generation beforehand have had to deal with it - not with professional armies but with conscription where people weren't brave and heroic, they just "did" and "survived".
Other places aren't so lucky - like the Palestinians, the Israelis (to a lesser effect but still an effect), the Iraqis, the Sri Lankans, most of Africa (especially Sudan, Somalia, Congo), any number of places. There, you can't be talking head like me and journalists, you do what you need to live and hope you and your family stay alive :(
One hopes that one day, those places too can avoid the fear of instant death either from terrorists or "anti-terrorists". Peace, in other words.
[one has to wonder if all these interesting keywords are going to flag things with the NSA and GCHQ?]
Supposedly, the terrorists were going to blow up liquid based bombs kept in their carry on luggage on up to 10 planes.
This resulted in police raids and an effective lock-down of most of the UK's airports. You have to remember that London has 3 of the largest airports in the world - Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. It also has two other commercial airports - Luton and London City. A LOT of people go through here.
Most airlines cancelled flights - especially to the US. Extra-ordinary security measures were in place - especially having to check in carry on baggage and any carry on goods having to be taken in see through bags. No liquids, no electronic devices. Goodbye cellphones, iPods, laptops, contact lens fluid!
Compliments to the intelligence services (MI5 actually have a nice website) and the police if this is proven. Security and deterrence is good. Terror, fear and a police state is bad. London (apart from an in-depth media "autopsy") seems to have returned to normal. The British are used to terror groups - we had the IRA here for years. But we haven't turned into a psychopathic police state with secret prisons and rights removing insane laws like the Patriot Act. We continue to live - we are still Britain.
Up yours terrorists!
...
On the other hand I was debating asylum seekers and immigrants with a friend and thought how easy it is to feel marginalised and isolated in this country (any country).
If these "British born terrorists" were attacking Israel (maybe firing these Hizbollah rockets) would Israel try to rain destruction on the UK? If the same applied to maybe France would the UK government still NOT be insisting on an immediate ceasefire? And how does this double standard make British Muslims feel? Does this breed more "British born terrorists"?
We live in a strange world but one that hasn't changed much - except everything has got closer and bigger. I (currently) still feel extra-ordinarily lucky (touch wood - really touch wood) that I live in a generation where I haven't had to go to war. My parents didn't but their families did and just about every generation beforehand have had to deal with it - not with professional armies but with conscription where people weren't brave and heroic, they just "did" and "survived".
Other places aren't so lucky - like the Palestinians, the Israelis (to a lesser effect but still an effect), the Iraqis, the Sri Lankans, most of Africa (especially Sudan, Somalia, Congo), any number of places. There, you can't be talking head like me and journalists, you do what you need to live and hope you and your family stay alive :(
One hopes that one day, those places too can avoid the fear of instant death either from terrorists or "anti-terrorists". Peace, in other words.
[one has to wonder if all these interesting keywords are going to flag things with the NSA and GCHQ?]
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
London - exciting and boring
I've lived in London now for over 6 years now and coming from a country where just about every house is unique and individual (sometimes to a scary degree) London can seem monotonous and boring.
I've walked through suburbs where uniqueness is one street's houses having a different feature window than the houses in the next street. Or one round window instead of a triangular one. Bungalows (single story houses) are unique and sold to little old ladies because there's no stairs and they're rare. Detached houses (not row houses or semi-detached "joined at the hip" houses) are rare and generally owned by millionaires. In fact the greatest sense of identity for most houses here is the (usually shoddy and mismatched) housing modifications - like patios and new window frames.
The song "little boxes by the roadside" applies to London housing and coming into London recently by road it was so undeniably depressing that I wonder why I'm here - when I could be in New Zealand moaning about something completely different ;)
Then, as you think everything is depressing, you get a different point of view (isn't there always?).
I walk a short distance to work in Central London. When I say short, I mean SHORT (or possibly even SHRT). In that extremely short walk to work I pass a modern cafe of an undeniably modern nature (wouldn't want to have to clean all the glass windows), apartment buildings best described as mansions (we won't comment on the insides - British plumbing and cabling is scary), shops with apartments above them that would architecturally be described as palatial (or palace like) and an old church that would be a cathedral in any other country. If I walked a bit further I would actually see a palace too!
Britain can do good architecture (and engineering and manufacturing and design and...) but they just don't these days unless it's for some new bridge or multi-storey office block. When it comes to residential suburban living, it's just bland variations of boring designs that have been here for a century.
It's sad, but you have to wonder if Britain's creative stems from a backlash of the soul against this monotony.
...meanwhile there's nothing wrong with an American beach house being put beside a French chateau style building in a NZ street - is there? Oh....
I've walked through suburbs where uniqueness is one street's houses having a different feature window than the houses in the next street. Or one round window instead of a triangular one. Bungalows (single story houses) are unique and sold to little old ladies because there's no stairs and they're rare. Detached houses (not row houses or semi-detached "joined at the hip" houses) are rare and generally owned by millionaires. In fact the greatest sense of identity for most houses here is the (usually shoddy and mismatched) housing modifications - like patios and new window frames.
The song "little boxes by the roadside" applies to London housing and coming into London recently by road it was so undeniably depressing that I wonder why I'm here - when I could be in New Zealand moaning about something completely different ;)
Then, as you think everything is depressing, you get a different point of view (isn't there always?).
I walk a short distance to work in Central London. When I say short, I mean SHORT (or possibly even SHRT). In that extremely short walk to work I pass a modern cafe of an undeniably modern nature (wouldn't want to have to clean all the glass windows), apartment buildings best described as mansions (we won't comment on the insides - British plumbing and cabling is scary), shops with apartments above them that would architecturally be described as palatial (or palace like) and an old church that would be a cathedral in any other country. If I walked a bit further I would actually see a palace too!
Britain can do good architecture (and engineering and manufacturing and design and...) but they just don't these days unless it's for some new bridge or multi-storey office block. When it comes to residential suburban living, it's just bland variations of boring designs that have been here for a century.
It's sad, but you have to wonder if Britain's creative stems from a backlash of the soul against this monotony.
...meanwhile there's nothing wrong with an American beach house being put beside a French chateau style building in a NZ street - is there? Oh....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)