Crashed Pips - Computers, politics, emetic trash

Thursday, May 17, 2007

I’d love to go open-source, but the logo is putting me off

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , — Jonathan Rothwell @ 20:41

There was a discussion some while ago on Slashdot about how some people refuse to use open-source software because of the strange program titles. Indeed, there has been a trend in recent years of software projects like GNOME renaming subsidiary programs from sensible, understandable titles (for example, GNOME Softphone) to what appears to be the result of some developer banging their fingers on the keyboard in a random pattern. In this case, GNOME Softphone became Egika.

The old rule “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” seems not to apply to the strange world of GNOME.

Occasionally, an odd name can work well - like Ubuntu Linux - the name is memorable and meaningful. However, if everyone starts calling their programs names like “Unedacista” (just made that word up off the top of my head) or other bizarre, pointless names, it’ll just make people think the open source crowd are a bunch of loonies who are out there to confuse people.

One other thing that I would add is that there seem to be some really dreadful logos for open-source projects out there - some are boring, some are tacky, some are just plain naff.

 

 Debian’s logo has a nice idea, but the pink colour scheme is horrible and it needs to be a little more tarted up in my opinion.

The Arch Linux logo - again, nice idea, but poor execution. The matted effect just makes it look like a malfunctioning jelly bean.

Whoever had the idea to have a foot as GNOME’s logo should be shot. I mean, what does the foot tell you? That GNOME is smelly, cheesy, and occasionally suffers from athlete’s foot?

There are plenty of branding agencies out there who would be more than happy to help - if you happened to have a quarter of a million pounds on your hands. (I hear that a particularly good agency is Martin Lambie-Nairn, who are responsible for some of the most famous logos/brands ever.)

But then again, you could always try again.

Or make do.

Just don’t bang your head on the keyboard when you need to think of a name for your next big coding project, think ‘that’ll do’ and make do.



Thursday, May 10, 2007

We the undersigned petition the computer to…

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , — Jonathan Rothwell @ 17:43

The UK government launched an ‘E-petitions’ web site last November. It’s pretty much what it says on the tin - people submit and sign petitions, and then the Government either ignores it or issues a PR-based response. All in all, pretty much like normal petitions. And somewhat more successful - a petition to scrap plans for road-pricing (which turned out in the end to be a FUD) attracted over a million signatures a few months ago.

Some of these petitions, however, seem to be unreasonable, insane, or even discriminatory. For example:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Abolish plans to build a £100 million mega Mosque.

We the Christian population of this great country England would like the proposed plan to build a Mega Mosque in East London Scrapped. This will only cause terrible violence and suffering and more money should go into the NHS.

Remember it’s only a minority of Muslims who are radical extremists. I have no doubt that there are probably some radical Christians out there. And the NHS should be catered for already.

However, this one caught my eye in particular -

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to stand on his head and juggle ice-cream.

If he’s not going to resign, the least he can do is provide us with some entertainment.

Well, it appears he has (after a fashion) resigned, but I think he could learn to juggle within seven weeks.



Tuesday, May 8, 2007

A conservative Wikipedia? No thank you

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , — Jonathan Rothwell @ 20:10

This has to be the maddest idea I’ve ever seen. A conservative, far-right ‘fork’ of Wikipedia. It claims that Wikipedia shows ‘left-wing bias’. Well, I’ll leave that for you to decide. Let’s see what delights it has on offer:

The global warming article shows distinct pro-Bush bias…

Politics of global warming

The global average surface temperature warmed about 0.5°C (0.9°F) over the second half of the 20th Century, and to some the warming appears to be related to increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The possibility of adverse consequences has become a major concern for environmentalists.

Assessments of climate science by the United Nations (see IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at lease the next century. One prominent journal published a literature search by an avowed Kyoto Protocol supporter claiming a “scientific consensus” overwhelmingly supports the IPCC reports.

Several prominent scientists have pointed out the politicized science of the UN’s assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.

Part of the political motivation for acting on Global Warming may be the fact that there is wide agreement among the American public that Global Warming is a reality. A poll conducted March 11-14 of 2007 found that the majority of the American public (59%) believes we are already seeing the effects of Global Warming, an additional 3% and 8% respectively believe they will see the effects with in a few years or within their lifetime, and 19% believe that Global Warming will be seen, not in their lifetime, but in future generations—only a small minority 8% believe that Global Warming will never happen.

Spot something wrong here? Let’s see the ‘further readings’ section of the same page:

Further Readings

Methinks there may be some bias in this link list too.

Conservapedia has no entry for ‘evolution’. It redirects to Theory of evolution.

Theory of evolution

The Theory of evolution is a materialist explanation of the history of life on earth.

Well, that’s not entirely true, is it? This part of the “about” page is quite amusing:

We don’t make false claims of neutrality, as Wikipedia does.

Wikipedia does not claim to be neutral. It tries to be neutral, and that’s how good Wikipedia articles are written. And as for the ’study’ that ‘proves’ Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public -

  1. Facts don’t necessarily tie in with opinion (the knowledge of which is basic English Language)
  2. perhaps when the survey was conducted America just wasn’t very liberal.

Overall these are just some of my complaints about Conservapedia:

  1. Pseudoscience means simply “science which does not comply with scientific method”. This does not mean “science that is untrue”. It means “science that is not possible to test using internationally agreed scientific methods”. It is in no way insulting.
  2. Liberal Christians and Americans do exist.
  3. Science and Christian beliefs are compatible - Pope Pius XII once said that “true science discovers God waiting behind every door”.
  4. It appears also to be openly racist - number 11 on this list seems to imply that Palestinians on the whole are terrorists. No they’re not… and since when did the Bible advocate racism?
  5. There are credible scholars and historians who are sceptic of the existence of Jesus.
  6. It describes the dating methodology used by evolutionists as ‘fraudulent’. Lies. Lies. Lies.

I am so sorely tempted to create an account called “Barrack Obama” and splash “HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT” across the top of every page. It is not trustworthy at all, as it claims.



The google/goggle.com video

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , — Jonathan Rothwell @ 19:15

This viral video, which has lately been doing the rounds on Youtube, is a classic “doomsday” video of how your computer will die if you visit a certain web site - in this case, goggle.com, a mis-spelling of google.com.

Now, I decided to see if “goggle.com” really existed, because I doubt the consequences would be too diabolical. This would be because

  1. I’m using Firefox
  2. I’ve got Javascript switched off by default, which is normally how these attacks are sprung.

At first sight, the web site should start to ring alarm bells as not being Google’s home page.

Fake Google homepage (goggle.com)

Other important points to note:

  1. McAfee SiteAdvisor lists the site as red, meaning “use extreme caution”.
  2. NoScript has blocked some kind of script. These days it’s not that unusual as practically every web page triggers some javascript, but combined with the fact it’s not Google and that SA has listed the site as red, it is suspicious.
  3. There is an asterisk after the words “free” and “click here to claim” - but no matching footnote.

The space in the top-right hand corner was obviously meant to be occupied by a countdown timer, and a quick inspection of the javascript reveals:

<SCRIPT LANGUAGE="JavaScript" SRC="http://www.fluxads.com/goggle/slider.js"></SCRIPT>
<script>

var popunder="http://ads.trekdata.com/flux/insane0220.html"

var winfeatures="width=800,height=1000,scrollbars=1,resizable=1,toolbar=1,location=1,menubar=1,status=1,directories=0"

var once_per_session=1

function get_cookie(Name) {
  var search = Name + "="
  var returnvalue = "";
  if (document.cookie.length > 0) {
    offset = document.cookie.indexOf(search)
    if (offset != -1) { // if cookie exists
      offset += search.length
      // set index of beginning of value
      end = document.cookie.indexOf(";", offset);
      // set index of end of cookie value
      if (end == -1)
         end = document.cookie.length;
      returnvalue=unescape(document.cookie.substring(offset, end))
      }
   }
  return returnvalue;
}

function loadornot(){
if (get_cookie('popunder')==''){
loadpopunder()
document.cookie="popunder=yes"
}
}

function loadpopunder(){
win2=window.open(popunder,"",winfeatures)
win2.blur()
window.focus()
}

if (once_per_session==1)
loadpopunder()
else
loadornot()

</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
var _countDowncontainer=0;
var _currentSeconds=0;
function ActivateCountDown(strContainerID, initialValue) {
    _countDowncontainer = document.getElementById(strContainerID);
    if (!_countDowncontainer) {
        alert("count down error: container does not exist: "+strContainerID+
            "nmake sure html element with this ID exists");
        return;
    }
    SetCountdownText(initialValue);
    window.setTimeout("CountDownTick()", 1000);
}

function CountDownTick() {
    if (_currentSeconds <= 0) {
        window.location = "index.html";
        return;
    }
    SetCountdownText(_currentSeconds-1);
    window.setTimeout("CountDownTick()", 1000);
}

function SetCountdownText(seconds) {
    //store:
    _currentSeconds = seconds;
    //get minutes:
    var minutes=parseInt(seconds/60);
    //shrink:
    seconds = (seconds%60);
    //get hours:
    var hours=parseInt(minutes/60);
    //shrink:
    minutes = (minutes%60);
    //build text:
    //var strText = AddZero(hours) + ":" + AddZero(minutes) + ":" + AddZero(seconds);
	var strText = AddZero(minutes) + ":" + AddZero(seconds);
    //apply:
    _countDowncontainer.innerHTML = strText;
}

function AddZero(num) {
    return ((num >= 0)&&(num < 10))?"0"+num:num+"";
}
</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
window.onload=WindowLoad;
function WindowLoad(event) {
ActivateCountDown("CountDownPanel", 300);
}
</script>

The bit I’m concentrating on is highlighted in bold, because that is the part that triggers a series of popup and pop-under windows after the countdown clock expires. These popups then have the ability (assuming Javascript or ActiveX in IE is on) to install festoons of spyware, adware, fake spyware removal tools, adverts, etc. So if you were a novice and had to stop for five minutes to phone your techy son/local computer geek, the machine would get you anyway.

Let’s now assume that our victim is so gullible that he/she follows one of the links in the hope of getting a free laptop/etc. As soon as he enters his Email address and personal details, they’re immediately open to spammers. So if you don’t want to sacrifice your inbox for life (remember spam filters are computers, therefore as stupid as their programmers and not as effective as they would have you think) don’t sign up for one of these “freebie” sites.

(more…)



Sunday, May 6, 2007

NEVER put a computer in charge of an election

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , — Jonathan Rothwell @ 14:44

Someone in Rushmoor had the bright idea of allowing voting over the Internet in last week’s local elections. Not exactly the brightest of ideas, because so far it’s turned out that computer-controlled elections can be rigged, and can have hundreds of ballot papers declared spoiled by clunky OCR software that doesn’t understand when voters make mistakes.

(I learned from a friend that when the computer rejects ballot papers, agents from each candidate argue over who the voter actually MEANT to vote for. Not sure if it’s true…)

Either way, whoever programmed the voting system in Rushmoor should be shot, because this is what the option for the Conservative candidate looked like:

Election mess-up



Friday, May 4, 2007

Windows’s new system sounds are worse than Queen

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , — Jonathan Rothwell @ 19:47

And that’s saying something. I’ve not got Vista, but if I did I would have to immediately change the start-up sound to Bohemian Rhapsody - a song I utterly hate by a band that sounds like it’s having its toenails plucked out, washed in acid, force-fed down its throat and then replaced.

I was never overly fond of Windows XP’s startup jingle - an easy-listening three-second piano and strings piece. The closedown jingle is similar. To me it sounded like something out of a Thomas Cook advertisement. But then you hear what Vista offers - and suddenly XP’s stuff sounds like something you’d be happy to hear at your funeral.

They’re quite weak, beepy sounds that lack any bass, warmth, or any real melody for that matter.  They’re also incredibly quiet, which Microsoft says is because they’re less distracting that way. But what’s the point in a low battery warning if you can’t hear it? If you just hear a little beep, you’ll think it’s something your computer is making normally, and not something to worry about. The last thing on their minds in the middle of writing a report or playing World of b****y Warcraft will be to stop what they’re doing and move to somewhere where there’s a power point.



Thursday, May 3, 2007

Voice-recognition call centre thingies

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , — Jonathan Rothwell @ 19:49

Google has launched “GOOG-411″, a phone version of its business search that uses voice recognition to work out what you’re trying to find. A bit like directory enquiries, but run by a robot.

At the moment, it’s only available in the US, so I used Skype (which retains the toll-free status of calls around the world, regardless of which country you’re calling from, in my case the UK). The number is +1 800 4664-411.

Here follows a transcript of the conversation.

GOOG: Calls recorded for quality. (beat) GOOG 411 Experimental. Which city and state?

ME: (pause) San Francisco, California.

GOOG: (electronic garble, synthesised voice) Torrence, California. (real voice) If that’s not right, say ‘go back’.

ME: Back.

GOOG: What business name or category?

ME: Go back. Go back. Go back.

GOOG: Going back. Try again.

ME: Manhattan, New York.

GOOG: (electronic garble, synthesised voice) Manhattan, New York. (real voice) Which business name or category?

ME: Hotels.

silence

ME: Hotels.

GOOG: (garble, synthesiser) Hotels. (real voice) Top eight results. (synth) (reads out results)

Computers will be computers.



Powered by WordPress 2.7 Comments the responsibility of their respective author. The Rest © 2007-8 Jonathan Rothwell, unless otherwise stated.