Crashed Pips - Computers, politics, emetic trash

Saturday, December 27, 2008

Andrew Burnham: Clueless

 

The Hon. Andrew Burnham, courtesy of 2-5 Media GbR

The Hon. Andrew Burnham, courtesy of 2-5 Media GbR

Andrew Burnham, the Minister for Culture (sorry, Culture Secretary - what exactly is his job?) has said in an interview with the Telegraph that cinema-style age ratings for Web sites are ‘an option’.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Andy Burnham says he believes that new standards of decency need to be applied to the web. He is planning to negotiate with Barack Obama’s incoming American administration to draw up new international rules for English language websites.

The Cabinet minister describes the internet as “quite a dangerous place” and says he wants internet-service providers (ISPs) to offer parents “child-safe” web services.

Giving film-style ratings to individual websites is one of the options being considered, he confirms. When asked directly whether age ratings could be introduced, Mr Burnham replies: “Yes, that would be an option. This is an area that is really now coming into full focus.”

Compelete and utter nonsense. It’s totally unworkable.

Firstly, let’s remember the original goals of the Internet and the World Wide Web. The whole point was to create a medium where anyone could freely express himself, and be out of the reach of governments and censorship. This idea undermines the whole principle of ‘net neutrality’ on which the Web was founded.

Moreover, let’s not forget that filters are used all the time: and there are always ways to circumvent them. Just ask any twelve-year-old how they access Bebo during their ICT lessons: proxies are available and for every website blocked, another mirror or identical proxy will spring up somewhere else.

What Mr. Burnham appears not to understand is that the Internet is very much decentralised. Any computer can host a Web site with the right software installed, and when that’s connected to the Web, it can be accessed from any machine in the world. Mr. Burnham’s understanding of the Internet appears to be like a spider: with all information in the centre and clients all outside. It does not work like that.

It worries me that the Government is getting more heavy-handed with regards to the Internet, and, for once, even it’s now becoming worthwhile to host one’s Web site outside the UK. Guido Fawkes’s blog is moving to a host outside Great Britain, because, in his words, ‘Google UK likes to please governments.’ Even the Daily Mail (and most of its commentators!) agree that the whole idea is barmy.

Tom Watson MP, a Labour MP and cabinet minister who does understand technology, is inviting the public’s opinion on his Web site, which he will forward on to Burnham. It might be worth heading over there and giving your opinions on this cretinous proposal.



Friday, December 26, 2008

Why, In Comparison to 2007, 2008 Sucked

 

2008 was designated the International Year of Planet Earth, as well as being International Year of languages, the potato, sanitation, the frog, and the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue.

2008 was designated the International Year of Planet Earth, as well as being International Year of languages, the potato, sanitation, the frog, and the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue.

So, it’s Boxing Day. And, in my opinion, good riddance to 2008. In some ways. In some ways, 2008 was brilliant.

In political circles, for example, we proved that a mixed-race gentleman from Hawaii could fend off a grumpy old man and a hockey mom who believes dinosaurs were around 6,000 years ago, and that the secret ballot is one of the things that’s “really cool” about America. We also managed to get the LHC started up (even if it did fail afterwards), and we showed that the eucharist is what everyone thought it was already: a cracker and some dilute wine. On the technology side of things, all was not doom and gloom either: the superior format won for once in the HD-DVD/Blu-Ray format war, the MacBook got its first substantial update since 2001, WordPress got a brilliant new admin panel, Linux’s hardware support came along in leaps and bounds, and big media is finally getting the hang of using these modern TVs with typewriters attached to deliver media.

However, this was also the year the recession started to bite: with the collapse of Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, MFI, and, most recently, Woolworths, it’s been shown that the economy desperately needs some TLC. For the first time in my life, I found myself agreeing with George Bush on the financial bail-out plan - although it was unpleasant, it was necessary to stop things going from bad to worse. (As I thought that, Satan shivered and put on an extra layer of clothing, probably nabbed from the Woolworths closing down sale.)

In this blog’s métier of technology, not all has been very rosy either. Abit is to cease trading, and Microsoft is hurrying past the mess that is Vista and opening the pumps full-on to concentrate on Windows 7 - which is what they should have done with Vista. Ubuntu has released two rather disappointing releases, and Apple has also disappointed in some respects, even announcing it’s going to pull out of Macworld.

The games console front was not particularly healthy: with release after release of recycled Mario and driving material by Nintendo, who seem to have been attending the Peter Kay school of re-releasing and copying, one could be forgiven for thinking that the Wii’s programmers are starting to find their idea wells running dry. The PlayStation 3 has dominated, and Microsoft has failed to incorporate a Blu-Ray drive in the Xbox 360.

Now, I’m not famed for my gaming ability. I don’t even own a games console currently. The height of my gaming prowess extends to getting to Level 7 on Vortex, the iPod’s implementation of Breakout. However, I do know that Microsoft needs to do something about the Xbox 360 in 2009 to adjust it better to the world.

Firstly, it has to sort out the disk scratching problem, and it also has to rally behind Blu-Ray. There’s no point standing on a sinking ship: although the HD-DVD peripheral has been discontinued, they need to move to Blu-Ray. However, there’s something far more major than that.

In previous years, the Xbox 360 has had major releases every year. Call of Duty 2 and Gears of War in 2005/6, Halo 3 in 2007. This year’s flagship game, I think, was meant to be Gears of War 2 - but just compare that to previous years. Halo 3 was being released after years of hype, and Call of Duty 2 bathed in the post-launch honeymoon after the X360 was released in 2005.

So, a charismatic and historic game, about life-like soldiers from the most bloody war in Earth’s history, and a rip-roaring sci-fi adventure about a ’space marine with really cool green armor’ (their words, not mine) have been followed by a game about a fat man, whose face looks like Steve Ballmer’s office chair, where you have to look over his shoulder to see the damn targeting reticule. Ridiculous. They need to find a decent flagship game for next year.

Apple’s announcements have also been noticeably low-key this year. Steve Jobs seems to have been assigning a lot of the work at the Stevenotes to Phil Schiller, Scott Forstall, and Jonathan Jony Ive, who appears to have changed his name by deed poll into something that makes absolutely zero sense when read and mispronounced.

Apple’s product turnout this year has also been noticeably smaller: last year, we had the iPhone, new iMacs, Leopard, new iPods, iWork ‘08 and iLife ‘08. This year, we had updates to the iPhone, the MacBook Air, the Time Capsule, updates to the Apple TV, new MacBooks and 15″ MacBook Pros, and the usual crop of new iPods. It seems that Apple misfired a bit this year, but with rumours circling of a new Mac Mini and new iMacs, and possibly a netbook, at Macworld 2009 (notably without Steve Jobs, presumably much to the disappointment of his stalkers) we can only hope it gets back on track next year.

All in all, therefore, a pretty sombre year for the technology industry - the only real source of excitement has been the sheer number of ridiculous web 2.0 startups. Was it the recession? Possibly. Here’s to a more exciting 2008.



Saturday, December 13, 2008

Do we all need ’slogans’ now?

Filed under: Communications, Internet, Web 2.0 — Tags: , , , — Jonathan Rothwell @ 15:44

Is it just me, or does this whole Web 2.0 thing seem to be turning into a bit of a marketing-fest? It seems to me that everyone’s primary goal on the New Web (which is really how the Old Web was meant to be) is to have as big a presence and following as possible.

I have this blog, a Twitter account, a Delicious account, another, more ‘traditional’ web site at jonathan-rothwell.co.uk and I post to a couple of internet forums. However, social media ’superstars’ like iJustine and Chris Pirillo seem to be more omniescent than Starbucks. (In Pirillo’s case, you can even spy on him, 24/7, using the live stream. Making life easier for stalkers? Never let it be said.)

I don’t have any objection to this: in fact, I relish it. The fact that people can become celebrities over the Internet is one of the best aspects of it: it truly is the common man’s own expression medium. However… that said…

We also have people telling us how to become successful on the net. Apparently, we need to ‘market ourselves’ and build up a ‘personal brand’. Really? Does this mean every Internet user needs a marketing suite, similar to those supplied by the likes of AMV BBDO, Wolf Ollins and Martin Lambie-Nairn to corporations for hundreds of thousands of pounds?

Does this mean we should all have a corporate colour scheme? A jingle? A logo? Slogans?

How about these, then?

  • Jonathan Rothwell: destroying badly built PCs since 1992.
  • Crashed Pips: The world’s easiest demotivator.
  • Crashed Pips: Oh. My. God.
  • Jonathan Rothwell: Ever been to Thorpe Park? Remember Nemesis? He’s worse than Nemesis.
  • 97% of readers rated Crashed Pips more coherent than Norma Major’s latest book.
  • Crashed Pips: it might be crap, but at least it’s free. (i.e. you don’t get paid if it damages you emotionally.)

In theory, if we are to believe the SM marketing types, now I’ve put these slogans up here, people will come flooding to this website in such numbers that I’ll have to take up prostitution as a full-time job in order to pay for the bandwidth.

I somehow doubt it. Heavily.



Friday, December 12, 2008

WordPress is how open-source software should be done

Filed under: Software — Tags: , , , , , — Jonathan Rothwell @ 19:15
The new WordPress dashboard, i.e. the secret control panel of this site

The new WordPress dashboard, i.e. the secret control panel of this site

I love WordPress. I’ve used lots of blogging software, but WordPress has always been my favourite. It’s easy to install, simple, customisable down to the bone, extensible, hassle-free, lightweight, and the fact that all this is free and open-source is a true gift. I find it very difficult to fault it.

With the recent 2.7 release, there’s a new dashboard which fully takes into account research (done by proper research people) on where people look and how intuitively they perceive things. It is now so simple to operate the software that my mum could do it blindfolded. (Well, I haven’t tested that particular theory, but… it’s assumed.)

There’s more things that make WordPress utterly brilliant: it’s got a massive and thriving community around it, and there are even community ‘celebrities’ such as Lorelle VanFossen, whose fame blossomed after becoming involved in WordPress. These people will help you if you do run into issues (although I’ve never - if I remember correctly - had to ask for help, setting things up and getting them running is so damn easy.)

WordPress is also used by famous people. The New York Times, Top Gear, CNN, Martha Stewart, Stephen Fry - these are just some of the people who’ve used WordPress in applications that can sometimes be called ‘industrial’. It’s fabulous.

However, perhaps the most important thing is that I have never run across a WordPress ‘zealot’. I’ve never found a WordPress user who will insult a person for not using the same software as him. Indeed, Six Apart (the people who make Movable Type, WordPress’s main [proprietary] competitor) have been forced to resort to FUD in the past (something about not all of WordPress being open source - which it is - IIRC) and the responses from the WordPress community seem to consist only of honest and valid criticism. No pseudo-”Window$” or “Winblows” nonsense.

If only all FLOSS was like WordPress.



Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Thoughts on the BNP List

Filed under: Internet, Politics — Tags: , , , — Jonathan Rothwell @ 20:41
...your name will ALSO go on the list.

...your name will ALSO go on the list.

The leak of an old members’ list for the extreme right-wing BNP in the UK has raised some serious questions about the rights of extreme political parties.

Something that strikes me is that if I were a member of a political party, then I wouldn’t be ashamed about it. I’d be paid-up, and would probably have zero shame in declaring my membership of X party. I’d probably also be involved in party activism, so I’d probably make my e-mail, phone and postal address public (to some degree).

However, BNP members, apparently, don’t wish to be identified when phoning in to radio and TV shows, or leaving comments on the BBC’s web site. Is this because they’re ashamed, or afraid of threatening phone calls? Perhaps they fear for their job, or their friends and family.

Well… perhaps if the BNP didn’t have such despicable views, people would be less inclined to make threatening phone calls. If they weren’t racist, homophobic, fascist, hypocritical and two-faced, people’s perceptions might be a bit different. However, if their views are unacceptable - serves them right. I’m not saying that leaking the list was the right thing to do, but neither is what the BNP advocates.

In my opinion, they’re entirely deserving of something like this. If it helps to weed these vermin out of British society, then it serves them bloody well right.

A word of warning: I’m not posting the list here, or any links to it. It can be located by a quick Google search and on several torrent sites, but that’s your responsibility. Anyone posting any segments of the list in the comments section will be killfiled permanently and with immediate effect.



Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Sayōnara Yang: is Yahoo dead?

Filed under: Internet, The News — Tags: , , , — Jonathan Rothwell @ 21:46

Jerry Yang has stepped down from Yahoo. This could potentially be disastrous. However, it may be nothing of the sort. It’s difficult to tell at this stage.

As far as I can remember, we haven’t had a really big internet company like Yahoo go under (or really go through the mill like it is now) before. It’s still a $14bn dollar company, so simple economics says it should have plenty of money for now: however, we are in a credit crunch, so it must tread carefully.

As for Yahoo’s future, it’s hard to tell. This is a very unusual situation in a natural cycle of boom and recession, so Yahoo’s future will depend very much on the competence of its new CEO. Who knows: we may see Yang returning in a shower of glory in a decade or so, Steve Jobs-style. However, if it wants to survive, there’s no doubting that Yahoo must prove itself to be a viable Google alternative.



Monday, November 17, 2008

This site must be feeling schizophrenic

Filed under: Administration — Tags: , , — Jonathan Rothwell @ 22:42

I’ve dumped the Carrington theme. I just found it too difficult to maintain, and a bit ugly when there was anything out of the ordinary.

With this in mind, I’ve desecrated a copy of WordPress Classic, and that’s now running on this site. Let me know what you think.



Have Your Say Nonsense

Filed under: Internet, Politics, The News — Tags: , , , — Jonathan Rothwell @ 18:37

Presumably, the BBC’s Have Your Say was set up as part of the ‘interactive media’ push of the late 1990s and early 2000s. Put simply, it allows the ‘Great Unwashed’ to vent their collective spleens about things the fictional ’silent majority’ hate - restrictions on cars and smoking, immigration, homosexuality, and the assault on Christmas.

Take this discussion on the Barnardo’s report on attitudes towards children as an example. If it was on video, I’d run it through the cliché counter: one can tell, just thanks to the subject matter, that the whinging minority will be moaning about YOB’S, the FERAL YOUTH and THUGS. Of course, anyone under 25 who speaks with a slight accent and wears a hoody is automatically a troublemaker. Yeah. Right.

A hand-picked (and caged) selection of the comments lives below the fold. It seriously worries me that these people haven’t yet fallen victim to natural selection and will believe everything the Daily Heil tells them. While I’m not saying there aren’t thuggish children on the streets, there are thuggish adults as well. And people have always enjoyed moaning about ‘kids today…’

(more…)



Friday, November 7, 2008

Goodbye, IE6

Filed under: Internet, Microsoft — Tags: , , , — Jonathan Rothwell @ 18:23

Just a quick note to say that Internet Explorer 6 and earlier users will now be presented with a warning when visiting this site - telling them that their browser is outdated and probably a security risk to their own computers.

If you can’t upgrade to Internet Explorer 7 (or 8) then try Firefox, Safari, or Opera. If you can’t use any of those (eg you are still using Windows ME, 98 or earlier) then you really should consider upgrading your computer, or at the very least replacing your operating system with something more up-to-date, like Xubuntu.



Saturday, September 20, 2008

The Insanity of the WWW

Filed under: Internet — Tags: , , — Jonathan Rothwell @ 22:41

Why does the world insist on putting ‘WWW’ before every single URL it reads out? It’s one of the most bizarre oddities of today’s idiom-filled English. If anything, it’s a throwback to the 1990s, when the Web was still in its infancy.

Note how I use the word ‘web’: this is because the Internet is far, far older than Tim Berners-Lee’s magnificent invention. From the late 1960s, we had ARPANET, which was the world’s first fully operational packet-switching network. It is a precursor to the later networks which started to spring up - and then connect. This was the birth of the Internet, slow and steady.

That said, the Internet was very different in the early days. You had telnet, which allowed you to access remote machines, e-mail (which, surprisingly, remains almost unchanged: the address was always user@computer name, a practice which remains to this day) and FTP for transferring files. This remained pretty much the same until the early 1990s, when something called Gopher appeared.

Gopher was what one could call the forerunner of ‘the Internet’ as we know it today. It had hyperlinks, but also imposed a more strict structure on what Gopher sites would be like. Their content had to be heavily arranged. It was also more like the old viewdata machines that spawned teletext and Ceefax - there was no layout, or any decent formatting or image embedding.

To cut a long story short, Tim Berners-Lee, who was working at CERN at the time, fired up his NeXTStation, wrote a superior protocol called ‘WorldWideWeb’, and Bob’s your uncle! The Internet made available and practical for the masses in one easy step.

However, one thing hangs back from the early days of the Web. Often, as a server would also provide access via FTP, Gopher and telnet/ssh protocols, and would default to one of these. Therefore, the hypertext server could be accessed using a www. prefix (standing, of course, for Worldwide Web), in a similar way to how the FTP server would be ftp.whatever.com, etc.

The fact is, however, that these days, most sites default to the Hypertext Transfer protocol (HTTP) and so don’t need the WWW. Yet we still insist on saying it out loud - even when we waste an extra six syllables on something totally unnecessary.

Perhaps I should explain: here’s a syllabic breakdown of the ‘WWW.’ prefix as pronounced in English:

du’bul’yew-du’bul’yew-du’bul’yew-dot

That’s ten syllables in total. Now, if we just say ‘world wide web’, we get:

world-wide-web-dot

That’s merely four syllables. So why do we insist on saying ‘WWW’ every time? Why not just say “world wide web dot crashedpips dot co dot uk” instead, and substitute in the WWW prefix when typing (if you even need it at all)? In short, the three Ws are perhaps one of the most pesky objects on the Internet today.



Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress 2.7 Comments are the responsibility of their respective author. The Rest © 2007-2009 Jonathan Rothwell, unless otherwise stated.