Crashed Pips - Computers, politics, emetic trash

Friday, December 26, 2008

Just use the damn apostrophe. PROPERLY.

Filed under: pedantry — Tags: , , , — Jonathan Rothwell @ 17:29

Yes, it’s time for me to stand up and confess. I am guilty of Grammar Nazism. If you so much as dare misuse an apostrophe in front of me, or don’t properly capitalise your sentences or truncate words when it is in no way necessary, I will probably smash you over the head with a copy of The Shorter Pepys before sacrificing you to the god of San Seriffe.

OK, I am exaggerating a little here - but not much. I really do find the misuse of apostrophes one of the worst blights on the English language - in all dialects. I’m not even the sort who detests American English: in fact, I think American English is in many ways more logical and elegant than British English. (For example, er more accurately represents the sound at the end of meter/metre than re.) I just get really annoyed when I see the entry in my iPod’s menu for ‘to-do’s’.

So here, for the consumption and inward digestion of confused Internet users everywhere, is a complete guide to when to use - and when NOT to use - the apostrophe.

  1. The apostrophe is never used to indicate a plural. For example: one tree, two trees. An apple, some apples. Microsoft Windows. A picture window. Three hundred Spartans at the battle of Thermopylae. This doesn’t change when using a plural of acronyms: it’s still CDs, not CD’s. However, it does change when pluralising a single character - for example, 50p’s, P’s and Q’s.
  2. The apostrophe is used to indicate ownership of an object by a single entity by being appended, with an S, after the owner. For example: Fred’s ball. Steve’s pen. Jenny’s computer. This does NOT change when the owner ends in an S: it’s still James’s phone, Jesus’s parables, et cetera.
  3. When the owner of an object is ‘it’, the apostrophe is NOT used. For example: its buttons. ‘It’s’ means ‘it is,’ and therefore saying ‘it’s nibs’ is saying ‘it is nibs,’ as opposed to ‘the nibs belonging to it’.
  4. The apostrophe is also used to indicate ownership of an object by a group by being appended with an S after the owner. For example: The men’s shirts. The women’s shoes. This DOES change when the owner ends in an S: for example, the girls’ dresses. The ladies’ hats.
  5. When talking about a time period, such as the nineteen twenties, the de facto style used to be to put an apostrophe in between the number and the S. This is no longer the case: The accepted style is now 1920s, 1400s, etc.

That’s probably confused you. A lot. But it still infuriates me when people misuse the apostrophe and its friend, the letter S. Sorry for that brief English lesson: normal service will resume shortly.

[edited 1430GMT, 27 December: Thanks to Simon Howard for pedanting me on a few aspects here.]



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.



Sunday, June 8, 2008

The Crashed Pips Guide To Irritatingly Implausible Computers In Film: The Core

Filed under: Film — Tags: , — Jonathan Rothwell @ 11:25

The Core is the sort of film where you know, from the start, without doubt, that it has no bloody hope whatsoever. It’s the sort of film where some cocky idiots (probably exaggerating the sizes of their genitals) will do something incredibly predictable and yet physically impossible, get a lot of praise, a lot of money and a lot of sex, and the only half-likeable character will get killed partway through. It’s formulaic film-making at its worst.

Intuitor gave The Core an XP rating. That’s its (albeit terse) way of saying ‘it’s crap’. Now we’ll just look at the computers we see in the film - covered briefly by Intuitor, but we’ll go deeper.

Put simply, at the University of Chicago, some implausibly young and handsome university professor (looking a bit like Duncan James) is giving a lecture about physics - it’s basically jargon, poorly thrown together to form a barely comprehendable sentence. When not spouting poorly-remembered primary school physics, he appears to try chatting up members of the class. He spouts some utter nonsense about sound waves losing frequency when they pass through rock, and then demonstrates this by blowing a trumpet at a piece of limestone.

Somewhat predictably, the students are saved from this boredom as he is plucked out by - yes, you guessed it - US Government agents before he completes the demo, and is whisked off, in a chatered aeroplane, to a mortuary in Washington DC. Where the bodies from thirty-two unexplained deaths are stored. From Boston.

I’m sure the Bostonians understand the need to store bodies before a post-mortem is carried out, so why not put them in Boston? Because, apparently, the thirty-two deaths were hushed up. By the military. Not a single journalist saw it, and not a single person phoned up a news station. Presumably they’ve all been shot to protect federal security.

These people all, miraculously, died within ten blocks of each other. Nice round number, eh? It takes Duncan James (and another scientist he’s met up with, a Russian man called Serge) a couple of seconds and no examination to surmise to the military general, Thomas Purcell, that the deaths were caused by malfunctioning pacemakers caused by some magnetic force in some form. The general takes this (unfounded) explanation without doubt. And dismisses them.

Our Duncan James lookalike is frustrated by the fact that the General is only interested in it not being an actual war, and so withdraws to do some of what all good scientists do. Some detailed analysis.

Meanwhile, we see pigeons getting confused in Trafalgar Square, and crashing into Nelson’s Column, apparently very disorientated. Yeah, right. (Amusingly, a Routemaster bus in London is using an American number plate. Haha. Haha.) I must confess that I did find this scene somewhat hilarious - THE POSESSED PIGEONS OF DOOM!!! Presumably Alfred Hitchcock was right after all.

Prof. Duncan James spitting image (whom, we can discern, is called Dr. Keyes) watches a report on the incident. On “GBTV”. On his computer. In 2002. At nearly 3/4 screen size, in high definition.

This is almost completely implausible. There’s no way a middle-of-the-range worsktation, provided by a university, would be able to play such a video without some choppiness, or loss of quality (MPEG2, anyone?) It would be even less likely that it could be streamed: in my experience, good quality streaming requires at least a 2mb/sec connection to the outside world. The computer also uses angular fonts everywhere, and, somewhat mysteriously, the throbber is still animating in the Internet browser window behind the video (which uses non-standard controls, I might add) - meaning that even more network traffic is being produced by the browser.

Of course, Dr. Keyes imagines that the birds are incapable of navigating by sight over short distances, like Trafalgar Square - and must use their (apparently magnetic) navigation abilities. Therefore - shock horror! The Earth’s magnetic field must be collapsing. He retires to his computer to do some more analysis.

Meanwhile, the Space Shuttle Endeavour starts re-entry - and as soon as the communications blackout ends, it becomes apparent that Endeavour is off course by 129 miles, and heading for Los Angeles. Mysteriously, the Mission Controller’s computer displays this as a dialogue box - dangerously obscuring the map. Surely even NASA wouldn’t be stupid enough to succumb to this basic UI design flaw?

The re-entry sequence is also far too quick. Shuttle re-entry normally takes twelve minutes, at least, not including the glide time. It also confuses me as to why Endeavour’s commander didn’t employ her aerobrake, a parachute, when they had to make an emergency landing in Los Angeles. While it’d be remarkably cool to have a space shuttle land in the middle of LA, it is almost certainly impossible - spacecraft are fitted with remote kill switches, which will, in the event of a major course deviation, blow up the craft, killing those on board if they haven’t ejected or bailed out. It seems almost certain that they’d ask the crew to bail out and then detonate Endeavour just short of LA.

Mysteriously, the NASA machines also display that old cliche, hundreds of scrolling lines of hexadecimal and binary code! Yipee! This, however, is nowhere near as mysterious as how no-one else in the world, apart from Dr. Keyes, has worked out that the Earth’s magnetic field is deteriorating because the core has stopped rotating. Does no-one else in the world own a compass? As Inuitor rightly put it, no Boy Scouts?

So, it’s quite boring for the next bit. Put simply, another scientist, called Zimsky-something, becomes involved, and The Wonderful US Government finally listens. They use some implausible ship, called Virgil, created out of some implausible metal, throwing several billion dollars at it to get it done in three months (rather than ten years). Of course, the ’ship’ will head down to the core of the Earth and get things moving again. In the only way they know how.

Yes, again, when in doubt, throw a nuke at it. Yeah. Right.

Meanwhile, the FBI knock on the door of some Script Kiddie. With a long nose, stupidly high voice, and around three computers. He runs a ‘core purge’ command on all three, presumably wiping the hard disks, sticks his CDs in a toaster and microwave, and then tries to wipe the computers double by running a magnet down the front of the tower.

However, this is highly unlikely. One would have to reboot into an external OS to purge all data on the hard disks. It would be possible to run rm -rf / from within a Unix, but it wouldn’t completely wipe the hard disk. It is also highly unlikely that such a ‘purge’ would complete before the FBI break in - so he completes the job by wiping the hard disks by waving a magnet at them. Even this wouldn’t guarantee complete security though.

Somehow, this Script Kiddie, apparently called ‘Rat’, is placed with the team of Keyes, Zippy and several others (including, yes, a beautiful girl) to help with the mission to get the Earth’s core spinning again. Sadly, he isn’t sent to his almost certain doom at the core of the planet - he’s instead told to stay on the surface. His job is to prevent anyone from precipitating worldwide panic by posing any theories about the series of bizarre events.

Yeah, right. Pigeons have flown into windscreens (very unlikely), people have died mysteriously, Rome has been completely destroyed, the Golden Gate Bridge has collapsed, the Space Shuttle Endeavour has mysteriously crashed in LA, and thunderstorms of unbelievable power have been hitting the planet. How come no news channels have invited analysts to appear, suggesting what might be going on? How come no crackpot fundie on the GOD Channel has claimed that this is the Rapture followed by the Apocalypse? How come no-one has made a link?

Nevertheless, Rat is sent to work. He seemingly does this by - you guessed it - searching the Internet.

The numbskull government launches the craft, at the bottom of the Marianas Trench. It’s all very boring.

Somehow, NASA Mission Control is qualified to run a mission beneath the Earth’s surface. This is completely impossible. The operating environment is completely different, and while it might be possible to have a similar terminal, every single member of staff would have to be retrained.

Even more irritatingly, the terranauts run a ’simulation’ of how the density of the core is less than they’d expected: therefore, the nukes will be useless. However, in typical US military style, evil General Purcell has spent all that money on a nuke, and wants to use it.

So Rat tries to save the team - by, yes, you guessed it, searching the Internet. Apparently, the US Government has special (unsecured) web pages just for this sort of emergency. I mean, there’s no need to write a robots.txt file. No reason for them to put even a simple .htaccess password gate on it. The whole thing strikes me as completely unrealistic.

Rat somehow uses this to divert power from the weapon, meaning that the crew is saved. The film, at this point, became so boring I just switched it off.

However, there is a minor glimmer of hope at the end. Rat hijacks a computer network - and turns it into a spam botnet. It spams hundreds of thousands of E-mail addresses with the news that the ‘terranauts’ have saved the world.

However, this light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of a fast approaching train. Firstly, for some reason, Rat makes the computers on the network display cutesy graphics. Yeah, right. Secondly, Rat, of all people, should know that only real suckers believe everything they see in an E-mail. Presumably that includes the film-makers.

I found the film so boring that I almost can’t be bothered to rate it on the Crashed Pips Irritatingly Implausible IT Classification System. However, after little consideration, I decided that it fits the ‘18′ rating quite nicely. It must have been hallucinated by a drunk student on LSD. In other words… it’s crap. It’s so predictable I didn’t even put a spoiler warning on it.



Wednesday, April 30, 2008

The Crashed Pips Guide To Irritatingly Implausible Computers in Film: The Bourne Ultimatum

Filed under: Film — Tags: , — Jonathan Rothwell @ 02:13

Due to the strange patterns of availability at certain shops that sell DVDs, I’ve been unable to acquire a copy of The Bourne Supremacy, the sequel to The Bourne Identity (which I reviewed here). However, I have been able to review the sequel of the sequel, The Bourne Ultimatum, and, using that and the Wikipedia plot summaries, I’ve been able to make an educated guess at where to join the dots.

So, with that in mind, here’s my technically-minded review of The Bourne Ultimatum. As before, spoiler warnings here, so please don’t complain to me or send me hate mail. You have been warned. In case you missed it, here it is again in big red letters.

SPOILER ALERT!!!


(more…)



Friday, March 7, 2008

Guide To Irritatingly Implausible Computers In Film: The Bourne Identity

Filed under: Film — Tags: , , — Jonathan Rothwell @ 20:40

While I’m by no means a connoisseur in the works of the silver screen, I do enjoy film a lot - particularly espionage and thriller films (but only those that are not driven primarily by the protagonist’s hormones). If you read this site regularly, you probably know that I also hate films and TV programmes that throw computing conventions out of the window (eg, computers in films that run Hollywood OS). It really ticks me off when directors throw accuracy out of the window, and give computers ridiculous abilities in an attempt to advance the plotline without characters.

Therefore, taking inspiration from Intuitor’s excellent Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics page, I present the Crashed Pips Guide To Irritatingly Implausible Computers In Film. This will be an occasional feature (only continued when there’s something new to write about) which will cover films, and how they portray IT. There are several ‘classifications’, or levels, which a film can attain:

  • E - Exemplary. Cannot be faulted, and provides a perfectly accurate portrayal of computing.
  • U - Understandable. A few deviations here and there, but only understandable - they may be using custom programs or components.
  • PG - Pretty good. Just enough deviations to be fun, and still believable to a geek watching it.
  • ER - erm… a bit iffy. On-the-go high speed internet connections. Everything done at either a command prompt or an über-friendly interface with standard 20pt font size.
  • 18 - probably hallucinated by an 18-year-old student on LSD. Throws in and misuses jargon and technical terms to look impressive. Does not follow UI conventions. Text only scrolls past and is generated only fast enough for the user to read. User does not use spacebar.
  • X - Gives computers extracomputational abilities. Computer can speak. Computer understands plain English commands. Computer echoes user’s input with a voice that sounds like a human imitating a synthesiser, only with a ring modulator applied. Every command takes up the whole screen.
  • EX - Exempt. This is when something doesn’t use computers as a relatively important plot point, but has something interesting to mention anyway.

So, with this in mind, let’s meet my lunch for today, The Bourne Identity. Intuitor gave it a PGP-13 for physics - generally good, but with several points it had to marked down on. Let’s see if it does better here.

I should warn readers here that below this paragraph, spoilers may follow. That’s why I’m putting a ‘more’ button in front of the rest of this - because I don’t want complaints from people saying “omg omg u ruined da film 4 me and matt damon is so sxc omg omg lolz omg =] omg omg lolz.-x-. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111!!!!!!!!!!!!”. Not bothered about spoilers? Already seen it? Read on, Macduff…

(more…)



Thursday, September 13, 2007

Why I Hate PC World

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , , — Jonathan Rothwell @ 18:06

Regular readers of this blog will know that I’m not a fan of PC World. In fact, I strongly dislike PC World.

Why, you may ask? Well, here’s why.

  • Whenever you take a PC in to be repaired at PC World, they will invariably dump their purple and orange bloatware on your machine (along with a few adverts) under the pretence of being a ‘performance test application’.
  • As they connect your machine to a different monitor, it occasionally comes out of it thinking it’s got two screens and letting the cursor veer off into non-existence.
  • Contrary to what their advertisements would have you think, 80gB is not ‘massive’ by today’s standards. True, 80gB is a respectable amount, and massive in comparison to the 20gB disks you used to get a few years ago, but massive is more like 500gB (or two such disks in a RAID array, making 1tB). (Oh yes, and don’t forget the fake hard disk capacity counting system.)
  • Don’t be fooled by the Tech Guys service - you’d be much better off asking your technically-minded friend from down the road to do it, as he/she will probably provide a friendly, reliable and informal service, is less likely to patronise you, and will almost definitely do it for a fraction of the price PC World charge (if they ask for a fee at all).
  • They seem to have some kind of vendetta against Linux. They won’t sell any out-of-the-box Linux-compatible WLAN cards, and refuse to repair hardware if Linux is installed on it (presumably because they can’t put their bloatware on it).
  • They still list items on their website that have been discontinued.
  • Their staff feel undervalued - you can just see from their facial expressions when they serve you.
  • The only machines on which Windows isn’t installed are the Macs. But can we not have some kind of option? Can’t we opt out of the Microsoft tax?



Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Why we aren’t living in a democracy

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , — Jonathan Rothwell @ 15:22

This may come as a surprise to you, what with all our politicians saying ‘we must fight to protect democracy and all we stand for’ against the threat of Islamic terrorists.

The truth is, though, that the UK and the USA run on some very strange kind of democracy - if it can be called a democracy at all.

Let’s take a look at what the Collins English Dictionary defines a democracy as:

democracy n, pl -cies 1. a system of government or organisation in which the citizens or members choose leaders or make other important decisions by voting 2. a country in which the citizens choose their government by voting. [Greek dēmokratia]

Now here comes the interesting part. Sense 2, which applies to most countries calling themselves ‘democratic’, is a fundamentally flawed system. Well, I think so at least. And I’d like to explain why.

(more…)



Saturday, August 4, 2007

Lessons in Replacing Your Hard Disk #1 - How big is your disk really?

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , — Jonathan Rothwell @ 12:26

My old 20gB hard disk was about to pack up, so I bought a 320gB disk from PC World for £64.99 (£1 is roughly equivalent to US$2 at the time of writing, so it’s roughly worth $130).

The disk was advertised as being 320gB. Which was around 23gB from the truth. And sadly, I can’t sue PC World or Hitachi under the Trade Descriptions Act.

So why are they able to get away with such a monstrosity? The short answer is that there’s a common (and widely exploited) misconception about the true values of a gigabyte, megabyte etc. Read on for the long answer.

(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



Monday, March 19, 2007

Converting batch files to .EXEs

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , — Jonathan Rothwell @ 19:37

I commonly use batch and script files in Windows and Linux respectively - they’re easy to code, save time for the end user and work instantly on a single double-click (well, most of the time). Sometimes however, it’s useful to convert them to an executable format to stop well-meaning users unintentionally fiddling with them.

Over on Daily Cup of Tech, Tim Fehlman writes about how to turn a Windows batch file into an executable.

That’s all well and good, but I can see at least two problems with this:

  1. What if the batch file needs to be modified? It can’t be edited by the end user unless they edit the source .bat file and then recompile it.
  2. There’s no way I know of to do this for Linux. Any ideas?
  3. It’s not technically been compiled, it’s just a wrapper around the batch file.
  4. What if the file in particular being called by the batch file doesn’t exist? There is no way I can see to handle exceptions in batch files.



Older Posts »

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