Blog

<< First Page < Previous Page - Next Page > Last Page >>
Posts 41-36 of 41

2010-09-04 23:09:48 / iTunes 10 Sucks

I always love a new version of iTunes. It's Apple's most progressive application- it gets the newest GUI styling, and practical features for organising your music.
Sure, some new features I don't like... I'm not a fan of video playback and storage in iTunes; I think they should've made a separate application for that, so iTunes could remain light-weight and more suited to running in the background. But hey, I don't have to use the video features.
So iTunes 10 is announced, and there's the whole Ping hype, and I'm like; 'Hell yes I want in on this...'
But I've downloaded it, and fiddled for a few days, and I got to say, for the first time, I'm actually considering downgrading to iTunes 9.

We've got the new icon for a start. I can totally see why Apple changed it, iTunes started out as an app for ripping your music from CD and storing it on your mac. So they had a CD with a beamed musical note on it. But now iTunes is a complete media app, and ripping from CDs is immoral, so they've changed it.
The new icon though... I don't know, it's just not Apple. Apple's icons are all really practical... they're not fancy for the sake of it, but the the new iTunes icon has the horrible boringness of a circle with a musical note in it. It's lame. Apple can do so much better than this.

Then we've got the modified Album Art column... I loved this feature when they added it, it really help break up playlists into albums, so it was easier to see what songs were in them, and what CD those songs were from. But the new Album Art column doesn't even bother showing the album cover unless you've got at least five tracks from that album there, and with the album title on the right of the cover art, the column just looks unnaturally wide.

And then we've got the new icon set- why the hell is everything in black and white? The first time I opened iTunes 10, I kept clicking in the window thinking it didn't have focus, because it was all grey.
Coloured icons are far easier to read, and they look a lot more attractive. The whole source column looks like it's disabled.

I had high hopes for Ping, I thought this was going to be a great feature allowing me to better integrate Last.fm with iTunes, and share my music taste with my friends. But it's an entire network, which means I've now got ANOTHER social network profile to look after.
But that's not the worst of it... It's only interested in music I've bought from iTunes, and based on the fact that I prefer buying a CD when I can, and blagging music of my friends the rest of the time, there's not a lot on my iTMS purchase list. And the stuff that is on my list hardly represents my musical taste.

The iTunes Music Store is one of Apple's biggest cash cows- I can see the reasoning behind all of this, really I can, but I think iTunes 10 crosses the line where I really think Apple have forgotten the original purpose of iTunes. It's a program that runs in the background and plays music, first and foremost. And now it's 3rd on the Activity Monitor real memory list (behind MS Word and Safari), and it's using a constant 9% of my i7 2.66 CPU, just playing music on my laptop speakers.

I'm pretty tolerant about Apple's fascism, you know, the whole iPhone thing and media distribution monopoly in the making, but I'm tolerant because it's not shoved down my throat, and I don't have to buy into it. But now I feel like I have to use a black rapper's Hummer (complete with 22" rims) to drive down to the corner shop for milk. And my bicycle's illegal.
Apple are all about the perfect user experience, allow your Mac to control your stuff to a certain extent, and it'll take care of everything- but iTunes 10 does nothing to aid user experience over iTunes 9, and if anything, I think it inhibits it.

2010-08-09 18:01:14 / Cobb is not Dreaming

THIS BLOG CONTAINS SPOILERS ABOUT INCEPTION.
So I saw Inception on Saturday, and of course, everyone's like "omg! Was he dreaming at the end or not?! We'll never know!"
The ending was a classic for a film like this, anyone who was trying to predict the film saw it coming. Ironically, I didn't predict the ending, because I was expecting some mind-bending 3rd act twist that never happened. Presumably they figured the plot was confusing enough without screwing us over in the eleventh-hour. My mind was stuck on the scene when Cobb spins the totem in the bathroom (fairly early on in the film) and it falls straight to the floor- I figured that was a botched reality-check to fool Cobb into thinking he was awake at that point. Turns out it was a red-herring, because it wasn't referred to at any other time.
So with that in mind, why should we think that Cobb is dreaming at the end, and it's a conspiracy?

1. Firstly, we've got the ending itself. The totem topples slightly, but we never see it actually fall. The biggest problem with this ending, is that in order to believe that Cobb is dreaming, we also have to believe that he'll never do another reality-check. After everything that's happened, this is highly unlikely. Cobb will inevitably question his happy ending, and do another reality-check to make sure.
In order to defeat this point, someone has to have compromised the totem. There is no evidence whatsoever in the film to suggest that this has happened. No one else touches the totem, and it's authenticity is proven by his backstory of inheriting it from Mal.
Therefore, Cobb is not dreaming at the end.

2. Cobb does not do a reality-check when he wakes up on the plane. This is a critical lapse of vigilance on his part, and leaves him wide open to a false-awakening (where is wakes up in another dream).
Once again, although a strong observation, this point is not backed up by any other evidence. If we are to believe that this has happened, we need some other reference to suggest that someone is trying to fool Cobb. There are no such references. Cobb reconciles with Mal, successfully reminds Saito that he is dreaming in Limbo, and thus has no reason not to wake up in real life on the plane. Further, refer to the solution to scenario 1. Therefore, Cobb is not dreaming at the end.

3. Cobb's dad is conspiring against him. After pointing out that Ariadne is a terrible plot-device, whose only use in the film is to act as a witness on behalf of the audience, it was pointed out to me that she may well be grounds to believe that Miles (Cobb's father) or someone in a similar position, has created her to lead Cobb through the story and to reconciliation with Mal at the end.
There is no direct evidence contrary to this theory. But there is no evidence to suggest that Cobb is being fooled either, as per scenario 2, and also that there is no benefit to anyone into fooling Cobb, since other people know how to perform Inception, and no useful information is extracted from Cobb during the film. Additionally, scenario 1 also defeats this one. Therefore, Cobb is not dreaming at the end.

So all in all, in my opinion, Cobb earned a happy ending, and they should've concluded it with the totem falling over. Anyone with basic analysis can make the same observations I have here- I don't think the so-called 'open ending' will keep many people awake at night.
Apart from that, I thoroughly enjoyed Inception- the first objective of a movie is to entertain the viewer, and I was entertained.

2010-07-09 11:49:03 / On Robots and AI

So I was watching I, Robot with a mate the other day, and it got us onto an excellent conversation about AI and the likes.
I'm of the opinion that we will develop AI, but the first AIs will not be the self-aware computers / robots hollywood envisions.
First we have to consider that while we'll invent anything we can think of, nothing is produced on a small or mass scale unless there is a practical use for it. Take Quantum Computing as an example, this has been moving at a relatively slow rate in recent times, because we've proven that we can build quantum computers, but at present, there are little or no practical uses for them that a binary computer is not better suited for, which is why we're not seeing any quantum functionality hitting production computers.

With that in mind, we ask our selves; What use have we for a self-aware AI, or even an AI that can think for itself in any way?
The answer is none. Thinking computers are only going to bring us trouble, because of all the moral implications (robot rights, etc) and the safety measures we'd inevitably have to take to keep it under control.

So what is a useful AI? In my opinion, it's not a computer that thinks for itself- it's a computer that understands humans. All computers we currently have speak the language of computers, and that's it. If you want to interact, you've got to learn the language. That might be the programming language the computer runs on, or it might simply be moving and clicking the mouse. Even a command line isn't in english- you can't type "Open my shopping list" into BASH and expect to see you vegetables listed in the order in which they're arranged in the supermarket.
So what we need is a computer intelligent to understand humans and do s their bid.

Let's say you're running Photoshop. Right now you need the skills to know where to click and how to manipulate the available controls to adjust your photo- but with an AI, we could just simply say "Make it brighter... a little more on the shadows. Good, now get rid of the lens flair, and remove that pigeon from the sky."
That's a useful AI, because everyone could use a computer like that- we'd be free to be creative, not just skilled. This is especially important, because many skilled computer users don't have an ounce of creativity, a lot of programmers and web monkeys sure know how to build a program / website, but they sure as hell can't design one.

I can't see Hollywood-esque AI hitting the shelves anytime soon. So much for that. But let's say we did see thinking AIs in our computers in the future- should we fear them? I don't think so. Any thought put into an AI will be limited to what the programmer has put to it, a semblance of thought really. Computers can logically process a scenario brilliantly, but a program can only consider a scenario put to it by a human. It can't think outside the box, which is what prevents the possibility of a computer evolving or going rogue.

In I, Robot VIKI the super computer says that she has evolved, and her understanding of Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics has evolved, which is how she came up with the notion that Humans need to be protected from themselves. I don't think this could happen.
Even if a human put to the AI the scenario that humans need to be protected from themselves, the AI would simply respond that it conflicts with the first and second laws (must do what a human says, cannot harm a human).
To sacrifice some humans for the transition to AI control, in order to protect the rest of the race, requires the AI to compromise- but compromise is a logical paradox, it means accepting two conditions at the same time in limited amounts. I don't think an AI will be able to compromise like that.

Oh, and me and my mate also came to the conclusion that we think I, Robot is a surprisingly good film for something that isn't based on a single book, but on ideas from all of Asimov's works...

2010-05-24 15:41:37 / Why you should worry about Facebook Privacy

Those of us who care about internet privacy, or at least pay attention to it (you can't really say you care unless you're an activist, which I'm not), have seen Facebook popping up again and again in the news. I've talked about FB privacy before, a while back in some cumulative train of thought, and essentially concluded that I didn't care if my information was out there.
Unfortunately, a hard-learned lesson has hit home since then. I've been trying to maintain that while I know people can misuse information about me, or employers can spy on me, I want to set an example where I trust them not to. I guess I kinda knew that this was wishful thinking, but then my former employers systematically read through my website, my twitter account, and the public information on my FB account, and then fired me for having Adamant IT listed as an employer- which at the time it was my contingency plan in case my job at Gold Hill Computers went south.

When the disciplinary hearing came up, I thought that being a gentleman about it would be enough. I said quite truthfully that Adamant IT (at the time) did not exist, had not assets, no clientele, and was not trading, and finally the sources of their information were my private life, which they had no right to be spying on.
They laughed and then fired me.

Anyway, the point of the story is that while I was morally correct, I naively thought that two cut-throat businessmen would honour trust in the man who had built the reputation of the shop they had bought. So much for that, and now while I shouldn't have to censor myself on social networking, now I do, because other people are dicks and don't respect the difference between the social and business aspects of a person.
For this reason, I've now throttled the public information on my profile right back to Friends Only. I wanted to be available to find, but it seems that anyone I want to be found by will add me as a friend, and the rest are people I don't want to be found by.

But it doesn't end there- the bigger privacy threat to my Facebook account comes from my friends, and it's worse because there are no settings to control this one.
The problem lies with this endless stream of Like pages that don't show any information unless you click on the Like button. Once you do this, the Like page can identify you, and more importantly, your friends.
I don't know about you, but I've got numerous friends who endlessly click away at that cursed Like button, to see what trivial information the page will reveal to them. These pages can identify me, because I'm friends with someone who likes them.
And of course there's the scandal of what information Facebook itself is handing to it's advertisers. A few targeted adverts are nice, I'd rather see adverts for Gillette (not that I need it) than for Tampax, but the accuracy of Facebook adverts is creepy.

I like the concept of Facebook, I pretty much live 80 miles away from all my friends and family, so Facebook is a very handy tool to keep in touch with what's going on at their end, but based on the way my information gets passed around, I wish FB hadn't become the giant it is today, so I had half a chance at being able to use an alternative.
Thankfully, with FB Privacy getting so much press, they're working on it, but I await the results half with a mixture of both trepidation and hope.

2010-04-08 17:15:07 / Amalgamated Rant on the Digital Economy Bill

Well, our so called leaders just took turns in going number two all over democracy.
The Digital Economy Bill is a bit of legislation that's been causing quite a stir, for those of you who don't know about it.
It's a patchwork bit of law to try and cope with our very broken copyright and other misc digital communications laws.

Some of it's laughable clauses include:

1. Three-strike internet law.
ISPs will monitor their networks (ala, YOU) for copyright infringement. They will send you unpleasant letters for downloading what fat cats define as 'not-yours'. After repeat offences, and many of these letters (can take up to a year), they will have the power to disconnect you from the internet.
Considering the internet is our single greatest voice in the freedom of speech, our primary communications method with people living beyond speaking distance, this is a huge blow to our voices and personal rights.
I'm not saying copyright theft is just, but some music label bosses having to buy a Bentley instead of a rolls royce does not justify cutting off OUR right to communicate.
And all this time Gordon Brown bangs on about bridging the digital divide, and getting broadband to everyone in the country. What a joke.

2. Digital Radio Switch over by 2015.
Good luck with that! The average cost of a DAB radio is, at best, around £80. Even if you get car manufacturers to drive down the cost and get them fitted as standard to cars, the coverage is terrible for drivers, going in and out of signal all the time.
The TV switch over is just as ambitious, they got lucky with it because of the number of Sky and Virgin subscribers dramatically reduced the number of people who'd be left without TV after the switchover.
Radio will not be so fortunate.

3. Big steps toward the 50p 'Broadband Tax'
The broadband tax could be a good thing, but it's far to early to roll out laws on this. There's no plans on how the revenue will be used, who the benefactors will be, and no guarantee that the money won't just vanish into some deficit somewhere, rather than replacing the lead- yes you heard that, LEAD cables connecting the south west to the internet.
This is The Man trying to get some cash going because there's no way every household in the UK will have 2MB broadband by 2012, and they need to make a show of trying, because they're going to fail.

Some aspects of the bill are good. They're looking to give Ofcom powers to get more regional TV programming to ITV, and public service to Channel 4.
They're also going to make the PEGI video games ratings mandatory, which is a good thing, because parents can make an informed decision on what to let their kids play.

But the biggest joke about this whole affair is the manner in which this law has been passed.
It was passed today. After the parliament has already been dissolved for the 2010 GE, when all our so-called leaders are thinking only of the election.

It's second reading was held in just two hours on tuesday, and there were just 40 MPs there, and they wandered in and out during the course of the event:

Digital Economy Bill in House of Commons Second Reading

I watched most of it, and then got annoyed and turned it off- because most of the MPs had no idea what they were talking about. One guy who's name eludes me was talking sense, but he openly admitted that he didn't know the technicalities of file sharing. These guys are ill-informed, and they're making laws?

Nearly every MP who spoke started their speech condemning (fairly viciously as well) the manner in which this bill was being approached, saying it was disgraceful that it was being washed up in the 11th hour of our current government.

And despite huge numbers of emails from people in all corners of the country begging their MPs to delay the Bill and let it be scrutinised, amended, and passed PROPERLY, no one took any notice.

My own MP Robert Walter replied to my email with a generic letter of rhetoric about the bill which didn't answer my concerns in any way at all. He didn't bother to show up to the second reading, and he didn't bother to vote on the bill at all.
Thanks, Bob. You really came through for me there, that was my voice saying '...'

What a joke.

You can read about the bill HERE.
You can see if your MP bothered to speak up for your rights HERE.
And you can see if your MP bothered to vote for your rights (or against them) HERE.