Category: Geekery

Apple: a bit 1984

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Apple ran one of the most famous television advertisements ever; the famous 1984 spot, implying that Apple would challenge the dominance of a certain company based in Redmond. Smaller than MicroSoft they may be, but they are more closed than the Empire of Gates [update – IBM, not MS. See comments].

Exhibit one is the App Store. Apple will only allow you to download applications that they have approved. They could offer all apps, but mark approved or supported apps as such, like Canonical do. Selling their kit in this way maximises vendor lock-in and, in short, acts in a way that would bring bucketloads of opprobium onto MicroSoft.

Exhibit two is my broken iPod. I have an iPod that can be described as bricked (as in so broken it’s about as useful as a brick). I took it to the Apple Store on Regent Street. I know, dear reader, that you might not be familiar with me, but suffice to say that I am currently wearing cords and tweed. I don’t want to make an appointment at the genius bar or, frankly, spend any time in the shiny, white, plastic bubble of sterility that is the Jobsian utopia which, frankly, looks too much like something of which Hugo Drax would approve.

That aside, it turned out that the hard disk on my slightly more than two-year-old iPod had died. They could repair it for £170; a new model, with twice the memory, would cost £180.

Apple, IMHO, must forfeit quite a lot of green credentials for that. No-one is going to repair when they can have new for ten more pounds; that means effectively junking the old iPod because Apple won’t repair it. Forget closed cycle; not only are Apple trying to sell another piece of kit I don’t want, there’s no recycling facility for iPods and similar that have gone to the great Apple Store in the sky.

Apple do like to portray themselves as having a certain je ne sais quoi that puts them ahead of MicroSoft in the evil, corporate monster league. Having such a poor attitude to repair, reuse and recycling doesn’t help matters; it would not surprise me if the aversion to easy repair is as much to do with preventing non-Apple approved people from tinkering with the little box.

I won’t be buying another iPod. If I do buy another mp3 player-type-thing, it might be an Archos. For the time being, a pair of headphones connected to my phone are sufficient. Since buying that iPod, I’ve come over all Linux, so it’s not surprising that I’m not keen on the incredible lockdown Apple uses. Besides that, Apple’s products just aren’t worth it.

xD.

PPERA imprints and Twitter

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Political wonks will be familiar, at the bottom of every piece of election literature (including stickers and t-shirts), with an imprint along the lines of

Printed and promoted by Anne Agent on behalf of Can D’Date, both of 29 Acacia Avenue, Dandytown.

I believe that’s a requirement under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendum Act 2000 (PPERA). I know various candidates who, during election time, carry a similar imprint on their blog. I have two questions; is there a similar requirement for tweets and, if so, what would it look like

Mark Park of Lib Dem Voice has a partial answer.

PPERA 143 (6) says

The Secretary of State may, after consulting the Commission, by regulations make provision for and in connection with the imposition of requirements as to the inclusion in material falling within subsection (1)(b) of the following details, namely—

(a) the name and address of the promoter of the material; and

(b) the name and address of any person on behalf of whom the material is being published (and who is not the promoter).

A simple solution would be to allow political parties to set up a website (with a short url!). It could then, in a similar way to sites like bit.ly. You could have li.uk/aaa for an imprint from a Labour candidate, who happened to be assigned ‘aaa’. Whaddya think, Mark?

xD.

Of scepticism, jet-packs and living to a thousand

Posted on by David Landon Cole

I’ve spent a very pleasant evening in the company of the Sceptics in the Pub London, where the speaker was Dr. Aubrey de Gray, Chief Scientific Officer with the SENS Foundation. In brief, de Gray (Wikipedia article) set out the work of the SENS foundation which, as I understand it, looks at ageing as a disease which it then sets out to cure as a problem of regenerative medicine. While that is the primary aim, it has the effect, if successful, of increasing both quality and quantity of life; that is to say, making something approaching immortality not only possible but desirable.

De Gray set out a paradigm whereby metabolism causes damage, and damage then causes pathology. In this model, gerontology attempts to intervene in the first step – problematic because of the great complexity of metabolism – and geriatrics intervenes in the first step – problematic because damage has already caused pathology and is at best palliative. He sought to reverse accumulated damage before it became pathological.

Initially, this would allow for an extension of the useful human lifespan by perhaps thirty years. Once that first step was accomplished, refinements in technique would allow, excepting being hit by cars and so on, to continue for arbitrarily long periods, through the possibility of increasingly eficacious treatments before the eficacy of repeated cycles of previous treatments lost eficacy.

You can get a flavour of his speech from this TED talk.

Broadly, I would raise three problems with de Gray’s plan.

Firstly, the scientific. I can’t assess his science, but a number of people there raised fairly substantial problems with his paradigm and with the conclusions he drew from it. That is probably one for the peer reviewed papers.

Secondly, the technological. The very long, four-figure lifespans suggested depended not just on continuing improvements in the (speculative) set of technologies, bit that those improvements happened faster than people died because of a loss of eficacy as described above. The examples de Gray cited in support of his position were the motor car and the aeroplane. Unfortunately for him, the equally plausible alternative of the jet pack was raised: theoretically possible, desirable even, and can be turned into a prototype that can fly for half a minute, but can’t be turned into a production model (because the amount of fuel that can be loaded onto a human is finite and less than what’s needed for useful flight). Another example would be power from nuclear fusion, which has been ten years away for fifty years. It is a prediction based on little more than fiat.

Thirdly, the socio-economic. In answer to a question from yours truly about the cost of the treatments, de Gray was quick to observe, thousand-year life spans would have major effects on world society, meaning that we could throw much of traditional economics out of the window. If we do that, though, we throw political economy out of the window. Thus, de Gray’s assetion that the state would pay for its citizens to have these treatments is distinctly problematic as the state, as we know it, would not necessarily sill exist. Even if we accept that the state still exists in a recognisable form and that it makes economic sense for states to pay for these treatments, it does not follow that they will pay for them. As de Gray thought equality was a major issue, it’s worth going into at slightly greater length.

The basis from which de Grey works is that regenerative medicine is medicine like any other, albeit with remarkable effects. As we know from the current debate in the US, there are plenty of people who see taking money from them to pay for the healthcare of others as morally wrong. There are also plenty of countries that would like to provide comprehensive healthcare, but cannot afford it. De Grey provided no explanation of how we would roll out this treatment when we cannot at the moment give people with economic potential very cheap drugs – say, hydration salts for diarrhea – that would have similar economic benefits to the de Grey treatments but at vastly lower costs per dose. From the point of view of the state, it doesn’t matter whether a day’s work is done by a thirty-year-old or a three hundred and thirty-year-old. Given that states do not have to provide pensions or old age healthcare now, and that the mechanism by which they will be convinced to do so is absent, it seems as reasonable to conclude that arbitrarily long lives will remain the province of the wealthy as to conclude that we will enter this brave, new world. A nightmare scenario would be lots of people having access to these treatments but not making the necessary lifestyle changes. If we kept dropping kids every twenty or thirty years over a thousand year life, we’d very quickly overpopulate the planet.

I hope that de Gray’s science is more thorough than his statecraft.

Of course, if de Gray is right, I look forward to seeing you at the February 2317 meeting of Sceptics in the Pub London – assuming someone hasn’t already booked the room.

xD.

Neil William’s template Twitter strategy

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Neil Williams (blog, Twitter) has drafted a template strategy for Government departments wanting to use Twitter; find it on the Cabinet Office’s Digital Engagement Blog or on Neil’s website as a PDF. It’s a good document – you have to bear in mind that this is for civil servants – and could be a good starting point for anyone with a brand to manage. It’s worth reading and I do hope that various people in HMG take it on board, particularly how useful it is as a conversational tool – I’ve had questions answered by MoD over Twitter in a matter of a couple of minutes and replied to a few things from Paul Drayson, Tom Watson and others.

I really like a particular idea that Neil has – departments live twittering their own press conferences and so on. That would be a real ‘value-added’.

A little while ago, I put all the regional and departmental RSS feeds that the COI’s News Distribution Service provide onto Twitter. The full list is here; I’m really pleased that Neil has listed me as an unofficial aggregator of government content, and more than a little flattered.

xD.

The government on Twitter

Posted on by David Landon Cole

The Central Office of Information run a rather good website called the News Distribution Service, formerly the Government News Network. Below the fold are the RSS and Twitter feeds in three groups – aggregate, departmental and regional.

Unfortunately, no-one knows about it as the COI doesn’t do much to promote it despite being “the Government’s centre of excellence for marketing and communications”. It consists of news updates for all the big bits of government – departments, agencies and regions – that you could want. It’s a good way of keeping an eye on what they’re all up to an finding the occasional hidden gem of a press release. They’ve had RSS feeds for ages and now they’re on Twitter (thanks to yours truly).

xD.

Continue reading “The government on Twitter” →

Show us a better way

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Via Tom Watson, I’ve found out about the Show Us a Better Way project. The idea is very simple; I quote from their website:

The UK Government wants to hear your ideas for new products that could improve the way public information is communicated

I have three entries.

Entry the first: Free our bills! The wonderful MySociety.org people who brought us TheyWorkForYou.com are spearheading this campaign; I encourage you to read the why and wherefore at theyworkforyou.com/freeourbills. More generally, better use of RSS across government is needed. For instance, I’ve been tracking the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Bill. It would be really nice to be have an easier way of tracking all the documents, like amendments, as they come through. The same could apply to the GLA, Senedd, Holyrood, Stormont and local councils. A central website to keep track of them all would be nice as well.

Entry the second: Following on from that, it would be good to be able to find out what’s going on in your area or that would be of general interest. To that end, anything be done by any arm of government could be tagged with an area of interest and the postcodes it would affect. You might only be interested in recycling in your immediate area, and so might ask for anything that matched ‘recycling’ and ‘SW1A 0AA’ to be emailed to you while for transport, you might want to look a bit further afield and would have ‘transport’ and ‘SW1, EC1, EC2’ or somesuch.

Entry the third: The Consolidated Fund is the Government’s bank account. It’d be nice to have a website that shows the state of the Consolidated Fund and where money comes from and goes to; simple pie charts, updated relatively often, would do the trick. The same thing – again – could be done for different levels of government, ideally down to the ward level.

I think entry the second is the best of my ideas. I might work it into a proper proposal.

xD.

Video killed the radio star

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Tom Watson links to a fascinating article on Rolling Stone magazine’s website about the deleterious effects MP3s are having on the quality of music, both in terms of fidelity and whether it’s worth listening to at all. The article, which is worth reading in full1, essentially says that people want to make music with more loudness2 so that more people will listen to it (or rather, notice it) and, because of the technical restrictions on MP3s, this can only be done at the expense of sound quality. It is an interesting thesis, but it doesn’t quite give the full picture.

MTV logoThe problem started with MTV. Video may not have killed the radio star, but there’s pretty good evidence for GBH3. The first problem is the ‘tele‘ part of Music Television. Quite apart from television being a chimera of a Greek and a Latin word (and so no good could ever come of it), it is designed for speech, not music. This affects how the signal is modulated, transmitted, received, decoded and – most importantly – reproduced. The speakers on televisions are, as a rule, not of particularly high quality. They are more than adequate for speech programming, but they’re not going to faithfully reproduce every nuance of music; they’re not designed for it. As MTV grew, the ‘vision’ became the problem. A record label only has so much to spend and so an increasing amount is spent on the video; after all, that’s what the kids want, as they’re watching MTV. This means less spent on the recording and mastering. The easy (read: cheap) workaround to making your song good is to make it noticeable by increasing the amount of loudness.

There is another problem; music is played in pubs. I don’t object per se to music being played in pubs, but I object very strongly to music being played so loudly that I can’t have a conversation with the person opposite me without raising my voice or the choice of music being discordant with the surroundings. I have been in otherwise lovely, Victorian pubs with happy hardcore playing over the speakers. Whether or not you like DJ Sharkey, he doesn’t go well with a pint of stout. The result, though, is an increased demand for (and, through royalties, reward for) music that, in essence, sounds alright over okay-ish speakers in a loud room.

All this means that people come to expect a certain quality of music and are quite surprised by how rich music can actually sound. There is no desire to look for better quality because there is no awareness of its existence, and, where there is, no means to access it.

Deutsche Grammophon logoThis process continued with the advent of the MP3 format, but it did not start the trend; indeed, one of the songs used to initially assess the quality of sound recorded as MP3 was Tom’s Diner by Suzanne Vega. Whether you agree with me in liking Suzanne Vega is irrelevant; Tom’s Diner is a detailed song. MP3 became popular because of limited storage space and download times; the sacrifice of quality for small size seemed attractive. This isn’t as much of an issue now – iPods and the like store huge amounts of information in a small box and a terabyte (a thousand gigabytes) drive is available for £150 – and so MP3s encoded at higher rates are more realistic. Sufficiently realistic, in fact, that Deutsche Grammophon are now offering MP3 downloads of their entire back catalogue. Given that DG place a high value on the quality of their sound recordings, I think it suggests that MP3 does offer viable, good sound quality.

However, people don’t have the means, as I mentioned, to access that quality. A good example of this is the habit some people have of playing music on their mobile phones on the bus. The speakers are rubbish and any sound that comes out (quite apart from the lyrical delights of Soulja Boy’s wonderful hit, Crank Dat (Soulja Boy), which exhorts us to watch him do before cranking it ourselves, possibly without the necessary safety equipment) will be offensive to the ears. It appears to be an increasing norm or in-group signifier amongst some subgroups to engage in this behavior. I’m sorry if I sound sanctimonious, but it is inconsiderate and ill-mannered behavior. If you’re playing your music on your phone, there’s no way for you to appreciate decent quality music. Equally, a lot of music seems to be written so as to go directly to the lucrative ringtone market; quality is not important but catchiness – loudness – is.

This process has been going on since before 1994. I hope that the advent of digital broadcasting, faster internet and larger, cheaper storage means that more people will become aware of how good sound can sound. A better solution than MP3 is FLAC, which aside from being open source (with all the benefits for free software, in both senses of the word) is lossless; it’s been taken on by EBU (the people behind Eurovision) for their radio broadcasts. I’d venture that DG isn’t offering FLAC because people aren’t familiar with it (yet) as MP3 stole a march.

xD.

1 – if for no other reason than that, on page four, it has scientific proof (illustrated with pictures) that the Arctic Monkeys are rubbish and that U2 have become rubbish.
2 – which is not the same as loud music; have a look at the Wikipedia entry on loudness.
3 – I know of at least one barrister who reads this blog, so I’d appreciate it if m’learned friend could correct me if I’m wrong on this, but I believe, although there was no intent, that as there was foresight and recklessness and the harm occasioned is particularly grievous, a charge of GBH is more appropriate than ABH.