Computers Beyond the Final Frontier

Me and Jamie (Jamie the housemate, to be sure) made an interesting observation today. We were sat watching Star Trek the Next Generation, as we often do these days since our friend Nevitt decided it would be a good thing to download every single episode. Being a computer geek, what always interests me in TV shows is how computers are represented... I remember laughing a lot when I saw an episode of "A Touch of Frost" a few years ago where all the computers appeared to be running DOS... maybe the Police still use it? Is the public sector really that bad? Probably. Anyway, but needless to say, Star Trek's representation of computers is a bit more enlightened, its much more of a HAL type figure, an omni-present servant who they can issue verbal commands too. There were a few things however, that clearly dated this vision of what computer's roles in our future will be.

The first one I noticed, was the complete lack of security. OK, so sometimes it seems they have to verbally speak some kind of pass code before they can execute certain commands, such as self destruct and blocking all other users commands, but that seems to be it. Anyone seems to be able to create force fields, teleport themselves anywhere and request any information they want from its memory banks. OK, so right now I suppose I could look up whatever I wanted on Wikipedia or Google, and on the USS Enterprise, asking the ship's computer a question is pretty much the same thing. However, Wikipedia does not know everything, obviously, and doesn't contain sensitive data: most the data on Wikipedia is common knowledge, simply collected in one place. The Enterprises computer, however, has the whole crews personal data on it, schematics of their entire ship, including its weapons systems, and ultimately the computer controls their life support systems. So your'd think they might be a bit more touchy about letting any bugger who comes aboard do whatever he wants to it. I suppose, this fits in with Gene Roddenberry's vision of future human society, without money or any real crime, I suppose to the crew of the Enterprise, access privileges and encryption might seem draconian. They all trust each other with their information, unlike we do (see the xxx million Facebook stalker scare stories and headlines).

Its interesting, because I remember, about a year ago, reading about a man who for a short period was being followed by the FBI. He had absolutely no idea why, but once when returning from holiday, he nearly got refused entry back into his native land, the US, and since that point he was follow, calls monitored, cars followed etc. I think he might have been Muslim, I'm not sure. But, the part that interested me was, his reaction to this, was to buy a really smartphone, get a website, and take a photo of himself every few minutes, and upload it to the website, for the world to see. He kept complete logs of his every action, and had himself constantly tracked by GPS on his phone, then uploaded live onto his website. Quite an odd idea really, but he argued that after doing this for a few weeks, the FBI stopped following him. He claimed, the idea behind it was simple, if you make your privacy public, then it becomes worthless. No body is hacking into your phone to listen to your voicemail or tapping your phone, because they already have access to them because you make them available yourself, to show you have nothing to hide. He argued the more you try and hide your actions, the more secretive you are, the more you try and lock things away, the more people will assume you have that they must want, so they'll try harder to get at it. Maybe that's how the USS Enterprise works... they all know everyone knows everything about them, so they don't care, they don't have to protect it. Its an odd idea, and perhaps it could work on a personal level, obviously on a corporate level, I can't really see that idea taking off. But since there are no companies in Star Trek, might work for them.... bloody commies.

But anyway, me and Jamie talked about the security thing, and he pointed out that its probably just because the show was made in the early nineties, pre-Internet, so people were a lot less scared about privacy and security on computers. The idea that someone would remotely access or abuse the Enterprises computer system didn't seem to occur to the writers of the show. You try suggesting to people today that they have to carry their mobile phones attached to them all the time, anyone can ask their computer where someone else and their computer will tell them, and the computer always knows where everyone is, and people start irrationally screaming "big brother" at you. I guess the writers just didn't see the cons of everyone sharing their information in one big computer with no access levels or user accounts or other security checks. That's the other point I would make as well.... there is only one main computer! In this day and age, were we all have our cameras, mp3 players, phones, laptops etc. the idea that we would all just have one, all powerful computer, just seems bizarre. I suppose its like that famous speech of Bill Gates or the head of IBM or whoever it was, who said that maybe one day the world might need 2 computers. The idea of personal computers clearly hadn't taken off when the series was being written, everyone just has terminals and panels that connect to one big computer. If that goes down, I seem to recall them saying the only other computers they could have was a bunch of tri-coders linked together! Wheres their DRP? Whose their IT manager? Imagine working in an office where if the main sever goes down, you have to hot wire a bunch of calculators together to check your email....

Clearly the ideas of peer to peer networks and the Internet, were just a long way off.... which is odd, considering its the future. lol.

Stressed

Urgh I really should be asleep right now... my first lecture isn't until 10am, but I just can't sleep. I really think its the stress, I don't seem to be doing anything other then working most the time, because every time I try and do something else, I can't do it because I feel like I should be working. Every time I try to play a game, watch a DVD, sleep, eat, go out, anything, I just feel like I should be sat here working. And when I try and sleep, I just lay there staring at my computer screen, thinking about all the work I should be doing. I just can't switch off my guilt. I think Hazels having the same problem. Hmmm. Oh well, only a few months left.

So, what have I been up to... Not a lot. I got really drunk on my birthday with a lot of strangely dressed friends and family. Bought quite a few good DVDs for myself, mostly for my birthday. I got the original Star Wars trilogy, because I realised it was only 15 quid, and came with bonus discs that has the original, un-remastered versions on, which I thought was quite cool, since they were the versions I grew up with. I should watch them, compare them to the remasters, which Ive already watched through once. I forgot how amazing Star Wars really is, id sort of written it off in the last few years because of the lack-luster prequels, but the originals are still solid gold when you watch them now. I don't know where I stand on the agreement that their kids films, and to show them to an adult whose never seen them before is a waste of time, they won't get it. Its hard to me to judge, since I was brought up on them, but id imagine since a lot of adults liked them when they came out, they still won't have lost their appeal (so long as you don't see one of the shitty prequels first). The remasters aren't bad either, I remember being disappointed with them when they first came out, but watching them now, I'm still left wondering how George Lucas managed to screw up the prequels. Oh well, at least I still have the originals. I also got some other films I haven't seen for a long time but remembered liking: Scarface, Platoon and I, Robot. Ive watched Platoon and Scarface, their as gory and great as I remember them being. I haven't watched I, Robot, because Ive seen it quite recently. It was really underrated when it came out, I thought it was really good. OK, it didn't cover any new Sci-Fi ground, and maybe considering the source material it should have been better, but its still a pretty good film if you just look at it for what it is, rather then what its not, if that makes sense.

This leads me to the other DVD I got, South Park Series 2, which I was surprised by. I remember the early seasons of South Park as being very primitive compared to the latter ones, a lot more vulgar and a lot less clever. I suppose I still agree with that, apart that makes the early South Park episodes sound not good, and that would be incorrect. I would called Matt and Trey, its creators, geniuses, because the fact that they have churned this cartoon out for ten years now, and its only got better (unlike the Simpsons), and it wasn't bad to start with, and the ten year old episodes are still funny, just shows how incredibility perceptive they are. They make really amazing observations about modern society, and poke fun at such odd things, and the humour is so edgy, I still can't believe some of the things they said. When you compare South Park to most the stale crap TV that comes out of America, it truly is a gem. I shall have to expose more people to this.... Its like Pulp Fiction, once you get past the swearing and the obvious jokes and references, it has a lot more depth too it.

I also got a pleasant surprise, that Jamie (my brother Jamie, that is) gave me a few DVDs as well, but these were films I have not seen, which is good. All the films Id bought myself, Id already seen, because I don't buy films I haven't seen in case I don't like them (even though there about the price of a cinema ticket these days anyway). So that gives me some new things to watch that come with a recommendation from Jamie, which is good. So when I'm in the mood for something new and not falling asleep half way through, ill have to give them a watch. Musically, I bought myself one CD for my birthday, which was from a band I hadn't heard before, so I suppose that was a bit daring, but not really, since Id heard other things from most the members of the band in other bands, so I had a good idea what to expect. It wasn't bad, a bit repetitive though, but one or two good tracks.

Addendum

Ok, well I thought more about the issues that I was blogging about the other day, and I just wanted to add a few points. I wasn't in a very good mood so my arguments weren't very balanced. Also my dad sent me an email which made some good points I agree with so I thought Id add them.

Basically, I know the majority of pop has always been lame, with a minority of some listenable bands there (Dad mentioned the Arctic Monkeys and I mentioned Amy Whinehouse)
and all music is a question of taste (beauty in the eye of the beholder etc.). Think back to the 60s, I mean I don't really like the Beatles, but compared to the old crooners who were around when they started out, they were miles ahead in terms of talented song writing and making enjoyable music. So there has always been crap pop and reasonably listenable pop in my eyes. But I still think I want to know why all the music that has really changed my life, that has really helped me express my emotions, is so unknown and unrecognised when compared to the Crazy Frog.

I mean some people argue that for something to be liked by a lot of people, it has to be really bland and formulaic. Maybe the reason I like the music I do, and it expresses my emotions so well, is that I've felt the emotions the people who made the music felt, and with great skill they've managed to put these feelings into music. And so when I hear the music, I recognise the emotions, were as other people just don't, it just sounds like noise. And because a limited number of people can relate to that music, it has a niche following. This is one theory. Another, is that most people just don't like emotional music... everyone has something they want from their music, and some people don't want to release emotions through music, they just simply want something that is happy or something with a good beat to dance too. Or with Hip hop, maybe they just want something with intelligent lyrics that make them think or laugh. I suppose there are a lot of different layers to this, since people like the same music for different reasons, there is no one reason why we do or don't like something. And different people like to be challenged on different levels.

So, in hindsight, I really just want to know why most people don't seem to like challenging music. That is what I felt when I heard what was in the charts, I felt it was unchallenging, Id heard it all before done better. Maybe some people manage to find something in it, but right now, I don't, and I wonder why. As I said before, my conclusion is either I'm out of touch with what most people find challenging in music, or good challenging music isn't making it into the charts anymore. Ok, well I hope that has made things a bit clearer.

Now, back to Apple.... basically, my beef isn't just to do with the MacBook Air, but just the whole company's general attitude, which I believe I sort of touched on, but didn't really explore last time. Their just becoming even worse then Microsoft in terms of monopoly... their stupid iPhones and iPods that only work with iTunes, and iTunes music that has DRM so you can't do whatever you want with it. The iPhone only works on one mobile operator and the contract has to be for at least 18 months. If I remember correctly, the Germans threw a fit when the iPhone was released, and Apple were forced to reduce the contract and consider letting people unlock the phones to let people use them on other networks to escape the wrath of German anti-monopoly laws. And last I heard you can't get the iTunes service in France at all, because the French government said: if you pay for music, you should be able to do whatever you want with it, and put it on rival mp3 players. Apple didn't like that, so they just never released a French iTunes.

If Microsoft released stuff that was equally incompatible, people would be up in arms. I mean people bang on about how rubbish Vista is, but it still runs more software then Macs. Apple has used Microsoft-style tactics to completely buy up the smartphone and mp3 player markets, and people still get excited about their next release and journalist's eat out of the palms of their hands, unlike Microsoft who if you ask me, have received an unfair amount of criticism. I've used Vista, its installed on Jamie's PC (also note it is also the 64 bit version, which has less compatibility then the normal 32bit version) and we've never had any problems with it. Apart from it didn't like his old USB wireless dongle, but oh well, they only cost 20 quid for a new one. I bet no third party wireless dongles work with Macs...

Blarg

Ok my blogs are very ranty today, sorry. Probably in a really bad mood. Not sure why. I wish I had something more positive and enlightening to write, but very little has happened in my life recently, I've just been sat around at home with Hazel, or at lectures. I've been avoiding the outside world because of half term and valentines day, both of which just seem to spawn lots of annoying people doing annoying things in my face when I walk around outside. Also there is starting to be some mothers day stuff in the shops and I don't know how to feel about it. Memories from this time last year are starting to come back to me and it makes me withdraw. I'm managing to go to lectures and get some work done and look after myself. I get quite angry sometimes and just like to be alone, other times i just become all needy and need company. Just depends what sort of day I've had really. Jamie going back to London this week has made me quite down this week as well. I know its whats best for him, and he needs to be with his family for now (because his granddad has just died of throat cancer FYI) and now he is not at uni any more he needs a job. But I still miss him a lot because he was probably one of the main people I talked to, and he was always in, so I felt like i needed to talk to someone, he was always there. I should be OK though, normally one of the girls is in, its just one less person to talk to.

Apple sux

Apple's new MacBook Air sounds like complete wank. Its got: an aluminium case that apparently causes interference with its WiFi, and by the way, the WiFi is the only networking its got. No ethernet, cos ethernet isn't cool enough for Jobby anymore. And 1 USB port, because having lots of things plugged into it makes it look ugly and usable. We don't want that, thats not the Apple way.

No DVD/CD drive, so no films or music, unless you buy and download them from Apple over its shitty WiFi using iTunes. Only you can't do that, because its only got an 80gb hard disk. It has a 2 and a half our battery life, and thats without any external things plugged into it, which you'll obviously need because its so under-featured. And the screen looks small.
And you get all this joy and more for £1,200. Go look on Dell's website and see what that gets you.

Unless Apple suddenly completely changes overnight, I don't honestly think I will ever buy one of their products. For the amount they charge, it just simply isn't worth it.

Music

Urgh the music most people listen too sucks.

I just took one look at the top 40 and was like "I wouldn't listen to any of this." I get exposed to more pop then normal these days because of Hazel, but she played me the top 3 singles and their all awful. I can barely stand to listen to them, let alone buy them. Did you know the biggest selling single of 2007 was Arvil Lavigne's "Girlfriend"? Ok, maybe the singles charts have never been a bastion of good taste, but seriously: the decline of modern music in the last few years is just shocking. No wonder record sales are down 10% in 2007, its not cos of the piracy, its because there is no good pop music to buy.

Fortunately, I'm fine with my own music for now, I currently have a long list of metal I'm interested in and about 10gbs of music that needs to be listened to for the first time. Ok, it might not all be good, but some of it should be. And a lot of it is new, so there are clearly still a lot of good metal bands around making good metal. The question that really begs to be answered, is why does most of Jo Public like such crap music? I honestly don't get how people can listen to most of it. Ok, Amy Whinehouse and Kate Nash, although aren't my taste, I understand why someone would like them. Same way I can understand when women say a guy is hot, I can normally see what they mean. But with the current top 40... I can't see why anyone would fork out any money for it at all.

I honestly don't know whats to blame with pops decline, maybe its the Crazy frog, I mean if that hell spawn can be number one for 17 weeks (or however long it actually was), maybe that just opened the gates of hell and let all this shit infest the charts. I'm even disgusted at the most liked bands on the Aber network on facebook.... 1. Muse and like Oasis at 3... i mean their listenable... but I wouldn't buy it.... Clearly I'm just out of touch with most pop listeners and mainstream radio friendly music, but I'm not the only one. The last CD I got with Terroriser CD was fucking amazing, got me into so many new British bands, I got it back in December and I was listening to it earlier today.

So clearly there are other people who have similar taste to me, but maybe we're just minority nowadays. Also I don't know if id like my music to get mainstream coverage... but all I'm saying is: I wish people would stop watching boring reality TV, absurd soap operas and looking for Madeline McCann, and stop listening to mindless boring repetitive music. Wake the fuck up, pull your head out your arse, use your brain, open your eyes and ears, there is so much better music with so much more passion and skill involved then fucking Avril Lavigne. Everyone who bought that fucking CD should be shot.

Back in Black (part deux): Future Con-man?

So this is part 2 of my 2008 comeback blog, its going to be about computers, so if you don't like that, read the other part, which is about Christmas and Aberystwyth instead.

So a few days ago, my mate John's PC blew up, so guess who he called. I haven't actually seen it yet, but I gather the power supply blew up, chucks of metal came out the back of the fan, and unsurprisingly, John freaked out, and it hasn't booted since. This PC and me have quite a history already, since it was Jamie's PC a few months ago, until I built him a new one, so he gave his old one to John. Its about 4 years old, AMD Athlon, 1GB Ram, that is about all I can remember. So I'm not sure if its just the power supply, or weather he'll need a new motherboard as well. But we figured, it would probably just be cheaper and quicker to find another second hand computer, rather then try to find parts for this old one. So we wandered around Aber for a while, looked in several shops. John had seen one he liked, for about 35 quid, but that had been sold, and all that were left were really old ones. So we tried another shop, where the man offered to either sell us a Pentium 2 300MHz for 50 quid (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) or get us a new power supply and fix John's blown up PC, also for 50 quid (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!).

This conversation left me ranting for the rest of the day. I couldn't believe what a complete rip off this guy was trying to pull on us. I remember about 3 years ago, me and Dad threw away a similar spec'ed machine, a Pentium 2, because we thought it was worthless... but now, 3 years later, I'm being sold the same thing back for 50 quid? This guy had to be off his rocker. It was like someone stealing my poo 3 years ago and then trying to sell it back to me now for 50 quid. I was that insulted. I should have known when we approached his stall, and the PC just had "Broadband ready PC, 3 month warranty, £49" stuck on it, no specifications, that it was a con. I can't believe this guy gets away with it. I suppose he lures newbs into buying it with the 3 month warranty, but I'm pretty sure even the worst, oldest PC would last about 3 months. And that warranty doesn't mean it won't go wrong, it just means if it does, he'll gladly give you another one just as crappy as a replacement. I bet he will, hes probably got a skip full of them he got 4 years ago when some company was replacing its PCs and just threw them away. He claimed this PC was perfect for work and browsing the web, but Id love to see it in action, with its 300MHz, 128MB of RAM and 6GB Hard disk. I bet it runs Windows 98 perfectly... it must be at least 10 years old. And fifty quid to change an old power supply? I fixed the power supply on dad's PC about six months ago, the power supply cost me £3.99 and it took me about 30 mins to plug it in, and that is all.

Made me think, back in Winchester, Fred's old PC is still sat in our hallway, and its about twice as powerful as that one he was selling for 50 quid... all i can say is, I'm not throwing out another old PC, I'm going to stick an advert somewhere up at uni and offer it for 50 quid. Do that four times, and you can build a rubbish new PC, or buy yet another new graphics card for my gaming rig. Morally, I'm not sure if this is right, but so long as I'm up front about the specs and the condition of the machine, and don't offer any warranty, I think there is nothing wrong with that. And it seems people are clearly prepared to pay that price, so I'm not ripping them off if that's how much they want to give people for it. Ill just have to try and keep a straight face while I'm doing it, and forget to mention they could build a nice new one for four times the price, but that would last four times as long. I'm considering a career change...