Oh my God?! Seriously: Will there ever come a time when the over supply of useless, un-structured, mindless drivel that pollutes the internet will stop?
There was a time when entering a search subject into Google supplied you with meaningful results that were worth looking at. Today the majority of results consist of corporate marketing, generic price comparison sites for insurance or shopping, or people's worthless opinion of this and that.
What is it about people that makes them think that if they write something down, it will be read by people who give a shit? Lets face it, blogging is just an excuse for people who believe they have something to say, to say it to people who really don't want to listen. The only thing worse than this, are corporations who think it adds value to their brand - I mean really; which stupid prick sits down to read the latest views of said corporation's media hack?
Then there are the myriad of video, images and so called news content sites where I can watch some twat's kid doing the funniest thing, or read the same news item regurgitated 50 times over. And for fuck's sake; Twitter was not designed to peddle porn, push spam, or provide a mechanism for needy celebrities to feel wanted.
Go on - just fuck off; the lot of you!
although, my opinion counts...
Thursday, 8 October 2009
Wednesday, 22 July 2009
My God; I'm brilliant!
Now far be it from me to blow my own trumpet; but sometimes I amaze myself at how brilliant I can be. Now I am not talking about the brilliance that exudes from inventors, physicists, and the like: I am talking about the jammy brilliance that means you are very rarely wrong on a particular subject - to the point that you amaze yourself by just how brilliant you are.
My subject is computing; and this does not restrict itself to categories that I profess to be good at, but my sheer "lucky bastard" nature encompasses most things in this technology area. Throughout my life I have completely lucked out on most of the things that I get dragged into with computers, and have a Midas touch that seems to come into its own when the proverbial shit is about to hit the fan.
I am sure you are sat here now, reading this, thinking - "I also have brilliance streak", (either that, or you are thinking what a cocky shit this guy is), and this is my point: If we all look at ourselves we can find something that is truly brilliant in our character - either that, or you really are a worthless piece of shit.
Let's hope it is the former!
My subject is computing; and this does not restrict itself to categories that I profess to be good at, but my sheer "lucky bastard" nature encompasses most things in this technology area. Throughout my life I have completely lucked out on most of the things that I get dragged into with computers, and have a Midas touch that seems to come into its own when the proverbial shit is about to hit the fan.
I am sure you are sat here now, reading this, thinking - "I also have brilliance streak", (either that, or you are thinking what a cocky shit this guy is), and this is my point: If we all look at ourselves we can find something that is truly brilliant in our character - either that, or you really are a worthless piece of shit.
Let's hope it is the former!
Friday, 3 July 2009
Why do we all fall for this?
It seems that in this world there is a proliferation of recycling the same old ideas and branding these as new thinking. As consumers we are bombarded with streams of marketing telling us what the next big thing is and how much our lives will be incomplete without said items. Everyday I am told which bands to like, what new product I cannot live without and what clothes I should wear.
So what's new about this? As far back as the 50's when marketing was in its early days we were being told which brands made our white's whiter, and those which helped me work, rest and play: It is just that it was more obvious back then. In the world today, brands are everywhere: hidden amongst the media programming; awards ceremonies; and placed without thinking in conversation. We have become whores to brand image to the point that should you dare go against the common view, you will be spurned for even considering that the masses are, indeed, wrong.
Brand hysteria is everywhere - wake up people, and open your eyes!
So what's new about this? As far back as the 50's when marketing was in its early days we were being told which brands made our white's whiter, and those which helped me work, rest and play: It is just that it was more obvious back then. In the world today, brands are everywhere: hidden amongst the media programming; awards ceremonies; and placed without thinking in conversation. We have become whores to brand image to the point that should you dare go against the common view, you will be spurned for even considering that the masses are, indeed, wrong.
Brand hysteria is everywhere - wake up people, and open your eyes!
Thursday, 30 April 2009
Old Shit and Modern Wank
The other day my partner's laptop decide to finally give up the ghost. The machine she had was a Dell X300 which she treated like shit. All to often the machine was projected across the living room, as in a rush the power lead became tangled around her leg. It also wasn't unusual for me to find the odd piece of discarded crisp or a sticky keyboard.
"Fix it!", she said.
But, unfortunately, despite my technical skills, soldering and the use of a multi-meter are not in my repertoire. It then fell to me to find alternative ways for her to buy old shit off Ebay, and her new found love of playing Facebook games.
I remembered that deep in the bowels of my wardrobe I had an old Compaq Armada E500 with a Pentium 3 (500Mhz) and 192MB RAM. Now by today's standards this computer is a very limp wristed example, but in its day it was a workhorse that ran Windows quite happily and at one point was migrated over to Linux.
Recovering the machine from the depths: I blew off the dust and turned it on. Windows 98 burst into life and slowly, but surely, the dulcet tones of the start-up wav played, and I was presented with an operating system of the bygone days: Wireless USB key installed and browsing commenced. It is at this point I realised that regardless of its performance, (which is unusually poor), that nothing will run: Flash 10; Firefox; Chrome; IE; all require Windows XP. I suppose I should not be surprised given that the clue for its age is in it name! But what also took me by surprise was the speed at which everything ran - this machine was designed to run Windows 98, so why was it soooo slow?
Okay, I thought, it needs a modern OS that will run all the software, so lets put on Linux - the holy grail for old machines. How wrong could I be? Using Kubuntu, KDE4 was always going to be a silly idea but by how much it slowed the machine down really took me by surprise. Even running XFCE4 the machine was practically unusable.
I then set off down the route of trying to find a lightweight Linux distro that could do the job. The ones I found included VectorLinux Lite and Knoppix, but all of these did little for me, other than take up my valuable time. The problem is that in this day and age I have come to expect a basic level of eye candy that means the operating system has a level of professionalism. I never thought I would say this, but all the lightweight Linux implementations have just a little too much of a home grown feel about them.
I have resorted to installing Xubuntu to see how this works, as it is apparently a lighter version of Ubuntu, but all of this got me thinking...
There is a adage that states a machine is only as old as the software it runs. If this machine is incapable of running a Linux distribution or Windows 98, does this dis-spell this myth? Although software has become bloated the real truth is that we have all become accustom to the speed that modern computers give us. If this is the case, no longer can I blame sloppy programming but the impatience that is inherent in society today.
Bloody typical - I will have to spend some cash on a new machine!
"Fix it!", she said.
But, unfortunately, despite my technical skills, soldering and the use of a multi-meter are not in my repertoire. It then fell to me to find alternative ways for her to buy old shit off Ebay, and her new found love of playing Facebook games.
I remembered that deep in the bowels of my wardrobe I had an old Compaq Armada E500 with a Pentium 3 (500Mhz) and 192MB RAM. Now by today's standards this computer is a very limp wristed example, but in its day it was a workhorse that ran Windows quite happily and at one point was migrated over to Linux.
Recovering the machine from the depths: I blew off the dust and turned it on. Windows 98 burst into life and slowly, but surely, the dulcet tones of the start-up wav played, and I was presented with an operating system of the bygone days: Wireless USB key installed and browsing commenced. It is at this point I realised that regardless of its performance, (which is unusually poor), that nothing will run: Flash 10; Firefox; Chrome; IE; all require Windows XP. I suppose I should not be surprised given that the clue for its age is in it name! But what also took me by surprise was the speed at which everything ran - this machine was designed to run Windows 98, so why was it soooo slow?
Okay, I thought, it needs a modern OS that will run all the software, so lets put on Linux - the holy grail for old machines. How wrong could I be? Using Kubuntu, KDE4 was always going to be a silly idea but by how much it slowed the machine down really took me by surprise. Even running XFCE4 the machine was practically unusable.
I then set off down the route of trying to find a lightweight Linux distro that could do the job. The ones I found included VectorLinux Lite and Knoppix, but all of these did little for me, other than take up my valuable time. The problem is that in this day and age I have come to expect a basic level of eye candy that means the operating system has a level of professionalism. I never thought I would say this, but all the lightweight Linux implementations have just a little too much of a home grown feel about them.
I have resorted to installing Xubuntu to see how this works, as it is apparently a lighter version of Ubuntu, but all of this got me thinking...
There is a adage that states a machine is only as old as the software it runs. If this machine is incapable of running a Linux distribution or Windows 98, does this dis-spell this myth? Although software has become bloated the real truth is that we have all become accustom to the speed that modern computers give us. If this is the case, no longer can I blame sloppy programming but the impatience that is inherent in society today.
Bloody typical - I will have to spend some cash on a new machine!
Sunday, 29 March 2009
You get what you pay for?
So there is a common misconception that you get what you pay for. Although I subscribe to this belief, I do now have a level of scepticism brought about by the amount of items in my house that have fallen apart recently.
In the last week the washing machine has broken down, the tumble dryer condenser has failed, my thermostat for the central heating decided that wireless communications was not for it, and to top it all, at the point where I start to iron my shirts for the new week, the iron decides to burn out. All of this wouldn't be so bad if I had bought cheap items, but all of these were of significant quality and highly rated by the likes of Which? magazine. The first three were Bosch and the iron cost me £60 - (alright, not the most expensive iron; but more than I have paid for before).
"Hang on Luke," I hear you ask. "How old were these items?" Well the iron and the tumble dryer hadn't quiet clocked a year and the thermostat and washing machine made it to three. Pretty rubbish, all things considered.
So this leads me to believe that: "You get what you pay for; but even the most expensive items are still shit!"
In the last week the washing machine has broken down, the tumble dryer condenser has failed, my thermostat for the central heating decided that wireless communications was not for it, and to top it all, at the point where I start to iron my shirts for the new week, the iron decides to burn out. All of this wouldn't be so bad if I had bought cheap items, but all of these were of significant quality and highly rated by the likes of Which? magazine. The first three were Bosch and the iron cost me £60 - (alright, not the most expensive iron; but more than I have paid for before).
"Hang on Luke," I hear you ask. "How old were these items?" Well the iron and the tumble dryer hadn't quiet clocked a year and the thermostat and washing machine made it to three. Pretty rubbish, all things considered.
So this leads me to believe that: "You get what you pay for; but even the most expensive items are still shit!"
Saturday, 7 March 2009
Why I hate the Apple iPhone
Okay, so why would someone look at the Apple iPhone and state that they detest it? It seems to buck the ideas of popular opinion, what with the population either owning one, or enviously wanting to own one. Well, the truth of the matter is that the iPhone, in my opinion, has some basic flaws being a mobile device. I believe that it is a case of form over function; Apple have concentrated on the UI design, not as one particular functioning piece of technology, but as an exercise in making UI gimmicks.
Apples interaction interface is completely dependent on fingers. Why should the main feature of the iPhone also be it's Achilles heel? Well, whilst on the face of it, the interface, application selection, typing, and dragging objects all seems fine, you have to ask yourself why we don't all have computers that have touch screens? Perhaps it is the fact that we would find interacting using touch fundamentally limiting: The basics of a keyboard are so simple that to transfer this to use the screen is an easy task, but it removes the very essence of what makes typing so responsive? There are no sensory tactile and audible clicks. Why do we all still use a mouse? It is not without reason: the accuracy of moving a pointer is difficult to manage with fingers, and even the thinest of these will have problems.
Lets be honest, touch screens are not new, or expensive to create, yet their only real use in everyday society is in retail point-of-sale applications. Where nice big buttons are provided to interact with simple process flows. I suppose Apple's view would have been, that a phone operates on simple process flows, but unfortunately, to be somewhere near usable the phone is now twice as big as its competitors!
The ability to to view and move between pictures also shows the limitations of its design. To move between photo's, Apple has created the wonderfully impressive swiping the screen with your fingers. This is fine for the first few shots, but after a while it does tend to become tiresome and leaves me wanting a button to do this job.
So am I being too harsh on Apple's pride and joy? It is fair to say that before the iPhone, phone companies did not consider the ways in which their handsets could be made more affective: Internet browsing was pointless on a mobile, whereas today it is only almost so. Camera and pictures have always been good on many of the handsets available, as has the ability to play MP3s. The iPhone doesn't offer anything revolutionary in this area. And then there is small message service, probably the most influential technology the mobile phone has provided. The best interface that I have seen so far for sending texts is most definitely the Blackberry, with its predictive text working superbly well and even trumps the Nokia (who set the original benchmark). So, no then. The iPhone remains a gimmick in my eyes, and if you feel the need to own one because you think it makes you look cool, then you are mistaken – you look like a twat. Each time you pull out the greasy screen with a myriad of finger prints on it, and swipe your finger about the place; remember: You look like Delboy with his Filofax!
Apples interaction interface is completely dependent on fingers. Why should the main feature of the iPhone also be it's Achilles heel? Well, whilst on the face of it, the interface, application selection, typing, and dragging objects all seems fine, you have to ask yourself why we don't all have computers that have touch screens? Perhaps it is the fact that we would find interacting using touch fundamentally limiting: The basics of a keyboard are so simple that to transfer this to use the screen is an easy task, but it removes the very essence of what makes typing so responsive? There are no sensory tactile and audible clicks. Why do we all still use a mouse? It is not without reason: the accuracy of moving a pointer is difficult to manage with fingers, and even the thinest of these will have problems.
Lets be honest, touch screens are not new, or expensive to create, yet their only real use in everyday society is in retail point-of-sale applications. Where nice big buttons are provided to interact with simple process flows. I suppose Apple's view would have been, that a phone operates on simple process flows, but unfortunately, to be somewhere near usable the phone is now twice as big as its competitors!
The ability to to view and move between pictures also shows the limitations of its design. To move between photo's, Apple has created the wonderfully impressive swiping the screen with your fingers. This is fine for the first few shots, but after a while it does tend to become tiresome and leaves me wanting a button to do this job.
So am I being too harsh on Apple's pride and joy? It is fair to say that before the iPhone, phone companies did not consider the ways in which their handsets could be made more affective: Internet browsing was pointless on a mobile, whereas today it is only almost so. Camera and pictures have always been good on many of the handsets available, as has the ability to play MP3s. The iPhone doesn't offer anything revolutionary in this area. And then there is small message service, probably the most influential technology the mobile phone has provided. The best interface that I have seen so far for sending texts is most definitely the Blackberry, with its predictive text working superbly well and even trumps the Nokia (who set the original benchmark). So, no then. The iPhone remains a gimmick in my eyes, and if you feel the need to own one because you think it makes you look cool, then you are mistaken – you look like a twat. Each time you pull out the greasy screen with a myriad of finger prints on it, and swipe your finger about the place; remember: You look like Delboy with his Filofax!
Wednesday, 25 February 2009
Is twitter for sycophants?
Okay, so I have been on Twitter for approximately three weeks and have managed 200+posts so far; but what is it really all about? When this technical phenomenon(!) was first introduced to me six months ago, I dismissed it as merely Facebook status updates for people who detested Facebook. This I can understand as Facebook consumes your time with meaningless drivel about what people are up to and awful invites to pointless quizzes.
People who know me will now be thinking - "if there is one person who updates his status with more meaningless drivel than anyone else I know; it's Luke"
People who know me will now be thinking - "if there is one person who updates his status with more meaningless drivel than anyone else I know; it's Luke"
So what about Twitter? Well, I believe that it is blogging for the lazy - something that two weeks ago, I considered myself to be. Use Twitter to comment on the world without the need to spend endless hours writing blog entries - what could be sweeter? Unfortunately, I think that I am one of the few that believe this, and from what I can gather, it has become a place for people to follow celebrities or aim marketing information at. Since I have been on, I have been followed by numerous marketing firms in the hope that I will return the follow so they can advertise to me.
And the celebrity gazing? It seems that our entire culture is obsessed with celebrity, and Twitter has just become another victim of this. What makes this worse, is it seems that some of the "famous people" using Twitter require this form of attention. I know that this is a generalisation, and won't apply to all, but there does seem to be a base need that is fulfilled by having fan(atic)s showering their enthusiasm for the celebrity via this new medium. Now I get the feeling as I type this that it sounds like I am portraying the fans as neurotic idolatry stalkers, but even the most basic of compliments seems to be sycophantic.
I say; "Let's keep Twitter free from marketing, enjoy the ability to lay down one's thoughts at a moments notice, and ignore the current trend for hero worship, (or just plain nosiness)"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
