Dedicated to my late brave, beautiful and silly mummy, Debra Ross. I love you mumster.

Skip navigation

Category archive for rant

Because archives are so much easier than having just hundreds of posts on the home page. I learned that the hard way.

Mixed reaction to August 2007 iPod crop

The fact is the “iPod Classic” is still technically the best iPod, but it has the outdated interface. The “Touch” is a glorified Nano.

- My post on Twitter just before I went to bed at 03:25

Just finished watching the live text and photo feeds from Tom Krazit on News.com, Ars Technica and MacDailyNews of Wednesday’s Apple music player product launch.

From the features I typed up in my last post that I did and didn’t want to see, it was really a mixed bag. It’s great that Apple released the iPod Touch with the same interface and features as the iPhone; including the WiFi connectivity of which Singapore has a bountiful public supply; but my worst fear that they decided to use flash memory came to pass!

What was that image of Saber using an iPod I used in my previous post? Let’s make it FULL SIZE:

Flash memory is icky

As they did with iLife 2008 by bundling the older version of iMovie because they knew the newer version wasn’t that crash hot (you can hear my rant on Rubenerd Show 225), Apple have kept the iPod Classic line going with hard disks despite the launch of a newer flash-based iPod Touch. I can’t help but wonder if the iPod Classic is really just to give the excuse that they’re still providing decent storage without actually having to provide it at the high end.

Despite the attractive WiFi functionality in the new iPod Touch which as I said above would work fantastically in Singapore, I think I’ll have to side with Frank Nora and keep my iPod Video and Nokia e61i for the time being.

I can’t help but see though, the price for the 16GB iPod Touch is the same as the 8GB iPhone. It makes you wonder if they’re really just using the Touch as a stepping stone to convince people to move over to their phone, and with it their data plans with their approved carriers that they receive commissions from. Why buy just an iPod when the iPhone is the same price?

Okay, okay it’s almost 03:00 here in Asia, I’m off to bed.

DRM: guilty until proven innocent!

In the criminal justice systems of the countries I have lived in (and given my server logs, most probably yours too) it’s not only accepted that you are innocent until proven guilty, it’s the law.

DRM, or digital restrictions management is a series of technological measures implemented by paranoid corporations to protect them from the biggest evil force in the world: consumers. Give a consumer the freedom to use the content in the way it was originally intended to be used and they’ll end up just ripping you off and not use your technology to use said content right? Horror of horrors!

200px-no_signsvg.pngThis arrogant position of most media companies will be their undoing eventually, but in the meantime it just bugs me that they’re taking advantage of consumers and taking away our rights that are written in law and unwritten in common decency.

Steve Jobs from Apple even admitted that he wouldn’t be using DRM in iTunes if media companies were reasonable. I’m a tad skeptical, but at least he said that instead of nothing.

Now there seems to be some legitimate reasoning behind DRM. By theoretically preventing the copying of media they can protect themselves from piracy. The problem is DRM is rarely used for this purpose; instead of protecting themselves media companies seem instead to be using it so they can re-sell you the same content over and over again. Why let someone buy media to play on their TV, their portable media player, their phone and in their cars when you can sell it over again for each one?

But the part the really boils my blood is that by using DRM companies are sending out a clear message: they don’t trust us with their content. They assume we’re all out to destroy them, and that we have nothing but malicious intent. They’re treating us like little kids; it’s beyond contempt.

DRM: Guilty until proven innocent!

Ruben Tries to Understand Data Independence

NOTE: After I posted this I thought I may have not been clear enough as to what I meant by “data independence”. I am referring to data independence between physical software, not the established field of research dealing with data in DBMSs. Whoopsie ;)

One issue (amongst others) that many people would no doubt know I feel strongly about about after reading this blog is the issue of data independence.

From what I understand, data independence deals with how easy it is to move your data from one software program to another while maintaining its integrity. Whether you are moving to another program written by the same company or a different one altogether, moving your data should not only be possible but also painless; in a perfect world of course.

Date independence is important for several reasons; the most obvious is probably the fostering of competition in the software market. Competition, as with any industry in a market based economic system, forces software producers to improve their products, lower production costs and in turn not get too greedy in charging for that software. If people can easily move their data from your software to a competitors then the onus is on the current producers to keep their software at the cutting edge to keep their customers.

Another reason which is gaining more traction as the software industry matures is the idea of future proofing. It is dangerous to assume the software we’ll be using years from now will be able to open all our files; whether the company creating our software will cease to exist in the future or whether they themselves will allow future versions of their software to be backward compatible are chilling possibilities. By ensuring from the beginning that you are using software that allows easy transfer of your data you have more leverage to use that data with other systems now, and more likely in the future.

There is also ample evidence that data independence also fosters collaboration. The HTTP protocol on the web itself uses (x)HTML and variants which allow one coded page to be used on a multitude of devices, operating system platforms and software. No matter whether the website you generated was creating in DreamWeaver, Frontpage, GoLive or… nano… other programs can easily access that information. The recent explosion of the RSS and Atom XML standards are also examples of this.

Of course freedom for the consumer is rarely what corporations want! By using open standards and allowing for data independence many companies believe they will have to work harder to keep existing customers because the ability of consumers to move from their system to another is too scary. The Microsoft Office suite (sorry, the Microsoft Office System) and it’s proprietary “standards” have been and still are a classic example of this paranoia: if they allowed for native support of other formats and allowing for more data independence, they would have to work hard to make their software not suck, and their market share wouldn’t help to defend their position anymore. Screw that!

However, I am of the belief that promoting data independence can actually help your bottom line; del.icio.us for example still leads the social bookmarking space despite their ability from very early on to export media to move to another service. Steve Gillmor on a 2004 episode of The Gillmor Gang argued that data independence can actually be a value added feature in itself and the security people feel using such services would keep them coming back for more.

This the puts open source software at a tremendous advantage; but that’s for another post ;).

I’d be really interested to hear what James Ross and Dave Winer would have to say about this issue, or anyone else. Have I got thie gist of this? How easy is it to implement data independent measures in your programs? Is it really economically feasible?

Rubenerd Fugly Car Awards!

2007_toyota_fj_cruiser.jpg And the Rubenerd award for the fugliest car of the year goes to: the Toyota FJ Cruiser mini SUV!

If you love SUV’s but hate their thirst for oceans of expensive premium petrol and the dents they leave in your driveway when they’re parked there for more than 5 minutes at a time, you’ll love the FJ Cruiser! Comes with two doors that look out of place, rear windows that end in an awquard place, and bodywork lines that don’t have a place! You won’t want to be seen in any place or place this car in any place when you have the FJ Cruiser!

Seriously though, who designed this car? Surely you couldn’t get this Toyota in Asia… could you?

Aussie Children Smacking Ban

I can’t imagine how any rational parent these days could be against legislation to criminliase the act of smacking children in all the states in Australia. Smacking is an antiquated, crude, mentally-scarring and ineffective method of persuasion that teaches children that violence is the answer to problems… sound familiar in this world we live in at the moment?

My parents didn’t smack me; and I sure as hell wouldn’t ever smack my kids if I were to have any; but apparently some people think physical abuse in this day and age is socially and morally acceptable:

Smacking ban too extreme, Family Association says.

he foundation’s chief executive, Joe Tucci, says while there has been a decline in support for physical punishment, there is obviously still a large section of the community using it.

The Australian Family Association says a ban on smacking children is going too far. The Australian Childhood Foundation says it would like physical punishment against children to be banned. But Australian Family Association spokesman Damien Tudehope says the current laws are adequate.

“We have some concerns about introducing laws which have the potential of turning parents into criminals,” he said. “Certainly we don’t advocate any circumstances where it’s appropriate to leave permanent marks on children and to use discipline in a way where it becomes an assault on children. “But to introduce laws which mean the Government has a role to play in deciding who and who isn’t a good parent, we think that’s going too far.”

Oh okay, so legally we protect people from harassment in the community, but hey physically abusing children who haven’t even fully developed is all well and good. Come on people, grow up yourselves.

Ourmedia article by User:publik

Windows XP at Uni

I’m sitting here at the uni typing away at some work, and the lack of features in Windows XP that I’m used to in Mac OS X and my FreeBSD with XFce box are really starting to get to me!!

What do I miss? No system wide spell checking, something not Internet Explorer, no virtual desktops, no Expose.

Now just to be fair, I was brought up on Windows 3.0 and 3.1x, right up to 2000 before I was the first (and still only) person in the family to dump Windows.

Technorati Tags  , , , , , , , , ,

Liberty Versus Security

The version I knew was “Those who would sacrifice liberty for security will achieve neither”, but this passage seems even better. :)

It’s a real shame that Australia is following the way of the United States in terms of "national security". The way I see it, if we radically alter our lives by making them more complicated and difficult, the terrorists have won already.

I remember listening to Lawrence Lessig give a talk on IT Conversations about copyright law and how a restrictive change can be implemented very easily, but it can take a very long time to undo. I think the same applies to this as well.

Repeating Words, Lost Meaning

Is it just me or does anyone else flinch when the word "freedom" is mentioned these days?

Before you get any funny ideas I’m in full support of democratic systems of government and capitalism and I believe the idea of freedom is noble, but I think in the United States they’ve said "freedom" so many times it’s sadly become an overused cliche to us in the rest of the world. Say the word too many times, and it loses it’s meaning, know what I mean?

Anyway enough yakking, where the hell are my freedom fries? :D