Failed Idealism http://failedidealist.posterous.com Inside every cynic is a disappointed and failed idealist posterous.com Wed, 30 Sep 2009 06:53:00 -0700 BBC Being Evil for a change http://failedidealist.posterous.com/bbc-being-evil-for-a-change http://failedidealist.posterous.com/bbc-being-evil-for-a-change

 

The recent BBC post about encrypting broadcasts has angered me. The DRM encryption is just insult to injury.

 

Given the choice I wouldn’t pay the license fee. Not because I have an inherent problem with it, but because it’s only the BBC that benefit from it. Purely because in the UK they don’t utilise advertising revenues to generate cash – unlike every other broadcaster across the world (other than PBS) I have to support this company? It’s not publicly owned, I have no democratic power to exercise over content, and yet I’m mandated to support them financially? The bailing out of RBS I can understand, because the investment might be returned, but the BBC just consumes....

 

Even though the BBC hosts 7 TV channels, countless radio stations and the iPlayer I don’t use their content. I can’t remember the last time a BBC show was actually worth watching, the only content I consume is PM on Radio 4. I wonder how much the BeeB could charge me just for that usage?

 

What I resent is being forced to pay for a service I don’t use. For me it’s like being directed  to contribute to my neighbour’s car payments. Sorry – why am I forking out for this? I have no use of the car, and yet I’m backing it financially?

 

 There’s no freedom of choice, it’s just forced down your throat with the threat of “pay it or else”.

 

Actually now it’s starting to remind me of Gordon Brown being in power....or the banking bailouts....or the Iraq war.....or GW Bush “winning” the 2001 election....

 

Damnit.

 

T

 

 

 

 

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]>
http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/1354817/me.jpg http://posterous.com/users/4aGafKLz4cYV Tom failedidealist Tom
Thu, 09 Jul 2009 08:49:00 -0700 Google OS http://failedidealist.posterous.com/google-os-3 http://failedidealist.posterous.com/google-os-3 Google, the benevolent giant of the internets announced they're releasing a desktop OS.
This is an interesting concept. Google's idea is to seamlessly integrate web and desktop applications into the OS. In theory making it lightweight and inherently very usable.

But...why??

Google already has an OS - Android! Developed from Linux and geared towards Smartphone’s, PDAs and a soon to be released Netbook variation.

Why is the internet giant abandoning one fledgling OS for a brand new one?

Not that I’m not excited about the prospect. If it’s made by Google, history would dictate its going to be good.

Google is not successful because it monopolizes, because it tramples on the competition, steals code from competitors, and beats users into submission with the barbaric clubs of EULAs. Google is not Goliath in the typical sense. No end user has a vendetta against the big G. Google is successful (and vastly so) because:

It makes good stuff

Everything it offers to users is free or open source

These are the two principles which account for near 100% share of searches, the phenomenal uptake of Google Mail, Google Reader, Blogger, Google Calendar, Google Maps, Google Earth, Google Desktop... etc etc

Google's revenue comes from targeted and intelligent advertising. Adverts designed not to piss off the end user, but actually be relevant and occasionally useful. Revenue is paid per click from the advertisers.

The end user has no fiscal interaction with Google, but ultimately Google's continuance is dependent on the end user actually visiting its sites and using its software. Google must make good kit to ensure user's actually user it and therefore attract advertisers.

From this premise, I think it’s safe to assume the Google OS could be a good thing.
The world may not really need yet another Linux distro, but I'd welcome the chance to play around with this one. Most of the Linux flavours don't have a multibillion dollar software and web colossus backing them up. Maybe this could be a gateway to usable open source OS, of truly free, simple and clean computing. Maybe this could be Ubuntu that just works without assuming an advanced qualification in IT from its users.

High hopes for it I know, but with Google they tend to surpass expectations.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]>
http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/1354817/me.jpg http://posterous.com/users/4aGafKLz4cYV Tom failedidealist Tom
Thu, 09 Jul 2009 03:56:00 -0700 Public Enemies http://failedidealist.posterous.com/public-enemies-13 http://failedidealist.posterous.com/public-enemies-13 Am I just missing the point here?

I watched all 143 minutes of this film last night and to be honest John Dillinger didn't seem particularly remarkable to me. Or rather, Michael Mann's depiction of him didn't.

After being paroled Dillinger proceeds to rob a few banks. Rather unremarkably I might add.
Then through a completely unexplained happening he ends up on the radar of Hoover, and under the full focus of the (to become) FBI.

These events don't appear to be linked in any way in the film! I'm fairly confident that I managed to remain conscious throughout the runtime, but unless I'm mistaken the main character leaps from being a simple bank robber to the focus of a massive federal manhunt and front page news.

What happened?!

This somewhat tainted the rest of the film for me. Through tense scenes generously sprinkled with extreme close ups of Depp and Bale (neither of which it turns out have great skin when looked at on a 20ft screen), and hyper realistic gun play I was left perplexed as to how the entire thing began in the first place. Mann assumes the watcher is familiar with Dillinger's story, and evidently skims over the details, concentrating on the characters themselves rather than the events. Which is fine. IF the characters were at all interesting, or worthy of such attention.
Dillinger is to some extent and honest crook. But far from the robin hood-esque figure of his mythical status. Frankly - not an intriguing man. Yes he had enough guile to escape from jail (in the film only once) and he did manage to evade for some time what was obviously a rather incompetent investigation. Nothing else remarkable surfaces about the man. As such the film and character became unbelievable, because the question keeps ringing "why have you made a film about this guy?!!!"

The inevitable love interest is equally as unbelievable. Mann again skims over the details, Dillinger and Billie Frechette only appear to meet 3 or 4 times. Briefly. And yet end up in love, seemingly without any onscreen exposition at all. They are awkward together, no chemistry between actors, and to be frank, a woman playing a love interest of Johnny Depp's should be much more attractive than Marion Cotillard (who doesn't look slightly Indian I might add)

Discounting the exposition void present in most of the film, it is well made, and directed. Michael Mann's talent for realism in action first shown in Heat make a welcome return. The audience flinches as bullets from Tommy Guns ricochets off walls, and the sickening wet "thunks" of metal meeting flesh aid in drawing the viewer into the battle.

For me that is the redeeming feature, where the writers have failed, Mann has picked up the slack and made a watchable if not engaging movie.

Heat - but set in the 1930 would have been an appropriate tagline.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]>
http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/1354817/me.jpg http://posterous.com/users/4aGafKLz4cYV Tom failedidealist Tom