Jul 242010
 

When the iPhone was first introduced, it was available on “unlimited” data plans although in reality “unlimited” meant “as much as we think is reasonable” with no indication of how much was reasonable. The first iPhone was also not capable of being “tethered” to a computer so the computer could use the phone as an Internet router – which was kind of odd as all other smart phones allowed that.

And then the iPhone acquired the tethering ability and the carriers insisted that customers pay extra for tethering. Which was sort of odd as no other smart phone required that. But it was sort of understandable as the iPhone had an “unlimited” data plan, and the ease of use had encouraged customers to make use of that “unlimited” data plan to the extent that many mobile networks suffered from a lack of bandwidth. The extra cost of tethering was a means of rationing how much bandwidth an iPhone customer could use.

But now with the iPhone4, all those “unlimited” data plans have mysteriously disappeared to be replaced with plans that limit you to 500Mb-1Gb per month. And yes you still have to pay extra for tethering. Why ?

Now that the data plan is no longer unlimited, why is there an extra charge for tethering ? Surely we are now in a situation where it does not matter what you use the data bandwidth for, but merely how much and whether you exceed the default limit. Those who want to exceed that limit pay more; those who want to tether only in an emergency don’t need to pay extra for something they do not need every day.

And yes I am one of those who would only use tethering in what to me are unusual circumstances – I don’t travel frequently and when I do travel, I have no great urge to ensure that I’m online. But just occasionally it may be useful – say if I’m contacted by work, as a laptop is far better to run an ssh client than an iPhone.

Jul 192010
 

We are used to seeing the more rabid members of the lunatic fringe of the Tory party complaining about the TV license fee and the BBC. For some mysterious reason they would give up the license fee and reduce the quality of British TV to that of the lowest common denominator – American commercial TV. Of course now that we are under ‘austerity measures’ in the public sector, the lunatic fringe is again targeting the BBC.

Of course anyone with half a brain realises that this means that the enormous public sector cuts the coalition is bringing in has very little to do with the deficit and a lot more to do with demolishing public services for ideological reasons. After all no matter how much the BBC reduces spending, the effect on the government’s deficit will be zero – as the whole of the BBC is funded from the license fee.

In fact reducing the amount of money that the BBC spends may be a good idea (although I don’t agree), but now is the wrong time to do it – it would be better by far to wait until real government spending cuts have worked their way through the system before reducing the spending that the BBC makes. Or it could have a problematic effect on the economy.

Jul 142010
 

So the UK and Northumbria in particular has recently gone through one of the largest manhunts in recent times whilst Raoul Moat went on the run after trying to kill three people. And succeeded in killing one – the current boyfriend of his ex-girlfriend – for some reason the media believe if that you have once made a mistake and had a relationship with a nutter, it is a permanent relationship that you can’t escape from.

For seven days we were all glued to a greater or lesser extent to our TV screens whilst the police combined the wilds of Northumbria whilst he was in hiding, but eventually caught up with him and after a multiple hour stand off, he finally shot himself.

Of course as soon as it was all over, people were talking about the police hunt for him and criticising how it was done; in particular the mysterious use of two mysterious tasers that were not of a type approved for use by the UK police. Such things are inevitable.

It was also inevitable that some silly people on Facebook would start a group in support of him. And of course the Tories in government after they heard about it, started frothing at the mouth and demanding that the group be removed from Facebook because of “anti-police statements”.

There are two obvious conclusions to draw from this reaction to the Facebook group supporting Moat :-

  1. Tories have little respect for free speech if it is something they do not agree with – such as criticisms of the police – and the acid test of respect for free speech is whether you support it even when it is being used to say things you do not agree with.
  2. Tories need to get a life and stop overreacting to what is a handful of silly people on Facebook. A group with 30,000 supporters ? That’s such an insignificant number that it really isn’t worth getting worried about even if you find their sentiments offensive.

If you look at the Facebook group and the comments it very quickly becomes plain that the majority of supporters are ill-educated idiots who have significant problems with grammar, spelling, and a grasp of the known facts.

Jul 132010
 

Actually that isn’t quite the case – it is still in the process of being banned as of today. And of course the law actually reads something along the lines “people are prohibited from concealing their faces in public”. But we all know that it’s to ban Muslim women from wearing the full face veil or niqab.

I have mentioned the niqab before, so I will not be saying too much in this post.

France’s law may be a little over the top, but I do not believe that it is any more anti-Islamic than a law against beating your wife is anti-Islamic. Muslims in France may believe that France’s new law is anti-Islamic, but it is more a reaction against the perceived misogynistic tendencies behind the wearing of the niqab.

Muslims are saying that we should be more accepting of cultural differences when it comes to considering the niqab; I don’t disagree, but the negative image of the full face veil in Western society should also be considered when considering wearing the niqab. As mentioned before, an Islamic woman is still capable of demonstrating her “modesty” by wearing a burka despite not wearing the face veil, and by doing so she is showing her acceptance of Western cultural sensitivities.

Jul 122010
 

According to the American Film Institute, the film “The Third Man” is American. There is one small problem with this: it is a British film through and through. The director was British (Carol Reed); the writer (Graham Greene) was British, and of the three producers only one was American (the others being British and Hungarian). The film was made on location in Vienna with additional work in a British studio.

So how on earth can anyone consider it to be an American film ? Interestingly the AFI seems to make a habit of this – in their 1998 list of great films, some of the films leap out at me as being British :-

Of that list, there may be some debate about the last two, but both were directed by an American directory after he had chosen to live in Britain. Both were written by British writers, and the sound requirements of 2001 could only be met at the time by the use of a British studio.

The trouble with claiming that several of the greatest films ever made were American when they were in fact British, undermines the British film industry. And it’s not as if the American film industry is short on great films!