Dec 052008
 

Now that we officially know that Karen Matthews is guilty of kidnapping her child in the interests of sharing the reward for finding a missing child, the floodgates have opened to headlines accusing her of being an evil mother. Personally I think it is a bit of a stretch to call her ‘evil’ given other examples of true evil in the world today … the mother of Baby P for example, or that Austrian gent who imprisoned his family underground and repeatedly raped them (or the English equivalent for that matter).

Let us have a look at what she did. She asked (or forced) her boyfriend’s uncle to pick up her daughter from school and imprison her inside his flat until they could arrange for him to ‘find’ Shannon and collect the reward for the both of them. The words for this that come to mind are ‘cruel’, ‘greedy’, ‘uncaring’, ‘malicious’, and ‘deceitful’, but not exactly evil.  The words of Shannon when she was rescued by the police (“Stop it, you’re frightening me!”) don’t indicate a child who was in chronic distress … it sounds like she was more distressed by the police barging into the flat!

That doesn’t mean to say that Karen doesn’t deserve a lengthy prison sentence for what she has done, and the uncle (Michael Donovan) too, but labelling her ‘evil’ is putting her crimes on the same levels as those monsters who deliberately go out of their way to torture and/or kill children.

The tabloid press are obviously having a field day with this, often blaming the welfare state and the ‘scrounging underclass’ for producing a Karen Matthews. Firstly the crimes of Karen are not a product of her class, but a product of her greed. If she was a middle-class accountant, she would be fiddling the books; if she were a stockbroker she would be guilty of insider-trading. If she were a banker, she’d be running off to some nice warm place with stolen money.

Secondly the existence of people whose lifestyle could classify them as ‘scroungers’ is just as irritating to me as anyone else, but removing the safety net of the welfare state does not seem to be a good idea. I might not like funding the lifestyle of the other Karens out there, but I would rather do that than risk harming the other Shannons out there.

Dec 032008
 

Format: DVD

IMDB entry: here

A rambling incoherant documentary that is so impenetrable that it will take you some time to realise the subject is beastiality (although if you have just pulled the DVD off the shelf in the video store you probably know). Most of the time skating around the subject in question is wasted time; there is no point in being subtle about this subject. Those who are going to be offended by the subject are going to be offended however subtle you are.

So why waste the time on being subtle ? The extra time could have been better spent interviewing more participants, or more experts on the subject. The long, lingering, landscape shots were very pretty but also pretty pointless.

Thumbs down.

Note that I am deliberately not judging anything other than the film itself; I’m not condeming the film because of the subject matter at all.

Dec 032008
 

At work I have the pleasure (if that is the correct word) of dealing with a number of commercial software packages which are a little more expensive than the run of the mill packages such as Word that most encounter. In fact I am probably more familiar with software costing more than £10,000 than those less than that cost because I have the curious habit of opting for free software.

I do not have any moral objection to commercial software – if someone wants to pay money for it and pay me to support it, then that’s fine by me. I am just somewhat reluctant to spend my own money on software (although I have done in some circumstances).

However I have come to the conclusion that commercial software just isn’t very good. To give some examples of poor behaviour (without mentioning any names, because it wouldn’t be fair to their competitors) :-

  • A Java application server that does the equivalent of Listen ipaddress-of-server rather than Listen 0.0.0.0 making it difficult to move the server to another server (such as cloning Solaris zones for recovery purposes). This is the kind of kindergarten mistake that any decent developer knows not to make … even I know, and I’m no developer.
  • A software package whose configuration script will work fine for 1-4 members of a cluster but breaks that cluster when you add an additional member of the cluster (taking it to 5). Not only did the configuration script break, but this was known to the vendor.
  • Packages that take months to install even with the support of the vendor.
  • Vendor supplied consultants who apparent have never encountered a keyboard. Or have trouble with basic Unix skills when they are to support a package on a Unix server.
  • Installation or configuration scripts that simply don’t work and have to be effectively re-written by ourselves.
  • Patch bundles that have obviously never been installed on the product as they completely break the service when installed. We have one vendor who consistent wants to break things and have to go through their patch bundles with a fine tooth comb to debug their scripts.
  • “Support” that takes months to respond to a query. Or only responds when hassled through an account manager.
  • “Support” that takes weeks to accept that you are entitled to support because the product whose serial number you have a photo of “hasn’t left the warehouse”.

And people pay for the privilege of this ?

The classic argument in favour of open-source software is that you have access to the source code to apply any fixes that need making. The counter to that is that places do not have the skills to be able to create any fixes, but from what I have seen, in many cases the customers have more skills than the vendors!

Nov 292008
 

Format: DVD

IMDB entry: here

(although they insist on calling it “The Last Hangman” (which is completely wrong of course))

This is the story of one of the last hangmen in Britain and his journey through learning his trade to becoming the top man in his profession. And his increasing doubt about the morality of his work. It is an oddly fascinating story, with Albert’s home life being so mundane that you wouldn’t have been able to pick him out in the street.

A film that anyone in favour of the death sentence should watch.

When we think of reasons why the death sentence is wrong we normally concentrate on those who are executed. But perhaps we should also look at the executioner and the dehumanising effect of perhaps decades of executions with hundreds of official killings

Not only should we question whether the state should descend to the level of murderers in carrying out executions, but whether the state has the right to ask another human being to kill. Because in the end there is always a killer carrying out the execution.

Nov 262008
 

Format: Blueray

IMDB entry: here

The story of a woman who first encounters criminal violence with her boyfriend; she is beaten and he is killed. During her recovery, she encounters more criminal violence which she deals with using an unlicensed gun. The later might make this a pro/anti gun control issue film, but that does not interest me.

This could be a film that would be one of those run of the mill things that just does not make an impression, but Jodie Foster’s acting adds enough that you connect with the character and have an interest in her journey. Perhaps not a great film but definitely a good film.