Jun 212007
 

I have been stimulated into writing this by a slashdot article (not worth linking to) where people were arguing about the merits of installing Rockbox onto a compatible audio player … such as the iPod. Some people seem to think that replacing the standard iPod software is heresy!!

Or at the very least are complaining that Rockbox does not work the same way as the standard firmware.

I am in a somewhat odd situation … I bought an iPod after I was aware that Rockbox supported the iPod (and specifically avoided the 80Gb Ipod as it wasn’t supported at the time) to replace a rockboxed iRiver iHP100 (more commonly known as an iHP110) that was suffering from a lack of battery “oomph” (and yes I had tried replacing the battery). I spent probably just a couple of minutes in the native firmware before switching to the Rockbox firmware because I did not want to re-encode several thousand OGG-encoded tracks.

Now obviously I cannot criticise Apple’s interface or functionality on the iPod because I have not really used it.

However I can say that the Rockbox firmware is a perfectly adequate interface to run on an iPod and is getting better every week. Some of the features the Rockbox has include :-

  • Multi-codec support to play MP3, OGG, FLAC, AAC, WAV, … encoded files. I haven’t pulled down the full list but you really cannot get an audio player offering more codec support on a portable device. Not everyone needs this of course, but it is nice to have the choice.
  • The default Rockbox interface is kind of ropy on the iPod, but it is “themable” and some of the themes are pretty good … just have a look at the Rockbox Themes website (I have linked to the iPod Video themes)
  • Numerous “plugins” for playing games, displaying photos and other miscellaneous things. I must admit I don’t use them too much, but being able to play Jewel whilst bored waiting somewhere does come in useful.
  • The standard mass storage method of storing audio tracks in a way that can be easily accessed outside of iTunes does mean it is easier to copy some tracks to another computer easily. Of course I mean the freely distributable tracks!

Rockbox does have some disadvantages … the battery life is relatively poor compared with the native firmware (but very much better than an iHP100 with a tired battery!), and if you have a lot of investment in iTunes you will suffer from the lack of support (although the Rockbox database will track down files stored on the iPod whether they were put there by iTunes or just copied).

The most sensible advice for an iPod user thinking about making the switch is just to try it out. You may like it or you may not, but you don’t have anything to lose as you can always go back to the standard firmware. In fact as you can easily switch from one to the other, you can try out Rockbox gradually over time … go back to the native firmware when you are lost, and go back when you are feeling adventurous.

Another advantage that the existent Rockbox provides, that many people miss is that it may just put some pressure on Apple to improve their native firmware. If Apple notices that many of their iPod customers install Rockbox, they may be inclined to take a look themselves and start implementing features in their native firmware to “keep” their customers … surely something that would be good for all iPod owners.

Jun 202007
 

There has just been an item on the morning news about how good at parking men and women are and which ones are better. It may be entertaining, but is also so inane that I can’t remember which sex was supposed to be better. Lets suppose men were worse at parking than women. Why? Perhaps because they drive more than women, or perhaps they have a tendency to drive bigger cars than women. Who knows ?

Personally I believe whatever the reason for someone being a bad parker, it is very unlikely to be because they are a man or a woman. Whilst such surveys are entertaining and provide a bit of ‘water cooler’ discussion material, all too many people jump to the obvious conclusion. All such a survey shows is that men have a statistically significantly greater chance of having an accident parking than women (or the other way around).

It does not show that men are worse at parking than women. That may be the case, but the survey doesn’t show it … because it doesn’t answer other questions :-

  • Do people who drive more than an hour a day have more or less accidents parking than those who drive less than an hour ? Repeat for other time periods.
  • Do people who drive larger cars have more accidents parking than those who drive smaller cars ?
  • Does parking in deprived areas result in more or less parking accidents ?
  • Does street parking result in more of less parking accidents than in car parks ?

The list goes on, and then you have to discover the differences between how men and women park.

We are too quick to jump on apparent evidence that shows men are better than women, or women are better than men. In reality, if you pick a woman driver and a man at random, there are probably many differences between them that could explain different driving risks, and that the difference in sex is probably the least likely explanation of differences in the risk of driving accidents.

Jun 172007
 

So Salman Rushdie get a gong in the birthday honours list. Good for him!

And Iran gets all hot under the collar about it. Bad for them! I hope someone in the Foreign Office points out that it is none of their business and they should sulk about it in silence. After all, we’re not exactly threatening any Iranian citizens with murder are we ?

And a few days later, Pakistan also gets into the act. Again, what right do they think they have to criticise us when we honour a great writer ?

Jun 172007
 

The UK government has done something sensible for once and given the right to breast feed in public without harassment … it is admittedly a sad comment on the state of Britain that such a law is necessary. It seems that some people think it is “disgusting” or something and object to it in public. Personally I find people eating decaying corpses in public disgusting, but I don’t make a big song and dance over it … because once someone has made the decision to eat meat it is none of my business (although a bit of gentle campaigning is not wrong … when they are not eating!).

If you are one of those odd people who find breast feeding disgusting, don’t look! After all it’s hardly polite to stare at someone eating anyway, and if you don’t look it won’t bother you. If you are in a restaurant and someone breast feeding is putting you off your food, go and eat in the toilet (which is where these nutters think breast feeding belongs).

This is a symptom of a more general problem … that people somehow feel they have the right to restrict the actions of other people, because they might be offended. In many cases these people just need to be told mind your own business; whilst we do have to have restrictions on what we can do such as when we cause (or potentially) direct harm to others, we should not be restricted because somebody might be offended.

I find the act of people eating meat offensive, but I don’t expect the law to stop them. I accept the fact that other people have different ideas. I dare say some people find the fact that I grow my hair long offensive, but just because there are a few who do doesn’t mean it should be illegal. It is not even something where the majority can rule the minority.

Jun 072007
 

Just seen a BBC news report about the attack on the pope today, claiming that the attacker had gotten through the security cordon surrounding the pope. Quite obviously hype as during that claim, they were playing footage of the attack which clearly shows the attacker being pulled to the ground by the second to last and last line of defence.

So the attacker did not get through the security cordon at all! Not that this was not an important incident that the Vatican needs to investigate, but it is an example of how the media frequently seems to like making the news more serious than it really is.