More shopping!

A few new purchases following my last. I really shouldn't.
I also included a few books, I usually don't have time to read all the books I see, but these are beautiful:


And more music (including bonus DVDs) and if you look closely at the Tosca CD you can see it is leather bound! The Public Enemy CD lists a few useful websites, one includes some downloads:

Web Development

I was trying to post a comment to an article about reaching out to amateur web developers, but technology let me down, so I post the comment here until I can access to comments there.

I am trying hard not to be amateur, and have definitely been "reached". I am a programmer, and in my last job I took care of the companies web application, from front to back. As a programmer I expect things to compile and run without errors, so why would I want my web site to be different? The first problem I had was the tools, I was coding in notebook and viewing in IE, so how do I know where errors are, our even if they exist? Now because I'm a good boy, I read around and found I Zeldman, he made me smile and he showed me that my web site could run without errors, and what the errors were. The problem I then had was moving the site to full standards, convincing my colleagues that they should follow my lead, and convincing the boss that moving things around the screen, pixel by pixel, was not the way to go. So I kept plugging away, signing up to feeds from sites like this, and learning and trying, whilst pushing and pulling everyone else. Now I've moved on to another company, and I'm just a programmer again, but I'm still here, learning and trying.
So what did I learn, what should you say to "reach" others? Firstly, programmers don't want errors, so show them how to detect errors, how error-free is easier to maintain. I had a big win when rebranding was required, CSS is the tool, show them the CSS Zen garden, they will pass out! Give them the information resources, this site is a good place to start. Finally, concentrate on delivery, standards are easier and quicker with less errors and less problems, then the rest should follow.

Detention Debate

There was an article in The Guardian that annoyed me. Like so many arguments in favour of the 90 day detention it was an emotional outpouring with little regard for thought. What really offended me was the implication that opposing the 90 day detention was the same as supporting terrorism and accused the opponents of detention of having "Blood on their hands".
I hope this is not becoming a bad habit, but I wrote to the author Kitty Ussher MP.

Hi Kitty,

I have just read your article in the Guardian regarding the 90 day detention, and as an opponent of the 90 detention I felt I must write to defend myself because you used such strong words, "Blood on their hands", words that many would apply to those supporting the 90 day detention.

I have two principle reasons for opposing this legislation. Firstly, I believe firmly that the 90 detention would have increased the risk of terrorism, that is the fundamental reason for opposing the law. Secondly, it is unnecessary, there has not been a single argument that has convinced me it is needed, our current laws are good enough.

Now let me expand on these points:
I believe that terrorists are extremists whose existence depends on a more moderate base. Only by engaging with the more moderate base can we undermine the extremes. The moderate base is made up of ordinary people who want ordinary lives. They want peace as much as much as you or I do, but when they feel threatened or obstructed they become angry. This anger can start to blind people in their judgment so that they can tolerate a little more anger from others in an ever increasing spiral up the chain to the extremes where terror becomes accepted. If we can tackle the low level anger the more extreme anger will become weakened. If the police detained someone for a few months due to confusion over names, with the result of them losing their job and livelihood, I believe we will increase anger, and as I will explain, we will have done this for no security benefit. If we want to go around the world telling people what do and how to live, then we should make sure that we are applying the highest standards to ourselves. If we want democracy and human rights to prevail, then we should back them because we believe they are always right, not because it is something nice to do if we get the chance.

Now you believe that the police need this legislation to help with their enquiries, well they don't. It is possible to continue investigation before, during and after both arrest and charge. There is no need to create extra time, because they have all the time they need. You also state that putting a case before a judge every seven days will provide protection, but you also argue that if the police recommend it then we should follow their advice. What will you say to the judge who overrules the police? We have a process in place, the police can recommend all the laws they want, but it is the members of parliament who must decide the laws and the lawyers, judges, police and magistrates who decide if they apply. You must apply judgment to any request, if you are not willing to do this then you have abandoned your post and left the police in charge. If on the other hand you have applied your judgment to it, then you cannot claim others must accept the legislation just because it is recommended by the police. The police must have some reason to suspect someone, and if they have good reason then they can charge. If there is no evidence of any crime, then why are they willing to incarcerate them?

As I said in a letter to my MP:
"It is not right that we allow people to be locked up 'just in case'. We know what a catalyst for anger the detention in Guantanamo Bay is, are we seriously wanting to provoke distrust and anger or should we be looking to apply the freedom and justice we are so keen to promote around the world.

Do not be led by polls, the case has been put in an emotional frame and the public are reacting accordingly, you must look beyond the anger aimed at terrorists and ensure you create a society that will reduce terror not create more. 90 days is wrong, 28 days is wrong, even the current 14 days is wrong.

So please do not give in to emotional blackmail stand up for what is right and rational. "


With best wishes
AJ Thomas

New Music

A few new purchases following my last, this time from iTunes:


and from Amazon:


also from Amazon, Faithless:

Detention

Following the parliamentary debate on the detention of prisoners, an interesting point arose.
It is possible under current guidelines to re-interview a suspect after they have been charged in certain circumstances "to prevent or minimise harm or loss to some other person, or the public". This then throws out the supposed need for the extended detention, however the Home Secretary made this response: "The hypothesis that we are discussing is that, in a number of cases, there is no possibility of charging on a short-term basis." So we are left in the situation that the police do not have enough evidence to charge a suspect of a single crime, yet wish to detain them for 90 days, the "just in case" scenario.

After the vote the Prime Minister was interviewed and he made a point that in the past police were able to follow a suspect and intervene at a late stage, when evidence had been gathered, but now the police are not able to do this. The only reason put forward for this change is that we are dealing with suicide bombers. Now in my view that only makes a difference after the terrorist act, so was the Prime Minister suggesting that the late stage used previously was after a terrorist act?

Finally, a point was repeatedly made that as the police recommended this legislation then we must accept it. However as all school teachers would say, "if they told you to jump off a cliff, would you?", no, you take the police's advice if you think it reasonable. You must apply judgment to any request, if the Prime Minister is not willing to do this then he has abandoned his post and left the police in charge. If on the other hand he has applied his judgment to it then he cannot claim others must accept the legislation just because it recommended by the police.

Terror

As my fury increases at the disgraceful behaviour of the government I decided to write to my local MP, Conservative member Shailesh Vara, via www.writetothem.com:

Dear Shailesh Vara,

As one of you constituents I am writing to ask you to take in to consideration my views before voting on the new 90 day detention contained in the Terrorism Bill.

I wish to point out that your role is not to rubber stamp Police requests, you sit to employ you own reasoning to arguments put before you. It is with some disgust that I see our Prime Minister trying to push through a serious law based only on emotional blackmail. The Police have put forward few arguments in favour of the 90 day detention. They say that these investigations are complex, well yes they may be, but investigation can be done before during and after both arrest and charge; the difficult of the investigation has no bearing on the point at which a charge is placed. The Police say they do not wish to rush to charge yet are happy to rush to detain. If they are clear that someone may be a threat then I would hope that they have some idea of what it is they are likely to do, if so they can prepare a charge. There is always scope for amending a charge at a later point.

It is not right that we allow people to be locked up “just in case”. We know what a catalyst for anger the detention in Guantanamo Bay is, are we seriously wanting to provoke distrust and anger or should we be looking to apply the freedom and justice we are so keen to promote around the world.

Do not be led by polls, the case has been put in an emotional frame and the public are reacting accordingly, you must look beyond the anger aimed at terrorists and ensure you create a society that will reduce terror not create more. 90 days is wrong, 28 days is wrong, even the current 14 days is wrong.

So please do not give in to emotional blackmail stand up for what is right and rational.

Yours sincerely,
AJ Thomas

Unconnected

The "anti-terrorism" bill is being discussed with an amendment to allow the detention of suspects without trial for 28 days, reduced from the original request of 90 days. The current detention period is 14 days unless you're a suspected homicidal maniac or accused of the most complex fraud, when it is 4 days. Before you read on you should know that a more interesting discussion of this bill is given by Liberty and Amnesty International, I am just speculating in comparison.
This detention period is the only time when a suspect can be questioned before trial, as soon as charges are made the suspect can only be questioned at their trial. Investigation and collection of evidence is allowed before during and after arrest and charge. Usually, if little or weak evidence is presented, a suspect will be interviewed in the hope that they incriminate themselves, which is why suspects will often stay silent. In serious cases, where a large amount of evidence has been gathered, suspects may also stay silent, knowing that nothing they say will alter the evidence and hope that a jury will find the evidence insufficient. It is in the intermediate cases that suspects will usually talk, believing they have a chance of refuting the evidence and so prevent a charge.
Now in a terrorism case one would hope that the police have a large amount of evidence before arrest and aren't just guessing. The police themselves say they need longer detention to process evidence. Now what is unsaid is that the evidence can be processed after charge, the only reason to want to do it before hand is to question the suspect about it. As I stated above it is quite unlikely that a suspect will "'fess up" on being presented with strong evidence, in fact the contrary may be true. If police are relying on a confession for their conviction the case is pretty weak.
So why I wonder, do the police need to detain for this long? The only answer I have is to apply "pressure" to the suspect; they hope to either gain a confession or incriminate someone else.
On what I hope is a separate note, the government has been trying to allow evidence produced under torture to be admitted in trials, the Law Lords are reviewing the law at the moment.
On what I hope is a separate note, the secret services have been known to arrest people fly them to countries that have no qualms about torture and then fly the home.
As I was saying, the only reason I can think of for this long detention period is to apply "pressure" to the client. I wonder if the government are so thrilled by the recent disarming of the IRA that they now believe that the miscarriages of justice brought about by confessions extracted under "pressure", was actually a good thing and an important part of the "war on terror". It has even been suggested that due to the lack of intelligence information it is best to take potential suspects off the streets for a while "just in case".
Whatever is really going on I am not impressed.

Humiliation

Humiliation is literally the act of being made humble.
I have just finished watching the BBC TV series Beyond Boundaries, a fantastic programme detailing the expedition across Nicaragua, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, by a group of disabled adventures.
Truly moving and well worth seeing if you get the chance.

Digital music

I recently bought the complete works of Stevie Wonder on iTunes, my first major purchase on iTunes. I have avoided all but the smallest purchases in the past due to my distrust of DRM and the newness of it all.

Following this I thought a little about it, and checked a few things.
I got this quote from http://www.apple.com/uk/support/itunes/legal/terms.html

"You shall be authorized to use the Products on up to five iTunes-authorised devices at any time.
You shall be entitled to export, burn (if applicable) or copy Products solely for personal, non-commercial use. You shall not be entitled to burn video Products.
You shall be authorized to burn an audio playlist up to seven times.
You shall be able to store Products from up to five different Accounts on certain devices, such as an iPod, at a time."

Now I would say that is pretty free, in the context of DRM. What is left open is the question of Apple going under, or the record company changing it's licence so that Apple can no longer provide a copy in the event I lose mine. Now I would compare this to what if a company stops producing 8 track players or I loose my vinyl. I think we are used to having tape, vinyl and CD and expect these to continue being available, I would also suspect that if Apple went under a fix could be found for their DRM system. I think it is now (just) easier to save and store digital products than physical ones, this trend will continue. Also a group of friends all using the same iTunes store could conceivably share their iTunes sign-on and share the music.

What I miss most is the vinyl cover, or the CD booklet, but with the Stevie I get a nice pdf booklet which suits me fine. There will be the odd CD box set like the Miles stuff which deserve a admiration beyond the content, a few vinyl covers spring to mind as well. I expect that as artists become more used to the format they will start to deliver these extras, as they eventually did in previous times.

iTunes music is compressed as AAC at 128kbps, which is the standard I use for my own rips. Now MP3 v AAc is obviously a personal opinion, I ran a test early on and found, for my ears, there was no difference between AAC lossless , MP3 128 and AAC 128, below 128 I spotted something but not above. All these beat my old Denon CD player on my hi-fi, but none of them could compare to vinyl. As for choice I suspect in a few years we will both choose something different. Disk space is not necessarily a big issue, except I have filled my iPod and will probably fill the next one, but these things are always temporary. It is CD storage space that is harder than disk space!

This Stevie Wonder box set is how all things should be, everything should become available. With CD and vinyl, shops always struggled to supply anything outside the charts, the internet helped firstly by creating Amazon etc. and now through iTunes etc. Unfortunately big record companies are slow and little record companies are squeezed out, shame. Now as for shopping on foot, no way, that is the most lifeless experience. How many boy bands can HMV stock! Amazon has always created a better social experience, one purchase recommends another, I have found more decent CDs through Amazon than I have through HMV. Sadly there are few retailers like The Time Machine in Grantham where my brother and I found so much.

For now I will continue to move slowly in to the digital world, where price and availability favour it. My biggest heart ache is repaying for vinyl I own and struggle to sort out in to a digital format.