Completing Coltrane

I had a complaint that Impulse had not released a Box Set of John Coltrane's studio sessions from his final years.
After some research, mainly conducted at The Jazz Discography Project, Wolf's Kompaktkiste and Dave Wild, I have found the following additions to the Impulse Box Set that I think complete the available Impulse sessions of John Coltrane.

The first album was Africa/Brass, the only one released prior to those from The Classic Quartet Set:


There were two other albums that were collaborations and so weren't included in the box set:


Meditations is the last album released during his lifetime:


The next contains the remaining tracks released during his lifetime, but not included in the box set:


Expression was actually conceived by Coltrane before his death but did not get a release until after:


The next few are studio sessions released as albums:


The final two are often ignored, and also hard to find as they contain material by John's wife Alice Coltrane, she also accompanies him on his tracks. Cosmic Music was not on the Impulse label, but released by Coltrane Music, however it was recorded during his last few years.


Now on to the live recordings!

Confluence

I noticed an interesting confluence of stories today.

Firstly I saw a tech-security expert suggesting we use anti-terror techniques to defeat terrorists, techniques that reduce the terror felt by the public.

Then I saw that 72% of people think the governments policies are making us less safe, and a virtually non-existent 1% think it is actually working and making us more safe.

A related comment from Imran Khan suggesting a change in tactics for the war on terror.

And finally, the news that Ryanair were to sue for loss of earnings due to the recent terror alerts.


What particularly struck me about the Ryanair story was that they felt they had a legal case they might win and that given my assumption that they are motivated by business needs, the fact that they don't think this will be bad publicity. It seems incredible that a company will attempt to show in law, that the governments anti-terror policy is ineffective, and perhaps even counter productive, but it seems that a change is gonna come, and the answer is blowin' in the wind.

WoT WoD

I saw this news report about Hizbullah using British made equipment, and it suggested that it may have been supplied to Iran as part of the War on Drugs. It struck me that there are a lot of similarities between the new War on Terror and the old War on Drugs, but with all the attention on the War on Terror I think we may have lost sight of the War on Drugs, so I thought I should check how that went. I'll start my investigation in Afghanistan, having been on the receiving end of a War on Drugs and a War on Terror it must be a very peaceful and drug free place by now.

New Releases

Some new releases I found in my letter box:

Carter Reforms

In an affluent society the only things to complain about are healthcare, education, taxation and crime. Sadly reduction in taxation is not compatible with an increase in spending in healthcare and education, which leaves crime as the obvious area to tackle; if crime were reduced then tax money spent on crime could be saved. The government has realised that reducing crime through increased policing and increasing the number of prisoners does not help reduce the tax bill, and reducing either of these is consider politically dangerous, so it must look for other areas of the the crime bill to reduce. This is where the Carter Reforms come in, they are the recommendations of Lord Carter for reform of the Legal Aid bill, politically they are a gift horse, but if we accept we should remember the fate of the Trojans.

Legal Aid is a gift horse because it is paid to lawyers, who everyone hates, to defend criminals, who are even more unpopular. So cutting the bill is a political winner, except this government being politicians saw even more of an opportunity. Cutting the bill could be done by paying less than they pay now, or at least holding the rates and let inflation take it's effect. This would mean the bill is still vulnerable to escalating crime, but that could be tackled elsewhere. However, the government saw that there is a way to use legal aid payments to control the outcome of criminal investigations.

The changes proposed completely change the role of defence solicitors. Currently there is an open market where the client can choose any lawyer they wish, the government then pay the bill. The new proposals turn the market on its head and make the government the customer, now the government will choose the solicitors to do the work and the client has no option but to select a government lawyer. Obliviously a client could pay to go with another criminal lawyer, but those lawyers are likely to be unfamiliar with the area of law and curiously most people accused of crimes are too poor to do this. This change provides the government with complete control of the justice system. government controlled police arrest and charge you, government lawyers prosecute you and government lawyers defend you. The government will suggest they will not be putting any pressure on lawyers in these cases, but that is impossible. Currently the reputation of a solicitor is vital in getting work, if you are known to be good, to get good results for your clients, you will have more clients and more business. Now the government will be able to do the exact opposite, only give contracts to those who don't get the best results for their clients, more guilty verdicts, more guilty pleas.

So these reforms not only offer the chance to save money, but they also allow the government to claim better results in fighting crime all without upsetting the voters. Voters think these reforms only affect criminals and lawyers, and nobody loves them. However when considering the effect of these reforms one should consider the recent changes in the criminal justice system and the restrictions on protest. It will now possible for a dictator to have complete control of the country, but of course that won't happen here.

Economic History

Some thoughts to counter the idea that the Conservative goverment of the eighties sorted out the economy.

The economy was ruined in the eighties, with the rape of resources through the privatisations. Also the economic theories of the Thatcher government, largely adopted by Blair, require low cost workers to keep wage demands low hence it's need to defeat the unions. Whilst Labour were attempting to bring the unions under control, causing the winter of discontent, Thatcher decided to use a more violent approach to secure a quicker result. Under the Thatcher government the low cost workers were provided by the mass unemployment they created, whereas the current government is willing to allow migrant workers to fill the gaps; something the Conservatives are philosophically opposed to. Further havoc was caused by the fact that inflation would always rocket under a Conservative government, and it is only the more modern controls introduced globally and here by Brown that has controlled it. Further destruction to the economy ensued as mass unemployment leads to higher welfare costs, either directly through benefits or indirectly through healthcare. The Conservatives also took the shortsighted route of imprisonment for as many criminals as possible rather than pursue more complex solutions, again adding to the cost, and again continued by Labour.

Dilbert: Worst Job Ever

Working with the Buddhist philosophy: “Why kill your enemy? They will die soon anyway.” I think that each side should just read through the obituaries and randomly claim responsibility for the death, especially as it seems that's what they do with explosions. If Israel prefers, rather than claim responsibility directly, it can put out a rumour that Mossad killed them. This way no one gets killed that wasn't dead already. If reading the obituaries and phoning news agencies doesn't make you look tough enough then isn't it better value to ask all sides to appear on a Japanese TV in one of their endurance shows, that would really prove who's tough. Hezzbollah vs Israel, Hamas and Syria can enter their own teams or share team members between themselves in a random way that only the US can claim to understand. If the US want to enter their own team as well as supply kit to the Israelis they could use Tony Blair as a mascot, he could run up and down the side line in an eagle suit shouting "Go George, Go Bush" or "You Ess Aay, You Ess Aay". I still think Bush would have gained more credibility by taking on Saddam Hussain in a WWF Smack Down.

Guardian: IE7 will come on auto-update

I forsee a problem, there are many sites that do not work with IE7 even some that work with Firefox/Safari, so when everyone gets IE7 automatically there will be confused users and sites losing customers. As a Windows/Firefox and Mac/Safari user I will be an amused bystander.

Guardian: Google offers live traffic maps for mobiles -- a killer app?

Most people don't have satnav and most people do have a mobile , with an increasing number able to access the web. So if you get caught in a jam, do you a) walk to the nearest shop by a sat nav and set it up in your car, or b) google it? As for safety, stupid people can't be stopped, but if you have a passenger, or you are at a standstill, you will be OK.

Guardian: Apple on the up - but iPod sales down

The biggest threat to a stand alone music player is from mobile phones and portable machines from Nintendo, Playstation and Xbox. If people are carrying one of these that plays enough music then they will not need to carry a separate music device. Following this I think the iPod market will be split in two, at the lower end people who want something smaller than a phone or gameboy will buy something like the shuffle, at the other end some people, and I probably include myself, will need something with more storage and will buy the appropriate size of iPod.

I doubt Apple will want to be absent from this middle tier, and it is easier to build a mobile from scratch than to enter the games market, unless the occasionally rumored link with Nintendo arises. So I expect Apple to create a mobile phone in the next 2-3 years. If in ten years every mobile phone has 1TB of storage then I suspect large stand alone devices will fade away, if these phones are the size of a shuffle or smaller then they too will disappear.

Record Companies

I recently bought a box set of John Coltrane material listed on Amazon as “The Complete Impulse Studio Recordings”, however it turned out that the correct title was “The Classic Quartet - The Complete Impulse Studio Recordings”. What this means is that the later Impulse recordings, which added Pharoah Sanders and Alice Coltrane, were not included and the later period was actually of most interest to me. I didn't mind, because I hadn't been short changed by this 8 cd set, and this is a great collection of albums. I thought I would just have to look out for the other box set covering the later years. As I have already bought a few Miles Davis sets I know that it is sensible to split these collections, and having looked a bit further there is probably another 5/6 cds worth of Coltrane material, great. Except there is no other box set, this set was released in 1998 and since then Impulse have just ignored the rest. Most of the albums are available, but some are only available on import or second hand. I also discovered that shortly after the original release of this box set Impulse found new material, but didn't add it to the set, but have released it on reissues of the original albums, so if I did want the extra material I would have to get a duplicate of the album I already have in the box set. Another disappointment for me was the partial albums included, Kulu Se Mama has the title track missing, because it was not recorded by the Classic Quartet. I already have this on vinyl, so do I buy it again on CD? “Live at Birdland” is a mixture of live and studio recordings, I now have the studio recordings so I thought I would pop on to iTunes to get the live tracks, except iTunes won't let you but these tracks separately, I have to purchase the whole album and therefore pay for duplicate tracks. Luckily “Impressions”, which is also a mixture of live and studio recordings, used live tracks from The Village Vanguard and Impulse have released the complete recordings from those nights.

I would also like to replace my collection of 1970s Temptations albums which were produced by Norman Whitfield. These are great albums and I miss them, I would be willing to repay something to get them. So I looked on Amazon, I looked on iTunes and I looked on the Motown website. I discovered that not all of these albums have been re-released on CD, but worse, some that were re-released have had the tracks edited. However what really irritates me is the 20 something greatest hits albums that have been released instead.

Last year I bought the Complete Stevie Wonder on iTunes, and this was a genuine complete set. So why do Motown not do this for their other artists? Why do Impulse release only one box set and not see it through. I have heard that Sony/Columbia are delaying the final Miles Davis box sets, all very odd. Surely there is some value in making available a product for me to buy, perhaps if record companies stopped worrying about illegal downloads and got on with there job then people wouldn't go to illegal download sites in the first place. I can understand that record companies will have a priority list, but surely that would include John Coltrane and wouldn't include hundreds of greatest hits collections.

Reading

In the middle of all these I forgot this:

Musical Holiday

The Orb have been busy:

Guardian: Adware scumbags rake in $2 billion a year

I have worked in a company where the marketing department were told directly by senior staff that these products should be avoided, but they went ahead anyway. Why? Because they are not judged by their pure view but by the returns for the company. Until companies take a broader view these things will continue. Even on a usability case The Guardian now uses adverts that are very annoying, why do you do it? Not for customer satisfaction, but for the money. Quite how advertising departments can prove a return on investment for such irritations is beyond me, but the point stands that companies are financially driven, even the Guardian.

Coltrane

I like box sets, I like John Coltrane; restoring a few I had on vinyl:



following all this!

Shopping Burst

Having got the wedding out the way I finally have a couple of farthings to rub together, as I haven't bought anything since November my Amazon basket was bulging so I emptied some items in to my post box.



I have also bought the eighth in the Miles Davis box sets.


And another book for my Jeanette Winterson Collection.

Our Wedding - A collection of memories

I have moved the information.

Guardian: Sympathy for the record industry

The primary objection to record companies is always going to be the unequal relationship between an unsigned artist and a major label. Record companies are very fond of charging all costs back to the artist, so that in the end artists may be in debt to the company, even though they had little or no control over the spending. It is particularly sad for young artists who may be naïve when confronted with popstar potential, so they probably don't realise that the when the company is paying for all the freebies and extras, it is actually the artist who ultimately foots the bill. The unequal relationship also enables the company to own the masters, preventing the artist from having future control over their own work. I think there is real potential for legislation to control the contracts, and increase the freedom of the artists. My final objection is to the way record companies increase their margins with each new format that comes along, hoping the changes will obscure the increases. Given current technology it would be possible to allow the buyer to allocate proportions of the profit to the various parties, so if you were liked a label and artist but not the store you could make allocate 60p to the label, 50p to the artist and 10p to the store.

Guardian: Sounds fishy to me

A balanced diet is always the answer but rarely applied, I don't have a balanced diet because I am a lazy vegetarian. I am not worried about exam results, but about my mental faculties in later life, so I take Omega 3,6,9 as a supplement. Obviously the supplement I take is a vegetarian alternative made from nuts and seeds, but I bet few imagine that fish does not have to be in the solution. It is actually disturbing for me to see what were once vegetarian products being tainted with added fish oils, when there is a vegetarian alternative. I think it is better to talk about Omega 3,6 or 9 rather than fish oil, as fish oil leads people to conclude that only fish oil will do, but also vegetarians beware of Omega 3,6 or 9 additives in food.

Money Talking

I haven't verified these figures quoted from the Guardian for a £7.99 album on iTunes:
"The government (of course) took its 17.5% in VAT off the top, leaving £6.59 net. Under a standard record contract, the split, according to Bacs, would go something like this: performer 48p, songwriter 53p, credit card company 59p and Apple 99p - while the record company trousers the remaining four quid. Even at the megastar rates enjoyed by Macca, Jagger and Jacko (22% of retail, no deductions), the performer gets maybe £1 more and the record company a quid less. Hey, do the maths."

Wired: Allofmp3 vs Allthebrits

Your are on dodgy ground if you think all Russians are crooks. Don't forget the BPI and RIAA have a vested interest. If they were sure of their ground it would be over by now, so let them sue and we will watch the outcome. As for me being a thief, all the tracks I have bought are to replace vinyl, and this way the artists may get something, which they don't if I record the vinyl at home. I am also happy to pay them for the service rather than go to a p2p site, which I know is totally illegal.

Guardian: Will Blu-ray be one last flop?

Both new disc types offer two things, HD movies and a SD TV series on a single disc. I don't expect mass take up of HD technology for some time in the UK, so this will be a US led revolution. Even in the US adoption of either format will be slow, and I guess for most people the first player they will have is a Playstation or XBox. I also expect in the next five years some low-cost stand-alone dual-format players will emerge, negating the whole debate. Going forward the market will be closer to the current games market with some films available in one format and some in both. I strongly suspect that both these formats will suffer the fate of the mini-dics, in that they will be beaten not by each other but by a change in consumer habits, with downloads taking over from conventional DVDs.

AllOfMP3 Update

AllOfMP3 have responded to criticism and said they do pay royalties to artists:

The US government officials and politicians have been demanding lately that the Russian authorities shut down allofmp3.com, alleging the site is pirate. Otherwise, they threaten Russia with sanctions, including blocking its entry to WTO.

In this regard we would like to make a statement:

1. The site AllOfMP3.com belongs to a Russian company and for 6 years it has operated within the country, in full compliance with all Russian laws. Throughout this period the various government offices have scrutinized site's legality and have not found any breach of the law. So far there has been no decision by any Russian court contesting the site's legality.

2. The Russian site AllOfMP3.com is not operating or advertising its business on the territory of other countries.

3. The site AllOfMP3.com does regularly transfer substantial amounts of royalties to the Russian organizations for collective management of rights such as ROMS and FAIR, which have granted the site licenses to legally deliver music through the Internet.

4. The site AllofMP3.com reserves the right to take all steps necessary to protect its business reputation. We call upon everyone to take a thorough and unbiased view of the site's legality.

5. On September 1, 2006 the changes to the Russian copyright legislation will come into force. Since January 2006 the site has been making direct agreements with rightholders and authors at the same time increasing the price of the music compositions and transferring the royalties directly to the artists and record companies. The aim of AllofMP3.com is to agree with all rightholders on the prices and royalties amounts by September 1, 2006.

6. We believe in the long term and civilized business based on respecting the law, considering the customers' demands as well as the interests of both national and international rightholders.

The AllofMP3.com Administration
June 6, 2006 Moscow

Copyright and Fair Use

A recent email to the Commons Select Committee for Culture, Media and Sport:


In response to being called a criminal by the ifpi and hearing that the Commons Select committee has been told by the "generous" BPI that even though I am a criminal I will not be pursued. I thought I would pass my comments, which are more in line with the National Consumer Council.

Since I could afford to buy music I have shared it. My brother and I would rarely buy the same record, it made no sense. When we started to travel we made copies on to tape to take with us, when we left home and split our combined collections we ensured we had a copy on tape. Our friends would give us tapes and we would give them tapes, if we liked an artist we would go out and buy more of their work, but would be unlikely to replace the album on tape. At every stage of this process our music collections grew, at the rate that our collective income could manage. We never considered what we did illegal or immoral, and still don't. Now we are in the digital age copying is easier, click-drag you're done, but technology doesn't make me a criminal.
I have tried to transfer some of my vinyl to a digital format, I am told this is illegal. I will not buy a digital replacement, I would rather spend my money on a new CD or occasional iTunes download. I spotted the AllOfMP3 web site and thought this would be a cost efficient way of replacing my vinyl. From my perspective I want to give an artist the full dollars from a new purchase, but don't want to spend twice and in these circumstances AllOfMP3 let me give some money to artists, and get my digital music too. Sadly, I am being told that AllOfMP3 don't give any money to artists via their Russian artists organisation, but I am still happy to pay them to convert my vinyl.
One of the ironies of the digital download debate is that most of my vinyl is second hand, my money never really made it to the artists at all. Yet now the record companies expect me to pay more for a product I would find hard to sell on. One of the reasons I still buy CD's is to ensure I actually get a substantive product.

What I want is for the legislative bodies to get in line with public wishes. We all understand the need for artists and companies to make money, but we also have an understanding of fair use, and have a pretty good idea of where the moral boundaries fall. Once people feel they are entering a darker world, they start to lose their restraint and to this extent piracy will grow. Only when record companies recognise fair use will piracy recede, but record companies will only do this when forced by law to change. Our MP's must stand up for their constituents and defend the fair use of our purchases, stop conceding to the lobbyists and sort out the law.

Dilbert Blog: Relativity

In your bubble people are rational beings, in my bubble they are not. If you want to test your rationality study some pure mathematics, few people can follow it. If you want to really hurt someone who thinks they are rational get them to try and follow Einstein's theories.

Dilbert Blog: Pragmatic Party

Government by opinion polls, that's sort of what we have had in the UK for the last eight years. In truth the UK is governed by headlines, which is what usually determines the outcome of the polls. The government is left to decide how best to keep as many people happy as possible to gain election, which is just another opinion poll. The problem with this system of government can be summarised in the following poll questionnaire:
1 Would you like the government to give you $1billion Yes/No
2 Would you want the government to give everybody $1billion Yes/No

The polls would come in and you would either bankrupt the government or overrule the results of question one.

Your methodolgy is to be opinion poll orientated, but allow pragmatism. So you would ignore a poll like the one above on the grounds of pragmatism. This infers that polls are worthless, because you will do what you think is pragmatic, so rather than taking poll, we should first ask you what you think is pragmatic, then if you think it is pragmatic ask the public what they think. You will find yourself swamped with questions of pragmatism, and the public swamped with polls, which is not pragmatic so it is more pragmatic to devolve the decision making to a committee or “cabinet”as it is sometimes known, then they will need to have departments full of people assessing the pragmatism of the ideas. To offset the need for constant polls, the public would elect a representative to make decisions on their behalf, and they could sit together to discuss and debate ideas in the mature method you require. The openness you seek would be tempered by national security and practical issues such as cost. The rules could be outlined in a Freedom of Information act, so that we all know where we stand.

You end up where we are, even to the point where you claim to be acting for the good of the people and not for your own agenda. What you are missing is details of the way you intend to get ideas to people and of allowing stupid people or busy people or couldn't give a fig people to participate. So it appears that your fantasy will remain a fantasy, as mine and many others have done.

Guardian: Why Creationism is wrong

No scientist can refute the theory that god created the world 3 seconds ago, with all evidence to the contrary built in, as a test of faith. Why god would do this is bit beyond scientific reason, but is within the scope of religious philosophy. One could move the timescale a bit and say god created the universe about six billion years ago, complete with all the physical laws, but still we are left with “so what”. So really there is no debate, if you believe in a creator god then, you believe that god created stuff. If you don't then go didn't. The Creation/Evolution debate is the merging different spheres of knowledge, I know that some rugby players are religious but I don't think it works to have a priest offering tactics based on Ezekiel's raising of the dead. Equally many scientists are religious, but know where the limitation of each sphere lies.

The best explanation of our existence based on the current evidence is evolution, that may change, but for now like all scientific explanations it works. Why religion feels the need to undermine science, by trampling all over its ground, is because science is damaging religion. Science has been successful, very successful, at blowing away myths and misunderstanding. Science backs itself to be tested and adjusts when it is wrong; making it more right than it was before. So as science has become more prevalent many people have found it hard to hold on to their faith, and now religion is fighting back. Religion deliberately misunderstands science, as religion is trying to show that the theory of evolution is weak, and so may be wrong, but religion will fail in its argument because it can only provide the alternative theory of “ta-daa”. Where religion will find success, however, is undermining some people's faith in science. Many people have no understanding of scientific methods, and religion is working on the underlaying worry that scientists “don't know everything”; and they don't. So scientists are left floundering because they try to tackle the argument on their usual terms and religion doesn't care about the result of that argument. The way for science to argue would be to insist that they can teach scientific theory's in church time, perhaps every church sermon should begin with an explanation that most images of christ are incorrect, as the nails would be in the wrist not the hands, that he and his mother were probably darker in complexion. Show that the bible was not written in a weekend but was collected by real people in a politically motivated way. Science doesn't need to be afraid of religion offering a theory or two, nor should it be annoyed. Science just needs to do it's normal thing but pursue it into the religious sphere, but that would scare the scientists more that the religious.

Dlibert Blog: Could Science Eliminate Religion?

I am all in favour of education and an understanding of science. I want the world to know of the benefit of tolerance and compassion. However I am not sure you will achieve your goals with this method, here's a few reasons why I think you will fail.

You forgot to mention that the most dangerous religious people live in the USA and run it's government, which indicates to me you have not fully understood that which you wish to defeat . You assume that people just wander around picking up ideas and think about them, most people go with what they know or are told by authority figures. If someone does come across a new idea, it would require some evangelical work on you part to ensure the success of the book, as evangelicals of other faiths will spend a lot of time dismissing it. You also seem to assume that faith is always bad, if you examine history many good acts have been carried out by people carrying some faith or religion, so you need to be sure your method will not undermine the good as well as the bad. Many people choose their religion after careful thought and examination of all the evidence you intend to provide and s would not be swayed by your ideas. For some the religious way of life is simply preferable to the non-religious life.

Einstein had faith that there was a unified theory, many scientists still hold this faith, yet there is no unified theory. In fact there is some evidence that a desire to find a unified theory is simply a manifestation of human form, and is comparable to our desire for a god. To truly eliminate religion you would need to truly understand the human psyche, something science has not achieved yet. So until you have an answer to the problem of human misery, and can guarantee success, I don't think you will eliminate religion.

BBC Bashing

I don't personally listen to either BBC Radio One or Two, but I still dislike this stupid BBC bashing that keeps cropping up. There is a constant idea that a nationally owned company, being successful and making money for the entire nation is bad, and that privately owned companies are good.

The report says that the two radio stations should be sold off because they hamper the commercial sector. So how will having them in the commercial sector help? Only if they think being commercial will damage the service they currently offer to the listeners, leading to a decline in audience. In particular they will have to use adverts, which is one of the key reasons they are popular, I think this is what they mean by "level the competitive playing field".

What it will also do is prevent the BBC maximising any commercial funds it can raise on the back of the radio stations success, which the BBC could put in to reducing the licence fee.

Dilbert Blog:Those Crazy Terrorists

I posted similar comments to Scott some time ago.

What worries me most on these comments is the opinion that Arabs/Mulims are often considered sub-human maniacs, and that America and Europe could not possibly cause misery for millions of people.

We know Saddam was bad, but was the bombing of Baghdad good. Even if the ends are justified the means, the "Shock & Awe" bombing would be terrifying for those who live there. Even if the motives of Israel are pure, does it alleviate the suffering of so many Palestinians?

USA and Immigration

In a shock move George Bush has placed the army on the Mexican border, and not because he thinks it is Iran. Using his Native American name Talking Bull the President said, "When we migrated in to this country across the Bering Straits from China we let some people go further in to Mexico and we did not expect to see them again". Confusing him self he added "When we stole these territories from the Mexicans in the 19th century we never imagined they would still consider it home". The American people have put up with immigration for too long, despite being a second generation President myself I think we should stop it now.

BBC Attacked by Tories

The Conservative party has complained that the BBC is stifling small local companies like the Tory party. They barked "how are USA companies supposed to form a monopoly when the BBC is so popular throughout the world?". They ranted on , "If the BBC doesn't stop soon they will make so much money that they don't need the licence fee, then how will we control them?". As an example, the BBCs dominance is stopping small garage start ups from filming Eastenders for download over the internet. The Labour party also agree that the BBC is politically biased.

Dilbert Blog: Income Gap

Here in the UK most voters are in the middle, neither rich or poor. Due to their wild aspirations, they all think they will be rich tomorrow, and many believe they are rich today. So they are convinced they must be protected from the feckless poor, and given every opportunity to accumulate vasts sums of money.

For years pollsters couldn't understand why their polls weren't working, people said they wanted more spent on health and education yet kept voting for tax cuts. In they end the pollsters decided people must be lying to them! People publicly are altruistic but in the privacy of the ballot box ask for more money for themselves.

As for the US, I hear stories about intimidation of people engaged in voter registration drives and in recent elections preventing poorer districts form getting to the polling both.

If you really wanted to start a poor persons party, rob from the rich and and all that, how would you go about publicising your cause?

Was it just for oil?

A post on the Dilbert Blog tempted me to put my thoughts in order, just to be sure what I was thinking:

Was Iraq invaded just for oil? No is the simple answer, yes is the other simple answer. Iraq was invaded to maintain a secure Western military presence, or in a more generous phrasing, to maintain regional stability. Now the reason this region is important, above say the forgotten parts of Africa, is because of its economic power, which is derived from oil. The West did not invade Iraq to make sure we had lots of oil, it feared that it wold lose control of the middle eastern economy, which would seriously damage the US economy in particular.

A long time ago the West was happy with Saddam, sure he killed and tortured, but hey, he was our friend! We even sent Donald Rumsfeld over there to sell supplies to create WMD. Unfortunately, like so many ill judged affairs it went a little wrong, Saddam got a little ahead of himself and invaded Kuwait, thinking his friends in Washington would be OK with this. So to keep him in order the US parked their tanks on their other friends lawn, the Saudi's, and told Saddam to watch himself. Pretty quickly this became untenable, for a number of reasons. Saddam along with a few other oil producers were thinking of moving their oil trades out of Dollars and in to Euros, not good for the US. These oil producing countries were also considering brokering exclusive deals with China, in urgent need of energy, something the West did not want to lose control of. For the record, the US engineered clauses in the new Iraqi constitution which give it tight control over the future of Iraq, in particular ensuring that Iraqi assets (oil) must not be nationalised, and therefore can be controlled by US companies. Finally another small problem arose, radical Islam. There were many Muslims who were offended by the sight of US weaponary on the holy lands of Saudi Arabia, and they started kicking up a fuss. One such Muslim was call Osama Bin Laden, a Saudi who was also a former friend of the US, but that was then. These radical Muslims were attacking US targets and threatening to overthrow the Saudi princes, which if it succeeded could cause Saudi money to leave the US economy at a devastating rate.

For some time many in the US had publicly pondered how to solve these dilemmas, how could an overthrow of Saddam Hussain be orchestrated without raising too much objection, then...

Guardian: I do not reject the Geneva conventions

I am pleased that a member of the government has allowed comment to be passed on what they say, if they actually read the comments then better still. I think the government should find a way of doing this more often, open up it's own forums or blogs. In the past the media has provided a buffer between politicians and public opinion, now perhaps the buffer can be removed.

The key to international law is not change or adapt it, but to implement it. The US government has been accused of being criminal in many regards but it is criminal in its attempt to disrupt or avoid international legalities. There was no urgency to invade Iraq, and so we could have taken time to create an international response. You say regarding legal constraints, that we have “an enemy which adheres to none whatsoever, but is swift to insist that we do”, whereas I usually see the enemy talk about our hypocrisy, our claim to be moral or legal when our actions are immoral or illegal. We should always strive to take the moral high ground. We should implement the international criminal court, empower the UN, or do anything to end wild-west justice and, to extend the analogy, bring in “federal marshals”. We must find a way to force the US to comply with international laws. We must end the immoral arms trade that disfigures so much of the world. We must end the disruption of democracies and support of dictators. Once we have a coordinated international legal system with consensus on implementation, once we have ceased the arms trade that fuels so much conflict. Once all this is in place then we will be able to wisely update our international laws, not before.

Guardian: Marx's reserve army of labour is about to go global

It should be welcomed that in a global economy a better balance of wealth between nations will arise, although this may mean some loss of income for the richer nations as capital is transferred to the poorer nations. There is a possibility of sustainable incomes in the richer nations by allowing for global economic growth; always at the expense of diminishing natural resources. However, it should be understood that a key restraint on capitalist excess has been universal suffrage. To date, the citizens of western nations have demanded that capitalism is contained and is fairer to the mass of workers. The new threat from capitalism is twofold. Firstly, as noted in the article, the ability of China to supply cheap labour; amplified by the inability of the Chinese workers to apply the same democratic restraints on capital that we have. Secondly, old fashioned divide and rule is coming in to play. As the economy is globalised, democratic nations become less able to restrain capitalism on their own and find themselves competing against each other to accept work on the worst terms. It is no surprise that pro-capitalist politics tries to increase xenophobia, as this helps prevent international unification. I believe the only way to continue the control of capitalism is to follow a three point plan: first increase democracy in China, second allow workers to move as freely as goods and finally, develop more supra-national democracy.

Guardian: Forget the Blair-Brown battle. Labour now needs a mission, not a monarch

You are right in your assessment, but how would this discussion arise? There is no method or procedure to allow the public to enforce a debate. We must rely on the wishes of the leaders presented to us. So far it seems that radical overhaul is only promised when desperation for power creeps in, but fades once power seems absolute. For now Brown feels he can bide his time and power will come, but how can we trust this man when ideals are, as you say, "subordinated to his own career ambitions". Blair promised a lot, but to an extent allowed himself to be a blank canvas upon which we painted or hopes. Cameron is trying a similar tactic now, but it may be we are too aware of this tactic for it to succeed. Once in power the government, not just Blair and Brown, started to suffer from a delusion that is always prevalent in long runs of power, where there original desire to gain power to serve the people distorts to the point where they view the government as the people and so they must keep themselves in power "for the people".

I still think it likely that Brown will win the next election, but hopefully it will be close enough to send a shock to him, and a radical overhaul is promised by all sides, and the promise kept because due to a genuine fear of losing. Sadly I am in a pessimistic phase, and see no chance of the debate you call for arising, now or in even the next parliament.

New Outlet

I have a new outlet for my rants!

The Guardian has started allowing comments to some of its articles, as they have a wider circulation than my blog I am going to start writing there to feed my ego. As they don't have a way of easily finding my comments I will also post them here.

Jericho Prison

I am prompted to write this due to a massive failing in the British press. I have seen a number of reports of the Israeli attack on the prison but have found no attempt explain why Israel thought it could invade another country, or why it felt the need to put on trial people already convicted of the crime. It seems that the press just report the events and not the underlying reasons and assumptions. Why is there no condemnation forthcoming from the British government? I can fully accept withdrawal of British staff if they new they were about to be bombed by Israel but please don't blame the Palestinian Authority, and would Israel have attacked knowing the British were still inside? Whatever the failings of the Palestinian Authority we can not allow Israel to drive tanks where it likes. I can only imagine the dire consequences if Iran attacked an Iraqi jail or heaven forbid the Chinese attack an Indian jail. I wonder if there are any prisoners in the USA that Mexico would like to retry?

A far better summary was provided by Steve Bell at The Guardian:

Health Scare

Recent research has revealed that the majority of people die if they do not do enough living. Evidence shows that those who actively participate in life will reduce the likelihood of death to almost nil. Whilst some activities lead directly to death, and others increase the likelihood of death, health experts have concluded that living is the best way to prevent death.

Opponents of the research say it is deeply flawed as it is based on those that have already died, and so cannot be applied to those still living, they said that "we must continue to be cautious, as the time of death is uncertain. Any activity undertaken must be properly researched to understand it's relationship to death". Some groups go so far as to say that the only activity we should undertake is research in to the safety of our activities, presuming such research is safe. Some religious groups are calling for the government to act as they fear ongoing avoidance of death will prevent eternal bliss and so too much living should be condemned rather than encouraged. Bobby McFerrin was quoted as saying "Don't worry, be happy", the dead were not available for comment.

Film of the year 2005

I have had the chance to go to the cinema a few times this year, thanks to cheap night Tuesdays. I think all the films I have seen have been good, but a few deserve an extra mention.

Team America is a very different comedy, something worth seeing for it's unique humor, and I learnt that the world has three types of people. Batman Begins, Serenity and Domino offered better than expected action. War of the Worlds had a great start but lost it's way a little. One of my favourite directors, Terry Gilliam, provided another visual feast with The Brothers Grimm. While my favourite actor, Jodie Foster, delivered a great performance again in Flightplan. Yet more visual delight came from Tim Burton in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Corpse Bride, the former including an outstanding performance by Johnny Depp. Sin City also provided some of the most unique visuals yet seen on film, with an intriguing story as well. Unleashed had a gripping story and performance by Jet Li, and was a close call for film of the year. Another Jet Li film, Hero, stood out but I have ignored it as it was made in 2002 and released in 2004. For similar reasons The House of Flying Daggers was really a 2004 film that I saw late. However both those films are superb and Hero in particular is a great film. Finally two films stood out as unique in their style, action and script; The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou and Kung Fu Hustle, with Kung Fu Hustle just winning the title of Film of the year. (Incidentally, Terry Gilliam agreed.)

The contenders (those that I saw at the cinema)
Hero
The House of Flying Daggers
Team America World Police
Elektra
Meet the Fockers
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
Star Wars III
War of the Worlds
Sin City
Batman Begins
Kung Fu Hustle
Fantastic Four
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Unleashed
A History of Violence
Serenity
Domino
Corpse Bride
The Brothers Grimm
Doom
Flightplan
Legend of Zorro
The Chronicles of Narnia
King Kong

I don't dare call her a swot

As can be seen from the movie, her powers increase by the day. Last night she was awarded "Student of the Year", something that was well deserved. The biggest award was yet to come, this time from her class mates, when they gave her the biggest cheer of the night whilst collecting her Green Belt.

Harold Pinter

"It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them."

an extract from Harold Pinter's powerful and fascinating Nobel prize acceptance speech.

XHTML or HTML

More failed comments to a post:

My primary role is as a programmer, so coming to web standards from that angle I have always liked the strictness of XHTML and I still things that strict XHTML is great and should be taught so that amateurs like myself start correct and stay that way. Beginners should expect to have to learn stuff, and I think strictness can make learning easier, because it works or it doesn't. The problem, as I see it, is IE. If you are trying to serve something to "the world" then you have to accommodate IE and that's where you might struggle. If you are happy to deliver your stuff your way, or have control over the browsers used, then strictness can be great.

Books in iTunes

I noticed that iTunes can hold PDF books, and as I like using iTunes for organising things I thought I would use iTunes for managing my PDF books.

To add a PDF go to File/ Add to Library... and pick your PDF.
To show your books create a Smart Playlist and set "Kind is PDF document".

I have the Ripping Yarns scripts and a few other books. If only I had time to read them.

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.

Internment

I just read an interesting interview with George Takei (Sulu from Start Trek) talking about his childhood in the internment camps set up by the Americans for any Japanese-Americans living there during the second world war. It is one of those things that is easily forgotten, America has a strange and dark history. After internment it had the McCarthy hearings, but thankfully, gradually things started to get better with the civil rights movement. George talks about being involved, meeting Martin Luther King, and how he feels a similar movement is now needed to enable him to gain legal equality for his sexuality. It makes me feel humble to think how many battles some people have fought in their life, how far society has progressed. My own partner, as a woman and with Indian parents, may not have been able to make progress in her career to the point where she could set up her own legal practice, perhaps twenty or possibly thirty years go. I just wish amidst all the progress there were no backward steps.

Rosa Parks

It was sad to hear today that Rosa Parks has died aged 92.
Reading some of her comments has left me wondering about a few things.
The first thing was her correction of a longstanding mistake:
History too often maintained "that my feet were hurting and I didn't know why I refused to stand up when they told me. But the real reason of my not standing up was I felt that I had a right to be treated as any other passenger. We had endured that kind of treatment for too long."

Another point I think should be considered is that it was not unknown for people to resist these disgraceful laws, they were not meekly followed, it was simply the case that so often resistance was dealt a swift and painful blow:
"It was just a day like any other day. The only thing that made it significant was that the masses of the people joined in."

Another thing I have always wondered about is who was the man that asked her to move? What are, or were, his thoughts? For me this is perhaps the most critical question we can ask. Why is it that people want to treat each other so badly? I am always led by such wondering to consider every aspect of ordinary life, to make sure I am not guilty of doing bad things to others, just because that's the way things are. Sadly I always come back with the same answer, yes I continue to exploit others and will continue to do so because that's the way things are, and I don't have the strength to stand out or stand up, or even sit down.

I just hope there are more Rosa Parks to stand up to me, and others who will seize the significance of these acts.

New Music

After a long time since my last purchases:

News and Spin

I spotted a couple of headlines the other day that caught my eye:
The first came from the BBC;

Warner Bros backs two DVD formats
Hollywood film studio Warner Bros says it will back both the HD DVD and the Blu-ray next-generation DVD technologies.

The second arrived in my news feed at the same time and discussed the same story, this time covered by CNet;
Warner joins Blu-ray DVD camp
With Sony and its Blu-ray technology ahead in the DVD-format war, a second studio says HD DVD is just not enough.

Intriguing I thought, the same story with different spin. I had decided to write this article before being surprised by another BBC article in my feed, only 5 hours after the first;
Sony wins major DVD studio ally
Sony's bid to be Hollywood's format of choice for the next generation of DVDs is boosted by studio decision.

I then checked the original BBC story that I had saved, and it linked to this 'new' story.

An interesting occurrence of interpretation, incidentally I favour the second interpretation.

Business trys to make profit - shock

I was reading an article in the Observer about drink companies looking to exploit the new licensing laws and thought I would throw down and opinion.
It is not a surprise that a company is looking to make a profit, it is probably good that they wish to share the profit with the staff who make it happen. My first concern is the idea that a few marketing tricks can be successful, why is it that people fall for tricks? In this case I guess it is easier than normal because the customer is drunk. Secondly, on a more general point, I do not accept that alcohol is the problem in these situations. The problem is the need people have for getting massively drunk on a regular basis. It is not surprise that people, at some point in their life, will get massively drunk, either by accident or design, the real concern is why people are so unhappy with their lives that they need to escape so often and to such a degree.

Finally, on the licensing laws themselves, one of the aims of the legislation is to reduce binge drinking and create a more continental style of drinking. To ensure this happened one could consider adding a small addition to the legislation; research suggests that the amount of seating in a pub affects the amount of drinking. In particular a marketing trick used by pubs is to limit the number of seats to pack as many people in as possible, this then increases the amount of alcohol consumed per person. To counter this we could add some calculation of seating ratios in to the granting of licenses to pubs. I would ensure that those that had a more generous supply of comfortable seating had more generous licenses. If a pub chooses to pack large numbers of people in to a small area I would restrict the license.

Ultimately we need to address the issues surrounding peoples need to be so drunk so often, in comparison to this licensing laws are trivial.

Chess... with Boxing

You like Chess?
You like Boxing?
You'll love Chess Boxing

My Heroes

Just a little piece I liked from a company that is producing web based applications that I admire.

Taxing Times

It is quite common for people to simultaneously request lower taxes and more investment in services. If this is not achieved then it is due to government inefficiency, and only by putting in place some sort of privatised middle man can we reduce costs. Most people don't actually notice the tax they pay, of course they want more income and to pay less for goods, but they don't notice the tax. However those that pay a tax bill are far more likely to be notice the amount of tax they pay, this is usually the higher earners, including the media and opinion formers.
One of my motives for considering this is due to the many discussions now taking place on the merits of a flat rate income tax, something I oppose simply because in changing our existing system we would without doubt move the some of the tax burden from the rich to the poorest.
What I would like to see is a way of "hiding" the tax collection, this would serve to reduce the animosity and hopefully simplify the collection. So far the best idea I have come up with is a small micro tax on transactions collected from the banks, who then pass on the cost via interest rate changes rather than flat fees. If this is successful we could possibly remove income tax, which is not really paid by salaried individuals but taken before they receive their real wage. Transaction charges exist at the moment in the form of VAT, but is equally awkward to collect as "VAT deductable" is a complex science.
There will always be a debate about how much tax should be raised, big government versus little government, which is fair. My concern is that too much debate is driven by the feeling of being "hit" by a tax bill, and also a feeling that "my" money goes towards other people. The other area that should be covered is to ensure that people receive a tax invoice, marked paid, indicating what services they have consumed, which I suspect would be a surprise to many; we just need funds to pay for it.

Health Warning

A recent report released and covered in the BMJ suggests that SUVs should carry a health warning for pedestrians. Before I go on I must admit to a vested interest here as I own a SUV.
Whilst I welcome the analysis as to why a pedestrian impact with a SUV is more likely to cause death, I am a little suspicious of the conclusion that they should carry health warnings. I require extra information before I can agree with this idea, whilst leaving aside a discussion of the benefit of such a system. Firstly on there own analysis a HGV should also carry health warnings, which is not mentioned and I wonder why. More importantly I would like to compare car types for the following information; what proportion are involved in accidents with pedestrians , at what speeds do these accidents occur, and also what percentage of accidents result in fatalities. My suspicion is that many SUVs are driven at slower speeds and with more care, but I have seen enough idiots in SUVs to know this may not be the case. The final area I would like explored is the reduction in fatalities and serious injury to the occupants of SUVs in accidents and to see if on balance SUVs are safer.

Doonesbury

One of the things I missed when I stopped buying the Guardian was the Doonesbury cartoon, so I was very pleased to see an Apple widget giving me daily access. I then thought it would be nice to go back to the beginning, especially as I probable only read about ten years worth (~1991-2001).
With this aim I put together a web page to retrieve the older strips. To access the page go to http://homepage.mac.com/zzypt/Doonesbury.html?YYYYMMDD and change YYYYMMDD to the date you start reading, this will then bring up the first ever Doonesbury and move you forward one week per day; each day shows the next seven (or six in the early days without a Sunday print). If you miss a few days you can use the date selector to skip back or forward if you prefer.

Terror in our time

We should all be thankful more terror was averted yesterday. A radical, who had to leave his own country due to his religious beliefs was in trouble here yesterday. As Mr Blair later said:
"We have tolerated people coming here from abroad and allowed them to say what we want. If people come here and preach hatred against Britain I think we are entitled to say to them that they cannot do that."

The man was detained under the prevention of terrorism act, having been seen throwing the word "nonsense" in the direction of Jack Straw.


A full video report is available from the BBC.

Economic Economics

I am always surprised by the constant desire for growth in economics, surprised because we clearly live in a finite world. Therefore growth in one area must be at the expense of another. Therefore a desire for growth is a desire for others to struggle.
From a Buddhist perspective I can see how growth is attractive, as it suggests change. Constant change is a method that Buddhism identifies as a way of hiding suffering, by constantly moving from one suffering to another we are less aware of the suffering, and can easily perceive the temporary relief from one form of suffering as happiness.
The trick that a Buddhist economist would have to pull off is slowly reduce the wealth of the richer people and nations and pass it to the poorer people and nations. So far, the only technique I can think of is dangling shiny things in front of the rich to distract them while their bank accounts are emptied. At least it worked with all the shiny gadgets I bought from China.

Another confusion in economics is the use of the term free trade, it is odd because virtually every advocate of free trade also advocates strong regulation in areas that benefit them. In fact without regulation the natural outcome of freetrade is monopoly, which is hardly free at all. My biggest concern about non-existent free trade movement is that it always insists on freerer movement for goods than it does for people. I can imagine that most of the problems of the third world could be solved by allowing free movement of people, because I am sure the panic caused in the west would create a huge investment overseas.

The Mind - a comment

In response to The Cam MC.

When the brain/mind is viewed as a program then we will start to look for a programmer, when it is viewed as a process we do not. I do agree that it is not as simple as a big computer in the current style. I do not yet accept that the Buddhist concept of mind will always be beyond scientific understanding. For now I am content to let science work it's way towards the correct conclusion, whatever it may be. I am not worried about the outcome of the debate either. Ultimately these things are unknown to us, what we can be sure of is what we do with the information. What the Buddhist concept of mind does for us is to indicate that the input we receive is not the same as the feelings and thoughts they produce, there is more happening that just direct perception of the world. This understanding enables us to realise that the perceived world is controllable from within the mind, and from there onward to the rest of Buddhist philosophy.

There is an thoughtful article that I will quote:
"[There is] an interesting computer game called NERO. The idea of this game is that you get a team of robots and you have to train them to fight, by designing training exercises in which you establish goals like maintaining a particular distance from the enemy, and lay out a battleground for the robots to learn in. The interesting thing about this is that the robots basically evolve neural networks that seek to meet the goals you set, and they learn how to do this from experience, not by being programmed. The neural nets that evolve have no self-consciousness, no awareness of how they accomplish the task. Wiring just forms and improves. It would be a mistake to look at the robots' behavior and conclude that there is intelligence or intention there; it is just formation of neural nets in response to environmental stimuli coupled with goal-oriented feedback."

The are a number of good books based on a series of discussions between the Dalai Lama and various scientists on these topics. There are even tickets available for the next discussion in November.

Grumpy Old Man

What is about getting older that makes you think the past was full of hope and the future full of fear?
When I young all the mistakes seemed to be in the past, I wasn't living in a time of war like in "the olden days". Society was developing ideas of tolerance and equality, technology was making things better.
Now I look at the future; I see leaders determined to oppose all the lessons of history, just as our children seemed to oppose all lessons. I see other similarities between or leaders and our children; they have no respect for others, they have no respect for anything other than themselves. There is a constant desire to create a system that will allow the maximum exploitation of each other.
I can't stop the violence or the hatred, the ignorance or the carelessness. All I seem to be able to do is pretend it isn't happening and remember the hope I once had.

British Library

The British Library has made available a number of it's books. Even though the selection is modest, this is a superb service, and a wonderful example of what technology can offer.

Run

He was charged with breaching his ASBO, by entering an exclusion zone. He entered the exclusion zone after being chased there by police who had started beating his friend with truncheons. Once out of his area he climbed on a roof and attracted as much attention as he could, his solicitor was called whilst he was still on the roof. He did not come to any harm, but he will be found guilty of breaching his ASBO. The police have said they will not be content until he leaves the city. His ASBO was imposed after several 'run ins' with police.