2010 July » unsane

Worthwhile iPad games

Jul 252010

I’ve had the iPad now for almost exactly two months, and just like the iPhone before it, it’s become a platform that I’m really happy to play games on. Now before I say too much more, I’ll preface the rest of my comments and recommendations with the simple facts:

I don’t play PC games.
I don’t play PS3 games.
I don’t own an XBox.

I.e., I’m not a hard-core gamer. Instead, I’m just someone who enjoys sitting and playing a game for 10 minutes at the most, happy to quit at any point and come back to it later. For the most part, the iPad is the perfect platform for this. I used to play quite a few games on the PSP, but haven’t picked up a PSP since I got my iPhone 3G 2 years ago (well, other than to sell it)*.

So, here are the games I’ve found that have chewed up my spare 5, 10 and 30 minutes over the last 2 months…

Dungeon Hunter

I’m a fan of traditional RPGs. I still shudder to think of how much time I spent playing Bards Tale III on the Commodore 64. Thanks to a bug (or design feature) in the game, I think I managed to use the same characters in 20 or more end-to-end plays of the game. Yeah, maybe I have a god complex…

Anyway, Dungeon Hunter isn’t quite of that format; it’s more akin to say, “Untold Legends” (both of the PSP and PS3 variety), but for me at least is the right mix of interesting story and no crazy-controls that are optimised for people born with an extra 2 fingers on each hand:

I’ve completed the game once, and have a couple of other characters on the boil developing different skills in the hopes that there are additional world packs eventually released. (I had heard it was a great iPhone game, but having an iPhone 3G I wasn’t even going to attempt to play it.)

It’s fun, it’s simple, there’s action and magic and it can become quite immersive at times, and while my thumbs are glad I’ve slowed down in my playing of it, overall I’m pretty fond of it. I do wish though, like other RPG games out on the market, that every few level increases would allow for adding more than 1 point to magical skills/special attacks. It’s a bit bland when it’s 1 increase per 1 level increase.

I’d give this 4 out of 5. I could imagine giving it 5 out of 5 if they add new world maps (and I’m not asking for freebies; I’m talking in-app purchases.)

Angry Birds HD

It’s nigh-on impossible to be an iPhone or iPod Touch owner without knowing of Angry Birds. The plot is charmingly simple; some nefarious pigs have stolen eggs from the birds, who are, you guessed it, angry about it. Thus comes a series of levels all about retribution and mayhem thanks to a variety of bird types.

The simple touch physics are very easy to master, though some levels far less so. There’s a great deal of fun to be had in this game, even if sometimes you might have to repeat a level dozens of times before you hit on the right combination. Thankfully though, with the average level taking less than a minute to complete, that’s not a big ask…

It’s fair to say that Angry Birds deserves a 5 out of 5. It may be frustrating, but it’s cute, fun and very diverting.

Field Runners HD

I’d never really heard of “tower defence” games before I got my iPhone, but they quickly became a format that I loved playing, and of all of them, Field Runners was certainly the best. Field Runners HD doesn’t disappoint:

If you’re not familiar with tower defence games, the concept is remarkably simple. In response to countless waves of enemies, one builds defensive towers that smite the enemy either from near or afar. It’s a simple style of game, but personally I find it an entertaining way of spending time.

I’d like to give Fieldrunners a 5 out of 5, but out of spite I’ll only give it a 4 out of 5. (Why? Because I’m yet to go past 140 levels in endless mode. That’s frustrating.)

Galcon Fusion

This is like 8 games in one. It’s all about world conquest – send out waves of armies to take over various neutral and/or enemy planets, until you control the entire region of space. With traditional play, solitaire (“vacuum”), 3-way strategy, “billiards” (where planets bounce around), etc., Galcon Fusion offers a variety of “conquest” options that makes for a good variety of gameplay:

With a large range of difficulty options, Galcon Fusion caters to everyone from the beginner to the expert at conquest style games, and is well worth checking out.

I’m going to give Galcon Fusion 4 out of 5. It’s great, entertaining fun, but I would like to see slightly better graphics in the gameplay.

Trundle HD

I only discovered this game a couple of days ago, and it’s already shaping up to be a favourite. It’s spooky and creepy at times, like a cross between Loco Roco and Limbo (not that I’ve ever played Limbo, I just liked the demo that sat on the net for 2 years…); it’s got immersive gameplay and slightly at times unsettling music, but it’s a highly enjoyable way to spend some time:

Currently free on the iTunes store, I’d recommend getting Trundle HD as quickly as possible. I may be jumping the gun, but I’m going to give Trundle HD 5 out of 5. I know it’s going to at times annoy the crap out of me, but there’s something remarkably satisfying about being stuck on a puzzle for hours at a time (cumulatively, over multiple runs) before suddenly understanding the solution and leaping past the problem.

Tunnel Shoot

A long time ago, I played the game “Descent” on the PC. It was a 3D flight game and I’d find as I was trying to pilot the ship that I’d rotate in my seat, turn and pull off all sorts of slightly embarrassing movements. Tunnel Shoot is the first game since then to cause me to have that reaction, though I do my best to control that reaction. It’s simple, it’s fast, and it’s fun. Oh, and it also reminds me of The Way for some reason:

I’m going to give it 5 out of 5. It’s fast paced and rewards quick reactions, and somehow, even though I’m über un-coordinated, I manage to occasionally get into “the zone” and get a score that I find acceptable. That you can get such a fun game for $1.19 (AU) remains a big example to me of how much the iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch platform can change the portable gaming market.

Warheads

Pangea Software at one point made Warheads available free on the Mac, and I found it quite an enjoyable take on the old “Missile Command” concept. The iPad version of Warheads is, quite frankly, sublime:

Missile Command is now 30 years old, having been released in July 1980. Warheads is much younger than that, but plays fantastic homage to the original game, and is perfectly suited to the iPad. 5 out of 5.

Osmos

I find it a bit difficult to describe this game. Maybe it’s that you play a cellular organism that has to absorb other organisms on the playing field and avoid being absorbed. Doesn’t sound like much, I know, but it’s a great deal of fun, quite challenging at times, and the almost binaural music creates an immersive yet relaxing atmosphere that you find yourself repeating any level as many times as you need to in order to progress. You may get stressed by a temporary inability to solve a puzzle, but at the same time you feel OK about it:

It may not sound like a lot, but Osmos definitely deserves 5 out of 5.

–
* I really think that Sony and Nintendo aren’t really aware of how badly they’re losing mind-share in the portable gaming market. After all, consider the most fundamental aspect – an “expensive” game on the iPad/iPhone is around the $15.99 (AU) mark. A “cheap” PSP game on first release is between $50 to $70. Parents, typically responsible for the money allocated towards gaming in the younger market, are voting with their wallets.

Good food is about trusting the chef…

Life 1 Response »

Jul 232010

Over at Two Long Spoons, Sunshine Mugrabi has posted an excellent piece on rediscovering exciting food sensations, called “Eat Memory“. It very clearly sums up why I love degustation menus so much – it’s not about the “poshness” or anything silly like that’s, it’s about putting your trust in the work of a great chef and being prepared to try whatever comes out on the plate, regardless of whether you’d personally try to make it yourself, or deliberately order it if you were in a restaurant. What really sparked for me was her description of child-hood food:

Remember how, as a kid, food had a way of exploding in your mouth? The first lick of a vanilla ice cream cone on a hot summer day. A spoonful of tangy tomato soup. Burgers off the grill. When you’re young, food is loaded with flavor. Sometimes too much. The sharp bite of a raw onion, the slithery slime of overcooked spinach — all of this leads to such childhood behavior as slipping peas to the dog or hiding them surreptitiously in one’s napkin. But oh, the intensity! When you get older, it all dampens down. For me, it went almost to zero.

Good food is about so much more than whether it’s something you’d normally eat – it’s about combining taste, texture, smell, appearance and memory into each exquisite mouthful. If you want good food, the first thing you have to do is set aside any predefined prejudices you may have against certain foods, and be prepared to trust the chef.

Sunshine is a great writer – she does a great job writing about technology too, but I’m really equally loving how well she (no pun intended) shines when it comes to writing about food. I’d heartily recommend reading her article “Eat Memory“, then keeping it in mind next time you see an “odd” looking combination of food on a menu!

Workchoices Dead, Buried and Cremated?

Life No Responses »

Jul 202010

So Tony Abbott has already made a series of gaff ridden statements about the how Work Choices won’t be coming back if the liberals win the election. He seems to have settled for a qualifier that they won’t attempt to change the legislation in their first term.

Do I believe him? Should you believe him? Let’s look at the last “huge” promise made by a liberal leader who wanted to get back into power:

This morning Tony Abbott on Sunrise apparently said that Work Choices is “never ever” coming back.

Hmmm, where have I heard that before?

When does an information request become discriminatory?

Equal Rights, Life, Morality 7 Responses »

Jul 182010

Hanlon’s Razor states:

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

I’ve been reminding myself of Hanlon’s Razor quite a bit over the last month or so – every time I think of the recent story of a friend who applied for life insurance with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia – or their insurance division, CommInsure.

I must admit though, I’m seriously struggling to see this in the light of Hanlon’s Razor.

In response to indicating that he was gay (and noting on the initial application forms that he had been with his current partner for close to two decades), the CBA sent out a nurse to take blood samples, and left him with an egregiously insulting form that he had to fill out in order to complete his life insurance application.

What leaves me feeling sick from this is the simple fact that had someone else, newly married, applied for life insurance at the same time, I’d guarantee they wouldn’t have been sent such a probing and repulsive set of questions.

Why do I think these questions wouldn’t have been asked of a newly married couple? Because the entire form is specially designed to ask highly personal questions of gay men. Let’s look at the form that was sent out:

CBA Life Insurance Application for Gay Men, Part 1

CBA Life Insurance Application for Gay Men, Part 2

CBA Life Insurance Application for Gay Men, Part 3

CBA Life Insurance Application for Gay Men, Part 4

So, let’s run through these questions:

1. Have you EVER or do you INTEND to be tested or receive medical advice, counseling or treatment in conjunction with:
a. Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS)?
b. AIDS (HIV) Antibodies?
c. Any sexually transmitted disease?
d. Hepatitis B or C virus infection?

2. If you have previously been tested for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or (HIV) Antibodies or Hepatitis B or C please give the details and results of these.

3. Have you ever suffered from unintentional weight loss, persistent night sweats, persistent fever, persistent diarrhoea or persistent swollen glands?

4. Have you ever:
a. worked as, or engaged in sexual activity with a prostitute?
b. injected yourself or been injected with a drug which was not prescribed for yourself by a registered medical practitioner?
c. Have you had sexual contact with any person who you have reason to believe is HIV positive?

If you have answered ‘Yes’ to any of the questions 1, 2, 3 or 4 above, please provide details that may be relevant. These details include frequency, date(s) and the reason why you had, for example, a test or medical consultation and the full name and address of the doctor concerned.

5. Have you, or do you participate in male to male anal sexual intercourse?

If ‘Yes’:

Please provide the following additional information:

a. Advise details of frequency.

b. How may sexual partners have you had in the last 5 years?

c. How many sexual partners have you had in the last 3 years?

d. How many sexual partners have you had in the last 12 months?

e. Do you and your partner(s) use condoms? [ _ ] Never [ _ ] Sometimes [ _ ] Always

f. If you answer “Never” or “Sometimes” but still consider you practice safe sex, please explain why?

6. Please provide any additional information which may help assess your coverage.

By the end of the questionnaire I was half expecting to see a final check-box along the lines of:

I understand that by enrolling for this life insurance, I will notify the CBA in writing and via telephone at least three (3) working days in advance of any situation where I have sex.

[Edit, since I've managed to confuse some people - that clause wasn't in the form. What I'm saying is I'm surprised it wasn't, given all the other questions...]

Now some might want to argue that these are “reasonable” questions, but they’re not reasonable if they’re not asked of every applicant:

None of the sexual diseases named are exclusively the province of gay men.
There’s no rule book that says “if you’re gay, you HAVE to have sex with prostitutes”.
Similarly, there’s no rule book that says “if you’re gay, you HAVE to shoot up with illegal drugs”.
Gay men are not the only people who have unsafe sex. If we look at the definition of “unsafe sex”, every married couple who doesn’t use condoms also practice “unsafe sex”.

Since the form is explicitly designed for use by gay male applicants, one could easily believe that it’s a discriminatory process. I.e., an information request becomes discriminatory when the information could be requested of a broader selection of the population than is implied required by the nature of the request.

If you wonder why I rail against entrenched bigotry against the GBLT population, and why I say that until partnerships are named the name and treated the same, the people won’t be treated the same, this is a prime example. Every single one of the questions in this form are equally applicable to any sexually active person, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

But not, it seems, if you’re applying for life insurance with Australia’s biggest bank.

Hanlon's Razor

Life, Morality 2 Responses »

Jul 172010

I’m constantly surprised when people haven’t heard of Hanlon’s Razor, so I thought I’d take a few minutes to explain why it’s so important. If you’ve not heard of it before – or hadn’t heard the ‘formal’ name, it goes like this:

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

I was introduced to the concept when I joined my first system administration team in 1996, and I initially struggled with it, though I appreciated the concept right from the start. These days I’d like to consider that it forms the fundamental core of how I work, both from an IT/work perspective, and in day to day life as well. I’m not perfect – I still sometimes screw up and jump the gun, but even when I do, there’s gonna be a little nagging voice in my head whispering the rule and bringing me back.

Some might say that Hanlon’s Razor is an exercise in common sense, but as the old saying goes – common sense isn’t that common. So in a world where people seem to be getting increasingly angry and frustrated, a practical application of this rule could go a long way – with one important change:

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by not knowing any better.

Why is this important? It’s easy to get frustrated over “stupidity” these days, and that’s not really the intent of the rule – it’s meant to be quite the opposite. So that’s why I tone it down.

That means:

If you’re a sysadmin and a user doesn’t understand what a home directory is, they’re not trying to give you a bad day.
If you’re a call centre worker and a user doesn’t understand why there’s Pacman on the Google home screen, they’re not trying to give you a bad day.
If you’re a DBA and a user just accidentally deleted 20,000 rows instead of 2 rows, they’re not trying to give you a bad day.
If you’re backup administrator and a user just deleted an important file and need it urgently recovered, they’re not trying to give you a bad day.

So stepping beyond tech, here’s a few examples:

If a waiter or waitress asks you 3 times for what your order is, and then still brings the wrong thing, they’re not trying to piss you off, they’re probably just having a bad day themselves.
If you got a bill in the mail that has an error on it and you call up the hotline to complain, the person you call likely isn’t directly responsible for your bill, and may need you to carefully explain the problem so that they can help you, not so they can piss you off.
If you get a call from a customer who has a billing problem, they’re not trying to give you a bad day.
If a shop assistant accidentally rings up a $200 charge instead of a $20 charge, they’re not trying to give you a bad day.

I could just keep giving examples, but that would be tedious. The point is that you can take any situation where you might ordinarily get angry with someone or frustrated with someone, and reconsider it carefully before you “snap”. Think very carefully: are they deliberately trying to piss you off, or are they just making a mistake/having a bad day/not sure of what they’re doing?

In most cases guess what the answer is going to be?

There’s a corollary to Hanlon’s Razor – Occam’s Razor. (Yes, I understand the irony here.) To paraphrase, it’s:

The simplest explanation is usually the best.

What does that mean? If you eliminate stupidity or “just doesn’t know”, and it really does come down to the person acting out of malice, you can feel justified in getting your dander up. But until then, take a deep breath and don’t assume they’re out to annoy you.

Trust me, you’ll be happier for it, and you’ll be better for it.

iPhone 4 Delayed in Australia?

Phones, Technical, Telcos No Responses »

Jul 152010

I personally can’t wait to test out the much touted reception issues with the iPhone 4. You probably think I’m crazy, but actually, I’m perfectly lucid for one clear reason: in order to do that, I’ll have waved goodbye to Vodafone, since I’ll be shifting carriers when I get an iPhone 4.

When I got an iPhone, I shifted from Telstra to Vodafone. I then found out that just because you can have perfect cell coverage with one carrier doesn’t mean you’ll get perfect cell coverage with another carrier, even when they advertise good coverage on the Central Coast. The only people who would describe Vodafone cell coverage in my area as “great” would probably also describe a shit sandwich as “tasty”.

So, quite frankly I’m looking forward to the phone – particularly when I don’t, as they say, “hold it that way” – I hold a phone from the top, not the bottom.

(I wish, personally, that Apple had engineered a phone that worked against the people who “hold it that way”, when “that way” is “imbecilic walkie talkie” way. You know who I’m talking about – the twits who go on speaker phone – as if I and others around them give a rats arse about their conversation – and talk into the microphone holding the phone laying flat poking out from their mouth, rather than against their face. I’m not a betting man, but if Apple had engineered a phone that prevented idiots from using their phones that way, the media coverage would have been far more positive…)

But it seems inevitable at this point that the iPhone 4 will be delayed in Australia – and not just picking on Australia, maybe a great many or all of the second wave of countries. Here’s a few reasons I suspect why:

Apple are still unable to say when they will ship the white iPhone 4 units.
When Apple have traditionally said that a product will be available in “late <month>”, they typically start the pre-order process at least 2, sometimes 3-4 weeks out from that date. There’s been no sign of the pre-order process starting in Australia yet. (By comparison, for a May 28 release date, my pre-order for iPads – that had already had their release date put off a month – was May 10.)
If discussions are being held at Apple regarding remediation of the kerfuffle over the signal strength, they won’t go and add another 15 or 30 (or whatever the number is) countries to the list of affected devices until they have decided what they’re going to do.
I got an email from Optus on Tuesday, more than a week after I registered for interest, that read, “We can’t wait to bring you the latest iPhone 4 News … and we are looking forward to being able to share it with you as soon as we can.” It seems somewhat doubtful if Optus would bother to send out an email if it was expected pre-orders would start this week. If pre-orders don’t start this week, that further diminishes the amount of time left before the end of the month, again making the chances of a July release lower.
If initial sales are to be believed, iPhone 4 is selling in record numbers. Like the iPad before it, Apple may be focusing on increasing production and providing units to the original core countries before expanding outward again.

So, as of July 14, with no sign of pre-orders available, my guess is that iPhone 4 isn’t going to hit Australia, and the other countries in the second wave, until late August. (Of course, I hope Apple might blow this prediction out of the water and announce availability soon.)

[Edit]

With Apple having announced a press conference to be held 10am Friday US/Pacific time at their HQ on Friday, it seems completely implausible that there’ll be any announcement regarding the release date of the iPhone 4 in the second-wave countries before that time. Given it’s reasonably unprecedented for Apple to hold press conferences about products (rather than to release products) , I’d surmise that my “late August” prediction of an iPhone 4 release in Australia may actually be optimistic.

Let’s hope iOS 4.1 addresses some iPhone 3G performance issues to tide us over then … iOS 4 hasn’t exactly been kind to the older phones…

[Edit 2010-07-17]

Apple have said in the press conference that the second wave countries, including Australia, will see the iPhone on July 30. I’m happily proved wrong, and I’m looking forward to getting my hands on it.

The boganisation of the asylum seeker discussion

Life, Morality 2 Responses »

Jul 112010

The asylum seeker discussion in Australia – most notably the discussion about people who attempt to travel to Australia via unauthorised means – has for the last decade been increasingly boganised. It’s been taken over by the Today Tonight/A Current Affair world of absolutes and sensationalism – of 30 second sound grabs and thinly veiled racial prejudices.

Like various politicians in the United States paying lip service to the Tea Baggers for cheap votes, Australian politicians have allowed themselves to be sucked into the boganisation of the discussion. Since news in Australia seems to be programmed by extreme ADHD sufferers on cocaine, there isn’t time in any news segment for an articulate discussion – any individual news item is usually over within a few minutes at most. The only time the news concentrates on any topic for more than a few minutes is when a princess or a pop star dies.

Indeed, one might cynically suggest that the only way any serious media attention will ever be paid to the asylum seeker discussion in Australia would be to ensure the next boat load of unauthorised asylum seekers is composed entirely of clones of Princess Di and Michael Jackson.

It’s almost as if at some point Australia forgot about what it means to be human, and to be a human in need.

Between the lack of media focus and the bogan attitude given to the subject in the media, asylum seekers who attempt to enter the country via unauthorised means are reduced to:

Queue jumpers and
Illegal immigrants and
Cheating against those who follow the rules and
Likely dole bludgers and
Possibly terrorists.

It’s actually a pretty sick set of generalisations. Since the regular media has the attention span of a 3 year old in a toy store, being seen as “tough on illegal immigrants” has become Good Political Nous – someone stamping their hand on a lectern saying “We decide who comes here and the circumstances in which they come” (John Howard) gets a lot more media play than a politican actually speaking for 5-10 minutes of the complex considerations that come into play in this issue. In other words, a politician who fits the “media whore” stereotype doesn’t want to discuss the issue in detail because the regular media will always turn to another politician happy to speak in short sentences.

So let’s avoid 30 second sound grabs, and consider the “illegal boat people” discussion for a moment.

The way the issue is portrayed in the media is that in the nebulous “out there” (where “out there” is anywhere outside of Australia’s borders) there are a variety of people waiting very patiently in perfectly serene circumstances for their case for asylum in Australia to be heard. They are under no pressure, they are in no danger, and therefore should be content to wait patiently for as long as it takes to be heard – and equally, should their asylum claims be denied, they can just keep going about their normal lives as if nothing untoward happened.

In other words, the way the issue is discussed mostly in Australia completely confuses “asylum seekers” with “immigrants”, and is complete bollocks. Let’s look at the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of “asylum”:

refuge b :protection from arrest and extradition given especially to political refugees by a nation or by an embassy or other agency enjoying diplomatic immunity

So someone who is an “asylum seeker” is someone who wishes protection from their country of origin. The notion of “political refugees” doesn’t just cavalierly refer to someone who say, would prefer to vote Tory instead of Labor, Democrat instead of Republican, or Labor instead of Liberal. It refers to someone who seeks refugee status from laws that would violate their human rights – such as being executed for being homosexual, or being beaten to death for voting against the regime, or being imprisoned for 30 years for speaking out against the regime.

Thus, “asylum seekers” aren’t “immigrants” – not by any stretch of the imagination. An immigrant is someone who wants to marry a citizen of another country and move to live with them, or wants to transition from working for a few years in a country to living there permanently, or wants to move to live with family who previously changed countries, etc. An asylum seeker on the other hand is someone who may very well be killed, mistreated, abused or imprisoned should they remain in their own country. And not just them, but their family – their children, their parents, etc., too.

Australian politicians like to speak of “illegal immigration”, thus diluting the asylum seeker reality of the situation. They like to speak of “illegal boat people” and derisively dismiss the dangers suffered by people who pay sometimes tens of thousands of US dollars to people smugglers so as to “jump the queue” and “cheat” their way into the country.

In a bizarre case of tall poppy syndrome, it sometimes seems that the real crime, in the eyes of the bogan media posse, is that people who have enough money to pay a people smuggler should have no need to flee their country. Ergo, they must be lying. Ergo, they must be undesirables.

The argument is never turned around though. Instead of the media doing voxpops asking people inane questions like “Do you think illegal immigrants represent a threat to our security?”, maybe they should be asking questions that teach the heart of the ethical dilemma, such any of the following:

If you and your children were at constant risk of being killed by your government, would you do anything you could to save your children?
If you were going to be executed for having been accused of having an affair, would you appeal to the UN and hope you’re heard in time, or would you take a chance to flee your country?
If you were going to be imprisoned because your father spoke out against the government, and your children left to fend for themselves, would you accept your just punishment or do whatever it took to save yourself and your children?

Of course, these questions take a few seconds longer than the normally posed voxpop questions, so the media is unlikely to ask them. That’s a pity, of course – asking the real questions might encourage people who think the asylum seeker discussion is just a binary decision to think again.

It’s time that mainstream Australian politicians stopped being sensationalist media whores and started to encourage a humane discussion regarding asylum seekers. I don’t pretend to know all the answers – I want to know the answers, but I’m not going to know them until there’s an articulate discussion. That means an end to 30 second sound grabs on the issue that appeal to people who are too comfortable in their xenophobia for their own good. Every time a cheap vote is earned by appealing to the baser nature of ourselves, we lose a little of our real humanity.

[Edit, 2010-07-12]

About half an hour last night after I posted the above entry, I changed channels on my Pay TV and saw the following Red Cross ad regarding discrimination and labels. The message of the ad fits perfectly with why the discussion on asylum seekers needs to be had at a deeper level than 30 second populist sound grabs:

Best part of Doctor Who – ever

Entertainment 1 Response »

Jul 102010

In the 5th series of the New Doctor Who, the Doctor and Amy, having met Vincent van Gogh and dealt with the monster in his time stream, decide to bring the man, so tormented by his lack of acceptance and fears of inadequacies, temporarily into the present to show him the impact he makes on the world through his art.

Of course, it’s only a story, but it doesn’t change the fact that this is the sort of beautiful writing that you can sometimes spend years waiting for in TV shows. Tony Curran, who played an excellent Vincent van Gogh, absolutely shone in these scenes, providing an intensely emotional performance with barely a word said. The ever amazing Bill Nighy – such an adaptable actor – playing a slightly bumbling museum curator/guide turns in his best performance in the episode in these scenes too, fully conveying the reverential awe of a great artist.

I honestly believe it’s the best thing I’ve seen in Doctor Who ever:

(If you’re wondering, the song played in the background is Chances, by a UK band called Athlete.)

Shelving is not canning

Data, Life, Morality, Technical No Responses »

Jul 092010

It’s come out today that the Australian Labor Party has “shelved” implementation of the mandatory internet filter until after the election. According to SMH, “Conroy backs down on net filters“:

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has capitulated to widespread concerns over his internet censorship policy and delayed any mandatory filters until at least next year.

Academics, ISP experts, political opponents, the US government and a broad cross-section of community groups have long argued that the plan to block a secret blacklist of “refused classification” web pages for all Australians was fraught with issues, for example, that blocked RC content could include innocuous material.

Having consistently ignored these concerns, Senator Conroy today announced that implementation of his policy would be delayed until a review of RC classification guidelines could be conducted by state and territory censorship ministers.

Any person celebrating this as the “end” of the mandatory internet filter is a fool.

We’ve seen this stunt before from any number of governments – refer to a committee, or put it into the “too hard” basket until after the election, then after the election if they get back in, claim they had a mandate for something they “shelved”.

Whatever you do, don’t give these people their mandate. The only safe option is to vote Green – they’re the only main-stream party so far that has emphatically stated their opposition to the filter.

Gillard on Internet Censorship – Same old tripe

Data, Life, Morality, Technical No Responses »

Jul 092010

Recently someone finally got around to asking Julia Gillard, Australia’s new prime minister, what she was going to do about the mandatory internet censorship filter. Proving herself to perhaps be more a Thought Dictator In Waiting, Julia trotted out the same old tripe, according to the ABC, about “protecting the children”. Indeed, moving on to a more comprehensive SMH Article, “Julia Gillard: Web Filter to Stay”, Julia dumped a feculent argument worthy of the Grand Conroy himself:

In Julia Gillard’s first comments on the filter since becoming Prime Minister, she told ABC radio in Darwin that the proposal was an effort to control the ”dark side” of communications technology.

”Images of child abuse, child pornography – they are not legal in our cinemas,” she said yesterday. ”Why should you be able to see them on the internet? I think that that’s the kind of moral, ethical question at the heart of this.”

This government is absolutely determined to drag the net censorship argument down into a puerile one about child sexual abuse, yet when the preliminary/test set of internet sites to be banned was leaked last year, researchers found that very little on the banned list had anything to do with child sexual abuse. Instead, generic sex sites, sites with information about euthanasia, the site for a canteen lady and a dentist were all on the black list.

It’s all a bit too Oz in Oz for my liking at the moment. There’s a booming voice talking about child abuse that’s hoping we don’t go looking behind the curtain.

Arguing that the internet filter is about child pornography is a polarising view aimed squarely at getting the votes from the religious right, lazy parents and bogans:

Religious right – It’s aimed at the sort of people who think that any form of pornography is bad, and who therefore hope that any “ban” on child pornography (here’s a hint: it is already banned, and rightly so) would lead to a ban on all other forms of pornography, than all forms of sex save the sort that would happen once every 9 months between exactly one man and exactly one woman in exactly one unpleasurable position for the sake of creating more resource drains on this planet.
Lazy parents – Lazy parents who think that it shouldn’t be their responsibility to keep an eye on their kids online. Lazy parents who think that the “I don’t know computers well” statement is a Shield of Solid Stupidity that allows them to inflict their lazy views on the rest of the country.
Bogans – The A Current Affair crowd / Today Tonight. You know it, I know it, the entire argument is aimed at people who think investigative journalism comes down to harassing electrical repair people until they commit suicide.

Queue of course the quote from the religious groups from the Sydney Morning Herald Article:

But Ms Gillard won backing from the Christian group FamilyVoice Australia, whose spokeswoman, Ros Phillips, said she was ”delighted” the government’s position was being maintained.

”The underlying principle, you can’t dispute – why should you treat the internet differently from any form of communications like films and books and so on.”

Again the failing of this attitude is seeing the internet as media rather than a medium. In particular, the internet should not be compared to films or books, but rather to telephones or postal services. The government does not actively filter/censor either of these other two communications mediums. They don’t intercept all mail looking for child pornography – well, not without a warrant. They don’t tap phones without a warrant.

This process is about warrantless interception, monitoring and control of all content. Child pornography is just the wedge that they use to polarise the community and hope that enough gullible people will fall for it. In the meantime, they commence secret processes to record 10 years worth of internet browsing history and email exchanges for all people in the country. (Govt wants ISPs to record browsing history – ZDNet.)

What frustrates me the most about this – what makes me want to scream and shout and beat my head against a wall in disgust is that this tripe, this censorship and totalitarian monitoring is being proposed and spearheaded by a party which has previously distanced itself by the other major party in Australia by giving a shit about human rights. This supposedly a left-wing government. This was the government that apologised to the stolen generations.

It leads me to the inevitable conclusion: democracy is dying in Australia. It’s being killed by the 30 second sound bite and the boganisation of politics. It’s about appealing to the lowest common denominator – the stupid – rather than the best parts of our humanity. There was a time that I imagined that politics was about people who were prepared to lead, to inspire and to pull the ethos and the morality of a country forward. I dreamed a dream, and all that.

If the mandatory internet censorship system were just about keeping child pornography out of Australia, and if the government hadn’t slipped up and shown its hand (or briefly opened the curtain, so to speak) regarding record retention of browsing and email, then maybe I’d have supported it. Anything to do with child abuse is loathsome, after all.

Anything.

Anything at all.

Including using it as an excuse for something dark and morally reprehensible.