March 2005 Archives

I suppose one good thing about Christopher Eccelston leaving Doctor Who so early is that it wiped Tony Blair's appearance on a prime-time gameshow off the news. I can't believe that somebody who spends so little time in Parliament is prepared to demean the office of Prime Minister in that way. Or perhaps I can, and I just really don't want to believe.

Two songs today, courtesy of You Send It (found elsewhere on the Internet, BPI fans, and they'll expire within a week). The first is a radio-rip of the new Oasis song, Lyla.

Listen hard, because, at about fifteen seconds in, you can hear my heart break one more time. Almost as much as this week's death of Blue Beetle at the hands of Max Lord, the return of Jason Todd from the dead, and his killing of the Joker. Not a great week for joy in the comic and music worlds, then. For this is staggeringly poor; a turgid, sludgy mess that even the Stereophonics would be hesitant to release. Guitars almost completely obliterated by distortion, a horrific end to the chorus that stops the song dead in its tracks (but sadly, keeps going), and lifeless drumming. And, as it's a post-Morning Glory Oasis record, it sticks in about five unnecessary key changes, and lasts for two minutes after it has warn out its welcome and gone to the toilet in your sink. Never mind the "Paul is Dead Theory", who stole the Noel Gallagher of Live Forever, Listen Up, and The Masterplan, and replaced him with the pod person that remains?

Luckily, things are looking up. In a grime-type way, most surprisingly. Or possibly proving once again, that if a girl is singing, I'll probably like it. But this is wonderful in all the ways that the Oasis record isn't; playful, funny, and inventive. You can dance to it. You can sing along to it. You can giggle at the silly inclusion of door-chimes and playground rhymes. It's never boring. And thank goodness for that. Lady Sovereign, you're awesome…

Well, I suppose it was good while it lasted. FOR ALL OF ONE EPISODE. Come on, Chris, would two series kill you that much?

The lesson, children: never get attached to a Doctor. They'll break your heart every time…

And although I do like him a lot, it might have been an idea for Eccelston to think about being typecast before he asked RTD for the role? Maybe?

An old Neil Gaiman comic about Clause 28.

Doctor Who gets a second series after just one episode!

I hope everybody agrees with me that Switch is the best thing Will Smith has done since Summertime. (I have a copy of Code Red upstairs, and I'm not ashamed!)

Quite possibly the greatest thing on the Internet. Ever. (for non-UK readers, enter 100, and click the link you get) EDIT: For those of you who know what I'm talking about: page 888 is funny…

Oh, to be in Manchester next Thursday!

Hope everybody had a good Easter. If anybody wants some Easter eggs, I think we have far too many!

Lots of planets have a North.

As far as re-introductions go, I don't think I could have asked for much more from Rose, the first episode of the new Doctor Who series. Certain things, like the incidental music, the opening sequence with far too may quick cuts, and Graham Norton's unscheduled interruption, I could have done without, but it was a strong opening. Christopher Eccleston was just great; odd, funny, and plain weird. I loved the look of pride on his face when he was talking about the TARDIS's appearance: "It's a disguise!" Billie Piper wasn't as bad as I feared either. Her accent tended to jump around a bit for some reason, and perhaps she's a bit too much like Ace (someone who has been forgotten about with all the "she's the feistiest assistant the Doctor's ever had!" PAH! Does she throw explosives, and beat a Dalek to bits with A BASEBALL BAT? I think not), but she was fine, and she'll make a decent assistant on the basis of this episode.

For all the talk, though, about how this would be a "new vision" (although RTD has been playing down this in his press appearances recently), this was an episode of Doctor Who. Its greatest strength is its biggest weakness; it has a format which allows the cast to go anywhere, at any time. The problem is that when you tell a writer that, they'll inevitably end up writing a huge epic set in Ancient Egypt, or a war story set in the far future among exploding stars and the end of galaxies. The effects department just cries itself into a drunken stupor, and does the best it can. I'm not one for complaining about old-Who effects; sure, some were ropey, but some were surprisingly decent for their time (the first regeneration sequence for example - an analogue morphing effect that still looks quite effective today). The new series has money, but not enough to make perfect-looking CGI. So the effects look a little out-of-place sometimes, but they're on the same quality level as your average Buffy or Angel episode.

Next week: the end of Earth. Episode 5 is called Dalek. *nerdglee*

More weirdness from Florida: a bill to stamp out the leftist domination of universities.

According to a legislative staff analysis of the bill, the law would give students who think their beliefs are not being respected legal standing to sue professors and universities.

So if, I'm reading this right — if I was at a Florida university, and my professor said that "MS-DOS's file-allocation system was a badly-designed hack vulnerable to data corruption, and FAT32 was the equivalent of trying rebuild an egg using wallpaper paste," I could sue? Perhaps I think Bill Gates is awesome, and that all his code is perfect. How dare the man or woman disparage his good name!?

Students who believe their professor is singling them out for “public ridicule” – for instance, when professors use the Socratic method to force students to explain their theories in class – would also be given the right to sue.

Erm, I hope that's qualified in the law somewhat, as doesn't that form the basis of most teaching methods? If you're going to ask somebody for their theory, you also want them to explain it, for that helps everybody understand where they're coming from (and yes, in many cases, people will pick holes in a person's theory. But I'd say, in almost all cases, it's not personal).

And, really, why would you bother going to a Biology class if you don't want to hear about evolution? It's like taking Physics and decrying the professors for talking about electrons instead of little pixies.

Today's entry: "email contact of fine men and girls in London 2005"

Well. perhaps Richard will leave his number in the comments, but I'm not promising anything…

(apologies for dismal updates recently. Must do better, I know)

Oooh. Free multimedia hosting. Forever! (terms and conditions apply!)

Black holes!

DALEKS! (I'm far too excited about this, you know)

Okay, it's going to cost at least $100, but it contains parts of Alan Moore's script, extensive notes, and all-new colouring. Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Another case of a record company supporting its artists, I see…

Peter Kay saves the record industry!

Witness! The black market underground of…

Blue Peter badges. Yours for the low price of £20.

We live in a sick and twisted world…

And, a little bit of advice to those of you in Chapel Hill:

Every year on this day, the comic shop in the town has a big sale; comics and graphic novels at excellent prices! So, if you're in the area, I suggest you have a look (I arrived ONE day late for this sale last year! Bah. But they had a Hallowe'en sale as well, so I did okay in the end). It's Chapel Hill Comics, on Rosemary Street. Just go through the Bank of America building, carrying on until you get down the steps onto Rosemary, past the nightclub that changes its name every year because the owners go bust when the students leave in May, and out onto the path. Head towards Columbia, and it's on your left!

(Everybody else: umm, I don't know. Wear something green?)

It is rather annoying, that if it wasn't for somebody demanding a photograph, the IRA would have probably disarmed last year…

(and it's not just the IRA who are still involved in paramilitary violence in Ulster)

The Case of The Mysterious Shoes!

I want one!

M.I.A. striking a Neneh Cherry pose.

Another love letter to the iPod.

Google talks! (When it becomes sentient and starts designing killer robots, then we'll all be sorry!)

(If nothing else, George Lucas knows how to make a trailer that punches all of the geek buttons)

I seem to have a job. How did that happen?

He's in the House. He's voting. But he won't enter the chamber. Which seems a little gutless, to be frank.

Wow. This is an impressive article indeed. It starts off badly ('The 80s comeback is upon us! Oh, it's been around since 1998' bit in paragraphs two and three is particularly spectacular), and heads downhill fast as DeRogatis lists his Top Eight reasons why the 1980s sucked. Perhaps, in the spirit of things, we'll take things in order:

1. Over-production

   It'd be wrong to say that there weren't over-produced songs in the 1980s. But of course, you could say the same about any period in pop music; Paul McCartney famously hated Phil Spector's lavish work on Let It Be, and Britney Spears' Hit Me Baby One More Time is Production Gone Wild. It's definitely not exclusive to the 1980s. If you're looking for subtle production from twenty years ago, then how about Trevor Horn's production on ABC's All of My Heart, or New Order's The Perfect Kiss, or anything from Dexy's Don't Stand Me Down album?

   And besides, Born In The U.S.A. is fantastic, and the production sound is a big part of why it's great.

2. Bombast

   Er, okay. Not entirely sure what he's getting at here, but to be honest, I prefer reach-for-the-skies vocals as opposed to Current Indie Band Attempts To Copy Jeff Buckley's Vocals (Badly)…

3. The dearth of social conscience

   Oh, come on. Even granting that the writer is American, and so can be possibly forgiven for not knowing about things like Red Wedge, the campaigns against Clause 28 (reason number 2353 of why I will not vote Conservative), Heaven 17's Fascist Groove Thang, Simple Mind's Belfast Child, the Free Nelson Mandela concert, or the gender politics of the New Romantic movement, two words completely destroy DeRogatis' argument: Live Aid.

4. Sexism

   Because, of course, there was no sexism in the 1960s or 1970s. Oh no. And we've complete purged ourselves of it now. Ho ho.

5. The advent of digital synthesizers


6. The dominance of early drum machines

   New Order. The Art of Noise. Pet Shop Boys. Frankie Goes To Hollywood. I don't need to say much more, except that these are four acts that couldn't exist without 1980s technology, and all four changed pop for the better.

7. The fashions

   I have been known to wear mascara, so I recuse myself from this entry (except to say: Adam Ant! Kevin Rowland! Haircut 100! Okay, strike that last one).

8. MTV

   Yeah. Yeah. Image-over-substance. But at least they played videos back in the 1980s. Also, given that America has never had a unifed radio network like Britain, it was the first time that all of America's youth could experience something similar to Radio 1; a shared playground that spread British bands and hip-hop all over the nation. And for that, MTV can be forgiven for many sins.

There is good in all decades of pop music; a blanket dismissal of ten years simply because you didn't like a few songs is silly.

They may be a undemocratic, anachronistic sort, but sometimes, you just can't help having fuzzy feelings towards the House of Lords.

Part of my pessimism about the chart last week stemmed from Radio 1's constant tinkering with the Top 40 Chart Show. You would have thought that it would be quite easy: you start the show at 40, and the play all the songs until you get to 1. That's not good enough for Radio 1, it seems, as they want it to be an all-round entertainment show. Gah. The latest version of this debuted yesterday, with new DJs JK and Joel (imagine Chris Moyles, but even less appealing. I know, I didn't think it was possible either). I didn't have the heart to subject myself to the show, but one William Swygart did, and he reports back in Stylus magazine. The short version: it was so bad, he's terminating his two-year-old Top 40 column with immediate effect.

(by the way: Stereophonics at #1, Annie at #50. RAGE.)

Lots of cute icons!

Notepad Invaders!

A blog that points to good free fonts on the web.

DIY Lazer Tag. The Internet is a glorious thing sometimes.

Part 1 of 12??? Somebody needs to upload that to a torrent server, and quickly…

I was in HMV yesterday, and I saw that Warners/R.E.M. have rereleased all their post-Document albums with an extra DVD. The DVD has a DVD-Audio mix of the album, lyrics (horror!), plus documentaries about the making of the record. How annoying is that? I imagine that most people who are going to be interested in that sort of thing are probably likely to be R.E.M. fans in the first place, so there's a good chance that they already have all the albums. If they sold a separate DVD set with the documentaries on, that'd be fine (and if they do, let me know, because I can't find it), but otherwise, it just smacks of Warners ripping fans off. Shock, eh?

(what's worse is that the DVDs themselves are a missed opportunity. Shouldn't they include the music videos for the singles from each album? Oh, but that'd cut into the sales of the video DVD, and we can't have that, can we?)

In other news, it looks as if the new Annie single, Heartbeat is going to flop this week. It's #50 in the mid-week chart, which is depressing when you consider that you can sell about five hundred copies and get a Top 40 hit these days. I have a feeling that Anniemal is going to end up as one of the lost pop albums of this decade. I think the singles chart isn't long for this world, even with the merging with the download figures. Did you know that Moby and R.E.M. had singles out this week? Do they? Elvis' ghost stalks the chart, with embarrassingly low Top 5 sales every week, as the record company scrambles to outrun the public domain. Will EMI do the same when The Beatles' recordings become public property?

The singles market is doomed. But what will replace it? Record companies make most of their money from albums, yes, but that's mainly for established acts. Where will the next generation of pop come from?

I'm sure you'll agree that it's a good thing that children in Iraq are no longer taught from textbooks that proclaim Saddam is a great leader. Meanwhile, in that great state of Texas, a new health textbook has been approved for the eastern part of the state. Shall we look at some of the changes between the old edition and the new edition? Why, yes, let's.

The sex hormones your body produces may make you interested in romantic relationships with others. Friendships and dating relationships help you prepare for adult relationships.

Seems reasonable enough. But no! It needed to be corrected!

The sex hormones your body produces may make you interested in romantic relationships with the opposite sex. Friendships and dating relationships help you prepare for stable marital commitment.

*bangs head on the table*. But wait, it gets worse:

If you discuss the issue of homosexuality in class, discuss it respectfully. Be aware that someone in your class may be homosexual or related to someone who is homosexual, or have a friend who is homosexual.

If you discuss the issue of homosexuality in class, be aware that Texas law rejects homosexual marriage. Students can therefore maintain that homosexuality and heterosexuality are not moral equivalents, without being charged with "hate speech".

Aside from making me want to cover all of Texas with deadly VX gas (I know what you're thinking: "Glass or plastic?!" I hear you cry. Well, glass is probably more biodegradable), does the paragraph even make any sort of logical sense? Because Texas rejects gay marriage, you can say anything you like?

Surveys indicate that 3 to 10 percent of the population is gay. Opinions vary on why some people are straight, some are bisexual, and others are gay.

The idea that as many as three people in a class of thirty could be gay was obviously too controversial for a Texan class, so it was replaced with:

No one knows for sure why homosexuals, lesbians and bisexuals as a group are more prone to self-destructive behaviors like depression, illegal drug use, and suicide.

Well, if that's true (which I suspect isn't, to be honest), how about this for a stab in the dark: Because scum like you want to trample on their rights, harass them, assault them, and ideally, you'd like to see them wiped off the face of the planet? I know I'd certainly depressed if the ruling Government thought I was immoral and something to be stamped out.

And, if you'll excuse me for stooping to clichéd comparisons, it reminds me too much of this question from a 1930s German textbook:

A modern bomber can carry 1,800 incendiaries. How long is the path along which it can distribute those bombs if it drops a bomb every second at a speed of 250 kilometres and hour? How far apart are the craters?

Texas: You useless, cretinous morons.

Yes, the web server fell over AGAIN. Sigh. Does anybody know any of a reasonably priced webhost that offers a 100Mb package plus Perl/CGI suport? I think I'll be moving as soon as I can afford it…

I guess it's that time again, you know, the one where I speak out on an issue that's currently raging in the blogosphere. Exciting stuff, I know.

The issue of the moment is, of course, the Google Toolbar, an application that sits in your web browser and provides a helpful interface to some of Google's facilities. The fuss is all about a button called "AutoLink", which, when you press it, changes un-hyperlinked addresses, Federal Express tracking numbers, and ISBNs into hyperlinks that to Google Maps, the FedEx tracking page, or Amazon, depending on what it finds. So, for example, if I was to write 531 Carmicahel, Chapel Hill, NC 27514 here, then pressing "AutoLink" would change the text to a link which would show exactly where that is.

(Incidentally, if you're currently living in 531: I'm sorry for the junk mail that you get in my name. But I would like to point out that it wasn't me who signed you up for the NRA leaflets. Or the Elizabeth Dole updates. Oh, and I wish I could say how to make the room appear bigger. I don't think it can be done. Go next door and gaze in envy at 532, who is paying the same money as you, but appears to have a much bigger room! (It's actually only an inch wider, but it means you can get the bed against the window, which changes the whole appearance of the room))

Anyway, reaction on the web to this new feature has been slightly perplexing. You might have thought, as I did, "well, that's a cool trick," and promptly forgot about it. I think most people did, but there's a vocal group of people objecting to AutoLink. Their complaints range from wanting Google to open the APIs involved so third parties can add their own links and change where the current annotations go to (sensible, and Google has already added different options so you can go to MapQuest instead of Google Maps, for example), to a bunch of people screaming that Google has now become evil and that this is the end of the web as we know it.

I really can't see the problem. Dave Winer's essay against the Toolbar goes all over the place, making incorrect statements about how it works (AutoLink-added links change the cursor when hovered over, thus they are different from normal links), and spending most of its time worrying about what AutoLink could do, instead of what it does. This seems to be a common theme amongst those argument against AutoLink; I've read tens of weblogs that all talk about how it automatically changes web pages, but it does no such thing. It sits, patiently, doing nothing until the user clicks on the button. Only then does it look out for items it can link, and if something is already linked, it does not change that like. So it's not going to rewrite your Amazon Associates Code and give Google all the money you were making from sales.

There's also an argument that says that Google is violating the copyright of the web author when AutoLink is used. Tosh. It's no different from buying a book, underlining passages, and writing notes in the margin. Plus, copyright infringement is mainly concerned with redistribution, and that doesn't happen here - it's just a page on a user's computer, which she could change herself is she wanted to, or write a browser plug-in that did the same thing. Would that be unacceptable to the anti-AutoLink camp? Is Bloglines bad because it takes RSS feeds and republishes them without the author's consent (hey, I wasn't asked. I'm cool with it, though)?

How do I feel about AutoLink? I think it's great. I love the idea of having an option to find more information about what I'm reading (it's similar to the BBC News Wiki idea, in a way, or the Accessible Odeon pages), and as a web author, I don't mind if people want to do things like this to my work. It improves their web experience, and I'm all for that.