I occasionally get that "Why are they doing this?"-feeling when dealing with companies. Last month when Apple and Emi announced that they will start selling DRM-free track on iTunes that even have higher quality than DRM'ed songs, I jumped on the opportunity and downloaded "Wish you were here" by Pink Floyd. Whole album (even though price of individual songs was increased somewhat, the price of albums didn't change, so it makes more sense to get whole albums now), 256kbit/sec, DRM-free. And after spending some quality-time with that album (yes, it really is one of the greatest albums ever made), I decided that it's time to take one step further: Next download would be "The dark side of the moon".
Yesterday I decided that this is the time, and I launched iTunes. First sign of trouble: TDSOTM is indeed for sale in iTunes, but next to it are words "partial album". Um, did they run out of ones and zeroes, so they can't have the whole album in there? Why else would they be missing "Great gig in the sky" and "Us and them"? And not only that... There's no way to actually buy the album! What you CAN do is to buy individual track from the album, at 1,29e a piece. No, you can't buy the album for 9.99e. Not even the partial album.
And... Why do I get the feeling that the whole album WAS on sale not too long ago? And even if it wasn't... Why are they doing this? They have Pink Floyd in iTunes. All their albums. Except the one they are most famous for. How do consumers benefit from this crap? Seriously, answer me that!
What will I do now? I'll probably go to the library, loan the damn CD, and rip it to my computer. And I actually WANTED to buy it! But if think that they encourage me or others in to buying that album by omitting certain songs from it, and making us buy it one song at a time (so it will cost more) they are sadly mistaken. I will get it for free instead.
Here's a novel idea: Provide consumers with quality products for good price and people will pay for them. Screw them over and... they will not.
Yes, I'm now few moments older, and I spent that time cursing this crap.
Marketing
It's interesting to see how same products are marketed in different regions. For example: I have a Canon Eos 400D DSLR-camera. And in Europe (and some other places as well) it's known as Eos 400D. What is it called in USA? It's Canon Digital Rebel XTi. Before 400D we had 350D. In USA it was called Digital Rebel XT.
Why do they do that? Obviousy because different people (in this case, Americans vs. Europeans) respond differently to branding. But I can't help but feel that the Eos's branding in USA is... silly. It's like they had Gillette handle the branding. I wouldn't be one bit surpised if Eos 450D was called "Digital Rebel XTi Turbo" in USA.
Related to this: reality does mimic fiction. It even has two strips!
Why do they do that? Obviousy because different people (in this case, Americans vs. Europeans) respond differently to branding. But I can't help but feel that the Eos's branding in USA is... silly. It's like they had Gillette handle the branding. I wouldn't be one bit surpised if Eos 450D was called "Digital Rebel XTi Turbo" in USA.
Related to this: reality does mimic fiction. It even has two strips!
Censorship or not
So Amnesty warns us about censorship in the internet. And while they are telling us that censorship is bad, they are also saying that some censorship is OK. According to Amnesty, it's OK to censor racist websites and the like. So... who exactly decides what is OK to censor and what is not? Governments (like in China)? Corporations? Some organisations (like Amnesty International or.... Aryan Nations? What? Why the former but not the latter?)?
So, are they against censorship or not? If they are against it, they should accept the fact that some people might say things that they disagree with. You are not really opposing censorship, if you are basically saying "you are free to say whatevery you please, just as long as you say things I approve of". And here we have Amnesty telling us that online-censorship is bad. Unless they are censoring things Amnesty opposes, then it's suddenly OK. I'm sorry, but it doesn't quite work that way.
If we agree that censoring racists and revisionists is OK, then we are basically turning them in to martyrs. And is censorship ever the right way to promote progress? What if the person we are censoring happens to be right, but his opinions and thoughts just happen to be not politically correct? No, I'm not saying that David Irving (for example) is right, but is it right or smart to say that "there is to be no discussion about the Holocaust. It happened, and everyone who disputes it will be thrown to jail!". The cynic in me could start thinking "why are they so serious about that? Are they trying to hide something?".
The best way to combat prejudices and ignorance is through facts. Yes, there are people who dispute the Holocaust. No, trying to force them to shut up does nothing to change their viewpoint on the matter, quite the contrary. The way to do that is through facts and open discussion. After all, if the history we know is true, what do we have to worry? We can just present the facts to the opposition. It's the same with racists and other weirdoes.
So, are they against censorship or not? If they are against it, they should accept the fact that some people might say things that they disagree with. You are not really opposing censorship, if you are basically saying "you are free to say whatevery you please, just as long as you say things I approve of". And here we have Amnesty telling us that online-censorship is bad. Unless they are censoring things Amnesty opposes, then it's suddenly OK. I'm sorry, but it doesn't quite work that way.
If we agree that censoring racists and revisionists is OK, then we are basically turning them in to martyrs. And is censorship ever the right way to promote progress? What if the person we are censoring happens to be right, but his opinions and thoughts just happen to be not politically correct? No, I'm not saying that David Irving (for example) is right, but is it right or smart to say that "there is to be no discussion about the Holocaust. It happened, and everyone who disputes it will be thrown to jail!". The cynic in me could start thinking "why are they so serious about that? Are they trying to hide something?".
The best way to combat prejudices and ignorance is through facts. Yes, there are people who dispute the Holocaust. No, trying to force them to shut up does nothing to change their viewpoint on the matter, quite the contrary. The way to do that is through facts and open discussion. After all, if the history we know is true, what do we have to worry? We can just present the facts to the opposition. It's the same with racists and other weirdoes.
Speaking of laptops....
Apple just released their new MacBook Pro's. And I want one. No, I _desire_ one. I could go for the cheapest of the three models (with increased HD-space), but I'm still researching it. the price-difference between the low-end and middle-model is 400e if they both have similar hard-drives. For that money I would get 200MHz more CPU-speed and twice as much VRAM. I'm not sure that is it worth it, propably not.
Yesterday-evening I was at the Apple online-store, with my mouse-cursor hovering over the "Add to Cart"-button. But no, I need to wait a while longer. I have the money, I have been saving for it. But I must resist for a while longer...
Yesterday-evening I was at the Apple online-store, with my mouse-cursor hovering over the "Add to Cart"-button. But no, I need to wait a while longer. I have the money, I have been saving for it. But I must resist for a while longer...
Receding technophilia
I admit it: I'm a technology-whore. I love gizmos and gadgets. I love all kinds of cool new stuff. And knowing all that, it's even more astonishing that I have been this patient with the current gizmos I have.
First of all, my computer is a Mac Mini. When I bought this computer over two years ago, it was the cheapest and slowest Mac available (not including used hardware). And it has served me well, even though new and cooler computers have been released (by Apple, naturally) since I bought this one. It has just felt that this computer is... good enough, and there's no need for something better. Well, that will change this summer when I will move to a laptop. Besides, I need more power since I have started shooting huge RAW-files with my camera. The Mini simply does not cut it anymore.
What about the display that is connected to my computer? Well, if I remember correctly, it's three years old. LCD, true, but nowhere near the state of the art. Again, it has been "good enough".
How about my iPod Mini? I bought it two years ago and it has served me well, even though new and better models have taken it's place. But it too will get replaced this summer. I want the ability to watch videos and pictures, and I'm running out of space on my device.
But, as things are, it seems that my technophilia has been giving way to more rational thought. I haven't bought new stuff just for the sake of them being new. I have actually kept on using my older stuff (although some might dispute the notion that two-year old computer is "old") since it has worked just fine. And now that I am replacing them, I'm doing it because I have clearly defined needs which are not met with my current devices. Could it be that rationality and level-headedness is creeping in to my geek-paradise?
Of course, as I replace my devices, my old hardware is recycled to good use. Mrs. will propably get the iPod Mini, while my Mac Mini will either me turned in to a household-server, donated to relatives or sold away.
First of all, my computer is a Mac Mini. When I bought this computer over two years ago, it was the cheapest and slowest Mac available (not including used hardware). And it has served me well, even though new and cooler computers have been released (by Apple, naturally) since I bought this one. It has just felt that this computer is... good enough, and there's no need for something better. Well, that will change this summer when I will move to a laptop. Besides, I need more power since I have started shooting huge RAW-files with my camera. The Mini simply does not cut it anymore.
What about the display that is connected to my computer? Well, if I remember correctly, it's three years old. LCD, true, but nowhere near the state of the art. Again, it has been "good enough".
How about my iPod Mini? I bought it two years ago and it has served me well, even though new and better models have taken it's place. But it too will get replaced this summer. I want the ability to watch videos and pictures, and I'm running out of space on my device.
But, as things are, it seems that my technophilia has been giving way to more rational thought. I haven't bought new stuff just for the sake of them being new. I have actually kept on using my older stuff (although some might dispute the notion that two-year old computer is "old") since it has worked just fine. And now that I am replacing them, I'm doing it because I have clearly defined needs which are not met with my current devices. Could it be that rationality and level-headedness is creeping in to my geek-paradise?
Of course, as I replace my devices, my old hardware is recycled to good use. Mrs. will propably get the iPod Mini, while my Mac Mini will either me turned in to a household-server, donated to relatives or sold away.
Children of Men
I finally watched "Children of Men" last weekend. I actually missed in when it was playing in the theaters (or they never showed it here at all), so I took a calculated risk and bought the DVD when I saw it for sale. And I wasn't disappointed.
It's a good sign when you read the comments in IMDB, and you have bunch of people telling how the movie is "racist", while you also have a bunch of people telling how the movie is "left-wing propaganda that glorifies immigrants". The movie obviously evokes strong emotions in viewers, and that's a good sign. And looking at the ratings it has received (currently 8.2/10 in IMDB), most people like it. No, the movie is not racist. It just depicts a society that suffers from xenophobia, but that does not mean that the movie itself suffers from it.
The movie is set in to near future when women have stopped having children. Last child was born 18 years ago, and mankind is slowly moving towards extinction. Most of the world has descended in to anarchy, while the remains of civilized society try to hang on. And the "civilized society" isn't really that civilized anymore.
While the world is coming to an end, it isn't going away with a bang, it's fading away. People still go to work, they still buy their coffee from coffee-shops, they still watch their news. And still, there's the constant feeling that mankind is doomed. None of the individuals are doomed as such: there is no nuclear war that is going to wipe them out, there is no disease that is going to kill them, nor are they waiting for radioactive cloud to kill them all. There's just a bunch of people living out their lives, with full knowledge that after they are dead, there will not be others to take their place. It's a society of silent (occasionally not so silent) resignation.
Actors do a good job thorough the movie. There's no poor performance to be seen, and Clive Owen does a solid job at the lead. So the story is interesting, and the actors are good. That gives a good foundation to build a great movie. And this movie delivers.
There's one thing in the movie that is truly superb: cinematography. The scenes are long and jaw-droppingly outstanding. And I'm not talking of scenes with just dialogue, I'm talking about action-packed scenes as well. They seem to go on and on. No, they do not drag on, which would be bad, they flow naturally. I'm not sure how they did it. Maybe they somehow digitally stitched several scenes together, and if they did, they did a superb job at it. If they really just shot long cuts, it is a real testament to the skill of the actors and director. Either way, the end result is simply stunning.
The filmmakers also did a great job at creating the remnants of human civilization. I don't think I ever saw any bright colors anywhere. Everything is muted and gloomy.
"Children of Men" does not suffer from the curse of Hollywood, where everything is explained to the viewer. We are given bit and pieces of the backstory, but things are not explained in detail. The ending is open, and it's up to the viewer to determine what happens next. In short: it forces the viewer to think. And that's always a Good Thing (tm).
A damned fine movie if you ask me!
It's a good sign when you read the comments in IMDB, and you have bunch of people telling how the movie is "racist", while you also have a bunch of people telling how the movie is "left-wing propaganda that glorifies immigrants". The movie obviously evokes strong emotions in viewers, and that's a good sign. And looking at the ratings it has received (currently 8.2/10 in IMDB), most people like it. No, the movie is not racist. It just depicts a society that suffers from xenophobia, but that does not mean that the movie itself suffers from it.
The movie is set in to near future when women have stopped having children. Last child was born 18 years ago, and mankind is slowly moving towards extinction. Most of the world has descended in to anarchy, while the remains of civilized society try to hang on. And the "civilized society" isn't really that civilized anymore.
While the world is coming to an end, it isn't going away with a bang, it's fading away. People still go to work, they still buy their coffee from coffee-shops, they still watch their news. And still, there's the constant feeling that mankind is doomed. None of the individuals are doomed as such: there is no nuclear war that is going to wipe them out, there is no disease that is going to kill them, nor are they waiting for radioactive cloud to kill them all. There's just a bunch of people living out their lives, with full knowledge that after they are dead, there will not be others to take their place. It's a society of silent (occasionally not so silent) resignation.
Actors do a good job thorough the movie. There's no poor performance to be seen, and Clive Owen does a solid job at the lead. So the story is interesting, and the actors are good. That gives a good foundation to build a great movie. And this movie delivers.
There's one thing in the movie that is truly superb: cinematography. The scenes are long and jaw-droppingly outstanding. And I'm not talking of scenes with just dialogue, I'm talking about action-packed scenes as well. They seem to go on and on. No, they do not drag on, which would be bad, they flow naturally. I'm not sure how they did it. Maybe they somehow digitally stitched several scenes together, and if they did, they did a superb job at it. If they really just shot long cuts, it is a real testament to the skill of the actors and director. Either way, the end result is simply stunning.
The filmmakers also did a great job at creating the remnants of human civilization. I don't think I ever saw any bright colors anywhere. Everything is muted and gloomy.
"Children of Men" does not suffer from the curse of Hollywood, where everything is explained to the viewer. We are given bit and pieces of the backstory, but things are not explained in detail. The ending is open, and it's up to the viewer to determine what happens next. In short: it forces the viewer to think. And that's always a Good Thing (tm).
A damned fine movie if you ask me!
Be a sheep: wear trendy clothes!
I hate fashion. The more I think about it, the more I realize it goes against everything I believe in. What do I believe in? Well, among other things, I believe in personal liberties and freedoms. What does that have to do with fashion? Quite a bit as it turns out.
What annoys me is the way this whole fashion-thingy works out. Basically, there are bunch of people who decide what is fashionable and what is not. They decide that "next year, red is in". then we get bunch of magazines telling us what is in and what is out, and then mindless drones wander to the stores to buy new clothes so they could be "trendy". How about buying clothes that you actually like? Clothers that feel comfortable? Clothes that are practical? Forget that crap, we need to be "trendy"!
What happened to people buying clothes that they like? Sure, lots of people do that. But the very idea that we actually have a bunch of people deciding what is fashionable and what is not, is what really pushes my buttons. Instead of companies selling certain types of clothes, and people buying whatever suits them, we have the fashion-elite telling us what we should be buying.
And what is the other thing that really pushes my buttons? The fact that there's a metric assload of people who actually care what the fashion-industry is telling us. They rush to the stores in a desperate attempt to be "trendy". They proclaim their individuality and independence while wearing clothes that someone else told him to buy.
No, I'm not saying that we should dress purposefully in an unfashionable way. What I AM saying is that we shouldn't decide our appearance based on what some other people decided in a committee. If the clothes you happen to like become fashionable, go ahead and keep on wearing them. But don't change your look just because something else becomes fashionable. Don't switch from jeans to spandex just because spandex becomes fashionable.
What does this have to do with personal liberties? I mean, no-one is forced to buy anything. But it's still very annoying to think that there are some people who feel that they have the power to decide what we should be wearing. And I get very annoyed whenever someone tells me what I should and should not be doing or thinking.
And it gets even more annoying when you realize that for quite a few people, they do have that power. "Yeah, I'm wearing pink bikinis and bell-bottoms because I heard they are trendy".
What annoys me is the way this whole fashion-thingy works out. Basically, there are bunch of people who decide what is fashionable and what is not. They decide that "next year, red is in". then we get bunch of magazines telling us what is in and what is out, and then mindless drones wander to the stores to buy new clothes so they could be "trendy". How about buying clothes that you actually like? Clothers that feel comfortable? Clothes that are practical? Forget that crap, we need to be "trendy"!
What happened to people buying clothes that they like? Sure, lots of people do that. But the very idea that we actually have a bunch of people deciding what is fashionable and what is not, is what really pushes my buttons. Instead of companies selling certain types of clothes, and people buying whatever suits them, we have the fashion-elite telling us what we should be buying.
And what is the other thing that really pushes my buttons? The fact that there's a metric assload of people who actually care what the fashion-industry is telling us. They rush to the stores in a desperate attempt to be "trendy". They proclaim their individuality and independence while wearing clothes that someone else told him to buy.
No, I'm not saying that we should dress purposefully in an unfashionable way. What I AM saying is that we shouldn't decide our appearance based on what some other people decided in a committee. If the clothes you happen to like become fashionable, go ahead and keep on wearing them. But don't change your look just because something else becomes fashionable. Don't switch from jeans to spandex just because spandex becomes fashionable.
What does this have to do with personal liberties? I mean, no-one is forced to buy anything. But it's still very annoying to think that there are some people who feel that they have the power to decide what we should be wearing. And I get very annoyed whenever someone tells me what I should and should not be doing or thinking.
And it gets even more annoying when you realize that for quite a few people, they do have that power. "Yeah, I'm wearing pink bikinis and bell-bottoms because I heard they are trendy".