Sadly not some wonderfully exciting bit of political investigation. More my back garden.

I’m working on a project that involves the digging of a rather large hole. No hints as to what it is apart from it annoys the hell out of Mrs Penguin. I started it last year but a rather inclement September put pay to its completion. Hopefully it will get finished this year although the original plans have had to change a number of times due to changing circumstance, ie. finding things as I dig deeper.

Anyway, in true Rolf Harris fashion, can you guess what it is yet? (Yes, I know I’m inviting some sartorial comments by asking that) have fun.

Just quick look back regarding the article I did the other day about claims in the British press, in particular the amateurish and ill-informed bit of nonsense from the Daily Mail.

The FIA have concluded their investigations and like most of the commentators out there who actually understand the sport, they concluded that McLaren had done nothing wrong. Can’t see many apologies in press coming forward very quickly. Still, never mind, leave the reporting on Formula 1 to those who actually know something about the sport eh?

Just got back from watching Pirates of the Caribbean 3 so I thought I’d do a little review as I don’t go to the cinema much. Actually the last film I saw at the cinema was the Revenge of the Sith so you can tell how long it’s been. Anyway, a little review, I won’t of course reveal too much for those who haven’t seen it but if you don’t want to know anything I suggest not reading on.

I think the best preparation is to not go into the cinema expecting a rehash of the style of the first two films. This is a much darker affair than the second which was in my opinion darker than the first one. The opening scene of mass executions including a small boy really hits you that this isn’t the light-hearted swashbuckling fun that it’s predecessors were, although the second film did have some moments like the throat slashing of sailors on the Flying Dutchman it’s nothing compared to this.

Don’t expect the formulaic entrances like that of Jack Sparrow in the first and second. When he pops up in this one it’s decidedly more dodgy and slightly disturbing before you work out what the hell is going on. There’s also a lot more death and killing going on. Expect a fair few familiar faces from the first two films to be written off and ’sort of’ one of the three main characters, ie. Sparrow, Elizabeth or William.

Is it a trilogy? Well, taken from the rules of a trilogy as outlined in Scream 3 then sort of. Everyone is fair game including the lead roles. There’s a lot of tying up of loose ends regarding stuff from the first two films. However the end effectively takes you back to the start of the first film with the open possibility of further adventure.

On the acting:

Johnny Depp: There’s a harder edge to the character which I think loses something of the charm of the first two films. Less the wobbling around like he’s constantly drunk, more focussed, personally I liked the drunk nutter myself than the talking to imaginary miniature/life size versions of himself in this film.

Kiera Knightley: Her character has been beefed up a fair bit and takes a more central role in the film than the last two. Personally I think she played far better than in the previous films and I’m no real fan of hers.

That geezer out of Lord of the Rings that my missus fancies: Whereas he was a more pivotal role in the second film he appears more like a supporting actor in this one. Not completely sidelined but definitely the weakest of the main three. Barbosa easily takes up a more important role than him in this film. He is however a lot more deceitful and not the naive young man he is in the first film.

I can’t remember any of the others names so I’ll just go by character or description of, apologies if there’s a bit of bad spelling.

Captain Barbosa: I think he was probably the best performer in this film. His character didn’t alter from the first, apart from not being an un-dead cursed thingy of course. You know what you’re getting with him which to some respects is reassuring because of the propensity of various people being killed off, a slightly erratic flow and a general mistrust of the intentions of any of the characters.

Davy Jones: Excellent acting and CGI of course but he comes across as a far more humbled and weaker character than in the second film. Of course that’s to be expected since the EIC have his heart and are controlling him but I liked him better in the second film.

Captain (now Admiral) Norrington: He’s not in much of the film for obvious reasons but I thought his character came across as the most genuine of all. A realisation of having made a mistake and making an attempt to rectify it.

Elizabeth’s father: Not in much of the film either, I think two/three scenes and only any real lines in the last scene he’s in. Personally I liked his character in the first two films. Sadly there’s not much of him here.

Geezer from the EIC: Well acted, does the role really well. Comes across as a real nasty piece of work, but hey, he is the main villain of the film. Not sure if it’s just me or his final scene has a hint of Al Pacino in Scarface about it. Less the machine guns, grenade launchers and constant use of the word ‘fuck’ of course, more the slow motion world being blown away around him. OK, it’s probably just me.

Other Geezer from the EIC (the one that popped up in the pirate village in the second film doing a bit of spying): He’s really quite evil but probably isn’t given enough of a part in the film to develop it. Shame that.

The new pirate guy from Singapore: Well acted and completely ruthless. This wasn’t what I expected in that the film would be about all the pirates getting together to fight the EIC, there’s so much double-dealing going on it’s hard to keep up with it in the first sitting.

Keith Richards: Yes, we know he does a cameo role as Sparrow’s father and does it well. Sadly he’s only in two scenes, well one and half really so there’s no development of the character which could have brought a bit more humour into the film.

The witch doctor voodoo type woman: Her role is also far more important than in the second film and reveals her part in the events that have taken place and are unfolding. Personally I though her acting was brilliant and she carried on the style of the character from the second film well.

There’s the variety of pirates from the last films, the guy with one eye, his mate, the drunk first mate who knows everything, the parrot man, the short geezer and they pretty much play out as in the first films. There’s also the two soldiers in there who are crackingly funny towards the end of the film with a slight rehash of their first conversation with Sparrow in the original film and how they turn out at the end of the film.

Finally there’s the monkey: Sad to say it but I thought the monkey stole the show. He/she gets all the great funny moments of the film and the cannon shot was brilliant. Good job he’s an un-dead monkey.

Overall a very good way to spend a few hours of your life. Criticisms? Well, I think there are too many characters, not to mention those from the first films but the additional ones here. It means that there’s not enough time for much character development whereas the main protagonists can get away with this on the basis of you knowing about them from the first films, the new characters seem to be there more for facets of the storyline or to add that bit of difference than anything else, that’s probably why they kill off so many of them.

As I’m a sad techie I always love to see how CGI is used in films. The CGI on the characters is top notch as with the first two films but whereas I’d heard the scenery settings were particularly good I looked out for them but in all fairness although they were very good, there wasn’t anything mindbogglingly stupendous about them.

Final thoughts. It’s got a 12A certificate. Wouldn’t have a problem allowing a child under that age to watch the first two films. This one I’m not so sure though. It’s got some far harsher scenes in it that the other two that I just don’t think are suitable for younger children.

I was extravagant today. It’s not normally in my nature to be so. Much to Mrs Penguin’s consternation I’m one of those people who make do and mend. I hate buying new things when the old ones work perfectly well. My computer is a mixture of cobbled together bits and bobs, mostly second hand or donated stuck together to form a working machine. The last full system I bought brand new was a Toshiba laptop back in 1998 so you get the picture of my consumer habits.

However today, I decided to let rip, treat myself and blow a whole £6.99 on a new optical mouse. The old one with a little ball works fine but on Saturday Mrs Penguin got a new mouse and on an impulse I decided that I was sick and tired of scraping bits of gunk out of mine on a regular basis so I got one too.

Rarely do I take such an in depth approach to the Formula 1 results aside from various glee or consternation regarding how well my team; McLaren are doing but as there’s been a bit of a media storm today I thought it best to pen a lengthier evaluation as it is patently obvious that there’s plenty of media hacks out there who obviously know sod all about the sport.

For those who haven’t caught the news, it regards McLaren being referred for investigation by the FIA (that’s the sport’s governing body) on allegations of using team orders to allow Fernando Alonso to win the Monaco GP by telling Lewis Hamilton to back off.

I’ll deal with the poor reporting of this story to start off. The BBC and ITV (presumably because they’ve got people who actually understand the sport) do a fair, balanced and informed job. I’ll admit I only caught the story on German news so I decided to have a little look around our own press. I didn’t get far until I decided that some recourse to the complete crap in a couple of papers was needed. To be fair, The Sun did a balanced and fair report but then I got to the The Mirror.

It’s a short article but two things of note. Firstly, and this is probably indicative of the level of knowledge of a Mirror sports hack, but the name of the team, McLaren is spelled thusly, there’s only one ‘c’ in it although probably their brain is so plugged into football they can’t distinguish the difference. Secondly was the quote carried from the team boss that:

admitting that he he “virtually had to decide in advance” which one of the drivers would win Sunday’s race.

Note crappy typing again but the quote does give the impression that he decided who would win. I will return to this later when I get a bit more technical, which is obviously beyond the capabilities of your average sports hack.

On to the Daily Mail, and it’s here, although one would expect it, that fained outrage, or to be more precise, interpretations of events from a position of not knowing what you are talking about are blurted out without any regard for reality. I’ll just do a little demolition job on this article if you’ll let me.

Let’s start with the headline, ‘Ace Hamilton gets a raw deal’. Now come on, how emotive can you get. However you evaluate the facts of the story, it’s a bit much to stretch it that far, but hey, this is the Daily Mail so what should we expect? Well, followed by this:

The only time Lewis Hamilton was allowed to draw level with Fernando Alonso was post-race when they sat together in the people carrier taking them from the pits to the paddock.

The point of this dig is? No, nothing to do with the story, a simple little scene setter for the rest of the article.

Even by the standards of the big losses suffered inside the famous casino around which yesterday’s race took place, he was reeling from the most hurtful of setbacks. The cards were stacked against him and his own boss was doing the dealing: he had been told not to win.

Erm, quick fact check here. Much as it’s not my humble place to get in the way of the Daily Mail trying to manipulate a story in a certain direction but Lewis Hamilton was not told ‘not to win’.

McLaren boss Ron Dennis, whose decision it was to gift Alonso the victory, claimed the decision was only pragmatic. His drivers were cantering away to their second onetwo of the season. Why risk that with an unnecessary scrap around this unforgiving circuit?

Ahh, the scene unfolds, we have the plucky little guy hard done by, now introduce the villain of the piece Ron Dennis, the team boss. Sorry, this is really low level journalism to say the least.

Dennis said: “There is some disappointment because of the way we needed to cope with a potential deployment of the safety car, which has happened four times in the past five years. Consequently, you virtually have to decide in advance which one of the team’s two drivers will claim the victory.”

This is getting to the actual story, and what it amounts to is a nice bit of media spinning of words taken and misrepresented. I’ll refer back to this bit later when I actually discuss the realities of strategy, something for which appears to be beyond the Daily Mail hacks.

The first part of the conspiracy lay in McLaren’s decision that Hamilton, as normal, would carry a heavier fuel load going into the last section of qualifying. It meant he was handicapped in the shoot-out for pole.

Oh dear, it’s a conspiracy now. Emotive words do seem to be the order of the day. OK, first point. Since the changes in the FIA regulations regarding qualifying, those who end up in the last ten shoot out session have to carry what fuel they have in the car in qualifying into the race itself. A simple logic check and it’s obvious that you cannot have both cars stop at exactly the same time as there’s only space in the pits to refuel/change tyres on one car. Therefore whatever the difference one car must carry more fuel than the other. To the best of my knowledge in every race so far this season Lewis Hamilton has had the heavier fuel load. Has this meant he has been deliberately handicapped in every race? Well if he has then he hasn’t seemed to have done too badly having come into the Monaco GP as the leader of the Drivers World Championship.

Secondly whoever reported on this story obviously didn’t watch the qualifying as they would have noticed that Lewis Hamilton was faster than Alonso and would almost certainly have got pole position irrespective of having a heavier fuel load and only failed to do so because of a slight mistake by himself and being held up by another car.

And, as we all know, it is near impossible to overtake on the narrow, bending streets of this cramped Principality.

The first accurate statement of the article but I have to ask one question. When I was at school it was regarded as a cardinal sin to start sentences with the word ‘and’ along with ‘also’ and ‘because’. Still, I guess they’re employing monkeys these days with all the press cutbacks.

Then, during the race, he was twice called in to be refueled earlier than scheduled. It denied him the chance to whizz round when his load was lightest and record potentially quick laps.

First point, Alonso had an 8 second lead, it wouldn’t have mattered. No amount of ‘whizzing’ round on a lighter fuel load would have made up that difference. Equally teams being teams and having large amounts of tracking equipment as to where all the cars are on the track at any given time employ various strategies. One of these is to try and bring your car out into ‘clean air’. Meaning that they know where their car is going to come out relative to the other cars on the track. If you allow your car to come out in the middle of a pack of other cars then they’ll lose time overtaking or lapping them. It’s impossible to tell this without tracking equipment so just possibly he was called in a few laps early to avoid being caught up in traffic which in the case of the Monaco GP is completely crippling to your race.

To cap it all were the instructions crackling through on his car radio. ‘I was told to take it easy,’ said Hamilton. Less than half the grand prix had elapsed but the game was over.

What’s not mentioned here is that the ‘take it easy’ instruction was also relayed to Fernando Alonso as well. Given that the McLaren’s were supremely faster than anyone else on the day, finishing over a minute ahead of third place Felipe Massa in the Ferrari, doesn’t it just sound reasonably to ask your drivers to take it easy?

There’s two very important reasons for this. Simply that this is Monaco, it’s a nasty unforgiving track. The slightest mistake and in most cases that’s the end of your race. Unlike every other track where you can stand a chance of getting away with an error, you can’t do that at Monaco. There’s no run-off areas, no gravel traps or cushioned tyre walls. You go off and you’re into steel barriers. Apart from the issue of not scoring points there’s the very real issue of safety. Much as the cars are supremely safer today than they ever have been, we must not forget that Monaco is the scene of the second from last fatality in Formula 1 and unlike Imola where the last fatality happened, whereas that track underwent extensive changes to improve safety, Monaco has had none. It remains from a safety perspective the most dangerous track on the F1 calendar and as long as it remains there, it deserves the greatest of respect.

Secondly there is as the article rightly points out that it is ‘near impossible’ to overtake at Monaco. As much as Lewis Hamilton is an exceptionally gifted driver he stood absolutely no chance of overtaking Fernando Alonso in the race. To risk an attempt could easily have ended both their races as even if he had pressured Alonso into a mistake, the closeness of his own proximity to the accident would almost certainly have ended his race too. Put simply there was no point in taking the risk of an accident either from the drivers individual perspective or that of the team’s. The result of both cars colliding and being out of the race would have converted the current 20 point lead by McLaren over Ferrari in the Constructors championship in to a deficit of 2 points and would have handed the lead of the Driver’s Championship to Felipe Massa. The point of the sport after all is to score more points than the other drivers/teams to win the championships.

The orchestrated procession could not have been any fun for the spectators who crammed on escarpment above Rascasse corner, fought for elbow space on apartment balconies, sat side-by-side in the grandstands or on their yachts. Did they know they were watching a fix? Probably not at the time, but they cannot think it is right when they find out. Nor can the punters who wagered money on the outcome? Any recompense for them?

OK, the ‘orchestrated procession’, come on, have you never watched the Monaco GP before. It’s always a procession, orchestrated or otherwise. It is a track that retains a place on the calendar purely out of tradition and a few vested interests. It by rights has no place as a modern race track. It’s a pointless race with no chance for any racing bar the luck of the heavens opening and rain mixing things up a bit. Anyone who goes to Monaco thinking they’re going to see a race is sadly deluded and to expect to see overtaking is going to be disappointed whatever the circumstances in a dry race.

Now for a more considered evaluation on top of some of the relevant points above regarding strategy. We know that one car has to carry a different amount of fuel than the other. However, it has been the case that the differences this season have been more than in recent years. There is of course a very good reason for this and it’s a strategy echoed by most of the top teams.

The FIA changed the rules regarding the deployment of the safety car this year in the event of a crash or incident on the track. In the past the simple strategy to respond to a safety car deployment would be to bring both cars in and it was simply pot luck as to who got serviced first or depending on how close they were on the track, whether one had to queue up behind the other and wait. It was the most advantageous approach to that situation. By definition because of the rule changes all team managers have to decide on a strategy that either favours one driver or the other. Now at most race tracks it is not as critical but at Monaco it is simply because of the inability to overtake.

This is of course where you have to play the percentages game and ironically, although you’re unlikely to pick up on it in the press, McLaren gave Lewis Hamilton the race strategy that on average would have handed the race to him and not Alonso. Strangely enough we don’t see claims that McLaren were favouring Hamilton over Alonso and given all the media hysteria regarding his meteoric rise, I doubt we would even if it was a deliberate attempt to favour him. Put simply, in the last 5 Monaco GP’s the safety car has been deployed on 4 occasions and if it had, Hamilton would have won the race. On that basis there was an 80% chance that Lewis Hamilton should have won the race, purely because he had the favourable strategy. Safety car didn’t come out, Alonso had the strategy to win the race if it didn’t come out so he won it, plain and simple.

Again due to new regulations brought in by the FIA, teams must now use engines for two races. On the cycle of things, this was the first race with a new engine. It will have to be used at the next race in Canada. In a sport where consistency and reliability are the dominant factors, risking over-stretching engines when you have a clear lead of over a minute to the next opposing car is silly. Two engine failures and a Ferrari 1-2 finish at the next race would almost wipe out McLaren’s lead in the constructors and would result in Felipe Massa taking the lead of the Drivers Championship. Not really much use to either McLaren driver or the team is that.

Then there’s the points system. Whether you believe it to be right or wrong, it rewards consistency as mentioned above because of the narrowness in the margins of points awarded. The current points system was brought in partly on the account for the dominating margins by which Michael Schumacher was winning the Driver’s Championship in the 90’s and earlier this century. Yes, it narrowed the margins by which drivers win the World Championship, but it also meant that as in the 2005 season, the driver who wins the most races doesn’t necessarily walk off with the trophy. That year Kimi Raikkonen in the McLaren won more races but Fernando Alonso in the Renault took the title. Purely because he was more consistent in scoring points. The McLaren was clearly the faster of the two cars but reliability let him down and allowed Alonso to take the crown.

Finally, lets put this into a bit of perspective. There’s been almost hysterical media reporting regarding Lewis Hamilton. For the first time in my opinion since the 70’s, Britain has produced a supremely talented driver. He’s good, there’s no doubt about it. He’s only done 5 races but he’s already in the record books for the most races of any rookie finishing on the podium since Bruce McLaren (founder of the McLaren team). He’s continuing to extend that record but let’s not forget, this is his first season. When it was announced that he was going to drive for McLaren I was truly happy having followed his career pretty much since McLaren started supporting him when he was 11. The British press have suddenly picked up on him and are hyping him out of all proportion. Do I think he’s one of the most talented drivers ever to enter Formula 1? Well yes. Do I think he’ll win the Driver’s World Championship one day? Well, yes again. Could he win it this year? Maybe, who knows?

Sadly though the British media like to build people up then take them down. McLaren have been very responsible in shielding him from the full glare of the media and let’s not forget this was his first race in a Formula 1 car around arguably the most difficult F1 circuit. Had he pushed it too hard, had he simply not caught Alonso but gone too far and ended up in the barrier, those same media pundits that are crying fowl would be writing scathing reports about how he screwed it up, how he’s too young, inexperienced or whatever other angle they can think of. It’s sad but that’s the way it is in this country when it comes to the media.

Would I have preferred him to win rather than Alonso? Yes, of course I would. Although I’ll be the first to say I always support the team over the driver. From time to time a driver comes along that you just can’t help supporting, and hopefully they also drive for your team. I personally can’t stand Alonso, never could but as he drives for my team and brings home points for the Constructors Championship then I can accept that. On that, I will finish.

[Update]

Having polished off this article and just popped back to the Daily Mail’s site to check I hadn’t missed anything, the article I refer to here has been pulled from their site including their related articles section. However, the link to the original URL from here still works so the page hasn’t been pulled. If it is then feel free to let me know. I have it saved anyway.

I’ve not posted much for the last few days. Actually nothing as I’ve been doing a few other things so I thought I’d do a little bit of a round up of events/issues.

On Tuesday the Penguin household braved the border patrols and sneaked into the Sandwell Borough to attend the launch of the Jon Cruddas Deputy Leadership campaign. Bob Piper did a good summing up of the event and in truly photographic genius style, managed to get the backs of the whole Penguin household in the frame. I learned one thing from that; I need a hair cut.

On the serious side it was refreshing to see Cruddas talk about issues that seem to have not got the attention they deserve in recent years, primarily that of social housing. The problems have been brewing for a generation but even if the debate is finally up there where it belongs, then perhaps we can start address an issue that affects many on lower incomes.

Following on from that, and it does beg the question: “where do we get these people from”, the comments made by Margaret Hodge. Short of making a play for the Leadership of the BNP, it makes you wonder how some people get to where they are on the basis of such awful political nouse. Perhaps it’s a lack of imagination but her comments have been rightfully condemned by many as they should. If she is concerned about the gains made by the BNP in her own constituency, not helped of course by her own last rash of daft comments then she should learn at least one thing of which I would have thought someone who has got the position of being an MP should already know.

You cannot win on the basis of using the argument of the opposition. Especially when that opposition are the horrid bunch of toe-rags that the BNP are. You cannot appropriate the blame for a lack of social housing by accepting the arguments from the far-right that it’s all these naughty East Europeans invading the country. She should know, unless Barking is a very strange place indeed that migrants rarely end up in council houses. The vast majority end up in low quality private sector accommodation or the equivalent of shared dorms of workers. They’re not holed up in nice 3 and 4 bedroom council semi’s because although if they are in the UK, earning and paying tax then they should be entitled, there’s a shitload more people ahead of them on the waiting lists who’ve been there for years and short of a very exceptional circumstance, they ain’t going to be able to jump the queues.

She would have been far more productive in addressing the reasons for this lack of housing and it’s underlying causes, rather than effectively writing the BNP’s next leaflet campaign in Barking for them.

I spotted this during the week too. I just have a few thoughts on this, none of them complimentary towards Microsoft as regular readers will have probably guessed. So here’s the scenario, Microsoft want there to be a professional body for IT people in the UK because there’s too many out there doing dodgy fixes or bodged jobs on systems.

First point being that this is a bit rich given the output of Microsoft in terms of ‘good’ programming is laughable. They release software with bugs in them, highly unsecure systems and quite frankly are not the people to lecture others about high levels of competence.

Secondly, they’ve helpfully inferred that their own Microsoft accreditation programme would be very useful in assessing and registering IT ‘professionals’. Well, no it woudn’t, it would tell people that they know how to use one of a myriad of different systems available, and the poorest of those to boot. Are they seriously thinking that the UK Government would fall for what is patently an attempt to sew up the market by being supplier and effective registrar of those who work in the industry. Come on, no Government Minister is going to fall for that one. On the other hand this is IT so it’s always possible, but thankfully it appears the Government is very cool to this idea of a professional body anyway.

Thirdly, and finally, I’ll admit it, I’m a bodger. Not so much these days but in a past life of being surrounded by Microsoft’s products at work. There’s two reasons you have to bodge around with systems. It has nothing to do with your level of expertise and everything to do with Microsoft. Apart from the software they produce being unstable and a complete security nightmare at times (yes I do remember manually having to hack a rather pernicious virus of computers across the UK via remote access and manually having to do every machines registry system because none of the tools that were supposed to work did, or they allowed the machines to re-infect each other before you could isolate them) but as with everything with Microsoft, you never 100% know what you’re dealing with. I can happily mess about the registry of a system, that thing they tell you never to touch because a character in the wrong place can happily kill a machine but despite this knowledge, I still don’t know exactly how Windows works. Why? Well, because they don’t release the code, it’s all secret so at best you’re dealing with educated guesswork or previous experience. You can never know exactly what’s going on because it doesn’t get outside of a building in Redmond.

I think that’s pretty much it for the weekly review. Apart from Mrs Penguin has nicked my ‘good’ computer, I’ve spent a lot of time enjoying watching my son learn to run and I’m looking forward to my first trip to the cinema to see Pirates of the Caribbean 3 since I went to see Star Wars - Revenge of the Sith, from which you can deduce I don’t go to the cinema very often. I’ve also took advantage of the brief bit of good weather to do some of the jobs I haven’t been able to do outside or that require sunshine. Sadly this opportunity seems short-lived as it’s decidedly pissing it down again. Good night to one and all.

No politics tonight and something to bore the pants off those of a non-techie nature, however there is a bit of a moral to the tale so bear with me.

Mrs Penguin’s laptop is a bit knackered of late. To be fair it’s a Pentium 3 with only 128Mb of ram and slowly struggling along with Windows XP. It also had a rather unfortunate encounter with a pint of coke and I mean a whole pint about 6 months ago.

Now a new laptop is not financially an option at the moment but I thought I’d indulge myself and have a bit of a shop around the main vendors. What struck me the most was that all new computers now seem to come with Microsoft’s new Vista operating system which I really don’t like. Admittedly Dell are doing machines with XP but you’re going to have to pay an extra £60 or so on top to get that and I’m increasingly reluctant to part with money for what amounts to crap software.

On a side note I picked up on this thread over on the Microsoft Microsoft’s forum where it appears people have been having severe problems getting Vista to copy/delete/move files around. I know it’s a bit smug but if the best operating system the worlds largest software company can come up with can’t even do such simple things then they’ve got serious problems.

I heard that Dell were also going to ship machines pre-installed with Ubuntu Linux but I can’t find any. I vaguely remember that they might just be trying this out in the US so no joy on that side. Personally I’d just like to get hold of a machine with no operating system on in the first place but that doesn’t seem very easy to achieve.

My main reason for not wanting Vista on a new machine is not specifically because of the patent bugs it has but primarily because it requires such vast processing and graphics power that any machine I would buy would be towards the bottom end of the market and I’d end up back in the same situation; a machine that runs an operating system slowly which is what is infuriating Mrs Penguin in the first place. It’s also nice to note that Vista requires such powerful graphics capabilities to achieve two rather simple things. A 3D carousel of windows and a transparency filter that doesn’t actually work (I’ve tried it).

So just to show off. I had originally intended not to go near a computer over the weekend but ended up amongst other things setting up a fresh install of Ubuntu Linux (Feisty Fawn variety) on one of my PC’s and just for your delectations here’s a little video I made of it. I know it’s a bit wobbly at times but hey, I was trying to hold the camera and manipulate the desktop at the same time. So for all those Windows people and Mac owners (not meaning anyone in particular) here’s what you can do with a Linux desktop:

Now just for the record, this isn’t exactly a top spec PC. To be honest, it’s got a Celeron D processor running at 2.8Mhz, 256Mb of Ram and the graphics card is a nVidia GeForce MX400 that is circa 2001 and was kindly donated to my by my mate Carl a few years ago. On specification, this machine wouldn’t have a hope in hell of running Vista but can quite easily handle large amounts of multi-tasking and a 3D cube desktop giving you four desktop environments instead of one, oh and the transparency thing actually works on it as well.

This machine also usually runs Windows XP which is slow and sluggish in comparison so it does make you think about why there is this charge towards getting even faster, more expensive and consequentially more damaging to the environment machines to run an operating system that wastes so much power yet delivers less in terms of stability and functionality and if you’re into the whole bling glitzy graphics stuff, less of that as well.

Trudy Bowen was made Mayor of Wolverhampton last Wednesday and she’s started a blog. Primarily to cover her Mayoral work and to give a bit of an insight into what Mayors get up to.

Trudy Bowen’s site is here so feel free to drop by and have a gander. It’s not a bas site, but I would say that given that I built it.

I was also planning on a weekend away from the computer screen, however such as things are, events dictated otherwise. Anyway, apart from spending a lot of time burning DVD’s, before anyone reports me, we’re not talking the dodgy ones of Pirates of the Caribbean 3 which no doubt are available in pubs across the West Midlands already. We’re talking about nice ones of videos of Little Penguin for the family.

I also managed to set something else up last night which for primarily hardware reasons had been alluding me for a while. More on that later, as in tomorrow, or at least sometime soon.

Been thinking a bit about technology of late. More in the broader field than anything specific and in the context of attitudes towards it and particular brands.

It’s been a long-held gripe in IT about what has at times been referred to as the ‘Evil Empire’ of Microsoft and not necessarily without justification regarding some of their practices. However I’ve often found that some of these people turn into avid Mac users as a means of, for the lack of a better phrase, rebellion against Microsoft. I’ve got plenty of friends who are Mac users and most seem to love their machines, particularly that it’s not Microsoft but I’ve been pondering on this ‘Mac’ culture and why its brand has seemed to adopt a near trendy rebellious non-conformist persona.

I can only conclude that it’s simply a case of “it’s not Microsoft” so therefore it’s good. A bit of the old “two legs bad, four legs good” and just like that analogy from George Orwell, the actual case isn’t necessarily so.

We all know Microsoft has a preeminent position in the marketplace, for software anyway. It guards its secrets well and isn’t adverse to resorting to legal action against those it is in competition with. It’s a corporate entity, a massive company with vested interests in maintaining its position.

However, is Apple really any different? I’ll just run through a few examples.

First up, a computer. Now in the case of Apple, they actually make the machines themselves, which means to use their software, you’ve already had to buy into their hardware which to be frank is overpriced for what you actually get. It also has the problem of there being no inter-changeable aspect in that within a PC, if said card or drive breaks, it’s a quick nip to the shops to pick up a fresh one to replace it. You can’t do that with a Mac, the component structure is designed to exclude the user from tinkering meaning no home fixes or upgrades, it will all have to be done by a certified Apple person.

Microsoft don’t really do hardware so in their case, the software, lets stick to operating systems for a moment, will pretty much run on any PC which you can purchase from a massive array of vendors or build yourself out of various components. (Note, before some uber techie picks up on it, yes there are a myriad of issue regarding hardware exclusivity drivers and code but we’re trying to keep it simple here).

On software, well despite Microsoft’s best efforts to control and dominate the software that runs on their machines, many other companies provide it and there’s also lots of open source free stuff available. On Macs there’s a lot less choice straight off and even though the software for Windows machines can be pricey, those for Macs can be even worse. So pretty much there’s not a lot to choose between them.

On to peripherals and we’ll use MP3 players as the example because both Microsoft do the Zune and Apple the iPod. Both are stacked with DRM but in Apple’s case with their iTunes site, not only are we talking about restriction of copyright infringement to protect artists/music companies, take you pick, but Apple specifically designed their downloads so that they could only be used on their iPod players precluding their use or transfer to another branded player. So basically if you’ve spent you money downloading songs from their site then you are automatically in a position where you would be disinclined to buy another brand of player because you’ll lose all your music. (Note: I think they’re stopping this but it does show their approach). That doesn’t sound like some cutting edge anti-establishment company, in fact it’s a lot worse than even some of the extents that Microsoft go to.

Yes, Apple’s look good, they’ve got the whole style thing well done that makes them look funky but behind it is equally, if not in some cases a worse corporate control mentality than Microsoft. I’m just bemused why Apple users who openly take the position that they choose Macs because they don’t like Microsoft and its practices don’t spot that.

Anyway, for me, I don’t want an iLife, or to become a corporate branded iPerson. I’m quite happy to enjoy the far greater freedom and control I have over the digital aspects of my life. Takes maybe a little more perseverance and time but I have this strange desire not to have aspects of my life under the control of American Corporations of whom I have no power over whatsoever.

I was out and about today on the trusty public transport system and picked up a copy of the Metro.

While idly flicking through I spotted this advertisement by the DWP.

Now I haven’t mentioned it before but just for the record, I’m an atheist. I don’t try and shove my own beliefs about spirituality down other people’s throats, but equally I do not appreciate it when others seek to do so from their own religious perspective. I believe strongly that we should live in a society where everyone is free to believe spiritually in what they wish as long as it is not to the detriment of those who choose to believe in something else, or equally choose not to believe in anything remotely spiritual at all. From that perspective I’m a fairly liberal person. I believe in the separation of religious institutions from the state and the abolition of faith based schools on the basis that the state cannot achieve a position whereby it is able to either equitably or be seen to be equitable to all faiths. Some will always bemoan that favouritism is being bestowed on one against the other and the only solution is the separation of religion from the workings of the state and its institutions.

Equally by their very nature, faith based organisations always come from a particular moral and ethical perspective which when given power over individuals will seek to exercise that power for the furtherance of their own particular moral or ethical perspective. We saw this recently over Catholic adoption agencies opposing the rights for gay people to adopt. By which terms they are not seeking to do the job of an adoption agency and placing children with loving and caring parents, moreover because they take a particular view towards the issue of homosexuality they seek to deny gay couples of the right to adopt purely because that certain group in society do not conform to their own moral position.

So that made me wonder about why exactly the DWP would seem to be so keen to engage with faith based groups for what is termed loosely as getting people back to work. Obviously one can only guess at to what role faith based groups would play within helping Jobseekers get back to work and I don’t discount the role that third sector partners may be able to play in this area but why it seems there is such an emphasis on encouraging faith based groups. There has been experience of using faith based groups in what could loosely be termed the social welfare system in Australia with some rather worrying results for those who choose not be affiliated to a certain religion. I would be very wary of going down the same path here, especially when there seems to be no justifiable reason.

Faith based groups can offer nothing more than any other third party organisation seeking to perform a function for society, they are no more efficient, better run or motivated to achieve the goals set them than any other group so I do not see the point. What they do however, is introduce ethics and morals into the system whereby those ethics and morals may not be accepted by or even be completely opposed to that of the person who is engaging with the organisation.

This is not a problem in wider society, if I choose not to engage in going to church, the temple or the mosque then I don’t have to. However if I am made redundant and end up on a New Deal scheme run by a faith group that may not be my own if I were to be religious or any faith given my own atheism then that poses issues that simply do not need to be there in the first place.