Some thoughts.
Search The Web
Custom Search
Thursday, 31 December 2009
Monday, 28 December 2009
Flights Of Fancy?
I am just about to book a return flight to the USA, for a few months time.
After the events of the past few days, it is no surprise that i am wondering what this may lead to. Apart from the obvious concerns for my own safety. I am also left wondering what sort of extra security systems may still be in place when i plan to travel & how long the check in time may be!
The last time i flew to the USA, in September 2008, the security was tight. But, not excessively so. Well, not in my opinion anyway.
My opinion has always been that, there is an obvious threat & that these things need to be done to protect myself & everyone else. I know full well that the air routes between the UK & USA are a prime target for terrorists, whether we like that, or not.
I'll admit, the part of the whole security process that tends to annoy me the most is all of the form filling & online checks that are done, both prior to the actual flight & on the plane itself.
And i haven't even mentioned the many checks that take place on arrival in the USA itself!
But, once again, i have just accepted them as a part of the process.
Now, i learn though, that in the most recent incident on that now infamous Amsterdam to Detroit flight, these systems all seem to have failed.
A person has managed to board a flight across the atlantic to the USA, with explosives strapped to his body. Not only that, but we now know that this person was known to the authorities in America, after being reported by his father.
We also know that he was also refused a visa to visit the UK, earlier this year, because of security concerns.
And i heard today, that he boarded this flight without any checked baggage. Isn't this just a little bit suspicious?
So, we put all of these security measures in place & somebody still manages to evade them all?
I vivdly remember the time when we in the UK had terrorist problems with the IRA. There was a famous quote from a member of the IRA, at the time, who said that "We only have to get lucky once. You have to get lucky every single time"
How very true, both then & now.
We got very lucky on that Amsterdam to Detriot plane on Christmas Day. Don't forget that.
If that explosive device had detonated properly, that plane would have gone down with everybody on board it. Regardless of whatever anybody on board might have done to try & prevent it.
So, what can be done?
Well, obviously, we need to make sure that the measures that are in place actually work. After all, they only need to fail once....
Now, i'm no security, or aviation expert, but i'd hate to see any more security measures at airports. As with the IRA situation, if you stop, or dissuade people from flying in the first place, the terrorists will have effectively won. After all, you don't need to actually kill anyone to create chaos & disruption to "normal" life.
What, in my opinion, should be done, is to make better use of so called "profiling". I'll admit that this generally goes against my feeling of civil liberties. But, sometimes drastic measures have to be taken.
We already know that the Nigerian suspect, in this most recent attack, was known to the authorities, in more than one country. So, why was he allowed to board that plane?
Better & co-ordinated use of "intelligence" & profiling will surely help to stop suspected terrorists from being allowed to board certain planes & enter certain countries. That can't be a bad thing, can it?
We should also learn from other countries, namely Israel, whose methods have been proved to be successful.
I know that these measures will inevitably tend to target certain people & maybe even some ethnic groups. But, why target & inconvenience everybody, when you possibly don't have to?
If you combine the measures that are already in place, with the better use of intelligence. This can only help to make flying safer for everybody, in the long run.
And isn't that what we all want?
And if that can all be done by late April 2010, i'd very much appreciate it.
Thanks.
After the events of the past few days, it is no surprise that i am wondering what this may lead to. Apart from the obvious concerns for my own safety. I am also left wondering what sort of extra security systems may still be in place when i plan to travel & how long the check in time may be!
The last time i flew to the USA, in September 2008, the security was tight. But, not excessively so. Well, not in my opinion anyway.
My opinion has always been that, there is an obvious threat & that these things need to be done to protect myself & everyone else. I know full well that the air routes between the UK & USA are a prime target for terrorists, whether we like that, or not.
I'll admit, the part of the whole security process that tends to annoy me the most is all of the form filling & online checks that are done, both prior to the actual flight & on the plane itself.
And i haven't even mentioned the many checks that take place on arrival in the USA itself!
But, once again, i have just accepted them as a part of the process.
Now, i learn though, that in the most recent incident on that now infamous Amsterdam to Detroit flight, these systems all seem to have failed.
A person has managed to board a flight across the atlantic to the USA, with explosives strapped to his body. Not only that, but we now know that this person was known to the authorities in America, after being reported by his father.
We also know that he was also refused a visa to visit the UK, earlier this year, because of security concerns.
And i heard today, that he boarded this flight without any checked baggage. Isn't this just a little bit suspicious?
So, we put all of these security measures in place & somebody still manages to evade them all?
I vivdly remember the time when we in the UK had terrorist problems with the IRA. There was a famous quote from a member of the IRA, at the time, who said that "We only have to get lucky once. You have to get lucky every single time"
How very true, both then & now.
We got very lucky on that Amsterdam to Detriot plane on Christmas Day. Don't forget that.
If that explosive device had detonated properly, that plane would have gone down with everybody on board it. Regardless of whatever anybody on board might have done to try & prevent it.
So, what can be done?
Well, obviously, we need to make sure that the measures that are in place actually work. After all, they only need to fail once....
Now, i'm no security, or aviation expert, but i'd hate to see any more security measures at airports. As with the IRA situation, if you stop, or dissuade people from flying in the first place, the terrorists will have effectively won. After all, you don't need to actually kill anyone to create chaos & disruption to "normal" life.
What, in my opinion, should be done, is to make better use of so called "profiling". I'll admit that this generally goes against my feeling of civil liberties. But, sometimes drastic measures have to be taken.
We already know that the Nigerian suspect, in this most recent attack, was known to the authorities, in more than one country. So, why was he allowed to board that plane?
Better & co-ordinated use of "intelligence" & profiling will surely help to stop suspected terrorists from being allowed to board certain planes & enter certain countries. That can't be a bad thing, can it?
We should also learn from other countries, namely Israel, whose methods have been proved to be successful.
I know that these measures will inevitably tend to target certain people & maybe even some ethnic groups. But, why target & inconvenience everybody, when you possibly don't have to?
If you combine the measures that are already in place, with the better use of intelligence. This can only help to make flying safer for everybody, in the long run.
And isn't that what we all want?
And if that can all be done by late April 2010, i'd very much appreciate it.
Thanks.
Sunday, 27 December 2009
Saturday, 26 December 2009
The Great Santa Claus Deception.
WARNING, SPOILER ALERT!
As you do on a Christmas day morning, my family & i were talking about Santa Claus/Father Christmas & a particular aspect of that story in particular.
My son, who is 19 years old by the way, just happened to say "Why do parents tell children that Santa Claus is real?"
Now, i think this is a very good question & one that really got me thinking. Hence this blog post.
So, why do we all do it? Knowing that it is untrue.
I am a parent of two children & quite happily went along with the great Santa Claus deception.
I admit, that when your children are young & believe in Santa Claus, it does add to the whole atmosphere & experience of the Christmas period. When the children get older & no longer believe, it is never quite the same is it?
Maybe that is the reason we do it? We remember what it was like for us, as children, when we too believed.
But, that doesn't really answer the question as to why i effectively told my children lies & let them believe in something & someone that i knew was false. And, something that i knew they would find out to be a big lie, at some time in the future.
It could be argued that by perpetuating this big lie & by effectively encouraging it as well, that we are being cruel to our children. After all, can you remember how disappointed & upset your own children were, or even how upset you were as a child, when you found out that Santa Claus was not real?
Do you remember when your child came home from school & asked you whether Santa Claus was real? Because their schoolfriends had found out the truth. And, if you remember that question, what was your answer?
I wouldn't be surprised if you told them, like i did, "Not to be so silly. Of course Santa Claus is real. After all, who do you think brings you all of those presents?"
Does that sound familiar?
It is only when you start to think about all of this, that you realise how bad it all sounds!
Throughout their lives & especially when they are younger, we try & teach our children to tell the truth. I know that i have certainly done that. And yet, right from their earliest years, we have done exactly the opposite! What example does this set?
And we then wonder why children are confused & don't listen to their parents?
So, do i regret telling that big lie to my children? No, not really & there lies the problem i guess?
The great Santa Claus deception will only stop when parents have the guts to actually tell the truth, straight away & not allow their children to believe in Father Christmas.
So, who will be the first parent brave enough to do that?
Maybe it will be my son?
As you do on a Christmas day morning, my family & i were talking about Santa Claus/Father Christmas & a particular aspect of that story in particular.
My son, who is 19 years old by the way, just happened to say "Why do parents tell children that Santa Claus is real?"
Now, i think this is a very good question & one that really got me thinking. Hence this blog post.
So, why do we all do it? Knowing that it is untrue.
I am a parent of two children & quite happily went along with the great Santa Claus deception.
I admit, that when your children are young & believe in Santa Claus, it does add to the whole atmosphere & experience of the Christmas period. When the children get older & no longer believe, it is never quite the same is it?
Maybe that is the reason we do it? We remember what it was like for us, as children, when we too believed.
But, that doesn't really answer the question as to why i effectively told my children lies & let them believe in something & someone that i knew was false. And, something that i knew they would find out to be a big lie, at some time in the future.
It could be argued that by perpetuating this big lie & by effectively encouraging it as well, that we are being cruel to our children. After all, can you remember how disappointed & upset your own children were, or even how upset you were as a child, when you found out that Santa Claus was not real?
Do you remember when your child came home from school & asked you whether Santa Claus was real? Because their schoolfriends had found out the truth. And, if you remember that question, what was your answer?
I wouldn't be surprised if you told them, like i did, "Not to be so silly. Of course Santa Claus is real. After all, who do you think brings you all of those presents?"
Does that sound familiar?
It is only when you start to think about all of this, that you realise how bad it all sounds!
Throughout their lives & especially when they are younger, we try & teach our children to tell the truth. I know that i have certainly done that. And yet, right from their earliest years, we have done exactly the opposite! What example does this set?
And we then wonder why children are confused & don't listen to their parents?
So, do i regret telling that big lie to my children? No, not really & there lies the problem i guess?
The great Santa Claus deception will only stop when parents have the guts to actually tell the truth, straight away & not allow their children to believe in Father Christmas.
So, who will be the first parent brave enough to do that?
Maybe it will be my son?
Thursday, 24 December 2009
Reading The Future?
In Britain fairly recently, we had a national postal strike.
As can be imagined, this caused a lot of disruption to postal services. The effects were felt for far longer than the actual strike, because of the backlog of mail that built up.
Because of this, some companies that rely on the Royal Mail service, started to make alternative arrangements to get their products to their customers. One of those may well have some implications for the future.
Like a lot of people, i subscribe to magazines. All of which have to be delivered by post.
During the postal strike, two of the magazines that i subscribe to, one a weekly publication & the other a monthly one, decided to start a service whereby a link was sent by email to all subscribers. This email link linked to a special online version of the full magazine. This e-magazine was a full replica of the published version & even has turnable pages. It can also be magnified to highlight parts of text.
This is a very clever little bit of programming that allows this to happen & i should inagine that it's a pretty recent development too. But, i truly believe that this is a pointer to the future for both magazines & possibly even newspapers too.
One reason for this thought is that both magazines, "Word Magazine" & "The Week", have found that their subscribers like the e-magazine so much, that they have both decided to make this a permanent arrangement. Now, when a new edition of the magazine comes out, i get an email, complete with the link to the e-version.
I have already set up special email folders to save these links. Thus giving me a permanent link to the magazines. I don't even have to store, or even read my paper copy anymore.
This is surely a sign of things to come?
Another thing that these two magazines have in common, is that neither of them has a website that allows you to read their content online. Yes, they both have a website & in the case of "Word Magazine" a very good one too. But, you can't read the magazine there, you have to subscribe to do that.
To me at least, i think this is a very sensible arrangement & one i fully support.
Now, contrast this arrangement with what most other magazines & especially newspapers do.
Most of them allow you to read most, if not all, of their content online & for free too.
I'm sure we've all seen the news coverage of Rupert Murdoch & News International complaining about Google allowing anyone to search for their content & then access it online for free.
Whilst i can see why Rupert Murdoch is not happy, surely this situation is of his own making?
You can't really complain that people are either not buying a physical copy of your newspaper, or that they are unwilling to pay to view it online, when the newspaper has it's own website which shows the newspapers content, for the whole world to see & for free too!
Am i missing something here?
I have no doubt that people would be willing to pay for content. But, they are not going to do that when that same content is freely & legally available elsewhere.
So, why don't Rupert Murdoch & other news organisations go down the same route that magazines such as "The Week" & "Word Magazine" have done?
I think one reason might be that they all rushed into creating websites for their various publications, thinking that they had to get on the bandwagon & not get left behind by the competition.
By doing this, they have now created an audience for online reading & have even allowed more people to read their output than ever before.
Unfortunately, a lot of these people will be casual readers. How many of those casual readers would actually pay good money to read that relevant publication? I guess we'll never know.
My challenge to Rupert Murdoch etc would be.
If you are really serious about getting people to pay for your online content & even encourage people back to buying a hard copy of your newspapers. Shut down the free, official, websites of your newspapers & then charge people to view them. Or, send your paying subscribers an email link, to enable them to view the newspaper online.
I have a funny feeling that Mr Murdoch will not take this course of action. But, if he did, it would most likely solve the Google problem in one fell swoop.
I think 2010 could be an interesting year in the newspaper & magazine publishing world.
As can be imagined, this caused a lot of disruption to postal services. The effects were felt for far longer than the actual strike, because of the backlog of mail that built up.
Because of this, some companies that rely on the Royal Mail service, started to make alternative arrangements to get their products to their customers. One of those may well have some implications for the future.
Like a lot of people, i subscribe to magazines. All of which have to be delivered by post.
During the postal strike, two of the magazines that i subscribe to, one a weekly publication & the other a monthly one, decided to start a service whereby a link was sent by email to all subscribers. This email link linked to a special online version of the full magazine. This e-magazine was a full replica of the published version & even has turnable pages. It can also be magnified to highlight parts of text.
This is a very clever little bit of programming that allows this to happen & i should inagine that it's a pretty recent development too. But, i truly believe that this is a pointer to the future for both magazines & possibly even newspapers too.
One reason for this thought is that both magazines, "Word Magazine" & "The Week", have found that their subscribers like the e-magazine so much, that they have both decided to make this a permanent arrangement. Now, when a new edition of the magazine comes out, i get an email, complete with the link to the e-version.
I have already set up special email folders to save these links. Thus giving me a permanent link to the magazines. I don't even have to store, or even read my paper copy anymore.
This is surely a sign of things to come?
Another thing that these two magazines have in common, is that neither of them has a website that allows you to read their content online. Yes, they both have a website & in the case of "Word Magazine" a very good one too. But, you can't read the magazine there, you have to subscribe to do that.
To me at least, i think this is a very sensible arrangement & one i fully support.
Now, contrast this arrangement with what most other magazines & especially newspapers do.
Most of them allow you to read most, if not all, of their content online & for free too.
I'm sure we've all seen the news coverage of Rupert Murdoch & News International complaining about Google allowing anyone to search for their content & then access it online for free.
Whilst i can see why Rupert Murdoch is not happy, surely this situation is of his own making?
You can't really complain that people are either not buying a physical copy of your newspaper, or that they are unwilling to pay to view it online, when the newspaper has it's own website which shows the newspapers content, for the whole world to see & for free too!
Am i missing something here?
I have no doubt that people would be willing to pay for content. But, they are not going to do that when that same content is freely & legally available elsewhere.
So, why don't Rupert Murdoch & other news organisations go down the same route that magazines such as "The Week" & "Word Magazine" have done?
I think one reason might be that they all rushed into creating websites for their various publications, thinking that they had to get on the bandwagon & not get left behind by the competition.
By doing this, they have now created an audience for online reading & have even allowed more people to read their output than ever before.
Unfortunately, a lot of these people will be casual readers. How many of those casual readers would actually pay good money to read that relevant publication? I guess we'll never know.
My challenge to Rupert Murdoch etc would be.
If you are really serious about getting people to pay for your online content & even encourage people back to buying a hard copy of your newspapers. Shut down the free, official, websites of your newspapers & then charge people to view them. Or, send your paying subscribers an email link, to enable them to view the newspaper online.
I have a funny feeling that Mr Murdoch will not take this course of action. But, if he did, it would most likely solve the Google problem in one fell swoop.
I think 2010 could be an interesting year in the newspaper & magazine publishing world.
Sunday, 20 December 2009
Rage Against The XFactor - The result & what it means.
Well, the sales figures have all been counted & the result is now known.
The race to the prestigious UK Christmas Number 1 position, has been won by Rage Against the Machine & their song "Killing In The Name Of". They "won" by 50,000 sales.
Apparently, the Rage Against The Machine song sold 500,000 copies during this week.
So, what does all this mean?
Well, it certainly raises a lot of issues & not just for the world of music either.
For a start, every single copy of "Killing In The Name Of" sold, all 500,000 of them, was a digital download & they were all sold in the UK only. No physical copies of the track were sold.
Just think about that for a moment.
This has just changed the way that music is sold forever. Yes, downloads have been used to help calculate chart positions for a few years now. But, did anyone really think that a song would get to the Number 1 slot on download sales alone & this quickly too? I doubt it.
As i said in my previous blog post about this topic. This means that ANY song, as long as it's available from certain download sites, can now get into the charts & possibly get to Number 1.
Is there now any real need for a physical copy of a single, or even an album for that matter, to be sold? I'm sure that question will be asked in many record company boardrooms tomorrow morning.
The next point is where does this leave the XFactor?
Sure, the program will continue & i have no real problem with that. But, it has now lost it's hold on the charts. It's invincibility has gone.
I have no doubt that a lot of people bought the XFactor single, as a protest against Rage Against The Machine & yet, it still lost out.
What will happen the next time a TV Talent show winner releases a single?
Will there be another Internet campaign to stop it? I bet there will be & who's to say it won't have the same result.
Granted, i thought the choice of protest song, this time around, was perfect & summed up the whole campaign exactly. But, i'm sure the amount of swearing in "Killing In The Name Of" put a lot of people off & probably contributed to the amount of people who did buy the XFactor song.
But, the biggest & possibly most important lesson to be learned from all of this, is the power of the Internet. If we ever needed an example of the power of the Internet & of people power. Then this is surely it.
I'm sure there will be a lot of people & not just in the world of music, taking stock of this result & analysing what it all means.
After all, we have a General Election in the UK in 2010....
The race to the prestigious UK Christmas Number 1 position, has been won by Rage Against the Machine & their song "Killing In The Name Of". They "won" by 50,000 sales.
Apparently, the Rage Against The Machine song sold 500,000 copies during this week.
So, what does all this mean?
Well, it certainly raises a lot of issues & not just for the world of music either.
For a start, every single copy of "Killing In The Name Of" sold, all 500,000 of them, was a digital download & they were all sold in the UK only. No physical copies of the track were sold.
Just think about that for a moment.
This has just changed the way that music is sold forever. Yes, downloads have been used to help calculate chart positions for a few years now. But, did anyone really think that a song would get to the Number 1 slot on download sales alone & this quickly too? I doubt it.
As i said in my previous blog post about this topic. This means that ANY song, as long as it's available from certain download sites, can now get into the charts & possibly get to Number 1.
Is there now any real need for a physical copy of a single, or even an album for that matter, to be sold? I'm sure that question will be asked in many record company boardrooms tomorrow morning.
The next point is where does this leave the XFactor?
Sure, the program will continue & i have no real problem with that. But, it has now lost it's hold on the charts. It's invincibility has gone.
I have no doubt that a lot of people bought the XFactor single, as a protest against Rage Against The Machine & yet, it still lost out.
What will happen the next time a TV Talent show winner releases a single?
Will there be another Internet campaign to stop it? I bet there will be & who's to say it won't have the same result.
Granted, i thought the choice of protest song, this time around, was perfect & summed up the whole campaign exactly. But, i'm sure the amount of swearing in "Killing In The Name Of" put a lot of people off & probably contributed to the amount of people who did buy the XFactor song.
But, the biggest & possibly most important lesson to be learned from all of this, is the power of the Internet. If we ever needed an example of the power of the Internet & of people power. Then this is surely it.
I'm sure there will be a lot of people & not just in the world of music, taking stock of this result & analysing what it all means.
After all, we have a General Election in the UK in 2010....
Saturday, 19 December 2009
Thursday, 17 December 2009
Rage Against The XFactor.
I have just re-purchased the song "Killing In The Name Of" by the U.S band Rage Against The Machine, from iTunes. Nothing unusual in that you might think, unless you happen to live in the U.K that is.
By the way, i already have that track on the original Rage Against The Machine album & i also have an edited version.
So, why on earth would i want to buy the song for a third time?
Well, for those not in the know. There is an Internet campaign going on this week, in the U.K, to try & get "Killing In The Name Of" to Number 1 in the U.K Music Charts & thereby make in the Christmas Number 1. A very prestigious acheivement & something that is always a hard fought battle. Well, here in the U.K anyway.
Over the past few years, the Christmas Number 1 song has been performed by whoever was the winner of the XFactor TV talent show. Last year it was Alexandra Burke & her "version" of the Leonard Cohen song "Hallelujah". The show usually finishes just before Christmas & the current series finished last Sunday. So, it is timed perfectly for the Christmas market. Surely not a coincidence?
Because of the enormous popularity of the show, the song chosen for the XFactor winner is virtually guaranteed to be the Christmas Number 1. Something a lot of people are not very happy about & i'll admit, i tend to agree with them.
There has been a huge debate in the U.K, during this series of the XFactor, about how the show is possibly changing popular music, how it is stifling the opportunities for original artists & also the amount of power that the show & others like it, wield. Both in the world of popular music & even in the world of prime time TV as well.
That is probably a topic for another blog, or even a video.
This year however somebody has said "enough is enough" & decided to try & do something about it. Hence the campaign to try & get "Killing In The Name Of" to the top of the charts.
Why that song? I don't know. But, you've only got to listen to the lyrics to understand why & even the name of the band, Rage Against The Machine, is a bit of a giveaway.
For me. at least, it is the perfect choice. It's a song of rebellion ("fuck you, i won't do what you tell me") & i'm sure it appeals to all of those who dislike the idea of a TV show, more or less, controlling the music charts & probably stifling the music business in the process.
The next question is obviously, "is it all worth it & will it make any difference?".
Well, so far, i do think it is making a difference. The song is currently Number 1 in the Midweek Charts. No guarantee of success i agree. But, a pretty good acheivement, even if it doesn't manage to hold onto that spot come Sunday when the Official Christmas Charts are announced.
The whole campaign seems to have stirred a sense of rebellion in a lot of people & stirred up a lot of debate as well. For example the Facebook group for this campaign has over 400,000 members. In my opinion, that can only be a good thing.
Yes, i do understand the irony that both Rage Against The Machine & the XFactor song are both on the Sony label. So, Sony will be a big winner out of this.
But, at least it's got people talking about & buying music, legally, again. It will also have introduced a whole new group of people to Rage Against The Machine. Who must be sitting there shaking their heads in complete bemusement at what is happening. I wonder what they make of all of this?
Ultimately, the campaign may well fail. As i'm sure there will be a counter campaign to stop "Killing In The Name Of" reaching that coveted Number 1 spot. After all, the song has some naughty swear words in it & we can't have that can we?
For me, this is also a bit of fun & a good example of people power. And just think, a few years ago this could never have happened.
The Official Charts were always made up of songs that were 'released" by record companies. These days, just about any song can count towards a chart position.
Now, a song doesn't have to be "released", it just has to have been bought on certain download sites. So, no longer can the Charts be manipulated in the way that they used to be.
"Killing In the Name Of" is a very good example of this & also an indication of where this may well lead in the future.
There may well be interesting times ahead.
In the meantime, why not do what i did, make your own protest & buy, or even re-purchase "Killing In the Name Of" by Rage Against The Machine on iTunes (in the UK).
"Fuck you, i won't do what you tell me".
Oops too late.....
By the way, i already have that track on the original Rage Against The Machine album & i also have an edited version.
So, why on earth would i want to buy the song for a third time?
Well, for those not in the know. There is an Internet campaign going on this week, in the U.K, to try & get "Killing In The Name Of" to Number 1 in the U.K Music Charts & thereby make in the Christmas Number 1. A very prestigious acheivement & something that is always a hard fought battle. Well, here in the U.K anyway.
Over the past few years, the Christmas Number 1 song has been performed by whoever was the winner of the XFactor TV talent show. Last year it was Alexandra Burke & her "version" of the Leonard Cohen song "Hallelujah". The show usually finishes just before Christmas & the current series finished last Sunday. So, it is timed perfectly for the Christmas market. Surely not a coincidence?
Because of the enormous popularity of the show, the song chosen for the XFactor winner is virtually guaranteed to be the Christmas Number 1. Something a lot of people are not very happy about & i'll admit, i tend to agree with them.
There has been a huge debate in the U.K, during this series of the XFactor, about how the show is possibly changing popular music, how it is stifling the opportunities for original artists & also the amount of power that the show & others like it, wield. Both in the world of popular music & even in the world of prime time TV as well.
That is probably a topic for another blog, or even a video.
This year however somebody has said "enough is enough" & decided to try & do something about it. Hence the campaign to try & get "Killing In The Name Of" to the top of the charts.
Why that song? I don't know. But, you've only got to listen to the lyrics to understand why & even the name of the band, Rage Against The Machine, is a bit of a giveaway.
For me. at least, it is the perfect choice. It's a song of rebellion ("fuck you, i won't do what you tell me") & i'm sure it appeals to all of those who dislike the idea of a TV show, more or less, controlling the music charts & probably stifling the music business in the process.
The next question is obviously, "is it all worth it & will it make any difference?".
Well, so far, i do think it is making a difference. The song is currently Number 1 in the Midweek Charts. No guarantee of success i agree. But, a pretty good acheivement, even if it doesn't manage to hold onto that spot come Sunday when the Official Christmas Charts are announced.
The whole campaign seems to have stirred a sense of rebellion in a lot of people & stirred up a lot of debate as well. For example the Facebook group for this campaign has over 400,000 members. In my opinion, that can only be a good thing.
Yes, i do understand the irony that both Rage Against The Machine & the XFactor song are both on the Sony label. So, Sony will be a big winner out of this.
But, at least it's got people talking about & buying music, legally, again. It will also have introduced a whole new group of people to Rage Against The Machine. Who must be sitting there shaking their heads in complete bemusement at what is happening. I wonder what they make of all of this?
Ultimately, the campaign may well fail. As i'm sure there will be a counter campaign to stop "Killing In The Name Of" reaching that coveted Number 1 spot. After all, the song has some naughty swear words in it & we can't have that can we?
For me, this is also a bit of fun & a good example of people power. And just think, a few years ago this could never have happened.
The Official Charts were always made up of songs that were 'released" by record companies. These days, just about any song can count towards a chart position.
Now, a song doesn't have to be "released", it just has to have been bought on certain download sites. So, no longer can the Charts be manipulated in the way that they used to be.
"Killing In the Name Of" is a very good example of this & also an indication of where this may well lead in the future.
There may well be interesting times ahead.
In the meantime, why not do what i did, make your own protest & buy, or even re-purchase "Killing In the Name Of" by Rage Against The Machine on iTunes (in the UK).
"Fuck you, i won't do what you tell me".
Oops too late.....
Tuesday, 15 December 2009
Re: The Geekniks: Beat Poetry for a Wired Age
New YouTube video - Just a little fun.
Check out these videos too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW7QFSWGUQw &
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTrO47GVj1g
Check out these videos too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW7QFSWGUQw &
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTrO47GVj1g
Monday, 14 December 2009
Watches.
I was reading one of my favourite magazines this afternoon & a realisation suddenly struck me. (as to why i had the time to read a whole magazine, in one sitting, is another story completely btw)
That realisation was that, all of the magazines that i read & even subscribe to, are chock full of advertisments for high quality watches. And without exception, i find these adverts annoying.
I shan't name any of the companies involved. But, one of them uses a picture of a supposed father & son. Both of whom have awful haircuts, i might add.
How this is going to attract anyone to buy any of their products is beyond me.
Anyway, enough of that.
What i got thinking about was, who on earth buys & can afford to buy, these high cost watches? After all, somebody must do.
I'm naturally happy that people are, presumably, attracted by those adverts & that the companies actually advertise in my favourite magazines in the first place. After all, without those adverts, the magazine might not be able to afford to publish.
I fully realise that certain watches can be seen as some kind of status symbol & you do see them being worn by the great & good all the time.
How often have you seen the aftermath of a Formula One motor race & watched the leading drivers hurriedly put on their flashy watch, prior to the press conference?
Now, i'm obviously not a part of the target audience. Not being a multi-millionaire racing driver for a start. But, i can honestly say that i wouldn't want a watch like that even if i could afford one.
One reason for that is that i don't actually like wearing a watch & i know that i'm not alone in feeling that.
I need to wear a watch for work. But, as soon as i get home, i take that watch off & put it to one side. If i could, i would probably never wear one. And in this age when just about anyone now has a mobile phone, of some kind. Do we really need them anyway?
Isn't it amazing where a simple advert for a watch, or maybe that should be a timepiece, can lead?
Time, gentlemen please.
That realisation was that, all of the magazines that i read & even subscribe to, are chock full of advertisments for high quality watches. And without exception, i find these adverts annoying.
I shan't name any of the companies involved. But, one of them uses a picture of a supposed father & son. Both of whom have awful haircuts, i might add.
How this is going to attract anyone to buy any of their products is beyond me.
Anyway, enough of that.
What i got thinking about was, who on earth buys & can afford to buy, these high cost watches? After all, somebody must do.
I'm naturally happy that people are, presumably, attracted by those adverts & that the companies actually advertise in my favourite magazines in the first place. After all, without those adverts, the magazine might not be able to afford to publish.
I fully realise that certain watches can be seen as some kind of status symbol & you do see them being worn by the great & good all the time.
How often have you seen the aftermath of a Formula One motor race & watched the leading drivers hurriedly put on their flashy watch, prior to the press conference?
Now, i'm obviously not a part of the target audience. Not being a multi-millionaire racing driver for a start. But, i can honestly say that i wouldn't want a watch like that even if i could afford one.
One reason for that is that i don't actually like wearing a watch & i know that i'm not alone in feeling that.
I need to wear a watch for work. But, as soon as i get home, i take that watch off & put it to one side. If i could, i would probably never wear one. And in this age when just about anyone now has a mobile phone, of some kind. Do we really need them anyway?
Isn't it amazing where a simple advert for a watch, or maybe that should be a timepiece, can lead?
Time, gentlemen please.
Sunday, 13 December 2009
News?
I have noticed recently, what is for me anyway, a disturbing trend.
I have always liked to try & keep up with the latest happenings in the world of news & current affairs. But, that is becoming increasingly difficult. It appears that all anyone wants to concentrate on & talk about these days, are trivial stories & celebrity/entertainment gossip.
My usual way of getting my daily dose of news is via the BBC.
That may be via their website. My home page is actually the BBC news site & also by watching the BBC news bulletins.
I am an avid viewer of their 6 'o' clock bulletin for example, during the week anyway (by the way, does anyone, apart from me, call them bulletins any more?)
The BBC has always been held in high regard for their news reporting & rightly so.
But, what i have noticed over recent months, is an increasing emphasis on & drift towards the trivial.
For example, on one 6 'o' clock bulletin last week, there were "news" items on Tiger Woods mother in law being taken to hospital & the upcoming X-Factor Final. Now, for me at least, that is not what i call news.
I saw another great example, just today, on the BBC news website. Admittedly it was under the Entertainment section. But the main headline was "Millions to watch X-Factor Final"
Now to me that is not news, but more information, or even just plain promotion. The same kind of reporting has been used to "promote" BBC reality TV shows, especially Strictly Come Dancing.
"News" is usually defined as "a report of a recent event"., or something very similar.
Now i do realise that telling the public of an upcoming event can be newsworthy.
For example, the recent coverage of, what was then, the upcoming Copenhagen Climate Change Summit.
But, even then, the reporting is more conjecture & guesswork, than real hard factual news.
This whole problem is part of a general dumbing down of news.
We are all presumed to be gagging for more & more celebrity gossip & trivial news items. Whilst this may be true for a part of the population, the rest of us want to hear what is really happening in the world at large. That is becoming increasingly harder to do.
There are plenty of TV shows & magazines that report & even specialise in the reporting of celebrity gossip & the best if luck to them i say. At least if i buy one of those magazines, or watch one of those TV programs, i know what to expect.
But, i don't wish to be subjected to that kind of reporting whilst watching, what is supposed to be a serious TV news bulletin.
Another problem, i believe, is the emergence of 24 hour TV news channels.
These 24 hour news channels obviously need something to report & talk about, to fill their shows. So, they've found that the celebrity angle is a good one to go down.
There is always some celebrity who is doing something that might be considered newsworthy by someone.
It is also cheap programming. They can just cut & paste something from one of the celebrity gossip magazines that are so prevelant. Or even from the tabloid press, who also seem to revel in that kind of "news".
Whilst i concede that my views may well be in the minority & that i might also be accused of being old fashioned. I do feel that this issue is having a wider effect.
Children are growing up without being exposed to what i would call "real" news.
Those world events & stories that i grew up seeing on the TV news bulletins, are just not reported so widely nowadays. The result of this is that those children & a great many adults too, are not learning about the world as i did.
Ask a child today to find Iraq, or Afghanistan on a map & i doubt that they could do it.
Whether we like it , or not, world events affect us all & events during the past decade have illustrated that to great effect.
Celebrity & entertainment events will never have that same impact.
We would do well to remember that in the future.
I have always liked to try & keep up with the latest happenings in the world of news & current affairs. But, that is becoming increasingly difficult. It appears that all anyone wants to concentrate on & talk about these days, are trivial stories & celebrity/entertainment gossip.
My usual way of getting my daily dose of news is via the BBC.
That may be via their website. My home page is actually the BBC news site & also by watching the BBC news bulletins.
I am an avid viewer of their 6 'o' clock bulletin for example, during the week anyway (by the way, does anyone, apart from me, call them bulletins any more?)
The BBC has always been held in high regard for their news reporting & rightly so.
But, what i have noticed over recent months, is an increasing emphasis on & drift towards the trivial.
For example, on one 6 'o' clock bulletin last week, there were "news" items on Tiger Woods mother in law being taken to hospital & the upcoming X-Factor Final. Now, for me at least, that is not what i call news.
I saw another great example, just today, on the BBC news website. Admittedly it was under the Entertainment section. But the main headline was "Millions to watch X-Factor Final"
Now to me that is not news, but more information, or even just plain promotion. The same kind of reporting has been used to "promote" BBC reality TV shows, especially Strictly Come Dancing.
"News" is usually defined as "a report of a recent event"., or something very similar.
Now i do realise that telling the public of an upcoming event can be newsworthy.
For example, the recent coverage of, what was then, the upcoming Copenhagen Climate Change Summit.
But, even then, the reporting is more conjecture & guesswork, than real hard factual news.
This whole problem is part of a general dumbing down of news.
We are all presumed to be gagging for more & more celebrity gossip & trivial news items. Whilst this may be true for a part of the population, the rest of us want to hear what is really happening in the world at large. That is becoming increasingly harder to do.
There are plenty of TV shows & magazines that report & even specialise in the reporting of celebrity gossip & the best if luck to them i say. At least if i buy one of those magazines, or watch one of those TV programs, i know what to expect.
But, i don't wish to be subjected to that kind of reporting whilst watching, what is supposed to be a serious TV news bulletin.
Another problem, i believe, is the emergence of 24 hour TV news channels.
These 24 hour news channels obviously need something to report & talk about, to fill their shows. So, they've found that the celebrity angle is a good one to go down.
There is always some celebrity who is doing something that might be considered newsworthy by someone.
It is also cheap programming. They can just cut & paste something from one of the celebrity gossip magazines that are so prevelant. Or even from the tabloid press, who also seem to revel in that kind of "news".
Whilst i concede that my views may well be in the minority & that i might also be accused of being old fashioned. I do feel that this issue is having a wider effect.
Children are growing up without being exposed to what i would call "real" news.
Those world events & stories that i grew up seeing on the TV news bulletins, are just not reported so widely nowadays. The result of this is that those children & a great many adults too, are not learning about the world as i did.
Ask a child today to find Iraq, or Afghanistan on a map & i doubt that they could do it.
Whether we like it , or not, world events affect us all & events during the past decade have illustrated that to great effect.
Celebrity & entertainment events will never have that same impact.
We would do well to remember that in the future.
Saturday, 12 December 2009
Thursday, 10 December 2009
...And Music Of the Past.
I've just finished reading the book "I'm With The Band", the pretty infamous story of Pamela Des Barres.
Yes, the book is primarily about her sexual exploits with many famous rock stars of the 1960's & 70's. But, another thing that jumped out at me, whilst reading the book, was a realisation that we just don't seem to have rock stars, or even music like that these days.
If i name some of the bands, or artists, mentioned in the book you might see what i mean:
The Beatles, Rolling Stones, The Who, The Kinks, Led Zeppelin, Rod Stewart & The Faces, The Byrds, Bob Dylan, Frank Zappa etc etc.
With the possible exception of Frank Zappa, who i know is still widely respected in musical circles, all of those bands listed are still listened to, revered & very much appreciated today. Possibly even more so than they were back then. In fact i still listen to all of them regularly myself.
Many of those artists are also considered a huge influence on modern day music & i certainly wouldn't argue with that.
So, i suppose that hat i'm getting at is, does the music of today stand up to the music of those heady years & also, will we still be playing the music of today in 30 years time?
Unfortunately, on both counts, i'd have to say a big fat NO. Well, ok, there may be a few exceptions, but not very many. I'm wracking my brains here...
I fully realise that at least a part of what i feel is influenced by the fact that i was born in 1958 & grew up listening to that same music. That always makes a difference to the way you feel about certain music & artists. The music of your youth will always have a huge influence of your future listening experience. That's only natural.
But, i really don't see many bands around these days who stand up to those of the past.
Are there really any big influential bands around now. Or, are they all just copycats of the past?
Maybe we've just run out of ideas & it's now a case of "it's all been done before"
When something supposedly "new" does come along, it often harks back to the past. And even then, the few original bands that do try a new angle are followed by many substandard hangers on.
I know that it has always been this way, even back in the 60's & 70's. But, the quality of the copycats just seemed better & more original back then.
The only really "new" music that has come along in the past 30 years, in my humble opinion anyway, has been electronic music & hip hip/rap. And i suppose the only reason that has happened is because, for the most part, the technology just wasn't available any earlier to actually help produce that type of music?
It could, of course, just be a case of the way that music is produced & sold now?
Maybe experimentation is frowned upon by record comapanies? Whereas, back in those early days it was positively encouraged. (This is a topic i may well cover in a future blog, or vlog post)
Or, maybe, the problem is far deeper than that?
There is still some very good music being made right now. But, i'm not sure that much of it will ever be considered to be "great" music.
Only time will tell, i guess?
Yes, the book is primarily about her sexual exploits with many famous rock stars of the 1960's & 70's. But, another thing that jumped out at me, whilst reading the book, was a realisation that we just don't seem to have rock stars, or even music like that these days.
If i name some of the bands, or artists, mentioned in the book you might see what i mean:
The Beatles, Rolling Stones, The Who, The Kinks, Led Zeppelin, Rod Stewart & The Faces, The Byrds, Bob Dylan, Frank Zappa etc etc.
With the possible exception of Frank Zappa, who i know is still widely respected in musical circles, all of those bands listed are still listened to, revered & very much appreciated today. Possibly even more so than they were back then. In fact i still listen to all of them regularly myself.
Many of those artists are also considered a huge influence on modern day music & i certainly wouldn't argue with that.
So, i suppose that hat i'm getting at is, does the music of today stand up to the music of those heady years & also, will we still be playing the music of today in 30 years time?
Unfortunately, on both counts, i'd have to say a big fat NO. Well, ok, there may be a few exceptions, but not very many. I'm wracking my brains here...
I fully realise that at least a part of what i feel is influenced by the fact that i was born in 1958 & grew up listening to that same music. That always makes a difference to the way you feel about certain music & artists. The music of your youth will always have a huge influence of your future listening experience. That's only natural.
But, i really don't see many bands around these days who stand up to those of the past.
Are there really any big influential bands around now. Or, are they all just copycats of the past?
Maybe we've just run out of ideas & it's now a case of "it's all been done before"
When something supposedly "new" does come along, it often harks back to the past. And even then, the few original bands that do try a new angle are followed by many substandard hangers on.
I know that it has always been this way, even back in the 60's & 70's. But, the quality of the copycats just seemed better & more original back then.
The only really "new" music that has come along in the past 30 years, in my humble opinion anyway, has been electronic music & hip hip/rap. And i suppose the only reason that has happened is because, for the most part, the technology just wasn't available any earlier to actually help produce that type of music?
It could, of course, just be a case of the way that music is produced & sold now?
Maybe experimentation is frowned upon by record comapanies? Whereas, back in those early days it was positively encouraged. (This is a topic i may well cover in a future blog, or vlog post)
Or, maybe, the problem is far deeper than that?
There is still some very good music being made right now. But, i'm not sure that much of it will ever be considered to be "great" music.
Only time will tell, i guess?
Tuesday, 8 December 2009
Re: The Day The Music Died
A video made in response to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_e3iPkimQl8
The death of John Lennon - 8th December 1980.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_e3iPkimQl8
The death of John Lennon - 8th December 1980.
Monday, 7 December 2009
Just One Winter.
I received an email from an American friend of mine today.
In the email he just happened to mention that his local area was forecast to have it's first real snow of the Winter in the next day, or so. That storm was going to bring approx 13" of snow with it!
13" of snow?! If that amount of snow fell in the UK & especially anywhere near me, it would totally paralyse the country & probably for a number of days as well. Everything would come to a complete standstill & we would become the laughing stock of most other countries.
In my reply, i said that i would love to experience a "proper" Winter, if only once.
Living in a nice temperate zone here in the UK, we don't really suffer any real extremes of weather, or temperature. Yes, we have our moments. But, when you look at what other parts of the world put up with, it's small fry in comparison.
That may well be a good thing? But in reality, it can get a little boring, especially these days when all the seasons seem to be blending into one warm fuzz.
Just once, i'd love to see what a real Winter, or Summer for that matter, was really like.
I realise that i'd probably have to go abroad to have this experience. After all, i'm not sure if it would be quite the same to do this in Britain.
The key, in my opinion anyway, would be to see how a country copes with this kind of weather, when it is perfectly normal. Life just goes on & people just get on with it.
When i've been lucky enough to be in Spain for a Summer holiday, i've often thought that i'd like to spend a whole year there. If only to experience all of the seasons & to see how life alters throughout the year.
When we go on holiday, or visit a country, we only ever see a sort of snapshot of that country & of the way of life.
To truly experience that way of life, you need to live it. But, unfortunately, we don't normally get that chance.
Maybe people in countries with "real" weather would rather be in my position? I wonder.
Maybe we should start an international seasonal weather exchange program?
Where do i sign up?
In the email he just happened to mention that his local area was forecast to have it's first real snow of the Winter in the next day, or so. That storm was going to bring approx 13" of snow with it!
13" of snow?! If that amount of snow fell in the UK & especially anywhere near me, it would totally paralyse the country & probably for a number of days as well. Everything would come to a complete standstill & we would become the laughing stock of most other countries.
In my reply, i said that i would love to experience a "proper" Winter, if only once.
Living in a nice temperate zone here in the UK, we don't really suffer any real extremes of weather, or temperature. Yes, we have our moments. But, when you look at what other parts of the world put up with, it's small fry in comparison.
That may well be a good thing? But in reality, it can get a little boring, especially these days when all the seasons seem to be blending into one warm fuzz.
Just once, i'd love to see what a real Winter, or Summer for that matter, was really like.
I realise that i'd probably have to go abroad to have this experience. After all, i'm not sure if it would be quite the same to do this in Britain.
The key, in my opinion anyway, would be to see how a country copes with this kind of weather, when it is perfectly normal. Life just goes on & people just get on with it.
When i've been lucky enough to be in Spain for a Summer holiday, i've often thought that i'd like to spend a whole year there. If only to experience all of the seasons & to see how life alters throughout the year.
When we go on holiday, or visit a country, we only ever see a sort of snapshot of that country & of the way of life.
To truly experience that way of life, you need to live it. But, unfortunately, we don't normally get that chance.
Maybe people in countries with "real" weather would rather be in my position? I wonder.
Maybe we should start an international seasonal weather exchange program?
Where do i sign up?
Sunday, 6 December 2009
It's Lake Fish Sir.
Whilst watching a video this morning by one of my favourite YouTubers, Margaret Fabrizio, who goes by the name "atree3", i was reminded of a story.
Margaret's video was one of a series she has posted about her recent trip to Vietnam.
This is the video:
Apart from the story, which will probably not make a lot of sense unless you've watched that video, especially the ending. This series of videos has also brought back many happy memories to me of past holidays, especially those holidays to more distant lands.
My story took place in Sri Lanka, which i was lucky enough to visit with some friends, way back in 1982. Just before the ethnic violence between the Sinhalese & Tamils started.
We were in a place called Pollunaruwa, an ancient city of temples & statues of the Buddha. My friend Keith & i were sitting in a restuarant by a big lake. Whilst perusing the menu, we noticed that they had fish on there.
So, we asked the waiter what kind of fish it was:
"It's lake fish sir",
"Yes, we know it comes from the lake, but what kind of fish is it?",
"It's lake fish sir"
"Yes, we understand that, but what is the actual fish called?",
"It's lake fish sir"
It was at this point that we admitted defeat!
Now, this might not seem like a particularly amusing story & it may indeed be one of those cases where you just had to be there? But, it brought all of those memories flooding back to me.
I have been lucky enough to travel to some wonderful countries. Countries such as Sri Lanka, India & Egypt. And in each of them i have travelled in an unscheduled manner, basically backpacking i suppose.
But, the common thing that keeps those memories fresh in my mind, is the fact that for each of those holidays, i kept a travel diary. All of which i still have.
In fact, after watching Margaret's video this morning & thinking of that lake fish story, i have gone back & re-read my diary about that Sri Lankan trip.
Although, i took many, many photo's during those trips. There is nothing quite the same as reading a travel diary that was actually written at the time. Especially when viewed with those photographs. It really brings them back to life.
Try as we might, we can never remember everything that happens, or that we experience. But, every time i re-read those diaries, i am transported right back to the day that i wrote them.
The sights, sounds & smells seem to jump right out of the pages. In fact some of the pages still have the original stains on them!
I'm not sure that that would ever happen again in quite the same way?
These days, we all go on our holidays armed to the teeth with technology. Whether that be a mobile/cell phone, digital camera, laptop, or video camera. There is no excuse, or any need to miss a thing.
Indeed, that is exactly what Margaret's videos have proven. She now has her exchange with that Vietnamese man all about tea, in digital form. She even has the ability to upload it to the Internet & let the rest of us experience that memory with her.
I have done the same thing myself, on more recent holidays to Spain & the USA.
In the past, our memories have only really lived on in our brains, on celluloid film, or on fragile paper. Now, those memories can be recorded digitally, edited & stored on the Internet for all to see, for eternity.
Just like an elephant, we will never forget (even if we want to)
Margaret's video was one of a series she has posted about her recent trip to Vietnam.
This is the video:
Apart from the story, which will probably not make a lot of sense unless you've watched that video, especially the ending. This series of videos has also brought back many happy memories to me of past holidays, especially those holidays to more distant lands.
My story took place in Sri Lanka, which i was lucky enough to visit with some friends, way back in 1982. Just before the ethnic violence between the Sinhalese & Tamils started.
We were in a place called Pollunaruwa, an ancient city of temples & statues of the Buddha. My friend Keith & i were sitting in a restuarant by a big lake. Whilst perusing the menu, we noticed that they had fish on there.
So, we asked the waiter what kind of fish it was:
"It's lake fish sir",
"Yes, we know it comes from the lake, but what kind of fish is it?",
"It's lake fish sir"
"Yes, we understand that, but what is the actual fish called?",
"It's lake fish sir"
It was at this point that we admitted defeat!
Now, this might not seem like a particularly amusing story & it may indeed be one of those cases where you just had to be there? But, it brought all of those memories flooding back to me.
I have been lucky enough to travel to some wonderful countries. Countries such as Sri Lanka, India & Egypt. And in each of them i have travelled in an unscheduled manner, basically backpacking i suppose.
But, the common thing that keeps those memories fresh in my mind, is the fact that for each of those holidays, i kept a travel diary. All of which i still have.
In fact, after watching Margaret's video this morning & thinking of that lake fish story, i have gone back & re-read my diary about that Sri Lankan trip.
Although, i took many, many photo's during those trips. There is nothing quite the same as reading a travel diary that was actually written at the time. Especially when viewed with those photographs. It really brings them back to life.
Try as we might, we can never remember everything that happens, or that we experience. But, every time i re-read those diaries, i am transported right back to the day that i wrote them.
The sights, sounds & smells seem to jump right out of the pages. In fact some of the pages still have the original stains on them!
I'm not sure that that would ever happen again in quite the same way?
These days, we all go on our holidays armed to the teeth with technology. Whether that be a mobile/cell phone, digital camera, laptop, or video camera. There is no excuse, or any need to miss a thing.
Indeed, that is exactly what Margaret's videos have proven. She now has her exchange with that Vietnamese man all about tea, in digital form. She even has the ability to upload it to the Internet & let the rest of us experience that memory with her.
I have done the same thing myself, on more recent holidays to Spain & the USA.
In the past, our memories have only really lived on in our brains, on celluloid film, or on fragile paper. Now, those memories can be recorded digitally, edited & stored on the Internet for all to see, for eternity.
Just like an elephant, we will never forget (even if we want to)
Saturday, 5 December 2009
Thursday, 3 December 2009
Life, The Internet & Everything.
Some thoughts that came out of a comment, made by a friend, about the amount of time i spend on the Internet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)