: : school laptop scheme. like that's original : :

Read this and don't mention it to any person who might kill me for writing this (teachers, Toshiba workers etc.)...
I must say from the outlay that I viewed this pupil laptop scheme being set up at my school dubiously. The initiative, dubbed Freedom To Excel, is going to revolutionise learning at my school apparently, just as it has at other leading independent schools across the country. Run in conjunction with Toshiba, it basically means that pupils and Old Boys can now buy any one of a selection of state-of-the-art wireless-G laptops at the (notice the lack of a demeaning adjective) price of £940, in order that they can to a certain extent use a computer in their daily school lives - in lessons basically, and then for homework too. I would post a link to the brochure for this lovely scheme, but I think that under the official secrets act I'm too young to let that information out.
This laptop will be configured for use on and off the school network; will be outfitted with anti-virus software; and will be made efficient for use on a wireless network. The school technicians also say that they are prepared to configure other modern laptops that pupils have just bought, to save parents wasting an awful lot of money.
But get this, Apple Macs will not be suitable for configuration due to a lack of expertise. I found this to be the first stumbling block for me, because quite frankly if I was going to buy a laptop (and I'm not going to any time soon, because my desktop PC is fine as it is) I would much rather consider a PowerBook, but obviously if I can't use it on the school network, then that would be a real no-brainer.

I'll stop here for a bit while you get your heads round what I've fed you so far. More later, after I finish reading "Les Deux Amis" by Maupassant for my French homework. Not electronically, mind you...

: : why windows can be a real drag : :

Today I had a moment like those in the adverts Apple use to show on billboards in the USA, giving real people's anecdotes as to why they switched to Mac. Their reasons ranged from the endless blue screens to the outrageously long time taken to shut down computers, but mine is the endless selection of random and unexplained messages Windoze (I'm Finally Here... gave me that neat little name for Windows) spews out.

It was a drizzly morning, and I was trying to burn thirty pictures of relatives in Princeton to CD. Not a very demanding task, you might say. I thought that as well, as I copied the files from my hard drive to the CD-R, in a process where Windows makes a virtual image of these files, so that when all the files you want have been copied, you can simply press burn and it will burn them proper.

And so, with very little aplomb, I pressed burn. And guess what, Windoze ejected this message at me:

Windows is currently using the CD. Please wait before starting the CD Writing Wizard

AAARRGGGHHHH! You are being so stupid, computer! Where is the evidence to suggest you are using the CD? Do I have any programs open? NO! Am I already burning something? Of course NOT! It's times like these that I often hit the computer.


I'm sure it will work tomorrow, but why not NOW?

All I can do is hope Santa gives me a PowerMac for Christmas.

: : abc news: get it right please : :

ABC News: Online news, breaking news, feature stories and more

Look carefully at the presidential figures in the blue box on the right: yet again a news station has got it wrong - these figures have since changed! Just take at look at BBC's Vote USA map

: : news teams, why don't you concur : :

At this very important and tense stage in the US elections, why is it that the three main news channels in the UK do not agree on vote figures? I don't expect the US networks to concur - after all, half of them are in Bush's pocket (e.g. FOX NEWS), but the UK networks are meant to be unparalled in their knowledge, so how come for the whole of the morning no two stations have shown the same results??

I'll start with the BBC. This morning (GMT) it was showing a much further gap between Kerry's apparent 225 and Bush's 245 or something, while Sky News clearly stated that Kerry had 242. So why didn't a researcher from BBC NEWS 24 have the courage to check on what the competitors were saying, and hi-jack the figures? Surely that's not illegal, having more up-to-date figures? Meanwhile ITV were still stuck somewhere in the Stone Ages with not even a electoral college vote ticker to show off.

As I write this post Sky is now to blame: it is still saying that Kerry has just 242 votes to Bush's 254, but that's just plain wrong. How can they explain that when the BBC 's Vote USA media says that Kerry is just two votes behind with 252? It just doesn't make sense: it can't be in their interests to get things wrong when the nation is watching them intently. Don't screw up news-teams... not at this point, when the race is not yet over.

You can imagine how annoyed I am in any case that Kerry's efforts have not paid off - he deserves to be the next President! Bush is cocky, contraversial and ultimately a failure at everything else he's ever dones. I keep on asking myself why wasn't Kerry's campaign more attractive in the first place?

: : swinging through the swing states : :

It really is quite extraordinary how different the US elections are to those in the UK. For a start, no one here is used to such carisma, showmanship or glitz as displayed by Kerry and Bush on their respective election trails. I only really thought about this in the last (corrupt) elections, where it became apparent that not only did Bush win due to some dodgy re-counting in Florida, but also perhaps because his public speeches had more glitter falling from the sky than it had music by Gary Glitter. I'm not saying that this shows the shallowness of a lot of voters, but it perhaps does show how effective some glamour can be when persuading people to just go out and vote.
A classic comic representation of this was aired yesterday in the UK, where popular sketch show "Dead Ringers" hosted a US election special. Having shown a mock FOX-News studio, with almost puppet-like presenters talking about how Kerry had enlisted so many famous celebrities on his campaign, the camera panned to a "live" speech from Arnie Schwarzenegger himself. Arnie proceeded to expand on his own merits, before bringing on a score of minor extras from some of his least memorable films, a prime example being "Red Sonia", a film that sadly I have seen.

As for the outcome of today's election (and I know the majority of Americans out there will only just have woken up) with respects to showmanship, it must be said that at least over here we've been subjected to less recordings of Bush storming his way up and down the States, unless you want to count the images of impressionist Jon Culshaw demonstrating the merits of voting for Bush in the middle of an urban street in England.

A bleak reminder of how tied up Bush is with the affairs of the UK?

Or is Michael Moore correct when he says that whoever the next president is, you can be sure that Blair will soon become a special friend of his?
Is Blair really that eager to maintain such closeness with a nation that has become so unpopular under the current administration, whatever the outcome of the so-called "world-election"?

Whatever else you do, vote Kerry and keep the rest of the world happy, so say Liberals in the States. Please listen to their advice if you haven't already voted, even if you know full well how far brother Jeb's influence spreads.

: : a quote for the US election : :

BBC NEWS | World | Americas | US rivals make closing arguments

This was the page that led me to a fantastic little quote from Senator Kerry with regards to the election:

"We need a president who can do more than one thing at the same time," Mr Kerry said in Tampa, Florida, on Sunday night. [BBC]

So true, Mr Kerry, so true. But will you be that president?

: : firefox gmail giveaway : :

I converted to Mozilla Firefox about 6 months ago, and I have admit that I have been truly converted to a better cause. Nowadays whenever I am forced to use IE6 (at school usually) I always notice the inferior interface, and you'd be surprised how at home, on the same computer, pages load up so much faster than on IE6. It really is too good an opportunity to miss, so do visit the firefox website to download your free copy.
This post couldn't have come at a better time, because Mozilla are on the verge of releasing their first ever full release of Firefox, version 1.0! There's been a big movement started up to feature a full-page ad in the New York Times, and that capaign was very successful. You can check it out at the Spread Firefox website.
Also, there is a neat little treat for those of you who place Firefox buttons or banners on your website or blog. If you don't already have a gmail account, all you need to do is place your button on your website (available from www.spreadfirefox.com) and then follow the link for GMail Project Update - Spread Firefox and within 72 hours you will have your very own gmail account. Now that is a very nice reward for spreading the word about the best browser around. I would have applied, but I already have a gmail account.
Do give it a go.

: : hallowe'en. that's out of the way then : :

This is an aspect of how being organised never pays off.
Every year Hallowe'en comes and Hallowe'en goes.
And who actually cares except for the small proportiion of kids who get off their posteriors thinking that this may be an excercise in good business.

||listen up kids: there are more important things than chocolate bars||

What do you think kids on a diet do?
I have a feeling that traditionally kids went out hoping to get some money. I wouldn't really know - I've never been trick or treating in my life, and I've only been living for thirteen years.
But this is the point: you're not going to get money for your efforts nowadays. Okay, if Chupa-Chups or MoaoMs are your preferred condiment, fine, go to Costco's at the next opportunity and persuade your parents to buy some for you. It's probably a lot less fuss.
If the trick or treaters of today actually knew what Hallowe'en was about (it actually originates from Celtic times), then I would hardly mind answering the door to be threatened with a curse of almighty power. But in actual fact, they probably don't have a clue about its meaning. Their parents probably see it as a good way to clear the kids out of the house once a year, but would they ever think of the damage the sweets are doing to their sweetums' teeth?
In truth, probably not.

So get this, today I've bought a large tub of lolly-pops and assorted teeth-killers, and I'm guessing that not a single trick or treater will turn up.
It's like Sod's Law, I'm sure that's the one about things happening when you least expect them or something like that.

Maybe next year our efforts will be rewarded when some innocent children decide to pay us a visit.
As long as they don't smash the windows with eggs...

: : U2 iPod... an advert too far : :

I often moan about advertising campaigns, and then later on see the reasoning behind them.

A couple of weeks ago, when Arsenal signed a sponsorship deal with Emirates, which included naming rights to their new stadium at Ashburton Grove, I moaned. This meant that from 2006 till at least 2019, this wonderful new stadium will only be known as the Emirates Stadium, a thought that had also crossed several Arsenal director's minds too. Peter Hill-Wood, whose family have been on the board since 1919, expressed the feelings of many when he said that most of us would have easily preferred the stadium to be named after Herbert Chapman, Ian Wright or even Arsene Wenger. However, Hill-Wood went on to admit that such a sponsorship deal, worth about £100 million was just too hard to refuse, thus the deal stands.

But I digress.

For some time now iPod has graced our screens with a series of rather stylish ads filmed in a "silhouette" style. You all know what I'm talking about, so I won't go on. This has had the dual purpose of showing off the style statement that is iPod, and also showing partnerships with such current bands as Black Eyed Peas (who often ask where is the love). More rencently one of these bands has been the world famous U2. Not only have they independently stated how much they love the idea of iPod, but now they often feature in Apple promotional material.
Extending this special relationship even more was the combined release of U2's new single, "Vertigo" (part of their upcoming album "How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb"), and a special version of the iPod ad featuring an excerpt of the song, with the silhouetted chaps being the band members of U2. Not only did they do this, but they also produced a larger 2-minute feature advert featuring much more of the song, almost as if this was the official video for the song, though in reality isn't.

This is.

This special edition was first available for viewing on the Apple website, and was also shown at the recent Apple event in San José, before unveiling the piece-de-la-resistance of the partnership: a special edition iPod 20 known as the U2 iPod. Technically identical to the ordinary iPod, the only differences are the stunning colour scheme; and the laser-engraving of the band members' signatures on the back. That, and a special coupon entitling the customer to a large discount on the upcoming digital box-set, "The Complete U2", which will feature every single album U2 have ever released. I believe that works out to over 400 songs. Quite an amount.
Naturally exclusiveness doesn't come cheap. The U2 iPod,when released next month, will cost £249. That's £30 more than the already expensive ordinary iPod, for not a whole lot more. I'm guessing only a very gullible die-hard U2 fan will buy this if they already own an iPod, and not many die-hard U2 fans won't already own every one of their albums.

Again, let's see what happens... the red and black cube it comes packaged in might just end up resembling the aquamarine PowerMac G4 Cube from a couple of years back...

So what do I honestly make of this whole friendship between U2 and Apple. Well, to begin with, it's a very powerful link, which is bringing both parties more sucess than the other "special friendship" we know of between a Brit and an American.
Of course they're all perfectly entitled to do this: it creates good market links and it makes consumers think they're buying way more than a product when they buy Apple - they believe they're buying into an amazing rock band too. But how long can this merging of Apple media content and U2 media content last? That's the question I'm leaving for the future.

: : before you vote... think : :

As you should all know, the US elections are just a couple of days away (actually, I wouldn't bet on you all knowing - I recently asked some relatives from Chicago who they thought was going to win: they asked me who the candidates are!) and it's currently tighter than a fly's suckers. Just like many people outside the States, I'm a staunch Kerry-supporter as well as being heavily anti-Bush. Strange, considering I also prefer the Conservatives here over in the UK. But I have my reasons, and it's not just because of the diminished vocabulary of Dubya either.
To me, the policies and the whole ethos of Kerry's campaign spells better things for the USA, whereas Bush's constant cries of ending persecution and freeing the people of Iraq is starkly contrasted by the extreme poverty faced by one in eight people in America. Perhaps he'd like to consider how corrupt his own campaign is before pre-judging the potential problems with Senator Kerry.
Let's face it: at the end of the day even if Kerry does get more votes, we only have to leave it to brother Jeb Bush to conveniently make sure the re-counts are cancelled and whole groups of Kerry-voters have their votes anulled (hmmm...let's think which people that might be...).

Having said that, I have just one piece of advice for all those US citizens come election day:
Whatever else you were planning to do,

VOTE FOR KERRY

: : new iPod, what what? : :

I have to give credit to the ideas-people at Apple - at least they don't rest on their laurels like other inventors at certain other firms..! Not only have they re-incarnated iPod three times (I still wonder why they never use the article "the" when referring to "iPod"), but they continue to think up of other uses for iPod, such as plugging in remote controls (even wireless ones), microphones such as Griffin's iTalk; or plugging them in to mighty speaker systems like Bose's Sound Dock. But I can't help but wonder what their motives are with the launch of the latest two iPod variants - the iPod Photo and the U2 iPod.

iPod Photo squares up...

Let me begin with the photo variant. I do understand and agree that their is a lack of legal video content for the so-called "pocket" video players that are emerging, but I don't quite agree that the only alternative advance to be made is in the realm of photo-viewing. To me, the idea of cramming 25,000 photos into your pocket is attractive, but not really that useful. I mean, imagine having even three friends crowding round a small colour-display just to view some snapshots of an obscure road-sign in Texas or a rare alligator in Florida... Can you see this working? Especially when you consider that the whole idea with iPod was to create a portable method of accessing content, I don't see this whole photo-soirée over a coffee really working.
It must be said that I can't complain about the usage of the other photo-viewing method on this new iPod. I would be the first to admit that there is a certain novelty value in viewing hordes of photo albums on widescreen TVs - it really does please those who are less technologically minded, and it's so much more convenient than burning photos to DVD or just plugging in the camera.
But does this really warrant such a price-hike for so little realistic gain? Before you decide, do consider what a feat of achievement it has been to fit in just the audio-components of iPod into a package that is barely the size of a deck of cards.
Perhaps the future sales-figures will show whether Apple's gamble has worked well for them...

: : a photo of me and a mirror : :

i took this photo of myself with a mirror and a shaky hand
(no photoshop involved)