Archive for the ‘Technology’ Category

Number 10 Website Stolen

I have already made comment on the new Number 10 website.  It seems as if  the design was stolen from the Themes Database, and badly botched before being put online.  Full comment with outgoing links from the theme’s author.

This just goes to show how monumentally divorced the government is from the real world.  There is no excuse in hiring a company to make a website on an open source platform and then not declaring copyright disclaimers.  If the press released shouted “open source”, even the most technically unaware individual in the Number 10 office should stop and think “wait, that means we didn’t make it ourselves.  Maybe the copyright notice should reflect that”.  It is a disgrace.

It really gets to something when government cannot even deliver a simple Wordpress website without messing up.  I have used loads of Wordpress themes in the past, all with appropriate copyright notices.  It was with a slight smile on my face that the latest theme for this website went live with my name at the bottom, not anyone else’s - I built it from scratch, line by line.  Apparently the Number 10 website cost £100,000, but it is no more technically advanced than this site, and whoever put it together could not be bothered to design it, or even steal a design properly.  I am obviously wasting my time, when I could be making government websites for ludicrous sums.

Firefox 3 vs IE8

The Scribo Ergo Sum team are a dedicated bunch, committed to delivering the very best a blog can offer.  Well, perhaps not, but we are keen to maintain standards.  We try to keep the website updated with quality content, and attempt to display it in appealing ways.  Our tabbed “essential reading” box, for example, allows us to shove content we like to the top of the homepage.  Exciting, eh?  There is something to be said for bloggers taking a keen interest in web design: the layout and aesthetics of a website are very important to the feel of it, and impact upon the reader’s experience.  So, please allow a temporary diversion from politics and meta-blogging as I attempt to weigh up the two mighty web browsers once and for all.

IE8 (beta)
I recently downloaded Internet Explorer 8.  It is still in beta version, but I like to consider myself one of the “web developers and designers” it suggests the release is suitable for.  Internet Explorer knows its audience: IE has something of a reputation within the “web developers and designers” community for being a bit rubbish.  Releasing a beta version for developers is their way of testing just how good the browser is - can it function according to web standards?

Web standards have been a big headache for Internet Explorer.  I am currently working on a design for a fairly complex site and have been attempting to introduce a lovely hovering menu for the navigation (made entirely using CSS, if you are interested).  Internet Explorer tries its hardest, then wheezes a little, and gives up with only a portion of it functioning properly.  Despite various get-arounds to deal with IE faults, new ones always emerge.  Every other browser can manage without trouble, but IE is incapable.  The sad truth is that the vast majority of web users rely upon Internet Explorer and the “web developers and designers” are forced to go out of their way to deal with the faults thrown up just because most people use a poor browser.  To be fair, IE8 displays my navigation menu perfectly.  The fact remains, however, that if each browser were judged on merit, IE would have ceased to be several years ago.

Internet Explorer 8 is meant to be a massive improvement on its predecessor.  It is.  The most authoritative test of browser standards compliancy, the Acid 2 Test, was the basis of the IE8 rebuild.  Unlike any Explorer browser before it, IE8 correctly displays the nifty little smiley face accurately.  Unlike most other browsers, though, IE8 struggles to display simple applications like Google’s Gmail.  Google have received requests about the problem with IE8, and the response is fitting:

Well, IE8 is not supported by Gmail yet, so you might want to use another browser - FF2.x or IE7. FF3 is not supported yet either, but we don’t get bug reports about that browser.

In other words, Firefox 3, released yesterday, works.

IE8 has its benefits.  The multi-tab view is a lovely way of selecting pages through image grabs, but is functionally redundant in all but looking fancy.  In terms of useful developments, IE8 introduces “webslices”, which are a nice little set of tools to grab useful parts of websites without visiting them.  I have subscribed to my friends’ Facebook status updates, for example.  And there’s more: if you highlight text, a menu appears offering all sorts of suggestions for what you might want to do with the chunk of text, from searching with Google to posting in a blog.  The opportunities here are immense, but I have to conclude that IE8 simply isn’t worth the bother.  It is streets ahead of IE7 but fails to display certain applications properly.  If it is still causing headaches for web developers, it is of little merit.

Firefox 3
I was a late convert to Firefox, and admit that about half of my internet usage still takes place in other browsers.  One thing puts me off embracing Firefox: it distorts some typefaces.  It’s not a big issue, and is purely aesthetic, but it is a recurring issue nonetheless.  Firefox 3 does not solve the problem.

But in every other regard, Firefox3 is perfect.  The download is speedy, pages load quickly, things display like they were designed to, and web developers can cut down on their workload.  Everyone wins, simple as.  There is nothing much more to say, except for what Mozilla boast aboutMike Rouse has some pertinent comments:

If you are still using Internet Explorer you should ask yourself why you bother accessing the internet. If you’re still one of those mindless folk that still uses IE6 then you should be asking yourself why you even own a computer.

And you, dear reader?
Using the wonderful Google Analytics, I can see what proportion of visitors use each web browser.  It makes for interesting reading, because our statistics are very different to the average.  64% of visits to this site use Firefox: a percentage several times greater than average.  It is perhaps telling that bloggers and web nerds tend to use the better browser browser, proving that our readership is of a discerning nature.  Perhaps not…

For the 28% of you left with Internet Explorer, THERE IS NO EXCUSE!  Do everyone a favour, just get on and download Firefox!

Light Relief

While plotting a longer piece on something a little more deep, I came across this immense gadget.  It’s an automated Etch-A-Sketch, telling the time.  There’s even a video of it working.

Neo-Internationalism and the Internet Era

The implications of the internet upon the nation state are already being and have been realised and the cracks that they cause within the integrity of the concept can only grow deeper. There are obvious limits but these stand to be eroded rather than remain and are already of sparse importance. Quite simply the proliferation of free web browsers and various messenger programs have effectively doomed the fashion in which humans had previously confined themselves.

To understand how the exact nature of the nation must be considered: I have referred on this blog before to Benedict Anderson, author of Imagined Communities but his persuasive argument bears repetition here. Anderson argues that the nation is a largely a fantasy that was created primarily by the printing press. The existence of literature, varying from novels to newspapers, which addressed entire groups of people as one and used them effectively as mass characters {every phrase from “The Afghan people” to “The Sikh community” constitutes an instance of this} brought people into what they conceived of as a community much like the one which would exist in a town, despite for the surprisingly eluctable fact that that they are unlikely to meet any of those that they conceive themselves bonded to.

As the printing press enabled nationalism, then, so the internet enables internationalism. Whereas simply by merit of logistics such a philosophy proved vastly implausible courtesy of the technology available today I can switch between MSN Plus tabs and contact someone who lives in North London, on the other side of the city from me, at the same speed that I contact someone living in Australia, on the other side of the planet.

This inexplicably bizarre state of affairs is one which all engaged have become accustomed to to the extent that the action has reached a stage of normalcy and is not really worthy of commentary, not deemed remarkable at all. But such an act is truly unprecedented in human history, at least in terms of cost and convenience. To telephone another continent will invariably be a costly affair and one which will thus be distinguished from making a similar call to someone in Northumbria. Furthermore in order to undergo such an act you would, presumably, require somebody who you already knew who dwelled there, something which is unlikely to have occurred save for a prior meeting between the two of you and a degree of intimacy that you would covert further correspondence enough to waive internally the price of such contact.

Upon the internet things are somewhat different: you can meet those who live hundreds of thousands of miles away with ease in chat-rooms, forums or other places of virtual congress. Upon my own MSN list I have a Dane, Fin and Pole, three Canadians, five Australians, copious Americans, a Mexican and a South African, none of whom I have actually met. My AIM “Buddies” are all Americans I have not met save an equally unmet Netherlandian and a single wench from the Midlands, who I haven’t met either. I suspect that this is far from the most diverse assortment in existence. Why, I even lack any South Americans!

This is far from unusual and in fact seems to be something of the new norm. The possibilities for contact with the foreign is boundless, indeed no country has such a monopoly upon the web’s content that most of it is from their sources, making such interaction effectively inevitable. If not friendship then at least some degree of connection is experienced by all web users who do not confine themselves to the most narrow of areas.

The impact of this is likely to be the barriers that had previously restricted humanity into overly tidy boxes that they dared not depart from will be torn down. It is effectively impossible to maintain that your fellow man possesses certain characteristics that distinguish him from you in some severe way due to his place of origin when regular contact shows that he chats, nudges and LOLs just like you do.

The cause for this being such a success is simple: language. English has come to dominate the internet, often abandoned for considerable swathes but largely understood by all present. Far from the assumption of stilted and awkward phrases that one would intuitively expect from those speaking another mother tongue it is frequently found that those online, especially the ones that modestly apologise for its poor quality, discourse in a far higher standard of the English tongue than do most of those raised speaking it solely. The Dutch and Scandinavians seen especially adept, often using phrases far more eloquent than I could ever manage and embarrassing all us native English thoroughly by occasionally requiring us to enquire Dictionary.com.

The result of this is that the location of these formerly foreign people is simply that, where they are situated, not a vital component of their identity. The internet truly is capable of bringing together the globe. This is true of no piece of technology that has thus far been developed: televisions are controlled by the rich and only those with enough funding and authorisation can create and transmit footage. As aforementioned telephones require foreknowledge of who you intend to call. But through the web those endless leagues away can be met and interacted with eventually all the effort it takes you to message a family member in their bedroom.

The potential of this is boundless and demonstrated effectively earlier this month when Anonymous “Raids” were staged worldwide against the Church of Scientology. This group relied entirely upon internet communication and arranged to protest upon the same day and in a nearly identical fashion over the same issues and following the same cause. The V masks were worn by at least some in every location and all of them publicised the same website and told the same facts. All of this was filmed and photographed and then spread across the internet freely, for the perusal of all involved and any interested.

As striking as this was I find it unlikely that nothing similar shall ever happen again: humans are gregarious beings and previously had devised culture around the logistical difficulties presented to them by their borders, as well as the artificial ones imposed by those concerned with such affairs. But when groups such as 4 and 711Chan are openly tossing around self-declared memes that are followed by an international audience what restraint does local custom really pose? What thrives under such conditions is what is appealing, not what tradition dictates.

Perhaps too much emphasis can be placed upon those global gathering places that do exist: if Ebaum’s World and Gaia Online bring together the planet then what of it? There are ample users of the internet who do not frequent such electronic locations. Indeed neo-sectarianism is unquestionably in place as these latter two websites are openly and virulently despised by those who frequent the former. However, although websites such as Facebook and, to a lesser extent, MySpace tend to result in voluntary confinement to the geographic location in which you reside the likelihood of any internet user using all of their time here is low, indeed as are the odds of these two sites and those operating upon such a model remaining as dominant as they presently are. Otherwise, every source of hosting or searching accessible to the public are likely to result in results from other countries. The proliferation of blogs from a dazzlingly diverse array of cultures is likely to expand yet further, along with its impact.

The consequence of this is that chauvinism will become increasingly vulnerable to elimination through the destruction of the ignorance that supports it. It will remain possible to consider your own country’s achievements to be the greatest but to consider your nation’s people to be a separate kind of one to that found elsewhere will become a proposition rendered increasingly untenable, simply through confrontation to the indisputable nature of reality.

This is unlikely to be a swift process but I suspect that it may occur longer than people consider. The state is already suffering from the underwhelming of its authority through extra-national servers: Guido Fawkes hosts his site in America and resides officially in Ireland, rendering legal action nearly an impossibility and certainly an immensely convoluted process should anyone try to pursue it, while in Russia MP3 websites abound as a consequence of the lax laws present there courtesy of the “Shock Therapy” of unhindered, unhinged free market capitalism that was applied to it after the demise of the Soviet Union, with all other nations being able to access such portals and benefit as a consequence. The aforementioned Pirate’s Bay seems to be the Die Hard of websites: a thousand threats assail it constantly and yet it continues to move, refusing to roll over and die despite dozens of offensives that would have crippled the less tenacious.

These loop-holes are of less importance, though, than the way in which the planet’s inhabitants perceive themselves and those around them. It seems highly likely that more will come to the awkward yet glorious realisation that even those upon entirely the other side of this remarkable sphere of rock can be exactly the same as those standing right next to us, exactly the same as we are. Before this new dawn bigotry will wither and nationalism shall be bleached. As soon as it is over humanity will be something else entirely, all for the realisation that it is all much the same as itself.

Monopoly Again

Monopolies can be good things.  No, I am not referring to the state-sponsored Northern Rock (now in totally unfair competition with other private enterprises).  Sony has won its long-running battle to reign supreme over the home video market, as their irritatingly-named ”Blu-Ray” disc format has prevailed over Toshiba’s inferior HD DVD idea.

The battle has raged for two years, with rival disc formats both technologically superior to the DVD being released on the unwitting public.  Some fools bought players capable of viewing Toshiba’s product.  Others placed their bet with the Blu-Ray format.  Those with more money than sense bought players with a laser able to read both formats - itself a feat of engineering, although an utterly useless one.  The rest of us reasoned that the humble DVD was good enough for now, and that one of the new formats will become dominant in good time.

The killer statistic, it seems, was that showing that ten times as many PlayStation 3 games consoles, also able to play Blu-Ray discs, have been sold than the total number of HD DVD players.  Sony again have a monopoly.  But this is surely a good thing.

With one format, price is no barrier to the consumer.  Inexpensive mass-produced Blu-Ray players will soon flood onto the market, and the format will slowly replace standard DVDs in the shops.  One format makes life much easier for the consumer and for advertisers: “out on Blu-Ray now” grabs the casual television watcher more than “out now on Blu-Ray from some stores, HD DVD in most stores, XYZ everywhere, DVD nowhere, and we’ve forgotten what VHS was to begin with”.

More to the point, newspapers will continue to give away free discs.  Mass-producing Blu-ray discs is much easier than producing and marketing two different formats of disc.  I hope to continue receiving cultural enrichment from broadsheet freebies for many years to come.

The argument in favour of competition is redundant here, because there would never have been commercial competition over two rival media formats.  Nobody would choose between them on merit, having invested in one or other of the players.  Given that there are many times more Blu-ray capable players in existence, it stands to reason that the Sony format would have prevailed in a market situation.  This is one case where the market can only support a monopoly, because of the nature of the product.  I am glad the battle has been won so swiftly.  Now Toshiba can concentrate on producing a different, better product.  That kind of competition is far better than equal, rival tit-for-tat competition.  Better for the companies, and above all, better for the consumer.