Still Busy, But Go On Then - Part One

I mentioned a bunch of stuff I didn't have time to elaborate on in the previous post. Obviously I have a duty to do them justice before I get into this week's business.

Firstly, Stephen Fry and the Gutenburg Printing Press. I loved the description of the Rhine Valley as "Silicon Valley" circa 1500. His delivery was light, but not played for laughs. It was a great walkthrough of what was needed to make the printing press happen. The rediscovery of paper for a start. And it took a breakthrough in moulding and a year's effort to make the letters.

And as for the double-helix wooden screw ... a work of genius, flawlessly executed. I'm in awe of the mind that could visualise such a thing and have the skill to make one without computerised lathes and laser cutters.

Watching those craftsmen making a working replica of the press gave me the distinct impression that I would have been a total liability in the 16th century. I'm certain that myself, Mrs Stan and Stanetta would be crouching in a muddy field eating raw turnip if we had to survive on what I could made with my hands.

16th century - badly coordinated klutz = muddy peasant eating turnip
21st century - badly coordinated klutz = well-paid Geek blogging in suburbia
26th century - badly coordinated klutz = anyone's guess


Now for "Waiting for the Guards" on the Amnesty International website.

Never, ever will you think again that "stress positions" are a mild and civilised form of persuasion.

Amnesty took a performance artist and simulated the kind of treatment permissible by the official US guidelines on such things - the guidelines that tend to be used as toilet paper during the perpetual war-on-terror.

I was reminded a little of the knees-bent exercises people do when they're getting ready for a ski-ing holiday. It can start to hurt after a while, but you stop when it aches a bit. The film shows what happens if you're forced into a position where you're not allowed to stop.

The guy is stood on a shaky cardboard box, his hands cuffed behind his back and a bag over his head.

It obviously hurts - even though the guy is an actor who could stretch between takes and who knows he's going home at the end of the day. He isn't shell-shocked from the capture and the "special rendition". He isn't sleep-deprived and frightened for the safety of people he cares about.

You feel anyone would say anything just to make the pain stop, and that makes evidence extracted through torture totally meaningless. And it should be stopped and we shouldn't let our governments get away with it. I don't care if the means is subtle and the end is justified -noone benefits from treating people like this.

Cripes - that was a long rant : "Mad Men" and "Humphrey Littleton" will have to wait for another time. Although I might get distracted - local election day tomorrow.

Busy

No time to rave about Stephen Fry's amazing programme about the Gutenburg printing press.

No time to describe my reactions to the shocking "Waiting for the Guards" video on the Amnesty International website.

No time to beg you to make "Mad Men" part of your lives.

No time to regret the passing of Humphrey Littleton.

Like Jean says in Victoria Wood's "Dinner Ladies" :-

"Orgasm? I haven’t blown my nose since Wednesday."

Raking It In

There is a scene in the "Cape Feare" episode of "The Simpsons" in which Sideshow Bob steps on nine rakes in 30 seconds, stumbling from smack-in-the-mouth to smack-in-the-mouth without the wit to break the cycle. It's on YouTube and well worth watching.

Is this the metaphor I've been waiting for to describe the current behaviour of Gordon Brown ?

Rake 1 - Giving up the 10% tax rate he himself invented not all that long ago
Rake 2 - Not spotting he had just made a heap of poor people even poorer ... the week before the local elections.
Rake 3 - Not gaining the support of his back-benchers - not even close to it.
Rake 4 - Steely determination not to do a U-turn gets big laughs
Rake 5 - Initial Compromise proposal to maybe look at possible ways to maybe take some of the pain for some of the people "next year" gets even bigger laughs

As of today, he's beefed up the compensation plan, and is taking flack for being spineless and clueless. It is by no means certain that Sideshow Brown has stepped on his last rake.

iPlayer fix

Allow me to provide a technical solution that I've been working on recently. It's boring if you don't have the problem, but it took a while for me to work out for myself, so the chances are I could save someone out there some time and effort. Who knows, that person might invent a perpetual motion device or a cure for cancer in the time I save them.

It concerns the BBC iPlayer. If you don't know what it is then either :-

(a) You are technologically illiterate : in which case you probably aren't reading this
(b) You don't watch TV : the only one of my readers meeting that criterion works for a broadcasting organisation (go figure).
(c) You don't have decent broadband speeds : Mother & Father Stan being an example.

For the rest of you, iPlayer and the similar Channel4 application are a means of downloading TV programmes so you can watch them on your PC.

It's great for train journeys - on a recent journey on the Manchester to London service, for every suit doing an Excel spreadsheet there were two watching Shameless.

The problem comes when you've installed the BBC iPlayer and also the Channel4 equivalent and one or other other of them stops working as a result. Quite likely, as they are both built on the same technology and use a lot of the same files.

The directory you need to look in is C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\Kontiki. There is a config file here called zdata.db.

Rename the file to (say) zdata.c4.db

Now you need to stop and restart the zservice service. If you don't know how to do this, you might be safer switching PC off and back on again.

You should find now that the BBC iplayer will work. It will create a new zdata.db file when it starts up. If had a bunch of good stuff downloaded from C4 that you now seem to have lost, you can always just switch the files back.

Let Your Yeah Be Yeah

The title is a reggae song by Jimmy Cliff which sprang to mind as I read a letter from this morning's Guardian newspaper. Mrs. Stan and Stanetta would also point out that it's something that Jesus was reported to have said in the Sermon on the Mount.

Anyway, here's the letter - which is as far from the the ideals of Reggae and Christianity as you can get. It refers to the practice of "gazundering", where you wait to the last minute in a house-buying process before lowering the previously agreed offer in the hope that the seller will be so desperate that they'll accept less money and not punch you in your worthless mouth.

"I have successfully gazundered on the property I am buying. I agreed a price mid-January, with an exchange due next week. With all the reports on property prices falling and, given that I put a large sum of capital into my purchase - which I am buying outright - I had become nervous that I was about to lose a large sum of money on the deal, and at the age of 65 I have no means of recouping losses incurred if markets dip as predicted.

Of course I am now ridden with guilt and have gone against my principles. I certainly do not feel like gloating over the whole episode, but at the end of the day I had to be hard-nosed. I wonder what the vendor would have done in my situation?

Jane Burchell, via email"

Personally, if anyone I was dealing with even hinted that their offer was not final and irrevocable, I would proactively kill the deal myself. Life is too short to deal with people (like Jane Burchell, via email) who reckon that they can make a deal and then break it. I just wouldn't trust such a person not to come back with ever increasing demands and then to change their mind totally at the very last last-minute. I certainly wouldn't want to think of them hosting dinner parties at the house at which they boast of the all extra money they had screwed out of me.

Even if it costs money and hassle, the only rational response to the statement

"The deal is off. Would you accept less ?"

should be

"I'm glad the deal's off. You're a toe-rag. I wouldn't sell to you now even if you offered more. Goodbye."

I have a few things to say to Jane Burchell (and the less publicity-hungry people like her) :-

1. I'm glad you are riddled with guilt. That's what guilt is for - it acts as a deterrent for some, and a punishment for others. I'm just sorry it didn't deter you from hurting the vendor who has done nothing to deserve it.
2. I can understand your nervousness, but if you were nervous, your ethical option was to not buy the house. Sounds more like basic greed (lightly camouflaged) to me.
3. The victim of your scam is also probably at an age where they also "have no means of recouping losses incurred".
4. You have reportedly "gone against your principles" for mere money. They almost don't deserve the name "principles" if they can be so cheaply bought.
5. You didn't feel like gloating, and yet sent your story for publication in a national newspaper. Discuss.
   

The Jimmy Cliff song has the better bassline, but I've got to admit that the Sermon on the Mount has the better lyrics :-

"But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."