HTC Desire – first impressions

Posted by David Hurst on July 15, 2010 2 comments

I’ve blogged before about my various irritations with the iPhone, which last year prompted me to ditch the shiny Apple handset and opt for a Palm Pre. I liked the idea of the Linux based OS, the multi-tasking and the real keyboard. In reality, the OS was a little limited, but the multi-tasking and real keyboard were good. Build quality, not so much.

When a saw a friend’s HTC desire, I was hugely impressed. The large, bright, high resolution screen, excellent app support and good build quality certainly appealed, but it was the impressive 1GHz processor that sealed the deal. I’m sick of sluggish phones, and the HTC Desire is certainly not sluggish.

There are certainly areas where the Palm WebOS is better, and it’s probably not as intuitive to use as an iPhone, but my first impressions are that as an overall package it beats the competition hands down.

I’ve only had mine for a few days, so I’ll do a more in-depth review when I’ve lived with it for a little longer.

Anyone want to buy a slightly used Palm Pre?

UK Government asks Facebook to remove sympathy group for Raoul Moat

Posted by David Hurst on July 14, 2010 None comments

Unless you’ve been living in a vacuum, you’ll probably have seen Raoul Moat’s exploits being mercilessly devoured by the British media. The former bouncer got out of prison after serving a short sentence for assault and promptly went after his ex-girlfriend, who had told him she didn’t want to continue their relationship and that she was now seeing a police officer. The following day, staff at the prison called the police and warned them that his girlfriend, Samantha Stobbart, was at serious risk of being assaulted by Mr Moat. The police did their usual excellent job, and shortly after Raoul Moat did indeed assault Miss Stobbart… with a gun. He shot her twice in the stomach through the living room window of her parent’s home.

Sadly Chris Brown, her boyfriend (of just one week), ran out of the house armed with an iron bar, and Raoul Moat shot him dead. There’s probably more to this than has been reported in the media – I can’t imagine anyone being foolish enough to take on an angry gunman with just a metal bar for protection.

Then the following day, Raoul shot police officer David Rathband through the window of his vehicle whilst he was on duty, after calling the police to tell them that they weren’t taking him seriously enough. Shooting a police officer certainly got their attention if the previous murder hadn’t, and there ensued an enormous man hunt at a cost of many millions of pounds to the UK tax payer.

Raoul Moat was finally tracked down on the 9 July, where a long stand off with the police resulted in Raoul being tasered (electrocuted with a stun gun) at least twice, before he finally “shot himself” in the early hours of the 10 July. At least, that’s what the police tell us and we’ll probably never know if that’s completely true or not. Interestingly, the taser guns used had yet to be approved by the Home Office.

I can’t envisage any scenario where tasering a man who is holding a gun to his neck could ever be considered a good idea. Electric shocks cause involuntary muscle contractions – not ideal if the person receiving the shock has their finger poised on the trigger of a firearm. In any case, how did they manage to taser him twice without actually managing to subdue and take him into custody? Why not use a tranquiliser dart instead?

It seems like extraordinarily harsh treatment of a man who clearly had severe mental instabilities, that would only ever have had one outcome. Some people are upset at the way this has been handled and as a result a Facebook group in sympathy of Raoul Moat has emerged, which David Cameron has rushed to denounce and is seeking to have Facebook remove the group. He may well have been getting all chummy with Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook founder – report here) recently, but I think he’s barking up the wrong tree here. Facebook is hardly about to start censoring its users’ activities – not unless they are in breach of Facebook’s terms at least.

In fact, it’s pretty outrageous that Mr Cameron or anyone in the UK Government should be seeking to stifle free speech in that way. Raoul Moat is certainly not a “legend” (as described on said Facebook group) and he may well have been a “callous murderer” (as Cameron put it), but I think some of the sympathy being shown is not necessarily for the actions of the man, but the way he came to a miserable end that might well have been avoided. The more sensationalist comments are no doubt posted by people who are simply hoping to provoke a reaction. Regardless, free speech and free thought are essential foundations of civilisation. We are not robots. We are not all the same. Some people say things that we find vulgar, offensive and distasteful, and we must let them say what they will because that is their right. Allowing them to say their piece, however unpleasant, is not the same as condoning or supporting their beliefs. The UK Government has no right whatsoever to police the Internet or freedom of speech – though of course they keep on trying.

In any case, much sympathy must go to Mr Moat’s family (who are completely innocent sufferers), to the family of Chris Brown and to Samantha Stobbart and Pc David Rathband as they start on the slow road to recovery.

Perhaps in future, the police might take more notice of proffered advice from their colleagues in the prison service.

How personal should your company website be?

Posted by David Hurst on July 2, 2010 None comments

The thing about companies is that they’re made up of individuals, and individuals have personalities. A company is the sum of its parts, and in the case of a service company  those ‘parts’ are people. This is a good thing, unless one personality becomes too prominent in the overall mix.

This is a problem experienced by a website development company local to me recently – one I once worked at. The dominant personality there is the MD, a man with strongly held opinions. There’s nothing wrong with that of course – we’re all entitled to our own opinions. Sometimes though, it’s best just to keep your opinions to yourself. The aforementioned MD, thinking he was having a private email conversation, expressed some particularly strong opinions (in a somewhat unfortunate way), and sadly for him, the email correspondence found its way to a national newspaper and received copious amounts of negative press coverage.

Whilst I was working for this guy many years ago, I recall recommending that he kept his strongly held opinions to himself and desisted from publishing them on the company website. He ignored my advice, but I still stand by it, and am perhaps somewhat vindicated in light of recent events. Strongly held opinions, particularly those of a political or divisive nature, are best kept totally separate from a company website, lest a potential client’s opinion of your company be coloured by their distaste for your personal viewpoints.

However, I have worked with many clients who have enjoyed success by personalising their company websites to some extent. People like to deal with people, and the Internet hasn’t really changed that. When you make an order with an online shop, don’t you like to know that there are real human beings at the end of a phone line who can help you in case something goes wrong? What better way to humanise a company online than feature a staff blog, or some staff profiles? For single owner and small businesses, it’s really not worth trying to pretend your business is something else. I once worked for a very small company that advertised numerous regional phone numbers and tried to give the impression of a huge operation when it was anything but. I’m just not convinced this has any benefit. Why not embrace your small business status and advertise that fact by personalising your company website. Just don’t get too personal.

The moral of the story is to ensure that anything personal presented on your company website has been duly sanitised. If you’re not sure, seek the opinions of others or just don’t publish. And remember, email is one of the most insecure forms of communication, so never use it for really confidential messages, and never commit anything to writing that can be misconstrued, used against you, or cause offence if the wrong person saw it.

An Open Letter to the FA and Team England

Posted by David Hurst on June 28, 2010 2 comments

Dear Sirs,

In light of the recent abject failure of the England team at the 2010 World Cup, the English public deserves answers to a number of questions. I suspect that these answers will never be forthcoming as all involved hurry to cover their collective arses and appoint an official England scapegoat. Who shall it be this time? The manager?

Fabio Capello
Why do you persist in appointing foreign coaches to the England job? Mr Capello can barely speak English, so how can he possibly deliver a stirring team talk to the players? Where is his track record of working with English players and teams? Are you seriously expecting England fans to believe you are incapable of selecting a suitably qualified English manager for the role? What about Harry Redknapp, Sam Allardyce, Roy Hodgson, Terry Venables, Stuart Pearce et al? And why on earth did you give the man a 4 year contract without even first seeing if he could do the job?

Clearly, Mr Capello is at least partially to blame for the dismal performances. His stubborn refusal to build his team around the best players has drawn confusion from the fans, the media, the pundits and even foreign players. There are tribes of people deep in the Amazon jungle as yet untouched by civilisation, and even they know that Gerrard needs to play behind Rooney and not on the left wing. Mr Capello picked his blinkered old fashioned 4-4-2 system and doggedly stuck to it in spite of the clear evidence that it simply wasn’t working.

I may not be a FIFA qualified coach, but it’s plain to see by looking at the world’s best teams, that you build the team around the key players, and not around a system. England’s best players are Wayne Rooney, Steven Gerrard and John Terry (although you’d be forgiven for mistaking them for Sunday League amateurs based on performances at the World Cup), and the team should be built around these players. John Terry should be allowed to play in the exact position he plays for his club. Why would any sane manager make him swap sides to a less familiar position for a crucial game against Germany? Why is Gerrard constantly pushed out to the left wing in order to accommodate Frank Lampard in the team? Gerrard is the better player, put him in the middle behind the strikers where he knows how to play. Lampard can play behind or warm the bench until needed.

Rooney has been hyped up mercilessly by the media. Sure the guy has talent, but he is not Ronaldo or Messi, and he needs decent service, from say, Gerrard playing just behind him?

And who is England’s best goal scorer at the moment? Peter Crouch. Why did he barely feature at the World Cup? Instead, we played Emile Heskey – a great player, don’t get me wrong, but not a striker or goal scorer. We already have a guy who can play off the strikers – Gerrard. Crouch would have given more alternatives and more goals than Heskey.

So, Fabio is definitely culpable here.

The Players
All the players should take a long hard look at themselves and their contribution at the World Cup. With the exception of David James, not one of them can hold their head up high. If I was in charge of England, I would sack the lot of them and bring through the youngsters. In 4 years’ time, they will be a more cohesive and dedicated team than this bunch of overpaid underachievers could ever expect to be.

Fans paid thousands of pounds to be in South Africa to support England, and in return the England players simply couldn’t be bothered. As one of the German pundits aptly expressed, if England has some of the best individual players in the world, why can’t they win anything as a team.

The FA
The players don’t play as a team because money gets in the way of the pride that should be on display when they pull on that shirt. Money in the Premier League prevents the team from getting together as often as they should. Look at how many games the South American national teams play compared to the few miserable friendlies England arranges (usually against hopeless opposition, and usually with two completely different teams in the first and second halves, ensuring no team spirit is ever built and nothing is ever learned). The vast sums of money the players earn ensures that they need never worry about winning a national game. The FA could never supply a win bonus of sufficient size to motivate any of these players.

Young English players can never progress through the ranks because the Premier League has become a bloated corporate animal having very little in common with the actual game. The influx of foreigners is embarrassing. How about investing in the English youth? Why not limit the number of foreigners included in games? Why not make it mandatory for every Premier League and Championship club to field 1 or 2 home grown under 21 players in every game?

You are responsible for the collapse of English football. You created the conditions in which the game can only flounder. You employed the overpaid foreign managers, who will never have the passion of a home grown manager. You ruined England’s World Cup and shamed a nation of fans.

The senior members of the FA, the manager, and the senior players must all resign. Bring in people that actually give a toss. Change must be brought in. Without this, England will forever be a footnote on the history of the game.

Not good enough.

Plastic bags – the greatest evil the environment has ever known? Or, just a bag?

Posted by David Hurst on April 28, 2010 2 comments

Shopping has changed. No more do courteous sales assistants ask you if you would like a bag. You are either expected to remember to bring your own, or buy a “bag for life”. Enter the acute discomfort of asking for a bag, only to be met with a frown from the eco-sensitive sales assistant, or an additional charge.

This is all part of some mandate from on high that shops cease to provide plastic bags. As per usual, no sensible thought or recourse to proven science has been applied before shovelling out the legislation. Indeed, most of the data and statistics that exist regarding plastic bags and their damage to wildlife, ecology and marine habitats, are widely inaccurate or mis-reported.

The reality is that plastic companies had produced both bio-degradeable (degrades in the ground) and oxo-degradeable (degrades in the air) plastic bags long before this nonsense was introduced. Taking Tesco as an example, their plastic carrier bag will start to degrade after about 18 months and will be completely degraded in 2 years. I can confirm that this is 100% accurate. I have an old Tesco carrier bag in my garage that is starting to degrade and it literally disintegrates if you touch it. If one of these bags finds its way into the environment, it will degrade. This has significant benefits in particular for marine mammals. Fair enough, the oxo-degradeable bags won’t degrade in landfill, but that’s not really the point.

On the other hand, the big plastic/vinyl bag for life carrier bags are neither bio-degradeable or oxo-degradeable.

Sometimes I remember to take bags with me when I go shopping. Certainly, when we do our major household shopping each month, we take our own bags. But if you’re out and about and need to buy a few items for lunch, you may well be in need of a bag, and you shouldn’t be forced to pay for one, or be treated like an eco-villain for taking a fresh one.

These new degradeable plastics use very little energy to produce, when compared to the bags with the supposed longer life. They are made from a by-product of oil refinement that would be otherwise burnt off. They are easily recyclable, completely re-usable, not to mention lightweight and strong. If we all used plastic bags, and recycled them properly, this would be an ecologically sound proposition.

The problem is human laziness and the propensity of the powers-that-be to deliver over-the-top legislation that simply bludgeons the problem and only turns it into a slightly different problem. It’s nothing more than an over-reaction to inaccurate data, rather than a well thought out and scientifically relevant policy. I will continue to use, re-use and recycle my plastic bags, thanks very much.

The Digital Economy Bill – now law

Posted by David Hurst on April 13, 2010 1 comments

I along with many thousands of my fellow citizens registered my objection to the Digital Economy Bill with my local MP. Specifically, I was extremely concerned that this bill would be rushed through during the wash-up period – where outstanding legislation is passed into law prior to a general election – without a proper debate and consultation. I raised my valid concerns with David Laws MP, and received a 3 page letter back from him. You could be forgiven for thinking that he actually gave my objection serious consideration, but alas the letter was clearly a standard response to this issue, and frankly it was poorly put together. It seemed to focus its message on music and video piracy, and appeared to me to be written to perpetrators of such theft. I object to being lumped in with this bunch – I buy all my music, video and software legally.

The part of the bill which bothers is me is that Internet users accused of copyright theft (note “accused” not “convicted”) can have their connection de-activated. This is not a step forwards at all. It is loosely aimed at preventing file sharers from sharing illegal content, but it will not prevent it from happening at all. What will actually happen is that innocent Internet users will be targeted by criminals in much the same way that senders of spam operate. Computers will be hijacked by a virus and become part of a botnet controlled by the criminals. The unsuspecting user will then begin hosting illegal files without any knowledge of it happening, and end up having their Internet access removed.

Another problem is insecure WiFi networks, and there are still loads of these around. The hacker can sit in a car outside your house, hop on to your WiFi and download whatever they want, in your name.

The bill is cobbled together and has no protection for innocent users. It has been rushed through without due democratic process. It’s the same with all of these things: the Government proposes some piece of legislation; the people object; the Government does it anyway.

The Internet and the World Wide Web has been built by the people of this planet, for the people of this planet. It owes its life to numerous clever programmers who have devoted their time, often free of charge, to making it better for everyone. For the UK Government to suddenly decide they have the right to govern the Internet in the UK, is just as disturbing as the Chinese Government’s approach to controlling Internet use.

I don’t know how to stop copyright theft, but the kind of ill-considered approach set out in the Digital Economy Bill is not the answer.

The Digital Economy Bill is, in my opinion, nothing more than a sinister attempt to start monitoring and policing our Internet use without due cause. As per usual, the people that get burned as a result won’t be the actual criminals at all. Piracy and copyright theft will not disappear. The people that want to do this stuff will just invent new cleverer ways to circumvent the authorities and the real problems will remain unaddressed.

A sad day for the Internet.

B Road – what does the ‘B’ stand for? Bumpy? Broken? Bad?

Posted by David Hurst on March 29, 2010 2 comments

Regular readers of my blog will know that I am a keen motorcyclist, and there’s nothing we motorcyclists like more than a far-reaching ribbon of ultra smooth tarmac. Britain has some amazing rural routes with lovely bends and fabulous scenery, but it doesn’t have too much of the aforementioned high quality surfaces. Indeed, our rural B roads are only resurfaced on average every 79 years. This is just about twice as long as the recommended resurfacing interval of 40 years. In fact, our road network is now in need of a whopping £8.5billion spend just to bring the road surfaces up to a minimum standard.

This is hardly just an issue affecting bikers. Poor road surfaces increase the dangers to all road users and increase the damage inflicted upon our vehicles. Sadly, the powers that be choose to spend their time and money focusing on speed limit reductions and enforcement that have no discernable impact on road safety. Even as we speak, there is a campaign afoot to reduce the speed limit on rural roads to 50mph. Given that the majority of road traffic accidents on rural roads occur at speeds below 50mph or above 60mph, this change will make no difference to accident statistics. Rural roads will likely be difficult to police anyway, unless (as I suspect) the change is just an excuse to bang up a load more speed cameras. All this limit change will do is cost money and ruin our landscape. At the moment rural roads are by default set at National Speed Limit (60mph for car or motorbike), whereas if they are set at 50mph, there will need to be vast numbers of speed limit signs installed. This represents a vast expense and an unnecessary blight on our beautiful countryside. In most cases, the roads themselves dictate the naturally safe speed limit and this is often well below 60mph. But I digress…

The Asphalt Industry Alliance (AIA) believes there to be more than 1.5million potholes in need of repair on UK roads. This figure has been dramatically affected by the recent cold weather, and is only likely to increase as winters become more extreme, and funding for road maintenance continues to be cut. As with many things in life, prevention is far cheaper than the cure. This is certainly true in the case of road re-surfacing, where basic re-surfacing costs about £14 per square metre, whereas full reconstruction costs a whopping £70.

How much does the government net from road tax? £47billion! More than enough to maintain our road networks in exemplary condition and vastly reduce the number of road deaths and accidents as a result. The problem of course is that most of this money goes nowhere near the roads.

When will you sit up and take notice of the sad state of neglect of our rural roads? Will it be before you round that corner on your bike only to be met with a giant pothole that sends you and your bike sliding down the road or into oncoming traffic? Will it be before you hit that broken surface in your car and are unable to brake effectively causing a collision with another road user?

Why is the transport network so low on the agenda?

Roadside memorials – at what point should the line be drawn?

Posted by David Hurst on March 25, 2010 2 comments

One of the sad downsides to the wonders of the combustion engine is the number of road deaths that occur each year in the UK. Whilst the figure could be reduced if the British Government stopped propagating spin and misleading facts about the causes of road accidents (all in support of their cash machine speed camera policy), there will always be a small percentage of road users that wind up dead.

Along with the increase in road deaths, I’ve also noticed a growing trend for relatives to make little roadside memorials for their dearly departed. Many of these are fairly dignified affairs with a photo of their loved one(s) and a few flowers, and many are removed after a month or two. Others seem to linger and expand.

There’s a classic example of this on the A3088 just outside Yeovil that I pass regularly, and over the last two years I have watched it grow from a fairly modest photo + flowers setup, to a full-on multi-coloured shrine. The grass around it is mown, flowers are regularly tended, photographs are attached to a tree and a rockery seems to have appeared upon which are placed various objects and toys.

I make my comments as an outside observer, and mean no disrespect to the deceased or his family and friends. Losing a loved one is an impossible thing to bear, and I do feel for all involved.

That said, the shrine that is so lovingly tended by the relatives is surely built upon land owned by the Highways Agency (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong here anybody)? Does this mean that I can go and erect any structure of my choosing next to an A road? Perhaps a nice pergola with some vines and a bench? I doubt it.

I imagine it would take a very brave person at the local council to remove the shrine – the local press would revel in the sickly sentimentality and jump at the opportunity to have a go at the powers that be over a “sensitive issue”.

So, I wonder where it will stop. Will our nation’s roadsides become festooned with rockeries, gardens and mini photo galleries? Surely, gardens of remembrance and shrines do not need to be built on the actual site of the accident? Where should we draw the line between what constitutes an acceptable roadside memorial and what doesn’t?

Perhaps it would be better if the shrine didn’t have to be built in the first place. Road safety is not solely a speed issue as the Government would try and have us believe, and the sooner they stop their ludicrously blinkered approach, the sooner roadside shrines would become fewer.

Schumacher denies that F1 is boring

Posted by David Hurst on March 25, 2010 1 comments

Did you watch the opening race of the 2010 season? Did you manage to keep your eyes open the whole race? If you did, well done. I drifted off a couple of times and I don’t remember that happening since the last time Herr Schumacher was in the cockpit of one of the cars. Of course he doesn’t think the new rules have made F1 boring: the seasons when he was driving for Ferrari were dull as the proverbial ditch water.

The new rules stipulate that the cars may not refuel during the race, therefore all the cars have to start with a full tank of fuel. Some bright spark thinks that this will somehow increase excitement and overtaking. I don’t see how. There isn’t much overtaking in Formula 1 at the best of times, so the added tactical interest of working out who would be re-fuelling on which lap made the whole thing a bit more interesting. It allowed teams to only lightly fuel the car to make a big weight saving, which could then be turned into positions on track, provided they timed the re-fuel stop right.

Another new rule states that the first ten cars on the grid have to use the same (partially worn) tyres that they qualified on. I think this could have a small field levelling effect, but I don’t see how it will add to the excitement of the race from a spectator’s point of view.

I’ll reserve full judgement until I’ve seen the Australian Grand Prix.

BA Cabin Crew to lose cheap travel perks

Posted by David Hurst on March 24, 2010 1 comments

According to the BBC News website, British Airways has confirmed that cabin crew that took part in the Unite union’s 3 day strike action will lose their travel perks permanently. Currently, BA staff are given free or heavily discounted flights as a “non-contractural perk”, however all the cabin crew were advised before the strike action that if they took part, they would forfeit their travel perks.

The union has obviously immediately cried foul and is claiming that discounted travel is not just a perk but “custom and practice”. Well of course the union would say that.

The reality is that British Airways lost £401million in the 2009 financial year, and in the nine months to December 2009 in the current financial year, were already showing a loss of £342million. The three day action by strikers that’s just been completed is estimated to have cost BA £21million, and goodness only knows how much customer goodwill. If you book the holiday of a lifetime with British Airways and the flight gets cancelled, how likely are you to re-book with BA? Regardless, of the reason for the cancellation, I imagine not many people would trust the airline again. This situation will be made even worse with more proposed strike action this weekend.

Where does this get anybody? The cabin crew want more money, but BA doesn’t have any money to give them. All they are doing is running the business into the ground. Who benefits if British Airways goes bust? The cabin crew won’t get what they want – they won’t even have jobs at all. All the non-striking members of staff lose their jobs through no fault of their own. The nation loses an institution. The big cheeses at the top, have loads of cash in the bank and will simply move on to the next high paid job. The only people that get hurt are the workers themselves who are striking.

Should they lose their travel perks? Of course they should. They have a contract of employment, the terms of which they agreed to when they joined the company. If they refuse to come to work and are actively damaging their employer, why should the employer hand out perks? In my company there is no automatic entitlement to any kind of bonus or pay review. If the company has had a poor year and no money has been made, then there are no perks, bonuses or pay rises. That’s life. In that event we just have to each try harder to make the company a profitable enterprise the following year.

Why should there be rewards for failure?