Summer chills

Am I the only one that thinks that we're doing it wrong? When the large majority of us wait half a year for Summer to finally arrive just to switch on the AC to arctic temperatures and negate any benefit that Summer provides? When Winter spews forth its frozen icicles our way, we bring up the heat on the AC to Sub-Saharan temperatures?

Yeah ... makes perfect sense; but only if you're a schizophrenic masochist. When I have to wear a jumper (or sweater) on a balmy 30 degree C (or 85 degree F) day just to get through the Siberian Colditz-style working conditions, something has to be wrong. I can understand taking the edge off the highs and lows but not to the point of going full circle towards the Winter chills you had just been complaining about six months ago. If I were to ever run for president, the first thing I would do is abolish AC (or at least regulate it so you cannot adjust it above 20 during Winter or below 20 during Summer). Either humans are getting soft or we've simply chosen to live in the least hospitable places in the world ... just because we can. Something's gotta give and I think it's about time the air conditioner did. Don't you?

Is it any surprise?

For those of us who have been living under a rock, apparently the US government really wants to get to know you on a personal level. Of course, a government cannot simply invite themselves over for tea without the appropriate introductions. And so, as any desperate unloved individual would, they go through our garbage, break into our houses and rummage through our personal effects. That's the logical thing to do, isn't it? Right?

I cannot blame them. As international government bodies go, they're like the crazed and brash individual you might meet at an open house party who blurts out to anyone within earshot that they're morally grounded while aiming their gun at slow-moving children. Maybe I'm being a little harsh but their modern revisions to international policy have left a lot to be desired. Where was I? Oh, yes. And so, I come to the shock-horror moment: it was leaked that the NSA has been extracting and parsing personal information from Google, Facebook, Yahoo (and even Bing) for the past few years. This is, of course, all under the pretense of protecting you from all those evil-doers and members who make up the coalition of the unwilling.

I really hope this did not come as a shock to you. In the world of all-encompassing connectedness, the diminutive impact of our activities on the 'net have all been categorised as "pertinent" to the various organisations wishing to glean whether we're, like, into Justin Bieber or into into Justin Bieber. For the record, I'm very not into the Biebster, Mr Shambling Corporate Presence. I guess this is also the only way that they can truly know whether the Teletubbies have finally reached the point where only I am exercising my right to momentarily halt their movement over the cliff of irrelevance; or even whether the latest in breaded lolcat imagery is fully reaching its potential target audience. Consider for a moment that the government's super computers are trawling through pages dedicated to breaded cats. It makes me smile for a moment ... even if they also have access to highly sensitive information that no one should have ever witnessed in the first place. I am, of course, talking about those awkward hobbledehoy images which chronicled your teenage years. I've always posted under the expectation that some organisation would be reading this. I guess I should feel privileged that I made the cut ... and you should too. Now, I think it best if we all sit in a circle, rocking slowly in a foetal position, as we embrace the death of our privacy.

Word of the day

Today's word (well, the first word I've ever dedicated a blog post to) is subtle. I just came to the realisation that I really like the word. It fits me even if I'm far from subtle at times. I like that the 'b' is silent. It makes writing and saying the word a subtle process of remembering that a 'b' is stealthily residing within; even if it doesn't seem to serve any purpose. Sure, my French teacher would have pointed out that its origins are from Latin and that's why the 'b' exists but it doesn't affect me. Subtle, in present-day English, is perfect.

Subtle is zen. It inhabits its subtleties and reminds us of its meaning with every utterance. That is all.

Happy happy

I'm tired of excited by technology attempting to censor helping me enlighten my diction. When I use swipe, my phone surreptitiously attempts to clean up wondrously corrects my use of darns whoopees and drats wonderfuls. It is fudging annoying. I am not a child and I should not be treated like one. If I want something a little more caliente interesting than a "darnwhoopee" it should be within my ability to express myself that way without having to resort to manually typing it in for google to enlighten me. 

It is a little Orwellian brilliant to think that my device would have has the power good sense to control my self expression correct my incorrections. I can picture a not-too-distant future would love a world where all my communication is auto-corrected and censored perfect. Soon all negative positive terms will be stricken from our diction so that we can only express ourselves in superlatives and positive terms. Maybe I am just being a little neurotic but I do have a hint of a point, don't I? agree wholeheartedly. I cannot be the only one who can see the innocuous and insidious path we have slowly directed ourselves tow- All hail our benevolent liberator, the <##>@<#@>.

<google has corrected this post for the purposes of enlightening and entertaining said internet users on the behalf of our benevolent liberator, the <##>@<#@>. Please be well.>

Update: It turns out I can 'hack' the dictionary in google swipe. Just type in a misspelled word, click add to dictionary and then add the word you *really* want to add in place of this misspelling. Your move, Google.

Kick 'em while they're down

It's that time again to have a tech post - bear with me while I vent.

Poor old Microsoft. Even if they made 6 billion in profit last quarter they still apparently cannot afford to buy a clue. I am, of course, talking about their ongoing failure to extend into markets with anything that doesn't contain the word 'office' or 'windows' in it. I guess the one exception would be the xbox but if that's your only hit (in how many years?), it's a little alarming. I would never have thought a multi-billion dollar company would be an underdog but that's how I see them at this point in time. Here's the list of attempts to remain cool and relevant:

• Windows Phone - owns 4% of the market after two years.
• Surface RT (AKA Microsoft iPad (AKA 'the neutered Windows 8 tablet')) - not even 1% of the market and no chance of improving.
• Surface Pro (AKA 'proper Windows 8 tablet') - not even 1% of the market and only a slight chance of this improving.
• Windows 8 (AKA 'the finger paint OS') - apparently so bad it's causing a mass defection to OSX or motivating people to upgrade back to Windows 7.

Doesn't look good, does it? On windows 8, I think the major failing is that it is trying to be everything. I can understand that you would want a touch interface if you're using a tablet but it should not force professionals to swipe with the bluntness of an index finger every time you want to do something. But enough about that. I would rather suggest ways in which they can attempt to solve most of their issues:

• Release a desktop version of Windows 8
  
  The 'iphone/ipad' users can have Windows 8 touch and the rest of us can have a 'non-touch version' that does proper multi-tasking and has minimal fluff to get in the way of actually being productive.
• Remove the desktop interface from Windows 8 touch
  
  In the immortal words of Steve Jobs: duh. If you're doing a touch interface, then damn-well do a touch interface. Do not pollute the environment with a wishy-washy kinda-sorta experience. Commit to it and own it.
• Hold off on releasing Surface Pro/RT
  
  Too late. Just as Jar-jar got canned in subsequent Star Wars films when everyone despised the poorly-masqueraded 'black subservient slave' alien (shame on you George Lucas), Microsoft should realise that throwing out a tablet PC to the masses with an OS that most people don't like is probably not wise.
• Consolidate the Windows 8 touch/phone user experience
  
  Ideally 'W8T' should emulate the same experience whether it's on the phone, tablet or a touch-enabled laptop. It's close but not close enough. Also, it wouldn't hurt to share settings/preferences/mail/messages etc. between devices.
• Make it Grandma-proof on 'Windows 8 touch'
  
  If people have to follow tutorials or search the internet on how to login, close a program or logout, you know you didn't get it right. Use your mothers/grandmothers. If they don't know how to do something, go back to the drawing board until they do.
• Give your OS a simple name
  'Windows 8 touch' is a'ight but I would just call it 'touch' (or possibly Windows Touch) and the other one should be called 'Windows Business' (because that's your market).
• If the device doesn't have a touch-sensitive screen, do not install Windows 8 Touch
  Do I need to explain this point?
• Lose the Ballmer
  He is an embarrassment and lacks any form of vision outside of a reactionary one.

UPDATE: I think I might be goddamn soothsayer. Ballmer's out, the windows phone is dead, they're reintroducing a desktop version and they're aligning their OS's UI based upon whether it's touch-based or not (i.e. mouse/keyboard guys gets Windows 7 UI, touch gets the blergh instead). The only thing left is to fix the touch UI (never gonna happen) and for the names to be simplified.  Anyways, my job here is done *drops mike*

Say yes to logic

I recently have been subjected to watching inane shows like 'Say Yes to the Dress'. And this show could not be any less ... engaging. Maybe my queer eye is playing tricks on me but almost every dress looks somewhere between garish and tasteless. Yes, if I am forced to endure the contents of this show, I at least make the effort to critique their fashion missteps. And then comes the price.

Twenty-six THOUSAND (or more) for a wedding dress? That seems like a sound investment. In what reality does that make any semblance of common sense? I can understand spending maybe a few thousand which, even then makes my skin crawl, but spending the price of a car on a dress you wear once is just silly. If you have millions of dollars in the bank account then *possibly* that is alright but, if you're like most of the general population, that is a lot of money. When did marriage become about the spectacle and living out your princess fantasies? At what point does reality rear its ugly head to your idealisms? At what point do you think, no, I won't put our relationship in a financial hole that my parents or bank will need to fill? I would hope the answer would be never but who am I to question what the princess wants? 

It looks like she had a wardrobe malfunction (and it cost 1.5 mill)

Oh, and then there's another offshoot of this show called 'I found the gown.'  But I think they haven't gone far enough. I've got another concept that should broaden their audience: "I found twenty-six thousand dollars in my pocket (that I didn't spend on a wedding dress)." Well, at least the groom and parents would appreciate it.

Sweet or sour?

As any (westernised) Chinese restaurant will tell you, the dish needs to have both. You need the sweet to be offset by the sour just as the sour needs to be balanced by the sweet. If it is too sweet, the dish is overpowered by the sugar that flavours it. It makes perfect sense. You need the sour to appreciate what would be far too sweet otherwise. Now before you think I am a prattling foodie (guilty) and this blog has devolved into the words of an amateur aspiring culinarist, this rule remains just as true for other categories. And, if I can be so bold, this defines the universal rule: you need to have balance.

I was watching Dexter and even if the main plot line is far from rainbows and unicorns it generally follows a relatively smooth and 'sweet' path. The adorably altruistic endeavours of Dexter Morgan's plight to rid the world of mass-murderers is tempered by his dark passenger and lust for death. This is why characters like LaGuerta exist. Without annoying characters that do their best to disrupt Dexter's harmless endeavours, you would no longer care as much about Dexter. You like Dexter because you hate LaGuerta (or at least I do). If there are no antagonists to hold your actions in check, it just becomes a run-of-the-mill episode of Ugly Betty. And no one would want that.