missing a fridge is a bit weird

A discussion of sentimentality

A strange thing happened today; I learned of the demise of a piece of equipment and it made me sad.  Me, a born cynic who doesn't really sign-up to the realms of sentimental attachment to inanimate objects.

Until it happened, I outwardly displayed I thought it wrong, while secretly jealous of those who did.  I suppose if you think of the secretly held shame of a Tory politician feels when reading the coroner's report into an erotic asphyxiation death, you're near the mark of my feelings this morning.  My aloof logical side told me I want to show nothing, but deep down I knew I was conflicted and wanted to mourn the loss of a Philips filter coffee machine.  I suppose I need to explain to myself and therefore others why such an attachment to a small electrical item exists.

It was nearly seven years ago, at a tender age of 21 that I stepped up the stairs to my first real job - at the offices of Cinemas-online.co.uk.  With bright eyes and a satchel-full of naivety I was introduced by Andrew and Colin onto the programming team by drinking black, strong, caffeine-rich filtered goodness that beforehand I wouldn't have touched.  However, mug after mug guzzled kept me sharp in order to get code finished before deadline.  I remember the regular trips to the supermarket buying the raw materials for such a high level of consumption; indeed I'm still benefiting from those Nectar points now, after finding my card in an old box.  There was the time someone purchased French-blend by mistake - the nasty horrible stuff made us go dry for a day, until productivity dropped to a point where we decided to nip out to buy some real stuff.

That little little device was a wonderful thing.  Perhaps I am too quick to dismiss sentimentality, or perhaps my sentimentality is more worthy than that of others.  I mean missing a fridge is a bit weird, as is an old pen.  However, for some reason that Philips Comfort Plus filter machine caught me this morning.

{Originally posted to my facespace notes}

flip-mental and go happy-stabbing

 A post regarding British media

I've just been asked the following question by someone via my FaceSpace Feed:

who here thinks the BBC is biased?

My reply would almost certainly be split two ways: the emotional response, and that of the cynical response.

My emotional reponse is that my BBC can't be wrong.  I own it and I don't ask for bias and that's why I love it so.  It's a poor reason, it's a raw reason and I'll leave my love of the BBC to one side so that we can look at bias as a concept.

The cynical response is that anyone or anything purported to be unbiased is essentially wrong; nothing with a logical grasp on reality can be wholly unbiased, imagining an unbiased world would see Hitler being "just some guy, you know?".  We need bias, it helps us direct our thoughts and compare viewpoints.  Something that I've learned in my first year studying history is that no-one can be assumed unbiased: every person has a specific enlightened interest or some dark involvement to drive them to write what they do.  Perhaps they're a German, perhaps they're Hispanic, perhaps they're male, perhaps they bloody love the colour blue.  We're humans and we all carry a multitude of seemingly miniscule baggage.  We use bias to judge things; judging isn't bad, it is in our nature to protect ourselves by considering an action. Based on prior learning we judge whether that isolated suburban alleyway is filled with danger as we walk home at 3am, or the guy on the train platform dressed in a tracksuit and baseball cap acting all edgy is about to flip-mental and go happy-stabbing everyone.  Of course, this is all very well when we're basing it on our own judgement, but when someone else is the witness we rely on their judgement to tell us how it was.

This is the centre of the horrible side of bias: when it is allowed to replace fact.  The Daily Mail is pretty much the master at this; they play on deep-rooted biases in middle-England's psyche about various things; be it the travelling community, alternative sexualaties, religions or climate change.  All of these biases rely on a lack of knowledge of the true unhindered facts - and being a newspaper, they're expected by the readership to tell them in tasty easy to chew word-pellets what the fuck is going on in the world.  They therefore exploit the lack of true knowledge of the subject in question and rely on the wording to instill worry in the least, or fear mixed with anger if the topic is considered controversial by the Mail.  It is worth noting the Mail's support of fascism in the early part of last century here.   If media like those of News International support a political party, they have a lot of influence; in the UK that's Sky News on TV, The Sun, The News of The World, The Times and now through part-ownership, ITV.  So Mr. Murdoch has a massive opportunity with the UK population and replace fact with his beliefs, opinions and bias.

Arguably, statistics are cold, clear and concise - they aren't flouncy words with double-meanings or ambiguity to carry us along - but the interpretation of those numbers can lead to bias. As soon as figures are described, two things to look for: the figures claimed and the organisation publishing them.  If the public support for something is 51%, we might see reports of "Most People Support X" however, clearly, there's only a marginal difference in opinion.  Yes it's true, most people do support X, but it is at best misleading.  That's bias right there.  It happens all the time and it's one reason I love reading the small print on the bottom of product advertising that features statistics for this reason.  It's another tool in the box for reporting bias, than fact if used incorrectly.  Moreover, if a research company has been employed, who employed them?

So, this in mind, is the BBC biased?  On the whole, I feel it isn't.  It is certainly an organisation constantly accused of it by other media outlets, as they want a finger in the BBC's pie.  They dislike that the BBC is government funded; they say it is unfair, monopolistic and hurts their trade.  However, which media company wouldn't want to be in the BBC's shoes and not having to worry about subscribers?  The BBC covers all walks of life on its news output and I've watched the BBC's reporting of the major stories at 1pm today, reporting what is happening, not giving opinion or casting any judgement.

I'd suggest that one reason the BBC gives some an impression of bias is that it covers, or gives airtime to alternative positions or minority interest stories.  Like offering a smörgåsbord of news and programming, I suppose, and if you don't think something is terribly worthy of airtime, you may consider it being biased towards it.  The BBC doesn't promote anything, so due to other broadcasters, you may feel that the BBC is promoting the stories it broadcasts.  Failing these reasons, I fear the only reason you'd see the BBC as biased is that you disagree with facts.

Reporting the truth isn't biased.

{Originally posted to my facespace notes}

pure graphics ejaculate

Computer games used to be so much better

A friend drew my attention to an article poking fun at old cover art for old games on the Atari.  Being an ex-owner of a 2-600, I must point out that even as a child, I realised the graphics were an artist's interpretation of the imaginary world of the game.  The graphics were shit from our lofty position now of real-time generated multi-million polygons: but remember, at the time, they were cutting edge for the price.

I remember playing a game [name of such escapes me] that involved controlling a chunk-tastic pixel representation of a bomber down a unrealistic valley, avoiding squares that represented shells emitted from bigger squares.  Each mission's objective was to release an equally chunky block of pixel magic on what can only be cursorily described as rectangles of differing sizes. And you know what?  I fucking loved that game.  I was there in the cockpit of that bomber.  I was the bravest war hero of all time, apparently without fear of the enemy's anti-aircraft defences.  In reality, I was scared; my chums back at the base were being shot down every day and our nation was at the brink of defeat.  My character had no name, no back story imposed on them.

Today's games are woefully dull in comparison.  In order to really surprise, entertain or enamour, they have to have a gimmick.  Think of Grand Theft Auto - a brilliant game way back when it was top-down and low definition pixel-riffic - the first forays of the franchise into 3D meant a requirement for cinematic cut-scenes to progress the story.  Now the entire city "lives", featuring fantastically detailed streets and characters with an entire CV and realistic criminal record.  I'm informed there's paedophiles, politicians and even fast-food restaurant workers in there. Yes it's progress and yes it is bloody impressive, but is it interesting?

Consider against Lucas Arts games and the like, which were 2D, linear and full of jokes.  They were digital equivalents of those adventure books where you choose the destiny of your character; you had few options but in that lay a spark of a requirement for imagination: you were the character and you decide the outcome.  There was little scope to explore off the main game's 'plot' but that added mystery.  Similarly, the characters had little in the way of back story - but like reading a good novel, it left it for you based on the semiotics of the situation what their story was.  Games which capture the imagination are few now.  The last which impressed me with its simplicity and pure addictive playability was Pikmin on the N64; you didn't exactly care about the character itself, but those little cute plant-creatures were like your children, whatever the fuck they were.

A little while back, I guffawed at seeing an Nokia N-gage in a second-hand store: I mused openly about how much of a flop it was.  Who would sit and play a game on a tiny screen on a phone turned sideways when they have a game system with 1080P of pixel-mendous action pumped direct from HD TV to Super HD eyeball?  Then a few weeks ago, I downloaded a game on my Android phone.  I found it fascinatingly addictive.  Simple, pure and fun.  I was sat there until literally the battery ran out, playing it again and again attempting to beat my previous high score.  The graphics aren't amazing, the game has limited scope and there are no characters. Then it dawned on me: I did this when I was 10.  In 1992, I was sat staring in awe at the black and white telly in our front room as myself and my co-pilot brother bombed the shit out of Nazis, or Gooks, or whoever it was we were bombing.  It didn't matter; we were heroes.

That's why the Wii has been such a run-away success despite its appalling graphics for today; it's simple and while infected by a multitude of leisure software, I'd not knock anyone for having one on their Christmas list.  PlayStation and Xbox owners might sit there aloof as billions of pixels of pure graphics ejaculate forth from their 3D LED screen.  Secretly though, if they're honest, they'd love to have a day playing on an old NES, or a Master System.  The graphics were laughable, the games were abysmally simple to the point of idiocy but they were really fucking fun.

{Originally posted to my facespace notes}