Why The Internet Is Beginning to Suck

The internet used to be a place where you could find practically anything. More importantly, it used to be a place where you could find what you were looking for, whatever it was, and Google was a fantastic help in your search. But Google seems to be Googling the life out of the Internet.

I don't know if anyone else has search engine issues, but it appears to me that one now only finds what Google is paid to make you find, rather than what you are looking for. Located in the UK, no matter how much I want to find businesses related my field (I'm a professional voice over) in Hong Kong or Abu Dhabi, UK results relentlessly appear. Why? The point of the internet is that it isn't bounded by borders or limited to geographical location, yet still my search results always seem to be guided ever so subtlety by where I may be at any time. 

Do you remember when YouTube really was about YOU? You could find just about anything on it and post just about anything on it. Then Google happened and the rules changed. What we thought were real life events and people were actually corporate advertising masquerading as real life. What we thought was a place that facilitated freedom of information and expression became loyal to corporate obligation and consumer advertising then subject to litigation and copyright infringement. There is hardly any YOU left in YouTube, and nothing seems to have replaced it as a place for folks to do their thing. Why is this?

The Internet was powerful because it was a communal collective. It was made up of everyone who used it. But its potential for profit has led to all the independent fragments being gobbled up by corporate monsters. Hence the Internet has become centralised. Let's face it, how can you refuse a huge payday as a small business owner, like Facebook's Zuckerburg  or YouTube's Hurley? But as the people cave in, the Internet becomes smaller and less of what it was meant to be. Less of what made it a powerful tool. Sometimes we don't even know when it happens. Nowadays, the Monoliths design their products to appear like boutiques and small creative thinkers - only to purvey a prescribed profit driven agenda that we happily(?) fall for. 

Perhaps we don't fall for it - but it's beginning to feel like we don't have a choice. As corporations appropriate all the cyber-estate and make profit the prime motive of the Netscape, we are left to the mercy of the few. They make rules we have no choice but to follow. Or we succumb to the design and accept it as the only option relinquishing our freedom to create, break boundaries and plumb the depths of Cyberspace.

If not for the continual search to monetize the net, we could be enjoying it in all its piebald, multifaceted, multi-collective glory. And indeed, the demand that the internet should enrich the already dominant media firms seems to be a fait accomplis. But we should stop and ask why their profit must take primacy.

In venting my frustration about the hijacking of the internet and ineffectual search engines, a friend suggested that I conduct more research in order to input more specific search terms, in order to get more targeted results. Only problem is that research is likely to be conducted on...ya. Vicious Circle complete.

The iPad First Look: Underwhelming But Not For the Reasons You Might Think

I'm a Mac fan but I'm not particularly impressed with the iPad. Not because it wasn't what was expected, but because it was exactly what was expected. There is no wow factor in the iPad. Just a 's'aright' factor.

The So-so and So what

It's essentially a giant iPhone/iTouch, which is what most people surmised it would be carrying all the iPhone apps, iWork (with applications custom designed for the iPad). It does everything an iPhone does but make phone calls and worst of all there seems to be NO CAMERA, which makes no sense for a communications product. No mention was made of iChat or instant messaging and with no camera, Skype is out of the question. Doesn't seem to be able to run MS Office - though if it can run iWork - why not? Also, no magazines available. The more you want, the more you will have to pay.

The Up

All the usual stuff: iTunes, movies and yes, books, newspapers - and the exciting addition of iBooks bookstore. It's the addition of the print material that makes it exciting, but not exciting enough to say, 'supercalifragelisticexpialidoshous'.  It'll make lots of money for Apple. It does have a 10 hour battery life - but under what circumstances?

It will be unlocked and free to use with the AT&T contract flexible and can be dropped anytime. Oh, and the screen is 9.7" on the diagonal.

The price makes it fairly accessible starting at $499 US and going up to $829 US depending on the AT&T download quota you buy and whether it's a 3G model. All models come with Wi-Fi.

What I'm hoping is that it can do more than was said. Apple does have a habit of including plusses without mentioning them. But in the end, it's disappointing because it didn't live above expectations - and that's what we're used to with Apple. I will happily wait for the next gen model to see if it has a camera, will be ever-so-slightly bigger and can run OS X along with other apps like GarageBand.

The one possible salvation is the exponential effect of APPS. The SDK kit is already available for developers to start on the new stuff for the iPad. I can imagine writing apps that might require a stylus and maybe even design apps for the artists. Who knows. I think Apple may have been banking on the as yet unknown apps to bolster the iPad in the way they have the iPhone.

The wait is over, and so is the revolution...at least for now.

Check this link for more details. This link is for the first hands on test.

It's to reach stores in 60 days and the 3G models 30 days later. International markets will see it in June.

What Do You Want the Fabled Apple Tablet To Do?

It's only  a rumour,  but seems to be accepted as a given and all eyes are eagerly anticipating the Jan 26 'launch date'.

If and when it happens, what will this device do? What will it look like? For certain is it now set up be the greatest technological disappointment or phenom for the new decade.

But if you could design your tablet - what would it be like? What functions would you want? How would it work?

My take:

• It would be the size of a closed Macbook but as thin as an iPhone. 
• The screen would be about 13 inches and it would have all the function of a Macbook. 
• It would have a hard shell swivel screen cover that could double as a stand to keep the screen upright.
• A touch screen keyboard and some smart external keyboard attachment - the touch keyboard has customisable options that regulate: size, transparency, key position and function, and general interface (an iPhone interface or the iTablet interface - whatever that is).
• It would have a built in mouse - nothing more than a tiny ball or touch pad - about 1/4 the size of the pad on a Macbook.
• Some buttons would be included on the side panel but can be customised.
• Keys could have multifunction built in. Press the 2 and the @ and € also pop up a al iPhone and you can punch your option with another finger. Simples.

Love to hear your ideas.

Avatar: Not Racist, But Hollywood Might Be...Even Against Whites

Finally saw it. The 2D version though - but it was obviously a movie made for 3D. I'll get around to it. Now, is it racist? No, Avatar isn't racist but the prevailing culture of Hollywood is proving to be. At one time it most definitely was, so one could accept that the thinking hasn't disappeared just yet. We already know that leading roles for blacks are few and far between, and there are only a couple leading black names out there. One article included this rationalisation:

Robinne Lee, an actress in such recent films as "Seven Pounds" and "Hotel for Dogs," said that  "Avatar" was "beautiful" and that she understood the economic logic of casting a white lead if most of the audience is white.

The problem with this rationalisation is that blockbuster movies featuring white dominant casts are sold to all audiences around the world - and not just white audiences. Indeed, non-white audiences have been subject to white dominated US television and feature films for quite a long time, and have lived with it. Spike Lee only came out with Do The Right Thing in 1989 - still a relatively recent development and the idea that audiences can only consume material featuring their own race just doesn't compute.

Oprah, Will Smith, Tiger Woods (too soon?), Michael Jordon, Denzel Washington, Friends, Sex in The City,  The Wire, and a host of other examples, can be cited as stars and features that have a broad appeal simply because they are marketed that way, are very good at what they do or because they are part of the same species (i.e. Human). I, as a black man, have watched countless films with non-black leads (or no non-whites whatsoever) and  have yet to turn into a pumpkin as a result. 

White & American
But the idea that mass appeal equals white, dominates American media. This seeming insistence that white (and white blonde in particular for women) sells is manifest in the 'Blonding' of Beyonce, Christina Aguilera, Madonna, Lindsay Lohan, Lady Gaga and Jennifer Morrison (House MD) as their careers have evolved - or to help their careers evolve? Yes, it appears that even if you are white you have to be the right kind of white to have appeal. 

Jamaican songstress Tami Chynn, former label mate of Lady Gaga, also went blonde, but perhaps too late,

Chynn claimed that her Chinese-black ethnicity hurt her in an industry where musical genres tend to be race defined. "My label made it very clear to me that they were not sure what to do with me because I was a seemingly white girl who was not white but also Chinese and Black," she said. "An (atypical) Jamaican girl is exactly what made them love me and exactly what made them not know what to do with me. That is why the first album was released in Japan only," she explained.

The gatekeepers seem to be convinced that ethnic groups (and that includes whites) only buy products from 'their own'. We know this not to be true, though it may be true to a limited extent. That said, I suggest that much of what we see in 'society' is not society but the perspective of society and its various groups manufactured by film makers and advertisers as they define markets with stereotypes and conceptual targets. 


But the bias doesn't end there. Earth is apparently made up of only one nation: The United States of America. Cameron had the opportunity to portray not only multi-ethinic characters, but multi-national characters, the plot being depicted as a Global initiative and expedition. But true to Hollywood only Americans are heroes - whatever their race (Michelle Rodriguez is Hispanic American), and the only country on earth is the USA. The main character, Jake Sully, was played by Australian actor Sam Worthington, why couldn't he simply have been an Australian Earthling? Would Americans explode upon hearing an Auzzie accent? I think not.

Avatar itself was a critique of racial prejudice (amongst other things) but, perhaps unwittingly, perpetuated prejudice in its production more than its presentation. The dominant group tends to see itself as the standard, normal - the touchstone of humanity, and is usually oblivious to its own bias. Everyone else is a novel addition to the wonderful world of 'diversity'. However, we can't ignore Cameron's efforts to make a movie with a 'universal conscience' or the unavoidable limitations of one man's universe.

Apple Tablet: the various envisionings and images of the fabled device

1 
2

                                                                                                       3

4

5     

6

7

8

9

10
11

12

13

14






WHICH DO YOU LIKE MOST?

Panic Attack and the $300 Budget - Both Very Good Works of Fiction

Sorry. This assertion of a $300 budget just doesn't wash with me.

Firstly, the camera that filmed this movie cost more than $300, unless it was made from recycled parts found in the city dump. The animation cost more $300 as did all the actors and city shots. The only way this film cost $300 is if one guy did every single thing including act as buildings and scenery and all the extras.

At best this is a publicity stunt advertising a movie that is either complete or in production. It's following on the heels of District 9 - a great Sci Fi NOT based in the US or with any big name actors and no doubt trying to follow in its footsteps. Don't get me wrong. It is a great piece of work, and an excellent piece of PR.

At best, the budget was $300 on paper and he overshot it by about $999, 700. If the budget for this film was $300 then Avatar's budget was $3000.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Looking forward to the release of Panic Attack and finding out exactly which big movie house is behind this.

What I Learned About Vampires from Twilight

Yes, I am prodigiously late having just watched Twilight and I suppose I must now watch New Moon. But nevertheless I have been educated in the world of Vampires according to Stephenie Myer.

1. White Vampires are pallid, Black Vampires are...Black. One notices the distinct ashen tone of all the white vampires in Twilight (which are all the vampires save the dreadlocked Laurent) apparently due to their avoidance, but not abhorrence, of sunlight. Laurent however, is a cool, dark shade of black. No sun deprivation there, and proof that a sweet shade don't fade and good black don't crack.

2. Vampires are pallid purely by choice...and stupidity. Unlike traditional vampire lore, Twilight vampires don't combust in sunlight, they just glisten with diamond studded sensuality. But the blinginess of their skin would make them the envy of the more flamboyant denizens of the gay community so they opt out. But why don't they just catch some sun when no ones looking? Maybe sun block will disguise the sparkly skin? Whatever the case, if they don't burn up in sunlight there's no good reason why they can't work on a much needed tan.

3. Vampire movie dreadlocks look real! Edi Gathegi's dreadlocks were fabulous unlike many movie manes (like those in Segal's Marked for Death for example). Can't say the same for his accent though, couldn't tell if he was from Abu Dhabi or Alpha Centauri. 

4. Dating A Vampire = Abstinence. Maybe a tacit object lesson sneaked in by Myer? But it is implied that Bella and Edward did not consummate their relationship in this first Vampiric instalment. In mid embrace Edward backs off afraid that in the throws of passion he might mistakenly eat Bella for a midnight snack. Understandable concern. They instead opt for emotional intimacy rather than physical. A commendable element no doubt completely overlooked by hormonal teenagers and menopausal cougars.

5. Only good looking people can become vampires. Yes, the Ugly Betty's of the world can rest assured that no one will come looking for their blood. Well, maybe their blood but not their eternal, torturous bloodlusty companionship. We all know that the standard of unobtainable beauty is perpetuated by Hollywood. Not only that but if enough people think someone is hot, mass hysteria takes over and even Jabba the Hut becomes world's sexiest...sentient blob of the year. Still secretly, I envy Pattinson's finely sculpted eyebrows. Rowwwrrrr! In the end, an ugly person (by what standard?) is the fast food of the vampire world - in abundant supply, you don't want to eat it, but it's there so you might as well.