I use something called Drupal (you don't need to know what that is) and I'm an avid reader of the blog by drupal developer Aaron Winborn. Any time I feel things are getting me down, a read of his blog is enough to get things in perspective. In case you're wondering this isn't a blog about software development and is worth reading.
Monday, 15 July 2013
Thursday, 7 February 2013
Democracy
I hold democracy as something of great importance, that somehow seems to be the 'right' way to do things.
What I don't know is whether that's just because I've always lived in a largely democratic society and, having been told it's the way to go, just generally accept that. Maybe it's like how one's native street signs or currency just seems right and everyone else's seems strange and not quite as it should be.
The problem with democracy is that just because the majority want something or agree with it, that doesn't make it the right thing to do.
I've recently been listening to archives of The Life Scientific from radio 4. Many scientists interviewed comment on the public's general ignorance or scientific matters. It strikes me that many great innovations and major progressions in our collective knowledge have been met with popular resistance (although I can't come up with good examples right now).
There are various ways the people at large can make their feelings known, with market forces being and example. How we behave with our spending habits can betray our preferences and prejudices. Even a big company can be brought down if enough people choose to avoid it.
But democracy is usually about government. Based on the idea that the majority gets their way (usually) it makes a lot of sense when it comes to selecting which political party or politician will be in power. But it is fallible.
Our idea of what is 'right' can so often be relative. When all was rosy in 1920s Germany the Nazi party didn't do well in elections. When the Great Depression hit and people were scared for their economic future, the hollow promises of Hitler became far more appealing, and you probably know where that ended up.
It's important to remember that just because the majority have voted for something, doesn't mean that same majority isn't basing their decision on completely the wrong criteria.
Take the recent UK parliament vote on redefining marriage. How many of those who voted no did so because they don't like change and have prejudices against those who are gay? How many of those who voted yes did so because it's trendy to support gay rights or perhaps because (most of them weren't Conservatives) it's a potential nail in the coffin of David Cameron's premiership. How many MPs really considered the people or the potential consequences behind their decision? Politics is rarely black and white.
There are issues in education, a policy area that for some reason most people think they have an opinion worthy of note, where education secretaries have usually failed to take heed of professionals (eg teachers) and pushed through policies based on personal agenda (and often scant academic research).
I still think democracy is a good way to do things and probably the best way to achieve the level of accountability necessary. But it's important we're not blind to the faults of any system and can call out those who try to gloss over the cracks.
I'm reminded of the fabulous clip of Sky TVs Kay Burley interviewing someone for the campaign group 38degrees and saying something along the lines of 'what right do you have to intervene in whether the lib dems go into coalition or not, people have voted for this!'. Of course nobody had voted for that and faced with such pathological stupidity and failure to understand the democratic process the poor man didn't know what to say.
What I don't know is whether that's just because I've always lived in a largely democratic society and, having been told it's the way to go, just generally accept that. Maybe it's like how one's native street signs or currency just seems right and everyone else's seems strange and not quite as it should be.
The problem with democracy is that just because the majority want something or agree with it, that doesn't make it the right thing to do.
I've recently been listening to archives of The Life Scientific from radio 4. Many scientists interviewed comment on the public's general ignorance or scientific matters. It strikes me that many great innovations and major progressions in our collective knowledge have been met with popular resistance (although I can't come up with good examples right now).
There are various ways the people at large can make their feelings known, with market forces being and example. How we behave with our spending habits can betray our preferences and prejudices. Even a big company can be brought down if enough people choose to avoid it.
But democracy is usually about government. Based on the idea that the majority gets their way (usually) it makes a lot of sense when it comes to selecting which political party or politician will be in power. But it is fallible.
Our idea of what is 'right' can so often be relative. When all was rosy in 1920s Germany the Nazi party didn't do well in elections. When the Great Depression hit and people were scared for their economic future, the hollow promises of Hitler became far more appealing, and you probably know where that ended up.
It's important to remember that just because the majority have voted for something, doesn't mean that same majority isn't basing their decision on completely the wrong criteria.
Take the recent UK parliament vote on redefining marriage. How many of those who voted no did so because they don't like change and have prejudices against those who are gay? How many of those who voted yes did so because it's trendy to support gay rights or perhaps because (most of them weren't Conservatives) it's a potential nail in the coffin of David Cameron's premiership. How many MPs really considered the people or the potential consequences behind their decision? Politics is rarely black and white.
There are issues in education, a policy area that for some reason most people think they have an opinion worthy of note, where education secretaries have usually failed to take heed of professionals (eg teachers) and pushed through policies based on personal agenda (and often scant academic research).
I still think democracy is a good way to do things and probably the best way to achieve the level of accountability necessary. But it's important we're not blind to the faults of any system and can call out those who try to gloss over the cracks.
I'm reminded of the fabulous clip of Sky TVs Kay Burley interviewing someone for the campaign group 38degrees and saying something along the lines of 'what right do you have to intervene in whether the lib dems go into coalition or not, people have voted for this!'. Of course nobody had voted for that and faced with such pathological stupidity and failure to understand the democratic process the poor man didn't know what to say.
Friday, 1 February 2013
The trouble with YouTube
YouTube is great. Any idiot can publish video in high quality with reliable streaming to an audience across the world. Chuffin' marvellous. But there's a frustrating problem for those wanting to make use of the videos...
Some would say this is a problem with the internet itself, and maybe that's so, but it's certainly a frustration with YouTube. The issue is related videos. You have no idea what you might be offered and whether it's in anyway appropriate to the audience.
Here's the example that's prompted this blog post
It's what comes up at the end of a video about the making of Disney's Paperman (worth watching btw). The top left video is a news story about android prostitutes. It's not really something appropriate to appear in front of a group of children interested in animation for example.
Separately there's an issue with adverts appearing. These can be annoying but are usually not inappropriate, although they can be amusing. I recall a pop up advert for Christian Dating appearing on a video being shown in church once.
It's for these reasons that I strongly advise against people showing YouTube clips in presentations whether they by in church, in a classroom or at a conference or even on your website.
For me the golden rule is that video in presentations should be downloaded and played locally. That takes away adverts and streaming issues.
If you want video online to embed in a website, I recommend Vimeo.com. Preferred by pretentious film maker types, it's a nicer website with better quality video than YouTube, but importantly you can buy a pro account which gives you far more control over how your videos appear, who can download them and what happens when they finish playing.
Some would say this is a problem with the internet itself, and maybe that's so, but it's certainly a frustration with YouTube. The issue is related videos. You have no idea what you might be offered and whether it's in anyway appropriate to the audience.
Here's the example that's prompted this blog post
Separately there's an issue with adverts appearing. These can be annoying but are usually not inappropriate, although they can be amusing. I recall a pop up advert for Christian Dating appearing on a video being shown in church once.
It's for these reasons that I strongly advise against people showing YouTube clips in presentations whether they by in church, in a classroom or at a conference or even on your website.
For me the golden rule is that video in presentations should be downloaded and played locally. That takes away adverts and streaming issues.
If you want video online to embed in a website, I recommend Vimeo.com. Preferred by pretentious film maker types, it's a nicer website with better quality video than YouTube, but importantly you can buy a pro account which gives you far more control over how your videos appear, who can download them and what happens when they finish playing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)