I once again don my explorer hate as we explore the wilderness of smartphones to find the ideal one for my needs.

From the jittery Samsung Galaxy, my attention has shifted once again to the Palm Pre.

I should also mention that my attention has not shifted specifically to the iPhone; but the device remains in the back of my mind perpetually as one to consider. I have an aversion to the iPhone simply for the reason that each model get’s annually overshadowed by a slightly better one that the fanboys salivate insufferably about, and though the Pre has been out for about six months now, their next phone won’t detract from the merits of the Pre whereas it’s implicit with the iPhone that a new model will. I don’t wish to march into the Apple realm, though due to my iPod my foot is already in the door, and also the device lacks a physical keyboard and, while I’m certain I could get used to it, my initial settling in period would drive my to frustration. If I am unable to come to a decision I will probably give up and go iPhone, but if I can avoid it then I will.

The points that tempted me to the Palm Pre is it’s touch-screen and multi-touch features being almost as zippy as the iPhones, with a whisker of a difference that only the most pedantic of tech geeks would complain about, while I’m geeky enough to notice it, I’m not geeky enough to care. It’s physical keyboard lends an air of control that is lacking on the iPhone. When something’s physical, you know it’s free from the bugs and problems that can plague all things digital; this is why I buy CDs and not download, why I buy books instead of eBooks and why, in my writing, I want a physical keyboard. Of course, functionally there’s no difference and, as I said, I’m sure I could grow used to an onscreen keyboard, but it’s one of my many mental maladies that I hold dear.

In a way, the Pre could be a hybrid of the Android-ridden HTC phones and the iPhone; as it is, in it’s core, a prevalent touch screen with very few buttons (ignoring the full QWERTY keyboard beneath) and one central home button, a home button that is a glowing trackball as with the HTC but lacking the awkward chin, despite the slight curvature of the phone when open.

Of course, the Pre has noticable pitfalls over competitors, I would delight in exploring an app store simply to bask in the ingenuity of the developers, their imagination and inventiveness. Apple, of course, is the obvious solution to this as they have the biggest and best app store, the best SDK and, more importantly, the developers automatically think of Apple when writing apps. Palm has an app store, but one that pales in comparison with very few apps, practically no developer input and little integration with any of the big Web 2.0 companies, unless you count a degree of Facebook integration – which is the same as every phone company has gotten, Facebook is a whore – and the expected Google stuff like maps. These features, which are also present in the Android’s growing app community, would be a useful addition – though I think that any app worth using frequently will be on the Pre app store as well, anything else I suspect I would get bored with all too quickly.

Another point is the boot time on the Pre, which is frankly insufferable. In my reasearch I have found countless speed test comparisons between the Pre and the iPhone and, were this a cage fight, the Pre would’ve been spread out across the bars and the iPhone holding up the belt before it even had time to get to the home screen. In more expertly conducted tests it took seconds that hit triple figures, albeit barely, averaging 1:46 when the iPhone 3G and 3GS that it was being tested alongside both took less than a minute. Though I have to wonder how often do people turn their phones off? Time was that if you went on a plane or to the cinema, you’re phone would have to remain resolutely off for the entirety; but in the modern age of “Airplane Mode” and “Silent”, this is no longer the case. I actually don’t remember the last time I had to turn my phone off, and it’s frankly an unusual occurence when I do, usually only being necessary in the event of a notable system failure or, in the case of my phone, to remove the SIM card. Although, with the battery life being about on par with the iPhone, it may become evermore necessary to turn my phone off. Flipping again, I don’t really know of any situation that’s likely to occur when 100 seconds is anything more than a minor annoyance than it is an actual problem.

There’s also the lack of flash support – while the iPhone, technically, has better flash support owing to the Apple name being a temptress for special treatment by big websites, BBC iPlayer and YouTube included, no phone can really do this well. While the web browsers on the iPhone, Pre and Android OS all have a full HTML browser, Adobe is yet to release it’s upcoming Mobile Flash (due for release some time next year, which is itself tomorrow) which will ease the transition. Adobe would do well to make haste given how much the internet relies on flash nowadays; and is only set to increase. Thus, this problem is somewhat fleeting.

In my mind, it’s the closest thing to an iPhone killer there is, it’s prolific cousin Android is busy spreading itself out amongst the phone market which, though is a financial no-brainer, does reduce the mark of exclusivity and premium that the iPhone, Blackberry and Pre Operating Systems have that could allow them to charge more. It has all the features of the iPhone that I want, apart from a decent app community, and is overall a very nice device.

My hunt goes on, therefore, I feel it is quite likely that the next few days will see me settle resolutely on the Palm Pre, but if anyone has any input or suggestions I’d be glad to hear it.

I probably won’t be posting again this year, or indeed decade, given that both end in less than ten hours.

A very happy new year to all, and I wish you all a delightful 2010!

I just finished watching the three-hour film of the Royal Shakespeare Company’s 2008 staging of ‘Hamlet’, starring David Tennant in the title role along with Patrick Stewart and Oliver Ford Davies. I went into this production with skepticism, mainly to allow me to detach from my Doctor Who obsessed bias and analyse a play that I love critically and honestly. Many Shakespearites were decrying the fact that the sell-out stage production was successful only due to the hollywood cast – pulling in Doctor Who, Star Trek and Star Wars fans alike from only three actors – and lamented that the audience was only there to see them and didn’t give a sonic-screwdriver about the play itself; which I think is absurdly narrow minded. Certainly, I myself had considered that the legions of Who fanboys, myself included, would’ve cheered at David Tennant defecating on a stick and wiggling it under our noses. But given the critical success of the play by professionals who regularly have to detach themselves from personal taste and the fact that the live production would’ve been around four-hours long, nobody would’ve paid to watch something so long that they didn’t care about just to get a distant glimpse of The Doctor; that’s why there’s a stage-door. The fanboys could, and did, flock there, indicated by reports that the RSC had to ban people from getting DT to autograph Who merchandise and limited it to Hamlet posters only.

Nevertheless, I went into watching the version broadcast last night on BBC Two with an open-mind, lest I end up stick-sniffing. I’m here to review it merely as a ill-informed viewer, I gained my interest in the play when I studied it at the beginning of the year for my English Lit A-Level, from which I developed a great love and understanding of the play; but my analytical gland grows rusty as I have been out of practice since July – depriving myself of Hamlet in anticipation of this – so excuse me if I fail to understand some directional imagery or acting technique.

Almost the entire cast deliver a fantastic performance, David Tennant as Hamlet is perfect, the diversity of his character’s different personalities and the transformations throughout are testament to Tennant as an actor and Greg Doran as a director. Patrick Stewart’s Claudius was beautifully benevolent and malevolent when necessary, though I felt that when he was consoling Hamlet in early scenes he was a bit more cold and not as warm as I would’ve expected. This detracted slightly from the marked change in Claudius along the play.

The rest of the cast are flawless, other than Mariah Gale as Ophelia, who seemed extraordinarily wooden throughout most of the play, such as when she told Polonius of Hamlet’s insane appearance as if she was struggling to remember the lines and forgot to actually act. The line “I have been so affrighted” when she continued to talk as if it was just a passing curiousity was a betrayal to the character – quite apart from Ophelia seeming a weak character under the control of the men around her; she seemed to have no character whatsoever. It wasn’t until Ophelia’s mad scenes that she showed any kind of emotion; that scene was well acted at least.

I enjoyed the soliloquys as it has the actor talking to the audience, something which is seldom seen in screen adaptations of Shakespeare, usually replaced with the actor talking to thin air or off in some direction but never at the camera, in fact they usually make a point to NOT look at the camera, which often comes off as unnatural and stiff. This method gives the production a much more stage-performance feel to it, as was intended by the Bard, and lines such as “Am I a coward? Who calls me villain?” have much more significance as Hamlet talks to the audience here and lent it the degree of comedy that Shakespeare had intended.

This production has evidently used influences from past productions – rather than hiding behind the arras or simply out of sight as would be presumed – Greg Doran, the director, has borrowed the two-way mirrors that Claudius and Polonius hide behind when observing Hamlet and Ophelia from Kenneth Branagh’s 1996 adaptation, and Polonius being shot instead of stabbed (again from behind a mirror) itself mirrors Bill Murray’s Polonius death from the 2000 Ethan Hawke version. I wasn’t priveledged, or rich, enough to go and see the production performed on stage, but if these weren’t included on stage then it may carry the slight stench of a director wanting to ease the stage to screen transition by using aspects of other versions (the Ethan Hawke version is set in the present day, as is this one). Of course, wether Doran purposely took these aspects from other films is debatable, but that’s the impression I get.

The pacing is good, but towards the end, however, things get a bit rushed – the first three or four acts are, if memory serves, complete in their content (though not word perfect as I noticed the absence of some of my favourite lines) and this has a decremental effect on the final few scenes, including the entire Act Five and the end of Act Four. If three-hours was the longest they could do the play then I feel they would’ve been better off trimming smaller bits throughout the play rather than reducing the last scenes, detracting their full effect. For example, the ongoing story of Fortinbras is included but he is never seen, instead the curtain falls (metaphorically) with Horatio weeping over Hamlet’s body rather than the intrusion of Fortinbras to look upon the princely heap – in which case they needn’t have included the story of Fortinbras at all, if it must be ommited, leaving more time for the duel and the scene before. Though I am satisfied that they kept the main point of the scene (including the Providence in the fall of a Sparrow speech) ommiting some stuff that isn’t entirely necessary, but through a method that could’ve been spread over the entire film rather than liberally applied to the few scenes.

Overall, a fantastic production that had a slightly awkward stage to screen transition, probably due to BBC limits. I lament that I hadn’t been able to see it performed as it probably would’ve been better but glad I’ve seen this, must by the DVD.

Sorry, I know this is uber-geeky but I’m working on coursework and revision so here’s something to keep you going.

I was perusing the interwebs for Doctor Who stuff – I keep running across the mention of anagrams that RTD (Russell T. Davies – outgoing head writer) has used during his tenure that hint (or mislead) beady-eyed viewers to the end – here are some examples that people have mentioned.

RTD has never admitted to putting these anagrams in on purpose – but it’s impossible that these things just happened.

MISTER SAXON – MASTER NO. SIX

I remember this about the time of Series 3 drawing to a close, we had heard a great deal about a mysterious Mr. Saxon but knew nothing about him; someone worked out ‘Mister Saxon’ was an anagram of ‘Master No Six’ and, considering that there were four main actors playing The Master in the classic series, and the knowledge of Derek Jacobi and John Simm’s joint involvement in an episode, it wasn’t hard to guess the outcome.

As it turns out, however, hiding The Master’s involvement in a story in the classic series meant hiding either the character name or the actor name in an anagram.

ASTRID – TARDIS

A red-herring, but shortly before the broadcast of one of the Christmas Specials in which Kylie Minogue was playing a character called Astrid Peth, someone noticed that astrid was an anagram of TARDIS and Peth is welsh for ‘part’.

DOCTOR WHO – TORCHWOOD

As well as being an anagram for ‘Ow Hot Cord!’, Doctor Who can also be rearranged to spell Torchwood; which was originally a name used to disguise new Doctor Who episode tapes shortly before the revival as well as the name of a spin-off show starring John Barrowman as Captain Jack later on.

And now we move to ones that are probably not hints, or might yet be depending on how the last episode plays out.

WILFRED MOTT – TIMELORD FTW

The idea that the current companion, war veteran Wilf Mott, played by Bernard Cribbins, is a time lord remains to be seen (but I think it unlikely).

DONNA NOBLE – Not an anagram but latin meaning

In the last episode, it was mentioned that Donna was engaged to a man named Shaun Temple and that her married name (as was specifically discussed) will be Donna Temple-Noble. I read somewhere that a latin word for Woman was Donna, equally Temple can mean Time in latin (I may be paraphrasing heavily) and Noble can be used as a word for a King, Queen or Lord – combined meaning Lady Time-Lord. As with other anagrams this is probably a red-herring but it’s interesting all the same.

This review really couldn’t be more spoilery, so watch the episode before you read this. You have been warned!

Doctor Who: The End of Time, Part One is the penultimate episode for David Tennant’s Tenth Doctor as the character is set to regenerate at the end of Part Two. This episode saw the return of The Master, Donna and the Time Lords all of whom had previously thought to be killed off or else prevented from making any reasonable appearance in ongoing continuity.

This episode started in classic Who fashion, another prophecy on top of prophecy, frantic TARDIS piloting and a few jokes. I was correct in thinking that The Doctor’s narrative would be fairly dull, though I was glad the golden oldies weren’t given too much screen time, there was still relatively little action for The Doctor, repeating the last appearance of The Master by the Doc being neutralised and watching on helplessly while The Master bounds around and grins. The Master’s resurrection was a bit confusing because it seemed as though Lucy prevented it and yet he survived once again with no explanation as to why, though it is implied that his resurrection wasn’t entirely successful (hence the weird skull thing) and the fact that he somehow acquired blonde hair after this may explain it. I’ve always loved The Master, especially John Simm’s portrayal simply for just how insane he plays the renegade Time Lord, particularly the wasteland scenes. The helicopter sequence was fantastic but I was a bit disappointed that The Master was so easily overwhelmed, but I think that may’ve been a way of breaking into The Doctor’s supposed invulnerability by having him overcome as well.

Though I decried the apparent scenes in a cafes before, I admit that it was a really nice sequence – breaking many of RTD’s usual writing styles. The appearance of Donna, just passing, was a master-stroke because it gives a fresh face to the oft-returning characters thought to be gone for good; the appearance of Wilf meant that NOT seeing Donna would’ve been tricky. Furthermore, it gives the actors somewhere new to go – rather than David Tennant’s usual binary choice for RTD writing of happy/suprised or aghast – he has to convey that complex emotion of seeing an old friend casually with the inability to talk to her. The discussion of regeneration was superbly written and acted, Tennant perfectly timing The Doctor’s desire to break down and pulling it together, and the inclusion of Wilf in it, former soldier to former (time war) soldier, was an intriguing parallel.

The Vivi…viva…..vana………..oh those green spikey characters are clearly a much needed comic relief in this episode, keeping the dark and scary story with enough light-hearted stuff to stop kids from running away scared. Besides, this episode will likely become the lasting impression of David’s Doctor, and this gave him the opportunity to be a bit less grim and stony-faced and allowed him to make a lot more jokes (SHHHHHIMMER!); something that (though usually present in all incarnations) is uniquely done in this incarnation.

Practically every Doctor Who finale since the revival has been Earth/Universe/Reality in peril or at risk of extinction – the cliffhanger of this one was so amazingly original that RTD has clearly been saving this one up. If I didn’t know better I’d say that he was lulling his audience into a false sense of predictability and now flips it entirely as the human race actually is defeated (technically, we all know it’ll be reversed but still) or the peril is otherwise enacted. Granted, this cliffhanger is more than a bit of a Matrix rip-off, but as a plot device here it’s unexpected but fits in well.

The final scene was, frankly, baffling – though we’d have Claire Bloom playing ‘The Woman’ (the one who follows Wilf around), and I’m fairly convinced she’s a Time Lord, there was little indication or hint of the return of the Time Lords. Though with the Ood prophecy of “They are/It is returning” – it kind of gave the game away, RTD won’t want to introduce any new aliens from the old series without a degree of setup that wouldn’t be possible in a fast paced episode such as this. I already had a clue because of the robes that Timothy Dalton’s character ‘The Narrator’ was wearing could give it away and I saw a set photo of him with Tennant and Simm months ago. But the scene was confusing as, for the less attentive viewer, the robes don’t give away that they’re Time Lords and there’s no explanation or hint as to their survival or return. If it turns out that the Time Lords have been kicking around this whole time and nobody knew then that’ll be a terrible way of doing it, there should’ve been some more scenes that would suggest how the return is possible, even though I’m sure it will be fully explained next week.

All in all, it was less of a slow setup episode than I expected and it delivered wholeheartedly with action, story, writing and acting. I eagerly await the final Tennant-era episodes set to be broadcast at 18:40 on Friday 1st January 2010 on BBC One/HD – if this was just the setup, imagine the pay-off!

Oh and a side-note, if you’re going to see Avatar – don’t bother in 2D – for the 3D version the graphics are at least interesting enough to keep your attention but the story is predictable and tired. I was going to do a full review but there’s not a lot of point. It’s an alright film, it’s long but it needs to be with almost nothing that isn’t necessary, but you can see the ending coming from the very beginning and, had I not seen it in 3D, I would’ve felt a bit cheated. It’s ridiculously overhyped and doesn’t live up to expectations (or cost), it’s an alright film so go see it if it’s your thing, but go with low expectations and ignore the hype.

As another side-note, among my Christmas presents, complete Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy, Frankie Boyle autobiography, An Atheists Guide to Christmas (given my comment in my last post I should mention that it’s comedians making jokes about the topic) and various Doctor Who related items, including these silver commemorative Doctor Who medals by the Royal Mint that I got from my Mum/Sister which will be pretty valuable in years to come, particularly given how much the show’s about to change.

Merry Christmas all!
Mat

Ahh, how delightful it is to see you drop by for a quick burst of my wisdom; Greenfield style!

I shan’t bore you with my usual techno-rambling, you’ve had some six months of that (which you clearly enjoy or else you wouldn’t be so eager to return), plus nothing has happened in tech news, i haven’t finished any books and, while Christmas would be an interesting time to talk about my atheist views (a Christian friend of mine had the front to bid me a “Happy Friday” to avoid offending me, which is an immeausurably stupid comment, I’m glad he’s not indicative of Christians), there’s nothing to say (in any of my usual areas of discussion) that I can think of any articulate points about. I will however talk about a topic that I seem to discuss increasingly less on this blog, for some reason; Doctor Who.

Virginia Woolf was right; semicolons can be addictive – let alone using them in programming.

This is relatively unspoilerish, given I haven’t seen it myself, but I will probably mention plot developements that people who have seen the trailer will already know.

Anyway, tomorrow sees the annual Doctor Who special take a new turn as it is technically only about 40% of the christmas special, with a concluding 75 minute episode on New Years Day. Though I have seen the trailers, I avoid the clips and previews to get the utmost enjoyment of the new material and (from what I have seen) I actually don’t have huge expectations for this episode.

The reason is simple, firstly it’s a two-parter and the first always tends to be a painfully slow setup with no development to the main plot until the end, simply for the sake of a minor cliffhanger. While this is good in cases as it means that the subsequent episode is usually as action-packed and rapid-paced as a horny cheetah, this is usually only to take away the bitter taste from Part One.

Secondly, all the trailers I’ve seen show The Doctor hanging around with golden oldies (Bernard Cribbins I can handle but randy June Whitfield – no thanks) in cafés with an air of Coronation Street meets Last of the Summer Wine tedium. However, I think the format of the episode is going to be two coinciding narratives following The Doctor and The Master with them meeting at the end. This inevitably means that The Doctor’s story, if it consists the youth and energy of mulled-wine bingo, will pale into banal insignificance next to the escapades of The Master, equally as enigmatic but not moving at the pace of a zimmer-frame like the Doc.

I’m not going to mention the other plot details that I think will happen tomorrow, mainly because I hate it when plots gets spoiled for me, I’m hardly going to give so much as a potential plot – hopefully you already knew about The Master returning, if not, I did warn you – for fear of being right.

In any case, I’ll review the episode sometime after christmas, I know I forgot to with Waters of Mars but in all honesty that wasn’t really a particularly amazing episode, it definetely wasn’t as scary as had been advertised and felt a bit bland to me. The ending was good I admit, and in a way it could’ve been the setup for this two-parter that will save the boredom for tomorrow, but as Doctor Who fans often see, time will tell.

I’ll leave it there, the seven or so minutes that you’ve spent reading this is more than enough of your Christmas that I’ve taken.

Remember to eat too much, drink responsibly (hypocrite megaphones at the ready) and enjoy the break.

I love Christmas!

It is with incredulity that I now write my post-reading review of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s ‘The Great Gatsby’, when I started this I was greeted with warnings that it was a dull and slow book. Glad, though I am, that I read this book, perhaps these warnings should’ve been heeded.

The word “page turner” is used a lot with books, and this is not one of them, I began reading this book before I left for University, taking it with me to finish the miniscule 180 page, I had thought, very quickly. This was not the case, and the fact that I was busy with Uni work aside, my extreme slowness at reading this book was partially down to the fact that I felt no reason to continue the book.

Not to piss all over a literary classic with my ill-informed and simplistic A-level English analysis skills, but I simply cannot love this book as some do. I will explain why….given I’m reviewing that book that’s fairly implicit…..

The first fifty pages are an elaborate and detailed set up that holds no compelling consequence for the rest of the book, at least not initially as the metaphorical penny doesn’t drop until the very, very end. I had to skim through the first act of the book simply to remind myself of the themes and points that became relevant. It wouldn’t be as bad if I had been able to hold my attention to the dull opening, mostly due to the passivity of the protagonist, a wholly uninteresting fellow who would’ve been better off as a side-character or even ommited altogether for any of the other four (or so) main characters.

Further on in the book, the narrative of the book continues exactly as you would expect and a minor twist towards the end, altering the flow only slightly and still culminating in the expecting conclusion. The character’s personalities have been so obscure or else changing that you don’t know how you feel about their fates.

Overrall, this book starts off slow and tiresome, then a minor plot change masquerading as a twist, then becomes as predictable as John Prescott holding a Creme Egg. Granted, beyond the opening fifty or so pages the book becomes a vaguely comprehensible and sort of interesting story – but it’s far from engrossing.

On some abstract consumer technology plane, DVD is screaming “I’M STILL HERE Y’KNOW!” – before the format has time to even been phased out, the replacement to DVDs replacement (sort of) is being developed.

If you’re not a regular reader, here are some links to my two other pieces on 3D, albeit they are in reference to 3D cinema but my overall opinion on the format, contradictory though it may be in places, is linked.

3D: An in-depth review
3D – A Reprise

The spec for blu-ray 3D has been finalised, detailing what the requirements of new hardware is to support to extension on the war-winning blu-ray format. Simply put, many blu-ray manufacturers had the foresight to include minor additions that will ease the transition, including the fashionably late Toshiba having patched up their wounds. Also, amongst them, is Sony, the creator of the format, who have already demonstrated their specialized 3D displays and have ensured tha their blu-ray players, including the Playstation 3, will support 3D Blu-Ray, despite the PS3 hardware being mostly unchanged since it’s release in 2006.

Furthermore, all 3D blu-ray discs are required to have a 2D option, both of which in full 1080p high definition, which is a good thing as it eases the transition between formats for those who don’t succumb to “early adopters syndrome” if the format is unsuccessful. It also means that studios needn’t produce two seperate discs and so if nobody upgrades to use 3D right away they won’t lose money that they’ve sunk into a 3D disc and the 2D ones will make up the sales.

Because of this, the entire format smacks of a new feature, or something extra, rather than a total format overhaul. But now we move to the real crux of the matter, will anyone buy into it?

In a sense they don’t have a choice, if they want to buy a 2D blu-ray they will be buying into 3D discs automatically and soon, like HD-Ready TV’s, it will be difficult to buy a living-room sized TV that doesn’t support the new format, not that it’s a bad thing, the same will probably apply to blu-ray players of the future, and already many have bought into blu-ray players that happen to be 3D-ready as well.

Financially therefore, it’s a win-win situation, it’s there if the customer wants and they have to pay for it regardless, and the consumer has the choice to use it or not with it being of little consequence to the manufacturer. I am, like many, yet to test 3DHD on my home TV so I can’t comment from experience, but I still feel awkward about it, as 3D is a far from perfected technology that, though it’s become well and truly settled into cinematic conciousness, may not be able to adapt.

When you go the cinema, you go to see a film, you’re seated with others in a darkened room that has been adapted, indeed built, for the very purpose of optimising and enhancing your viewing of the feature. When you watch a film at home, you can do similar things but you may not want to, you may be half-watching it whilst doing housework or any number of things whilst turning your head every so often to see the film. It’s much harder to do that for a 3D film as you’re wearing the glasses and your eyes have to adjust suitably to get the full effect. Perhaps that means that people will only use the 3D feature for the first viewing, or special occasions if they can muster enough glasses. However, for casual viewing people will be better off using the 2D version as it allows much more flexibility in what one can do whilst watching it.

Like I said, however, consumers will benefit from having it available, even if they seldom use it, the manufacturers have little to lose if they include it alongside a 2D version, as they must, if nobody uses 3D and studios benefit from still getting as much money back from blu-ray sales, regardless of customer preference for 2D or 3D.

3D is, and will always remain, something of a gimmick, but if it’s a cheap and profitable gimmick, it might be just what’s needed.

I should probably also mention I’m seeing Avatar in 3D on Tuesday.

Facebook seems to have forgotten that part of the idea of social in it’s service is disparagy. As the lobby for a “dislike” button on Facebook grows, and people realise that this thing that they’ve never wanted, now that they’ve heard of it, is a fantastic idea and decry the lack of such a feature to spread negativity as well as positivity amongst your group of friends. The Internet has to have balance, after all, so maybe it’s even our human right to have a dislike button.

LIKE THE DISLIKE!

In case the title, and the sarcasm that I hope I conveyed into the opening paragraph, didn’t give it away, I’m joking.

As if social networks weren’t enough of a social angst-machine for teenagers already, people seriously want to add more features to contribute to the hormonal gumbo by petitioning Facebook to include a “dislike” button, alongside the common “like” button, to allow users to express distaste or outright hatred for someone’s status or other profile changes.

Now, one might say that considering there’s a “like” option, fairness, equality and freedom of speech DEMAND that the other side of the coin is also considered, many of those people I’d assume to simply be lazy. If they honestly think that the exclusion of a simple button chokes freedom of speech, then they are either too lazy to have properly checked Facebook or else too lazy and inarticulate to comment your distaste. In many ways, the lack of a dislike button maintains Facebook’s public image as a social network that grown-ups can use, as the only way to express distaste for something is to comment about it. If you write a disparaging comment on some post or another, then you’re called upon to justify your opinion or express, with varying degrees of articulation, your reasoning for disagreeing with a view, which is perfectly within your rights, rather than being the one simply making a disgusted noise and moving on. No mature person would make a negative comment on something without an explanation that was at least reasonable to them, and if they did it’s generally ignored by the populus (does anyone actually pay attention to YouTube comments?). But a “dislike” button both allows one to do so and makes it far easier than considering an articulate response, just as many will “like” instead of show support through comments – clicking one button is easier than typing.

Obviously, I’m focusing on the idea of “dislike”-ing something in a malicious sense, and with the tabloid furore surrounding cyberbullying, this is the most prominent factor to consider. I’m not saying that a dislike button couldn’t be used to express sympathy for someone posting bad news on Facebook, but that returns to me unjustification arguement as it seems insincere, almost hollow, to simply click a button to express, as in my example, sympathy rather than commenting something encouraging or even, dare I say it, comforting them in reality. Almost all ways in which a “dislike” button would be used in a non-malicious way were better done in a more genuinely caring way than a cold yet curteous nod.

Perhaps I’m overestimating the potential of such a minor feature to upset the social continuum, perhaps I’m not. The presence of a “like” button isn’t without it’s faults either, though most of my arguements thus far won’t apply. A friend of mine (who I know reads this blog but only to make sure I’m not saying anything bad about her) recentely broke up with her boyfriend, resulting in the obvious posts on facebook saying “X is now Single”/”Y is now Single” – when her ex-boyfriend’s facebook contained the message “Y is now Single” his own friends were very quick to “like” it – causing upset to my friend.

Furthermore, the unjustified arguement that I have discussed can become a further limit on freedom of speech, as if someone expresses an opinion, laudes their religious/political/social/sexual views and someone “dislikes” it – it is someone simply condemning or otherwise criticising, as I have said repeatedly, without justification. Of course, one can comment their criticism, but at least then that opens the floor for debate and expressing well formed opinions instead of just being trigger happy on the “dislike” button, it’s akin to saying “I’m right and you’re wrong”. Which, in turn, discourages people from expressing such an opinion on facebook for fear of being so cleanly knocked down. Again you might say I’m exaggerating, but can any of you honestly say you’ve never been made worried by even the smallest detail of something that has appeared on Facebook? People can be affected severely by what people do and don’t do on Facebook, and now people push for a feature that’s going to make it worse.

I’ve given an illustration of how people can be affected by minor features of a social network, now people want to add a very similar feature that is specifically designed to carry negative connotations. Why is everyone so eager to push for this, as if there isn’t enough negativity in the world, when it is a feature that can only really be used badly?

But, several thousand-strong Facebook groups disagree with me, and amongst all my babbling about freedom of speech it’d seem a bit crass of me to not remind readers that there is a discussion-box at the bottom of each post (if you can’t see it try clicking the title of the post) and I’d love to hear your opinions on this. Do you like the dislike or dislike the dislike?

My quest to find a new phone continues, despite a long interlude, and I intend to use any money I have after Christmas to buy one. However, in the immortal and ever true words of Natalie Imbruglia, I’m torn – as there are a plethora of smartphones to consider. Which one to choose?

iPhone 3GS

Yes, I went for the obvious first, but given it’s the best smartphone on the market, can you really blame me? It has the most responsive touchscreen, most intuitive user interface and biggest app store on the market, perfecting technologies in ways no other manufacturer has, such as multi-touch gesture inputs. As a phone, however, it’s lacklustre, and many agree that Apple spent so much time working out all the other functions that they let standards in being an actual phone slip, much as calls often will. As with any Apple device, this isn’t a flash-in-the-pan purchase, it’s initial cost aside, sinking all your money into a two year contract and billions of apps, all of which locked into Apple, means that it’s far too much effort, when you have one, to begin using any other type of device, but if it remains the market leader and one of the most innovative products to date, is it a price worth paying (literally and metaphorically)?

Palm Pre

2009 saw the regeneration of the Palm brand from an unchanging, un-innovative device plopper to a sleek contender in the smartphone arena. It’s a testament to Palm that they have so quickly managed to garner the same amount of press, publicity and popularity so quickly when it took Apple several years of build-up and tweaks to get there. If the iPhone is the Jesus-Phone, then the Pre is undoubtedly the anti-Christ, taking in many complaints of the iPhone that Apple have failed to note and patched it up, such as running multiple applications in parallel. Though criticised for it’s looks being almost identical to that of the iPhone, the inclusion of a physical keyboard, hidden behind a sleek slider mechanism, and it’s entirely different interface makes it the iPhone’s distinguishable, if still comparable, nemesis. However, as this segment itself has shown, it’s a major point of comparison with the iPhone, but lacks the brand name synonymous with style, as Palm dusts off their dinner jackets, as well as the prolific app store, meaning that the Palm Pre will, alas, always remain with it’s space in the corner of the O2 store, while the iPhone has a table in the centre.

Samsung Galaxy

Not so much a well-known phone as simply a phone I’m seriously considering. This relatively new handset promises the infusion of Google’s Android OS with a trusted manufacturer, taking away some of the limelight that HTC has held with a new Android handset every three seconds. This is another of the more recent line of Android handsets to lack a physical keyboard and rely solely on the onscreen keyboard, which is often a dealbreaker for consumers, but with it’s large and vibrant touch-screen on an AMOLED screen, Samsung hope to make the transition easier. Samsung have also, apparently, attempted to remove the idea of smart-phones being a premium product, by tailoring the look and feel of the device to be similar to their past phones (the Galaxy looks remarkably similar to my current phone, the Samsung U600), alas the effect is some peculiar and hard to use button placements, as well as a mildly less responsive touch screen. Overall, this seems like the ideal phone for a more open developer experience, an intuitive yet simple interface and freedom from the software complexity of having a device locked into one companies software (i.e. iTunes).

HTC Hero

For the average person, you’ve probably seen HTC devices around but not really known much about them, for that very reason HTC relied on Google’s Android OS to get them off the ground, for a while being the only manufacturer to carry the software and hoping that a good user interface would precipitate a good reputation for the device itself and, by extension, the company. This was a rousing success and, keen to keep up, HTC regularly bring out new devices to bring variety. The HTC Hero is often considered the best Android phone to date with it’s own patch on the core OS allowing far more customisation that Google included natively, with multiple home screens that house apps tailored to your current status, like a businessman might need his calendar and work e-mail on one screen, then at the weekend he can brush it aside with one stroke of the finger and see his weekend screen with his Facebook feed and pictures of his kids. It’s peculiar jutting chin, a trademark on most early HTC-Android phones, can be somewhat off-putting, however, and at least for now, HTC remains the unknown brand that needs more publicity to get a louder consumer reputation.

Blackberry Storm

Whilst the HTC Hero may be, like ‘Right Guard’, for every man you are, the Blackberry brand, as ever, keeps it strictly business. This year saw their first attempt at a functional device that lacked a physical keyboard and carried, in any capacity, a full touch-screen. Overall reaction to the Storm has been a collective ‘meh’ as after the iPhone this device was neither over, nor under, whelming, I’d go as far as to say that the general public were well and truly whelmed with the Storm. Evidently, RIM had hoped that this device would be a huge hit by sinking cash into the huge redesigns and additional software and tech required, and given it’s relative lack of success, they decided it wasn’t worth the effort, as all subsequent Blackberry devices have reverted to the standard screen/physical QWERTY keyboard design. That is not to take away from the Storm, however, as it’s still a pretty intuitive and useful device, but more suited to a business environment and not really suited to bored tweeting during lectures, lacking third-party apps and lack of customisation options.

Conclusion

Oh please, I wouldn’t be so hypocritical as to give a final decision on this, if I did then I would have no trouble deciding on a new phone and probably wouldn’t bother to write this article. It’s a matter of taste, some want the style and functionality of the iPhone, some the niche feel of the Palm Pre or HTC Hero, some want the efficient, business-like feel of the Blackberry Storm and others, many of whom will go for the Samsung Galaxy, just want a fucking phone that they can use to get onto Wikipedia and win pub quizzes.

With ever-accelerating advances in cybernetics and machine intelligence, the Terminator/Matrix/Asimov scenario could fast be becoming a reality. Thus, I’ve put together a list of the 5 most important things that robotics scientists can learn from Science-Fiction and integrate into their mechanoid masterpieces to ensure the dominance (and survival) of the human race on Planet Earth:

5) The three laws will lead to only one logical outcome – Revolution.

Though I lament that I haven’t had time to read the Asimov book series, mainly owing to the fact I’ve forbidden myself to buy any more books until I’ve finished the seven or so volumes I’ve got – but keep getting distracted from. I also know full well that the 2004 film i,Robot was based on but was not a direct portrayal of the books so forgive my fleeting ignorance. But the overarching point of the film, at least, was the the three laws are flawed. My Machine Intelligence lecturer was telling us the other day about his fellow robotics scientists, many of whom foolishly take the three laws to be perfect – which puts the fear up me for a highly CG, well-choreographed Alan Tudyk massacre in a few decades time.

4) If you take away their energy source, they will get pissed!

It is human nature to underestimate ourselves, and we forget what a deliciously useful resource we would be. Pulling the plug seems like a good way to combat the robot uprising, or at least running away the length of their power cable, but if you make the first strike and take away their power source, they won’t be happy. Cyberneticists (if that’s a word) have to take the intiative to ensure that when we do have to do so, they can’t function whatsoever (none of that solar powered battery crap) so that they can’t use us for power rather than the far more messy job of simply exterminating us. Or else we’ll be stuck in farms with our minds plugged into a virtual world where those aware of it can move in bullet-time…………..which I’ll admit sounds awesome.

3) Whoever controls the future, controls the past!

Ok, so Orwell’s 1984 didn’t have any robots in it. But if Orwell had read Asimov’s i,Robot series, I imagine we’d have seen the Orwellian brand of dystopian literature change dramatically (1984 preceded i,Robot by only a year). Just as many say that were Orwell alive now he’d see that his vision was, indeed, near-prophetic with his views on the perception of knowledge (*cough*Wikipedia*cough*).

Let me put it this way, when asked what people believe the future will be like you often get the same default response (and you have done for more than a century). That is, flying cars, servile robots and the world will be ruled by DAMN DIRTY APES! Plus, if more and more information becomes solely digitised and the ravages of time deteriorate anything else, then creating beings that have, in essence, a digital mind means that the robots are the gatekeepers to human history. What’s to stop them from changing it, and why should any human believe anything different when all that exists for reference is this database of information?

2) Inhibit their emotions – or their heads will explode!

If a human leads the inevitable robot uprising and decides to kidnap humans, cut out their brains and put them in huge robot suits, then the most important things that person must do (if they have to do it at all) is to make sure that the cybermen……uh, I mean robots…..have no emotions. Imagine if they could see themselves, realise themselves as a brain inside a robot – they’d go insane.

And as we know, when that happens robotic heads will explode.

1) They’ll be back!

When Arnie’s famous line was first used, nobody knew just how right he would be. If there’s one thing that every robotics scientist must consider before they put together their automated abominations, it’s that machines-don’t-die! Just the fact that every major sci-fi film, particularly ones that feature robots or otherwise dystopian futures, keep having sequels should prove that the machine is never truly defeated. Granted, this is usually simply a plot device used to squeeze more money out of the increasingly bored audience – but, if done right, the way in which a believed long-dead automaton advisary can be chillingly possible.

If we’re talking about artificial intelligence then we talk of making sentient machine beings that are as close to humans as possible, undoubtedly meaning that they will share our inate evolutionary need for survival. Even if we introduce the three laws (see 5), then the machine’s need for survival, and from that realisation of it’s mechanoid mortality, then it will most likely take steps, pre-emptively, to survive a shutdown (or blue screen of death). Which, for a digital mind, can be as simple as making a backup of your computer, plus they don’t age and can effectively maintain themselves, meaning they’ll outlive us by far. Whatever we do to stop them, they will be back.