Since we’ve abandoned most of the advice in the Bible in favour of more tangible and evidence based beliefs, such as treating leprosy medically rather than the NHS subsidising the blood-sacrifice of birds, you’d think that having religious leaders directly involved in deciding policy would be superfluous. Not a bit of it. In fact, amongst the elected MPs in the House of Lords speaking for us lowly mortals, there’s also reserved seats for 26 Bishops who speak for God, and we know that they do because they told us they do. That’s proof enough for me!

The ‘Lords Spiritual’ are there to “provide an important independent voice and spiritual insight to the work of the Upper House”, which sounds about as useful as a chocolate teapot. An invisible chocolate teapot, orbiting Neptune.

The British Humanist Association has launched a campaign to remove the right of Anglican Bishops to sit alongside elected representatives in the House of Lords, arguing that such authority should not be granted to any special interest group and, in fairness, they’re correct.

Rowan Williams, the outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury with the face of an unholy union between Terry Pratchett and a blow-dried Furby, has defended the presence of the Lords Spiritual on the basis that it’s traditional for them to be there and they provide a unique ethical and spiritual insight. I’ve already described how much tangible utility there is in “ethical and spiritual insight”. Tradition is just a hollow, last-resort plea for submission, playing manipulatively on sentiment and nostalgia; the same emotion that stops you from admonishing the racist comments of an elderly relative. Tradition only persists by virtue of being tradition, the undeserved weight the word is given on fallacious assumption that the past should dictate the future.

Williams also claimed that the Bishops represented the views of the 70% of the British population who identify as Christian. Ignoring the fact that only a fraction of the population identify as Church of England, an Ipsom Mori poll published earlier this year showed that not only do the majority opinions in the country differ considerably from current Anglican teachings, but also 74% don’t think that religion should have any influence on public policy to begin with. William’s claim that the Lords Spiritual represent majority opinion is a bollocks-out lie and, even if it weren’t, most people don’t think that religion should have a look-in anyway.

Basically, the counter-argument consists of feckless whines and breaches of the ninth commandment.

Surprising as this may sound, I don’t want to remove the Lords Spiritual out of the House. In fact, I think we should extend the criteria to be amongst the Lords Spiritual to have a representative of every religion, and of every denomination within that, and every opposing school of thought within that. You could even have an atheist representative, all you’d need is a cassette of a weary sigh playing on loop taped to a broomstick.

What’s more, they should only have one vote between them all, so have to reach a concensus amongst their mutually exclusive faiths, values and opinions. Their discussion period should be limited to the time it takes to dissolve a Fruit Pastille in acid, and they must engage in a merciless knife-fight for the right to speak, provided they can perform a sufficiently impressive yo-yo trick, judged by David Blunkett.

Religion is too often given a free pass, this way they can earn their keep through sheer entertainment value.

Because the Universe and I have a mutually passive-aggressive relationship, along comes plans to filter the internet to block anything untoward from the innocent eyes of children. Though the original parliamentary inquest suggested tasking ISPs with providing optional filters, the plans being considered will block risque content by default and you must “opt-in” to be able to see it. So you’re “opting-in” to opt-out of a filter, a system that couldn’t be more arse-backwards if it’d just had surgery performed by Dr. Nick.

Claire Perry, the Tory MP who is leading the campaign, told BBC Radio 4, “The time is coming when the internet should not be treated any differently to any other form of media.” Politicians not understanding technology is nothing new, but you’ve got to worry when the people given the job of legislating for it fail to grasp the basic differences between television and the internet.

The internet is not a media, it’s a resource. Television has a finite capacity in what it can show, which has to be scrupulously selected for mass-consumption, whereas the Internet is (theoretically) infinite in both content and means of conveyance. Television content has been excruciatingly produced, packaged and edited for mass-appeal and broadcast in real-time. Content on the Internet is deposited, in whatever form, to be accessed when and if someone chooses. Whereas there is a watershed on TV, the internet is self-organised into specific search terms and URLs that transparently declare themselves unsuitable for minors.

Sure, it’s possible to inadvertently stumble upon porn with something as innocent as an unfortunately worded search term or an imprudent spam blocker. So encouraging ISPs to develop and provide sophisticated content blockers for parents to activate is laudable. Insisting that the rest of us be subject to the same filter is downright patronising, setting a precedent that the government should be able to censor something it dislikes and denying us the freedom to choose for ourselves.

Of course, the protection of children isn’t the only reason to curb what we’re allowed to see; the government also wants to protect us from ourselves. Back in August during the London Riots, Conservative MP Louise Mensch, a woman who looks and acts like a cross between Seven of Nine and Gargamel, censured Twitter (on Twitter) suggesting that social networks be required to shut down during a national crisis. Ostensibly, this is to prevent people creating false alarms for the Police and stop us weak-willed proles from hearing about and participating in acts of civil disobedience; after all, monkey tweet, monkey do. It’s not like 24-hour rolling news coverage and liveblogs ever indulges in rumour-mill sourced padding or anything.

Diversionary tactics to try and take control of the internet have tried and failed many times, and I have no doubt that this latest one will be chucked out quickly enough. Let parents regulate what their offspring see online, and give them all the help they need (emphasis on the word ‘need’). But let the rest of us see whatever depraved content we want and leave us out of it. I hate kids, I shouldn’t be expected to help parent them.

Such is the ambition of Planetary Resources, who want to try ensnaring passing asteroids and mine them for natural resources like water and metals in a bid to “expand Earth’s natural resource base”, going up against the government’s current low-cost but somewhat less effective strategy of doing sod all. It’s attracted the financial backing of various bigwigs including film director James Cameron, a man who’s directed so many space-faring disaster movies involving aliens they might as well call the first manned ship the ‘SS Human Sacrifice’. Not surprisingly, the concept has attracted pessimists sneering at the prohibitive technical and cost barriers of this venture; some have called them overly-cynical, but I don’t think they’re being cynical enough.

The biggest problem that Planetary Resources faces is not the technical difficulty or the cost, at least those can potentially be overcome. Their biggest challenge will be in trying to get any, let alone every, country on the planet to stop thinking about their own financial, political and military interests long enough to see the bigger picture.

Getting together representatives from all four corners to realise this strategy would quickly become the most awkward dinner party in the Universe, and Planetary Resources wants to do the catering! I can’t imagine the already strained atmosphere will be made any more tranquil when the guests are told that dinner will only be served once they can learn to co-operate; and, if they can’t, they’ll never eat again. Social convention must necessarily be broken by bringing the topic of conversation to politics. It’ll start out amicable but, as the wine flows, one misjudged comment and next thing you know you’re tentatively briefing your defence secretary in case your tipsy faux pas pissed off anyone powerful, we’ve all been there. It’d be incredible if anyone came out of it with the same number of limbs, let alone a cohesive plan to save the planet. Even Dave Lamb wouldn’t be able to diffuse it.

Hell, it’d be a Herculean feat in itself to get the theocracies and otherwise religiously devout nations to admit there’s a problem, given they all have something in scripture that amounts to their deities saying “Don’t worry, I’ve got this” which usually forms the basis of climate change denial. Since Jesus didn’t have enough foresight to use his magic duplication powers on anything a little more scarce than pastry and cod, it looks like we’re on our own.

Maybe the answer is in the evening’s entertainment. Turn it into a game and use the self-importance of each country against itself. It would’ve taken the Americans far longer to get to the Moon if their hubris hadn’t made them so keen to beat the USSR up there. The only thing at stake then was being the first to jab an oversized cocktail stick into a barren lump of rock that is so keen for attention it circles us like a fly. Surely the detection, capture and harvesting the gooey innards of meteorically-passing asteroids en masse represents a huge ego boost in the international dick-swinging contest.

This condescending, but effective, method of motivation will also reap untold financial gain, more than justifying the effort, but that poses a problem in itself. Whoever succeeds first will take control of the only new resource for a planet with rapidly dwindling supplies, and can quite literally hold the world to ransom like a cartoon supervillian. I can’t think of a single nation on the planet that I’d feel comfortable about having that much influence. Well, maybe Norway.

So how do we solve the myriad challenges that Planetary Resources will face? Beats me. I’m not here to propose solutions, I’m just here to piss in your cornflakes by finding fault. At the very least we should try and obtain the merchandise before we worry too much about who it belongs to. That way, even if we end up blowing each other to kingdom come over this, we’ll at least have helped lay out a good spread for whichever nation emerges victorious to dine on. Bon appétit, don’t have nightmares.

I’ve heard a great deal about sexuality conversion therapy, usually testimony from gay believers who struggled at first to reconcile their sexuality with their faith and so underwent these cruel psychological farces. It essentially amounts to telling the victim repeatedly that they’re evil and sinful and wrong (nothing new there for those with an ‘original sin’ fetish) and that it’s Satan trying to fuck with them and if they don’t shape up and smile and delude themselves that they like boobs then God will send them to hell to be tortured and burnt by sweaty, muscular demons…which actually sounds kinda hot.

Since, as we’ve discussed, sexual preference is mostly subconscious, this type of therapy can only succeed in breaking the will of a sufficiently devout believer down and make it malleable enough that when they come out of it they’re convinced that if they tell themselves and everyone else enough times that they’re straight, that those feelings will go away and God will like them again. All the while, the groups that run them can parade these token successes as evidence that conversion or, as they call it, “reparative” therapy is effective. If you don’t pull a Ted Haggard style relapse, then you can enjoy a lifetime of self-loathing whilst you marry someone of the opposite gender and raise kids you resent…y’know, Christian Family Values (TM).

So I’m pretty peeved about the Core Issues Trust running an ad campaign on London Buses promoting sexuality conversion therapy and waxing idiotic about “ex-gays”. First, because it’s another example of bigoted viewpoints being given a free pass against anti-discrimination laws purely on the basis that it’s endorsed by a religious group. Though I will defend free speech for everyone, anti-discrimination laws have a pretty decent handle on what the difference between free speech and hate speech is; but this has slipped through (say it with me kids) because it’s given religious privilege.

Secondly, because its scientifically inaccurate. Sexuality conversion therapy has no peer-reviewed research supporting its efficacy and what is often touted by its proponents as successes have a tendency to denounce it once the psychological conditioning it imposes is broken. Somehow, the Core Issues Trust have managed to plaster a government-approved ad campaign around the nation’s capital, in a year when tourists from many progressive nations will visit for the Olympics, that is heinously bigoted and lacks any degree of scientific backing or general accuracy. Way to represent, dipshits.

So why has this been approved? Simply because, unlike us heathens, religious groups are allowed to breach the ninth commandment in their advertising campaigns. Another free ride for religion that will cause irreparable damage to thousands of confused, young gay believers. Transport for London need to get their priorities straight.

UPDATE: Mayor for London, Boris Johnson, has stepped in to block the ads and expressed his anger that they had gotten this far. Evidently, TfL subcontracts advertising to an external firm who booked the adverts on buses, but since this would still have to go through ASA who had no objections, something is still amiss. Not a fan of Boris in general, but he can get the job done during election season.

Despite this, I never really encountered The Avengers. I vaguely recall the existence of Iron Man and Hulk cartoons, but was more into the X-Men and Spiderman animated series. My only recollection of Captain America was a cameo in the Spiderman cartoon (American exceptionalism evidently doesn’t play too well in the UK) but I don’t remember him in any other capacity, and I didn’t even know of the Marvel Thor’s existence until a few years ago. So I’m coming at this almost entirely blind.

Since my Star Trek Movies mass-review never saw the light of day and I’m too lazy to review each individual film, here’s a brief run-down of my thoughts on each of the films. I stress once again that I am not familiar with the comics, so if I credit or disdain anything done in the films that was taken from the source material, then the credit/criticism is simply for adapting it.

Iron Man

I’ll admit that I have a hard time liking Robert Downey, Jr. simply because he’s a one-character actor, and that character is Robert Downey, Jr. If Charlie Sheen hadn’t done it first, he’d be off playing a wise-cracking, cocky womaniser in a sitcom; instead he plays himself, exactly the same in every movie, under the guise of portraying different roles. That said, though I know little about Tony’s comic characterisation, the actor does fit the role of Stark very believably. The character we see at the start is beautifully set up to be affected as strongly as he is when the veil is dropped on what his company’s work actually leads to, but the hubris still exists to facilitate development in later films.

The story is well arranged, forgoing the usual structure of the hero gaining his powers, having a series of successes, culminating in an intense battle with a newly emerged antagonist. Instead, we see the eventual rise of Iron Monger mirror the development of Stark’s Iron Man. Stane’s motivations are clear and, once again, made believable by the way Stark is portrayed. Probably the most competently done film of the series.

The Incredible Hulk

It’s contentious status as an indirect sequel to 2003’s ‘Hulk’ and/or a prequel to The Avengers notwithstanding, it was nice to see a superhero film that didn’t have to spend half it’s running time explaining the origins. Nice, but at times confusing and there really should’ve been a clearer method of exposition than unintelligible flashbacks and a slurry of newspaper headlines passing by so rapidly that Usain Bolt couldn’t keep up. It was very hard to work out who knew about Bruce, who didn’t and what their opinion was; thus their motivations were hard to gauge. Regardless, it was very well paced with the opening scenes only taking up as much time as was needed with no awkward padding before the plot really kicked off. The ‘duality of man’ theme, present in all depictions of the Hulk, is subtly explored: weaved into the narrative rather than having clichéd oratories; and it’s resolution is neatly developed.

My biggest problem with the film is the inconsistency with which the chararacters were written. This extends both to continuity, at one point the Hulk is shown to withstand bullets but later his skin is penetrated by a tranquiliser dart with absolute impunity, and to characters. For example, General Ross, who spends almost the entire movie seeking to capture the Hulk, actively orders his men to assist the short-shorted green giant once a more pertinent threat looms. Granted, Abomination was danger enough for them to change target, but for Ross to order helping the Hulk, rather than trying to blow them both to phosphorescent chunks, was too big a turnaround to be believable.

Iron Man 2

The only chance they’ve had so far to give a character a full movie of development and it went almost entirely to waste. The notion that his arc reactor was for some reason suddenly killing him seemed more like a vehicle for slapstick sequences than any actual tension. In the previous movie, his creation of the Iron Man tech was a statement that he was prepared to shed his egotism and fight for the greater good. Now, the fact that Vanko is coming after him directly is the only thing driving the story and we get no continuation of the earlier themes. I know it’s a bit rich, since I’m not a filmmaker, to suggest better storylines, but here’s how I would’ve done it.

Amid ignored demands by the US army to hand over the Iron Man tech, the first encounter between Whiplash and an over-confident Iron Man does more harm than good (though Vanko is caught and his part in the film is largely unchanged), and Stark is left to ponder if he’s really any better than the military that he knows would abuse the Iron Man suit’s power. Much of the first act is devoted then to Stark’s exploration of this issue, employing several different tactics in his work as Iron Man with varying results, whilst maintaining the cocky front that is the only emotion Robert Downey, Jr. knows how to portray. The revelation that Tony’s father, Howard, was responsible for Vanko’s vendetta should’ve come later in the film, as it serves as a much more logical lead-in to the “sins of the father” themes that was briefly shoehorned into the movie, and gives Tony a renewed sense of responsibility to confront Vanko leading into the third act. Since Howard Stark played a largely sympathetic role in Captain America, he can be partially redeemed by the hidden message to Tony of the new element formula that, rather than saving Tony’s life, gives extra power to the Iron Man suit enough to defeat Whiplash and his drones. This also makes for more interesting references to Tony and Howard’s relationship, and how that affects the younger Stark now, than what we got.

Thor

Legendary Shakespearean actor Kenneth Branagh directing a superhero film seems like an unlikely choice, but both visually and in dialogue this is quite a nice fit. However, since this is a character from a world completely different and unrecognisable to the viewer, the writers have the unenviable task of explaining all these bizarre concepts and rules in what’s meant to be an action flick. As a result, someone unacquainted with the comics (like me) is left asking a lot of questions. For example, it’s an important plot point that the if the Bifröst Bridge remains open too long it’ll destroy the realm it’s connected to. Why’s that? Is that for a reason or a really big design flaw? What will happen to the realm it originated from? The nerdy jabs go on…

But at the same time, explaining all these concepts would’ve made the dialogue clunky, and simplifying it would’ve pissed off the core-audience: fanboys. Since the film’s plot can be followed even if they don’t explain everything, I’m partial to think that Branagh made the best of a tricky situation with the source material he had to go on. It’s a nicely done film, though the second act consists almost entirely of excruciatingly unfunny ’stranger in a foreign land’ comic relief sequences, as Thor adjusts to mortal life, that even Sacha Baron-Cohen would find forced.

Captain America: The First Avenger

Very good first half, but felt rushed towards the end. However, I can forgive it the lackluster third act by how well it handled the origin story of Captain America. I’m not particularly clued-up on Cap’s comic villains, but given how little screen time or dialogue the Red Skull gets, despite being the best-known antagonist for the good Captain, it probably would’ve done the character more justice to be introduced in the sequel. Whilst in comic book movies there’s always room to bring back the brilliant Hugo Weaving in the role, despite getting a red face-full of plot convenience to end the film and lead into The Avengers, his character will always be tarnished by his weak introduction. In fact, having established the protagonist thoroughly, I’m interested to see how Captain America will develop in later stories, particularly having been taken out of his native Guns-Guts-Glory era and shoved into the self-absorbed world of modernity. Seemingly to that same end, the trailer for The Avengers clearly establishes a clash between Stark and Rogers, which seems apt (though is probably lifted straight out of the comics) but I really hope this doesn’t become some weak-sauce attempt to create quippy trailer-dialogue and actually gets used as a plot device.

Conclusion

Having a cinematic universe of this nature is a double-edged sword. Whilst having confirmed sequels and crossovers frees up time to develop characters in later films and give the origin stories a fair enough shake to satiate the fanboys, it does let the plot down for first-generation films. The potential for later character development becomes highly anticipated, but the fact that these are intended as action films means that any opportunities for this are often vetoed by the studio in lieu of more explosions, fighting and stuff they can put in the trailer. This is probably what disappointed me so much about Iron Man 2. The Avengers crossover, being a union of many characters, will undoubtedly be too crowded a stage for each individual character to show much development; but as long as it sets up for each of the characters to grow in their individual sequels, I can live with that.

In our Nokia Lumia 800 review earlier in the term, we skipped going into too much detail on the Windows Phone 7 operating system it was playing host to, since that alone could fill a whole review. So that’s exactly what we’ve done.

Windows Phone 7 is a complete overhaul of the Windows Mobile software that Microsoft has been touting for the last decade or so. Having been thoroughly eclipsed in success by Apple’s iPhone, in a fraction of the time, Microsoft finally ended development of Windows Mobile in 2010 and released the inaugural version of Windows Phone 7 in October that same year. Since then, it’s undergone only minor tinkerings until the first major update: 7.5, codename ‘Mango’, was rolled out last September. This is the version you’ll find installed on all available WP7 handsets, if you can fight through the heaps of Android handsets and avoid tripping over the worshipping congregation surrounding the iPhone.

On the Tiles

The home screen is the first iteration of Microsoft’s soon-to-be ubiquitous ‘Live Tiles’ interface, which is set to make it’s second appearance in Windows 8’s tablet mode. Rather than simply a static array of icons, the tiles that link into apps and menus are fully colour customisable and can be configured to display pertinent information at a glance. Things like RSS feeds, news headlines and Facebook notifications can be set up to show in tiles, which is really useful if you find yourself checking the same sites constantly for updates. Unlike iOS, the home screen shows only apps that you want to be visible, and a full list of installed apps can be quickly accessed with a swipe. However, the tile bar is oddly off-centre in order to accommodate a single icon, which feels like wasted space, and it doesn’t display the signal indicator in the top bar unless the area is pressed. Nevertheless, such a feature-rich home screen gives the Live Tiles interface a very lively look that was really fun to use and behold.

Social Mosaic

Windows Phone 7 has been created with social networking in mind, and is capable of an unprecedented level of integration with these websites, effectively turning your phone into a all-purpose social hub. While this will be jarring for people who like to keep a clear distinction between social networking and real-life, it is a lot of fun to play with. When you link it to a Facebook account, your contacts are incorporated into your phone book, and it will allow you to unify old contacts with Facebook profiles. The ‘People’ tile then comes alive with an ever-changing mosaic of your friend’s profile pictures which was quite entertaining to watch. Looking at individual contacts will give you a full range of contact methods (from texting to poking), as well as run down of their most recent updates. This will also create a ‘Me’ tile, pasted with your profile picture, that allows you to access all your myriad accounts under one banner. From here, you can check notifications and push new updates to many accounts at once; and, as it updates in real-time, you won’t have to wait for new notifications to download and can check for them from the home screen’s Live Tile. Whilst I really enjoyed these features, the packed menus and plethora of options became a little overwhelming to look through and I did get lost. There are still superb dedicated apps for Facebook and Twitter, but the social features of WP7 are so quick and enjoyable that you won’t feel the need to use them.

Not ‘Appy

The relative infancy of the OS means that the range of available apps for WP7 is lacklustre. Whilst it has most of the biggest and popular apps, it lacks the same diverse developer base that the iOS and Android enjoy. Although you could argue that it trims the fat of the arguably bloated Android store and allows easier app discovery, this will nonetheless hurt sales. Whilst Microsoft have bundled in a great deal of useful native apps, it still lacks the quirkiness and creativity that its competitors have in spades. Sadly, this will create a viscious cycle: independent developers, that add this character, won’t code apps for a platform that still has a market share in single figures, whilst the barren app store will be a deal-breaker for a lot of potential users.

You cannot be Siri-ous.

Another nifty native feature on the OS is limited voice control. It’s not quite Siri, but it’ll dictate text messages, dial contacts and initiate searches (albeit using Bing) with reasonable accuracy and with no prior configuration needed.

Internet Explorer 9 Mobile

Web browsing is perfectly functional, once you get used to the disheartening feeling of seeing the Internet Explorer logo each time and being constrained to use it. In fairness, it does seem to lack most of the faults of its clunky computer-based cousin. There were no overly offensive mistakes in rendering web pages, though it certainly has a better time displaying mobile sites than normal ones. Whilst it’s perfectly fine for most purposes, I’d definitely like to see a few alternatives pop up in the app marketplace soon, just to drive up the competition.

Flash (Ahhh!)

The Mango update also imbued the browser with HTML5 support, but until that gains wider support on websites you’ll have to get used to not being able to view pages that lather on the Flash too heavily. To remedy this slightly, WP7 ostensibly comes with a YouTube “app”, which is actually just a direct link to its mobile site. Google have specifically designed their mobile site for YouTube to be flash-less so you can watch these with impunity, but otherwise you’re out of luck. However, this is not a WP7 issue but rather an issue with mobile web browsing on any device. Hopefully, either the uptake of HTML5 video players or the expedience of Adobe’s mobile flash support will put this issue to bed soon enough.

Zuneral

Microsoft bundles music functionality on the OS under a ‘Zune’ app, a fairly unremarkable music player that takes its name from Microsoft’s line of MP3 players. The ‘Zune Marketplace’ allows subscription-based music streaming, but with a recently released Spotify app available for WP7, boasting a wider music selection for a lower price, this is not likely to be a widely-used feature. Like most of the menu systems in WP7, the Zune player have so many menus and sub-menus that it’s very difficult to keep track of where you are or how to do key tasks. Managing media syncing from your computer requires installing Zune software on your computer, which was difficult to set up and will seldom be used. Unfortunately, Microsoft seems to be electing to roll out updates via the Zune software, so doing battle with it can’t be avoided.

Multitask Madness

Though Windows Phone 7 supports multi-tasking, the way you use it leaves a lot to be desired and it clearly hasn’t been properly thought through. With an app open, pressing the ‘Start’ button (the Windows logo on the front of the device) will take you back to your home screen, but the app is still open. Holding the ‘Back’ button shows you the apps currently running and allows you to zip between them, but you can’t close them from here. To do this, you need to go into the app itself and can reportedly close apps by double-pressing the ‘Back’ button rapidly (which we only found out by searching forums). However, most of time rather than closing the app we simply got thrown unceremoniously back through it’s multitude of menus. In the web browser, this simply meant going back two web pages, but the browser remained resolutely open; only when it ran out of web history did the app finally terminate. If you’re willing to do the legwork to find ‘how-to’ guides, you can master the multi-task madness, but that kind of speaks to how unintuitive it really is. Hopefully, this will be refined in later updates but it’s a pretty elementary feature that Microsoft really shouldn’t be getting wrong.

Best of both worlds

For updates, Windows Phone 7 strikes a neat middle-ground between it’s two rivals. Apple’s careful exclusivity of OS to hardware in the iPhone puts off those who want a wider choice in specs. Meanwhile, Google’s liberal distribution of Android to anything more powerful than an abacus gives a lot of choice, but means that software updates are not be compatible with large numbers of Android handsets. Microsoft impose “tough, but fair” minimum spec requirements on devices that they’ll license WP7 out to, which presumably any future updates to Mango will be tailored to. But with an OS that clearly needs further development, we would hope that this is the case.

Conclusion

Windows Phone 7 feels like an OS that has had a lot of time and energy put into it’s look, and doubtless this is what has fueled it’s promising start. The problem is that it largely feels like so much effort was put into the interface that it falls down in other areas, so we end up with labyrinthine menu systems that stand in stark contrast to the relative simplicity of iOS. Further, it’s lack of apps do it a great disservice and lend the OS a feeling of untapped potential. It’s a powerful OS that demands a powerful device, but it lacks any software or features that fully make use of it. With a hostile app environment to break in to, it may be too-little-too-late for Microsoft’s renewed foray into the smartphone market, but they might yet surprise us.

Microsoft and Nokia have less than stellar track-records in this arena. Microsoft’s ‘Windows Mobile’ platform was already pretty antiquated when Apple’s iPhone first came out, and failed to capture the imagination on the fledgling smartphone users with its clunky, productivity-oriented design. Its rebranded ‘Windows Phone 7’ has taken the last few years to mature. Meanwhile, Nokia’s staunch refusal to budge from imbuing their blowers with their own software until as late as 2011 very nearly signalled the death knell for them. Can the union of two former titans, incarnate as the Nokia Lumia 800, succeed where neither could alone?

The first thing you’ll notice is that the Lumia 800 looks almost identical to HTC’s crop of Windows Phone 7 handsets. That’s because Microsoft only licenses out WP7 for devices that meet certain hardware requirements, such as three touch-sensitive buttons on the front. Uniquely, though, the Lumia’s gorilla-glass screen is embedded in an injection-moulded polycarbonate body; though this deprives the phone the slenderness we’ve come to expect from smartphones, it does make it feel much more durable and stalwart. Our review model is a neatly understated black, but in true Nokia style it also comes in a range of gaudy fascia colours, such as sky cyan and tepid pink.

On top you get the microSIM slot, 3.5mm headphone jack and a rather flimsy cover for the USB port. The right edge houses volume rocker and buttons for power and the camera, whilst the bottom seats the microphone. Around the back, you get a pretty decent Carl Zeiss camera and flash, though it lacks a front-facing camera. The screen is a gorgeous 3.7-inch AMOLED display with a 252 ppi resolution. The handset comes with a rubber case that, thankfully, doesn’t add much bulk to its already stocky form. Though since the Lumia itself looks like it could take a beating or six it’s probably not necessary. But still, having some padding between your phone and the ground never hurts.

The Lumia comes pre-loaded with the ‘Mango’ blend of Microsoft’s ‘Windows Phone 7’, which will be the standard install on every WP7 handset from hereon in. Since this is a review of the Nokia Lumia 800, whereas WP7 will be present on an increasing number of handsets in the coming months, we won’t go into too much detail about the OS here. Instead, we’ll be bringing you a full review of the Windows Phone 7 software itself later in the term. For now, we’ll just say that it’s refreshingly different and fully customisable homepage is a delight to behold, and made finding specific app tiles a breeze. Though the home screen has been sinfully underused (such as no signal indicator or quick-access to connectivity options) and the only browser option is the always dejecting sight of the Internet Explorer logo, it is otherwise a very well-designed and very usable interface. The app marketplace for WP7 is a tad lacking at the moment due to the relative infancy of the OS, but that looks set to change and the more popular apps are already there. For the Lumia’s part, the interface between hardware and OS has clearly been thoroughly tested and is seamless.

Nokia have always had a love of tacking their own software onto their handsets, far more than the users do, and haven’t let the Lumia 800 escape their tinkerings. ‘Nokia Drive’, ‘Nokia Maps’ and ‘Nokia Music’ are three pre-installed apps that distinguish this phone from its HTC cousins.

‘Nokia Music’ is a fairly unremarkable music hub, combining streaming with local files and a store that has to not only fight off music-monolith Spotify (available from the App Marketplace) but also Microsoft’s own Zune software that comes pre-installed too. Not great co-ordination there.

‘Nokia Maps’ is, oddly enough, a map. Once again, Nokia have bundled this very basic application into the WP7 software that itself already comes with a far more sophisticated and feature-rich map app.

‘Nokia Drive’, on the other hand, is a unique addition to the handset and provides free turn-by-turn Satellite Navigation. Feature-rich, detailed displays and utilising the GPS receiver rather than hog your data allowance with 3G, this is definitely a nifty add-on. Although, we did notice that ‘Nokia Drive’ ran down the battery pretty rapidly, so you may want to buy an in-car charger if you’re planning to use the Lumia for a lengthy voyage.

As mentioned, the Lumia 800 lacks a front-facing camera and this was a massive disappointment for us. With the WP7 Skype app just around the corner, Nokia could’ve used this chance to add one more killer feature to the device. The flap covering the USB port, which opens by a peculiar mechanism of applying pressure to the hinge, seems almost destined to snap off over the phone’s lifespan.

Battery life is contentious. Just after it hits the shelves it was subject to a storm of criticism over a bug that gave the phone a battery life of about eight seconds, but our review model managed a comfortable 36 hours of moderate use straight out of the box. When the update purported to fix the legendary battery glitch descended, the practically clockwork lifespan of the battery became a mercurial mess. At times it would struggle to eke out 8 hours but at others it would nearly reach its former glories. Having turned off a few pertinent battery-intensive features, we’ve managed to get an average life approaching 40 hours. It’s also worth noting that, due to the one-piece polycarbonate shell, the battery is not user-replaceable.

The Nokia Lumia 800 is a great leap forward for both Microsoft’s Windows Phone 7 software and Nokia’s modernisation of their smartphone offerings. It’s by no means perfect and that’s probably why the follow-up Lumia 900 has already been announced for imminent release; which will feature the front-facing camera lacking on its predecessor and more colour variety. If the 900 gets a UK release, then by all means hold out for that; but if you can’t wait then the 800 will serve you very well.

At the beginning of the term, we featured an article by Tom Hill about skepticism in science, pertaining to people clinging to debunked ideas for any number of ideological reasons and the importance of skepticism. Climate science is perhaps the biggest place where skepticism is misused, by people who apply the epithet to hide their dogmatism rather than base their views on the evidence. We’ve seen how scientists can do it and we’ve seen how religious and political groups can do it; but how does misleading information infiltrate the public consciousness?

A paper published in Nature at the start of February invoked the expected slurry of articles by the mainstream media covering it. The study looked at the changes in glacial ice from January 2003 to December 2010 in order to extrapolate future sea level rise and test the accuracy of previous predictions, as this was the first comprehensive satellite survey. The findings were that whilst the planet has experienced a devastating net loss of 532 billion tonnes of ice over that time, this is around 30% less than was predicted. In particular, the net loss was far less than predicted in the Himalayan glaciers where the previously predicted 50 tonnes was actually only 4. Since higher altitude glaciers are practically inaccessible, the predictions had to be extrapolated from the data at lower altitudes. Professor John Wahr, who lead the study, speculated that these earlier predictions may’ve incorrectly accounted for the lower temperatures at these altitudes, hence the disparity.

Though the anomalous Himalayan prediction was interesting, it is by no means the main point of the study. Surely, a loss of 532 billion tonnes of ice should be a shocking statistic to hear, should convert the self-proclaimed “skeptics” in the matter and rally a call to action amongst all the peoples of the world. In fact, none of this happened; as the mainstream media stressed the Himalayas point in order to subtly disparage the threat of climate change. It’s one thing for a journalist to misunderstand the data, but this was such a glaring omission that it could only have been borne of agenda.

The Daily Mail’s online equivalent, MailOnline’s blatant over-sensationalising of science creates an intellectual black hole so large it can be seen from space, a metaphor which they’d promptly report as a looming threat that will decimate the population. Their coverage of the Nature article blazed a trail with the headline: ‘New satellite data reveals that Himalayan glaciers are melting far more SLOWLY than predicted’ and spent it’s opening paragraphs repeatedly emphasising that the scientists were wrong. To their credit, unlike several other news outlets, they did eventually discuss the rest of the findings, though only once the attention span of the average climate change denier had long since expired.

Such transparently biased articles are usually the result of one of two factors. Either, in order to attract more page views, the MailOnline is purposely delivering a skewed headline and article that will draw in both the validation-seeking deniers and the astonished remainder. Alternatively, the writer of the article, and the editors of the MailOnline, have political or ideological reasons to ignore the reality of climate change, and so overlook and omit anything that doesn’t corroborate their preconceived ideas. It certainly makes for a quicker-written article if you don’t have to challenge your own opinions or do any proper research.

There is, however, a third option: the MailOnline is participating in the perpetual game of Chinese Whispers that permeates modern journalism. In a time when up-to-date information and content is in constant demand, and online news outlets live and die on the rapidity with which they get news to the audience, research is outsourced. One person misrepresenting the data (either by accident or by design) publicly enough will invariably result in the proliferation of that misinformation. When the window of opportunity is so limited, what inclination do journalists have to do their own analysis on a source when someone else already has? Though accuracy should be the highest priority, in such a competitive world it far too often takes a back-seat to speed.

Malicious intent and agenda make a far more interesting characterisation of these tabloids, but the simple truth may simply be laziness. In fact, by leading this article asserting that the MailOnline is carrying an agenda, aren’t I committing the same fallacy as them by sensationalising and speculating before looking at all the facts? And didn’t you agree with me?

Odds are good that this is simply a natural, if unwelcome, side-effect of the Information Age; by all means one we should fight to resist. I suppose it can only start with individuals, and I endeavour to fact-check every point I make, with the time afforded me by the fact that this is a print newspaper. I hope this mentality would carry over in an online news environment. I’d rather be the last person to get it right than the first person to get it wrong, but I’ll strive for both.

I have no interest in spiritual mediums. Does it help people? Yeah, I suppose some people benefit from this possibly cathartic experience, but I also suspect that just as many people become even more distressed by it. For my part, I can’t see how rousing my beloved dead relatives and force them to chat to this dowdy, Coronation Street reject is anything but malicious. But that’s just me.

Since Morgan knows full well that she is a fraud, that (we hope) isn’t her beef. She seems to take issue more with the anecdotal evidence in the article that she was being relayed information via microphone from an unseen stage-hand who had mingled amongst Morgan’s audience before the show and gathered pertinent information. This may or may not be true, it’s a Daily Mail article so obviously there’s little to no supporting evidence. This is not what intrigues me about Morgan, however. The validity of the Daily Mail’s earpiece claim is not relevant, as she’s demonstrated an affinity with threatening legal action against any and all legitimate criticism.

Though she’s claimed that Zenon’s article has damaged her reputation, there’s been no indication that people have stopped buying show tickets (according to her website, several of the venues have sold out) or that there’s been some sudden disenfranchisement amongst her fans. Because the people who like Sally Morgan do not waste money on seeing her because they see evidence of her abilities, it’s because they want solace. It’s easy to come off as patronising when presenting her victims as the vulnerable, recently bereaved. But if you were ever seeking such comfort and someone comes along to give you some semblance of emotional abatement, anyone would shoulder a strong confirmation bias for that person. Her victims don’t care a whit if she’s indisputably shown to be a fraud, they want to believe.

This is what fascinates me about Sally Morgan. She’s something new: a proactive charlatan. Not content merely to preach to the choir of her loyal audience and eke out a few million per year, she demands that anyone who calls her out on her abject falsehood be frivolously pestered and censored. Maybe she wants to stop any uncharacteristically discerning follower of hers stumbling onto any blasphemous articles that may shake their faith. Perhaps she honestly believes that she is able to talk to the dead, despite having to actively engage in fraud to try and appear genuine.

Regardless of her motivation, she’s now thrown the harsh spotlight of scrutiny on herself. The media coverage of the case (what little there is) will only do harm to her as the details of the Mail’s claims are re-iterated (which she’s seeking an injunction against) and her methods closely analysed and called out. Defending yourself against defamation is fair enough, but since she lost no grace with her fans then what can she gain?

I’m not talking about Dawkins’ embarrassing “Brights” movement (though that is part of it) in which the noted evolutionary biologist became a PR consultant and tried to re-brand non-belief to make it more palatable. As surveys have demonstrated, the word atheist does carry a certain stigma (at least in the US) but attempting to play word-games in order to avoid possible connotations is the sort of thing done only by the deceitful. Atheism, in particular, is about accepting the wrinkled front of reality. So attempting to smooth it with a new title is dishonest, self-defeating and stinks of the sort of underhanded sleight of tongue that theistic philosophers use. Worst still, skeptics referring to themselves en mas as “bright” is dripping with the sort of arrogance that will surely put people off and actively fortify the perception of atheists as ‘elitist’ that a 2006 survey by the University of Minnesota identified.

Since the term “bright” fails at it’s purpose, its existence is ultimately redundant since atheism already has a ensemble of names, monikers and epithets that (save some minor nuances) mean effectively the same thing. People may bicker over the effectiveness of it’s use but nobody disputes it’s core meaning. Where this is valid contention, however, is in the differences between atheism and agnosticism. Valid though I call it, worthwhile it most certainly is not.

Religious agnostics are, according to the dictionary definition, people who believe that the mysteries of the universe (specifically pertaining to God and the origin of the universe) to be unknown and indeed unknowable; far more subtle than simply “not sure”. I don’t feel it’s to big a leap to word it thus: that agnostics are people who do not believe in God. Read what I said carefully, I did not say that agnostics say that there is no God, but that since they are not theists then they do not have a belief in a God.

Now let’s look at atheists, people who “disbelieve in the existence” of God. Most intellectually honest atheists will openly grant that they cannot prove that a supreme being of some sort does not exist, and thus do not claim certainty in it’s absence. To say it one “knows” there is no God is an untenable position, since the non-existence of any particular thing is an unfalsifiable hypothesis (even in the face of no evidence to begin with). We can conclude then that atheists are people who do not believe in God.

The confusion comes inevitably from the perception by some as atheists people who claim certitude as to the non-existence of a God, and for a cocksure few this may be the case, but as we’ve discussed most atheists agree this is a flawed position to hold. In practical terms, therefore, atheism and agnosticism are as good as identical. The discussion is a valid one, but it quickly devolves into arguing over definitions and since we’re not a group or collective this makes very little difference. The debate is a semantics game which, as we’ve seen, seldom reflects reality.

Ironically, this is basically the atheist AND agnostic position.

Most atheists of this ilk will tell you that strictly speaking they are agnostic atheists. If ‘atheist’ is taken in literal terms to mean someone who believes that there is no God, then the ingenuous majority who see the baseless rigidity in such a claim agree that the position they have requires this qualifier of ‘agnostic’. The reason why most agnostic-atheists don’t refer to themselves as such normally is partially down to the verbosity of such an title. But mostly because (like atheism) agnosticism also carries a connotation, one of being unsure, and while it’s true that atheists are not certain that there’s no God, they recognise that the same could be said about an infinite number of potential deities. There might be a God, there might not be, there could be the great Elbow-Horned Grumblesnitch but one doesn’t have to refer to themselves as being agnostic to that. So the term atheist is, in it’s most commonly used form, a perfectly apt name.

People argue over this triviality far more than they should (and inevitably someone will take issue with how I’ve represented them here), my point is that this is ultimately an irrelevant detail. You can call yourself an agnostic, you can call yourself an atheist, you can call yourself a Elbow-Horned Grumblesnitch for all I care. The point is we have far bigger problems at the moment. Regardless of your specific opinions or what label you give to them, we all share a common goal. We all work for the promotion of free thought, scientific inquiry and rationality. We all agree that dogmatic devotion to religious practices is dangerous and above all believe that we should all be united by our shared humanity rather than segregated along sectarian lines. Why must we divide ourselves this way?

When politicians stop trying to instigate religious morality and dogma as law, when gay couples can be openly so without fear of religious persecution, when pseudoscience is not trying to infiltrate schools, when religion has been emaciated to a quirky relic of a bygone age. Only then can we have this conversation, not before.