Apple sucks

Apple is a strange kind of company. They have a reputation for being a consumer friendly company and, at times, they take actions which are very consumer friendly. But on the other hand, they also do stuff which looks seriously sketchy from a consumer point of view.

The latest case in point is their action against a young entrepreneur who had the idea to sell white iPhone 4 conversion kits prior to the launch of the white iPhone 4 (worth mentioning that I found this post via Techdirt - love that site!).

Reading through that article as well as the various articles it links to, it appears that some 17 year old kid in the US managed to build up a relationship with a supplier in China for white iPhone 4 repair parts from Foxconn, one of Apple's suppliers. This was before the white iPhone 4 actually launched and judging from the articles, it looks like a lot of people were really looking forward to buying a white iPhone 4. The kid realised that there was a market opportunity here (smart kid) so he sold those repair parts as a conversion kit so that people could convert their iPhone 4 into a white iPhone 4.

And for this, Apple is suing the kid for trademark infringement.

Apple - Really? You are going to sue a 17 year old kid for, what is effectively, the buying and selling of iPhone 4 parts?

What are you going to do next? Sue me if I ever sell my iPod nano?

Apple's decision is baffling on many levels and makes me suspect whether there is more to the story than initially meets the eye. With that said, I can't think of any likely scenario where what the kid did could be considered wrong (the only thing I can think of is if he tried to pretend he was an actual Apple representative but if this is the case, I'm pretty sure that the news would have covered it as well).

Update: hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Sony

You may recall that I am currently boycotting Sony. The main reason for this is that I felt that Sony are an extremely arrogant company which had led to them undertaking either a lot of anti-consumer activities or marketing with an attitude of "you should be privileged to own our product". And frankly, all of that added together just rubbed me the wrong way.

With that in mind, I have to admit that it was with a certain level of glee that I read about all the recent troubles that Sony has been having with hackers. Those news articles also strengthened my conviction to boycott both Ubisoft and Capcom for requiring players to be online to play their games (in short, PS3 owners couldn't play their Ubisoft and Capcom games as PSN was down).

But then, Sony went and did this.

For the first time that I can remember, Sony actually had a pretty good response. Basically, read the blog post from Shamus that I linked to as I can't believe how closely my views aligned with his with regard to Sony.

Could it be that Sony have learnt their lesson? Could it be that Sony are no longer the arrogant behemoth that I despised? Could it be that Sony would be leaving my boycott list?

Or then again, maybe not.

Little Zangief

The latest viral craze to sweep the interwebz is the story of Casey Heynes. In case you have no idea what I'm talking about, check out this article.

In brief, a boy, who has been bullied for many years, finally snaps and delivers onto his tormentor a piledriver into the concrete. The whole thing was caught on video (by his would be tormentors) and uploaded onto multiple video sites. I won't link to the video itself as some of the sites are actively taking down the video but if you do a search on google for Little Zangief, you should be able to find it quite easily.

As a result of the fight, Casey was suspended from school for 4 days while Richard Gale, the bully who got smashed into the ground, was suspended for 21 days (I believe the school upped the suspension after initially giving a 4 day suspension).

Now, I don't want to give the impression that violence is the right solution but really? If you watch the video, its obvious that Casey isn't looking for a fight. In fact, you can see that the bully gets in several punches before Casey finally snaps and hits back. From the evidence in the video, what kind of message are you sending out by suspending him for retaliating?

Bear in mind, the bully is continually punching him. This isn't a case of verbal abuse. This is a case of actual physical violence. Furthermore, the fact that this is being filmed pretty much tells you that the bullies had planned this in advance which means that they have probably done this before. In a situation like this, are we seriously expecting the kid to just stand there and act like a punching bag?

One last comment on Tina Gale, the mother of the bully. One of the myths around bullying is that bullies are caused by bad parenting. I'm calling it a myth on the basis that I don't know if this has been proved and not because I think its false. In this case, I can believe its true.

After seeing the video, she actually has the gall to demand that Casey apologise to her son (and did I mention that Richard Gale has apparently refused to apologise to Casey for punching him without provocation?) while claiming that she teaches her kids to walk away from fights. Teaching kids is about more than just what you say. They also learn from how you act. Its patently clear from watching her reaction to this that she has been teaching her kids all the wrong lessons.

The fact that she is trying to act like the victim is laughable.

Nike are dicks

Wow - two of my favourite ranty topics in one post!

This latest news out of Blighty not only shows that some UK laws are absurb, but that Nike are also dicks. In summary, a guy buys a pair of Nike shoes off the internet. It turns out that those shoes are counterfeit shoes and are seized at the border. Nike is notified of these counterfeit shoes and decides to sue the customer. The customer says that he wasn't aware that the shoes were counterfeit but this doesn't matter as the law says that the customers intention is not relevant.

First off, I'm operating on the good faith assumption that the buyer really didn't know the shoes were fake. With that said - wow, its like the UK is trying to kill off sales of physical goods over the internet!

Granted, this is hyperbole but this case is a pretty clear warning to anyone buying something over the internet in the UK that they need to be careful. Regardless of what you thought you were buying, if it turns out to be fake, you are liable. Particularly if you were thinking of buying Nike shoes because Nike have proven that they are willing to take you to court even if you thought the shoes that you were buying were real.

Secondly. Nike - what are you doing? On face value, this is someone who was willing to pay money for your shoes and was likely to have paid more money for your shoes at a later date. By suing him, you have pretty much guaranteed that neither he nor his friends and family will ever buy Nike shoes again (as well as any people who read this news and sympathises with they guy).

Also, how does this help Nike sell more shoes? The thing is, I actually accept their argument that they can't fight the supply side. What I don't understand is how reducing demand for your goods will help you sell more of those goods. Bear in mind, this guy thought he was buying genuine Nike shoes.

And even if you go on the assumption that this guy knew he was buying a fake pair of Nike shoes, studies show that 46% of people buying fake goods will go on to buy the real thing within 2.5 years. Of course, that number is going to be a lot lower for Nike if they sue people left, right and centre! And even if people don't buy the fake goods, studies show that this doesn't mean that they will buy the genuine article either.

All in all, I only see this kind of action as having a negative consequence for Nike.

Full disclosure - all of my sports shoes are Nike brand. Genuine too (at least, I think they're genuine).

Newcastle United FC

By now, you will probably have heard that Hughton got the sack. This is despite him having managed to get Newcastle promoted to the Premiership at first go while also managing to get Newcastle in mid-table in the Prem. Granted, they aren't that many points clear of the relegation zone but considering that Liverpool, who have had a dreadful start to the season, are only 7 points off the CL palces (which amounts to just 3 games), its not a surprise that Newcastle are close to the bottom.

It's worth mentioning that he has achieved this with what is arguably a sub-standard group of players considering that a lot of pundits were predicting that Newcastle would struggle this season (with some people predicting relegation). Despite this, they have managed to pull off some impressive wins when they had a fully fit squad. But even more than this, the most incredible thing that Hughton had managed to do was bring stability to a club which seemed to careen from crisis to crisis (and have done so again now that Hughton has been removed).

With Hughton's removal, this means that, according to wikipedia, Newcastle will have changed managers 7 times over the course of a 3 year period. That's an average of just over 2 sacking's per year. Is it any wonder that this club struggles to do anything? Or that Mike Ashley is possibly the most hated man in Newcastle?

In a way, its a shame that this club is once more plunged into turmoil (although I'm sure that the owners would disagree, from the player and forum comments, it certainly seems that this is a club in crisis). Having said that, for such a ridiculous sacking, I hope NUFC get relegated.

Leslie Nielson R.I.P.

Another day passes and I continue to feel older as the death roll on this blog keeps rising. By now, I'm pretty sure you will have heard that Leslie Nielson passed away over the weekend and read numerous testimonials on his life.

So you may as well read one more!

Believe it or not, I only know Leslie Nielson through his comedy movies and only realised he started his career as a serious drama actor upon reading the recent testimonials to his film career. In some ways, considering that I was born in 1975, its not a surprise that my only exposure to him was as a comedian.

Of course, all that justification flies out the window when you realise that, despite being a sci-fi fan, I had no idea that he was the lead in Forbidden Planet...

Ultimately though, films like Airplane! and The Naked Gun series are hilariously funny and remain so even to this day. Obviously, some of that success is due to the writers ability to create such quotable dialog. However, a large part is also due to Nielson's ability for deadpan acting and comedic timing.

In many ways, it was a shame that he was never able to replicate the critical and commercial success which he enjoyed with those early films. Having said that, having seen some of the later "flops", I have to admit that his antics still managed to raise a chuckle from me and the particular brand of comedy which he created, and specialised in, is the lesser for his passing.

UK plans to legalise racial profiling

Alas, the UK seems hellbent on proving that they have gone mad and are determined to ruin the country. The latest news coming out of Blighty is that London intends to legalise racial profiling.

Wow. Just wow.

For those of you who couldn't be bothered clicking the link, it basically says that police in the UK have stop-and-search powers even when there is no reasonable suspicion. Currently, under those rules, black people are 26 times more likely to be stopped than white people (that isn't a typo - the number 26 pops up several times in the article). Just think about that for a moment - 26 times more likely to be stopped.

And under an environment where this happens, the Home Office intends to allow race to be considered by police in deciding whether to stop someone for a search or not.

Yeah, I have NO idea whatsoever how that could end badly...

Why parents hate parenting

As I make my travels across the series of tubes that is the internet, I occasionally find an article that rings so true to my own experiences that I can't help but wonder why people actually needed to conduct a study to prove the point. As the father of two children, this article rings of such truth.

Its hard to summarise such a long article while keeping the key message intact so I strongly urge you to read the full article if you have the time. In brief though, the article talks about how parenting doesn't make the parent happier and, if anything, actually makes the parent less happy.

Anyway, two points in the article resonated with me in particular and I wanted to add a little more comment on those points from my own perspective.

Moments of transcendence
It's possible that the author doesn't buy this argument herself but one of the points mentioned in the article is that children "offer moments of transcendence, not an overall improvement in well-being". The author labels this as being a "fatalistic explanation" but I'm not sure that I concur.

As a father, those moments of transcendence are unbelievably powerful and pack one heck of an emotional punch. I've talked before on this blog about one such moment with Gerry. Another such situation occurred over the weekend.

Normally, Gordon doesn't like me much. He spends most of his time cozying up to either his mother or the maid. In fact, the only time he willingly lets me hold him is when we are getting into the car (I'm the only one who knows how to put him into the baby seat). However, over the weekend, Gordon deliberately held up his arms for me to hold him. And this was despite the fact that the missus was holding him at the time.

Moments like this are treasures for which words cannot do justice. Moments like this make all of the other crap you have to put up with as a parent worth it.

Kids destroy every other joy
One of the other quotes in the article which really resonated with me is on page 3. Kids are "a huge source of joy, but they turn every other source of joy to shit".

The reality is that I have given up all pretence of having a life, with the exception of videogames which can be played after the kids have gone to sleep. All of my social activities have basically died as a result of the time I spend with the kids (although I do go out and meet with some friends whenever there is a blue moon). This is likely to continue until the kids get a bit older and realise that hanging out with your parents is seriously uncool.

This used to bug me a lot. I used to regret having to give up all the fun things that I used to do like badminton, snooker or just hanging around with friends in a pub. As you can imagine, this isn't a healthy state of mind and over time, it would probably have negatively impacted the kids as well. Luckily for me, I eventually came to a realisation which helped me get over this.

In the end, I realised that my favourite leisure activity was playing videogames and that I was damn lucky to be able to have kids while keeping my favourite hobby.
:)

Lost opportunity for Brazil

And there goes Brazil - knocked out of the World Cup at the quarter final stage. Which is a shame as I really thought that they had a good chance of winning it this year.

The strengths of this years Brazil team, as I saw it, were:
1) Good (but not great) defence
2) Great technical ability
3) Great counter-attacking speed and ability

Those three qualities put together are a dangerous combination. If you play counter-attacking football against them, then Brazil would simply sit back and pass the ball around while patiently probing your defence for a weakness. And with the technical quality of the Brazil squad, they were comfortable in keeping the ball and you could almost guarantee that they would eventually score.

On the other hand, if you attacked, their defence was good enough that they weren't easy to score against. Add in their ability to turn defence into attack at the drop of a coin and there was a real risk that you would leave space for Brazil to score.

In short, despite the scorn leveled against Dunga's style by Brazilian media, I thought they had the right way of playing to win. And, in fact, if you look at the way the game against Holland was shaping up, this was exactly what happened initially. Brazil were controlling the game and Holland found it difficult to get hold of the ball.

Unfortunately, it appears that there were two critical weaknesses in the Brazil squad. Firstly, the mentality appears a weakness as the squad seemed to fall apart after Melo's own goal.

The other weakness appears to be squad depth. Late in the game, when Brazil were a goal down, you looked at the bench and realised that Dunga didn't have any options in terms of bringing someone on to change the game. As it was, with Holland continuing to attack, they almost fell victim to Brazil on the counter.

All in all, I think this goes down as a lost opportunity for Brazil to win their sixth World Cup. Still, all credit to Holland for fighting to the end and winning.

Don't tase my granny!

In a scene reminiscent of the infamous "Don't tase me, bro" incident, certain members of American law enforcement have now been accused of excessive force in tasering an 86 year old granny.

In brief, some old bed-ridden granny wasn't taking her medication so her grandson called emergency services. However, instead of a medical technician, over a dozen cops showed up and, after a couple of exchanges with the "aggressive" grandmother, decided to step on her oxygen hose until she began to suffer oxygen deprivation before tasering her twice (hence the line "Don't tase my granny!").

Hmmm.

Generally, I'm hesitant to post about incidents of police brutality because it can be hard to determine what really happened from just reading news reports. Very often, things come down to a "he said, she said" kind of situation where the "victim" is painting a picture of police brutality while the cops version of events justifies their actions. The reality is that both are probably exaggerating events to support themselves and, without a video as evidence, its impossible to determine exactly what happened (particularly if all you have are news reports).

However, in this particular case, a couple of facts seem to justify the claims of police brutality. From the article, the officer stepping on the oxygen hose and the tasering of the granny are in the police report so the fact that these happened isn't in contention.

Which leads me to question what an 86 year old bed-ridden granny could do that would justify that kind of response? I don't see anything in the news report which indicates that she physically assaulted the police officers. All it says is that she adopted an "aggressive posture" which I guess means that she verbally assaulted the police while looking angry? Maybe?

And even if she did physically attack, unless she was armed with a weapon, I find it hard to believe that a group of trained police officers would fear for their safety. Also, do you really need a taser to subdue an 86 year-old granny who is suffering from oxygen deprivation? Bear in mind that the taser is effectively sending bolts of electricity through her system which doesn't sound like a good idea for an 86 year old granny. Granted, the taser is classified as a non-lethal weapon but there is enough controvery surrounding this that you would think the cops would be more careful about its use.

French farce

France have crashed out of the World Cup in humiliating fashion.

First off, I have to say that I'm not surprised that France went out in the group stage. Bear in mind, this was a team who went out of Euro 2008 in the group stage (and iirc, after scoring only 1 goal) and only barely managed to qualify for WC2010. In addition, it was well known beforehand that the players didn't particularly like or respect Domenech. Now throw in the fact that it was public knowledge that Blanc would take up the France manager role after WC2010. All in all, not exactly a great recipe for success.

So, as I said, not exactly a surprise to see them go out at the group stage. However, it is the manner in which the France team imploded which has really impressed me.

In case you weren't aware, Anelka (who isn't exactly known for being well behaved) went postal on Domenech after being subbed at half-time in a game which France went on to lose 2-0. His comments were leaked to the press and after a storm of bad publicity, Anelka was sent home in disgrace. At this point, Evra also decided to go postal (he was very upset at the "traitor" in the team who leaked the comments to the press) and got into an argument with one of the coaches. The end result of all this was Evra leading the players onto the team bus and the entire team refusing to train for a day.

Thats right - in the middle of the World Cup, one of the Worlds most prestigious sporting events, this bunch of "professional" footballers decided that they weren't going to train for a day. Tossers!

Maybe its because I can't stand to work with people who don't have a professional attitude but this kind of thing just staggers me. Regardless of what else is going on, you tossers have a job to do and to simply decide not to attend training because you are unhappy is outrageous.

Evra has said that he will hold a press conference (or something) where he will explain what exactly went wrong. I can't wait for this to happen so I can see exactly what kind of pathetic loser he is. I know I shouldn't pre-judge but I really don't see what possible justification he would be able to offer which would excuse his actions.

The thing that surprises me the most though is that, despite most of the press (rightly) blaming the players for this fiasco, a lot of comments on forums seem to blame either Domenech or the French FA. The rationale for this seems to be that Domenech should have been able to control his players or the FFA should have removed Domenech from control after realising that he had lost the respect of the players.

Whichigawa?

I can understand putting blame on Domenech or the FFA if you were only complaining about the poor performance of France, for example, if France had been tactically naive or the players had been clearly unmotivated on the pitch. However, for the players to decide not to train for a day - this is solely on the players.

At the end of the day, regardless of how the players feel about Domenech or the FFA, they are supposed to be professionals with a job to do. If they didn't want to do that job, they should never have gone to South Africa in the first place.

Why isn't this attempted murder?

It's been a while since I posted something in the Not Cool category so I guess its time to correct that. I read this article today in The Standard (a free english language newspaper in HK which is very good as it contains a lot of local news).

The short version is that the grandson of a tycoon stole money from his grandmother by conning her out of her insurance payments (he told her he made the insurance payments on her behalf and then got her to pay that money to him instead of to the insurance company). When the grandmother wanted to terminate one of her policies and get the money out, he drove her to a carpark and then beat her with an iron bar and tried to strangle her. Luckily, the grandmother managed to break free and was effectively saved by a couple of people passing by.

The article says that the grandson admitted one count of wounding and six counts of theft. The case is currently adjourned for sentencing so I have no idea what the punishment will be. However, from the article, it sounds like the grandson is only considered as guilty of wounding and theft and I guess that any punishment will be on that basis.

What I don't understand is why this wasn't considered an attempted murder case. From the article, it doesn't appear as if any of the facts are in question. If that's the case, then it sounds as if the grandson deliberately, and with premeditation, tried to kill the grandmother (I mean, he hit her with a 30 centimeter iron bar and tried to strangle her!). Granted - the premeditation may only have occured at the time the grandmother told him that she wanted to terminate one of her policies (which happened in 2007) but considering that the attack occurred in August 2008, it seems like he had plenty of time to plan the attack.

Lets just recap the key facts as I see them as based on that article (with some additional comment in brackets). He found out in 2007 that the grandmother wanted to terminate one of the policies. In August 2008 (at least a time period of 7 months afterwards), he drove her to a carpark (fewer witnesses?). He took an iron bar from the trunk (and really, how many people have iron bars in the trunk of their car on a normal basis?) and beat her with it. He also tried to strangle her (and may have succeeded if it weren't for some people passing by).

What do you think - does that sound like a premeditated murder attempt?

Toyota in the doghouse

Looking back at my blog, I'm actually surprised that I haven't talked before about the problems which Toyota have recently been facing. When the initial incident with Lexus exploded in the news after the 911 recording came to light, things looked bad for Toyota. But to be honest, at the time, I thought that it was likely a one off incident given Toyota's track record for quality (when I say one off incident, I mean that I thought it was only limited to the Lexus).

And then the issues around the brakes on the Prius started to surface. At this point, I have to admit that I was really glad that I had bought a Honda. With so many safety incidents involving different Toyota models, I can't help but think that, for either poor engineering or poor design or any other reason, the problem seems to be with Toyota itself rather than with a particular model of car. And if this is the case, then its likely that a lot of their other cars are going to have problems crop up sooner or later (if I was really cynical, I might even think that those problems have already cropped up but have been ignored by Toyota as they haven't gotten much media attention yet).

As you probably already know, Congress in the USA appear to be casting their eye over the recent troubles with Toyota. While doing my daily trawl of news, I came across this video on The Consumerist of an owner describing her near brush with death in a Lexus way back in 2006. Her account of her experience is really scary - not just with how close she came to death but also with how casually Toyota seem to have treated the problem.

At this stage, I should give the usual caveats. I have no idea if she is telling the truth and I have no idea if the incident really occured the way she described (for example, she may have panicked and not really have an idea of what she did or didn't do). All I have to go on is the news and what you see in that video.

However, looking at her in that video, it seems to me like her story has the ring of truth to it. Bear in mind, this isn't an isolated incident. There appear to have been many complaints about this issue from many people and a lot of the complaints seem to run in a similar vein. Also, although I'm sure she would have been terrified, I don't think she completely panicked as she had enough sense of mind to call her husband (this is based on my guess that if I panicked in a situation like that, I wouldn't be able to do anything other than wrestle with the car).

All in all, a real black eye for Toyota. The big 3 US auto companies must be laughing their asses off by now.

Scott McCarron

For those who follow PGA Tour golfing, you would know that, last week, Scott McCarron kicked off a storm of controversy by accusing Phil Mickelson of cheating (although he has now apologised for doing so). In essence, wedges with square grooves are no longer allowed in PGA Tour golf. However, due to a loophole arising from a court case, a 20 year old Ping wedge with square grooves is allowed. Phil Mickelson took advantage of this loophole and used the old Ping wedge.

In an interview, Scott was asked what he thought of players like Phil using the old Ping wedges. Scott basically replied "It's cheating and I am appalled Phil has put it in play." This caused a shitstorm of controversy in the golf world and a couple of days later, after "careful contemplation", Scott McCarron came out with a new statement basically saying that he stands by his previous comments but that he never called Phil a cheater.

Yeah.

A couple of points before I get into this. I don't follow golf so I don't know much about this issue or the people involved. I only noticed it as the headline of the article in the paper was "I won't be silenced, says McCarron" which is a good headline in that it made me think it was related to civil rights. As this was in the sports section of the newspaper, which isn't the normal place for articles regarding civil rights, it piqued my interest which resulted in me reading the article which also goes to prove how important a good headline is.

Anyway, considering that the loophole allows the use of the old Ping wedges, how does that count as cheating? Let me put that in a different way - NO RULES ARE BEING BROKEN. Sure, you could try to argue that its slimy and that it isn't in the "spirit" of the game, but that's completely different from cheating. And if Scott had left it there, I would probably have nothing to talk about. His initial response was in an interview and in a situation like that, he could well have used words that he didn't really intend as a result of his passion about the issue.

However, what I found hilarious is that after "two days of contemplation", he actually had the gall to come out and say that he stands by his previous comments and that he didn't actually accuse Phil Mickelson of cheating. Really?

Lets revisit what he said.

When asked what he thought of Phil and other players using the old Ping wedges, Scott's response was "It's cheating [emphasis added] and I am appalled Phil has put it in play". Now, to be fair, reporters can sometimes be evil/lazy (yeah - I went there!) and you can't always trust what they write. Also, to be fair, I'm not an expert in the English language. But unless Scott is being misquoted, that really sounds like he just labelled Phil and a bunch of other players as cheats.

Considering he is making this statement a couple of days after the interview, he no longer has the excuse of being put on the spot in an interview situation. In fact, his statement just makes him sound like a moron (or does he think we're morons?). As far as I can tell, he very clearly labelled anyone using the old Ping wedges as cheaters and I would love to hear any kind of argument otherwise.

Anyway, as I mentioned above, Scott McCarron has now apologised for his comments so I guess that's the end of this particular controversy.

Also, I'm a little surprised that a professional golf player and 16 year Tour veteran would be a scrub.

Intermission for McCarthy

I really intended to have a series of posts with pictures of the kids. However, I really have to have an intermission to vent about the McCarthy situation.

If you follow the English Premier League, then you will know that Wolves recently lost to Man Utd 3-0. This game was a big deal because Wolves had managed to defeat Spurs at the weekend in a great display of football but then made 10 changes to the side and effectively put out a reserve team for the game against Man Utd. Fans howled in anger! The press howled in derision. And the plonkers at the Premier League board decided to get involved.

Now, I'm not going to get involved in discussing whether McCarthy did the right thing or not. To be fair, I can understand why he did what he did. His team would have been tired after the fantastic game they had against Spurs. Realistically, asking them to put in the same level of commitment 2 days later against Man Utd which is then followed a couple of days later by a relegation clash with Burnley is a really big ask.

On the other hand, I can also understand why the fans are annoyed. They paid good money to see their club take on Man Utd and instead were treated to their teams second string players being defeated by an injury riddled Man Utd.

So as I said, I can see both sides of the story and I really don't want to get drawn into a discussion as to whether McCarthy did the right thing or not. What I did want to comment on though was - why the f&$k are the Premier League Board getting involved in this?

The manager has a squad of players for a reason - so that he doesn't have to play the same tired legs that had played just a couple of days ago (squad rotation ftw). Bear in mind that the players that were selected to play by McCarthy weren't exactly green as grass either. Other than with one exception, all of the players had played in the first team before. Furthermore, some of them were full blown internationals. Granted, they may not have been the best players in the squad, but why should that be relevant?

I mean, its not like other teams don't put our reserve sides. The obvious examples are Arsenal (who have a policy of only playing youngsters in the League Cup) and Man Utd (who only last year, fielded a team of kids at the end of the season against Hull). Quite frankly, by getting involved, the PLB are just wasting time and money.

Plonkers!

Apple trying to put Macpro out of business

Apple as a company do a lot of things right. However, on occasion, they can also act like real dicks. Unfortunately, this is an occasion where they seem to be acting like dicks.

Brief version is that a company in Australia called Macpro have been selling Macpro branded computers since 1983 (ie before Apple introduced the Macintosh in 1984 and well before they launched the Mac Pro branded computers). Apple have been trying to register the trademark Mac Pro in Australia but have so far failed because Macpro objected (naturally, they didn't want to change their company name).

IP Australia (the body handling trademark disputes) has sided with Macpro as the Australian company was able to provide evidence that it had been using the mark prior to Apple. Apple have appealed to the Federal Court as they aren't willing to take this lying down.

To a certain extent, I can kinda understand Apple's position. They have already invested lots of money in their trademark and naturally, they don't want to lose that. But on the other hand, Macpro in Australia were clearly using the mark before Apple was. Quite frankly, I think its an open and shut case. Apple have NO claim to the mark in Australia.

It seems to me that the only reasonable course of action which Apple can take is to reach a compromise with Macpro (prob involving money). Unfortunately, it appears from the article that Apple isn't even willing to discuss this and seems determined to press on with a costly legal battle which ultimately may force Macpro to fold simply due to lack of resources.

Which is a real dick move.

PS to be fair to Apple, I should also mention that the story is all written from the side of Macpro Australia and Apple haven't commented on this at all so we don't know what their story may be.

UK Digital Economy Bill

I've mentioned before that I think the UK government seems to be going mad. The latest in this trend is the UK's Digital Economy Bill (which I found via Techdirt). Without going into too many specifics, the key thing which seems absolutely absurd is that the bill would allow the Business Secretary, Lord Mandelson, to change copyright law at will without parliamentary approval.

To be fair, I don't know anything about Lord Mandelson. He could be a sleazebag or he could be very honourable (probably less likely considering he is in politics - zing!). However, the point is that giving any one person or office that level of power just seems to beg for an abuse of power later down the line.

The bill itself has yet to be debated in Parliament and this could well get amended before the bill is passed. However, if this particular element isn't laughed out of town, I will be chalking this episode up as further evidence that the UK has gone stark bonking looneytunes.

Parents banned from playgrounds

Growing up in the UK, I used to be very proud of being British and of the various freedoms that entailed. Unfortunately, that pride is waning rapidly. In recent years, it seems like the British Government has gone mad with all sorts of stupid and ridiculous policies. However this one has to take the biscuit.

In brief, parents in Watford are being banned from playing with their children (they will only be allowed to watch from outside the fenced area) in council playgrounds unless they undertake a criminal records check. To quote the mayor of Watford, "you can't have adults walking around unchecked in a children's playground..."

In other words, take a hike unless you can prove you're not a paedophile.

This is absolutely disgraceful. The people who approved this policy deserve, at a minimum, to be fired from their jobs.

What is particularly worrying is the mayors stance that they are only enforcing government policy. If this is indeed the case, and its not a rogue mayor of Watford taking the piss, then I'm just glad that my children aren't being raised in the nanny state that the UK seems to have become. I admit, Hong Kong has its problems, but I've never seen or heard anything as patently ridiculous as this.

Patrick Swayze R.I.P.

Just a very quick post today to let you know that I'll be taking a brief hiatus from posting. If you check this blog via RSS, then no worries. However, if you are checking this blog manually, then you might wanna find something else to read for a week or two until normal service resumes.

Before I go, I wanted to leave you with the pleasant theme of death as another boyhood hero of mine passes on. For me, Patrick Swayze will always be remembered for his roles in Dirty Dancing and Ghost. Although I liked some of the other films he starred in, none of them compared to these classics (can you believe he was already 35 years old in Dirty Dancing!).

I loved these films as a kid. Although I haven't seen any of his recent stuff, I can't help but feel a pang of regret that he is gone.

Marvel vs Disney

Now here's a matchup that you might not have expected.

If you've been watching the news, then you will know that Disney acquired Marvel over the weekend. Which, potentially, is exciting news. I say potentially because the natural fear is that Disney will interfere with Marvel's operations and make Marvel too kid friendly.

However, if you know anything about Marvel, then you know that there really isn't anything to worry about. Even if I discount that Marvel has never been too risque, there is a separate Marvel Kids lineup which has kid friendly versions of all Marvel heros and villains anyway. Frankly, I doubt that even Disney could make them even more sugary. Besides, when you consider the history of Pixar, then you have pretty good evidence that Disney will probably let Marvel do its own thing without too much interference.

What has been great about the merger though is the creativity of the internet after the announcement. If you jump on Google or Flickr and search for "Marvel Disney mashup", you will find a veritable plethora of images, drawn by fans, imagining what would happen if Marvel characters merged with Disney characters - some of which are absolutely hilarious.

Despite the fact that I'm a huge Spidey fan, I have to say that the best one I've seen so far is by James Sheng here.

The juxtapositon of the Hulk, with his trademark grimace, and the silly Mickey Mouse hat is simply priceless. This image alone makes the merger worthwhile!