I hate html code

I don't know if I told you this before but I hate html coding. Or, if I'm being a bit more precise, I hate having to deal with html coding on my blog. Why am I complaining about html coding on my blog now despite having used blogger for several years?

Well, recently, something changed.

In the past, whenever I created a blog entry in Blogger, it was always super easy. I would login to Blogger and click the New Post button. At that point, I get a big textbox and I would just type in whatever I wanted to say into that textbox. Blogger also supported basic text formatting so I could easily get to a new paragraph by simply hitting Enter twice. The html coding was still there in the background but I could just ignore it and do my own thing.

And then, over the weekend, I popped online to prepare my gaming post when - quelle horreur! Last Thursday's post was just a wall of incomprehensible text with zero formatting! Somehow, all of the text formatting had been lost after posting. I edited the post to put back in the paragraph breaks but quickly realised that none of the text formatting was being kept. In the end, I had to go into Edit Html mode so that I could manually enter in line breaks using html code which was a huge pain in the ass!

The annoying thing is that I don't know why this has happened or what I can do to correct it. I recently installed Chrome on my PC (giving it a test run which I'll talk about in future) and I can't help but wonder if that has anything to do with this. If so, considering that both tools are by Google, what a frak-up.

In any event, I hope that this is just a short term issue. If I have to frak around with html coding every time I make a blog post in future, then, well...

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.

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...

Some random links and thoughts

This rant perfectly echoes my thoughts on people who are consistently late. There really isn't much that I can add to that which hasn't already been said. So why am I writing this post if I don't have anything to say?

The truth is that I really wanted to send that link to the missus. However, at the last moment, I chickened out so I'm posting it here instead. If you never hear from me again, then I want you to know one thing - the missus did it.

*********************************************************

Also - Oh, how I wish this didn't resonate with me so much.

Hammers deserve to go down

Several months ago, I posted about how McCarthy and Wolves got the short end of the stick when they were penalised for fielding a "weakened" team against Man Utd. As sure as night follows day, the inevitable consequences of that decision are now being seen.

West Ham United are preparing a complaint against Fulham for fielding a "weakened" team against Hull City. Both HC and WHU are in danger of being relegated from the premiership and WHU are pissed that HC got a relatively easy 3 points by beating a weakened Fulham.

Anyway, before I get into this - the usual caveat. I didn't watch the HC vs Fulham game and nor do I know anything about it. Quite frankly, it wasn't on my radar. The only thing I know about this situation is what is written in the article which I linked to above.

However, the complaint itself seems to stem from the fact that Fulham made 6 changes to the squad including the removal of 3 key players. Seriously? This is the basis for WHU lodging a complaint?

Bear in mind that Fulham have been playing 2 games a week (one at the weekend and one during mid-week) since the first weekend in March and that this looks set to continue for most of April. Is WHU seriously suggesting that the top 11 players at Fulham should be playing every one of those games? What is the fricking point in having a squad of players if you get penalised for using them (and lets face it, if you don't rotate your squad when you are playing 2 games a week for over a month, when are you going to rotate them!)?

To be fair to WHU, the financial consequences to WHU (or any club for that matter) going out of the premiership is pretty dire. Even so, this just reeks of desperation by a club that knows they are in trouble. It is also the inevitable consequence of Wolves getting penalised by the PLB (bunch of plonkers!) last time around. In short, yes - I am blaming the PLB for this whole sorry state of affairs.

Anyway, I seriously hope WHU get relegated from the premiership. If that happens, I'm going to buy a beer and have a real good laugh at their expense.

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!

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.

Hard sell doesn't work on me

Sales is a funny thing. Sales tactics which work on one person will completely backfire on another. In my particular case, the hard sell just doesn't work. I guess its just a part of my psychological makeup where I am perfectly willing to act in a contrary manner, which might not even be in my best interest, if I get annoyed (and nothing annoys me quicker than the hard sell!).


This reared its head recently as I joined a gym.


I'll give you a second to let that sink in.

Yes, I joined a gym. This is part of my plan to get a little exercise now that I'm not playing badminton anymore. Hopefully, I can go 2-3 times a week during weekday nights. Hopefully.

Anyway, the first day I join, the gym gives you a free health assessment. Obviously, the idea behind this is to try and sell you on a personal trainer. And that's fine - I knew what I was getting into and to be honest, I was also seriously considering it. Granted, it would have been very expensive but it would probably also have been very effective. If I'm being honest with myself, I probably won't be able to lose much weight on my own and the idea of throwing money at the problem in order to really properly target reducing my waistline and building my muscle tone was enticing.

At the end of the presentation though, the guy asked for my ID card and credit card. This was before he had even given me a quote (this is an obvious sales tactic based on psychology which I immediately recognised from browsing the web). Naturally, I didn't fall for it and asked him how much it would be.

"Oh, we need your ID card and credit card to get a quote" (seriously, this was his answer).

Yeah right. I mean, seriously, do I have "sucker" printed on my forehead or something? Is there a giant schlong on my head telling people that I'm an easy mark?

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.

How not to get a job - update

As you should know if you have followed my blog for a while, I always try to give a measured view when I comment on things. You may recall I recently blogged about the case of the college grad suing her college for her tuition fees back because she couldn't get a job. In the interest of giving both sides of the story, I thought I would direct you to this article defending the student in question.

I actually suspected that an article similar to this one showing that a degree from Monroe College isn't worth the money its printed on (paraphrasing heavily here!) would come out sooner or later. Not because I'm familiar with Monroe College but because I know that no matter what happens, you can guarantee that someone will come up with an opposite viewpoint (and wouldn't the World be boring if everyone agreed with everyone else?). It was for this reason that I specifically added the disclaimer that I didn't know how Monroe College markets itself or what it had agreed with the student.

Given that I was expecting this article, it probably won't surprise you to learn that I stand by the statements I made in my previous blog post. I deliberately worded my comments in the last post so that they would stand regardless of how poor Monroe College actually is (or not - to be fair, I have no idea about the quality of Monroe College).

Anyway, the point of this post isn't to brag about my superior intellect but to give you both sides of the story and to respond to one of the points raised in the article.

The very point of an institution like Monroe is to improve its students' standing in the work force, but the irony is that in comparison with traditional institutions, Monroe seems to do quite badly at helping graduates make a living
How is this relevant? In any ranking of education institutions, you will always have those which aren't doing as good a job as others. The point isn't whether Monroe College is doing a good job (or even if the course there is worth the money) – the point is whether you can get a degree there or not and if yes, whether having a degree will improve your chances of getting a job.

As I mentioned before, all a degree does is give you a chance that you wouldn't have without the degree. Just in case its not clear, I should also add that this statement is just in relation to your chances of getting a job. I know that the process of going to college to get a degree is about much more than just getting a job.

The article makes a big thing about Monroe College being more like a “vocational school” rather than a full blown college. It paints this as a rip-off as, by billing itself as a college, it can charge students higher fees over a period of 4 years as opposed to having shorter courses like other vocational schools. In fact, it seems that Monroe College actually charges higher fees relative to even other colleges.

Again, I don't see how this is relevant. Granted, I agree that Monroe College sounds like a rip-off but so what? I'm assuming the student knew about the fees in advance. From my point of view, it looks like she paid her money, did her work and got her degree. The degree gives her a chance to get jobs which she wouldn't have a chance otherwise – which is apparently what she wanted in the first place. Where is the problem (other than that she doesn't have a job yet!)?


Well, it appears the problem (according to the last paragraph on page 2) is how Monroe College advertises itself. Again, I should stress that I haven't actually seen any ads for Monroe College. However, just from common sense, I can guess that they talk about how good Monroe College is and why you should go there. After all, I don't see them paying money to advertise how bad a college they are. Regardless, unless Monroe College lied in their ads, I really don’t see how this student has a leg to stand on.

Update on my views re the iPhone

Back in May, I dedicated an entire blog post to why I wasn't going to buy the iPhone. At the time, I thought that would put an end to the discussion. What a foolish fool of a fool I was.

Anyway, the first thing I want to say is that I'm not anti-Apple. To be fair, I can understand why you might think I am considering my comments regarding the hypocrisy of Apple in my previous post (what you wouldn't have known is that I consider most big companies hypocritical). Anyway, I will support Apple products when they come up with a product and business model that I'm happy with hence why I have an iPod Nano (good size, easy to use, stylish - whats not to like?). If I ever boycott Apple products, you will know about it (assuming you read my gaming blog that is - for legacy reasons, my boycott list is posted there but not here).

Similarly, despite the problems I mentioned in my last post, I'm not anti-iPhone. If Apple fixes the problems which I identified in my previous post, then I would consider buying one. And the reality is that some fixes may come sooner than expected as the FCC seem to be investigating how Apple runs the App Store although to be honest, I don't really see anything happening as a result of FCCs investigation. What is more likely is that competition from other phones with more open systems will eventually force Apple's hand in opening up the App Store (unless Apple somehow uses some form of bogus patent/copyright/govt lobbying etc to stifle competition). Ultimately, when it comes to open vs closed systems, I agree with Techdirt.

So what is the point of this post?

Basically, its to make a prediction. I predict that, within a space of 5 years, the Apple iPhone will lose its dominant status in the market unless one of the issues which I highlighted in my previous post changes. You heard it here first!

How not to get a job

By now, you have probably heard about the college grad who couldn't get a job and decided to sue her college to get back tuition fees. The argument being put forth is that the college didn't do enough to assist her in getting a job (and not that the college should have guaranteed her a job after graduation).

Of course, without actually knowing what the college agreed with her or how the college markets itself, its not possible to accurately comment on the complaint. However, looking at her quotes in the CNN article and also at how she completed the court filing does tell us a couple of things.

"any reasonable employer would pounce on an applicant with her academic credentials, which include a 2.7 grade-point average and a solid attendance record."
er ... no.

A 2.7 grade-point average is just that - average. She didn't get particularly good grades, doesn't seem to have any other qualifications worth talking about (at least, the article didn't talk about any other qualifications) and she thinks "any reasonable employer would pounce" on her?

She is dreaming. Even in a good economy (never mind the shitty economy we are in now where people who actually have good grades and other qualifications are having trouble finding jobs), she wouldn't be considered a top catch. She may get a job, but employers would definitely NOT be pouncing on her.

"They're supposed to say, 'I got this student, her attendance is good, her GPA is all right -- can you interview this person?"
Is this meant to be a joke? She seriously thinks that the college should call up all prospective employers in their list and ask them if they want to interview a particular individual with average grades?

The reality is that the college probably isn't even doing this for people with good grades. Logistically, its just not feasible to call up every employer on their list to do this. Bear in mind that if they do it for her, they have to do it for every one of their students.

Also, by mentioning her good attendance first, does this mean that she thinks her key selling point is her attendance? Seriously? You think people should hire you because you will turn up? I can see that going down well in an interview...

"But no more than two employers have responded to her outreach, and those leads have borne no fruit"
In other words, you sent out your CVs and even though two potential employers responded, neither of them thought you were worth hiring.

The only real responsibility of the career advancement office should be to highlight opportunities to students and give advice to students on CV's, interviews etc. I have no idea if she took advantage of the career office other than to locate job openings as the article doesn't mention this. In any event, it looks like she had her chance and blew it.

"It doesn't make any sense: They went to school for four years, and then they come out working at McDonald's and Payless. That's not what they planned."
So? A degree doesn't get you a nice high paying job. All it does is make you comparable to the thousands upon thousands of other people with degrees so that you have a chance of landing a job which, when combined with additional experience and/or other qualifications, will ultimately give you a chance of landing a nice high paying job.

Just because you got a degree doesn't give you the right to anything - not even an interview. All it does is give you a chance that you wouldn't have without the degree.

"did not make sure their monroe e-recruiting clients call the graduates that recently finished college for a interview"
My response to this is similar to the second point above. Why does she expect that the college should guarantee that she gets an interview? This is just ridiculous.

Comment response
Despite the silliness of the complaint as it appears to be, the incredible thing is that there are a lot of comments being posted in various forums in support of her (although, to be fair, the overwhelming majority of comments are people laughing at her). It seems that quite a few people are disenfranchised with how college's in the USA advertise themselves.

Again, to reiterate, I've not seen any of the actual ads myself. However, from a common sense point of view, I just can't believe that these ads are actually giving a guarantee that people who graduate with a degree will get a nice high paying job. The only thing that you can guarantee is that, if you don't get a degree, you will find it unbelievably hard to get a nice high paying job.

My overall view
In case its not clear, I think this is just a waste of time lawsuit brought about by someone with a sad sense of entitlement. Judging from the number of comments in support of her, there are quite a few people with a similar sense of entitlement. Here's a life lesson for you - Get over yourself, the World doesn't owe you a single damn thing! Having said that, it is worth repeating that the overwhelming majority of comments seem to be derisory.

The second point which occurs to me is that, after lodging this lawsuit, does she seriously think that any reasonable employer would ever hire her? If I was the employer, as soon as I saw her application and ran her name in Google and saw this frivolous lawsuit, I wouldn't touch her with a 10 foot bargepole.

Total eclipse of the heart?

Unless you have been living under a rock, you probably already know about the recent eclipse. In HK, we didn't get a full eclipse - only a 70% eclipse. Even so, this was something which I was looking forward to (and what were the chances of a full eclipse occuring in the same year as the 40th anniversary of the Moon landings!).

And I wasn't the only one. The region seems to have been gripped by eclipse fever with eclipse tours being run around China. Even flights at the time of the eclipse were fully booked as people tried to get a birds eye view of this once-in-a-lifetime phenomena.

In HK, first contact was at 8:16am with last contact at 10:47am. Considering my normal travel schedule, this means that I would miss the start. However, at the time, I wasn't too worried as I normally get out of the MTR at around 8:45am which would have given me a great view of the eclipse.

Sure enough, I entered the MTR system at approx 7:50am when the sky was still bright. As I got to Tai Koo station, I could feel the anticipation building. What would the sky be like as I exited the MTR? Would the skies darken in biblical fashion? Would I be exiting onto a dark street? I figured this wasn't very likely as HK wasn't getting a full eclipse. As I said above, we only got a 70% eclipse. Nonetheless, I figured that 70% would still darken the sky noticeably.

I get off the train at Tai Koo and eagerly rush to street level, almost forgetting to buy my breakfast bun from Maxims in my boyish eagerness to view the eclipse. And as I rush out into the street, I am almost blinded by the sunlight.

Double U - Tee - Eff!!

Where was the eclipse? Why wasn't the land shrouded in darkness? Considering that, not only was it not darker, it was actually brighter than its been in weeks, the sense of disappointment was palpable.

What a gyp!

iPhone? No - just no

I was having lunch with a colleague today and we were talking shop. As it was over lunch, I didn't have a notebook with me so I pulled out my phone and used it to take a couple of notes. When he saw the keyboard, he asked me which phone it was and then asked me why I didn't use an iPhone.

Why is it that everyone seems to think that the iPhone is the bee's f$&king knees?

Maybe its just me but although the iPhone does some things right, there are some absolutely shockingly bad moves by Apple which really just rub me the wrong way. So, rather than explaining to people the next time they ask me, I figured that I would put some of the reasons I dislike the iPhone into a blog post and then just send this link to them in future.

iPhone provider
The first thing about the iPhone which severely cheeses me off is that I am forced to use the telecom provider as dictated by Apple. In US, this means AT&T. In HK, this means 3. Guess what - I choose which telco I use and I will NOT have this dictated to me by some tinpot tech dictator.

Yeah, I know that the iPhone has been cracked and that I could choose another provider. However, why the f$&k should I have to go to all that trouble just to use a phone!

iPhone security (or lack thereof)
The iPhone has a shocking lack of security which has been well documented online. Basically, ALL applications on the iPhone run at the root level which means the app has full system access (granted - you could think of this as a plus as it allowed people to crack the iPhone for use on other networks).

Another issue is that its not as if Apple are taking security concerns seriously as the new iPhone 3G still suffers from security issues.

Apple sucks
The last point I want to make here is that Apple, as a company, sucks. The level of hypocrisy from Apple is just astounding.

A good example of this is the iPhone app store. There was a recent firestorm of criticism of iPhone over how they handled Nine Inch Nail app which you can read about here. And more recently, they banned an ebook reader because it gave access to a public domain book about sex. Granted, Apple reversed their decision after another shitstorm of criticism but it is worth mentioning that this only happened after a shitstorm of criticism.

The fact is that Apple and hypocrisy seem to go hand in hand. Just go into google and type in Apple hypocrisy and marvel at the number of hits. You could also do this for other companies and many of them won't have the same number of hits. As an example, I tried microsoft and it had less hits. That's right folks! The "evil" microsoft is apparently less of a hypocrite than Apple - draw your own conclusions.

Also, considering that Apple are lobbying to make it illegal for people to install software on their iPhone outside of the Apple app store, does anyone really want their iPhone to be completely reliant on Apple. Or as BoingBoing puts it:

"It's amazing to think that in 2009 a phone manufacturer wants to dictate which literature its customers should be allowed to download and read on their devices."

How not to market to gamers

Anyone who follows the entertainment industry knows that videogames are where all the money is. The videogame industry is already a multi billion dollar industry (USD obviously!) so it comes as no surprise that many companies want to try and find ways to get a bite of that lucrative market.

However, when you start marketing a razor for gamers, then you really need to fire someone in either your marketing department!

That's right, Gillette have released a new razor (with five blades, natch!) targeted at gamers. Because obviously, our facial hair is of a tougher stock than your average everyday Joe.

All joking aside, this is quite frankly sad and insulting. Seriously, does Gillette really think I am going to buy their new razor just because it has the word "gamer" on it?

Miss Asia 2008

As you may or may not know, there is a recent controversy about the Miss Asia 2008 pageant (it was even mentioned on the front page of some local newspapers). First off, some background.

Apparently, the Miss Asia 2008 pageant was different from other beauty pageants in that the winners were not decided by a panel of judges. Instead, viewers from around Asia were allowed to call in and vote for the winner. The beauticious and multi-talented lady with the most votes would be crowned Miss Asia.

This is, of course, a good change. Instead of the winner being someone who can bang the most lecherous old men judges, you now have the much harder task of trying to bang the most members of the public instead. Only j/k!!! :)

What happened next is obvious - 1.3 billion votes later, Ms Eunis Yao of HK wins.

Wait, what? Someone from HK won? Wasn't anyone from mainland China watching (or voting)?

Well, actually, it turns out they were. Apparently, the voters mere "mainland dominated" (surprise!!) and the fact that a HK girl won "raised eyebrows" (I guess they were expecting a winner from mainland China). The end result is that an independent body has been setup to review the voting tally and investigate the discrepancy.

What I can't believe is that this is actually news. I mean, come on!! Is anyone taking this pageant seriously?

This is a "beauty" pageant for which the participants are representing different countries in Asia. The winner of said "beauty" pageant is determined by votes from viewers in those different countries in Asia. Considering that China has 1.3 billion people, the obvious conflict of interest is so glaring that I can't believe this judging format was actually approved. Does anyone actually believe that the majority of mainland Chinese won't vote for someone from China or at the very least, for someone who looks Chinese? The very fact that a non mainland Chinese girl was the winner was what initially raised eyebrows should tell you all you need to know about the integrity of this "beauty" pageant.

If this is how pageants are run these days, you might as well just give the crown to a girl from mainland China and save yourself the time and money in running the bloody thing...

Minibonds

And the minibonds saga in Hong Kong takes another twist as Legco voted to invoke special powers to investigate the Lehman Brothers minibonds saga. If you don't know what the minibonds saga is, then you can probably forgo the rest of this post. Or you could search for it on google - up to you, ya know?

Looking around at other blogs, I think this Singaporean dude sums up my view the best. I basically agree with most of what he says (isn't it great when I can point you to other people who share my view but are much more eloquent than I - saves me so much work!!). The one thing where I don't fully agree is with regard to the uncles and aunties.

On some level, I can kinda sympathise with all the uncles and aunties who bought minibonds and lost all their savings. Regardless of their own culpability, its tough to suddenly have little or no money (esp considering the current economic climate). But throughout this whole sordid affair, one question keeps popping up in my mind - how much responsibility should these uncles and aunties bear for investing in minibonds?

The papers are full of sob stories from illiterate uncles and aunties who lost their life savings. If they were illiterate, why on Earth were they investing in the first place? I mean, its not like they had any chance of really understanding what they were investing in (and heaven forbid we actually expect people to understand what they are spending their life savings on!!).

But here's the thing. Part of the reason they don't understand what they are buying is because they have no interest in understanding (in essence, I think the willful ignorance argument applies equally to them). All they are worried about is missing out on an easy opportunity to make money. A lot of HK people (and I include the uncles and aunties in this) are terrified of missing the boat. So instead of evaluating what they want and what they should do, they just assume that if someone else bought it, it must be a good thing.

"This complete stranger I met during lunch bought some minibonds. It must be a really good investment! Lets cash in as well. Wait! If we put all our life savings into minibonds then we can earn an even bigger return and be even richer. Hoorah!!"

Another cause for consolation is the fraud angle. Were the mini-bonds misrepresented by unscrupulous salesmen? I'm sure that in many cases, they were. Of course, we don't know the extent to which they were mis-sold - was it fraud or just the usual hyperbole of salesmen? Obviously, if it was fraud, then the usual legal recourse should apply.

However, the point is that, as an investor, you really need to understand what you are investing in regardless of your age and literacy. And if you don't understand the product (perfectly understandable considering the complexity of modern financial products), then you really shouldn't be investing in that product at all.

Let me repeat that - if you don't understand the product, you shouldn't be investing in that product at all.

Why I don't want to go to the US

Stuff like this is why I no longer want to go to the US.

Apparently, when you go through customs in the US, federal agents have the authority to take your laptop, or any other electronic device, for an unspecified period of time without any indication of wrongdoing. Not only is this possible, but the quote below (emphasis added) indicates that it happens increasingly often:

"Civil liberties and business travel groups have pressed the government to disclose its procedures as an increasing number of international travelers have reported that their laptops, cellphones and other digital devices had been taken -- for months, in at least one case -- and their contents examined."

Quite frankly, I don't want to put up with this kind of shit. Statistically, I will probably be able to go through customs without any trouble (unless the DHS reads my blog!). However, statistics won't be much comfort on the off chance that my PC gets effectively stolen from me for several months.

To the US, I have only one thing to say - No.


Update - Can anyone tell me if this article is serious or tongue in cheek?