DrWho Series 9, opinions

So, I've started watching Season 9, after a solid ending to Season 8 I was hopeful for more improvment in Season 9. Things didn't start so well. Though the first episode became charming enough by the end even though it was highly disjointed and didn't really make much sense (like how the guy who dies, who supposedly had an alien feeding on his brain. The doctor didn't follow up on to do something about said Alien). The next few episodes where stronger, and quite engrossing enough. Though by the episode set in Viking times I had a set of letters in my head which felt very relevent:

T.M.M.N.E.P

No, thats not some kind of system like the HADS (a lovely contrivence for TARDIS defence, Hostile Attack Dispursal System) but infact stands for:

• Too Much Money, Not Enough Plot.

Which is how I would characterise Series 9 thus far. Though to be fair, I'm still only in the early episodes and over all do not regret buying it at all (over priced as it is) so thats saying something.

I rather thing the earlier show runners, where the types that where used to having hardly any buget then running an amazing show despite (almost because of it). When Tennants Doctor hit, these directors found they had more money than expected and put it into production values and made a fantastic job of the whole thing. Which, gladly, brought success to DrWho but sadly brought money which obviously attracted some of the wrong sort. The wrong sort being those who see the budget first then how they can spend it making DrWho, rather than the sort who look for ways to make amazing TV using DrWho on a shoe string budget then use any extras to reward the viewers; of course this is all just how it feels as a watcher. The reality may be entirely different.

I felt the effects took over the plot in the Davros episode (no spoilers here, watchers will know which one). They took center stage. Also, there was a cringy, sad attempt to copy the successfull / popular themes of the day (something that Dr Who has done in its darker days, and is fine as an occasional stop gap but NOT good DrWho which is TV which says 'fuck everyone, where going THIS way').

So, let me call out how they (badly) copied aspects of StarWars (particularly the Cantina, and gruddy space bar effect). They copied elements to be seen in Marvel or DC type comic books, including a weird snake man which was ENTIRELY out of place on the planet of Davros. Though they did do a good gag with the Hand Mines, even though it was basicly robbing themes from such things as evil dead and ever Zombie movie ever made. Still, Dr Who is a bit of a plot robber at its best of times. So won't entirely slate it for that.

I loath the Greed shown towards fans of the show releasing season 9 first in two box sets.

I still love Dr Who and am SO glad that chav Matt Smith has been purged now. Though he did come after a God in the form of David Tennant, who even made the annoying squeeks and bleets of Catherine Tate bareable (which is no mean feat).

Google continue to abuse privacy at their convinience

So I sign into Google, who seem obviously bought out BlogSpot / Blogger. They have a button which is "view / adjust privacy settings" course I want to set every god damn thing to LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE AND KEEP YOUR NOSE OUT YOU GREEDY, SLIMEY BUGGERS. Like any sane/sensible person would.

Conviniently, they suddenly don't support my browser version and want to download one that allows them to better track and spam me with their shit (and better profile me to make money from my data).

Sure, they keep the browser working.. feverishly saying "oh we must make sure people can GIVE us data, we don't want older browsers hampering us getting that ripe piece of pie".

Not satisified with just the fact I use their services and am therefore subject to their advertising whims anyway they want to pirate all our commercial value and sell it on.

Well, sell THIS on Google.

Do not upgrade to Windows 10

I finally cracked and tried the 'free upgrade' to Windows 10. My friend Irene said (before I upgraded) 'why upgrade when everything is working now?'. Should have listened!


Here are some good reasons for you not to upgrade:

1. No DVD playback support (there is supposed to be a Windows DVD Player, it doesn't work)
2. No Windows Aero (Applications look shabby and old, Progress bars are monochrome, Windows don't have borders)
3. Windows App Store (if I wanted an Apple device, I would BUY an Apple device. If Windows persists with its copy-cat store bullshit, I may even just ditch Microsoft and buy a Mac. People buy Microsoft because it is MICROSOFT. Which is a 'feel' and a 'style' or at least used to be. The most important aspect was choice. Which MS are rapidly replacing with lock in and lock out style software).
4. Everything new is Windows Live tracked (sure, put your browser in privacy mode, just let the OS report on you. You won't find a single app that doesn't insist on you being online, which is Windows 10. Although, somewhat mitigating, at least old apps still work the same).
5. Microsoft Edge (the new replacement for IE) doesn't allow you to disable Java (that is sites basically raping you for all the information your worth, and anyone who knows me knows I will never, ever use that word lightly. Since rape is THE most serious evil one can perpetrate against another human).
6. Window 10 is Malware
7. Just try to disable the service "Tile Data model server". You cannot. The service manager is a joke now, with Microsoft deciding what you can and cannot do with their OS. What you certainly aren't supported doing is stopping them receiving and selling all your information.

ED: I did exaggerate when I said I might buy a Mac though, but the point was sound. I like PC's because they are were a very open platform which allows allowed for lots of different software and was very supportive of indie development.




The "Microsoft App Store" is a stick in the eye for independent developers. It is pure greed (incase anyone can't see why. It forces people to buy only what Microsoft want to offer, Microsoft will define what people see, it also allows Microsoft to monitor what is popular and make sure Microsoft is the one receiving the money. If they can't or don't wish to copy / steal the idea for themselves (which they have always done), they still gain revenue from the store transactions and insight into why the software is popular so they can steal that income too). I am seriously considering moving to Linux!


Microsoft have fucked over its entire user base for their own ends. Whilst it is not unusual for greedy corporates to do this, what is a 'newer trend' is greedy corporates getting to be that by masquerading as decent corporates (like Googles beginnings, and possibly I suspect a number of others).


Whilst, possibly, it is just some good decent people starting with ideals and becoming a success via those ideals, what is certain is they all sell out to the greedy manipulative types who proceed to wipe out all that is good/decent to replace it with what is invasive and profitable (they just hope to keep it 'under wraps' for long enough or well enough to prevent people leaving until they depend on the service and then can't. Cloud services are the ultimate expression of greed, "use my service.... FOREVER once your invested their IS no escape / alternative. 'We own all your servers.' ").


We need a law, a law not just for nations but for all of humanity. A law which encourages activity for betterment of all life and makes greed onerous and, where possible, impossible (or at least infeasible).


I propose, we base life around the supply of food, water and owned land. When it comes down to it, if people have these three things, the rest of life is about other people (broadly speaking). Each person should directly be responsible for their lifetimes worth of food and water. People shouldn't be allowed children till they can prove they have already feed themselves, via work efforts, for the equivalent of 100 year (an above average lifespan). Once someone has achieved this, they will only be responsible for accommodation and raising their children (who will also be responsible for their food). For accommodation, they should simply need to show they have built others at least 2 homes (this is important, no one should gain credit for doing things for themselves! Only for doing things for others). So, once a person has reached this heady state, they need then to justify their right for owning land. A person should have land if they work hard to look after land. Land is the most complex. We all need somewhere to live, sometimes there isn't enough space (or, there is enough, but its a bad idea to use it ALL). I would estimate though, once a person proves their worth through the above mentioned activities. They should receive some land and they should be 'judged' by peers as to whether they are earning its keep. Earning keep should be about allowing others to work off their 'food debt' and 'accommodation debt' as well as personal care for the area.


I wish people would not compromise on being decent. It is so easy, to just say 'ok, well, I can't do anything about this so will make the best of it'. I'm certain everyone has done this with something in life. I'm no exception. I just wish I was and write this to remind me to keep trying to be more and take less easy roads (like accepting the 'free' Windows 10).

Why I no longer buy commercial games

I refuse to play any game made available exclusively via Steam (or other online pirate, ironically the people called 'pirates' in software are the ones operating more ethically, even though their initial act is a crime). Which is pretty much every single game you can still buy in the shops!




There is no longer any point shopping for a game in a physical store. Every game you can get in a physical store's first requirement is "an internet connection". If your very lucky the internet connection is "just for authentication" but if your buying a steam game, this is not true. Every Steam games default first action is to download the game online. You can't proceed until you have downloaded the latest version and this is pretty routinely a 2 to 3gb download for most games.


What modern games companies do, is give us as little as possible whilst hoovering money out of our pockets as much as possible. Microsoft, in their live program, don't even grant you rights to the software, they grant you a licence to load the software into memory, under the licence terms to use the software for a particular period post paying for the game. So, in the very worst cases (Microsoft win) your literally paying for your own time spent playing the game.


Imagine if you bought a house and you never owned it, but it evaluated out to an less expensive rental. This is what's happening with modern commercial game software. We are paying, over and over and over for the right to interact with them.


Imagine you want to mow your lawn, and you don't want to pay for a gardener so you buy the tools necessary. If these tools where software, they would have a 'property of BOSH' stamped on them and some 'this tool may only be used in these conditions', the tool would come with a watcher and the tool might be taken away at any moment by the real 'owner' when they deemed fit. Maybe we where spoiled in the past with property and ownership, but I feel more the case we have sold our rights to own things for a pittance and the immediate need to play.


We are paying for nothing (possibly the plastic the DVD/CD is burned on, but that's useless because we don't own the specific pattern burned any longer). With software, it used to be (I am old yes) that you paid for the right to own the piece of code in question to use as you saw fit (or as required). It did come with the condition that you could not re-sell it, and that is only fair on the software vendor who needed to make a reasonable amount for their work so needed this control (not make money continually for nothing after the initial effort, from, and here's the key thing profiting again from people who have already paid for the game).


Now, when you "buy" a game, you have very little in the way of rights. We sold our rights a long time ago because children where the ones buying the games and all they care about or understand is "now". It used to be adults would be the ones buying games for children and they would think about "what am I buying". Though even most adults have implicitly accepted this software slavery system.


Well, I won't rant here about the wrongs without saying what is right to balance it:


What paying for software should be:

• You should get the right to own the original binary code for the game and be able to use it for yourself in an unrestricted manor as long as you own the software, in any way you choose (excepting the reasonable restriction that its only used by one person per purchase)
• You should have the right to customise the software in any way chosen (unless the customisation of the software affects other customers use / enjoyment of the software also)
• You should be unrestricted in the use of the software (you should not be forced to consult another party [such as make an internet connection] to be able to use the software, *excepting and only for the legitimate control of the proliferation of the software)
• You should be encouraging friends and neighbours who enjoy or play the game with you to buy their own copy (not be giving away your copy, for whilst it should indeed be your right to choose to do that, its just wrong to defraud the maker of a sale).
• You should never, ever, have to re-pay for software you already bought. This must include when a system is a true 'upgrade', that is the system contains binary recognisable components of existing software. It should be illegal, to tack a small feature onto a product and resell the whole product at full value to existing users. The new feature could cost as much as the original product, this would not be at issue, what is at issue is any way in which someone re-pays for binary images they already paid for once.

You will note the *, it was this * that companies have used to force on us the current state of affairs. They hide behind the excuse of 'piracy hurting profits'. The reality is that usually piracy boosts sales of software. Microsoft, in part, because as far reaching as it has because of pirate use of the software and as people profited from the use of their software they began to become legal owners. I don't seek here to 'condone' piracy, but to call out that its used as an excuse to wring money out of consumers far in outweighing of the real affect of it happening.


I myself sell software, and software that I create. I stick to the above because its what is right and fair. It allows me to make a small profit from my efforts but also means other receive proper value for what they pay for.


There is a tiny edge case here, in the form of when software if bought would be so prohibitively expensive for an individual to buy (for the creator to necessarily recoup their expenditure) that vending the software does indeed warrant selling access to the software in the initial case.

This is why I don't strictly object to a 'pay for access' solution all together. Sometimes it can be justified, but very infrequently. Even when its justified, there should be laws insisting that once the creating company can prove they have made the target profit amount (which should never be more than 3 times its cost to make) that they must then by law move to a vending mode (where it applies the above rules).


The problem of course, is that, the current ability to rip people off blind under law is attracting big companies to the table, this is creating a lot of work for ordinary people (as well as astronomic profits for companies) so there is a definite economic incentive for the current trend to continue *sigh*.


I just hate the way so much of humanity is about 'getting mine' over 'doing what's right'. I don't mind and even wish for people to get what they will and wish for, but just not at the expense of others rights or abilities to get their own. Repaying for what should be owned is one way I hate.

Microsoft W@*43r5.

I had the misfortune of experiencing the f*#@ing shitty design of Windows 8.1 this week :(.



On first look Windows 8.1 seemed rather nice. Filled with potential.



Until you accidently f&$5ing enable (by some mystical shortcut action of swiping thats unrepeatable in the reverse to disable) Windows Narrator (if you have a tablet and are not sight impaired, I highly recommend you DISABLE THIS EVIL APP IMMEDIATELY).



Once Narrator is enabled, all the normal actions you might of taken to interact with the tablet are magically no longer available. You can't swipe, you can't single tap (you can tap, THEN have it rant at you, THEN you have to DOUBLE TAP to click even a single control! Can you imagine how painful it becomes to interact with the tablet? Let me tell you, I ended up force powering off the damn thing and my first action on reboot will be to find and permanently disable narrator).



Here are some ways to remove this piece of awful design work:



http://www.dzhang.com/blog/2012/12/19/disabling-win-enter-narrator-hotkey-in-windows-8
http://superuser.com/questions/573728/how-do-i-disable-narrator-forever
http://superuser.com/questions/712296/narrator-keeps-turning-on-on-login-screen



Yes, I'm f%#ked off... yes, I'm over reacting LOL (and its undoing the annoyance caused by this stupid ass software design. Tools for the visually impaired should not be impairing the visually enabled [which is what Narrator does] if Narrator was just what it should be reading out what your over or clicking on it wouldn't be an issue, I might even turn it on for a pleasant audio experience. What it shouldn't do is disable the existing UI.



I feel bad twice for the visually impaired now. Once because they can't see, and twice because they are forced to use such a shitty Windows experience.

Campaign against unnecessary surgery

This blog post is advice for any mother or father who is getting advice from a doctor to put their child into heart surgery.

When I was age 5, a doctor though they knew much better than nature. They where convinced they would reduce my chance of heart attack at age 40 by surgery at age 5.

What they actually did was to ensure that I would very probably need more surgery. Had they left me the alone, I would not have been at any risk now because the area of my heart they identified back then as dangerously narrow and the valve they labelled incompetent was based on a child's heart (I realise that people try their best and observe the probable. This is not to hate doctors who do a valuable and often humble job. This is a cautionary tale). Having reached 38, everything has grown and expanded and, if I had been left alone, everything would have been exactly as needed for me at this age (evidence suggests).

However, those doctors knew best and I was a child and trusted my parents who trusted and still trust them to know better (which for a set of parents believing in god, it makes me query whether in fact what they really believe God or really in science and man).

So, when I was 5 I had a narrow right artery and a very tight right ventricle valve. They removed the narrow artery and cut into the valve to "loosen it". Now, at age 38 the artery has stretched (so it would not have remained narrow anyway) and the valve is so loose its leaking for 2/3'rds of its cycle, which means, technically, I am one third from serious heart failure. Had they left me the alone I would should been just right for this age naturally given my original biology (hind sight always 20/20).

So please, Mothers and Fathers, question doctors decisions. I suspect that 99 times out of 100 your better off leaving it to nature! What was 'preventative' for me has turned into necessitating surgery.

Since now its deemed necessary (according to some doctors, lets just say I'll wait and see) that I need more surgery to correct what was set wrong by the original procedure (I am, understandably reluctant given their first outcome, but not they will be just 'correcting' their own mistakes.. for them a mistake, for me a life problem).

On the flip side, I am alive and healthy. So they didn't kill me. Sometimes, no decision can be known to be correct. Though nature will do her best.

The concept of fair is unfair... no really!

Think about fairness for a moment.. I'll start with an example:

5 people goto the funfair. Whilst everyone is having a go, John wishes to have another ride, but everyone else wishes to move on.

Everyone else says:

"It's unfair for John to have another ride, it means he has had two rides when everyone else will only get one. It is unfair on the rest of us."

However, John has never been to the funfair before, and is very poor and unlikely to be able to afford to go again (everyone else went last year). All the other people have had (in total) many more rides than John.

John explains that:

"Infact to be truely fair, he should have another ride."

However, John is so poor because he has been idle, whilst the others have worked hard. The others have earned an extra ride. So what a third person may know is whats really fair is that 2 out of the 5 have extra rides. Then again, someone aware of still more facts, knows thats what would truely be fair is that they should all go home and pay attention to their relatively abandoned families.. and so on.. and so on... and so on...

What becomes clear, if you think long enough, is that all fairness is based on a point of view, an oppinion and a chosen set of facts / information to back that oppinion.

Fairness is almost always a "personal" thing, or a group thing, or a community thing, or a nation thing. In other words, fairness is usually a political tool to sway the views of others by choosing some facts they feel others will also see and relate to which suggest that other viewpoints are "invalid" or "unfair".

There is one kind variety of unfairness which does matter though, and that is better thought of as being unethical than unfair. Most everything is both fair and unfair, depending on things considered and personal perspective and priorities. 

If something is found to be unfair from very many involved viewpoints then it might well be something unethical.

My advice is to forget about fairness, if you try to deal in fair and unfair you will just be puppeted around by the people most able to provide reasons why what you want is unfair and able to show what they want to be fair.

If you start feeling something is unfair, ask "Why is that unfair?" unwrap the unfairness down to a set of facts which are true for you and why it matters that you want changes. Then debate it from there and look for a resolution to the core of the cause of the feeling of unfairness. Sometimes you may even discover, you are the one getting infact extra-fair treatment (which applied to the entire first-world).

Just thought I'd share the musing with the everyone.