[1] And after he did raise the dead, heal the lame and bring peace to the afflicted, behold, many yet believed Him not saying [2] "Yea, thou hast done many things but thou art also very preachy unto our ears. [3] Be thou not so preachy and we may yet believe that thou art He who Thou sayest thou art."
[4] Therefore did He say unto the twelve "As the sun riseth on the morning of the morrow, even the day that followest this, we shall go into the streets of the towns and villages with sticks of picking and pick up the litter thereof." [5] And Thomas did say "shall we not also weed the gardens of the people of the towns and the villages, picking up their daisies and mowing their lawns with a great mowing?" and thus they established in their hearts to do so, and they did preach not a word since then even unto this day.
[6] As the sun rose, they did pick up all the litter of the villages; skinds of the banana, packets of the crisp and teabags which were yet soggy were collected all, and the people marvelled. [7] Then did they the mowing of the lawns and the weeding of the gardens and the people were filled the people with awe, even as unto a great awe-filling, and the people did say among themselves "forsooth! The lame walked, the blind did see and the demon posessed were released but this! This is something our eyes have never beheld! Indeed, Israel hath never had such lawns and rockeries and clean streets!" [8] The middle classes have, even this day, nice gardens in which to have barbeques and the homeless have cleaner streets in which to sleep!
[9] And one, known as Gosphlius, did behold his well mown lawn and said "surely, this is the Son of God".
Tuesday 29 July 2008
Thursday 24 July 2008
Saturday 12 July 2008
An Uninformed Opinion Of The Mobile Market
Back in the day, I was a massive mobile phone fanboy. People think I'm bad now? They should have seen me then. Driven by a fanaticism for a platform and a hatred of all things Microsoft, my web world wasn't a very pretty one (I still managed to get an e-mail from within Nokia thanking me for my website however!)
Things have changed since then and not only have I stopped actively blogging about mobile technology, I'm pretty much out of touch from the latest developments therein. I still pop into websites like All About Symbian and the hillarious PocketPC Thoughts and Smartphone Thoughts, but I'm aware that I'm ignorant of much that's happening.
Therefore, I thought I'd write up the impressions I have of the various mobile platforms regarding where they are and what they're about, and to explain why I feel nobody has yet arrived at mobile tech utopia.
Palm
Never used their stuff. Are they still around? Seriously, they do seem to be dead in the water. Nobody takes them seriously any more and every tech website I visit speaks of them in the past tense.
Nokia / Symbian
Nokia strikes me as the only company that's actually pushing a mobile platform. Even with Apple in the market, Nokia is the only one that is doing new things, trying new things and pushing new technology... except that it has jumped on the bandwagon of copying Apple's UI concepts which is always sad to see.
The problem I see with Nokia is that there's no smooth, seamless integration. The PC Suite software is bulky and built like a gorilla. I never had a problem with Nokia software and I hardly ever had a problem with synchronising, installing , upgrading etc. But Nokia is not getting the message across. For some reason, Nokia just doesn't seem to be able to get across to people just how damn useful its hardware is. There are even people who own Nokia Smartphones but don't know that you can install some really, really, really cool software for it.
This ignorance is going to be a problem to Nokia because companies like Microsoft and (now) Apple can come along and say they are introducing new technologies and functionality when the truth is that Nokia has had it all the time.
Sure, Nokia communicates style, but technology? Not so good.
Microsoft / Windows Mobile
Has this platform ever been any good? Sure, there's (almost) all the consumer functionality of a Nokia Smartphone and even more enterprise capability, but what's the point when the interface is clunky and confusing, the process management sucks the big one and it keeps crashing? While Nokia suffers from fragmentation aross platforms (Series60 v1, v2, v3 etc), Microsoft's platform suffers from device fragmentation, where something written for a version of Windows Mobile will work on one device but won't work on another, despite it running the same version of the OS!
A big problem that Microsoft has is that there's never anything new in Windows Mobile. There never seems to be something where someone can say 'Wow! I've never seen anything like that before!' because someone somewhere has always done what Microsoft is doing.
One more problem that Microsoft has is that, like Nokia, it just doesn't communicate very well, at least not outside the enterprise. Looking at the fantastic games and utilieies available for Windows Mobile, you'd think that it would be a big hit in the consumer market, but apart from GPS Navigation, people seem to be as ignorant of a Windows Mobile device as they are about a Nokia device.
Fragmented, stagnant, uninnovative and boring. That's how I see Windows Mobile.
Blackberry
I've never understood the awe that people in suits have for Blackberry devices. I've never understood how Blackberry is still going so strong when other more capable platforms can offer the exact same functionality and more.
If ever there was a one-trick-pony, it's the Blackberry. Apart from push e-mail, what do Blackerry devices even do? Java applications.
wow
Other Apple Wannabes
There's a plethora of iPhone clones on the market and some of them are pretty decent. Companies like Samsung and even Blackerry are in on the act. But watching these organisations produce their clones makes me feel like I'm watching David Brent do hos special dance - Cringeworthy. They may have merit, but they're selling their product on someone else's.
Apple
The iPhone, apperently, is a revolutionary mobile phone. I still don't see why people say this. The first iPhone was incredibly limited and, apart from the really nice User Interface, had nothing special. The new iPhone is much better, but is still limited in areas where I just don't get the reasoning. For example, still no MMS, still no SMS forwarding. Why!?
You could say that Apple is the opposite of Nokia and Microsoft in that it doesn't (or at least didn't) have much to offer but boy is it good at communicating. Steve Jobs and the Apple machine have a mind-blowing ability to communicate and inspire people who have no Smartphone preconceptions, and open to them a 'new world' of tech innovation - a world that has existed for many since the nineties. Apple has made technology accessible and broken down the 'too much hassle' wall.
The first iPhone was desired by many people but was outside of too many people's wallets (it took me months to save up for one). The new iPhone has rectified this and even brought it to Free on some contracts. This is a big plus and will help make Apple a huge success.
Second, though, is the App Store. Sure, you could (and still can) go to Handango, Symbian Gear and other websites to buy software for your Symbian or Windows Mobile Smartphone, but who knows? Who cares? And those online stores aren't exactly easy to use! Apple, however, have made it easier to buy software for your iPhone than it is to buy pants. In fact, to buy an application for a new iPhone is now exactly as easy as it is to buy a song from the iTunes Music Store. That is something big. Masses of regular, non-geek and non-nerdy people can finally start doing what geeks and nerds have been vainly trying to communicate for almost ten years, and it's Apple that has brought this. The queue outside the O2 store where I live is proof that it's no longer geeks and nerds who want an iPhone, contrary to the opinion of some.
There's still no MMS, still no SMS forwarding, there's no GPS navigation and the camera still sucks. But somehow, Apple has managed to pull the rug from under the feet of its competitors and I wouldn't be suprised if the suits in Microsoft, Nokia et al are still reeling from the swift 1-2 delivered by an Apple who may not yet have the market share, but has a monster chunk of mindshare.
Things have changed since then and not only have I stopped actively blogging about mobile technology, I'm pretty much out of touch from the latest developments therein. I still pop into websites like All About Symbian and the hillarious PocketPC Thoughts and Smartphone Thoughts, but I'm aware that I'm ignorant of much that's happening.
Therefore, I thought I'd write up the impressions I have of the various mobile platforms regarding where they are and what they're about, and to explain why I feel nobody has yet arrived at mobile tech utopia.
Palm
Never used their stuff. Are they still around? Seriously, they do seem to be dead in the water. Nobody takes them seriously any more and every tech website I visit speaks of them in the past tense.
Nokia / Symbian
Nokia strikes me as the only company that's actually pushing a mobile platform. Even with Apple in the market, Nokia is the only one that is doing new things, trying new things and pushing new technology... except that it has jumped on the bandwagon of copying Apple's UI concepts which is always sad to see.
The problem I see with Nokia is that there's no smooth, seamless integration. The PC Suite software is bulky and built like a gorilla. I never had a problem with Nokia software and I hardly ever had a problem with synchronising, installing , upgrading etc. But Nokia is not getting the message across. For some reason, Nokia just doesn't seem to be able to get across to people just how damn useful its hardware is. There are even people who own Nokia Smartphones but don't know that you can install some really, really, really cool software for it.
This ignorance is going to be a problem to Nokia because companies like Microsoft and (now) Apple can come along and say they are introducing new technologies and functionality when the truth is that Nokia has had it all the time.
Sure, Nokia communicates style, but technology? Not so good.
Microsoft / Windows Mobile
Has this platform ever been any good? Sure, there's (almost) all the consumer functionality of a Nokia Smartphone and even more enterprise capability, but what's the point when the interface is clunky and confusing, the process management sucks the big one and it keeps crashing? While Nokia suffers from fragmentation aross platforms (Series60 v1, v2, v3 etc), Microsoft's platform suffers from device fragmentation, where something written for a version of Windows Mobile will work on one device but won't work on another, despite it running the same version of the OS!
A big problem that Microsoft has is that there's never anything new in Windows Mobile. There never seems to be something where someone can say 'Wow! I've never seen anything like that before!' because someone somewhere has always done what Microsoft is doing.
One more problem that Microsoft has is that, like Nokia, it just doesn't communicate very well, at least not outside the enterprise. Looking at the fantastic games and utilieies available for Windows Mobile, you'd think that it would be a big hit in the consumer market, but apart from GPS Navigation, people seem to be as ignorant of a Windows Mobile device as they are about a Nokia device.
Fragmented, stagnant, uninnovative and boring. That's how I see Windows Mobile.
Blackberry
I've never understood the awe that people in suits have for Blackberry devices. I've never understood how Blackberry is still going so strong when other more capable platforms can offer the exact same functionality and more.
If ever there was a one-trick-pony, it's the Blackberry. Apart from push e-mail, what do Blackerry devices even do? Java applications.
wow
Other Apple WannabesThere's a plethora of iPhone clones on the market and some of them are pretty decent. Companies like Samsung and even Blackerry are in on the act. But watching these organisations produce their clones makes me feel like I'm watching David Brent do hos special dance - Cringeworthy. They may have merit, but they're selling their product on someone else's.
Apple
The iPhone, apperently, is a revolutionary mobile phone. I still don't see why people say this. The first iPhone was incredibly limited and, apart from the really nice User Interface, had nothing special. The new iPhone is much better, but is still limited in areas where I just don't get the reasoning. For example, still no MMS, still no SMS forwarding. Why!?
You could say that Apple is the opposite of Nokia and Microsoft in that it doesn't (or at least didn't) have much to offer but boy is it good at communicating. Steve Jobs and the Apple machine have a mind-blowing ability to communicate and inspire people who have no Smartphone preconceptions, and open to them a 'new world' of tech innovation - a world that has existed for many since the nineties. Apple has made technology accessible and broken down the 'too much hassle' wall.
The first iPhone was desired by many people but was outside of too many people's wallets (it took me months to save up for one). The new iPhone has rectified this and even brought it to Free on some contracts. This is a big plus and will help make Apple a huge success.
Second, though, is the App Store. Sure, you could (and still can) go to Handango, Symbian Gear and other websites to buy software for your Symbian or Windows Mobile Smartphone, but who knows? Who cares? And those online stores aren't exactly easy to use! Apple, however, have made it easier to buy software for your iPhone than it is to buy pants. In fact, to buy an application for a new iPhone is now exactly as easy as it is to buy a song from the iTunes Music Store. That is something big. Masses of regular, non-geek and non-nerdy people can finally start doing what geeks and nerds have been vainly trying to communicate for almost ten years, and it's Apple that has brought this. The queue outside the O2 store where I live is proof that it's no longer geeks and nerds who want an iPhone, contrary to the opinion of some.
There's still no MMS, still no SMS forwarding, there's no GPS navigation and the camera still sucks. But somehow, Apple has managed to pull the rug from under the feet of its competitors and I wouldn't be suprised if the suits in Microsoft, Nokia et al are still reeling from the swift 1-2 delivered by an Apple who may not yet have the market share, but has a monster chunk of mindshare.
Wednesday 2 July 2008
Politically Correct Churches Dude
I hate political correctness anyway. I hate the way that if you want to discuss something, you're instantly anti-everything, a bigot and an evil schemer who lives in the past. If you know someone who's a moron and he's disabled, you can't say anything to him about his moronic ways, because if you do, someone will come along and tell you that you're anti equal-opportunities and hate disabled people.
In modern churches, I've found the hot-potato issue of political correctness to have nothing to do with gender, race or political views. It has everything to do with age. Because churches have, in the past, been run by older people, today's modern churches have responded with a knee-jerk and decided that enough is enough and you can't say anything bad about young people.
It's there all the time; you can talk about how old people are out of touch, boring, traditional, in the past and even smelly if you like, but don't you dare say a thing about young people. If someone's young, then they're beyond the reproach of anybody who five years older than them.
Just like organisations need measure their success by the percentage of minorities they have working in them, so do many modern churches measure their success by how many people they have in their leadership. It doesn't matter that they're any good, they're young and that's what matters.
Now, just as I'm not against working with any minority group you can think of, I'm not against young people leading churches. What I am against is appointing people so that things can look like something they're not.
I bought a toy watch for a child's birthday this week. It was modelled on the watch used by Doctor Who to store his Time Lord identity while he lived as a regular Human Being. It's nice. It lights up and makes sounds. But you know something? There's no real Time Lord in the watch, it's pretend. And so it is, churches try and get their quota of young people and sometimes, they completely miss the mark because they follow the simple equation young = right.
For the record, old = right is equally wrong, so don't go calling me all the bigots because I said that not all young people are destined to be cultural ambassadors for the church. But I will say this about the wrinklies, they may be stuck in their ways and maybe even grumpy at times, but they've seen a lot.
In modern churches, I've found the hot-potato issue of political correctness to have nothing to do with gender, race or political views. It has everything to do with age. Because churches have, in the past, been run by older people, today's modern churches have responded with a knee-jerk and decided that enough is enough and you can't say anything bad about young people.
It's there all the time; you can talk about how old people are out of touch, boring, traditional, in the past and even smelly if you like, but don't you dare say a thing about young people. If someone's young, then they're beyond the reproach of anybody who five years older than them.
Just like organisations need measure their success by the percentage of minorities they have working in them, so do many modern churches measure their success by how many people they have in their leadership. It doesn't matter that they're any good, they're young and that's what matters.
Now, just as I'm not against working with any minority group you can think of, I'm not against young people leading churches. What I am against is appointing people so that things can look like something they're not.
I bought a toy watch for a child's birthday this week. It was modelled on the watch used by Doctor Who to store his Time Lord identity while he lived as a regular Human Being. It's nice. It lights up and makes sounds. But you know something? There's no real Time Lord in the watch, it's pretend. And so it is, churches try and get their quota of young people and sometimes, they completely miss the mark because they follow the simple equation young = right.
For the record, old = right is equally wrong, so don't go calling me all the bigots because I said that not all young people are destined to be cultural ambassadors for the church. But I will say this about the wrinklies, they may be stuck in their ways and maybe even grumpy at times, but they've seen a lot.
Tuesday 1 July 2008
Facebook and Sexual Humiliation
Facebook's advertisments bother me. They get in the way and I'm sure they're designed to humiliate me every time I see the big text saying '34 and still single?'
It's not enough that it could say '34 and single?', no, it has to say '34 and still single?' - kind of rubbing in what someone (a 'friend' if you will) once said, that I was 'unmarryable' (nice, thank you for that). What then happens is Facebook puts up a photo of a woman who is so out of my league that I'd may as well store up hopes of dating Alyson Hannigan (hmmmmmm......)
But this is the complicated path that one must take when trying to navigate Facebook's options. You see, it started off advertising men. It must have assumed that a 34 year old single guy must be gay. Quite an assumption to make. Think about it, Facebook is assuming that because I'm socially inept, I must be gay? What, are gay men socially inept then? I never thought so. Anyway, I'm not gay. So I decided to tell Facebook that I was interested in women. I don't like that word because it suggests that I'm only on Facebook to try and get some action. If not that, the word interested makes me think of someone who hangs around parks, in bushes, with a big sticky out camera lense. I'm not. So, I put in my profile that I'm interested in women.
If I did! Next thing I know, Facebook has broadcast the news to everyone via my profile. Imagine how cringeworthy it would be to walk into a party and announce that you're single and looking for a partner. That's how I felt. I didn't want it announced to everyone, but such was life.
Facebook stopped offering men to me, but it started to kick in with the humiliating. It was like talking to an Apostolic in the annual convention; How old are you!? And you're still single!? What's the matter with you!? Are you normal!? Do you have a condition!? (apostolics are like that, if you don't fit into the mold (or mould ;-) then you're a bit of a freak with whom nobody should make eye contact)
So, how about I take the advert's advice? Why not meet some single girls on Dating Direct, UK's most popular dating site? I don't think so. First, I couldn't join any club that would have someone like me as a member (thank you Woody), but also, I can't get the impression out of my head that all women on these dating sites have retina-burning moustaches and are built like circus strong-men. Christian dating sites are even worse (honest, they do exist and no, you don't want to go there).
My lot means, then, that until the fates direct my path into a collision course, I'll have to live with the humiliation. At least I know that come my next birthday, it'll stop saying 34 and still single? because, naturally, I'll then be 35.
How delightful.
It's not enough that it could say '34 and single?', no, it has to say '34 and still single?' - kind of rubbing in what someone (a 'friend' if you will) once said, that I was 'unmarryable' (nice, thank you for that). What then happens is Facebook puts up a photo of a woman who is so out of my league that I'd may as well store up hopes of dating Alyson Hannigan (hmmmmmm......)
But this is the complicated path that one must take when trying to navigate Facebook's options. You see, it started off advertising men. It must have assumed that a 34 year old single guy must be gay. Quite an assumption to make. Think about it, Facebook is assuming that because I'm socially inept, I must be gay? What, are gay men socially inept then? I never thought so. Anyway, I'm not gay. So I decided to tell Facebook that I was interested in women. I don't like that word because it suggests that I'm only on Facebook to try and get some action. If not that, the word interested makes me think of someone who hangs around parks, in bushes, with a big sticky out camera lense. I'm not. So, I put in my profile that I'm interested in women.
If I did! Next thing I know, Facebook has broadcast the news to everyone via my profile. Imagine how cringeworthy it would be to walk into a party and announce that you're single and looking for a partner. That's how I felt. I didn't want it announced to everyone, but such was life.
Facebook stopped offering men to me, but it started to kick in with the humiliating. It was like talking to an Apostolic in the annual convention; How old are you!? And you're still single!? What's the matter with you!? Are you normal!? Do you have a condition!? (apostolics are like that, if you don't fit into the mold (or mould ;-) then you're a bit of a freak with whom nobody should make eye contact)
So, how about I take the advert's advice? Why not meet some single girls on Dating Direct, UK's most popular dating site? I don't think so. First, I couldn't join any club that would have someone like me as a member (thank you Woody), but also, I can't get the impression out of my head that all women on these dating sites have retina-burning moustaches and are built like circus strong-men. Christian dating sites are even worse (honest, they do exist and no, you don't want to go there).
My lot means, then, that until the fates direct my path into a collision course, I'll have to live with the humiliation. At least I know that come my next birthday, it'll stop saying 34 and still single? because, naturally, I'll then be 35.
How delightful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
