Having spent a considerable amount of time in Cairo working with the Egyptian people, I feel confident that they will be able to to work together to achieve a plural and secular democracy which takes into account the wishes of all the people whether they are religious or not , whether they are Muslim or Christian.
The news media have once again emphasised the role that the Internet and social network sites
have played in organising the revolution or uprising. In my view they have exaggerated this role.
Obviously, social network media have improved communication between the protestors but the role of the Internet should not be overstated. One million people meeting on a social network site does not constitute a revolution: a revolution cannot be achieved within virtual reality.
If the news media are to be believed the Egyptian uprising could not have succeeded without the Internet. This is nonsense.
The success of the uprising was mainly the result of two factors. The first was the fact that the Egyptian people were able to overcome their fear and mobilise physical demonstrations of hundreds of thousands of people. The second factor was the unwillingness of a well organised Army to act violently against its own people.
When counter revolutionary forces attacked the demonstrators with actual weapons the demonstrators had to protect themselves with barricades and stones and warning signs of attack were drummed out by sticks against iron railings. In this situation social network sites, Ipods , SMS texts and portable 'phones were useless; good old fashioned human confrontation was the order of the day.
We should learn from history that most revolutions were organised by word of mouth and pamphleteers and above all by the bravery of the dissidents. Even the American Revolution or struggle for independence was organised along these lines. Another lesson we should learn from history is that one despot can be replaced easily by another;but in the case of Egypt I believe that they will be able organise a free society which will benefit their country and their region.
A strong independent and democratic Egypt may well lead to a solution of many of the problems of the Middle East including eventual rapprochement between the Israelis and Palestinians - time will tell.
We should not exaggerate the influence of technology on social change; it is face to face contact and communication and above all courage in the real world that effects change. The Internet is no more important as an agent of change than a stone, a barricade or a gun.
Friday, 25 February 2011
Monday, 7 February 2011
Dark skies
The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) is campaigning to reduce light pollution. Last week my wife and I went out after dark to see how many stars we could observe within the constellation of Orion - but not counting the major stars which make up the corner of the box. On a very clear night we could count just seven. This is shameful. We are located right at the edge of London in the borough of Bromley. We are not avid astronomers and do not get up in the early hours of the morning to peer through a telescope but we do love to see the stars and the constellations.
The CPRE and Astronomical organisations have come up with a number of reasons why we should have dark skies citing the waste of energy as one of them. For me, however, there is only one compelling reason - which is the sheer beauty of the night sky when seen from a very dark location.
During the Christmas period of 1999, whilst on a trip to France, there was a major power cut which turned off the lights over a vast area of the North. The view of the night sky was incredible; we found it difficult to identify the constellations as there were too many stars. There were thousands. From our location in London we can probably only see a couple of hundred stars.
You may well ask what difference does it make whether you can see the stars or not. The stars are our connexion with the rest of the galaxy. The more that you can appreciate the night sky the more you can appreciate the astronomical forces which dictate our life on earth.
There are more than two hundred billion stars in our own galaxy, the Milky Way, and only the most bright are visible and identifiable from earth. It is possible, however, to see the faint luminous band which comprises the rest of the Milky Way from a dark location. This is impossible from a light polluted location such as Bromley.
Our solar system is the only one in the whole galaxy which is proven to support life. Our planet is the only planet which is known to support intelligent life. It will be extremely difficult to for us to travel to another planet let alone the nearest neighbouring star which is trillions of kilometres away.
We should look after our planet it may not be possible to get to another one that can support life.
That is why we need dark skies to appreciate our galaxy and our place in it.
http://www.cpre.org.uk/campaigns/landscape/light-pollution/start-count-week-2011?gclid=CKa6n4a39qYCFQZO4QodjjZmGg
The CPRE and Astronomical organisations have come up with a number of reasons why we should have dark skies citing the waste of energy as one of them. For me, however, there is only one compelling reason - which is the sheer beauty of the night sky when seen from a very dark location.
During the Christmas period of 1999, whilst on a trip to France, there was a major power cut which turned off the lights over a vast area of the North. The view of the night sky was incredible; we found it difficult to identify the constellations as there were too many stars. There were thousands. From our location in London we can probably only see a couple of hundred stars.
You may well ask what difference does it make whether you can see the stars or not. The stars are our connexion with the rest of the galaxy. The more that you can appreciate the night sky the more you can appreciate the astronomical forces which dictate our life on earth.
There are more than two hundred billion stars in our own galaxy, the Milky Way, and only the most bright are visible and identifiable from earth. It is possible, however, to see the faint luminous band which comprises the rest of the Milky Way from a dark location. This is impossible from a light polluted location such as Bromley.
Our solar system is the only one in the whole galaxy which is proven to support life. Our planet is the only planet which is known to support intelligent life. It will be extremely difficult to for us to travel to another planet let alone the nearest neighbouring star which is trillions of kilometres away.
We should look after our planet it may not be possible to get to another one that can support life.
That is why we need dark skies to appreciate our galaxy and our place in it.
http://www.cpre.org.uk/campaigns/landscape/light-pollution/start-count-week-2011?gclid=CKa6n4a39qYCFQZO4QodjjZmGg
Monday, 31 January 2011
Insects and other bugs
Last Friday Michael McCarthy wrote this article in the "Independent" - Nature Studies by Michael McCarthy: The 21st century bodes ill for non-human species it is well worth reading it. could not agree with him more. It is important to maintain the health of our environment in general. Insects not only provide for the pollination of plants but also the provision of a healthy and fertile soil. Of course some insects attack our crops and spread diseases but in the main they make a major contribution to a healthy environment and the balance of nature which makes the whole earth suitable for life . The same can be said of all the other plants and animals which live on our planet. We humans have evolved to live on a planet which has a wide diversity of plant and animal life. Can we be certain to survive if the diversity of life and the health of our environment is compromised by our own actions? Is it not in our own self-interest to maintain a healthy ecosystem?
The destruction of other species which share our planet may prove to be a bigger danger to our survival than climate change.
The destruction of other species which share our planet may prove to be a bigger danger to our survival than climate change.
Wednesday, 12 January 2011
Age
After a long time on the road running a project Sceptic'sJaw is back in business.
I was glad to see that a televison presenter won her case after being sacked because she was too old at age 53. It is the content of the television programme that matters not the age of the presenter. Since when is content improved when it is presented by someone young?
I was glad to see that a televison presenter won her case after being sacked because she was too old at age 53. It is the content of the television programme that matters not the age of the presenter. Since when is content improved when it is presented by someone young?
Monday, 14 June 2010
Crude Oil Pollution
The pollution of the Gulf of Mexico by crude oil, of course, has many undesirable consequences. But, oil mining companies are not the only "villains of the pollution piece". The tourism industry cannot be immune from criticism: how many miles of pristine coastline have been ruined by hotel complexes? How many mountain environments have been ruined by ski resorts and pistes? All this development has been made possible by the provision of cheap fossil fuels and most western people , including myself, have used these tourist developments.
All mining operations carry some risk and it is impossible to drill for oil without there being some leaks and damaging spillages. There is only one way for the tourism and fishing industries etc. to be protected from the damaging effects of crude oil and that is for all of us to stop burning the stuff. At the moment, of course, this is not possible as it would result in the collapse of more than than fishing or tourism; our whole way of life depends on cheap oil. We all have to accept that the benefits of the good life incur many costs as well. We are all responsible; capitalists, green protesters and all, for the crude oil pollution which is blighting many areas of the world, so don't just blame the oil men.
All mining operations carry some risk and it is impossible to drill for oil without there being some leaks and damaging spillages. There is only one way for the tourism and fishing industries etc. to be protected from the damaging effects of crude oil and that is for all of us to stop burning the stuff. At the moment, of course, this is not possible as it would result in the collapse of more than than fishing or tourism; our whole way of life depends on cheap oil. We all have to accept that the benefits of the good life incur many costs as well. We are all responsible; capitalists, green protesters and all, for the crude oil pollution which is blighting many areas of the world, so don't just blame the oil men.
Sea Eagles in Suffolk
The decision by English Nature not to re-introduce Sea Eagles into the wetlands of Suffolk has been welcomed by some farmers, one of whom described the idea of re-establishing a colony of these beautiful birds of prey as madness. This would be no such thing. The original decision to destroy these and other predators was the real madness. Why should indigenous birds of prey have been eliminated to make way for introduced species such as pheasants which were then shot for sporting pleasure?
There is no evidence that re-introduction schemes have really damaged the economic interests of farming. I am all in favour of supporting our farmers but not at the expense of our wildlife. We as a nation can easily afford the small financial losses when a small number of predators take some chickens or weak lambs. Any economic loss is more than easily counterbalanced by the improved environment which must result from the re-introduction of previously eliminated species.
There is no evidence that re-introduction schemes have really damaged the economic interests of farming. I am all in favour of supporting our farmers but not at the expense of our wildlife. We as a nation can easily afford the small financial losses when a small number of predators take some chickens or weak lambs. Any economic loss is more than easily counterbalanced by the improved environment which must result from the re-introduction of previously eliminated species.
Tuesday, 8 June 2010
High Fidelity Sound
My wife listens to French Radio a lot, on the Long Wave . The reception in South East England is acceptable for voice transmissions but when France Inter transmits music it does not sound so good. I decided to try Internet Radio connected to the HiFi system and there was a marked improvement in the quality of the sound. So we put our anoraks on and compared the quality of Internet radio, DAB radio and FM broadcasting. A five minute test was easy, and all we had to do was connect up the laptop and all the equipment and press a few buttons. We tried a test on BBC Radio 3: Fm radio came out as the winner, second came the Internet radio and third came DAB.
I did a little bit of research, on the Internet, to discover that the authorities are trying to phase out FM radio by 2015. This means that we shall all have to listen to the Radio either on the Internet or DAB, but will there be an improvement to the quality of the sound reproduction? Further investigation revealed that DAB is to be replaced by DAB+, which means that my current DAB radio will become obsolete. What happens to car radio? Will there be complete coverage of the country via DAB+ when FM is phased out?
The quality of the reproduction of the music is vitally important to some listeners especially those who listen to classical music and opera. The performance of DAB, Internet radio and "Freeview" radio is nowhere near as good as FM. FM radio is also better for jazz and folk music and even most types of pop. Radio is a typical example of modern technology not being being able to deliver the same performance as older technology. But this is probably for economic and logistical rather than technological reasons.
There are still some, the audiophiles, who believe that long playing records reproduce music better than Compact Discs, but I am not one of them. This argument has gone on for years and I still have friends who believe that LP's sound better; but of course they need to be played through very expensive equipment.
I once had a work colleague who spent many thousands of dollars on the most advanced LP turntables and CD players etc. He swore that LP's sounded better than CD's and tried to demonstrate this by comparing the same music using both media. Both of them sounded great but the very expensive equipment picked up the static electricity on the LP which spoilt the music for me. I also had to question whether his HiFi set up sounded 20 or 30 times better than my more humble equipment which cost 20 or 30 times less.
In theory,the analogue music reproduction of an LP should sound better than the digital reproduction of a CD. But neither medium can exactly capture sound waves. Playing records on turntables, also means that any imperfection in the design or production of the record itself, the diamond needle and cartridge, the pick up arm or the turntable will be reproduced as rumble, changes to the frequency of the sound or hissing and popping noises from dust, static electricity or scratches. This extraneous noise seems to be unavoidable. For this reason alone, a well recorded CD played through reasonable quality equipment sounds much better.
Many of my audiophile friends seem to spend more time comparing the merits of different forms of equipment and their technical specifications rather than listening to the music.
How can we make comparisons anyway? It is not often that any of us listens to music which has not been electronically reproduced in some shape or form. I have even been to an opera where the production company used a PA system. The only time I have truly listened to live music was at a classical concert, the opera , at a folk club or at home with friends. Most of the music that we listen to has been adjusted to the tastes of a recording engineer, even if we are listening to Radio 3. It is not possible, therefore, for any HiFi equipment to exactly reproduce the conditions of an original live performance. Where the original music is produced electronically we are in a more difficult position for we cannot know what the performance was supposed to sound like.
I have heard John Renbourn a jazz and folk guitarist perform acoustically at a club. His CDs sound almost exactly the same, when I play them at home, even with my humble and aging equipment. This is good enough for me: I have never heard Maria Callas performing live, but I am reasonably confident that I am hearing a very good reproduction of her voice on the CD. Equally, I am reasonably confident that the electronic music of the Pink Floyd is being reproduced as intended by the musicians. I urge all young people to go to hear some acoustically produced live music, such as by an orchestra, to experience for themselves the comparison between live and electronically reproduced music - in this way they can test how good their MP3 players really are.
Any idea, that I had, to prove whether LPs are better than CDs was squashed once and for all on Saturday night whilst I was listening to Classic FM. They had billed the classical pianist Dinu Lipatti to play Grieg's piano concerto in A minor. At the start of the recording, I heard the familiar clunk and rumble of an LP starting up and then I heard the usual crackle and pop which is always present even with the best equipment . All of this was being faithfully reproduced in high fidelity, so I was distracted from the music. The LPs are going to be left in the attic.
Modern technology could be used to much better effect, provided broadcasters like the BBC concentrate on the quality of both the music and the reproduction technology. More choice either in terms of content or technical performance is not so desirable if the budget is spread too thinly. Perhaps, it would be better to drop DAB altogether and retain FM. Virtually everyone has an FM radio which provides good reproduction for all forms of music. Digital services could then be improved to provide a higher quality service via the Internet. The budget could be spent more effectively.
All of us deserve to hear our music being broadcast at the highest possible quality, lets use the technology to really make an improvement at a reasonable cost.
I did a little bit of research, on the Internet, to discover that the authorities are trying to phase out FM radio by 2015. This means that we shall all have to listen to the Radio either on the Internet or DAB, but will there be an improvement to the quality of the sound reproduction? Further investigation revealed that DAB is to be replaced by DAB+, which means that my current DAB radio will become obsolete. What happens to car radio? Will there be complete coverage of the country via DAB+ when FM is phased out?
The quality of the reproduction of the music is vitally important to some listeners especially those who listen to classical music and opera. The performance of DAB, Internet radio and "Freeview" radio is nowhere near as good as FM. FM radio is also better for jazz and folk music and even most types of pop. Radio is a typical example of modern technology not being being able to deliver the same performance as older technology. But this is probably for economic and logistical rather than technological reasons.
There are still some, the audiophiles, who believe that long playing records reproduce music better than Compact Discs, but I am not one of them. This argument has gone on for years and I still have friends who believe that LP's sound better; but of course they need to be played through very expensive equipment.
I once had a work colleague who spent many thousands of dollars on the most advanced LP turntables and CD players etc. He swore that LP's sounded better than CD's and tried to demonstrate this by comparing the same music using both media. Both of them sounded great but the very expensive equipment picked up the static electricity on the LP which spoilt the music for me. I also had to question whether his HiFi set up sounded 20 or 30 times better than my more humble equipment which cost 20 or 30 times less.
In theory,the analogue music reproduction of an LP should sound better than the digital reproduction of a CD. But neither medium can exactly capture sound waves. Playing records on turntables, also means that any imperfection in the design or production of the record itself, the diamond needle and cartridge, the pick up arm or the turntable will be reproduced as rumble, changes to the frequency of the sound or hissing and popping noises from dust, static electricity or scratches. This extraneous noise seems to be unavoidable. For this reason alone, a well recorded CD played through reasonable quality equipment sounds much better.
Many of my audiophile friends seem to spend more time comparing the merits of different forms of equipment and their technical specifications rather than listening to the music.
How can we make comparisons anyway? It is not often that any of us listens to music which has not been electronically reproduced in some shape or form. I have even been to an opera where the production company used a PA system. The only time I have truly listened to live music was at a classical concert, the opera , at a folk club or at home with friends. Most of the music that we listen to has been adjusted to the tastes of a recording engineer, even if we are listening to Radio 3. It is not possible, therefore, for any HiFi equipment to exactly reproduce the conditions of an original live performance. Where the original music is produced electronically we are in a more difficult position for we cannot know what the performance was supposed to sound like.
I have heard John Renbourn a jazz and folk guitarist perform acoustically at a club. His CDs sound almost exactly the same, when I play them at home, even with my humble and aging equipment. This is good enough for me: I have never heard Maria Callas performing live, but I am reasonably confident that I am hearing a very good reproduction of her voice on the CD. Equally, I am reasonably confident that the electronic music of the Pink Floyd is being reproduced as intended by the musicians. I urge all young people to go to hear some acoustically produced live music, such as by an orchestra, to experience for themselves the comparison between live and electronically reproduced music - in this way they can test how good their MP3 players really are.
Any idea, that I had, to prove whether LPs are better than CDs was squashed once and for all on Saturday night whilst I was listening to Classic FM. They had billed the classical pianist Dinu Lipatti to play Grieg's piano concerto in A minor. At the start of the recording, I heard the familiar clunk and rumble of an LP starting up and then I heard the usual crackle and pop which is always present even with the best equipment . All of this was being faithfully reproduced in high fidelity, so I was distracted from the music. The LPs are going to be left in the attic.
Modern technology could be used to much better effect, provided broadcasters like the BBC concentrate on the quality of both the music and the reproduction technology. More choice either in terms of content or technical performance is not so desirable if the budget is spread too thinly. Perhaps, it would be better to drop DAB altogether and retain FM. Virtually everyone has an FM radio which provides good reproduction for all forms of music. Digital services could then be improved to provide a higher quality service via the Internet. The budget could be spent more effectively.
All of us deserve to hear our music being broadcast at the highest possible quality, lets use the technology to really make an improvement at a reasonable cost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
