Cloud technology

I read a newspaper article the other day where the author was contemplating uploading his entire music collection onto a "cloud" server which would enable him to download and play his music anywhere. The "cloud" would store his uploaded Mp3 files and allow him to play back the music on a PC or 'phone anywhere in the world provided he could obtain a broadband or telecoms link. He was a self confessed technophobe and believed that the 35 GB of stored music on his PC hard disk slowed down his computer. He did not even know how to find the music. He believed that the "cloud" would enable him to back up his music files. He had dispatched his Cd collection to the attic. I presume that he had ripped the Cd's himself onto MP3 files. The "cloud" provider was going to give the first 5 GB of storage free and charge for the rest. I am sceptical about a number of points related to storing and playing music in this way and the quality of the playback. Whenever I travel for business I always carry a PC with me. I have 8 GB of music stored on the hard disk on MP3 files ripped from the original Cd's which I have bought in the traditional manner. I have also bought some MP3 files of music from Amazon. 8 GB of storage hardly uses up any space on my PC and I see no need to pay for back up space on a "cloud". All the MP3 music is sampled at 256 KB per second and sounds good good when played through my HiFi at home but on a PC or "IPlayer" it does not sound so good, owing to the lower quality of the sound cards, PC speakers or headphones. In many hotels you have to pay for the privilege of using their WiFi and there is often substantial cost when you use a portable telephone to connect to the Internet when you are abroad. I can't stand to listen to music for long over a PC or through an "IPlayer" type device so why pay for the privilege? For me it is better to store the music on my own device. If you are determined to listen to music over the Internet while at home or abroad , then why not use a service such as "Spotify" you can play music stored on its servers for free if you are prepared to accept the odd advert. If you subscribe, it is advert free and the cost of the subscription is offset by the cost of not having to pay for the "cloud". "Spotify" has an enormous selection of music and you can create your own play lists. It is a really good commercial idea although I do not take advantage of it myself. What is wrong with a CD; the quality of the music is better than MP3 recordings which compress the music? MP3 recordings lose a lot of information and you need to use very good ripping software to achieve good quality results. Home ripped MP3 files do not sound so good when played through good HiFi equipment compared to CDs. If you luse lower bit rates than 192 KB per second you can notice the difference even with simple pop music. The same principle applies to music played over Digital radio or Internet radio; the same music does not sound as good as an FM broadcast. If you want to listen to HiFi quality music at home then a CD, a Vinyl LP or FM broadcast is the best way to do it. You will not be able to do this via MP3 files, Digital radio or Internet radio. We are in danger of losing the physical media to reproduce HiFi quality music. MP3 files and Digital radio etc are unable to do this because of the limitations of bandwidth and storage restrictions. Not everything from the past is bad and not everything from the present or future is better regarding technology. I am not a Luddite as I gave up taking film photographs years ago. And my vinyl LP's have been dispatched to the attic, I could not stand the crackle and pop and the need to constantly clean the records. If you want to enjoy HiFi then listen to a CD or FM broadcast and put your feet up equidistant between a good pair of speakers. If you travel a lot you will have to put up with something less but at least technology will allow you to take an important part of your life on the road with you.

Confirmation of my scepticism of Facebook and Twitter

The recent developments in Libya only confirm my view that you cannot organise a revolution, solely, using Facebook, Twitter and portable 'phones etc. The existing regime is becoming very difficult to dislodge despite Nato air raids, armed insurrection, trade and economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure. A well armed and determined regime is able to resist enormous pressure and it is completely naive to suggest that Facebook and Twitter software can be used to overthrow a government. The Television and Press should know better to give the impression that a popular movement only needs to use these modern tools to overthrow dictators. It will be interesting to see what the outcome will be for Libya but one is certain, if the regime is overthrown it will not be because of Facebook or Twitter.

Libya

Further to my previous post, the Libyan people were not able to to make use of technology to the same extent as the Egyptians. It is apparent thay they were still able to stage a revolution and an uprising. This is testament to their courage and ability to organise themselves on the street. The willingness of the outgoing regime to use force against its own people is making the task that much more difficult. Hopefully the Libyan people who are tired of being repressed by dictatorship will succeed to create a freer and fairer society. I wish them success with or without social network sites.

Internet Revolution -Cairo

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.

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

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.

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?