About
Blog
Articles
Ventures
Ventures
pics
links
Contact
home


Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Iphone to Telstra, Irony to 11

Telstra in 2007

Telstra's operations chief Greg Winn, considered the telco's second-in-charge and the man who oversees most of its big product decisions, believes the iPhone may meet some significant operational challenges when it makes its market debut.

"There's an old saying - stick to your knitting - and Apple is not a mobile phone manufacturer, that's not their knitting," Mr Winn told AAP.


Telstra in 2008:
Introducing iPhone 3G. With fast 3G wireless technology, Maps with GPS, support for enterprise features like Microsoft Exchange, and the new App Store, iPhone 3G puts even more features at your fingertips. And like the original iPhone, it combines three products in one—a revolutionary phone, a widescreen iPod, and a breakthrough Internet device with rich HTML email and full web browsing. iPhone 3G. It redefines what a mobile phone can do- again.


I guess Greg Winn... lost.

Labels:

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

The Real Thing


In 1989 I bought my last "real" record- as in "on vinyl". There have been others since, but they have been mere curios; a reminder of times gone by and perhaps for reasons of parody.

That album was Faith No More's "The Real Thing". I was halfway through year 12, and frankly I think this album got me to the end in safety. Of course, being an album from 1989- even the last 6 months of that decade makes it an 80's album. But really it's a bookend. I'm not entirely sure what the other bookend is- perhaps the death of Bon Scott/John Bonham signaled the beginning of the 80's just as TheReal Thing signaled the end.

All that aside, I want to focus on but one song; "From Out Of Nowhere". Of course any dissertation on "The Real Thing" ought to include "Epic", but that's almost too easy and certainly too obvious. In 2008, it's easy to listen to this song and say "oh... I get it", but in 1989 the musical landscape was very different. Culturally, the Berlin wall had fallen, Bob Hawke cried on telly and Milli Vanilla had not been revealed as a fake.

So from the opening bars emanating from Jim Martin's guitar, some confusion begins. It seems metal, but perhaps a little punk. There's a keyboard floating in and while you are trying to work out what's going on there a double flam hits you and the hi hats open from then on...! What the hell? There's a bass guitar bouncing about in a manner that just ain't right. Mike Patton's singing is forced and strained, yet on brand. What the hell is on brand in this situation? Listen and learn.

Back then I rarely listened on headphones to my favourite music. The only way I got to hear it loud was to turn it up when the family were out and hope Mr Munro in Maylands ave didn't come round/ring/tell Dad later. If I had listened to "From Out Of Nowhere" closely I would have picked up the the subtleties that ipod earbuds now afford me; the subtle doubling of the chorus vocals- Mike P singing with Mike P and the final "wave goodbye" being followed by a whispered "...goodbye".

The song's ending, where it perfectly runs down and then launches immediately into "Epic", is for me the greatest 1-2 opening double punch outside of Led Zeppelin IV's "Black Dog" "Rock n' Roll".

The evenness of this album, and by that I mean genius, would perhaps not have bothered the band as much as it bothered me. After copying the record to tape for my newly purchased '74 Corolla, it became my soundtrack to 1990 as well. I was at uni, had a job as a part time sound engineer and roadie. Every soundcheck that required a tape played invariably meant "From Out of Nowhere". This was the album and for me the song.

When Angel Dust came out in 1992, I was 20, turning 21. I had a steady girlfriend and school days were already behind me. There was no way for "Angel Dust" to compete no matter how good it was.

Fittingly, when I broke up with that girlfriend, she kept "The Real Thing". Today, I have it on my ipod, but its not the same.

And neither am I.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, May 29, 2008

The horrifying incident in the night.

Sitting on the couch, watching Brad and Sandra flirting on the late news and I get a news flash of my own; a blood curdling scream with follow up screams and no ad break.

Like a salmon I rise from the couch and head down the hallway with all engines full ahead. Rachel goes past the end of the hall, on her way to the bathroom where she gets into the shower fully clothed and turns the cold up full.

While trying to do up the lid on a hot water bottle she half dropped the bottle, pressing it against her pregnant belly, and emptying some of the boiling contents all over her belly and chest.

At once I see this is bad. There's skin hanging loose and its red and angry. Rachel can take pain like I can take beers, but appears to be in serious pain. I do what any sensible person does faced with such a situation, I call an Ambulance and talk faster than a horse racer caller on crystal meth.

I finally get it all across to them, the MICA arrives ten minutes later, I pack a bag of entirely inappropriate and "mere male" fodder clothes* and Rachel goes of to Cabrini, with me in the car 10 minutes behind.

Of course it turns out ok. Pain reduces, a smile returns, no long term scars, baby is fine, I am wrecked. We get home, cuddle each other and our baby and sleep comes like many drugs.

I go into 3AW this morning and foolishly chose a controversial topic and get fired up and call a listener an idiot for the first time ever.

* the clothes I packed were as follows: One non maternity bra that does not fit, a sports bra, one g-string, one pair of useful undies, one pair of trakkie daks, one pair of slippers two of my t-shirts as "she'll want something loose fitting"

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, May 06, 2008

It's about lifestyle- or is it really?

Presuming to speak for me, Peter Berry had the following to say:

KEVIN Rudd, like John Howard before him, has done the right thing intervening against Jon Stanhope's proposed changes to effectively redefine marriage.

An honest examination of the situation reveals this is not about rights, as claimed. Previous areas of unreasonable discrimination against homosexual couples have been addressed through new legislation. Consequently, there is no good reason to dismantle and redefine this age-old and time-proven institution.

Our society and our children need marriages to be supported and strengthened, not diluted. This is now simply about justifying a lifestyle by forcing society to accept, despite its better judgement and legitimate concerns.

Peter Berry, Chirnside Park
"This is now simply about justifying a lifestyle by forcing society to accept, despite its better judgement and legitimate concerns."

Careful Peter, your homophobia is showing. Oh an you missed a line. After "justifying a lifestyle" you meant to put in "that is dirty, dangerous and against God's teachings".

Really, I feel the other way. I want marriage to include as many people as possible. Why on earth do certain members of the heterosexual community feel the need to keep marriage as a heteros only club? Before I got married I used to joke that gay folk should have the right to marry and be as miserable as much as anyone.

But now as a married man, I want to be inclusive. Being married is actually much more important to me than I thought it would be. I thought I was satisfying a traditional requirement, but now it feels like more than that. I can't really express it, but lemme say this; it's pretty damn good.

To me, it's the equivalent of not offering mirgants the vote. Oh sure, we want you to contribute, to work and so on, but we don't want to include you.

What a load of rubbish. It's 2008- we can do better.


Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Dilbert Mashup...

First attempt at this


This site requires Adobe Flash, please click here to get it.

Labels: , ,

Monday, April 28, 2008

No questions!!


No questions!!, originally uploaded by thomasrdotorg.

Read the tshirt, avoid a facial burn.

You have that choice.

Regards,
thomasr.

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Your defense is my annoyance.

Sometimes lawyers go to clever lengths to say "my client is an idiot". I have no problem with that defence. It's honest, and often it's true to boot.

However I believe this sort of defense should have life long repercussions. Take this guy:
Three months' jail for speedster Justin Pickering

A P-PLATER who hit speeds of 255km/h in a high performance rally car during a police chase from NSW to Melbourne has been jailed for three months.


It's pretty clear this guy is not a complete genius; anyone who speeds on the Hume is looking for trouble- with the cops, a truck, a tree etc.

In the TV news, they went to lengths to point out the car was the oh-so-fast Subaru WRX STi, a rare and wonderful car in the right hands at the right time.

...just not in this guy's hands. His defense went a little like this:
Defence lawyer Stan Waites said Pickering was developmentally delayed, and his parents had gone through great anguish to make him recognise he had a problem.


Questions:
1/ WTF is "developmentally delayed"? Late bloomer? Total moron? Immature? Mentally retarded?
2/ How does a "Developmentally delayed" guy afford a $70,000 car?
3/ If he can't afford it, did his mum and dad buy it, thereby reducing their "great anguish" factor?
4/ Can people who are "developmentally delayed" get a license nowadays?

So here's what he got:

Magistrate Robert Kumar sentenced him to nine months jail, but suspended six months. He cancelled Pickering's license for five years, and fined him $2000.


In my mind, the jail sentence is appropriate as he has many car related offence priors (he has lost his license in multiple states) and the risks he took with other people's lives mean a custodial sentence is correct.

The $2000 fine is neither here nor there.

The license suspension for five years is woefully inadequate. If his defense has said he effectively has a mental issue that makes him an ongoing menace behind the wheel, then cancelling his license and banning him from driving for life is the only way forward.

I do not understand why we leave the door open for people to drive again. If he had a gun license and was firing bullets in the air recklessly, we would take the guns away for life. There would not be a suspension; "Are you ready to stop firing in the air randomly? Oh? You ARE? Good then, here they are!". We would just say "that's it bubba, you have blown your gun license"

But this guy could be driving again in five years, and frankly I do not want to share a city with him.

Labels: , ,

Monday, April 21, 2008

Why hast thou forsaken me?


Why hast thou forsaken me?, originally uploaded by thomasrdotorg.

Oh really. This is enough. I want to get up and about again.

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Idiots ride motorcycles too

Some people are frickin' idiots. Riding the scooter this morning, I pull up next to a young bloke on a Suzuki Bandit 250. I look over his bike and while it is clean as a whistle two things grab my eye: the exhaust has a huge scrubbed area- so he's crashed it once. The other thing is so startling that I have to comment. It goes as follows.

Me: Hey mate... can I ask... is that TYRE BLACK I can see there?
P plater on a 250: ahhhh yea.... I'm selling it.
Me: Shit mate, thats fricking dangerous y'know.
P plater on a 250: It's only on the sides.

I look down. Yes, its on the sidewalls. AND around the corner on the contact surface. About 5-7cms. Right where the contact patch would be if you tried to corner it.

P plater on a 250: It's cool. I wanted it to look schmick.
Me: It won't look to schmick if you fall over again.
P plater on a 250: Hey mate... look, you ride a fucking scooter...
Me: Ahhhh ok. Well good luck. See you in the newspaper.
P plater on a 250: ????

Labels: , ,

Friday, April 04, 2008

Inquests into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and Mr Dodi Al Fayed

I'm sure Mohamed Al Fayed has his reasons, and the public have their own reasons for being interested in the outcome of the inquest into Diana's death, but allow me to answer the conspiracy question using my skillset.

First this:

Only Princess Diana's bodyguard, Trevor Rees-Jones, survived the crash.


Secondly:
Among the questions Lord Justice Baker put to the jury was whether Diana and Mr Fayed would have survived had they worn seatbelts and whether Diana would have lived had she been taken to hospital more quickly.


The only person wearing a seatbelt was Trevor Rees Jones.

The only person to survive the crash was Trevor Rees Jones.

Therefore the only fair conclusion is that Diana, Dodi and Henri-Paul died as they were not wearing their seatbelts.

Conspiracy theories:
My favourite:
Claims that the seatbelt which would have saved Princess Diana's life was sabotaged are now being investigated by detectives


There is no argument that Diana was not wearing a seatbelt (All agree she wasn't. There is no suggestion she was wearing one that then failed in the accident). So the suggestion that the party of four got in the car only to discover that 1 out of 4 belts were serviceable, yet thought "oh hell, we'll just go anyway and drive hellishly fast while at it..." is nonsense.

In summary: Occam's Razor applies.

All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."



Inquests into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and Mr Dodi Al Fayed

Baby is 24 weeks today!

Thursday, April 03, 2008

I was on TV and I liked it more than it liked me..

Here we go:



Yes, I hit the wipers for no reason in the first bit. It was a subtle sight gag that some have suggested was just me being stupid and not realising that the Ford Focus has its wipers on the right side where the indicators usually are.

But they would be wrong.

Labels: , , , ,

 
  footer