Monday 31 October 2011
Where Has The Time Gone?
I can't believe it's the last day of October already. To use the old phrase, "Where has the time gone?" The year 2011 seems to have passed by in a flash. It appears the older you become, the years come and go with increasing speed. Before I know it, I will be reaching the age of retirement!
The past couple of years haven't been great for me in the career department, having made a big mistake in leaving a former employer in December 2009. I thought I was doing the right thing at the time, but it was only a few months afterwards I realised it was the wrong thing to do. I missed the type of work I had been doing there, so for the past year and a half, I've been trying to return to that type of work. I now have the opportunity to do that with a different employer, and I'm hoping for a telephone call from them this week to confirm it.
My fingers are crossed, because I never take anything for granted in this unpredictable world we live in.
The past couple of years haven't been great for me in the career department, having made a big mistake in leaving a former employer in December 2009. I thought I was doing the right thing at the time, but it was only a few months afterwards I realised it was the wrong thing to do. I missed the type of work I had been doing there, so for the past year and a half, I've been trying to return to that type of work. I now have the opportunity to do that with a different employer, and I'm hoping for a telephone call from them this week to confirm it.
My fingers are crossed, because I never take anything for granted in this unpredictable world we live in.
Wednesday 19 October 2011
Observation Of Apple Products.
Reading this article about "4 Ways Steve Jobs and Apple Changed the Music Industry" had me cringeing a bit.
First of all, the sentence "For starters, the iPod meant that a listener could hear any song in his library at any time. This allowed users to create their own personal soundtracks, instead of being constrained by a particular time, place or media."
Oh dear, what a hardship! Isn't it terrible being constrained by a particular time, place or media? Even though you can still pick any specific cd and type of music from your collection to listen to, this still isn't sufficient. It has to be a particular song itself to suit your mood for that 5 minutes you are in. Really, there is no need to be that particular! I could never be that specific in wanting to hear a certain song at the present moment I am in.
I laughed at this sentence: “I was on the crosstown bus in Manhattan during a snow storm and had a sudden urge to listen to some Bob Marley. Needless to stay it brightened up my mood and showed me the power of the iPod."
Good grief, that's a bit dramatic. It sounds like a sales pitch to me. It doesn't sound a natural feeling someone would have in this scenario. I can honestly say I've never had a sudden urge to listen to a particular music artist. And definitely not during a snow storm.
Using iTunes is the most popular method of buying music today, but for me, I much prefer to have the product physically in my hands after I've bought it. I like to look at the sleeve and read the notes and lyrics inside after I have put the compact disc in the cd player to play. You can't do that with a downloaded music file. It just sits there anonymously in your device without any character. I will always buy cds rather than download music.
As for the musician heavily using Apple programmes, he says “Live, I use a MacBook Pro with Ableton. In the studio, on a Mac pro, Cubase & After Effects.” He is "now dependent on Apple products to manufacture and refine his sound." I think manufacture is the keyword here. This isn't the natural sounds of a song being written from the heart, but a song manufactured together by computer sounds.
And that's what I hear when I am subjected to modern music on the radio and satellite tv music channels. Songs that have been constructed on a computer, heavily weighed down in production so you can't hear a natural voice or natural instruments. Not much soul and passion being put into that type of music.
I have never owned an iPod or had a need for one. I have never used iTunes or had a need to use it. And I have never used Apple programmes to record music or had a need to do so. But it doesn't stop me making observations about the product!
First of all, the sentence "For starters, the iPod meant that a listener could hear any song in his library at any time. This allowed users to create their own personal soundtracks, instead of being constrained by a particular time, place or media."
Oh dear, what a hardship! Isn't it terrible being constrained by a particular time, place or media? Even though you can still pick any specific cd and type of music from your collection to listen to, this still isn't sufficient. It has to be a particular song itself to suit your mood for that 5 minutes you are in. Really, there is no need to be that particular! I could never be that specific in wanting to hear a certain song at the present moment I am in.
I laughed at this sentence: “I was on the crosstown bus in Manhattan during a snow storm and had a sudden urge to listen to some Bob Marley. Needless to stay it brightened up my mood and showed me the power of the iPod."
Good grief, that's a bit dramatic. It sounds like a sales pitch to me. It doesn't sound a natural feeling someone would have in this scenario. I can honestly say I've never had a sudden urge to listen to a particular music artist. And definitely not during a snow storm.
Using iTunes is the most popular method of buying music today, but for me, I much prefer to have the product physically in my hands after I've bought it. I like to look at the sleeve and read the notes and lyrics inside after I have put the compact disc in the cd player to play. You can't do that with a downloaded music file. It just sits there anonymously in your device without any character. I will always buy cds rather than download music.
As for the musician heavily using Apple programmes, he says “Live, I use a MacBook Pro with Ableton. In the studio, on a Mac pro, Cubase & After Effects.” He is "now dependent on Apple products to manufacture and refine his sound." I think manufacture is the keyword here. This isn't the natural sounds of a song being written from the heart, but a song manufactured together by computer sounds.
And that's what I hear when I am subjected to modern music on the radio and satellite tv music channels. Songs that have been constructed on a computer, heavily weighed down in production so you can't hear a natural voice or natural instruments. Not much soul and passion being put into that type of music.
I have never owned an iPod or had a need for one. I have never used iTunes or had a need to use it. And I have never used Apple programmes to record music or had a need to do so. But it doesn't stop me making observations about the product!
Friday 30 September 2011
Carlos Tevez.
The refusal of Carlos Tevez to come off the bench for Manchester City as a substitute this week is an absolute disgrace and highlights how spoiled and pampered modern footballers have become. It's the biggest mistake a footballer can ever make... to refuse to play for their club, whether they start the match or are asked to replace a player as a subsitute.
In a regular job, a person would be sacked for refusing to work. Which Tevez did. However, it's a different situation in football because of the worth of the footballer. Tevez is being paid £200,000+ per week and is worth around £40 million to £50 million as a transfer fee. Obscene figures, and why football supporters can no longer relate to the top modern footballers. Financially, we can't begin to imagine what it would be like earning what they do for kicking a football around a pitch.
All of these facts add to the fact that Tevez's behaviour this week was disgraceful. He didn't want to play in a top European match against one of the biggest teams in Europe, and to help his team (who were two goals down at this point) to fight back and get back into the match. Tevez has let himself down, his team mates down, his manager down, and his team's supporters down.
The Manchester City fans paid hard earned money to go to Germany, expecting to watch all of their players give 100% commitment and perform to the best of their capabilities. Carlos Tevez failed to fulfill these obligations, sadly. Apparently, he wasn't mentally and physically able to play for the team when called upon. Why was he sitting on the substitutes bench ready to play? Why didn't he tell his manager he wasn't able to play? Tezez is making excuses for himself because he knows he was badly in the wrong, and will face a lot of abuse and criticism for his actions.
After the match on Sky Sports, Graeme Souness summed it up perfectly when he said, "Tevez is a disgrace to football. The man on the street thinks there's a lot wrong with your modern footballer. Tevez epitomizes what the man on the street thinks is wrong with modern footballers." Souness righty represented the anger of the pundits, media, and fans alike towards Carlos Tevez.
At the moment, Tevez has been suspended for two weeks while his club carry out their investigation into the sorry affair. If he is sacked, Manchester City would lose the 40 to 50 million pounds transfer fee which they won't want to do. A fine won't make any difference because of the obscene amount of money he earns. Hopefully, he will be transfer listed and never play for City again. Potential buyers may be put off by his unwillingness to play this week, but I'm sure a big team will still buy him.
In my opinion, Tevez should receive a 6 months ban by FIFA from playing for any team. After that, Manchester City would receive a transfer fee from any club still willing to buy him. That would be justice, but in football, justice isn't always carried out, sadly.
Back Online.
I have just, somehow, survived a week without access to the internet! I don't know how I did it! You could equate it with living in the jungle for a week without food. Okay, perhaps I am exaggerating, but living without a modern convenience like the internet is strange when you're so used to having it there at your fingertips.
I first went online in 1998, and in the 13 years that have passed, it's very rare I have been without internet access... the very few times when the computer has a fault, and a couple of weekish long courses that I attended out of town. I guess we all take the internet for granted, just sitting there at our service when we need it for all sorts of reasons.
I'm happy to say I comfortably survived without it for a week. I have other things to do in my home, so there was never a time when I was bored and had nothing to do. A couple of times I wished I could have just logged on to find out what people who I follow were saying on Twitter, and what what the trending subjects were. However, I survived, and so here I am back blogging and tweeting. It feels great to be back online!
Wednesday 7 September 2011
Bus Driver.
A month ago, I started training with an employer to be a bus driver, which in the main, I enjoyed. Sadly, it came to an end yesterday when I failed the practical test at the second attempt. Not so much because of driving incompetence, but due to safety and awareness errors.
I have the option of sitting a test privately, with the aim of passing it and being re-employed by the company I was with for my month of training. This all comes at a cost, of course, so I have to think carefully whether I want to pursue a career as a bus driver. At the moment I have mixed feelings.
I am still waiting for a reply from another job I attended an interview for recently. I certainly hope to find out soon whether I have been successful for that position. Fingers crossed.
I have the option of sitting a test privately, with the aim of passing it and being re-employed by the company I was with for my month of training. This all comes at a cost, of course, so I have to think carefully whether I want to pursue a career as a bus driver. At the moment I have mixed feelings.
I am still waiting for a reply from another job I attended an interview for recently. I certainly hope to find out soon whether I have been successful for that position. Fingers crossed.
Tuesday 23 August 2011
BBC And Sky Sports F1 Coverage.
So typical of the BBC to cut back on the amount of F1 motor racing coverage from next year. They will now only broadcast half of the races, while Sky Sports will show every race.
Apparently the decision has to do with cutting costs, but I think the BBC have their priorities elsewhere, in particular the Olympics, which will be staged in London next year. Also, cost savings could have been done in other areas of their F1 coverage, as highlighted here in the final paragraph.
It's also worth remembering Sky Sports have more money, and now dominate sports coverage in the UK. I hope they sign up Martin Brundle, whose opinions on all things F1 I highly value. Who else could do the grid walk as good as him? To me, Brundle is the star of the BBC F1 team, and I want to see him at every F1 race. And that will be on Sky Sports, not the BBC.
A letter regarding the BBC and Sky Sports F1 matter was recently printed in the Radio Times letters section, and to me, it perfectly sums up the problem with the BBC...
"Don't dump expensive celebrity presenters, save on the hour long lead-in and interviews, or abandon the funky special effects. Don't even stop the interesting, but not vital, qualifying sessions. Just chop half the races. Well done, BBC!" Peter Hibbert, Shrewsbury.
Tuesday 16 August 2011
Monday 15 August 2011
Tuesday 9 August 2011
Rioters And Looters.
Someone on Sky News said tonight that the rioters and looters are "acting without fear of prosecution." Couldn't have put it better myself. They know that because of the police numbers being cut back and the country's soft attitude to crime, they will either get away with it or get very lenient sentences. And, of course, the prisons are full. The UK is a fucked up country and it's only going to get worse. Don't believe the empty promises of the politicians.
Sunday 7 August 2011
Appreciate The People Who DO Like You.
Everybody wants to be liked by everyone, but unless you're perfect, that will not happen.
Accept that not everybody likes you, and more importantly, don't let it worry you.
As long as you like yourself, and appreciate the people who DO like you, there is no need to think about those who dislike you.
Accept that not everybody likes you, and more importantly, don't let it worry you.
As long as you like yourself, and appreciate the people who DO like you, there is no need to think about those who dislike you.
Monday 18 July 2011
Correct Language Terms.
According to new ridiculous Scottish Government Guidelines, it is not acceptable to use the term "homosexual". Their excuse is, "This term is offensive to many people as it is the term that was used in law to make same-sex sexual relationships illegal." It isn't offensive to many, as far as I know. It's just another case of political correctness gone too far.
Apparently, they want the term "gay" to be used instead. "The term "gay" is used to describe someone who is sexually and attracted to someone of the same sex and is a widely understood term. It is not acceptable to use the term "homosexual"." You couldn't make it up. Which idiot has come up with this nonsense?
They also prefer the use of the word "straight" to that of "hetrosexual". "A lot of confusion centres around the use of the word "hetrosexual" being sexually and emotionally attracted to someone of the opposite sex. To help increase the understanding of this term, the word "straight" is used alongside it. This is a colloquial term that is more widely understood." Having "straight" as the term used implies that people who are gay are not straight, which to me, is more offensive. Does the use of the term "straight" mean that "bent" can be used to describe gay people?
In my opinion, there is nothing offensive or wrong using the terms "homosexual" and "hetrosexual". They are very clear in their meaning, and there is no confusion when using these terms. I have never heard of anyone complaining about their use. Are the Scottish Government the only people who think otherwise? In an age when the world is far too politically correct, this is just another guideline which is totally and utterly unnecessary.
Welcome to the United Kingdom, 2011. Just remember to use the correct language terms.
Apparently, they want the term "gay" to be used instead. "The term "gay" is used to describe someone who is sexually and attracted to someone of the same sex and is a widely understood term. It is not acceptable to use the term "homosexual"." You couldn't make it up. Which idiot has come up with this nonsense?
They also prefer the use of the word "straight" to that of "hetrosexual". "A lot of confusion centres around the use of the word "hetrosexual" being sexually and emotionally attracted to someone of the opposite sex. To help increase the understanding of this term, the word "straight" is used alongside it. This is a colloquial term that is more widely understood." Having "straight" as the term used implies that people who are gay are not straight, which to me, is more offensive. Does the use of the term "straight" mean that "bent" can be used to describe gay people?
In my opinion, there is nothing offensive or wrong using the terms "homosexual" and "hetrosexual". They are very clear in their meaning, and there is no confusion when using these terms. I have never heard of anyone complaining about their use. Are the Scottish Government the only people who think otherwise? In an age when the world is far too politically correct, this is just another guideline which is totally and utterly unnecessary.
Welcome to the United Kingdom, 2011. Just remember to use the correct language terms.
Saturday 9 July 2011
Hang The DJs.
I have decided to stop listening to the radio altogether. I don't have much time for new music that is being recorded these days, but I don't mind listening to the oldies. However, disc jockeys get right up my nerves. I can't stand listening to them anymore.
I avoided the DJs who talk to other people in the studio to help them with their show. I tended to stick with the DJs who were strong enough to present a show all by themselves. Those who spoke to the listeners as opposed to chatting to their cronies in the studio. However, I can't bare to listen to any of them anymore.
Some of them have radio robotic voices, programmed like a computer to fill in the spaces between the songs. They talk nonsense the majority of time, and don't tell us what songs are playing when you are curious to know what it is. I've always thought the whole point of a DJ was to tell you what song is playing.
They got rid of the video jockeys on the satellite music channels, so please do the same with the disc jockeys on the radio channels. Play song after song, back to back. Keep the news and weather bulletins. Keep the adverts. But please hang the DJs.
I avoided the DJs who talk to other people in the studio to help them with their show. I tended to stick with the DJs who were strong enough to present a show all by themselves. Those who spoke to the listeners as opposed to chatting to their cronies in the studio. However, I can't bare to listen to any of them anymore.
Some of them have radio robotic voices, programmed like a computer to fill in the spaces between the songs. They talk nonsense the majority of time, and don't tell us what songs are playing when you are curious to know what it is. I've always thought the whole point of a DJ was to tell you what song is playing.
They got rid of the video jockeys on the satellite music channels, so please do the same with the disc jockeys on the radio channels. Play song after song, back to back. Keep the news and weather bulletins. Keep the adverts. But please hang the DJs.
Father's Birthday.
My father would have been 75 years old today. He is very much missed and will always be in my thoughts. Africa by Toto was one of his favourite songs.
Thursday 30 June 2011
My Blog.
I realise that nobody reads my blog, but I don't care. I don't have this blog so I can find as many people as I can to look at it. It would be bloody sad if I did! I only write about topics and post video clips for the enjoyment of it all. Not for attention or financial gain. Yes, I know, it makes a change.
BBC scheduling.
If there's one thing in life that annoys me, it's the BBC's bad tv scheduling. Although, more a minor irritation than something that has me screaming my head off, to put it in perspective.
The latest example happened when the BBC were broadcasting U2's aforementioned performance at Glastonbury. The programme started at 9.45pm on BBC2, and was to run until 10.30pm. You then had to turn over to BB4 to continue watching U2's performance until 11.05pm. Finally, whan that transmission ended, you had to turn back over to BBC2 and watch the remainder of the performance. All because Newsnight was on at 10.30pm!
Good grief. Wouldn't the sensible thing have been to switch Newsnight over to BBC1, so we could watch U2 uninterrupted? Of course it would have been. Yet, for some awkward reason, the BBC choose to be difficult and have us changing channels twice to watch one programme! Why do they make life difficult for themselves and inconvenient for the viewers?
Last year, I was watching a F1 Grand Prix on Sky Plus because it started very early in the morning, and I didn't want to get up for it. However, because the race was delayed, it was not going to be completed before the programme was supposed to finish. Any other channel would have extended the programme to accomodate the race being delayed, but not the BBC.
When the programme's ending time was approaching, there was a message to turn over to BBC2 to watch the last quarter of the race. Remember, I'm watching this on Sky Plus, and Sky Plus doesn't know to record BBC2 because it wasn't in the tv listings! So there I am, having watched three quarters of the race, only for the idiots at the BBC to terminate the broadcast because they want you to change channels (yes, that one again) to watch the same programme. The problem being I'm not watching it live, and I have no recording of the remainder of the race on BBC2. It's a damn good job I have the internet and was able to watch it on the BBC iPlayer. If I didn't have the internet, I would have been very angry indeed.
This is just two examples of bad scheduling by the BBC. They don't like you watching one programme on one channel when you can be switching back and forth between different channels. Totally unnecessary, and incompetence on the part of the BBC schedulers. Why make life complicated when you can make it easy?
The latest example happened when the BBC were broadcasting U2's aforementioned performance at Glastonbury. The programme started at 9.45pm on BBC2, and was to run until 10.30pm. You then had to turn over to BB4 to continue watching U2's performance until 11.05pm. Finally, whan that transmission ended, you had to turn back over to BBC2 and watch the remainder of the performance. All because Newsnight was on at 10.30pm!
Good grief. Wouldn't the sensible thing have been to switch Newsnight over to BBC1, so we could watch U2 uninterrupted? Of course it would have been. Yet, for some awkward reason, the BBC choose to be difficult and have us changing channels twice to watch one programme! Why do they make life difficult for themselves and inconvenient for the viewers?
Last year, I was watching a F1 Grand Prix on Sky Plus because it started very early in the morning, and I didn't want to get up for it. However, because the race was delayed, it was not going to be completed before the programme was supposed to finish. Any other channel would have extended the programme to accomodate the race being delayed, but not the BBC.
When the programme's ending time was approaching, there was a message to turn over to BBC2 to watch the last quarter of the race. Remember, I'm watching this on Sky Plus, and Sky Plus doesn't know to record BBC2 because it wasn't in the tv listings! So there I am, having watched three quarters of the race, only for the idiots at the BBC to terminate the broadcast because they want you to change channels (yes, that one again) to watch the same programme. The problem being I'm not watching it live, and I have no recording of the remainder of the race on BBC2. It's a damn good job I have the internet and was able to watch it on the BBC iPlayer. If I didn't have the internet, I would have been very angry indeed.
This is just two examples of bad scheduling by the BBC. They don't like you watching one programme on one channel when you can be switching back and forth between different channels. Totally unnecessary, and incompetence on the part of the BBC schedulers. Why make life complicated when you can make it easy?
U2 At Glastonbury.
Having watched U2 last week at Glastonbury on tv, I have to say I was underwhelmed by their performance. Not by The Edge's magnificent guitar playing, Adam's bass playing, or by Larry's drumming. No, underwhelmed by Bono's singing. His voice doesn't appear to be as powerful is it used to be. During With Or Without You was where his voice didn't come near the standard it used to be. He was almost speaking the verses rather than sing them. When it came to the high pitched part before the final play out of the song, he attempted to have the crowd sing it for him at first. Then we he tried to sing it himself, he sadly couldn't reach the high notes. He put his fingers to his throat as if to say, "I can't seem to reach those notes anymore. Oh well."
What a shame that is. All of those years of smoking have finally affected Bono's voice to the point where he can't deliver the same high standard of performance like he used to do. It's very sad and disappointing to see, having witnessed top class vocal and stage performances from the frontman for many years.
Bono didn't help matters by interjecting many songs with snippets of other people's songs. Do it once or twice, yes, but not every second song, which it felt like he was doing. Where The Streets Have No Name was spoiled by him throwing in a snippet of an Andy Wiliams song. It spoiled the performance of the song. He also seemed to look down at a screen with the songs' lyrics on it quite often. Doesn't he know the words by now or is getting older affecting his memory? I thought that was rather strange.
I have been a fan of U2 for 30 years now, before most people had ever heard of them. My liking for them started back in the summer of 1981 when the single Fire was a minor hit. It's a shame they stopped performing that song live around a year after it came out. Fire is a better song than some of the old favourites they still perform today. I have to say U2 have lasted a lot longer than I thought they would. I honestly thought Achtung Baby was going to be their final album, and that was 20 years ago! However, I thought their last album No Line On the Horizon was the worse album of their career. Two or three songs were okay, but on the whole, it was mediocre by U2's standards. Watching the performance of the awful Get On Your Boots at Glastonbury reminded me of that.
All of this indicates to me that now is perhaps a good time for U2 to call it a day. When the mainman's on stage performance shows signs of decline, it would be sad to see U2 carry on not being as great as they used to be. I would hate for U2 to still be around in 10 years time, a shadow of what they used to be. It would be far more sensible to quit while still at (or near) the top of their game. Which is now. One more album and think about it being the farewell one. There's something very sad about seeing someone or something past it's best.
What a shame that is. All of those years of smoking have finally affected Bono's voice to the point where he can't deliver the same high standard of performance like he used to do. It's very sad and disappointing to see, having witnessed top class vocal and stage performances from the frontman for many years.
Bono didn't help matters by interjecting many songs with snippets of other people's songs. Do it once or twice, yes, but not every second song, which it felt like he was doing. Where The Streets Have No Name was spoiled by him throwing in a snippet of an Andy Wiliams song. It spoiled the performance of the song. He also seemed to look down at a screen with the songs' lyrics on it quite often. Doesn't he know the words by now or is getting older affecting his memory? I thought that was rather strange.
I have been a fan of U2 for 30 years now, before most people had ever heard of them. My liking for them started back in the summer of 1981 when the single Fire was a minor hit. It's a shame they stopped performing that song live around a year after it came out. Fire is a better song than some of the old favourites they still perform today. I have to say U2 have lasted a lot longer than I thought they would. I honestly thought Achtung Baby was going to be their final album, and that was 20 years ago! However, I thought their last album No Line On the Horizon was the worse album of their career. Two or three songs were okay, but on the whole, it was mediocre by U2's standards. Watching the performance of the awful Get On Your Boots at Glastonbury reminded me of that.
All of this indicates to me that now is perhaps a good time for U2 to call it a day. When the mainman's on stage performance shows signs of decline, it would be sad to see U2 carry on not being as great as they used to be. I would hate for U2 to still be around in 10 years time, a shadow of what they used to be. It would be far more sensible to quit while still at (or near) the top of their game. Which is now. One more album and think about it being the farewell one. There's something very sad about seeing someone or something past it's best.
Tuesday 31 May 2011
Keyboard Warriors.
There appears to be a phenomenon on the internet called "Keyboard Warriors". It's not something new, and in fact, has been building up and up with the rise in popularity of the internet over the past 10 years or so. Like a monster. Who or what are Keyboard Warriors? People who sit at the keyboards of their computers and type aggressive comments and abuse towards people who they hate or disagree with.
Not only aggressive, but obscene, insulting, and provocative words to anybody who comes into their line of fire. You can read their comments on websites such as Twitter, YouTube, and any forum you can find. Someone leaves a comment or opinion about something, and they are shot down in flames by a Keyboard Warrior because it goes against their view of the subject in hand. Cyber bullies is another description that can be used for these unpleasant people.
Why do Keyboard Warriors have a need to be extremely unpleasant when hurling their anger towards their targets? I guess it's a reflection on regular life... many people are unhappy with their lives for various reasons, and have a need to cause as much trouble and disruption to as many people as they possible can. There are those sitting at their computers who are bored and have nothing better to do than pick an argument with someone. They are safe in the knowledge they can say anything inflammatory to anyone they want, without fear of physical reprisal. What brave warriors they are!
I've been the target of a few Keyboard Warriors at Twitter. Comments of mine have been responded with abuse for no reason. One guy wrote that because I had food poisoning, I wasn't an American, and therefore a fag! Who rights something like that? A guy who is utterly frustrated with life and likely to shoot random people in his neighbourhood. Frightening. Another guy (it's always guys, by the way) responded to a derogatory comment I made about Ibiza, and asked if I had ever been to Ibiza, and if not, to shut the fuck up! Why does he care about my opinions? He doesn't know me. Seriously, if he had said that to my face, I would have punched him.
As I wrote earlier, these Keyboard Warriors think they're being tough and strong typing abuse to people, but would they spout the same words to the faces of the people they are abusing? Of course not. I used to get wound up by them, but no more. A simple reply of "I don't care about you or your opinions, so don't tweet me again" is suffice, closely followed by a blockade of their account. Or just cut straight to the block button. In other words, deleting them. Don't let the Keyword Warriors drag you down to their level. Rise above it.
Music Collections.
I started buying music around the time of my 14th birthday back in February 1980, and I built up a large collection of vinyl over the next 14 years. Albums, 7inch and 12 inch singles are on display on shelves in my home, but never played anymore. That doesn't matter, though, because I like the fact I have 14 years of music on vinyl that meant something to me over that period of my life. I would sell most of it if anybody was still interested in buying vinyl, but I am content to have it remain in my posession forever for nostalgic reasons.
With vinyl dying out around 1994, I concentrated thereafter on buying compact discs, of which I also have a large collection. I have sold many cds at Ebay over the past few years, but I still have a large cd collection I am proud to have bought over the last 20 plus years. I still play the majority of my cds that all sit quietly in the corner of my living room. I can show anybody who is interested that this is the music collection I have proudly built up over the past 3 decades.
Of course, the next step on from cds is mp3 downloading from the internet. Have I taken that step and "kept up with the times?" No! An emphatic no. I want the music I buy to be physically in my hands after I have paid for it. The clear plastic case with a booklet inside so I can read information about the item I have bought. I want to slide it into my cd player and listen to it. After listening to it, I want to file it away in my music collection, so I can pick it up again and play it whenever I want.
Can you do any of this with a mp3 music file? Of course not. It sits there on your computer or on your ipod, simply as something you click on to play. Nothing to look at or touch... just an anonymous file hiding away on a device. How can you show off your modern music collection now? Of course not. All you can do is show them a screen with a list of titles on it. A music collection of no character or special memories of when and where you bought the music. Soulless. The modern age of Hard Drive Music Collections.
It could be argued it's better having thousands of music files in one compact device than many cds lying about cluttering up the place. Not for me. I want to physically see my music collection, and not have it sit anonymously in my computer. I will not be converted, thank you very much.
With vinyl dying out around 1994, I concentrated thereafter on buying compact discs, of which I also have a large collection. I have sold many cds at Ebay over the past few years, but I still have a large cd collection I am proud to have bought over the last 20 plus years. I still play the majority of my cds that all sit quietly in the corner of my living room. I can show anybody who is interested that this is the music collection I have proudly built up over the past 3 decades.
Of course, the next step on from cds is mp3 downloading from the internet. Have I taken that step and "kept up with the times?" No! An emphatic no. I want the music I buy to be physically in my hands after I have paid for it. The clear plastic case with a booklet inside so I can read information about the item I have bought. I want to slide it into my cd player and listen to it. After listening to it, I want to file it away in my music collection, so I can pick it up again and play it whenever I want.
Can you do any of this with a mp3 music file? Of course not. It sits there on your computer or on your ipod, simply as something you click on to play. Nothing to look at or touch... just an anonymous file hiding away on a device. How can you show off your modern music collection now? Of course not. All you can do is show them a screen with a list of titles on it. A music collection of no character or special memories of when and where you bought the music. Soulless. The modern age of Hard Drive Music Collections.
It could be argued it's better having thousands of music files in one compact device than many cds lying about cluttering up the place. Not for me. I want to physically see my music collection, and not have it sit anonymously in my computer. I will not be converted, thank you very much.
Friday 29 April 2011
No Fun.
The past 12 months have been no fun for me, I can assure you. I'm now at a stage where I'm dazed and bewildered with life. I have no idea what is around the corner, although I have hopes for better things to come along. It's much better to hope than give up. It's onwards and forwards from here. I want to get out of this rut and break free. Or else I may go crazy!
My social life has been reduced to being in the same place every other week. I need different places to see and enjoy. Places where I don't have to shout over the loudness of karaoke. Places where I'm not playing darts all night. Places where meaningful and stimulating conversations can be enjoyed with friends. Places where there are attractive ladies to see. I'm not asking for too much, am I?! Some people are set in their ways and don't want to go to different places, which is unfortunate. Oh well, see you later. Time for change.
My working life has stalled badly. A bad decision from the past needs to be forgotten about. I have to readjust and find something new. I am renewing my SIA licence, so something in that direction would be nice. I may have to do something else in the meantime, but a return to a career in security is my long term goal. I sincerely hope the next 12 months are more fun than the last 12 months.
My social life has been reduced to being in the same place every other week. I need different places to see and enjoy. Places where I don't have to shout over the loudness of karaoke. Places where I'm not playing darts all night. Places where meaningful and stimulating conversations can be enjoyed with friends. Places where there are attractive ladies to see. I'm not asking for too much, am I?! Some people are set in their ways and don't want to go to different places, which is unfortunate. Oh well, see you later. Time for change.
My working life has stalled badly. A bad decision from the past needs to be forgotten about. I have to readjust and find something new. I am renewing my SIA licence, so something in that direction would be nice. I may have to do something else in the meantime, but a return to a career in security is my long term goal. I sincerely hope the next 12 months are more fun than the last 12 months.
Monday 25 April 2011
Punched In The Stomach.
In the past week, I feel as though I have been punched in the stomach. Having been out of a job for quite some time now, a vacancy appeared at a company I used to work for. I should never have left that job in the first place, but here was a chance to rectify that mistake with a possible return. However, an email was sent to me barely more than an hour after the job application was sent, saying I was unsuccessful.
Before opening the email, I presumed it was a confirmation of my application being received. I couldn't believe my eyes when I read it... that other candidates were a closer match to the key criteria. I honestly stared at the email for a couple of minutes in disbelief, before putting my head in my hands. Having worked there before, surely my criteria was as close as possible to what was required. I would love to see the other candidates' application forms. I wasn't even worthy of an interview. If I had one, I could have put forward my case, explaining why I left and how my return would be beneficial to them as well as me.
Rather than the same worded reply to each unsuccessful applicant, my reply should have simply said, "We don't want you back." If they did want me back, I would surely have received an interview. In my opinion, everybody deserves a second chance in life, and I feel I deserved a second chance here. Unfortunately, the powers that be think differently. It's a punch in the stomach, but I have to soldier on and find something different. At the moment, I have no idea what.
Before opening the email, I presumed it was a confirmation of my application being received. I couldn't believe my eyes when I read it... that other candidates were a closer match to the key criteria. I honestly stared at the email for a couple of minutes in disbelief, before putting my head in my hands. Having worked there before, surely my criteria was as close as possible to what was required. I would love to see the other candidates' application forms. I wasn't even worthy of an interview. If I had one, I could have put forward my case, explaining why I left and how my return would be beneficial to them as well as me.
Rather than the same worded reply to each unsuccessful applicant, my reply should have simply said, "We don't want you back." If they did want me back, I would surely have received an interview. In my opinion, everybody deserves a second chance in life, and I feel I deserved a second chance here. Unfortunately, the powers that be think differently. It's a punch in the stomach, but I have to soldier on and find something different. At the moment, I have no idea what.
Thursday 31 March 2011
The Beatles.
Last night on YouTube, I watched several Beatles clips. In fact, make that rather a lot of Beatles clips. After I watched and heard the first one, I just had to watch and hear another... and another... and another... and so on.
What a magnificent body of work they created within the space of 10 wonderful years. It must have been a big event every time The Beatles released a single or album back in the 60s. From recording 3 minute bubblegum pop songs through to the musical progression of their later more intricate work, they went on one huge musical journey, becoming the biggest and greatest band the world has ever seen.
To this day, in my opinion, they are still the greatest musical act of all time. Back in the 60s, far more music was released by artistes than today, and The Beatles released a new album every year in their existence. That's how prolific they were. It's not about quantity, though. It's quality that is the most important factor. And their whole body of work was of top quality.
Incredibly, I only have two "best of" compilations of their catalogue on cd in my collection. For years, I have intended on buying a box set of their complete works, but have never actually did it. Of course, I will have to correct that in the not too distant future. It's ridiculous to think the band I regard as the greatest ever, I don't have any of their original studio albums! Shocking.
We will never see their like again, sadly. Not even close. Music being recorded today comes nowhere near the standard of The Beatles. Sometimes I wish I had been born a little earlier, so that I could have fully appreciated the massive impact and universal popularity of The Beatles and their music. Obviously, nothing I could have done about that!
Picking my favourite Beatles song is very difficult, though, because they recorded many classic tunes. Paperback Writer has to be up there, though. The video (or promotional film as it was called in 1966) is absolutely wonderful. It captures the band halfway through their career, looking happy, relaxed, and cool! Great song as well, of course.
I've included it among three clips that I've posted here in my blog. Each and every one a genuine classic. Enjoy.
What a magnificent body of work they created within the space of 10 wonderful years. It must have been a big event every time The Beatles released a single or album back in the 60s. From recording 3 minute bubblegum pop songs through to the musical progression of their later more intricate work, they went on one huge musical journey, becoming the biggest and greatest band the world has ever seen.
To this day, in my opinion, they are still the greatest musical act of all time. Back in the 60s, far more music was released by artistes than today, and The Beatles released a new album every year in their existence. That's how prolific they were. It's not about quantity, though. It's quality that is the most important factor. And their whole body of work was of top quality.
Incredibly, I only have two "best of" compilations of their catalogue on cd in my collection. For years, I have intended on buying a box set of their complete works, but have never actually did it. Of course, I will have to correct that in the not too distant future. It's ridiculous to think the band I regard as the greatest ever, I don't have any of their original studio albums! Shocking.
We will never see their like again, sadly. Not even close. Music being recorded today comes nowhere near the standard of The Beatles. Sometimes I wish I had been born a little earlier, so that I could have fully appreciated the massive impact and universal popularity of The Beatles and their music. Obviously, nothing I could have done about that!
Picking my favourite Beatles song is very difficult, though, because they recorded many classic tunes. Paperback Writer has to be up there, though. The video (or promotional film as it was called in 1966) is absolutely wonderful. It captures the band halfway through their career, looking happy, relaxed, and cool! Great song as well, of course.
I've included it among three clips that I've posted here in my blog. Each and every one a genuine classic. Enjoy.
Monday 28 February 2011
Wrong Decision.
With the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to look back and see where you have made a wrong decision. Of course, at the time, I thought I was making the right decision, because I usually think the circumstances out long and hard beforehand. However, in December 2009, I made a bad career decision which I now regret.
I left a secure permanent job to go to a temporary job. I was under the impression the temporary job would lead to a permanent position, but alas, it did not turn out that way. After several months, the contract ended, and I became unemployed. It was only then I realised I had made a wrong decision to leave my permanent job.
I haven't made many mistakes in my life, but that was the biggest mistake of my life, and hopefully will be for the remainder of it. I suppose we all learn from our mistakes, and I have certainly learned from that one.
At the moment, I am still hurting from that wrong decision and going through an uncertain period of my life. I am hoping events in my life will take a turn for the better soon and the wrong decision will be easier to live with. Time will tell.
I left a secure permanent job to go to a temporary job. I was under the impression the temporary job would lead to a permanent position, but alas, it did not turn out that way. After several months, the contract ended, and I became unemployed. It was only then I realised I had made a wrong decision to leave my permanent job.
I haven't made many mistakes in my life, but that was the biggest mistake of my life, and hopefully will be for the remainder of it. I suppose we all learn from our mistakes, and I have certainly learned from that one.
At the moment, I am still hurting from that wrong decision and going through an uncertain period of my life. I am hoping events in my life will take a turn for the better soon and the wrong decision will be easier to live with. Time will tell.
Thursday 27 January 2011
Andy Gray and Richard Keys.
I have to say I am disgusted at the departure of Andy Gray and Richard Keys from Sky Sports. The giants of football punditry... probably the best at what they do. I am disgusted at Sky Sports for the way they have handled the whole sorrowful matter.
For me, it's an over reaction to Gray and Keys' behaviour on the part of Sky Sports. What was said between the two of them is banter that takes place in pubs and workplaces everyday all over the country. Their dialogue was not broadcast on air - it was a private conversation off air. Yes, what they said was sexist, but not sufficient to merit a sacking.
The fact this off air conversation was made public means somebody at Sky Sports wanted them to pay for it. Or else this would never have seen the light of day. The same goes for the video clips that were released soon after, obviously again by an employee or employees of Sky Sports. Why did they want Gray and Keys out? Jealousy and envy spring to mind. Or perhaps they are ageist and want younger personalities to take their place. Whatever their reason is, it's sad and pathetic behaviour.
Of course, it would not be surprising if it's the same person or people who decided to sack Andy Gray. Apparently, a reprimand was as far as it was going to go until the video clip of him asking Charlotte Jackson to "tuck him in" was released by a Sky Sports employee. It's absolutely ridiculous Gray was sacked because of this clip. Incidents similar to this occur all the time. We would have thousands of men sacked every day if that's a sackable offence. Sky Sports were obviously looking for a reason to sack Gray, and the first little chance they had, they took it. I certainly hope Gray is successful with his plans to sue Sky Sports for £3 million.
What annoys me is how Gray and Keys have been treated differently by many people. Gray is made out to be the bad guy while Keys is looked upon as being led astray. Why? It was Keys that initiated the conversation about the lineswoman. It was also Keys that had a go at Karren Brady. So why do journalists like Henry Winter and Oliver Holt and many other people portray Gray as this seedy figure, but look upon Keys as still a great presenter? I cannot see what Gray has done that is worse than Keys. Surely not that incident with Charlotte Jackson? Come on. Keys made sexist remarks in a video clip where he is referring to an ex-girlfriend of Jamie Redknapp. I can't understand why Sky Sports did not sack Keys if they thought they were justified in sacking Gray. I would love to know their explanation of this, but emailing them will not produce a reply, I'm afraid. Someone or some people at Sky Sports obviously had it in for Gray more so than Keys.
I disagree that the views of Gray and Keys are "prehistoric." As I wrote earlier, views or banter like this happen all over the country every day. The problem is we love in a world that has became increasingly politically correct. Yes, politically correct gone mad. You can't say anything without some killjoy complaining of you being sexist, racist, or homophobic. We have to be extra guarded about what we say, because some humourless person will complain and report it if it falls slighty into the three categories I just mentioned. Lighten up, people. Stop taking everything so seriously. Have a laugh. The world has become too intense, uptight, and humourless.
An example of this is Rio Ferdinand. He tweeted "prehistoric banter, no place for it." Richard Keys was correct when he referred to it with, "Are you telling me it does not take place in the Manchester Utd dressing room? My information is that it does." Ferdinand is a hypocrite, just like Henry Winter and Oliver Holt. Footballers are the last people on earth that should have a right to be critical of a person's morals.
For me, Andy Gray and Richard Keys were and are the best at what they do. Presenting and the analysis of the best of English football. They have been doing it for almost 20 years and it's a great shame they are not being allowed to continue doing so. I will miss them a lot. I would like to think they will be given the opportunity to work for another television broadcaster in the future. If I was the boss at ESPN, I would sign them up as soon as possible. Give them a weekly show so they can continue to give us the highest standard of football presenting and analysis.
Maybe I'm dreaming about that, but it's hard to accept they will never appear again on our screens in the capacity they were working in so well.
For me, it's an over reaction to Gray and Keys' behaviour on the part of Sky Sports. What was said between the two of them is banter that takes place in pubs and workplaces everyday all over the country. Their dialogue was not broadcast on air - it was a private conversation off air. Yes, what they said was sexist, but not sufficient to merit a sacking.
The fact this off air conversation was made public means somebody at Sky Sports wanted them to pay for it. Or else this would never have seen the light of day. The same goes for the video clips that were released soon after, obviously again by an employee or employees of Sky Sports. Why did they want Gray and Keys out? Jealousy and envy spring to mind. Or perhaps they are ageist and want younger personalities to take their place. Whatever their reason is, it's sad and pathetic behaviour.
Of course, it would not be surprising if it's the same person or people who decided to sack Andy Gray. Apparently, a reprimand was as far as it was going to go until the video clip of him asking Charlotte Jackson to "tuck him in" was released by a Sky Sports employee. It's absolutely ridiculous Gray was sacked because of this clip. Incidents similar to this occur all the time. We would have thousands of men sacked every day if that's a sackable offence. Sky Sports were obviously looking for a reason to sack Gray, and the first little chance they had, they took it. I certainly hope Gray is successful with his plans to sue Sky Sports for £3 million.
What annoys me is how Gray and Keys have been treated differently by many people. Gray is made out to be the bad guy while Keys is looked upon as being led astray. Why? It was Keys that initiated the conversation about the lineswoman. It was also Keys that had a go at Karren Brady. So why do journalists like Henry Winter and Oliver Holt and many other people portray Gray as this seedy figure, but look upon Keys as still a great presenter? I cannot see what Gray has done that is worse than Keys. Surely not that incident with Charlotte Jackson? Come on. Keys made sexist remarks in a video clip where he is referring to an ex-girlfriend of Jamie Redknapp. I can't understand why Sky Sports did not sack Keys if they thought they were justified in sacking Gray. I would love to know their explanation of this, but emailing them will not produce a reply, I'm afraid. Someone or some people at Sky Sports obviously had it in for Gray more so than Keys.
I disagree that the views of Gray and Keys are "prehistoric." As I wrote earlier, views or banter like this happen all over the country every day. The problem is we love in a world that has became increasingly politically correct. Yes, politically correct gone mad. You can't say anything without some killjoy complaining of you being sexist, racist, or homophobic. We have to be extra guarded about what we say, because some humourless person will complain and report it if it falls slighty into the three categories I just mentioned. Lighten up, people. Stop taking everything so seriously. Have a laugh. The world has become too intense, uptight, and humourless.
An example of this is Rio Ferdinand. He tweeted "prehistoric banter, no place for it." Richard Keys was correct when he referred to it with, "Are you telling me it does not take place in the Manchester Utd dressing room? My information is that it does." Ferdinand is a hypocrite, just like Henry Winter and Oliver Holt. Footballers are the last people on earth that should have a right to be critical of a person's morals.
For me, Andy Gray and Richard Keys were and are the best at what they do. Presenting and the analysis of the best of English football. They have been doing it for almost 20 years and it's a great shame they are not being allowed to continue doing so. I will miss them a lot. I would like to think they will be given the opportunity to work for another television broadcaster in the future. If I was the boss at ESPN, I would sign them up as soon as possible. Give them a weekly show so they can continue to give us the highest standard of football presenting and analysis.
Maybe I'm dreaming about that, but it's hard to accept they will never appear again on our screens in the capacity they were working in so well.
Thursday 6 January 2011
Unguilty Pleasures.
What exactly IS a guilty pleasure? I mean, you either like something or you don't. Why would you feel guilty about it? What would make you feel guilty to like something? It really is a stupid phrase. What idiot or idiots thought it up?
I ask this because there seems to be a common use of "guilty pleasures" over the past few years. The idiots seem to attach it to something classic from years gone by. For instance, classic musical artists like Abba and ELO have been tarnished with this awful description. Two of the best pop acts of the 1970s. Why do the idiots think it's guilty to like them? Why would they be embarrassed to like listening to their music? Very strange behaviour.
My theory is it is the views of young people who look back upon classic works in the past as "cheesy" and embarrassing to listen to. They are snobs who look down upon the likes of Abba and ELO as if they should only be heard in private, and not shared with the outside world. Why? I guess because these artists are too old and not considered "trendy" enough. Musical snobs.
I also hate the word "cheesy". Once again, it's used to describe things like classic music from the 70s and 80s in a derogatory sense. Again, by the same young people who use the words "guilty pleasures" in their vocabulary. You hardly ever hear older people like myself use "cheesy" and "guilty pleasures" when talking about classic music from the distant past. "Classic pop" and "classic rock" are the perfect descriptions for it. We are not musical snobs because we grew up with music when it was far superior to todays's mediocrity.
Abba and ELO are pleasures not to feel guilty about. They are unguilty pleasures, to be precise. You should never feel guilty about liking something, regardless of when it was produced. And please stop using "cheesy" as a description... it's much better to describe it as "classic".
I ask this because there seems to be a common use of "guilty pleasures" over the past few years. The idiots seem to attach it to something classic from years gone by. For instance, classic musical artists like Abba and ELO have been tarnished with this awful description. Two of the best pop acts of the 1970s. Why do the idiots think it's guilty to like them? Why would they be embarrassed to like listening to their music? Very strange behaviour.
My theory is it is the views of young people who look back upon classic works in the past as "cheesy" and embarrassing to listen to. They are snobs who look down upon the likes of Abba and ELO as if they should only be heard in private, and not shared with the outside world. Why? I guess because these artists are too old and not considered "trendy" enough. Musical snobs.
I also hate the word "cheesy". Once again, it's used to describe things like classic music from the 70s and 80s in a derogatory sense. Again, by the same young people who use the words "guilty pleasures" in their vocabulary. You hardly ever hear older people like myself use "cheesy" and "guilty pleasures" when talking about classic music from the distant past. "Classic pop" and "classic rock" are the perfect descriptions for it. We are not musical snobs because we grew up with music when it was far superior to todays's mediocrity.
Abba and ELO are pleasures not to feel guilty about. They are unguilty pleasures, to be precise. You should never feel guilty about liking something, regardless of when it was produced. And please stop using "cheesy" as a description... it's much better to describe it as "classic".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)