Minor nuisances from the mobile world.

There are (please don't be surprised by this, it would be really depressing) a huge number of applications available for S60-powered phones like the N95 which use network connections. In fact, even ebook readers can go away and talk to their own stores.

So it can be quite tedious to have to tell an application which connection you want it to use, between the mobile network and any local WiFi networks, every single frigging time.

And there is one, that's one application which handles this intelligently. Shozu. Specify connections, tell it which to try first, and it will then work it's way through the list. Which means that if I'm within range of an accessible and free WiFi node, I won't have to worry about getting slugged data charages.

Can't everyone else work this out?

Your daily dose of ludicrous: red pens

If teachers mark students' work with a red pen they run the danger of offending children because red is an "aggressive colour". See Courier mail.

I am nearly at a loss for words.

I can, in fact, hardly do better than the words of Deputy Opposition Leader Mark McArdle, who said:

"Given your 10-year-old Labor government presides over the lowest numeracy and literacy standards of any state in Australia, don't you think it's time we focused on classroom outcomes rather than these kooky, loony, loopy, lefty policies?"

Does it really soften the blow if your essay is returned so smothered with purple ink you can't read it, or the "F" is written in green, or you find "Rat shit" scrawled across the top in a fetching shade of mauve?

But wait, there's more.

Just to illustrate that Queensland seems to be adept at breeding proto-fascist governments of any stripe, see this brilliant piece of wartime-government evasion from our premier:

"Premier Anna Bligh called the question trivial at a time of "such economic peril"."

Well, Anna, if you can't focus on competing demands of government at the same time, resign.

No, it really is about revenue raising

Queensland police, who appear to have noticed that their current speeding deterrents aren't working, are considering publicising the locations of mobile speed cameras, in an attempt to get people to slow down (Courier Mail).

Now, there are many arguments over the use of sneakily hidden (and don't ever try to argue that they aren't - hiding behind bushes, in gulleys beside the road, over the crest of hills...) speed cameras to monitor speed limits. There are at least as many arguments over what the speed limits should be, and how much speeding actually contributes to the road toll, but let's not go there right now. The main complaint, in detailed form, can be summarised thusly:

• There is no deterrent effect to random speeding fines turning up in the mail a couple of weeks after the event.
• Therefore, there're obviously not serious about actually stopping people from speeding.
• Therefore, they're not actually interested in the road toll.
• Therefore, cameras are a revenue-raising exercise.

I think that just about sums it up nicely. Well, have a look at the nice, sweeping, general, claim in that article: If people slow down before getting to the cameras, and don't get booked, then funds received from speed cameras could drop by $30 million. I'll write that again, shall I:

$30 million

So: Every year, speed camera fines add up to somewhere in the region of $30 million, and people are still speeding, and the road toll keeps on climbing. Now, while I'm not in favour of conspiracy theories which claim that the government is doing this deliberately in order to make as much money as possible (medical costs from accident victims, let alone care costs, probably exceed that each year), do you think I would be justified in claiming that we can see here the mark of incompetence?

• Item: People are still speeding
• Item: The road toll is getting worse.
• Item: They've only just now started trying something different.

Yep, doesn't seem all that competent an administration to me.

Now, let's get back to the more contentious issue of whether the police should be doing anything about speeding at all.

Please note, from the article:

"A similar move in 2001 by South Australian police corresponded with a sharp drop in the level of speeding detections.

"But no independent analysis of the program had been done to link the drop with publicity of camera sites."

Notice what's missing? No mention at all of accident rates, or even safety in general, vague terms.

The entire article is talking about speeding, and narry a mention of "every K over is a killer" to be seen.

Which leads me to these three conclusions:

• Incompetent or bored and careless journalists
• A new editorial direction from the Courier Mail
• South Australia didn't see a change in accident rates coinciding with this drop in speeding offences detected.

Now, I can think of two very good possible explanations for that last conclusion:

1. It's not the speed that's the problem, it's the incompetence of the drivers
2. The way people react to an approaching speed camera (braking, taking eyes of the road to glance at the speedometer, nervous twitch of the steering wheel, flashing lights at oncoming drivers who get distracted, etc.) causes crashes.

Obviously, those two are compatible, and indeed probably occur together more often than not.

Here's a thought: train drivers properly. Maybe when they're able to judge safe speeds, distances, and the behaviour of other road users, they might not exceed those limits quite so much.

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot. That would require the government doing something pro-active and innovative, when it's so much easier to just try and punish, when any matric-level psychology student could explain that punishments don't work.

What I particularly love is the way that the Courier Mail is spinning this: "Revenue to fall". Oh no, if the police try something which might have an impact upon speeding, the government will be worse off!

Are they trying to be sarcastic? That's my job...

That CAN'T be what the word means!

The prototype Ducati Streetfighter is the ugliest motorcycle it has ever been my horror to perceive. It look as though a hurricane swept through a junkyard and managed to assemble a motorcycle. It looks as though Ducati had a think, and thought "Well, the Benelli TNT is the maddest naked bike on the market, so not only will we have to build a bike more powerful than that, but uglier as well!" And, damn them, they succeeded. There are more jagged edges and conflicting shapes on that bike than on Honda's entire catalogue.

So please, for the sake of my sanity, explain to me how it managed to win 'Most Beautiful Bike Of The Show" in Milan?

Beautiful? Oh, please gods, no. How do you justify calling that "beautiful"? There's one beautiful angle on the entire bike - rear three-quarters.

What is this new standard of "beauty" that focuses more on eye-watering visual impact than upon, well, beauty?

I despair of humanity, I really do.

No, your irrational and childish beliefs are NOT special

I've already commented on my attitudes towards defamation and religion, here.

(Anybody who feels, at any point while reading this, that I'm a tool of Satan and have it all wrong and are being offensive, really should go and read that first, and then wonder if it's really worth your effort venting at me.)

Now, thanks to the Bronze Dog, I have been made aware that the world is imploding into a B-grade anti-utopian movie plot. The United Nations is condemning defamation of religion.

Okay, maybe you should go and read that earlier post of mine anyway, to get some idea of how complex the whole mess of "defamation law" is.

To start with, is it defamatory to speak the truth? The traditional judicial defence is that if a statement is proven true, it's not defamatory because it's not injuring your reputation, merely lowering it to the status it should have had already. Although in some jurisdictions you still have to argue that you were justified in speaking the truth.

So, if I were to say that the Christian church is basing its teachings (sorry, brainwashings) upon a book which has been translated numerous times, mistranslated, had sections excised and other sections added, and can not accurately be said to represent the teachings as delivered through Jesus: Is that defamatory?

If I were to say that Islam as traditionally and, in many cases, continuously, practiced is, by the standards of my culture, inextricably tied with pederasty, a justice system which has gross human rights violations built in not to mention a complete lack of understanding of human behaviour, and has been responsible for ongoing violatiosn of basic human rights (including hte one about being able to stay alive) world-wide: Is that defamatory?

Of course, I could add that Mormonism violates several basic precepts of my society to do with marriage and basic freedoms as well as having a belief system which moves me to laughter; I could add that Scientology was founded upon works of fiction written by a failed fiction author who is reported to have once stated "If you really want to make money, start a religion", that it has medically unsupported and medically contra-indicated practices, that it shows a complete lack of understanding of psychophysiology and is, in addition, rather silly and uses a basic voltmeter to try and analyse your soul. Besides which, Tom Cruise is a dickwad.

I could also add that the Moonies have given us an invaluable new term of away-with-the-fairiedom and that Sihks have one of the most absurd dress codes I have ever seen.

But what's the point? The world is so addicted to Arab oil that they have a political force over and above all rationality.

So here's what I would like to see: If the UN really upholds defamation of religion as being, like, wrong, let's see the Vatican sue the nearest large Islamic body for defamation. After all, you can't defend the truth-and-the-sole-truth of your religion without saying that others are wrong, can you? And hell, isn't calling a belief system which claims ultimate authority over truth, wrong, defamatory?

Pass the popcorn and, in case this gets completely out of hand, pass the Kool-Aid as well.

America needs to be forbidden from using the word "civilised"

Obama election provokes rise in hate crimes (ABC News Online)

Here we go....

So: It appears that Barrack Hussein Obama, the first non-white president-elect of the United States of America, has made moves to appoint the first black Attorney General.

I have a proposal to make: The first person who says something along the lines of "See! They stick together!" or "This country is being taken over! Everybody go for your guns!" gets taken out the back and shot.

Link to ABC News Online story "Obama to appoint first black A-G"