Fifth Decade

The 2007 season has had more twists and turns than a race around the old 14 mile long Nurburgring. Even now, with no more races to go, the results could still change due to apparent rule infringements by the BMW and Williams teams.

For a number of years, the fuel in a Formula One car has had to be analysed carefully by the FIA during races to prevent unfair advantage accruing to one team or another. The fuel is the basis for the power an F1 car produces, and the more power the car has, the faster it can lap. The cooler the fuel, the higher up the field the car finishes.

In the past, some teams added illegal substances to their fuel tanks. These days it is the temperature of the fuel that makes a difference, and both BMWs and Nico Rosberg’s Williams were all found to have been using fuel that was overcooled. Spyker technical chief Mike Gascoyne said he believed the variation would have provided a performance advantage:

“It can be five to ten horsepower easily,” he told autosport.com. “The car is producing a performance advantage during the race. If they dump fuel in that is below the limit, it is an illegal performance advantage. They should be excluded from the event, there is absolutely no doubt.”

Initially the FIA Technical Delegate, Jo Bauer, announced that the three cars in question had broken the rules. Then, after some politicking no doubt, some hours after this announcement the stewards at the race said he was wrong.

With the huge heavy hand they applied to McLaren earlier in the year, the FIA have boxed themselves into a bit of a corner when it comes to how they treat any other team when it comes to rule infringements. They were so concerned with applying the rules when it came to McLaren, if they back out of using their own rules again now they will be giving support to anyone claiming they are biased in favour of Ferrari and against McLaren.

If, as Mike Gascoyne says, the three cars should be disqualified, that would move Hamilton up three places in the race classification, give him three more points, and elevate him from second to first in the Championship. But the stewards decided they could not bear to do this and chickened out.

So, McLaren had no option other than to appeal. Hence the 2007 Drivers’ Championship is still not over, and may be settled in the courts, just as the Constructors Championship was.

Now, that would be poetic justice.

It’s been quite a year. McLaren attacked and fined by the FIA claiming they had access to Ferrari secrets - an Oxymoron if ever there was one. Revelations from Ferrari that things are only illegal when they are, err, discovered to be - so the illegal floor they used to gain an aerodynamic advantage with when winning in Australia was, err, not really illegal… hmm.

We had a new circuit layout at Spa - previously one of the world’s most interesting, and feared, circuits of the year. Now the circuit has been totally neutered with the effective removal of the La Source hairpin and the construction of the Eau Rouge bypass and unsurprisingly Spa subsequently produced one of the year’s most boring races because of these changes. Bernard, really!

For all the controversy though, we have had one of the closest years of racing ever. With just one race to go, we have three drivers who could all walk away with the Championship tomorrow. That would have been impossible during the Schumacher era - not because of Schumacher’s on the track talent, which itself was prodigious when not under pressure, but because he always got contractual number one status, something that is actually illegal under the rules. It was never tested though despite many team mates, including both Johnny Herbert and Eddie Irvine, having confirmed this on record by saying there was no true sharing within the team. For instance, MS could take their car data and use it for himself, but they were prevented from using his. Rubens Barichello famously described himself as “Driver 1b” after he eventually realised which way the cookie always crumbled.

Ironic that this weekend the Max Mosley FIA witch hunt against McLaren demanded that an FIA scrutineer should sit on the McLaren pit all weekend to “ensure fair treatment for Alonso”. This is after Alonso’s outburst at the last GP in China where after qualifying he could not accept that he was beaten by rookie Hamilton, instead throwing a hissy fit and ripping a door off its hinges in the McLaren motorhome and shouting to the press that he had “received unfair treatment” which is his standard response to being beaten fair and square.

Of course, Alonso is dead against this. He has publicly said that he “doesn’t think such a move is necessary.” Of course he doesn’t. If he is beaten this weekend, which seems not unlikely, he will not be able to claim he only lost because Hamilton got better treatment than him! Hoist by his own petard… but so Mediterranean. I’ve beaten people like that before: they can never accept someone else is better. And Hamilton is way better.

So, will Raikkonnen regret leaving McLaren? Will Alonso regret joining? Ron Dennis will probably regret signing him, the world’s most expensive ever driver. Ferrari will probably regret their control of the FIA was so openly demonstrated this year. Max Mosley will probably come to regret many of his actions this year, not least of which will be his childish and self-belittling public attacks on three times World Drivers Champion and Grand Prix winning team chief Sir Jackie Stewart (now retired) when Mosley reportedly described dyslexic Stewart as a “certified half-wit” while at a lunch with journalists.

The only man to probably have no regrets this weekend will be Hamilton. He may have been white hot molten iron previously, but he has now passed through the F1 mill of deceit, intrigue and politics, coming out as weapons grade forged steel. His reputation, at least, is secure.

And as Nietschze said “That which does not kill me makes me stronger.”

We all get them. Well, most of us anyway. All those reminders. Never ending trails of paper that hound you until your hair falls out. They start at least 6 months before you actually need to renew, but never tell you exactly when you really do need to renew.

After a while, you’ve had so many of them that you become anaesthetised to their arrival. They land on the doormat like confetti, and you treat them just like confetti. Of course, we do collect them; we  store them in the paper recycling pile ready for the next collection, another redundant refugee from the mailshot mailman.

But why, you ask, am I so annoyed by them? Simple. It’s because of them I miss the magazine renewal date. It’s because of them I miss number twelve.

Now, that’s an issue that needs addressing.

You’ve probably noticed you can get iPod Nanos in many different neon-like colours. Now you can even get iPod shuffles in brilliant colours. Heck, even the Microsoft Zune comes in bright, err, brown.

Looking at cars, most women I know haven’t got a clue what make of car their friends drive, but they do know what colour they are. They can’t tell the sound of a V8 from a straight 6, but they do remember colour. We men aren’t immune either: not for nothing is the most popular car colour silver. Well, after red, blue and white of course.

So, what about computers? Apple laughs at the tired old beige boxes that PCs represent - but then only sell MacBooks in White. Or Black. That’s it - there is no iPod halo effect here. Colours are completely missing from the picture, even though the polycarbonate case of a MacBook lends itself perfectly to colour coordination.

With today’s fast injection moulding processes, the case could easily be custom coloured as an optional extra, and to fit in with all those Graphic Designer types that use Apples all the time for their work, perhaps they could launch a range that use the standard Pantone colours! Hey, you could buy a set of laptops in your own company colours.

Anyway, my girlfriend wants a blue one. She doesn’t know it yet, but if it were blue she might even forget it’s a Mac which she doesn’t understand. She happily reboots her Windows PC 5 or 6 times each day, but won’t make (can’t make) the switch to Mac completely as it is too different for her. One day she’ll have to leave Windows 98 behind though, and I don’t fancy having to pick up the pieces of Vista reinstalls…

So, c’mon Steve, bring us a range of coloured MacBooks. I’ll be blue if you don’t…

Tony Blair, current-but-not-for-long UK Prime Minister had a band at University called Ugly Rumours. Now Ugly Rumours has got into the UK Top 20 from download sales alone with an anti-Iraq war song. Based on the catchy tune last made famous by Frankie Goes to Hollywood (I’ve got it on vinyl still) the new track actually makes quite good listening, as well as representing a pop at the Prime Minister for taking us into a needless war.

The song is available in three different flavours from the Indiestore website for £1.50. All profits go to the “Stop the War” coalition. They also seem to be against a nuclear deterrent and have some CND links which I don’t agree with myself, I think the nuclear deterrent was what kept Europe safe from Russia for all those years. Having said that, I think buying a copy of the song itself sends a needed message to the PM that he really shouldn’t be so arrogant. He still hasn’t expressed regret or apologised for the false pretenses under which the war was launched.

My favourite version of the song is the Club version. Reminds me, I must get my old vinyl LPs out and play a few - they seem to be coming back into fashion again. Probably because they aren’t digital and can’t be so easily copied… why else would the music industry release them?

Not sure if he’s swapped his wings for an extra set of legs, but this little fella really does have four flippery feet! Apparently he also has “power naps” as his owner, Nicky Janaway, calls them.

Please, drop the “power” from nap - they’re just so opposite, not apposite!

Command of NATO forces in Afghanistan is changing hands again. This time the Brits are handing over to the Americans, whose General in charge has earned himself the nickname “Bomber” so we all know what’s coming next.

US and British soldiers have fundamentally different attitudes to solving military problems, even when fighting together. The American military it seems likes to use a “hit ‘em hard” approach like they used in Vietnam; the Brits, with their experience of winning hearts and minds and ending hostilities in Northern Ireland, like to take a more pragmatic, softly softly approach.

Last year there was a British led offensive to remove the Taleban from Helmand province in SE Afghanistan, which the Brits nearly won. They needed and asked for the funds for more reserves so they could cut off the retreating Taleban and finish the job, but were denied the men they needed. Of course, the Taleban got away to fight another day.

This year, the US take over command of ISAF and are also planning another campaign to remove the newly returned Taleban. And guess what? They are getting the extra cash and reserves the Brits asked for last year. Surprise surprise. Someone wants to hog all the glory.

There are two problems here. The first is a uniquely American one: some, but certainly not a majority, of their on the whole rather good Generals covet political power. Examples of this include Gen Wesley Clark who ran for the Democrat Party’s nomination for President, and Gen Colin Powell who served as Secretary of State in George W Bush’s first term.

Those two Generals were certainly not the first though: they stand at the end of a long line of Generals for whom glory on the battlefield led to political success as well.

Does this affect their judgement as soldiers? Possibly. Does it mean they are more likely to jealously guard or seek out any “glory opportunities” for themselves, perhaps at the expense of getting the job done?

There are certainly some strong rumours that Osamu bin Laden got away because the Americans wanted to be the ones to capture him, even though the British SAS were in the best place to strike, had him under close observation, and were told not to strike but to wait for the Americans.

Somebody once said “You can achieve anything so long as you don’t mind who takes the credit” and I suppose this was one of those moments where the credit mattered more than the task itself. A bit like the internal political squabbles that affected the performance of American security agencies inside that great country around the time of 911.

The second problem here is the squabble over tactics, and in a way this may be affected by the first problem. Let me explain.

Part of the British softly softly approach was to win over the tribal elders (the real power in societies such as Afghanistan and Pakistan). The Brits got together a group of people willing to stand up to the Taleban, people who helped push them out of their protected powerbases. These people went out on a limb to get rid of the Taleban, and have been let down.

Why? Because the Taleban were not crushed, and are now returning. By denying the Brits the reserve support, not only could the Americans claim the British tactics didn’t work, they also created circumstances in which the glory could be theirs - or at least, not the Brits’.

Now the Americans are coming in with Bomber as their boss, the fragile but strategic gains made under the British command may be obliterated in a storm of bullets, bombs and heavy-handedness.

It’s about time the hunt for glory was left behind, and people started focussing on the issues now. If we are to get rid of Osamu bin Laden, does it matter who does it? Or are future political careers more important? Soldiers’ lives may depend on how much of a glory seeker their boss is.

It was supposed to be my day off. I’d gone down to London to visit a Trade Fair, and I’d had loads of fun looking at cameras and other photographer’s work all day long. I’d taken my camera with me, and after the show ended decided to walk around London to capture the life of the city at twilight.

I’d headed down Covent Garden way, as there is usually something interesting happening there - you never know who you’ll meet or what you’ll see. I went past Bow Street Magisrates Court, and carried on walking South.

As I kept on walking I found myself walking down a street I wasn’t familiar with - Drury Lane? There was a Theatre whose name I can’t remember - I think it was the Lyceum. It’s doors were open but nobody was on the door - very strange. From inside came the sound of wailing electric guitars. Intrigued, I crept inside.

There was a crowd of people near the stage - there must have been a hundred or so - and a rock band was playing to them. A typical four piece band, playing the same track over and over again, with film cameras shooting everything that moved. I joined in.

Who were these people, I thought to myself, who was the band? I had a telephoto on the camera so could really see each of them, but I didn’t recognise them or their music, a vanilla flavour of interesting but not compelling soft rock.

The Director came over and said to me “Get in close! Get in closer!” He wanted me in his shots too, of course, but also wanted to help.

I moved closer, but with the telephoto on I was soon close enough at the edge of the stage. The music stopped and started, with the Director wanting three takes of every shot, every time, even when he thought he had a good one. Film was he cheapest commodity there - getting the band to fly over from the States wasn’t something he could do again next week if a shot didn’t work out.

I had a chat with him about his techniques and so on, and he kept on coming back to this single phrase, “Get in Close” which he said in film school was the main instruction for video operators he’d been given.

Since then, as I’ve watched TV programs, Hollywood films, and other film work I’ve seen the echo of this instruction many many times in shots where the camera was in really, really close - often too close for comfort.

And now I’m thinking about getting an HDTV - a larger than life, wall hanging flatscreen that magnifies everything the TV signal sends through the ether. And the Director’s instruction hovers over me like a falcon, ready to strike at any moment.

With High Definition, and “Get in close!” will I really be able to see the detail up people’s noses? Will the screen jump and zoom to show me more than I had bargained for? Will the film schools keep on telling students to “Get in close” even when this makes the viewer look away? And in those TV shows with the “hand-held” cameras nervously flickering around hither and thither, will I get so dizzy I can no longer look at the screen? I already have to look away sometimes just to avoid sea sickness.

Will it be worse in HD? I hope not. Hopefully the Directors will see sense and let me see less intense images of noses, ears and eyes.

Please, step back a bit and let me see more than just the face, not just the wheel of the racing car, but its position in the race. I can’t bear the close up of the drivers helmet as he is overtaken by a rival, I want to see it all, to make it archival. If all I can see is the main sponsors “B” it’ll be no good at all for relaxing TV.

So, please directors, with HDTV, please remember me. I won’t look at your work if you make it too big, too close, too nervous. All that technique will be wasted. And the reason you moved in closer won’t apply any more - with HD detail I’ll still be able to see the close up detail from far away!

Just a quick thank you to all those of you who have posted info about this site to help it get into the Top 100 Fastest Growing blogs on WordPress. Without you, it wouldn’t be there. Thanks again, and remember to keep on telling people about us.

Digg us, del.icio.us us and keep on quoting us. We love it!

Yes, it’s true, the Executive of the BBC is giving Microsoft the equivalent of millions in revenue. For free. On an exclusive basis. They don’t seem to have even realised the commercial implications of what they are doing. But this blogger does.

The BBC wants to begin offering a BBC on-demand TV over the internet service. It’s a very laudable aim - giving viewers 7 days to freely download a program they missed, and then a further 30 days to watch it before it disappears in a puff of smoke. OK, electrons, but let’s not get pedantic.

The problem is, they are planning to use a Microsoft-based DRM strategy. Not only will the strategy be based only on the Microsoft platform, but it will also need Windows XP or above and Media Player 10 to work. If you have a computer that uses Windows 3.1, 95, 98, ME, NT4, 2000, or any Linux or Apple Macintosh computer the BBC will thus exclude you - even if you have paid your licence fee.

Before everything is finalised though, it has to go through a Public Value Test or PVT, and the Conclusions of the BBCTrust [pdf download, 167 kb] which now sits above the governors and the Executive are now available for public scrutiny.

I’ll save you reading through the entire document (it’s pretty yawn inducing overall) but I recommend you read just two bits.

On Page 10, near the bottom it says:

The BBC Executive proposes a digital rights management solution which would require consumers to be using Windows XP (or above) and Windows Media Player 10 (or above) to be able to access seven-day TV catch-up over the internet.

You have to hand it to the Microsoft sales guys, don’t you? They really got into the BBC’s britches! No wonder the BBC is gently pushing Vista - it’s fundamental to their ideas for DRM, so of course they are looking favourably on any press release from Microsoft and even gave Bill Gates an easy time of it when Huw Edwards interviewed him this week.

Then, at the top of Page 11 they go on to say:

Our understanding is that the BBC Executive aspires to offer an alternative DRM framework, which would enable Apple and Linux users to access the service, but has yet to identify a satisfactory solution. In either case, we will expect this to have been addressed within 24 months.

This is the most dangerous point. It basically gives free rein to Microsoft to build a dominating presence in the nascent TV over internet market in the UK. Not only that, but it allows Microsoft free access to BBC television for at least 2 years, as the BBC Trust only require a proposed solution, not an implemented one, within 2 years!

By that time, Microsoft will have used the advantage thus gained to deal a mortal blow to Apple in the home environment for entertainment, or will at least have dramatically clipped Apple’s wings so expansion into that space will have been made only by Microsoft, and not by Apple. First mover advantage would then give yet another monopoly market share to Microsoft. In the UK, the BBC is clearly the dominant player.

The BBC may argue that they had to pick one technology, and don’t have the resources to develop solutions for two. Since their revenue comes mostly from the UK TV Licence Fee - which has just been increased - I can understand their resources are limited to their £4 billion per year income. Which is why it is all the stranger that they haven’t asked Microsoft to pay millions for this exclusive arrangement. Well, not to the BBC anyway. It’ll certainly be worth that and more to Microsoft who get to lock consumers out of Apple and Linux, just at a time when the pendulum is beginning to move in that direction and away from Microsoft.

It isn’t as if there are not already some well-tested alternative solutions in place. Apple has very successful Movies and TV Shows sections with DRM in it’s iTunes store which serves both Microsoft and Apple computers. Linux I know less about, but there must be some alternatives out there for Linux too.

The provisional conclusions are open to consultation for a period of eight weeks, following which a final decision whether or not to approve the proposals will be made by the Trust by 2 May 2007.

If you use an Apple Mac or a Linux box, you need to ask why as a licence payer you are being penalised for choosing a more secure computer; if you use Windows you should ask why Microsoft has not been asked to pay for this vastly commercially advantageous deal that will guarantee them a protected market share for at least two years.

You can send in your complaints to pvtconsultation.ondemand@bbc.co.uk or by snail mail (always gets the BBCs attention) to this address:

On-Demand Consultation
BBC Trust
35 Marylebone High Street
London W1U 4AA

The Minister with responsibility for TV in the UK is Tessa Jowell, who must be looking for a good platform on which to rebuild her reputation right now after the Mills-Berlusconi affair. You can e-mail Tessa Jowell at tessa.jowell@culture.gsi.gov.uk

Update
Ofcom first raised the issue of competition, so are also involved. You can reach them here:
Ofcom Board members and their email addresses

As the Ofcom website is very difficult to navigate to a point from which you can actually do something I’ve also copied the names and emails of their main movers for you:

Chief Executive Officer
Ed.Richards@ofcom.org.uk

Chief Technology Officer
peter.ingram@ofcom.org.uk

Partner, Competition
sean.williams@ofcom.org.uk

Peter Ingram you may remember was involved with the EU’s legal case regarding Microsoft’s alleged abuse of monopoly power which Microsoft have so far lost every round of, but have still to change their attitude regarding lockins of users and lock outs of competitors of their software.

I’ve had a look at the EU website too. The EU’s Competition Commissioner, Neelie Kroes, is clearly going to need to look into this matter. Here’s a relevant excerpt from her website:

“As European Commissioner for Competition, my aim is to promote a fair and free environment for business in Europe.

The job involves both setting EU-wide rules to guarantee fair competition, and enforcing them fairly and with vigour, to prevent and punish any breaches. That means making sure that:

• companies do not carve up markets or fix prices amongst themselves;

• taxpayers money is used to pursue socially desirable objectives without disproportionately distorting competition or wasted when public authorities grant subsidies to business“.

(The italics are mine, just to highlight the areas which this BBC action is moving into.)

Clearly, the BBC-Microsoft deal will carve up markets; the two year timescale will significantly distort competition; and the lack of a fee being charged to Microsoft is in effect a subsidy. It’s a subsidy because a canny commercial broadcaster would have wrung a high price for giving such a hugely advantageous arrangement to a software company that is just beginning to lose market share in both the internet and desktop computer markets.

In effect, the BBC are giving Microsoft a two year season ticket for free.

To contact Neelie Kroes:

Neelie Kroes
European Commissioner for Competition
Neelie.Kroes@ec.europa.eu

Further info:
The Guardian on the BBC iPlayer

University of Auckland Computer Science Department Paper by Peter Gutmann
A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection