ieatpenguin

I’ve often been told that I’m an old man trapped in a young man’s body. This is mostly true, except for the young man’s body bit as that is getting increasingly age weary..

Anyway. Having lived, studied, worked and socialised in Cambridge for several years now I would like to think I have something of an understanding of etiquette. In particular, the good old fashioned waistcoat. Why we don’t really wear these any more I’m not sure, and the Edwardian in me somewhat laments the loss of this garment of clothing.

Worse however is, I find, the lack of proper waistcoats seemingly anywhere, but worse – in the hive of evening wear etiquette and culture that is Cambridge. Black-tie is formal wear of a seemingly failing age. No one I’ve spoken to seems to know the proper etiquette of Black-tie wear. Cummerbunds are all well and good for friendly formal dinners, but for the most formal of occasions they simply are not done. The correct dress is a waistcoat. Wide open in a sort of u-shape to three, or four if you are feeling sufficiently flamboyant, buttons; to allow the shirt to be properly seen.

The only waistcoats available in Cambridge are morning waistcoats, high-breasted, oft-six buttoned garments which in many cases where lovely items, but not for formal dinner wear. Extensive searching found what I was after on-line, but given the cost I’d much rather just get one tailored.

Of all places, I had expected Cambridge to maintain an observation of proper etiquette, but as most suit shops there now seem to stock American style tuxedos, I suppose I have to concede that perhaps I was born about a hundred years too late.

This man is a hero in every sense of the word. Worth 5 minutes of your time.

I would like to have the right to die on my lawn with a glass of brandy and Thomas Tallis on my ipod.

Sir Terry Pratchett on the news this morning, regarding his desire for a tribunal to be set up to review “right to die” cases. Such a beautiful little sentiment that it brought a tear to my eye.

I shall from Monday be trying to cut caffeine out of my diet.
I shan’t imagine I’ll be successful, but here goes.

The Register is becoming something of an anti-google spread these days. I realise that there is much to be anti-google about, and I laud them for their articles, but the Reg is usually better balanced.

Anyway, a few worrying articles to read today. Especially the one with the statistics about Googles private network. 10% of all internet traffic is colossal, much bigger then the nearest competitor to the internet – Internet2. And Google are the only company big enough to realistically challenge the internet, if they decided to do so. And given their track record, who’s to say they won’t?

Clever he may be, a marketing genius certainly. But nice? Only miscreants worry about net privacy? I wonder, why is net privacy any different to privacy in ones own house?

I certainly wouldn’t want anyone to come into my house and look around, why would I want to disclose any details on the internet? Least alone to an advertising farm powerhouse, which is essentially all Google is good for these days.

Ok, the loss of myself as a customer won’t hurt Google one bit, but if I take 4cents off Schmidt’s pay cheque at the end of the year, it’s good enough for me.

After yesterday, all cookies and urls from Google were blocked on my computers. I wonder how much of the internet this will change for me, given the all reaching nature of the giant virus. We shall see.

Google, every bodies best friend. It’s faltering mission to provide search results seems to be a thing of the past, more and more these days they seem to be optimising their search engine simply to provide a better basis for their adverts. One can understand this, given the revenue it provides, but why they keep on insisting that they advocate things like net neutrality, and try to maintain such a friendly image is beyond me. I can’t believe that most people don’t see Google for what they are: a money making behemoth, rather then your best friend.

One problem that plagues the internet is the sheer volume of webpages, and naturally we need a filter if we are ever to gain any useful information from using what is arguably the best resource available to man. The danger however appears when one begins to rely on a single outlet. When writing an essay, thesis or just looking for an article, you would not reference a single book. Why would you reference one search engine? It is easy to say that Google provides access to several pieces of information, but the problem – one I doubt many people realise – is that they provide you with what they determine, using vastly complicated algorithms, you want to see.

And this is where the lie comes in. Net neutrality is a contentious issue, there are arguments both for and against. But it is important to realise that Google is not net neutral. To be fair, it isn’t the only search engine that falls into this category, but Google is the one that grates most, given it’s approach to how it serves you, it’s friend. As we know, Googles main purpose is to make money, their trick to doing so is targeting adverts at you based on your search results.

This is all well and good for people that are happy to let Google do this – happy to keep their heads buried in the sand and allow Googles advertising algorithms serve you what they want you to see, based on what people have paid to have their sites served.

Google had always maintained that any data collection would be opt-in. This is now no longer the case. The implications are staggering, but the worry is that this will fly over the heads of a huge percentage of internet users. This should be a huge wake up call to everyone that uses Google, but I rather fear it won’t be. At it’s simplest level, it means every single computer in the world that uses Google for searching will be tracked, and the information stored for their marketing purposes.

Quite how Google can get away with this I don’t know. It rewrites one of the basic tenants of privacy law, changing opt-in to opt-out. And if Google can get away with it, it sets the worrying precedent that anyone can. Try turning off automatic acceptance of cookies in your browser, and seeing just how many requests you get to allow Google cookies in an average days use. It’s staggering. They really are everywhere.

At the end of the day though, the worry is that people will no longer be able to get simply the best results from a search. The whole beauty of the internet is that there is such variety – if our search results are being screened and then future search results based on this, we are losing the beauty of truly searching, we are merely reiterating through old searches.

The simplest answer is to not use Google, there are after all many search engines out there,Microsoft’s Bing being one to have gained market share recently, but that doesn’t solve the problem. If Google are allowed to get away with this, it changes the whole stance on privacy on the internet, and potentially elsewhere. The problem being that no one stands up to Google the way they stood up to Microsoft, or Intel – e.g. in the Windows/IE debacle and the Intel price fixing &anti-competition fiasco – because of the way Google markets itself.

It needs to change, Google need to be reigned in. Google must be stopped.

I thought I’d give this a go – why not? It’s a simple recipe with some fruitiness.

Ingredients/Equipment:

• 100 Proof Neutral Grain Spirit (I have chosen Stolichnaya Vodka)
• 80 Proof Neutral Grain Spirit (Again I’ve gone with Stolly)
• 1 Lemon
• 1 Orange
• 1 Cardamon Pod
• 1 Cinnamon Stick
• 8 Grams of Coriander
• 22g of Juniper Berries

• Electronic Scale
• Pestle & Mortar
• Filter Jug
• Resealable Jar

Grind all the ingredients together – except the Juniper Berries (leave them whole). And as for the lemon and orange zest them and add only the skin.

Add the 100 Proof neutral spirit, and then place in a dark, room-temperature place for a week.

Updates in a week .

Since my accident, and now that all that insurance bollocks follow-up is out of the way, I’ve realised – I’m actually not so stressed about life.

I survived a car crash that I arguably shouldn’t have walked away from with some bruises, a few problems with my spine and neck that will heal, and not a lot else. This hasn’t meant I’ve suddenly started believing in God, and that I’m going to join a church or the like, but it does mean I’ve realised how lucky I am to have the things that are in my life.

Friends, family, my health, hell – even my job. My life has casually and comfortably slowed down.

And its great.

With a panel selected by the Prime Minister, and witnesses requested to tell the truth, neither under oath nor with the threat of prosecution, one has to wonder why on earth people who piss away tax money so easily are allowed any power.

The only reasonable outcome of this would be to see Tony Blair, George Bush, and the rest of the senior administrations of the time tried for their War Crimes.

Another inquiry, another farce, another colossal waste of taxpayers money.