It will come as no surprise that this post will be a criticism of the Apple Corporation. To see off any backlash against proponents of their products, I have no major issue with the hardware that carries their logo. On the whole products are stylish, functional and feature-rich. However I will raise a couple of concerns while we are on the subject. Firstly, I have an inherent dislike of any black-box device … in other words, one for which modification is not only discouraged but also actively suppressed. I’m sure for some the concept of a finished product that invites no end-user tinkering is nirvana, but for the techie this comes across as overly paternalistic. For example, there is no way to change the battery on an iPod without voiding the warranty … or paying Apple an extortionate sum to perform the routine task for you.

The second hardware concern was that they released the iPhone 4 to market with an easily exploited Achilles heel – that of the now infamous signal issue. That a new device had a problem is hardly unique, but given it so significantly impacted a core function … that of making phone calls … really should have been nipped in the bud prior to the official launch.

I could wax lyrical, but must get onto the meat of the issue, namely the modus operandi demonstrated by Apple. Fifteen or more years ago, I can remember using one of the early Mac models at school. At the time the Macintosh was regarded as revolutionary, as were those who used them. In the intervening years Apple managed to create an elitist aura with ownership being akin to membership of an enlightened fraternity.

At the same time, Microsoft was beleaguered with lawsuits, many of them entirely justified, attacking the protectionist strategies they employed to seize market share. They have been fined millions of dollars for the embedded integration of Internet Explorer into Windows products, yet when Apple hard-coded Safari into the iPhone and aggressively defended against any attempts to make competitors’ browsers available, it registered no attention. Although some 3rd-party browsers have subsequently appeared, they must use Safari’s layout engine (WebKit).

This leads me nicely onto another somewhat devious strategy adopted by Apple …. that software for their devices may only be obtained from them, with the threat of a loss of warranty for disobendiance. It is claimed that their benign motive is to ensure quality control, but the cynic in me thinks that they just want control. Imagine the hue and cry if Microsoft suddenly announced that the only software that would run on Windows were products that they either produced or approved. The EU lawyers wouldn’t be able to get their wigs on quick enough, yet somehow this behaviour by Apple has not raised concern.

Such a paternalistic attitude may sound beneficent but stifles development and is hence anti-competitive. That the ubiquitous Flash Player still isn’t permitted to run on the iPhone is another symptom of this. Again, Apple claim they are acting in the best interests of the owner by preventing a potential security catastrophe from running on their devices. That many other computing platforms (including Mac desktops) run Flash without many serious problems must not be relevant. The situation wouldn’t be quite so deleterious if Apple actually provided an alternative, but they have not. Which leaves the net result that iPhones cannot functionally utilise any website that has majority Flash content. A somewhat strange stance, given that the iPhone is supposed to be a full web integrated device.

Before I wrap up my last charge is against the spectre of the “Cult of Apple”. An unshakeable superior smugness adopted by some Apple owners. Few other possessions seem to spur owners into berating people who favour alternatives. If not for the tangibility of the focus, it could easily be viewed as akin to religious fever. All of which, no doubt, encouraged by the high priest Steve Jobs. He deserves credit for spearheading a business that has mimicked some of the more questionable strategies of it’s biggest rival, while simultaneously maintaining a whiter-than-white reputation. To paraphrase Baudelaire: The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.

This post was induced by the recent finding by the Librarian of Congress in the US allowing jail-breaking of the iPhone. Unsurprisingly, vigorously opposed by Apple with many claims of doomsday proportions. However, EFF’s counsel, Fred von Lohmann, put it best: “I have a Toyota. Toyota would, of course, prefer that I use nothing but authentic Toyota parts and Toyota dealers for service, and that they would also prefer that I not modify my Toyota in ways that might be dangerous to me. I appreciate all that, but it is my automobile at the end of the day.”

Over the past few years they have been slowly expanding the cycle lane network around the city. On the face of it, the project deserves praise. Cyclists occupy little space on the road, produce a fraction of the pollution of an internal combustion engine. And, most importantly, every bike rider means one less car hence less congestion. The main deterrent is the stark vulnerability and inevitable hospital admission during any tangle with a vehicle.

So, you might have thought that cyclists should be protected from other road traffic. This has clearly also occurred to many city councils around the world, especially in Northern Europe, who have laid out logical and well-designed networks to ensure pedal-pushers can get to work safely in the morning. But, not so here in Adelaide.

The disparity between enthusiasm and competence is exemplified by the hamfisted manner in which cycle lanes are set out. For example, on wide, open roads on which bikes and cars successfully co-existed previously they have helpfully painted in lines pointing out where the cyclists should go. Utterly pointless due to the sheer amount of road-space making the need for separation unnecessary. Then, on narrow roads, or at choke points or junctions, in other words any point at which cyclists need protection the most, these cycle lanes abruptly end. Leaving us with a choice of committing the felony of cycling on the pavement or literally taking your life in your hands by mingling with heavy traffic.

The situation isn’t helped by a sinister prevailing attitude amongst drivers here who see cyclists as a malignant and unwelcome presence, rather than a fellow road-user to be cooperated with.

So, the council’s heart may be in the right place, and I applaud the spirit of their intention, but they really need to get cyclists to design cycle lanes rather than the current crusty civil-servant …. to whom “cycle” is a description of a never-ending bureaucratic exercise …. entrusted with the role. That a steady road-toll mounts should galvanise more effective action more urgently …. as I don’t want to be next.

Recently we took the opportunity to watch Sacha Baron Cohen’s most recent offering Brüno. I’ll summarise by saying it was 2 hours of my life I want back. “Abysmally atrociously abhorrent” would also come close.

For the benefit of those who haven’t, nor shouldn’t, watch this abomination, the basic premise is of a caricature (this time the aforementioned Brüno, but Borat and Ali G were cut from similar cloth) who seeks to push the boundaries of common decency in an effort to embarrass, or humiliate, real people. That those subject are unwitting and unaware participants would be bad enough. After all, such glee at other’s discomfort is the type of practical joke that even children have graduated beyond. But Cohen has pulled an even nastier trick. No longer is it enough just to laugh while they cringe, but this time we have been invited to find humour while their sensibilities are pushed to breaking point.

Increasingly, taboo has been challenged. What is considered acceptable by today’s standards would, very likely, have been distinctly risqué no more than a few decades ago. Swear words have ceased to have the impact they once had. The bawdy comedies of the 70s now give way to sexual openness and a rewriting of film classifications. So, movie producers have to raise the bar ever higher if they want to push their audience’s “thrill button”. It may also be that Gen Y is so struck by apathy that they simply can’t be shocked any more.

Cohen must have realised this as the very purpose of his film seems to be to relish in those who are still thin-skinned. No surprise then, that his last two films have depended on the bigotry and insular attitudes of the American Deep South. Even the Top Gear producers have made the most of this accessible, yet exploitable society.

In other words, the film is simply about deliberately causing offence … for the sake of causing offence. This time the aim is not to target the audience, nor challenge their comfort level. But instead, there is clearly a deliberate intent to provoke the film’s subjects and revel in their uncomfortable and unfettered reactions. Then, those responses are presented in a manner aimed to ridicule. And, in so doing, the film hits rock bottom.

What does it say about a film producer that he has to resort to puerile taunting of those guaranteed to take the bait. There was nothing cerebral nor articulate in the film. I’d even challenge whether it could be seen as a subtle commentary on the prevalence of prejudice still extant in some parts of the world. Instead, it’s merely a cheaply made exploitation flick aimed at the type of moron who thinks it’s funny to belittle the value set of others.

For shame, Mr Cohen, for shame.

I’m not going to rant on about the numerous health risks, societal damage and crime resulting from alcohol intake, as I’ve covered those subject before. The downsides are also well documented in the annals of history and reinforced by the news media on a regular basis.

Instead, I’m more angry at governments who tacitly allow it to be a blight on society. It will come as no surprise that this substance also garners them significant revenue in the form of excise duty. Yet, at the same time they bombard us with dire warnings of the negative aspects of alcohol. Mostly this relates to the combination with driving, but not just.

So, rather than paying lip service to impact reduction, again I’d call for tougher action. The alternative should be for them to just leave us alone. Either people should be allowed to exercise free will or not. A feeble half-way house just isn’t cutting it. The weekly reports in the papers about persistent problems despite publicity shows that the current management model is impotent to say the least.

On the walk home we talked about the significance of commemorating lost servicemen and the lessons to be learnt. One of the key saying from such services, an excerpt from “From The Fallen” by Laurence Binyon, goes:

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years contemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.

It is usually then followed by the title of this post. And yet little changes. We remember their sacrifice on an individual basis, but not what they died for.

After the First World War, the Treaty of Versailles crippled Germany to the extent that allowed for the rise of Fascism and the dominance of Hitler. After the Second World War, failed East-West relationships paved the way for decades of proxy Cold War conflicts. At one point, the UK and US governments funded and equipped Saddam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran War. During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the CIA backed the Taliban. And yet, those same previous allies were subsequently labelled enemies and we went to war to remove them.

Clearly we have learnt very little from prior conflicts and meddling in the affairs of other countries. How many more people on both sides, and the innocents caught in the cross-fire, need to die before insight occurs?

After many months of delay on my part, I have finally pushed through the paperwork necessary to acquire full registration here. Or have I? Well, it turns out that what I thought would be a formality from here is somewhat more complex than it need be.

I thought it was reasonable enough that the AMC would want to see full and frank evidence of my experience and qualifications from the UK, but now the local board seem to want their pound of flesh too. A clinical assessment was always on the agenda, but I didn’t realise that I would have to put in yet more paperwork just to get there.

It would appear that the board is indulging themselves in bureaucracy, as they want me to send them a certified copy of my medical registration, even though it is them who issued it. Perhaps they don’t trust their own records, as you would have thought it would have been a simple matter to check the current database.

So, yet more hoops to jump through. Especially since, every time one of these organisations requests documentation, I have to find a Justice of the Peace to countersign. It’s a good thing they don’t charge for their services otherwise I’d have made one rather wealthy by now. Instead I’ve just been testing her patience.

Apologies for yet another ranty post, but all of this procedural BS just strikes me as utterly unnecessary. Medical education and training is very similar in both the UK and Australia so logic would dictate that the GMC and AMC get together and compare records. It could, nay should, be simple for one organisation to recognise each other’s people, but instead those of us “on the shop-floor” get forced through a convoluted and frustrating obstacle course.

The title of this thread is tangentially relevant as, if climate change continues on course, there may not be many trees left to block the view.

Recently an attempt to introduce emission capping through a carbon trading scheme was voted down for the second time in the Australian senate. Admittedly it is just a band-aid solution but at least it shows that the incumbent Labor (sic) government is trying to adopt a more environmentally-minded position.

But, as predicted, the Nationals refused to come to the party and, spurred on by climate-change-deniers in their ranks, voted against. They are far too similar to the Republican party in every way, and their cavalier attitude to the environment apes their American cousins. Their obligatory defence maintains they are supporting jobs and the economy, but other countries have shown that there is much money to be made through carbon offset schemes.

In any case, this should not be necessary in Australia. We have sun in abundance and millions of desolate square kilometres in which to install solar farms. Adelaide is also blessed by having predictable strong prevailing winds, and already a fair amount of electricity is generated by wind power. Annoyingly the same Nimby attitude as found in the UK is preventing more widespread roll-out of turbines.

But all of this is still missing one golden opportunity for almost limitless energy production with a neutral carbon footprint. I may have posted this statistic before, but here it is again … Australia has the world’s largest reserves of uranium and yet generates no power whatsoever from it. The legacy of atomic weapons testing in the 1950s clearly still has left the country with baggage, and all proponents of nuclear power have been shouted down.

I think this is a pitiful, narrow-minded, short-sighted attitude. Of course I understand why it is held, and sympathise with those affected, but it is time to let go of the past and look to the future. We cannot continue relying on the planet “taking another one for the team” while we burn fossil fuels at ever increasing rates to match demand. Unfortunately, until the current crop of blinkered and obstinate politicians move on, I can’t see anything changing. Maybe when their multi-million-dollar houses are underwater they will finally wake up. Pity is that, by then, it will be too late.

Of course people are free to engage in acts of grief if they like, but the media have jumped lock-stock on the bandwagon. Not too long ago, many media outlets delighted in picking over the train-wreck that Jackson’s life had become. Schadenfreude doesn’t even begin to describe the enthusiastic mudslinging. Now the volte-face is transparently insincere, with those same agencies now engaging in shameless acts of hero worship.

For shame.

Unfortunately the lack of consideration and spatial awareness doesn’t just extend to fellow motorist. Those on two wheels are inconvenienced too by selfish and obstinate behaviour. These “cretin” drivers in this city seem to fall into one of two categories. Firstly the drivers who get flustered and confused around cyclists. They tend to hesitate, drive right on our rear wheel and then overtake recklessly. It is almost as if they don’t know what to do with the biker, and as a result their attempts at avoidance actually make them unpredictable and a significant threat.

These would be bad enough on their own, but the second type of driver seems to percieve cyclists as a threat. This results in equally unpredictable and erractic behaviour to their more cautious counterparts. The main difference is that they scream past, and accelerate aggressively in order to get past. This often results in them squeezing past through tight gaps just so they can get in front. I’ve lost count of the number of times I have almost been hit. To make matters worse the traffic light sequence often sees the cyclist catch up with cars at the next set of lights. This provides yet another chance to dice with death.

Unfortunately the city road layout doesn’t really lend itself to cycling and bike lanes are few and far between. When present they are often simply created by painted lines on existing roads rather than being dedicated and physically separated from car lanes. Also, many tend to end abruptly and simply dump cyclists back into busy traffic lanes. I’ve also seen motorist cross into these cycle lanes either to cut corners or simply while meandering all over the road. The city council have pledged to improve the cycle track network, but it seems to be slow going so far.

I do what I can to immunise myself from risk. Wearing a day-glo jacket and using lights both during the day and night will hopefully make me noticeable even to the most dozy and blinkered motorist. However the cyclist still needs to have 360 degree vision and assume risk is everywhere. My worst fear is that one day I may need retrieval by the service I work for. All I, and the other bikers on the road, can do is be careful and keep fingers crossed that it’s not our turn to wind up in the RAH each day.

At this point you may, entirely reasonably, be asking what has prompted this change of heart. Especially from someone who enjoys a fine wine or whisky. The rewards of drinking responsibly are undeniable with medical evidence that moderate alcohol consumption improves mortality from a host of diseases. Not to mention the loosening of inhibitions that has made it the great social lubricant.

Unfortunately, working in the medical field, and especially Intensive Care, has exposed me to the malevolent aspects of alcohol. We seem to have an endless trail of alcohol related destruction trailing through the unit. This presents as a mix of assaults, intoxications and trauma cases, all of them directly related to alcohol consumption, and therefore entirely avoidable.

For some reason drink-driving doesn’t seem to taboo in South Australia in the same way as it was in the UK when I was growing up. A couple of years ago over 8000 people were arrested in South Australia alone for drink driving. From personal experience it seems almost all of the car crash drivers who wind up on our unit have elevated blood alcohol levels.

The negative impact doesn’t just stop here. In South Australia again, alcohol is directly responsible for the death of 400 people a year on average. It is also responsible for almost 6000 hospital admissions to the Adelaide emergency departments anually. Overall, when taken with statistics from the other states, it all tallies up to a cost of 15 billion dollars to the Australian economy in terms of policing, healthcare, destruction of property and lost productivity.

The summary is plain and simple – alcohol is the most socially destructive drug known to mankind. It is responsible for more violence, crime, social harm, healthcare demands, morbidity and imposition than all of the other substances put together. It isn’t just the negative effects on the user that cause harm but the knock-on effect to others. This is the family members who are scarred by an alcoholic, the innocent bystander who is assaulted by an intoxicated person, the motorist obeying the rules of the road who is traumatised by the drink driver. All of these direct and indirect effects place an unacceptable burden on society.

Now I’m not for one minute saying that other substances are not culpable for social detriment too, but the enormous impact on society is inescapable. I for one would miss the positive aspects of measured alcohol consumption, not to mention the wonderful liquors that it appears in. However in the interests of society, not to mention the burden alcohol places on our bed state, I would be willing to go without.