A couple of weeks ago I bought a very nice new monitor for my Mac Pro which has displayport connection on the back along with DVI.

In the Mac world we have become used to the mini-displayport. We haven’t really thought too much about the fact that this is a smaller version of a pre-existing connector called the displayport. Odd, given that the name “mini-displayport” is a bit of a clue to the existence of something bigger.

I was quite interested to connect my new monitor to my Mac Pro with a displayport <-> mini-displayport cable. So I phoned up an Apple retailer quite close to where I live and asked them if they had one. In fact they’d never heard of it. I phoned another retailer in Brighton, they had never heard of it either.

I tried Maplin’s website but I could see no sign of it there. I did some searching of the Internet and could not find it in the UK. The only place I could find it was in a US store called Circuit Assembly. So, I bought it from there and after only a few days I had the cable. Mine is two metres and white. Pictures below:

Curled up like a snake.

Displayport connector is a fair bit bigger than Apple’s mini-displayport. Also displayport has a button which releases a pair of locking teeth on the top of the connector.

The teeth of the displayport.

Mini-displayport plug is, well, mini.

The teeth of the mini-displayport

I’m interested in this report in AppleInsider of a new patent application from Apple which describes a dynamic surface that gives users tactile feedback when typing in order to identify individual keys.

My big question about the mooted Tablet is whether it will be suitable for touch typing. I’ve been wondering how they will implement the keyboard.

From that AppleInsider article I can see that maybe when you go to type on the Tablet the keys will become tactile. However all the imagined pictures of the Tablet I’ve seen show it to be like a large iPod Touch on which the screen takes up the whole device on one side, so if they are accurate, I wonder if the tactile keyboard will be built into that screen?

According to an article in the Pink News the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill, has said that although homosexuality is still a sin, gay people must not be discriminated against.

Continuing to read the article reveals that Patriarch Kirill has made a number of statements that reveal he is no liberal.

In March 2007, Kirill objected to Moscow hosting a gay pride parade.

It is directed against the majority of Russian society.

We believe that the law should not interfere in citizens’ private lives.

You can sin if you want to, but you will answer to God.

However, if you are trying to propagate your sin by seducing and degrading people, society must oppose it.

Patriarch Kirill doesn’t want LGBT people discriminated against, but equally he doesn’t want them parading in Moscow, its the seducing and degrading he worries about. The propagation of sin is causing him sleepless nights.

I don’t think Patriarch Kirill fears these things very much. What Patriarch Kirill fears is that elements of Russian society will start to think that it is okay for LGBT to be open about their sexuality. They will see these LGBT people proud and happy about themselves and they might think that you can live a lifestyle which does not have the approval of the Patriarch and be a happy contented individual.

The Patriarch and his ilk in other major churches are not fearful of LGBT people themselves but rather they fear the possibility of society accepting them. This is why the Patriarch will oppose discrimination against gay people, but equally oppose them having a parade in Moscow. For society to become liberal and tolerant of LGBT people it means that it is adopting its own social values and not those of the church.

In the Pink News article Patriarch Kirill is quoted:

The task of the Church is to say that sin is sin. Otherwise, the Church is not needed.

If people start to decide for themselves what is sin and what is not sin then the Church is not needed. That’s what Patriarch Kirill fears.

In the summer I put my Rogers db101 speakers up for sale at eBay. Within 24 hours of putting them up I withdrew them from sale because I realised how much I like them! In fact the pictures in this blog entry were taken for that eBay sale.

I originally purchased my Rogers db101s on eBay in June 2003. They had been the speakers in my living room Hi-Fi. Then in July I decided to sell the components of my living room Hi-Fi, I sold the amplifier and tuner leaving the db101s without a role.

First a bit about them and their appeal. According to the manual the styling is by Peter Stevens and the acoustics are by Andy Whittle. Peter Stevens is credited on the manual with projects including the McLaren F1 amongst some other exotic British cars. Andy Whittle is described as the Chief Design Engineer, Rogers International, UK Ltd.

They are pretty small with the following dimensions in millimetres:

The cabinet is injection-moulded ABS painted black and fitted with aluminium side-panels. The side panels are painted in cool colours and in fact there was a selection of nine possible finishes available, I haven’t seen them all just just a couple. The back of the cabinet is convex top to bottom looked at from the rear. According to the manual: The cabinet profile and carefully contoured back panel ensure that all internal standing waves are minimised, resulting in a cleaner and greater dynamic musical presentation.

I think possibly the most distinctive aspect of the design is what Rogers described as the floating tweeter. From the manual: The tweeter ‘floats’ in the middle of the bass reflex port. This design unique to Rogers optimises the full range directionality and driver integration of the db101. Looked at from the front the tweeter is in the middle of the bass reflex port. I’ve never seen this done in any speaker, I wonder if it really does bring any benefits or if it was done because it just looks rather cool.

From the rear the db101s look rather cheap I think. The back panel has clips for the cables and touching it suggests plastic rather than the more impressive sounding injection-moulded ABS. Although they look cheap I like the cable clips because they are really secure. The cable I’m using is bog standard stuff from Maplin which works just fine. Oddly enough on my speakers the top screw is missing for the back panel for each speaker. Fortunately the back panels seem to be very well screwed on and are very secure.

Athough Peter Stevens, the stylist, had been involved in the design of the Maclaren F1 and other exotic British cars I think the one car they remind me of is in fact the Frogeye Sprite. It’s those bass reflex ports with the tweeters in them sticking out like the headlamps of the Frogeye Sprite.

The Rogers db101s were very much ahead of their time I believe when they were put on the market in 1996. They were initially priced very high at just under £400, Rogers dropped this price substantially to boost sales, but this wasn’t enough. The Rogers company went out of business.

In 1996 the vast majority of Hi-Fi speakers were wooden boxes, it was a much more conservative market than today. There were a few different looking designs around but these tended to be viewed by Hi-Fi enthusiasts rather disparagingly as “lifestyle speakers”. I think the market for speakers today is very much more diverse. I feel that the Rogers db101s would fit today’s market better than that of 1996.

These speakers are suitable for many roles, not just Hi-Fi. They are extremely robust and can be used for small PA work or maybe for providing music at a party. As Mike Hennessy points out at his website (link at bottom) there is a protection device built into the crossover. They can also be wall mounted if required as the reflex port is on the front. Putting them on shelves or close to a wall will destroy the stereo imaging of which they are capable but I guess this is true of all speakers. They are quite bass light so mounting close to the wall does give a good balance by reinforcing the bass. The db101s are also very good for nearfield monitoring.

As I said at the top I’d been using them as the speakers for the Hi-Fi in my living room. The amplifier there was an Arcam with 40 wpc. They sounded very excellent with that amplifier and would also play very loud if wanted, although I never did.

When I was selling that living room Hi-Fi on ebay I was also looking for a good amplifier/speaker system for my computer. Obviously I had thought of using the db101 prior to the sale but the bulk of a regular Hi-Fi stereo amplifier had put me off. Then I discovered the Pro-ject Amp Box.

This is a 20 watts per channel class D amplifier. It is very small as can be seen from the pic. With this the Roberts db101s work beautifully as speakers for my computer. I’m using the standard analogue out port from my Mac Pro and this just behaves like a DAC and pre-amplifier for the Proj-ect power amplifier. For my particular purposes 20 watts per channel is enough but for playing really loudly the db101s would probably like a few more watts. I find they go quite loud enough. In fact I am sitting very close to the db101s, they are on a shelf on the wall behind the computer, the desk is right up against the wall, so it is not far.

I’m really glad I didn’t sell my Rogers db101s. They are excellent in their new role as monitors for my computer.

I’ve used the following websites for some information for this blog entry. You will find more info here about the Rogers db101s.

Mark Hennessy’s website

Mark Hennessy takes a pair apart and gives an excellent analysis of the design.

GB Audio Data Sheet

Facts and figures are here.

Home Theater Review

Ken Kessler writes in his inimitable style. He was very optimistic about them in this review which must have been written soon after their release.

Sound on Sound Review

Paul White likes them as well. A pity the general public weren’t enthused by these reviews

Rogers International Ltd.

Looking at this website you’d think they are still being manufactured

I’ve had an idea for an Internet service which would offer the possibility of commissioning recorded music online by interested groups. The composer, performers and recording engineers would be paid out of donations made to the project at the service’s website. Once the recording is finished then it could be made available for download for anyone who visits the website for free. Further distribution of the music by anyone using file-sharing services would be absolutely legit.

There wouldn’t be any profit in this for the people who donated money towards the commissioning of the music but I think they will enjoy having made the creation of something possible.

To illustrate with a hypothetical commission. The Internet service might contact Harrison Birtwistle and talk with him about possible things he might be thinking of creating at the moment. These would be smaller works, not an opera of course. Then at the website of the online service these possibilities would be displayed. People would be asked to vote on their favourite. Then the website would go on to ask for donations towards the creation of this music, its performance and recording as a complete package. There would be a minimum donation size I think, like €500 perhaps. It could be that the composer will start on the composition when 50% of the money has been gathered at the website. When it is finished then the recording would be made available at the website. Names of the donors would be listed at the download page.

Maybe this kind of thing is happening on the web already, I don’t know. Maybe there is nothing new about this idea.

I had this idea because I don’t think that there is any future in getting money by selling recordings. Although Peter Mandelson has announced forthcoming legislation in the UK to block persistent file-sharing offenders I don’t think this or other measures will make a great deal of difference. The problem for the music industry is that technology has made it easy for people to share music online and it is going to be very hard to stop them doing that.

People do want music and they want new music, so I think what is required is a new way of getting the musicians paid for their work. That’s why I’ve had my idea of group online commissioning.

Today I went to Halifax Online website with a view to checking I’m not overdrawn and moving some money from a small savings account to my current account to prevent me becoming overdrawn. This conscientious activity was prompted by the new Halifax charges on their overdraft “facility”. These charges are absolutely outrageous imho. Anyway at the “My Accounts” page of the Halifax website there is a menu to transfer money from one account to another and it isn’t there at the moment. I phoned Halifax customer services online help desk and the woman I spoke to told me that it should be there and it is very strange that it isn’t. I tried it in Safari and Internet Explorer 8 and emptied the cache and all, but it still isn’t there.

I know this is an example of extreme paranoia, but I couldn’t help but imagine that maybe it has gone to prevent people from transferring their cash. In truth it doesn’t make sense that because the new arrangements don’t start for a few weeks yet.

I’ve emailed Halifax about it and I am waiting for the reply. At the end of the email I put that I wanted to charge Halifax a £25 administration fee for my writing the email.

I’ve been reading some complaints that Apple are sneakily installing software into the Windows OS. The way it works is that you install, say QuickTime, and then the software upgrading software for that installs Safari when you only intended to upgrade QuickTime. A quick search of the web took me to this report on the issue.

I use a Mac, but I do have Windows XP which I run with Parallels Virtual Desktop. Yesterday I installed QuickTime in it, the QuickTime installer gave me this dialogue:

It looks like there is an option to Automatically update QuickTime and other Apple Software. However it doesn’t say install other Apple Software. Anyway I’m going to let nature take its course. When I am told I need a QuickTime update I will see what happens and report back.

About two weeks ago I purchased a new Logitech MX Performance Mouse. To be absolutely honest I’m not entirely sure why. I put it down to the cumulative effects of marketing to which I and most other people on the planet are subject:

• We will be happier if we buy stuff.
• The stuff we have is not as good as the new stuff.

I had a major problem with the Logitech MX Performance Mouse but even aside from that I decided it wasn’t as good as the mouse I am already using.

The MX Performance Mouse is at the top of the Logitech range and scores highly in many areas. It is very solidly built and looks like a lot of care and attention has gone into its design.

Design features:

1. Scroll wheel can be set to spin freely
2. Four thumb buttons
3. Accurate, precise cursor control on virtually any surface
4. Sculpted shape for the (right) hand
5. Wireless operation
6. Can be used while recharging the battery

Before I address items in that list I want to just describe the major problem I had with it.

On my Mac with OS 10.6.1 the mouse would freeze the screen while in “Open…” or “Save As…” dialogues. This freeze would last for about five or six seconds. Obviously it was quite a nuisance. I did a lot to check if it really was the mouse. I also checked out the Logitech forums where there was much discussion about problems with the Logitech Control Centre 3.1 software. So, after two weeks I had to stop using the Logitech mouse.

I’ve never used a wireless mouse before at home though I have used them in other places. I’ve often wondered why people do use them. I don’t see any problem with the wire and it means that the mouse doesn’t need a battery. The Logitech is, of course wireless and a big appeal was that it can used while the battery is being charged. The cable for charging attaches at the very bottom of the front of the mouse, so it does make the mouse feel slightly strange while it is charging. However it is better than having to use a different mouse while it charges.

I just left the mouse switched on all the time and the battery seemed to run dry once every 24 hour period. I’m not sure if that is how it is supposed to be. Maybe I should have switched it off when I wasn’t using it, but it is the kind of thing I would forget all the time anyway.

Behind the scroll wheel is a button that will remove all resistance to the wheel spinning. It does this by mechanically freeing the wheel from resistance. This is a great idea, for long documents, or long webpages, like blog pages you can just scroll through them very fast, you can even take your hand off the mouse, they keep scrolling. You have to be aware of it because you can forget that the wheel is scrolling. If you are at one window which is at the end of its scrolling then you move the mouse to another which can scroll, then that window will start to scroll if the wheel is spinning. It can take you by surprise. This can be a problem when using FileMaker Pro. If the wheel is spinning unnoticed and you put the cursor over the status area then you can accidentally scroll through loads of records. However I think the advantages of the free spinning scroll wheel outweigh the disadvantages. If you push the scroll wheel to the left or to the right it will scroll in that direction. It takes a while to get the hang of this left/right movement but when you do get the hang of it, it is easy.

There are four thumb buttons. The least good thing about the Logitech MX Performance Mouse imho is that the Zoom button is in the way of where I would normally put my thumb.

Default thumb button assignments:

I found the position of that Zoom button to get irritating after a while. I hardly ever wanted to actually use the Zoom button during my two weeks with the mouse. Cheaper models in the Logitech range don’t have that Zoom button and I think they are worth looking at. I do think that it would be ideal to try these Logitech mice, or indeed any mice, before purchase. The other buttons were fine in their position. During my time of using it I never tried re-programming the buttons but this was possible with the software. In fact it looks like the software offered great flexibility in configuring the mouse. However I never checked any of that out because my time was spent trying to sort out the problem created by the software.

The thumb button I found I used most was the one for “going back” in a browser window. However I didn’t get into the habit of using it a lot. This “go back” button didn’t seem to work in Apple’s Finder windows. I never used the “go forward” button but that is because I hardly ever use that in browser windows anyway.

I use my mouse on a black mat with a gel rest for the wrist. This meant that I didn’t get any idea of the ability of the mouse to work on optically difficult surfaces. If I took the mat away and put it on the wooden desk surface then it was absolutely fine.

That it has a sculpted shape for the right hand didn’t really impress me. I don’t think it was any more comfortable than a normally shaped ambidextrous mouse.

So, even if it had worked properly on the Mac I don’t think I would have ever liked it very much. Even if there hadn’t been a problem with the Zoom button I don’t think I would have found the four thumb buttons to be any advantage. There isn’t any advantage that I can see to a mouse being wireless.

Now I’ve returned to using my Contour UniMouse I’m not missing the Logitech one at all. I think the Contour UniMouse is far more comfortable and more controllable. It doesn’t have any software so that can’t go wrong. The only worthwhile advantage I think the Logitech has over the Contour is the free spinning scroll wheel, but I find the scroll wheel on the Contour to be such a pleasure to use, with resistance just right, that I think I prefer it anyway.

A while back I got an email from Della who told me she’d bought a trailer:

I’ve just acquired one second hand was a steal at 30 pounds. The man I got it from used it once it was for his dog he put dog in dog jumped out and that was the end of that. Its been sitting for sometime so had surface rust in places. But nothing that some solvo autosolve has not sorted. Will need a bit of a respray soon. I took it out yesterday to the bottle bank and then back to the clothes bank. And I love it.

In the pic she sent it does indeed look very like mine:

I’m delighted that Della was inspired to go and see the trailer by reading the stuff I’ve written here about my own trailer. My website has done some good!

Della says:

The thing I was surprised about was that when towing the trailer cars actually give you a lot of room and actually over take you rather than cutting you up. Amazing. I was also surprised how easy it was to tow even when it was full of clothes for the clothes bank.

I think she’s right, cars do give you more room if you’ve got a trailer. I think they are frightened of it personally.

The trailer is really easy to tow even with quite heavy loads. In Brighton & Hove we do have a lot of hills but I find that if there is a heavy load then the best thing to do is to get off the bike and walk up the hill.

The pic of Della’s trailer is actually from the ad where she saw it, so the gnome is not her responsibilty!

On an Internet discussion forum I’d read about the television series Torchwood and the gay relationship within it. The most recent story being broadcast in five episodes with the name Children of the Earth.

I’m going to try not to give too much away of the “story” of Children of the Earth because I don’t want to spoil it for anyone who hasn’t seen it, however if you really want to watch it then don’t read on just in case. You’ll also spare yourself a dose of me sneering at it.

I did not like Children of the Earth, however there were a few very good things in it and I will mention them first.

• I liked very much the nucleus of the story.
• The children stopping and speaking in unison was extremely good, this was such a clever thing visually and achieved without a lot of special effects and suchlike.
• The aliens are visually very concealed throughout the series, that was good, as soon as you see the monster or whatever in television then usually it is diffused.
• The aliens’ basic use of English in their translation system was well used to increase their menace.
• I liked the Whitehall politics.
• The depiction of the Cardiff housing estate was warm, human and enjoyable to watch.
• There was one good character, Mr Dekker played by Ian Gelder. He was the government expert on aliens. He was such a scumbag.

It was difficult to know if it was intended for children or adults. The vast majority of the content was too juvenile for an adult audience, but it included some scenes and ideas which would have been really inappropriate for children.

If it had been intended for children then it was the worst kind of children’s drama. The worst kind of children’s drama being one that thinks that children will just sit through any plot absurdity as long as there is some silly gadget or special effect coming soon. What a load of cobblers!

Captain Jack Harkness, played by John Barrowman, lives forever regenerating instead of dying after being shot or in a car accident or whatever. He recovers and heals up at an astonishing rate. What rubbish! How, for example, does his hair “know” to be the length it is? If he goes to the barber and gets his hair cut, surely it would immediately grow back? He should have hair down to his knees and a long beard.

In fact for me, everything to do with that Torchwood bunch was pretty dreadful really. The only thing I liked about them was that there was a gay relationship within it, but completely disassociated from the main story. They would not have bothered with a pointless straight relationship like that because it would not have had any story value. I watched the programme with an interest in this gay affair but I was bored by it. How great it would have been if it played a meaningful part in the story.

It was difficult to see, though, how anything could have played a part in that story. After all the solution to the problem presented by the aliens is in fact just some technical mumbo jumbo which was completely unconvincing. The “plot” was full of ridiculous holes and this just suggests to me that the programme’s writer has the lowest opinion of the viewers.

I know I could be accused of lacking the ability to suspend disbelief, but while characters with superman characteristics or silly gadgets are boring and signalling to me that this is not my kind of drama, what I really can’t stand at all is problems with the story itself.

The Permanent Secretary to the Foreign Office, John Frobisher is requested by the Prime Minister to perform a special event for the press with the objective of reassuring the general public. However this would not have been appropriate for a civil servant like John Frobisher, an elected politician would be necessary for this. Even if it had been possible with a civil servant it could not be successful because by and large the general public do not know the civil servants who work with the government, so if John Frobisher had appeared on their screens they wouldn’t have been reassured.

I was offended by the use of really extreme emotional situations which were so obviously contrived just to maintain the viewer’s interest in some way, maybe to shock them or perhaps try to cause them some anxiety. One parent shoots their partner and children, then commits suicide. All this to escape their fate, but if that parent had simply taken spouse and children on holiday for a couple of days then they would have evaded their fate just as easily. At one point a character sacrifices their own grand-child to save (some of) the human race. But this situation had been created out of nothing. Writing a drama in which parents kill their own children requires a great deal of consideration. You don’t just shove something like that in the story. What obnoxious drivel.

Children of the Earth was very ghoulish, too much so, I think, for the real children of the earth. If their parents/guardians prevented them from watching it they will have missed nothing.