This post may not live up to your expectations based on the title, for which I apologize. Hard disk recorders sound incredibly useful for me. It must be extremely cool to record over 200 hours of television programs without having to change a single video cassette or dvd. Just record to a hard disk and watch it like I would watch a video cassette. Only without all the rewinding and stuff. So yes, very interesting. Which also explains why I keep checking out what is out there and what kind of money I'd have to fork over to get one.

When looking at these recorders, there is one thing that keeps bugging me: why is it that a hard disk recorder that is capable of recording 160GB/200+ hours of programming, only offers programming options for as little as 8 programs, one month in advance. Or even 16 programs, one year in advance? I can record a freakin' 200 hours worth of shows, what are the odds that this is only 8 programs? Why on earth would I want a recorder that records as many shows as my vcr (which would all fit on a single tape)? What is the advantage of having so many recording time? Do manufacturers believe I will simply record an entire day of Discovery Channel as one program? Do they think I can't read a tv guide to figure out when to record? Or do they think I only watch 8 different shows?

I don't need a hard disk recorder for when I go away for the evening or weekend, a vcr works just fine for that. I would use a hard disk recorder to store many programs (definitely some advantage over tapes here) and (and this is key here) to record programs over a longer period of time without worrying about space running out. This “longer period of time” should be at least two weeks, the minimum of a decent summer vacation over here. Eight programs in two weeks isn't that much for a true tv junkie. And if you're not a tv junkie, you don't really need a hard disk recorder to begin with, you can just stick to that one tape. It's not like it's that much of a hassle to rewind it, is it?

Buying a hard disk recorder with less than forty programming slots is like buying a road train equipped only with donut tires: it might work, but doesn't let you use its full potential. And I think adding some extra programming options to a hard disk recorder is relatively cheaper than changing the tires on a road train.

I plan to take my laptop with me on my next flight, as I have done before. However, after recent laptop batteries exploding, I understand some airlines are refusing the use of laptops on board a flight. Possibly even refusing them in carry on luggage. It looks like my usual airlines do not have such a policy (yet) but you never know where you end up during a flight. It would not be the first time I missed a flight and had to be rerouted to some weird connection. I wonder if airlines that are suspicious of laptops in the passenger area would allow a laptop if the owner can provide some kind of proof that the battery is safe. But then, what kind of proof would be required? Just to be safe, I think I'll bring a print out of the Dell battery recall site, that clearly states my current battery does not need to be replaced. I doubt that would be of any help, but you never know. Certainly worth a shot, if there is even the slightest chance I can avoid checking in my luggage. I've seen baggage handlers throw luggage around and I definitely don't want my laptop to be handled by them.

It looks like the US airline security regulations are changing a bit to allow people to bring liquids on board of planes again. Well, certain liquids at least. And in the case of drinks, liquids bought in the secure zone, i.e. from vendors at the airport, the little stores and just before the gates. Even if you have never taken a plane, I am sure you can imagine just how expensive items are at those vendors. I can't say I am surprised by this. At least I can bring some water/soda of my own onto the plane next time I fly, instead of having to rely on the airline's catering.

I never noticed this before, but Gmail blocks attachments that contain executables for security reasons. Although I have a Gmail account, I hardly ever use it, but today I wanted to use it to mail someone an archive with some executable files. I know, I know, I always tell people mail is not the right way to send files, that's what ftp or http download is for, but this time there was no real alternative. I was too lazy to upload a file to a server so it could be downloaded, mail would have been much faster. Since Gmail has this huge mailbox, it seemed like sending files to someone else's Gmail would be the easiest way to transfer files. Certainly easier than going over there with physical media.

Imagine my surprise when a zipped attachment was not accepted by Gmail because it contained an executable. I didn't know Gmail would allow that (obviously, or I wouldn't even have bothered). It makes it just a tad less useful for me. A good thing Hotmail still accepts such attachments, so I did manage to mail the files.

Today the UK police arrested 21 people suspected of planning to blow up a number of airplanes using liquid exploses brought on board in carry on luggage. This threat was severe enough to halt UK air traffic and to affect many international flights. The targets were planes from US airlines, flying from the UK to the US. But you probably know all this, since it was all over the news.

One of the security measures put into place is that people are no longer allowed to bring liquids on board a plane. Only the bare essentials may be brought on board in transparent bags. This includes “Female sanitary items sufficient and essential for the flight, if unboxed”, which I imagine might be quite embarrassing for a lot of people. Books or magazines are not allowed on board.

I understand the wish to err on the safe side, so when there is an apparent plot to use liquid explosives, one screens or prohibits liquids from planes. The theoretical possibility of using liquid explosives has been known forever, but it takes an actual (sort of) attempt for an actual banning of liquids. But really, banning all other items from carry on luggage as well? I guess it is easier to ban everything than to check everything to make sure nothing is hidden inside.

What worries me about this, is how hard it would be to screen all carry on luggage for dangerous materials when those materials can look so innocent. After Richard Reid tried to set off his shoe bomb, shoes became suspect, but at least we were still allowed to bring shoes on board. Now just about everything is suspect. When it is difficult to find the threat, it is easier to ban everything. But this leads to an impossible situation. If this becomes the norm (and why wouldn't it, given all the changes over the last years that have made the flying experience severely worse) then we'll end up with planes filled with hundreds of passengers, who only have two options to keep themselves occupied: the bad plane movies and fellow passengers. Just imagine putting a bunch of strangers in a small room with nothing to do, that is bound to lead to trouble.

Of course there are some practical worries as well. Since everything now has to be brought on board as checked luggage, what happens to your valuables? Last time I took a plane, people were warned not to check in their laptops since (besides the risk of theft) baggage handlers might be rough with luggage, which could lead to damaged valuables. This won't have changed overnight, so I wonder how airlines will deal with complaints from travelers in situations where valuables were damaged.

All this is just some thinking aloud, wondering how many of the current measures will stay effective for an extended period of time. And how many will become the norm. Not being able to bring aboard one's own food, drinks, and entertainment will have a major impact on the “enjoyment” of one's flight. Most flights are bad already, but at least you have the comfort of your own stuff. Once that goes as well, it seems like you need a really good reason (like I have) to still travel by plane.

Reuters has recalled and replaced a picture of Beirut explosions after it was discovered the picture had obviously been edited (Photoshopped, although not necessarily with Photoshop, I guess).

The first picture showed massive plumes of dark smoke that had been altered to, I guess, make them more impressive. On top of that, buildings had been copied to make it seem like the area was more densily populated. Whatever the reason for this photoshopping, Reuters should have caught this before releasing the picture. Something so blatantly altered should never have made it out into the open. Altering pictures to make them lighter or darker so they look better in print or online is one thing. But in this case, when reporting on something as important as a war, the picture should be as objective as possible. Changing the kind or amount of smoke and buildings is, of course, totally unacceptable.

News coverage all over the world is far from objective, I know that. People will always examine an event with their own cultural and personal background and report on it in light of that. NO matter how good intentions are, a truly objective report is difficult. Pictures can help to give people a chance to make up their own mind on what is going on. Although captures or other background info will still influence your opinion, at least you can decide for yourself how good/bad something depicted in a picture is. We as an audience were not present when this event happened. Therefore we have to rely on other people to inform us of what happened. Many parties stand to gain from bringing us news in a certainly doctored way. That is understandable and justa fact of life. This is why we need impartial news agencies. A news agencey that allows itself to be used for political or ideological purposes is in the wrong kind of business.

Even if this actually was a mistake, if it was sloppiness on the part of whoever deemed the picture newsworthy enough to go out, Reuters should make sure this never happens again. There has to be some kind of quality control for the information send out by Reuters, or else it is no more than a glorified (photo)blogging entity.

When I started flying a couple of times a year, I signed up for all kinds of frequent flyer programs. I figured it couldn't hurt to earn some miles, just in case I ended up using the same airline often enough to save for an actual free trip. Some of these programs I forgot about over time. Recently I got an email from US Airways, informing me about the new website. I figured I might as well check out what kind of info they have on me, and check out the site. Oh boy.

The new site lists a systems requirement of Internet Explorer. Hello? It's 2006, at least 10% of the Internet users uses a browser different from IE. You can ignore that segment, but only at the risk of losing out on a percentage of possible clients. With the current state of the airline industry, missing out on even 5% of business is quite a problem. Not smart planning at all. Of course the site loads in Firefox anyway, but some parts don't display properly.

There is one good thing about the site though: when trying to book a flight (just to see what it is like), the system shows a 3x3 matrix of 3 possible departure and return flights with prices. This way it is easy to tell if it is worth changing your travel days.

Opening up a discman that has not been used in over three years and finding two rechargeable batteries that can be put to good use elsewhere.

It seems the Razorback eDonky/eMule server did indeed play quite a large role in the world of P2P file sharing. Ever since I wrote about it five days ago, a large percentage of visitors to this blog come here through a search containing the term Razorback (usually combined with eMule). So that's one way to raise my blog traffic: write more about illegal stuff.

My professional life (working in a library) might be a contributing factor here, but I find it very unsettling to buy a new DVD storage cabinet, only to notice the packaging shows stored DVDs in no discernible order at all. Pay attention to the right side of the middle row. Judge Dredd - The Emperor's New Groove - Waterworld - Flintstones - Gladiator - Liar Liar, what kind of order is that? It's not alphabetical, it's not by genre, not even by era, so I'm stumped.I don't know of many people who would order their DVDs in chronological order of acquiring them, but maybe this is one such example. Then again, I may simply make too big a deal out of this