In terminal:

cd /etc/default/
gksu gedit grub

Add the following lines:

GRUB_DEFAULT=saved
GRUB_SAVEDEFAULT=true

Then:

sudo update-grub

There’s an interesting article called 10 things Androd does better than the iPhone and so for convenience sake, I will set out my reasons below according to this list.

1 – Multitasking: This is indeed a big problem for me in my iPhone usage. I frequently read the news in MobileRSS on the train home, only to find a text message from my wife skips out of the application and I have to load the whole thing again. Why can’t twitter update itself without needing 101 push alerts bugging me every 5 seconds. Apple to promise to fix this in the upcoming OS4 though, so I will for now not use this as a reason to switch. Battery life is important here too. I don’t want all my apps running all the time, but I do want at least a choice.

2 – Homescreens and Widgets: The iPhone was clearly not designed to have hundreds of apps as in the beginning there were only a few. Apple never really solved this problem properly and although fanbois claim style superiority, most will agree the iPhone homescreen is badly in need of an overhaul. For me though it’s widgets that are key. I used to think the whole idea of widgets was crap. But increasingly there is information such as the weather, my tweets etc. that I would like to have displayed. I shouldn’t have to stop all the other apps and open a slow loading specific app just to get this. Further more, apple has even banned a legitimate widget like app just because it looked like a home screen. Is this a hint at what is to come. Better hope so or I will be disappointed.

3 – Apple has a better app market: This is true at the moment, but hardly a long term argument. The iPhone launched its app store long before Android did and also there are still many more iPhones out there. This will change as there are many more Android handsets being sold. Plus it is easier to develop for Android. Interestingly, Android phones used to be limited in the apps they can store by the internal memory. With FroYo Android 2.2 though, you can install onto the SD card. Because of this, expect to see much larger applications becoming available, especially games which were limited before. Finally… isn’t it nice that Android phones don’t have to use the google store. So Steve can’t stop you from installing things h doesn’t like. I jailbreak because I need extra functionality, so this is an important issue.

4 – Android gives you better notifications: Yes, as I mentioned above widgets and the lack of the huge iPhone popup that dominates everything and steals focus are definitely luring me in Androids direction. Again, apple has suggested this will change. We shall see.

5 – Android lets you choose your hardware: So does the iPhone, but then again there’s not much choice. I guess this is less of an issue for me as the iPhone format is quite similar to what I want in a phone. If I wanted something smaller then it would be a problem. Actually I’d like something a bit bigger and with a better camera and an FM or DAB radio please. Android can do that. Steve’s gonna have to pull something out of the hat on Monday to sell me over the HTC Desire.

6 – Availability on different networks: I think this is no longer relevant in the UK. Crap O2 performance will probably mean I leave for a better network though.

7 – ROMS: There is so much potential here. iPhone users can jailbreak, but Android users can run whole different version of the OS on their phone. Like SenseUI on a Nexus One or custom patched Androids that remove vendor customisation crap.  I think we’re going to see a lot of development here.

8 – Android lets you change settings faster: One thing that I completely rely on with my iPhone is the SBSettings by BigBoss. This allows you to quickly turn WiFi and 3G on and off. By default I keep everything off to save battery life and only turn on when I need it. This can be done quickly in Android but the iPhone requires you to go into settings and is very long winded. I think this could be solved quickly in the new OS4, but I somehow doubt Steve will bother. If I couldn’t jailbreak my iPhone to do this, I would probably have to bin it.

9 – Android does integration: This is a killer that might well clinch the deal for me. Apple are never going to allow other applications to integrate into their locked down systems. But sometimes integration is a really good idea. Why not have facebook and twitter integrated into the address book. Why not have the option to automatically upload pictures to flickr without having to run a whole new app and close everything else down. To me this is common sense. Unless Apple seriously rethink their entire paradigm on control, Android will keep biting them in the ass on this, over and over again.

10 – Price: The simple fact is Apple stuff is overpriced. Some people don’t care, but eventually it will matter. As Android phones are cheaper, more people will have them. When more people have them, the services on offer will be better. This is the current argument for buying an iPhone. Give it 12 months though and the tables will be reversed. I’m happy to be ahead of the game and spend my saved cash on a nice SD card that iPhones don’t support.

Beyond these key points I’d like to raise the general point of customisation and freedom. A friend said to me recently “I don’t care about open source. It doesn’t help me. I just like my phone to be easy to use and look good.” He had a fair point, but ultimately an open system that you can change and improve will look better and be easier for you to use. Why should I put up with what Apple have designed when a 3rd party can do better?

All this said, I’ll probably go out and buy an iPhone HD or whatever it’s called after Monday. But I will have high expectations. The slightest disappointment and HTC is already there for me. Go on Steve, impress me.

Obviously all that hard work Microsoft put in to protect us ultimately provides very little real protection. Yet another example of how easy it is to run malicious code on our machines. The worry is that when we’re told we are running protected software that we believe this to be true and don’t take the basic precautions that are essential these days. Avoid going to dodgy websites where possible. Don’t download from untrusted sources. Always operate behind some kind of firewall. Don’t trust emails just because they come from addresses you know. I’d go so far as to say that we should only engage in online banking from a separate setup than we usually use for everyday browsing (i.e. chrome on Linux instead of our usual Firefox on Win7) though this is clearly not convenient for most.

And… don’t forget that iPhones aren’t safe either!

The question then must become, should we switch browsers if we consider this a problem. Of course it’s a problem but with users hopping backwards and forwards, do they really gain more protection and is it likely to cause more confusion ultimately leading to lack of security? In the long run it will be the browsers that successfully issue patches quickly and can be relied upon. If you’re going to stick with one, you want the software that will be updated automatically and you won’t have to switch from. By issuing a quick fix, Mozilla are no doubt proving they are tackling the issues head on.

The update was originally planned for the end of the month but considering the danger and bad press generated by such an official organisation in Germany urging users not to use the software, the patch was rushed through.

To make sure you have the most recent version, within Firefox, click on ‘Help’, then ‘Check for updates’. As of today, you should be running 3.6.2. This can be checked by selecting ‘Help’, then ‘About’.

“This is just the latest round in an industry-sponsored campaign of scaremongering that began with the infamous ‘home taping is killing music’ hyperbole in the 1970s and 80s… We are expected to believe that piracy damages paper pulp producers, accounting machine manufacturers and railway operators. Yet again, we are asked to swallow the lie that every download is a lost sale.

Most of the evidence available seems to indicate that more money is going into the creative industries than ever – those sectors and businesses that have embraced the internet and the distribution and marketing potential that it offers are flourishing and it is the other areas, if any, that are suffering.

Perhaps organisations such as the BPI should focus more on investing their resources in new, progressive, and genuinely innovative business models and content rather than on advertising campaigns complaining how their outdated methods are failing.”

How long before our right to criticise government on line is removed. Have lessons in Iran and certain other dictatorships taught us how dangerous this road can be? The Guardian summed it up as follows.

“The High Court (in Scotland, the Court of Session) shall have power to grant an injunction against a service provider, requiring it to prevent access to online locations specified in the order of the Court for the prevention of online copyright infringement” – could be used to block sites like Wikileaks (which after all exists for the reposting of material from organisations – which those organisations could argue is copyrighted). My reading is that it could – and it’s no use government saying “oh, but we wouldn’t”. Bad law isn’t made good law by not being used badly; it’s made good by actually being well-drafted.”

A campaign has been set up to try and stop the law from being rushed through. Rushed because the corporate sponsors know that this is the only way for them to sneak through a deeply unpopular bill that seeks only to benefit their outdated corporate kingdoms.

“There’s plenty to oppose in the Digital Economy Bill, it gives the government the ability to disconnect millions. Schools, libraries and businesses could see their connection cut if their pupils, readers of customers infringe any copyright. But one group likes it, the music industry. In a leaked memo a few days ago they admitted the only way to get the bill through would be to rush it through without a real parliamentary debate. Let’s stop that happening”

To assess this law we must consider a number of points. 1 – Is this law needed. 2 – Does the law benefit society. 3 – Will the law work. 4. Is there an alternative? Let me address these points.

1. The justification for this law is that billions of pounds worth of copyrighted material is being pirated and therefore billions of pounds of revenue is being lost to the major entertainment companies and that this is indeed terrible for the UK economy. Let’s analyse this. First, the kind of figures circulating are based on the value of the pirated material should the downloader have paid the full retail price for that item. I’m sure it doesn’t take a genius to realise that the average 14 year old who downloads 1000 mp3s a year and 30 films would not otherwise have spent well over £1000 on media. They do not have this money, they’ve never had it, this is not money lost. Implementing the bill will not create this income from nowhere.

Falling CD sales are all very well and recent evidence has even suggested that downloaders actually spend 20% more on music than people who don’t illegally download, but if you look at the total amount spent on entertainment, it is a different picture. We now spend a higher proportion of our income on entertainment than we did 20 years ago. The pattern of spending has just shifted. Sure people don’t spend as much money on CDs, but we buy other things. The computer games industry for example has exploded into a multi-billion pound industry over the last 10 years. Despite the internet. We spend more on live music than we ever did and a 14 year old’s pocket money is increasingly spent on mp3 players and mobile phones. This is not money lost from the economy, simply redirected to what’s popular at the moment. Times change and the laws of economics direct revenues to those companies that competitively provide popular products. We don’t need laws to protect outdated models. We need laws to facilitate efficient markets that reward innovation.

2. Does the law benefit society? Clearly not. If it did, then why could it not be debated properly supported by the people. Why does it have to be rushed through by a few companies who seek to protect vast profit empires? Why are they spending large amounts of money lobbying the government and courting Peter Mandleson on private yachts?

If this law was introduced, the average person (63% of the population use the same internet connection as an illegal downloader according to the BBC. I suspect higher) would potentially put themselves at risk of having their internet connection terminated or crippled. Many of these people rely on the internet for studying, banking, accessing public services, communicating and some for almost all social interaction. Is cutting off a connection to all these things proportional a response to someone who has downloaded and enjoyed a music track they would never have originally paid for or in many cases will go out and buy anyway precisely as a result of having downloaded it? Will a small amount of extra revenue for the record labels really compensate our society for this?

The argument is sometimes posed that the music industry is declining. Panorama, though slightly one sided in their approach did produce a particularly interesting quote. “It’s not the music industry that is in decline, it’s the record labels.” Are artists really suffering. While there are examples of labels cutting back on the money they invest, there are also numerous artists who’s careers have been created precisely because of the internet and filesharing. What we are seeing is simply a shift from one model to another. Is it really fair that a few artists should become millionaires? Would it not be more sensible for large record labels to be removed from the equation and a larger number of artists be able to interface more directly with their fans? Will implementing this bill really improve the life of most musicians to a greater extent than it will inconvenience the general population?

3. This brings us to the next question. Will the laws work? We have already seen a shift widespread encryption over bittorrent (most people are unaware when they just upgrade their software). There are a number of cheap or free services available that can potentially mask an IP address or show the downloader as located outside the jurisdiction of this government. The internet has no boundaries and attempting to impose laws which do will only drive people to safe havens where they cannot be touched. Sure some site may be taken down, but we have seen time and again that every time one disappears, 10 rise up in it’s place. History teaches us that before digital restrictions have effectively been put in place, clever software designers have already rendered them useless. Why bother spending money on something that is essentially in vain.

Then there is the matter of using the law to restrict internet access. As it has proved impossible to restrict downloading of copyright material alone, we must have our very connection to the outside world crippled, or worse that of our family or people who live in the same house affected. Imagine being told that you could not use your car to drive to work because someone else in the house had been caught speeding on a road that had no signposts and that there was no conclusive evidence that they were speeding in the first place.

Would a letter through the post telling you your son had downloaded 1000 mp3s from pirate bay cause you to go out and spend the £800 on music CDs that these tracks would have cost? That is the suggestion! How can any sane person really believe that this system will save the record industry?

Do you really think that if you give a court (or worse an agency) the power to have a meeting and block a web address that it will stop internet piracy? Given the obvious answer of no, is it really a good idea to write a blank cheque allowing the powers that be the facility to restrict our freedom of information when the reason behind this power is simply to stop the unstoppable?

4. What are the alternatives? The head of the recording industry association would have you believe that this is the ‘last rung’. As if without forcibly cutting people off from their internet access music and film is doomed and that nobody would consider paying for entertainment any more. In my mind this is the biggest lie that has been peddled to the government.

Look at Sky’s satellite TC. You pay per month, you can watch as much as you want. You wouldn’t bother copying it and sending the video to your friend because very few people would bother with the hassle when it is cheap enough and easy enough for them to have sky too. Content creators who create popular content are rewarded very well. Revenue is also generated through advertising. This is a very successful enterprise providing large sums of money to the industry for the last 2 decades or so and proof that there’s a perfectly viable alternative.

People are willing to spend a certain proportion of their income on music and film. They just want a reasonably way of doing it. There is an industry that can be supported and it doesn’t need letters, accusations and access to the outside world and basic services cut to enforce it. What’s wrong with a system where people pay a reasonable amount monthly and can access what they want with the more popular content rewarded with proportionately higher slices of the profit. This leads artists to create what people want. Money isn’t wasted in a futile attempt to restrict consumers and innovative companies can compete for the best platform to make a profit from. People would pay for this type of service because they already do, just in other forms.

People are still willing to pay for live music and though cinema is in decline, large screen TV buying with subscription channels are becoming more and more popular. I pay a fixed fee for unlimited text messages on my mobile, a fixed fee for my television licence, I can sign up to a fixed fee for unlimited DVD rental. I don’t see TV production companies going out of business. The electronic games industry is flourishing. Our creative economy is not on the brink of collapse. I’m not the only one who thinks this. Big businesses like Virgin, BT, Sky, TalkTalk are all against the bill. So what some record labels go out of business? What other company who refuses to accept reality wouldn’t.

Please visit http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/speakout/extremeinternetl and register your opposition to this bill!

Recently I’ve tried a number and it seems they are all missing the ability to search through your existing bookmarks easily, like you can do in Firefox with the official plug in there. Some of the worse ones don’t even allow you to use keyboard shortcuts to bookmark. This is a real turn off for me as I hate having to use time consuming mouse movements which slow me down and are fiddly on a track pad.

At the moment, Chromium Delicious Plugin seems to be the best option. It allows quick bookmarking with CTRL+M and is very lightweight. For searching through your bookmarks, it’s possible to use Chrome itself.

Right click on the address bar, then select “Edit search engines”. Click on add and use this following string as the URL

http://delicious.com/search?p=%s&chk=&fr=del_icio_us&lc=1&atags=&rtags=&context=userposts|@@@@|

Note that the @@@@ will need to be replaced by your username. Call the entry Delicious and use the keyword “d”. This way if you want to search through your bookmarks, just hit CTRL+L then type “D ?????” where ????? is your search string. This is quite a nice integrated approach.

Lets hope there’s a decent official one coming out soon.

It can be downloaded within Chrome at this address. With an increasing number of top quality extensions now available, the battle between Firefox is going to get interesting. With Chrome’s superior speed and seemingly faster development we will see people switching left right and centre.