Do you really want my hair to look like this?

So I just got back last night from watching Twilight with my wife and she turns to me and says: "Dear, do you want to keep your hair longer and restyle it?"

I tread with trepidation: "... (pause)... why?"

"So you can look like Edward - don't you think his hair is great?"

At this point, I agree with Eyeris that Twilight was High School Musical 3 with vampires. I didn't really fancy the show but my wife was gushing all over the eerie-looking but cool vampires. Oh, did I tell you how excited she was when Edward was sparkling in the sun - "Like diamonds, hoh, dear?" Apparently, for the ladies, vampires no longer melt in horrid ash when exposed to sunlight. No, they just sparkle like diamonds.

Well, I guess that's just the difference between boys and girls. And probably what makes my wife an exceedingly fun person to talk to.

But really, dear, are you sure you want my hair to look like this? *shivers*

No, we do not need a blogging code of ethics

So over the weekend, our Home Minister Datuk  Seri Syed Hamid Albar started the conversation going again: Do we need a blogging code of ethics?

The feeling I get is "here we go again." We've been talking about ethics, policing of the blogosphere and freedom of speech for years.

Personally, I'm all for ethical blogging. Bloggers need to be responsible for what they write - and most responsible bloggers should be. However, I also think that to just bundle everyone with a blog up into a group that needs to be governed by a "code of ethics" (and we don't yet know which institution will be setup to enforce this) is plain narrow-minded.

Firstly, we need to differentiate between a "code of ethics" and a legal mechanism. You can still sue a blogger that posts something libelous as long as you have the grounds within the laws of Malaysia today. You don't need a code of ethics to do that.

The code of ethics come into play when an institution (National Institution of Blogging?) is set up to tell bloggers how to behave online. I have an issue with this on two levels. Firstly, who is anyone to tell me what I can or cannot or even, should, do with my blog (unless its illegal - then send the police after me).  Having an institution puts a committee ahead of the individual when it comes to determining content anyone can produce - even if its individual, personal content.

Secondly, the idea of having an institution (whether its the government or an body setup by bloggers) simply mis-implicates blogging as a profession rather than as a technology platform for personal expression. Not all blogs are mass media. Not all blogs aspire to be. Some blogs are. Most blogs are just some single individual's thoughts and online journal. So, do I need to subscribe to a blogging code of ethics if I'd like to blog about dogs? Do I need to register with a Department of Blogging and sign my agreement to the National Code of Blogging Ethics?

Are we on the verge of dictating conditions under which people can use this very useful technology?

Lunch time

I protest against the over-priced food restaurants are charging at shopping malls today. How do you justify RM 16.00 as a "Lunch Value set meal"? Why would you pay that?

So, while the office workers enjoy their meals in the restaurants upstairs, I plunge into the depths with the masses.

Pick a meal.

And enjoy it for just a fraction of the cost. What's wrong with the food the masses have?

I'll wear your T-shirt. For some moo-lah.

I'm fascinated by the idea behind girlinyourshirt.com. The idea that a girl can put on a shirt, shoot some videos and convince a couple of companies to pay her for is pure Web 2.0 power.

The beauty is for a very low investment (yourself, an internet connection and a cheap camcorder to shoot videos with), you could start a business. I wonder if this is what makes Technopreneurs so addicted to the scene. Anyway, check out her pitch below.

Now, I'm wondering if companies will pay for a slightly geeky (but cool) chinese dude to wear their T-Shirt and shoot some videos and do personal ads for them as US$ 75 a pop. Any takers?

Why Windows must become Mac OS

There's been a bit of commentary lately that the next version of Windows (Windows 7) is starting to look more and more like Apple's own Mac OS. Of course, in one corner you'll have smirking Mac users thinking "we told you so"; but I'm seeing this as Microsoft's best move in a market where Apple has been steadily gaining ground.

The idea is simple. Microsoft needs to make its move now while it is still the majority operating system bar none, and if users are switching to Apple for the swish "dock" interface, slick shortcuts and cleaner looking design, the it just makes perfect sense for Microsoft to defend its turf by providing the exactly the same.

If the Mac OS is what people want, Microsoft seems more than willing to give people the Mac OS - with all the same compatibility and familiarity of Windows that so many people have grown up on. Windows Seven already looks packed with Mac genes by the bucketloads.

Of course, the die hards out there will argue that Windows needs to retain its own DNA and be different from Apple. I disagree.

By reducing the feature-set differences between Windows Seven and the Mac OS, and adding new ones in most cases, Microsoft leaves very little room for people to see the differences in the operating systems. This equals less reasons for people to want to go down the Mac OS route.

Believe me, I've tried playing around with Ubuntu on my netbook (I know, Ubuntu isn't Mac), and I loved the interface I had configured  - with dock and all. It was very Mac like. However, after a couple of weeks, I switched back to Windows XP. The reason - I wanted to play Fallout 2 and getting that to run on Ubuntu was a tedious process.

So Microsoft, Windows 7 IS looking good. Don't let those naysayers whine about you copying Apple. Just do your thing and copy the Mac OS. Your consumers love it.