Is this consolation prize?

F1 RACING’S MAN OF THE YEAR AWARDS

F1 Racing magazine has revealed the winners of the 2005 Man of the Year Awards, an awards list which honours the F1 teams and drivers. This year more than 43,000 people voted for their favourites to win in the 14 categories, the highest number of votes ever. Team McLaren Mercedes won 6 awards in total, more than any other team.

I've always pondered over the fact of coming second. I understand the fact that only one can win in a game, but I feel it makes you look the biggest looser. So is this some sort of consolation prize ?

Kimi won two awards, including 'The Drive of the Year' for his performance in Monaco. F1 Racing said: “No drive in 2005 better combined steely strategic onus and outrageous talent than Kimi's victory in Monaco.” But I would still rate the Suzuka win more than monaco; very few would argue on that.



Kimi also won the 'Driver of the Year Award' to which Kimi commented: “It's always nice to be appreciated, so I want to say thank you to the readers of F1 Racing for voting for me. It goes without saying that driver of the year is a great award for any driver to win.

So, is Kimi the biggest looser - for being there 2 times in 3 years ?

End of the V10 Era.....

This weekend marked the end of an era in F1, with several careers coming to an end:

- V10 Engines
- Minardi
- Jordan
- Sauber
- BAR
- Pierre Dupasquier (Michelin F1 Director)
- The current qualifying format

At the 2005 chinese GP Alonso lead from the word go and dominated till the end. Fisichella kept behind the Mclaren challenge behind (both Kimi and Juan) which was long enough for Alonso to take full advantage of the pole position start. Juan and Mclaren's misfortune continues as he had to retire consecutively for the second time for no fault of his. Renault's constructors title was decided by the end of the 21st lap itself. Kimi was just trying to salvage some extra points, but the lead alonso had at the end of 49th lap was tremendous (11+ secs). Kimi could do nothing but just manage to bring it down to 4secs as the end.

It might look that the new V8 from 2006 season might make F1 look bad that the previous years. But FIA is taking this gamble with the reasoning that there might be more on track excitement because of many overtakes. It'll have a completely different look that's for sure. Will it feel different? Well, I'm unsure of that. I don't think anyone predicted that the Renault's would have been as good as they are this year and the Ferrari's comperatively bad. I expected BAR and McLarens to be on top form this season but it went wrong and I though Willimas might have been in with a shout. No surprise that Mclaren have had a fast car though and to top it they gave one to possibly the best driver you could possibly find on the circuit while the other was on the hands of a driver whos' direct opposite of the aforementioned.

This season has been fairly refreshing if not exactly what I wanted. It bodes well for next season, epecially if Toyota and Ferrari along with BAR/Honda and Williams could get themselves sorted. mmmmmm, Dare I dream of a six team fight for the championships next year? what a dream that'd be.......

the changes at the back of the grid (so to speak) won't have too much effect with what's going on at the front although I think Red Bull Racing may raise a few eyebrows if they keep up their good work. Coultard with his vast driving experience, did prove a point or two with his below average engine for the RedBulls.

Got to say I'm sad to see Minardi lose their name. They still give me a little reminder of the past and how racing used to be.

JC disappoints

I saw Jackie Chan's latest venture "The Myth" last week and was very disappointed. The movie was a total crap to say the least. I had anticipated much from JC since he paired with director Stanley Tong after a gap of 7 years. Their last movie "Who Am I?" was a runaway success in both Asia and America. In fact that was the best movie for JC in the past decade. No movie ever the Rush Hour series cant come close to it.

On top of this, JC playing double role in a movie after 14 years made it all the more curious for me to watch the movie on first day. Unfortunately no one in the US were willing to distribute the movie, and after watching the movie I had no doubts as to why. The movie was next to mediocre. If anyone knows a better word please leave a comment.

JC plays a modern age archeologist and a Qin Dynasty Knight. The story begins with JC and his friend setting out on a mission to identify the last remnants of the 200o year old Qin Dynasty that ruled mainland China. I don't know for what reason their journey starts from India. In India they come across a sword and gravity defying stone that is supposed to belong to the Qin Dynasty. JC attempts pacify a angry mob by speaking Hindi, which sound very ridiculous. Thrown into the waters by the mob, JC then is rescued by Mallika Sherawat (the only part of the movie worth watching is when mallika comes around in the screen, which happens to be less that 20 minutes). Mallika aids JC return back to Honk Kong with both the sword and gravity defying stone.

Between this the life story of the Qin Dynasty Knight is also interleaved without any reason. In that JC rescues the queen of Qin Dynasty ruler and she starts falling for the Knight. The knight is shown to be in a dilemma to choose between the queen or his loyalty to his country and King. The two roles are so disparate that their narration together makes the movie awfully bad.

Back in Honk Kong JC splits with his friend on grounds of difference in opinion: as to what grounds to use their findings. His friend joins JC's long time foe. The video clarity was so bad that i couldn't figure how out of the blue JC guesses the Qin dynasty to be under a very high water falls in NW china. This adds some Vijaykanth effect to the movie. And JC manages to enter the cave beneath the falls and to everyone's surprise the Qin dynasty exists there in a pristine state. If you think you've had it, you're wrong. The "ever young" qin dynasty queen awaits the return of archeologist JC. She takes his memory for a jog, explaining he was the Knight and how he dies with another patience testing flashback. The only part I liked in the movie (other than watching mallika's boobs being stuck to the floor with glue) is the Knight characters horse. It does some pretty funny things on an otherwise boring, pathetic movie. As usual JC's friend and his new gang enters the cave and there is a very big torture in the name of action sequence. Everyone fly and fight in mid-air giving a "vittalacharya" movie effect. Finally the gravity defying stone is damaged and the qin dynasty collapses. Ah! the movie is going to end and finally something to cheer about. The queen is not able to join hands with her true love even after 2000 years wait.

verdict: If you can, I strictly advice anyone to avoid this movie. It doesn't have any good action sequence, no story, poor narration, and this list is endless like the credit T. Rajendar takes for his movie. In fact it doesnt look like JC himself handled the action choreography himself. I was thoroughly dissapointed on this aspect. IMHO... "New police story" was thousand times better than this.

KIMI the man.... actually the ICEMAN

Giancarlo Fisichella admitted he was helpless as McLaren's Kimi Raikkonen flew past him on the final lap to snatch the win in the Japanese GP. "Losing the first place was not great but Kimi was flying," admits Fisichella.

Imperious, Sublime, Class: cant describe the ICEMAN's driving skills any better. I couldnt have asked for more. Before the suzuka circuit I wanted Kimi to loose and make Ron Dennis repent for what he had done to kimi's career by giving him substandard engines. But ICEMAN has always proved his mettle with what he has had: 10 engine failures in the 2004 season and 7 this season. but still Kimi was Phenomenal. Juan as usual let team Mclaren's down with his usual rash driving, though it was the fault of Villeneuve. Juan boasted it would have been one of those 1-2 finishes for McLaren otherwise, which I seriously doubt with Alonso's current form and mental stature. Should give credit to him; one simply can't ignore him saying its his renault engine thats working wonders for him. But I should admit, this gave me a malign satisfaction, Kimi wins; Ron Dennis cry's for constructors title - which even god knows, only the ICEMAN can get him. Someone check the suzuka tracks, think it will still be burning.

Is there a schumi fan out there who can clarify if he ever won a pole position starting 17 ?

dejavu

This scribbling is no different from my previous one; the reason being the same : now this is 4th time this season kimi is gonna drop 10 grids below becuase of another engine blowup. I dont know why i'm feeling this way, but he should loose which means mcLarens wont get the constructor title, which I feel is what they deserve for providing kimi with such engines.

oh! no, not again

i cant believe this is happening to the iceman. damn! its the 3rd time this season he's gonna drop 10 grids below becuase of engine failure. but i still hope he'll win and prove why he's one of the best among the contemporary drivers. go kimi, go....

Opinion: Five reasons NOT to use Linux

here comes my second blog for the day. goes to show how bored i'am today. first a blog, then The Transporter and now back again blogging. came across this during my routine time pass.

I love Linux. I use it on my servers, I use it on my desktops, and I use it on my entertainment center, where it powers my HDTV TiVo and my D-Link DSM-320 media player, which turns my network into a media library with terabytes of storage. Heck, I even run Linux on my Linksys WRT54G Wi-Fi access points, which hook the whole shebang together.

But, Linux isn't for everyone. Seriously. Here are my top five reasons why you shouldn't move to Linux . . .

Reason number one: Linux is too complicated

Even with the KDE and GNOME graphical windowing interfaces, it's possible -- not likely, but possible -- that you'll need to use a command line now and again, or edit a configuration file.

Compare that with Windows where, it's possible -- not likely, but possible -- that you'll need to use a command line now and again, or edit the Windows registry, where, as they like to tell you, one wrong move could destroy your system forever.

Reason number two: Linux is a pain to set up

It's true. After all, with modern Linuxes like Xandros Desktop or SimplyMEPIS, you need to put in a CD or DVD, press the enter button, give your computer a name, and enter a password for the administrator account.

Gosh, that's hard.

On the other hand, with Windows, all you have to do is put in a CD or DVD, do all the above, and then immediately download all the available patches. After all, Symantec has found that an unpatched Windows PC connected to the Internet will last only a few hours before being compromised.

Unpatched Linux systems? Oh, they last months, but what's the fun of that?

Reason number three: Linux doesn't have enough applications

Really now. I mean, most Linux systems only come with secure Web browsers, like Firefox; e-mail clients, like Evolution; IM clients, like GAIM; office suites, like OpenOffice.org 2.0; Web page editors, like Nvu; and on, and on, and...

Microsoft, on the other hand, gives you Internet Explorer and Outlook Express, the most popular Web browser and e-mail client around -- even though they do have a few little, teeny-weeny problems. Of course, Windows also has an IM-client, Windows Messenger, which, come to think of it, has also had some problems.

And, Microsoft also has Microsoft Office, which -- oh wait, you don't get that with the operating system, do you? You also don't get a Web page editor either, do you?

Well, still, with Windows you get so many more choices of software, don't you? Like Lotus 1-2... oh really? I didn't know that. Or, WordPerfect... oh, pretty much dead too.

Still, so long as you want to run Microsoft programs at Microsoft prices, Windows is the operating system for you!

Reason number 4: Linux isn't secure

If Microsoft says so, it has to be true! So what, if you can scarcely go a week without reading about yet another major Windows security problem in our sister publication, eWEEK.com's security section! Who would you rather believe -- Microsoft, or your own eyes?

Reason number 5: Linux is more expensive

Are you calling Microsoft a liar? Those nasty Linux companies, like Red Hat or Novell/SUSE charge you a fee for support. Others, like Linspire sell you the product. How dare they, when you can download free, fully-functional versions of almost all the Linux distributions.

Your computer, on the other hand, almost certainly came with Windows pre-installed! For free!

Oh wait, it's not free? Windows' actually makes up a large percentage of your PC's price?

Hmmm. Well, still, it's already on there, and it has everything you need.

Right? Of course, right!

Except, of course, you might still want to buy an anti-viral program (Norton Anti-Virus: $40), anti-spyware software (McAfee Anti-Spyware: $25); and a full-featured firewall (Zone Alarm Pro: $35). But, hey, who needs those when you have a secure operating system like Windows!

And so...

When you really think about it, you can see why there are lots of reasons not to use Linux.

There just aren't any good ones.


--Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols : the original author of this blog.

Please dont switch to Google Talk immediately

The root cause of my anxiety today is Google's recent announcement of their Google Talk service. Everyone in my circle of friends seems to be all lathered up in excitement over Google's decision to enter the mess that is the Instant Messaging world. Much of it being speculation about how Google intends to do to IM and VoIP what they did with webmail in April 2004 with their launch of GMail with 1GB storage.

But I'am frustrated by Google Talk and Why? Because Google seems to consider it progress to have merely added yet another isolated network to the mess.

But wait... You thought Google was all about Openness. Isn't there that "Jabber" thing? Well, yes, sort of. The guys at the Jabber Software Foundation have got the right idea. Working with the IETF they've put together a solid set of open protocols and specification describing how instant messaging should be done. A lot of people have embraced this standard, too. Jabber support exists in most of the mainstream multi-protocol IM clients. Servers are all over the world and millions of people use it. Jabber is at a lot of places. Jabber is the way things really ought to work when it comes to IM.

And yes, since Google Talk uses the Jabber client protocol you can connect to Google Talk with any of the dozens of existing Jabber clients on nearly any platform you can imagine. Out the gate Google Talk supports a lot of third party clients, and client choice is a fine and noteworthy goal. It is an improvement over the other networks in that regard. It's a good thing and I'm happy that Google did it.

But Google has uncharacteristically missed the real strength of the Jabber design. Despite all their self-congratulation about open communications and XMPP protocol stuffs, they've only embraced the smaller, less important aspect of the Jabber openness. What makes Jabber truly great is that it is a decentralized system. Jabber allows people to run their own servers. It's a truly peer-to-peer system where users connect to their own chosen server and not a centralized single server. The Jabber protocol not only defines how their client software talks to the server but also how the servers pass messages between themselves

Jabber leverages the robust DNS system just like email, so instead of a flat namespace it's a hierarchy. Unlike a closed network where there can only be one sanjaykumar and I'll probably end up having to be sanjaykumar12 or avidracer; Jabber delegates via DNS for namespaces. My Jabber ID is sanjaykumar at jabber dot com. Yours could be you at myjabber dot com. When I send you a Jabber IM, it first goes to the at jabber dot com Jabber server which then forwards it on to the Jabber server (myjabber) you use, which knows how to send it to you.

Sadly, though, Google has chosen not to embrace this most wonderful aspect of Jabber. Instead, they've created just another isolated IM network. As a Google Talk user, a person has a jabber address (at gmail dot com, mirroring their email address) but the Google Jabber servers do not talk with the other Jabber servers on the net. A Google Talk user is just as cut off from the world as an Yahoo! Messenger user is.

All Google has done is create yet another closed-loop system. They've made it just a little bit more of a burden for people to reliably have IM connectivity to all their friends. They've made it a little bit harder for people to communicate. They've made it a lot harder for the overall state of instant messaging to progress.

Jabber holds the promise of true instant message freedom and openness and Google appears poised to default on that promise with the way they've structured their own service.

Imagine if Google had announced gmail last year but only made it capable of exchanging mail with other gmail users. The value of email comes from being able to mail anyone. We need to move instant messaging away from these archaic closed networks and to an open protocol that can scale and allows us to move past implementation development to focus instead on areas where actual innovation can occur.

For now I'm discouraging people from switching to Google's new IM network. It simply does not offer enough benefit to justify further fragmentation of the IM world. We're probably never going to see meaningful innovation and advancement of IM utility until we find a way to get past the horrible plumbing that exists underneath, and Google Talk as it exists today is doing more harm to that goal than good. No amount of vapor or rumor regarding VoIP or search capabilities is going to offset the closed nature of their new network for me.