Status-Q

End of an era…

Last year, the National Geographic photographer Steve McCurry was given the last roll of Kodachrome produced by Kodak. Yesterday, the last lab still developing the format took its last orders. He delivered it to them by hand.

He made good use of the roll, though.

In some ways it seems inappropriate to mourn the death of a media format – it’s happening all the time now. But this one is unusual, firstly in having lasted for 75 years, and secondly, in having so much of people’s lives bound up in it.

One day, we, or perhaps our grandchildren, may feel the same about paper.

My American readers will know the expression ‘to say uncle’ or ‘to cry uncle’, meaning to submit, admit defeat, ask for mercy.

It’s not a phrase we use over here, and I’ve often wondered about its origins.

Michael Quinion’s excellent site, which I’ve recommended before, has a plausible answer.

Useless fact of the day….

2011 is a prime number.

Only 13 prime-numbered years in the last century. Must be a good omen.

Actually, I’m rather tempted to write a spoof astrological-type book.

The Power of Primes, I’ll call it. How ancient Greek mathematical concepts can forge your destiny!

I’ll dig up lots of powerful correlations showing that prime numbers are indeed a good omen, and that non-primes are much more dodgy. There were no prime-numbered years during the two world wars, for example. The Sept 11th attacks happened in 2001, which was not a prime year, even though the surrounding 1997, 1999 and 2003 all were. Pretty sinister, eh? Yes, I think the first person to expose this hitherto-unknown law of nature could make a packet.

I shall set to work. I think 2011 will be a good year.

So will 2017, by the way…

Everybody’s talking about Wikileaks, so in general, I haven’t. People like John are doing a much better job than I ever could.

There was some discussion on a couple of the Twit.tv podcasts about the heightened emotions directed at Wikileaks itself, though, and I thought they came to some sane conclusions, which were roughly as follows:

• The person who committed a crime was the original source, who is now being dealt with by the law
• Wikileaks did no more than any newspaper would have done if it got its hands on the material, and is no more or less culpable than the New York Times and the Guardian and others who have been republishing it.
• Wikileaks just did it more efficiently and for different, and some would argue, more honourable, motivations than a newspaper’s. [This is the real novelty. People know how to interpret newspapers’ actions.]
• Those hackers attempting to target organisations that failed to support Wikileaks are guilty of suppressing the kind of freedoms of speech and action for which Wikileaks stands.
• The big danger is that any measures brought in to ‘deal with’ Wikileaks could be used against the New York Times and the Guardian in the future.

That seemed to me a pretty good executive summary, but what a lot of fun debate is going on about these, and all the ramifications, especially as initial outrages give way to more careful considerations.

They’re all missing the real question, of course: who will play Assange when the movies start to come out?