2743 posts • joined 18 Jun 2009
No braille for me. 5x magnification all the way baby.
I think there's some pretty snazzy braille and screen-reader kit out there now. Like smartphones, it's pretty good at re-streaming the main article text, and just giving you that. So many ads are image-based (with no ascii elements), that I'd imagine they just get dropped.
This change also makes the link to the post, in context of the forum, smaller - and even less obvious than it already was.
To be grumpy, I must say that I think your web designers keep making changes to these forums, that make things less obvious and easy to read at a glance.
In your pursuit of minimalism, readability seems to suffer at every turn. Text size gets smaller, links are removed, along with dividing lines, shading and colour. Have you secretly been taking refugees from Microsoft's Metro team?
This is in marked contrast to the articles\main pages, where you have a few too many elements for clarity. I've no objection to adverts, but because you have so much stuff, mixed in with ads, jump-lists and menus, all the stuff on the side-bars sort of merges into one.
Not to play the disability card (he says as he's doing it), but as someone with about 5-10% of average vision, I value clarity extremely highly. And I call down curses upon all web designers who choose dark brown text on a light brown background!
I admit I'm an edge-case, and discrimination legislation notwithstanding, I believe you should concentrate scarce resources on catering to the majority of your customers. But I struggle to accept that any user would prefer a lack of clarity to the alternative. I'm not saying things are bad, by any means, just that several changes in the last year or so, have been for the worse.
Re: Are these numbers correct?
He's effectively steering the board of Apple because he's basically right. However unpleasant and noisy he is.
If the pension funds would do their fucking job, and hold company boards properly to account on behalf of their investors, then we wouldn't need these activist shareholders.
I guess it's because the pension execs don't want to rock the boat. As they're hoping to be on the same gravy-train perhaps? But anyway, they've done a piss-poor job of overseeing the renumeration committees - and in fact the boards in general. They've allowed too many CEOs to also be chairmen, so they can control the board, instead of the other way round.
Apple have no business holding on to over $100 billion! They don't do big acquisitions, so they only need enough for a fat reserve, plus Tim Cook's cleverly used supply-chain slush-fund. $30bn at most, should be enough. Holding on to any more is just willy-waving, and rather suggests that the board have forgotten it's the shareholders' money (and in fact company) - not theirs.
Sorry about the rant. ...And breathe...
Looks like they timed the IPO perfectly then!
Actually according to the figures I saw somewhere, they actually did turn a tiny profit last quarter, for the first time ever. If you strip out the one-time IPO costs. So who knows, they may actually start making small amounts of cash. At which point they'll move to the ludicrously over-valued group, along with Facebook - for companies that make money but nowhere near as much as their share price demands. But that's better than being in the outrageously over-valued group of dead-beats, along with Zynga and Groupon...
Re: I don't upload to Youtube any more
My mind struggles to encompass the possibility that Youtube comments could get any worse. You'd have to come up with some truly mind-bending laws of commentard dynamics to allow that to be possible, enough to make a quantum physicist go "Huh? What? No! That can't make sense."
Re: That's progress!
I do it positionally. I have Excel and Word next to each other on my desktop, a row below Outlook, with the different browsers above that. Security tools at the top of the screen, admin stuff to the left, etc. I also have the labels turned on with icons wherever posisble, the Office ribbon, Firefox, GMail...
It's one of my least favourite features of iOS and Metro, that the UI designers stupidly won't let you have gaps between groups of icons. Or even give you divdiders. The simplest way to make it clear what things are is denied to the users by fuckwits who seem to have no conception that different people use their tech in different ways. So I have my iOS icons split into groups of similar apps, spread out over many homescreens. Which works fine until it comes to something where I can't remember how I categorised it.
Big old seas of icons are no more user-friendly than huge walls of text.
I was trying to assemble some flat-pack furniture the other day. And to save money (i.e. translation costs), the instructions had no text whatsoever. It was all diagrams, with pretty pictures to tell you what to do. These were shit. Sometimes a picture may paint a thousand words. Other times, 5 words make far more sense than a thousand pictures drawn by total numpties on grey re-cycled paper, in light brown ink.
Re: That's progress!
Have these people ever heard of labels?
If you can't remember the shortcuts you need, how the hell are you going to remember what icons represent them?
Clearly what Photoshop really needs is a little paperclip in the corner, which sees what you're doing and says "it looks like you're trying to use the clone tool to airbrush a member of the party that you've just had shot. Would you like help with that?
Re: So they didn't actually hack Facebook
It's annoying when the normal news gets it wrong, but the Reg should be getting it right!
The Reg did get it right. They cover what happened in the article, including who exactly did get hacked (as far as we know the details), and with what effect. i.e. none. And why FB didn't get hijacked.
Even the headline is pretty clear. Obviously headlines are advertising, they're trying to get you to read a story, so they can be a bit sensationalist - so long as they aren't actually lying. This headline has what the SEA claim, followed by "... honest, guv". Which is a pretty clear indication that the SEA are telling porkies. Which the article then covers. What's to complain about?
Re: IPO-related overhead, including a $521m charge for stock-based compensation expenses
I assume that's not the fees, so much as the giving staff loads of shares so they don't instantly leave expense.
It's partly a numbers game
When version 2.x of Android was out, 'only' 200 million smartphones a year were selling. Now it's a just hit 1 billion a year. So the new is bound to outnumber the old. Plus there was that rather weird gap with Android 3, which was the emergency tablet version, that barely made it onto any phones. So there was quite a big gap between 2 and 4, and therefore a jump in hardware requirements.
I don't follow Android as closely as I did, but hasn't 4.4 been out for about 6 months now, and only has 1-2% of the market? So there's still a slower uptake of the newer OS versions. But it probably doesn't matter as much, as improvement is slowing down.
However, fragmentation was only one criticism. The more important problem is security updates. Are Google still issuing secruity updates for 4.0? And whatever version you're on, even if Google are still fixing bugs and security holes - what good is that, if you're manufacturer and telco can't be arsed to pass them on to you?
I guess he's suggesting that there's been too much woolly thinking by the Microsoft board. That they've made a ewe-ge mistake, ram-med this decision through too quickly - and so have flocked it up.
Re: Out of curiosity ...
I haven't noticed any new ones around, so I don't think there are any more. And only some of the staff seem to have been given one. I suspect they've forgotten about them, and that they could give more out if they felt like it.
They could do it like nightclub bouncers. One in, one out...
It's 100 posts for bronze. Not upvotes.
Silver then needs 2,000 up votes.
Are you into space alien porn?!
Who doesn't like a bit of red-hot tentacle action?
Anyone? Anyone? Just me then...
Re: Science Express
No. Science Express is the boffin tabloid that believes that asylum seeking neanderthals murdered Diana while living on benefits that should go to native Homo Sapiens - thus lowering house prices.
Re: You lost me there
Tax law rewards you for saving loss-making companies. So I think you're allowed to take into account teh losses from the company for up to 5 years before you bought it. Assuming that's not been used already. As the whole of Motorola hadn't made profits for ages, I think that meant Google could expect 5 years losses of over a billion a year. Plus the 2 years they owned it
If so, that's $7 - $10bn of losses at about 30% corporation tax = around $3bn.
Better that a loss making company be rescued than not. So there are many situations when the tax write-off is a great idea. Even possibly here, as Google didn't kill Motorola they just sold it off in bits. But a company that's not looked like making a profit for that long is probably no loss to the economy, and some of its parts were worth something. Google were willing to stump up the cash adn absorb 2 years of losses (risking never being able to sell), so I guess they probably deserve the tax breaks - which have pretty much worked as designed. Even if it does look a bit icky.
Re: Mam test
As a member of the post community, I find your comment both distateful and offensive! We posts have been discriminated against for too long! Don't blame me when we go on strike, and all your fences fall down.
Re: Such a refreshing language
I hate that German thing for concatenating words. Obviously learning to pronounce longer words is harder than short ones, as you've got more chance of stumbling before you get to the end.
But my real problem was my reading glasses. Which actually have a very limited field of vision, in order to get the correct level of magnification without distortion. In fact I can't quiute read magnification without moving my head, as I can only see up to the 'o' - so that's about 12 letters of vision in one go. 12 letters barely even gets you started on some German compound words.
Can I sue Germany under the disability discrimination act? I'll take €1 from each of them to make the case go away...
Re: Not $9B
Interesting. If Motorola had $3bn cash, doesn't that make the patents free (or nearly so)? There's a lot of losses to set against tax. Possibly billions of corporation tax savings. $4-5 bn in selling the set top boxe and phone divisions. It doesn't take much tax write-off for those 3 to come to £9.5bn...
I knew I should have trained to be an accountant when I had the chance. There's gold in them thar hills!
Re: for those who said buying Motorola was all about the patents...
I know the tax losses are huge as well, I was being a bit silly on the $9bn loss. Over $2 bn since they owned it, and I believe they're allowed to use the 5 years of losses up until then as well. So that's got to be close on $10 bn total to write off against profits.
So I guess that's $3bn odd corporation tax advantage and $4bn odd for sell-offs. Can they also claim a loss on the sale price? If not $2.5bn still seems a bit steep for those patents. It's a strange way to run a railroad...
Re: I laughed and laughed and laughed...
That strategy has done wonders for Nokia's shareholders. Who else would have bought their failing phone division off their hands? It had finally lost its competitive advantage on the low-end phones to China and Samsung, after years of very successful supply chain fancy-footwork. And at the same time management had seen the smartphone era coming for a decade, got all the research done to lead it, but then forgot to actually finish any of their 5 (or was it 10?) competing smartphone OSes. Had they gone Android, there's a good chance that the shareholders would have to fund the redundency payouts for everyone, and years of expensive restructuring. Rather than dumping it all on MS, and letting them take the risk.
Re: for those who said buying Motorola was all about the patents...
It seems to have been a cunning plan by Google management to take over $9 billion outside and set fire to it! I guess they're doing their bit to reverse QE...
OK, OK. I know the patents must be worth something. But it ain't $9.5 billion...
I assumed they were after the patents, but wanted the hardware division as well, otherwise why didn't they sell it earlier? It seems bizarre to buy a company you don't want, with no idea how to get rid of it, when it's losing you over $1 billion a year.
I guess it's like a mate who's into motor racing. He bought a 60s Alfa Romeo, in decent race condition, because it had a racing sump that he wanted for his. His 'cunning' plan was to swap the sump with his, give the car a nice polish, and sell it on for a profit. Well the first two bits worked anyway... After a year of having it in a lock-up garage, and hiding the purchase from his wife, he finally managed to get rid for a classified amount less than he paid. At least it was his money to waste, not his shareholders'. Ooops! As the saying goes: Q. How do you make a small fortune in motor racing? A. Start with a large fortune.
Re: Excellent article - b u t -
Services are genuine work. Exporting them can be just as valuable as manufacturing. As countries get richer they're going to want pharmaceuticals, architecture, aerospace, satellites, pop-culture, building services, insurance, higher education, finance, access to legal services - all areas in which the UK economy is currently strong. Along with being the world's fifth largest manufacturing economy with a fast-growing car export sector for example.
People even on a low level of wages start to want luxuries. Sure that might not be high fashion or whisky for a while (although the factory owners and corrupt governments will be into that pretty quick) - but they might want games for their mobile phones. Or watch films / listen to music.
That's all stuff their economies don't yet do. Also there's probably something about the foreign. When you've been stuck in a poor local market for ever, and you start to get cash and open up to the outside world foreign stuff is likely to become cool. China is currently going mad for fine wines. Obviously not much use to the UK market, we need to get them to think beer, gin and whisky are the real cool. You can't be hip without a hip flask perhaps...
Economics isn't a zero sum game. We don't lose just because they grow. Where we do lose out is in competing for scarce resources. Although that's nice if you're Australia or Canada with loads of mineral resources to export. But if productivity can continue to grow, and we can get to a more sustainable energy system (fission then fusion perhaps) the world economy as a whole can keep on expanding for years.
Re: Labour theory of Value
The Marxist point is that the 'expensive things' (the drills, pumps et al) are also produced by labour too and take their Marxist value from that.
That's precisely the point. The labour that built the mining equipment wants to get paid. Someone has to pay them. Otherwise they won't build the stuff, and the mine can't be built.
Unless the equipment workers are willing to give the mine workers credit. If so, what are they going to live on in the meantime until the gold starts to flow? If they do it from savings, then they become capitalists - and will probably want a profit from the deal, to make up for the risk they've taken with their capital.
Now of course you could have a system where the government does all this on the workers' behalf. So they tell the mine equipment builders to make it, and the miners to dig. Paying them both from debt or cash, until the mine is profitable. Planned economies like that have been tried, and turned out not to be very successful.
One of the problems with all governments, democratic and otherwise, is that they tend to stop operating on the workers' behalf, and start operating on the governments' behalf. Which can vary from subtly different to the workers' interests to purges and gulags. Democracies win here though, as they can usually change without having to shoot people.
Actually planned economies can be quite good at things like mining, at least for a time. Heavy engineering can be quite predictable, so the planners have a chance of making a good shift of things. What central planning can't do is pay the workers. Sure it can give them money. But they have to buy things with that money. And workers/consumers tend to be a lot more fickle, and less predictable, than heavy industry. So while the government might successfully work out how many mines to dig, and how much kit to equip them with, it'll never work out how many sandwich shops to build, or TVs to manufacture.
Re: Labour theory of Value
The problem with Marx's idea about the value of labour is that he was trying to use it to make a political point. Rather than construct a theory of how the economy works.
In your gold example, without labour that dirt is worthless. But if the capital isn't allowed to make its share of the profits then there won't be any capital. Just try mining for gold without drills, air pumps, metal pit props and all the other expensive things required to make a mine...
Also, by the same idea, if a car is entirely built by robots, the manufacturer should give it away free!
The trick is to try to make sure everyone gets a fair share. Then you too can become a capitalist. That's what a pension is after all. You stick some of your wages in a fund for 40 years, and they should have doubled every decade or two, ready for you to retire and spend the lot.
Re: Shot feet
What's winning? Am I winning if I have a nice enough standard of living? Even if someone else has raked in 10 times as much as me, I've still got my nice life. Or do I have to be doing as well as them to count as winining?
Subsistence farming has it's upsides. You're your own boss, the hours are good. But the downsides are also pretty bad, which is why people have historically moved from it to some pretty grim industrial jobs.
It would be lovely if we could achieve equality. Whatever that means. But we almost certainly can't. However we ought to be able to achieve a decent life for most/all, with a balance of work, shiny toys and leisure. We'll probably have to put up with some people doing considerably better than the rest though.
Re: Excellent article - b u t -
I'm not as pessimistic as you. I don't think that our standard of living has to drop, so that the rest of the world can catch up. Although it may not grow as fast as it otherwise might have, but that's hard to know.
The point is that as the poorer countries get some money, they'll start importing from us. Or should have, if they so far hadn't been lending that cash back to us. Even then though UK wages didn't stagnate until about 2003-2005 - and some of that was from immigration.
Britain still makes quite a lot of cash from designing stuff. Plus there's lots of services we're good at. There's plenty of good bits of financial services that we can export, such as insurance. So in an expanding global labour force there's the challenge of more competition, but that also becomes a bigger market. What's happened in the last few years is that things have become unbalanced. Rapid change can do that.
Re: Low pay?
It can be both. The question isn't whether tech workers are getting more than other workers. The question is whether tech shareholders are getting more of the profits than the staff otherwise would.
If there's a limited supply of skilled staff, and a large demand for them, then wages should be very high. Otherwise the shareholders are making excess profits.
Re: Excellent article - b u t -
The horse meat issue was supermarket or food processor profiteering or price competition. Probably more competition, as it was the really cheap stuff that was full of horsemeat. In order to sell some really cheap products they were obviously screwing their suppliers down to too low a rate - or the suppliers were biddding too low knowing they could get dodgy meat. I guess it was a combination of trying to build down to a price, and long complicated supply chains, plus dishonesty.
It may also have been a one-off, as I did read that the glut of horses was down to Romania banning horses and carts on roads, so a whole bunch of horsies went to the knackers in a short period.
The CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) works in various ways. But one way is to protect EU farmers by imposing tarrifs on certain goods coming from outside the EU, into the market. Remove those, and we could buy some foreign food cheaper than (for example) small French farmers could make it. Forcing them to undergo quite a lot of pain and become more efficient, or get out-competed. Thus Africa would have been a lot richer over the last few years, but rural Europe done worse. Britain went through a lot of that pain in the farming industry in the 18th and 19th Centuries.
Politically it was decided that it was better that society fund farming rather than have cheaper food. That's almost certainly un-controversial in large chunks of the EU. Which is why 40% of the EU budget is still spent on CAP.
Re: Excellent article - b u t -
That's all true, but should be self-correcting. Over a reasonable length of time anyway. One of the issues is that the free-ish global market grew so quickly, when China, India, Brazil and others all decided to start playing within a decade of each other.
Adding a couple of billion people (potentially at least) to the global labour pool in such a short time was bound to have an effect on wages. But even though it's a really big world, it's still not infinite. There's only really Africa to add (which is happening) and then not much more.
Also, there is an offset which works against the driving down of wages. Prices also drop. If you live in Britain prices of everything you buy have plummeted over the last twenty years, except for 3 main things Food, houses and energy. Now energy inflation is to be expected - peak oil and all that malarkey. But the only reason we have had such food price inflation (at least so I suspect) is that it's the one global market that most definitely isn't free. The Americans subsidise their farmers, and the EU even more so, with a large side-order of trade barriers. If our governments had dumped these (which have consistently been the massive stumbling block in world trade negotiations for 3 decades), then we'd all be gaining quite a bit more from globalisation. Then we could use some of the subsidies to help farmers who'd lose out, and still have change for a tax cut or some more schools'n'hospitals.
The other big imperfection of globalisation has been the world savings rate. Had China been spending all the money we paid them, then the terms of trade wouldn't have been so bad, ordinary Chinese people would have been richer. So they'd have also been buying our stuff, helping our economy too. But the Chinese government instead decided to buy $3 trillion of US government bonds, in order to keep their currency lower, and to keep wages lower within China. Keeping their competitive advantage for longer. But as it turns out helping to screw-up our economies while their own domestic demand wasn't able to take the strain. That imbalance, of all the surpluses Asian governments built up to protect their currencies, all the cash from the oil exporters, not helped by all the big companies sticking trillions in overseas tax-havens to avoid corp tax, went sloshing round around lowering interest rates and people got hooked on cheap credit. It's also one of the reasons we went collectively mad and bid our house prices up so high. That and lack of building.
One bit I don't get is how GoDaddy support can't recover an account where the personal data has been changed.
Surely that's the first thing any hacker is going to do. When I phone up and say my first pet's name was Spot and they say no it ain't - they can see that the answer was only changed yesterday and has been Spot for the last ten years? Otherwise what the fuck is the point of any of these security questions?
Obviously it makes it harder, as you don't know if the answer was changed because the real user had been hacked and got to the account first. So you'd have to suspend the account and try to work out which of the two people was genuine.
Re: I think facebook design their mobile site
You say that as if the non-mobile version of Facebook is any less hideous.
As always I default to my standard belief in incompetence over conspiracy (or plan) every time...
I decided to have a look. Surprisingly enough Google Maps also asked for permission to use the microphone. Denied. Nothing has asked for Bluetooth or phots. Only Gmail wanted contacts, also denied.
Location Services seems to be the biggie, that every app seems to want. I assume it's partly because of advertising. Here Apple are quite good, as even Apple's own apps have to ask for permission to use this. So I've allowed Apple maps, but not the camera or Safari, for example.
Apple also have an advertising bit in the privacy settings. You can limit ad tracking (whatever that does) and manually re-set your advertising tracking ID.
iOS stuff asks for permissions as you use the feature. At least the stuff I've installed. And then there are permission lists scattered around the rather disorganised settings menu, where you can grant or remove permission for each app individually. It's then up to the dev what they want their app to do.
Some simply stop, say they need the permission activated and don't do anything else. So you have to go back to settings and enable - weirdly this doesn't seem to happen via the app.
I've just looked, and actually there's a privacy menu now, which covers most of it. Although I notice that in giving Google maps permisison to use location services (for satnav) it also gave itself a 'background app' permission I wasn't previously aware of. Hidden in another bit of the settings menu. So that it could access location services even when the app wasn't turned on. So I guess I've been updating Google on lots of stuff to help their mapping for the last couple of months since I used G maps for sat-nav. Cheeky fuckers. Or data-thieves, as they really are.
Anyway, Apple is a bit of a mess, but mostly pretty good.
Re: Wakey, wakey .......
If the banks' customers were paying the banks' fines, then bank profits would remain the same the year they pay the fine. As prices would go up to cover it. But they don't. Fines tend to get accounted for as a one-off cost, and so come off the profits. So no, the shareholders pay, not the customers. The shareholders employ the bosses. A lot of what's broken about the current financial system is shareholders failing to to hold boards to account.
Bitcoin isn't unique in one of its members ending up in trouble. It's just smaller. Individual bankers may get put away, but heads of Central Banks in the real world don't tend to get involved in individual transactions. Whereas this chap was on some central board, but was also running an individual company.
That's just because Bitcoin is smaller, newer, less professional and less well regulated.
Also there's probably a difference. Criminals in global banking maybe know how to cover their tracks better. i.e. Even the criminals are more professional. Whereas people involved in Bitcoin may have believed all that stuff about anonymity, or just lucked into their Bitcoin fortunes - and not been all that bright to start with. For example, it was pretty obvious that lots of the deals on Silk Road were illegal. So having dealings with Silk Road was a huge legal risk.
If you're a global bank some drug dealers will try and use you to help in their money laundering. Even if you take all the precautions and honestly try to avoid them. If you wish to deliberately deal with them, you'd be sensible to make sure you have plausible deniability. And the CEO of the bank is unlikely to even know about transactions of that size anyway. So any legal blame can be lost in the multiple layers of management, and it all gets settled with a fine, and some improved procedures.
Re: Equal Justice? Nope ....... Next stop and logical step, rope for dopes with no places to hide?
Well it's a support for half his view. The bit about banks being involved in money laundering. Which obviously they will be - even if they're not complicit.
Of course the other bit, about how they get away with it, isn't supported by your post. Where HSBC had to cough up over $1 billion to settle the case. Or the case of Standard Chartered last year, just off the top of my head.
This is why banks ask questions when you make large cash transactions and demand ID when you setup bank accounts. Whether banks also turn a blind eye, when they think they can get away with it, is another question entirely. I rather doubt any of us would be shocked by that suggestion. But it's not as if Bitcoin is the only case where the big stick is being waved.
Surely this is only a minor part of Nokia's special sauce. They're using image stabilisation, but also over-sampling on bigger sensors and then a bunch of processing in the camera, before the image is passed onto the phone's chip. I thought the size of the raw images was too big for either Android or Win Phone to process, as the OSes hadn't been written with this in mind.
I'm not sure Nokia had any realistic chance of a hardware advantage. It's just that they did the work to integrate it all, and get it small enough not to make a huge bulge in the phone.
Replicating it was always going to be research budget + time.
Google say that their screen is the equivalent of a 25" HD screen from 8' away.
I can't read the subtitles on my 50" screen from that far away. I told you my eyesight was bad...
Re: But why...
I presume it must be because of people who need glasses. If you can't see to read the screen without glasses, then you can't integrate the screen into the lens. It has to be the other side of it.
Sadly it doesn't matter for me. It looks like the screen is so small that I wouldn't be able to read it anyway. Which is a shame in some ways, as it would be great to have a camera on a glasses frame that I could use to read stupid signs in stations/airports that the designers just love to hang 20 feet in the air.
Actually the smartphone is winning on that. You can often get the departure boards on an app - and the nice ones tell you the platform as well.
In normal day-to-day life they look silly, but no sillier than the kit I already have to use. But there's no reason to care what people think about you, if you find the shiny-shiny useful. You migth get the odd techy who won't talk to you because you're wired for sound. But most normal people probably won't think about it.
I wonder why they don't project onto a glasses lens itself, rather than using that screen? It would be no good for people who need vision corrected before they can read - but I'd have thought it would be cheaper, and less obvious for everyone else.
Development tools? Good grief!
I admit I'm several years out of date on Android, but if I saw an app asking for permission to use developer resources on a production device, I'd run a mile.
If you're just skimming through, with limited knowledge of the system (as I currently would be), that just screams "SCAM!!!1111!!!!!ONE!!1ONE!!!" in twenty foot high iluminated letters!
Re: Neurotic Firefox User
Since I changed to Chrome I am much more relaxed. I have nothing to fear. So I shall not fear. Becasue I have nothing to hide, Because I have nothing to fear, I have hidden nothing. I am much happier now that I have learned to relax and let go of my data. I love Big Brother.
It's good to be alive in 1985!
You silly, twisted boy you...
Re: Neurotic Firefox User
Who says I'm neurotic? Why are you all talking about me? It's perfectly normal to use Firefox isn't it? I'm so worried what people will think about me - especially as I've installed Firefox for a bunch of my friends. Now people will think the people I've installed it for are neurotic and then my friends will be annoyed with me because I made other people think they're neurotic and also think that I'm neurotic becuase I installed it and...
Re: It's amazing how much press Microsoft phones get
You're not a politician by any chance?
Nah, he's just a bit of a troll.
Although I've not seen him banging on about Windows Phone for a while. Perhaps he was worried when the sales and market-share started going up? They seem to have hit a bit of a peak recently, with the new super-cheap Androids sending it zooming up again. Perhaps that's persuaded him out of his bunker...
Re: How to use the "report abuse" function
Obviously only you guys see the viewing figures for this forum, but I'd be surprised if many of your reasders ever come here. So I'm not sure if this is the best place to post this.
Assuming you don't want to bung an article about it on the front page, may I suggest you put some text about it on the 'report abuse' page itself.
When you hit the report button, you are sent to a page, with the post in question, and another report buton. Maybe add something stern to the text there?
I'd also suggest that a small 'Why I'm reporting this' box might be appropriate. That might make the timewasters feel like idiots. Or at least think.
It's also useful to the non time-wasters. I once reported a spammer, and eneded up reporting a bunch of posts. Had I had a text box, I could have just done the one, and said - this guy appears to be a spammer, please nuke all today's posts.
The Birdie Song? You're a generous man. I was more thinking The Crazy Frog. Or perhaps Axl Rose's best impression of a Dalek on helium, doing his version of Live and Let Die.
Re: GPO snoops
So the idea is that if I'm a terrorist and put a bomb in the parcel, I'll get caught out when the Post Office bloke asks me what I put in the parcel?
Well... Possibly... There was a couple of US chappies who sent a parcel of goodies to the IRA, back in the 90s. It was supposedly a consignment of Barbie parts - but got intercepted at Coventry Airport I think. Lots of lovely guns.
Anyway they'd gone to their local parcel office, to send it off air-freight. And the office noticed that they'd not put a return address on the paperwork. Well you wouldn't, would you?
In full view of the CCTV cameras they filled out their own address, real address not a fake one, paid up and left. 'Twas a tough investigation for the police!
Re: Nimby here
Well, there are two sides to every story.
Our ancestors did indeed bury lots of infrastructure. They've lost some of it too. I've been involved in projects in London where we know there are sewers and water pipes, we just don't know where. Which makes connecting to them quite difficult. Plus you have to close some pretty big roads in order to get at them.
5 years ago I reported noise on my line to BT. Lots of it. They investigated, and found damp in the cables. I was rather embarrassed when I walked out of my house to find one of the 4 main roads into my town had been closed - and there was a nice 2 mile traffic jam. Which I was walking alongside thinking I hope these guys don't realise it's my fault. Got my phone fixed though, so it wasn't all bad...
Re: @ I ain't Spartacus
I presume your "democracy is to blame" point is also an attempt at 'satire'.....
Only partially. Cameron isn't responsible for the decisions of Ofcom, which is indepenent. Although he is responsible for its existence, as he's PM. So if he doesn't like what it's doing, he can kill it. So you can argue he's overall responsible. Although that's pretty silly for a policy decision as minor as this, where the whole point of independent regulators was to take this kind of decision away from politicians.
Also Cameron did want to kill Ofcom in his bonfire of the Quangos. But the Lib Dems said no. So the voters are more responsible for this decision than Cameron. But of course neither are really responsible at all. Not that I think it's a bad decision.
You're the one that justified your anti-Cameron comments as 'the uncomfortable truth', not me. So I assumed you meant it seriously.
As for your, 'all politicians are a bunch of cunts' crap, no they aren't. Some are, others aren't. Some are useless, some good, some self-serving some do their best for what they believe to be right. Some a mix of some/all of the above.
I know it's fashionable to say all politicians are the same, and they're all greedy and crap. But in fact it doesn't make you sound deliciously cynical, experienced and wise. It puts you in the Russel Brand talentless wanker who hasn't managed to rise above teenage level debating points level of political awareness.
I'll agree the Miliband comment was irrelevant to the topic. Although slightly more justified, as it was little differentn to his intervention on the energy industry - which is economically illiterate. And desperately cynical, given that a large chunk of the cost rises he's complaining about directly relate to the climate change levy that he brought in himself as Sec State for Energy less than 5 years ago.
Re: Since when did any government actually take responsibility for it's actions?
The Foreign Office team resigned over the Falklands. They specifically did take responsibility. Even though it was at least a decade or two of Foreign Office and MOD policy neglect that encourange the Junta to think they could get away with the invasion. That one was at least as much down to the advice the politicians were receiving - as to the decisions they were making. There were warnings within the FCO of Argentina's intentions but they were ignored and not passed on up the chain.