44 posts • joined Tuesday 15th March 2011 15:21 GMT
Re: !Subtle under tones
Deprressing, but I don't think the septics have a monopoly on having a generally ignorant population anymore (assuming that was ever true) . Going on my experience of what seems to be the most popular telly and Brit news Interweb, us Brits are running you yanks a very close second if not leading by a head.
A quick rummage through recent news stories on the most popular sites (Daily Mail, Metro), especially those concerning more "technical" news , will show us up, both in the language used in reporting and that used in the public responses.
I don't think this a class/wealth related issue either, except that if you come from a wealthy back ground there is less excuse for being a dumbass than if you come from a "less wealthy" background.
Then mine should be called "Crap Behind the TV Four Times".
Drink and wait for the...
Beer Scream of Death!
So what? Users are just too lazy - make them pass a test!
Most users just can't be bothered to use the simple security they already have - ahem there are a few above even amongts the hallowed realms of the El Reg community.
Basically, security =work. It doesn't come free, even if you don't have to pay cash up front, you'll need to pay in time spent "doing" the security.
A good rule of thumb is that the more effective the security measures the harder it is to use the things you're securing. The "easiest" security is often overlooked / ignored by the user because your average 'puter punter just isn't bothered / educated enough even to use the basic security features their OS and software already offers.
Going from the most basic:
PW protecting OS access / hardware access</li>
Once the OS is running, have a different user account for each user and enforce use of these with a decent PW policy (and remember any password is better than none).
Logout / lock the OS whenever you leave the machine - it takes 2 secs max. There is no excuse for not doing this - especially for the more techie amongst us. Leaving your desk? Lockit. At least use an automated screenlock.
Use a browser that has usable secuirty options including a Master password for saved pw lists.
I also think it is an issue that Chrome doesn't offer a Master pw feature, but every user has a responsibility to educate themselves enough to safely use the common web tools, even though this is not very straightforward for most people.
Whose job is it to educate computer users about using sensible security measures for all their PC activities?
Given how much of our lives are dependant on and conducted via the Internet, and the fact that Government is now forcing us to use it to interact with it's various departments, we're probably at the stage where some kind of compulsory education is in order
Maybe the long forgotten computer driving licence should be brought back, to lfe, and only those who have "passed" should be let loose with a "proper" PC which you set up and configure yourself.
All those unable to pass the test should be only allowed to use a special, "authorised" pre-configured device designed especially for Internet "Learners".
Maybe that device will have a real, proper physical key they have to insert in order to use the machine, and maybe they have to turn the key if they want to do anything at all risky. And it should come with a lockable paper notebook to write all the passwords in.
Er, that's it.
Why are no comments allowed on Rhino Incest...?
You know nearly all the articles getting loaded up allow comments, even the recent ones (look at today's main El Reg home for example).
Is it just a totally random decision and you fellas make it up as you go along? Mind you, why shouldn't El Reg staffers do just that, it's your site. Anyhow, you don't have to be Sherlock to notice that the "No Comment" articles are mostly by Lewis, so I've done my own survey of his recent articles and the comment/no comment pattern looks like this:
Last 10 articles for each category:
Articles which really don't have any obvious connection with global warming,tree huggers, nuclear power or any of that kind of shite.
Comments - 9 No comments - 1 (any idea as to why comments aren't allowed on rhino incest?)
Articles which really do have an obvious connection with global warming,tree huggers, nuclear power or any of that kind of shite.
Comments - 0 No Comments - 10.
Is this a rule? Can someone code for this please? Something like:
IF Article contains "global*" OR "warm*" OR "CO2" OR "glacier*" OR "sea level" OR "Rhino Incest" THEN Article.Thread=True
Lewis is quite able to handle the shitty comments (the freedom to make / read shitty comments is half the reason for coming to El Reg after all), and it must make for great stats. Or is it that there is too much traffic generated by the pro & anti-global warming comment trolls?
Tell us more about the food then..
If it's an attraction selling nosh, then, as befits a genuine El Reg article, you should taste everything on the menu and give nosh ratings. Nosh is a key compenent of any trip, especially a techhie-type trip, and essential if you have to trek miles in the wilds, so it's likely far from alternative perveyors of haggis n' neeps, tatties and other Scots type grub.
"And now, the end is near, and so I face, the final curtain..dah..dahh" etc
It's just the attitude you expect from the dodgier advertisers, but the serious points are about how and why people / businesses turn a buck on-line. For some it's the only way to make their bread, for others it's a useful extra revenue stream.
The real issue is about the contract the Randal Rothenbergs (isn't that the name of slimy reptile off Monsters Inc?) of this world think we should all be forced to agree to, regardless of what we, the users prefer to do with our online activity information.
If you run an information website that is mostly supported by advertising, I reckon it's fair enough for those websites to say
"hey, if you want to read our site, you have to let us set cookies, and then mine and sell on your viewing habits while you're here - that's how we make the dough to provide our information you like so much.".
Now if you like the website info a lot, and could trust the website / their advertising "partners" to use your cookie information responsibly maybe you wouldn't mind.
But what with the humungous numbers of third party domains trying to set cookies and run scripts, even on supposedly trustworthy sites like the banks and big online retailers, most of us don't have time to work out who all these different outfits are and whether they can be trusted - even tech savvy El Reg readers. My mum still struggles to fire up her PC, so asking her and teh hordes of other non-techies that make up 90% of the users to make that kind of judgement is unfair and unreasonable.
If the advertisers / website owners could be trusted to do the right thing, maybe we could have a independant, workable advert/cookie preference service like the UK's Telephone and Mail Preference . services.
But they can't so we can't. Switch them all off by default and nuke'em all from space - it's the only safe thing to do!
I'm ambivalent about the benefits or otherwise to the Scots of independance, though gut instinct tells me in the short term there won't be much very bad fallout, mostly stupid inconveniences, but in the longer term it will cause big problems for both populations that they really won't need (and the majorities both sides of the border won't have asked for).
My guess is that Lewis really doesn't give a toss about Scotland, Alex Salmon, independance or anything to do with them unless it impinges on his the Holy Turf of Climate Change, and maybe defence - what about prospects for "The Sovereign British Territory of Faslane" - Lewis?
Re: "No comment" on Alex Salmond Seaside Shenanigans Ravings?
I get your point that it's the same system / functions on Forum / threads as are offered for the main articles, but it's not the same in that comments are not presented with the article - you have to find your way to the forums and topic(s) you guess will be associated with the article and then find the thread.
Most won't be bothered (granted most probably don't look at the comments anyhow).
The point about the comparison with the Beeb is my main worry. BBC News used to offer comment functions on nearly all of their articles. Now comments are only permitted on a small number of carefully selected news items, which is in my book a subtle form of censorship.
Let El Reg continue to proudly offer ubiquitous comments - no back door censorship here please.
"No comment" on Alex Salmond Seaside Shenanigans Ravings?
The ubiquitous comment facility is one of the things that makes El Reg special - unlike the Beeb which is too scared to let us plebs make remarks about it's news site output.
I notice that the comment options are not available for Lewis Page's piece about Scottish Salmond's daft tidal power plans, and instead we're directed toward the forums.
Please tell me this isn't a new trend for El Reg..?
One down vote as requested - but I don't see the front or back pocket question as a big deal.
Re: Nice hardware - how about a choice of OS?
I'll fess up to not having a recent Windows phone, but have had a little play around with a couple, and do believe the consensus which seems to say the latest versions work pretty / very well on most of the new Nokias, which are nice hardware designs with decent specs.
But my gut feeling is, that going on Windows track record on security and transparency, if you run a Windows operation, adding Windows mobiles into the mix is too much like putting all your eggs in one rather holey basket.. Having said, that I really don't believe Android is any more secure in practice in day to day use, and in fact is seriously underated as a security risk for consumers and in the loosely managed business IT environments encountered in most SME's.
What I like most about the touted benefits of BB10 is the feature that supposedly allows effective separation of business and personal data on a single device, plus the secure)ish) messaging .
Plus, with the Q10, the fact you get a physical keyboard option - my fat fingers really struggle with vitual keyboards.
I know it's a stale arguement, but with Maemo, Nokia really looked like they were finally making headway delivering a good smartphone OS, so it was a shame they junked it, especially when the only alternative was to assume the only game in town is now Win mobile OS.
I don't see Sony, Samsung HTC playing that one out in the same way - they're happy to play the field taking each OS on it's merits to their business model.
As a phone manufacturer, the key issue I can see is that MS like to grab a big chunk of your profit up front in the form of the OS license fee, and then a whole lot more for the life of the phone by snaffling a wodge of any app sale revenues.
For Apple and Blackberry, this approach makes sense, as even though they outsource production, they take on much of the commercial risk with the design and manufacture of the hardware, the quid-pro-quo being they pay the price when the phone doesn't sell.
For Nokia, by using the MS mobile OS, they have all the risks of a branded mobile manufacturer, with none of the upside from continuing sales of apps. What gives?
Nice hardware - how about a choice of OS?
Come on Nokians, give us a choice of OS on your nice looking top-end smarty fones. I'd buy one with the latest Blackberry OS. But not with Windows on it (even if it looks nice), horses for courses and all that...
Re: Land of the Free?
Doh Hoh Ho Ho ho - not. Tea Party Troll, but as usual they come without even bearing the obligatory crumpets.
The same MO as Eden on MS, but not as amusing.
Anyhow, this snooping has being going on forever under various guises (and Presidents both red and blue), and news of this capability has been public domain for many years (e.g: James Bamford's "Body of Secrets..) for anyone who could be bothered to look.
It comes with the territory really. Go back as far as you like, and you'll find with easy to use centralized comms of any technology comes centralized snooping. Simples.
All they need to do is crap it straight out of the back door and let the nasty UV, high energy solar wind particles and similar stuff zap all the turd-bugs to death. It'll likely dry up pretty quickly, too and then be easy to crumble up all over the martian dust and voila - martian mulch all ready for your plants .
Should be be just fine for growing turnips and such. How much water would you have to mix in with the pee to make it ok for watering the veg?
He was THE monster man
The flash new tech gives us super-realism, but will never take away from the magic Harryhousen generated in those movies. Boys n' gals everywhere mourn the monster master.
Beers all round :(
Re: Who voted these buffoons in?
Our politicos in UK and EU countries may often be very bad, but there is plenty of competition from the rest of the world for the title of "Worst".
Anyone care to start the list? Preferably nominations from nominee country nationals - residents can be excused, as if found out, in the worst places they'll get executed/jailed/tortured for dissing the homeland!.
Not that Amanda Palmer who is so cheap she likes her musicians to "play for beer" by any chance:
Re: Nothing new under the sun
Good idea in principle, but the usual stumbling block will be where in the world all this high tech investment goes. I don't see France, Germany, China never mind Venezuala coughing up without getting some of the action back into their own economies.
Cue years of horse trading a la LHC, reasearch Fusion reactor labs, and the rest. Chances are they'll still be squabbling about who gets what & how much the wonga when the "Big One" hits.
Re: Cyclists are not 'required' to wear anything
Yep, we have different rules in the UK to those in the US (like for motorcycle clothing/helmets), and I guess individual states might have some of their own special regulations. El Reg needs to remind commenters that we are a diverse bunch and apart from often talking complete bollox because we can, also may confuse because our laws and customs differ quite alot.
How about having a country flag option for commenters?
Brits had slightly different most popular games I think...
I reckon this top ten list is warped toward yank favourites, eg for us Brits, Paper Boy?!! Dodgy or wot.
IFRC, over here most coin ops appeared and were played at first in pubs rather than arcades (which I think only got commonplace much later when planning regs were relaxed & tended to only be at the seaside or in a few of the dodgier parts of cities), so naturally memories are a bit hazy but here goes.
The first coin op game I played was Pong, then came Space Invaders, then I'm not so sure of the order but I think it was, Asteroids, Battlezone, Defender, Frogger, Missile Command, Donkey Kong, Pacman, Galaxian. Lunar Lander was a bit of a niche one as it was more difficult to play when pi**ed. Dig-Dug I only played as a bootleg on an early IMB PC at work (copied off a 5 1/4 floppy!) . Forget those after mid eghties as by then the beer drinking had completely taken over.
Never heard of Q'bert, Spyhunter and the rest apart from Streetfighter, but anything decent would have been available over here on the Spectrum/Commodore/BBC.
Don't worry it was "only" a limited number...
"only a limited number of customers were affected by the outage" - so that's alright then! So it's "only" a problem when an unlimited number of customers are affected?
Still, nice to know that they have real customers as opposed to the ubiquitous "clients".
Wot about the banks
My bad - most of them are public since we bailed them out.. But there are plenty of private sector companies who have had no problem spending the spondulaks solely for the benefit of the management. Remember Rover Group and the pensions fiasco?
Also there have been lots of private investment vehicle buyouts of publicly listed companies, where the buyers extract mega bucksfrom the target, extract cash to their vehicle (this also funds the purchase) and then they sell on whats left or leave it to fester. Once they've gutted the target so it has no cash left to invest in it's own development, the targets usually fail at the first sign of business stress.
But which Blofeld? My favourite was the Charles Gray.
Re: Has anything changed....?
Glad to note that I can upvote my own article - just like on the Beebs News comments. Can you also downvote your own comment (not so usfeul of course, except for the self-flagellants amongst us) ?
Re: Ed's comments and State Secrets
The World Service was until very recently funded by the Foreign Office. I listen to it a fair bit, and you know what, in recent years it felt like there was much LESS government influence than on the mainstream BBC output, despite the their money coming directly from a Government department.
Has anything changed....?
It seems to me that the BBC has really changed in the way that it' s senior management influences output and journalistic acitivties. Now the impression is that since the thumbscrews were applied WRT Gilligan / Dyke, the most senior managers have now agreed to imbue program makers with the nouse to routinely self-censor any controversial journalistic content - ie any journalism that goes against the "accepted" order of service or consensus as viewed by the regime that now effectively runs the show.
BBC news and current affairs used to be quite campaigning, often to the chagrin of whatever goverment happened to be in power when the shit hit the fan. My feeling is that the shit hit the fan far more often in the old days - the fact that it so rarely happens now tells you a whole lot about how the BBC has limited what it will/can cover in any meaningful way, and how it now works out it's reporting strategy based on murkey nod & wink cues from their handlers about what is "good" and "bad".
Currently pro- man made climate change views are treated as "good" - but more worryingly, anti- man made climate change views are treated as "bad" and shunned, even where there is some good evidence based science to back these views up (I happen to side with the "pro" group - for now ).
It is the shunning process - almost McCathyist in nature, that is the worst manifestation of new style BBC management.
"Safety first" seems to be the mantra, so that "news reporting" is now in fact moslty just "reporting news" - regurgetating news releases from Government departments / corporate media outlets or, as is becoming more common, just using third party news agency content.
The big mistakes now happen when those at the sharp end (program makers and journalists) fail to correctly second guess ther masters/mistresses wishes - especially when these wishes have to change dramatically , at short notice. As most meaningful decisions are made in the Blair style of unoffcial, pre-formal meeting "sofa government" (in practice this is often dinner / lunch / phone call goverment) most of the reasoning behind decisions on contentious BBC issues is hidden from potential public gaze - if nothing is recorded it didn't happen. "Plausible deniability" is the name of the game.
There is now no BBC in-house science expertise (there used to be). With a very few exceptions, the current science reporters/program makers have no professional science education to fall back on, so they are less qualified to make good judgements about the worth of the statements made by "advisory bodies", in news releases or spokesperson soundbites. This is why they are encouraged to fall back on the use of "approved" services proferred by campaign funded think tanks and the like.
The fact that a senior BBC manager, with no science education is making ad-hoc decisions on the science content of programms based on informal presentations by persons with unknown (to the BBC manager) affiliations says alot about the current Beeb senior management style.
Any ex BBC staffers care to comment?
Re: The BBC is ... the vampire. Literally. It sucks peoples' money away
"Real independent TV channels" - how independent might that be? They are all driven by some imperative. If small, purely to make a buck for their owner/investors often by making sure their output pleases advertisers . If rich, probably there is also an additional element of in some way supporting the political influence/agenda of their owners/shareholders.
Once the BBC could have been said to be in theory at least, free of a need to provide a financial return, and very independent of government interference.
Since Birt was parachuted in, successive governments have tinkered with the organisation, the way it is (mis-)managed, regulated, funded and it's output produced and edited.
We now have the end result - a broadcasting company which no longer has an identity of it's own, whose employees (those who are left anyhow) have to ask themselves daily if what they are thinking is "correct" - never mind common sense, to ask what the latest PC agenda they should be slavishly pushing is, and whose senior management seem to only be interested in making up theirs and their croneys huge salaries and pensions.
The Gilligan affair myth was the nail in the coffin for the old independent BBC. A DG was effectively sacked over a report that was in all it's essential elements an accurate reflection of what might generously be called very dodgy slight of hand - certainly Gilligan was far more accurate in his report than the "sexy" dossier he was sacked for reporting on.
Until the 90's the BBC was feared (and often secretly respected) by governments at home and abroad largely because it was PARTIAL. It took sides. It was campaigning. Yes, it was a bit too lefty at times, with the whole Rethian thing rather snobbish and patronising, it had a well meaning idealistic, educational if pseudo-socialist agenda, but it was not afraid to kick political masters of any persuasion in the pills. Over the years it has, with a few honourable exceptions, been reduced to a self serving money go-round for the bigwigs and luvvie independent production companies.
Science journalism at the BBC has taken the biggest hit, with any journalists with a decent science education / background being pushed out in favour of generalists who (with few exceptions) mostly have no idea if the press releases they read and regurgitate to us are based on decent science or not or even understand in any meaningful way what the pro's/cons are. Hence this misguided mess over "climategate".
The old style BBC would have at least one senior journalist / editor who thouroughly understands science methodologies and shinanigans, and could have provided a well informed and intelligent overall of what the overall science output really means, which is worth considering and which is not.
Quite sensible mumbo jumbo...
Companies don't HAVE to advertise. Most chose to do so because their product is much the same as that produced by other companies and they don't/can't want to rely on just the excellence/value etc or otherwise of their product to pursuade buyers to select it over other companies wares.
What companies pay for their advertising is known as a "cost" which is part and parcel of a competitive market. There are lots of other costs associated with market competition, both financial and ethical. Unfortunately experience tells us that a having market based competition does not always mean better value for consumers. That is one of the reasons why in most markets there are many laws and regulations to limit the actions of companies - basically they can't be trusted to do "the right thing" (rather like governments really) and left to their own devices will screw us poor consumers.
And just because a cost is ethereal doesn't mean it is not just as real as an "above the board" cost, only that it may be hidden amongst all those other costs like profit, materials, transport etc.
And as you yourself ackowledge, your third and final argument is even more inane than the OP's - "..make the BBC commercial, since that means advertisers have more of an audience, and they can cut advertising costs accordingly. Hence products become cheaper."
Yes, just like gas, water and electricity have all become cheaper because of competition - not.
There is only one qualifier - the Bi-Bacon - all the rest are interlopers
The "Bi-Bacon" is the only real pukka bacon sandwich - all the rest are artifically enhanced interlopers. Toasties, egg / tomato, bacon on french/baps/bagel, banjos etc don't count as bacon sarny in my book.. Adding cheese and the rest also disqualifies. Guacamole& peanut butter? Totally against the bacon butty ethos.
The only permitted additives should be the sauces, such as braan sauce and red sauce (AKA ketchup). Chillie sauce or the mustards are borderline but anything more solid (apart from butter/marge) makes it something more than a bacon sarny. I'd make an exception for Black Pudding mind.
See Amanda Palmer & The Grand Theft Orchestra
Would that be referring to her ripping off of these free musicos or is "The Grand Theft Orchestra" a paid for support act?
Re the freeby support, it's a free(-ish) country, & there's nothing illegal about telling people in advance that you're not going to pay them any money for working for you (though the HMRC/IRS don't take kindly to undeclared barter even if it is beer & tees), but like others have said, to do stuff for free you need money from somewhere to pay the bills, get you to/from venues etc.
If AP wasn't making cash off the back of this and was in the same financial boat as the free musicos, then fair do's, but when this is her very carefully orchestrated personal money making venture (and apparantly she is the one t/making the money) , well it seems like it's an unequal relationship and she's taking advantage. My opinion is it's really a bit shameful to operate like that - but plenty of others will say it's just the free market working (loss leaders etc).
AP is just another wannabee personality, a canny self promotor and money maker, trying to promote a blousey cheery faux-underground following, and doing all that as cheaply as possible. Like Madonna used to be. She is no worse than the city firms taking advantage by churning interns, or Michael O'Leary, who at least tells his customers up front that basically they (don't) get what they (don't) pay for so not to whinge when the service falls apart.
Not nice, but not nice rarely = illegal.
Look at those little faces in the RH pic - surely it's Dobby and his mate! He didn't peg out after all! Now to find the long lost Emma Watson monkey - mmm tasty!
Re: *REAL* maple syrup
Hey! I resent that unwarranted knocking of Angel Delight. I was very fond of butterscotch flavour. Even as a ten year old I wasn't dim enough to think there were any strawberries in the strawberry flavour. Well, not once I'd tasted it anyhow..
Re: SD card
Equivalent to about an album a week for 30 years - I reckon there are quite a few bods out there who collect like that. I have a brother who has even more, most of it on vinyl he's been picking up since his teens, though the newer stuff is largely CD (he won't touch downloads).
He listens to each album on the day he buys it.
Keeps the collection upstairs in a spare bedroom in dirty great metal filing cabinets. He's still adding to it despite warnings about overdoing the floor loadings, so no doubt much of it will soon be making it's way through the floor boards.
Is this the start of a trend?
Apolgies in advance for this rant.
I think nsld's cynical comment maybe very near the mark. If you are an affected O2 customer and were also hit by the RBS network going tits-up a couple of weeks ago you could be forgiven for worrying about other rather important tech reliant services.
O2 have been boasting that they have 200 engineers assigned to network quality. I hope that doesn't equate to 200 "engineers" doing everything needed to keep things going, from physical station maintenance to network systems admin and the rest for all those shiny 23m+ mobile devices.
The companies we rely on to deliver services essential for our day-to-day survival are in practice totally big-tech reliant these days. If the big-tech screws up, within a day we don't get our daily bread in Tesco's, Veiola don't pump our water for our cuppas, Esso don't have petrol for our school run MPV etc. etc.These companies really don't care how much we are totally in thrall to their big-tech reliant, and frequently interdependant, services, and these days we really don't have many choices apart from using the big-co's.
For most big publicly listed companies, the old style belt & braces & and a spare pair of trousers approach to vital big-tech doesn't happen anymore. Unless there has been continuing and realistic levels of investment in the infrastructure over the lifetime of the systems, these very large scale services supplier systems have become too big, complicated and fragile to NOT fail. O2 probably doesn't employ directly anymore the people who might understand the core systems issues they have experienced.
it's almost inevitable given the relentless squeeze on tech budgets these days. The IT director (in the unlikely event the business has one) has to produce cost yearly efficiency savings to get his bonus. If well managed, you can nibble off a couple of percent a year for a long time before problems become "Big", the front page headline kind of Big. Outsource it, then the outsourcer also outsources some etc. etc. Before you know it no-one has good expertise and experience of how the overall system actually functions and where the most significant practical operational risks lie.
As with the retail bank systems (and lots of others), those responsible for driving and devising these unrealistic long term operational budget strategies will usually have moved on long before the shit hits the fan, be shaking their heads sagely and counting their fully translated share option packages.
Notice that the very last budgets to get seriously cut before big problems come to light are those that service the board remuneration and to a lesser extent (dependent on shareholder identities) the shareholder divvies. If RBS / O2 style failures happen piecemeal over a few months, the pain will be soon be forgotten by the markets on which these companies rely for THEIR well being.
Once the mess has been cleaned up, it will be business as usual again -"it was just that XYZ junior techhie screwed up", or "those problems were an abberation" and " just a very unlikley set of circumstances" etc. etc.
Of course the one market segment that most fully realize their very direct fiscal dependance on big-IT systems are the market-makers and traders - they will no doubt continue to make sure THEIR systems and contingencies are really tight as the gnats proverbial and that is why they tailor their IT budgets accordingly regardless of short term conditions.
With IT security difficulties growing like topsy and yet more budget stress on the way for our big-co service suppliers, and with many supermarkets, banks, telco's etc. running on ever more complex and increasingly unpredictable tech services, those survivalist nutcases start to look less like fruitcakes and more like the main course.
I don't fancy bottled water and baked beans for the next 5 years, so any suggestions for a tasty but long shelf life dry goods diet? What's the flag for dead in the water? "M" for Mike ?
Re: Oh there it is...
Oh yes, you can hear the breathy cheerleading even now. Nero had nothing on this one, and there are loads more out there bleating away on Twitter, blogs and the rest..
It's the whole culture of relentless happy clappy positivism regardless of reality that get's my goat. Dim Day traders deserve all they got (or rather, lost), but like others here have said, it's easy (and fun) to mock, but what about our pension funds?
That Steve Jobs has sooo much to answer for, bloody trendy dressing git b*******d tech evangelist type person....
Fool me once...
We're just seeing an echo of the late 90's "dot.com" bubble, same old cycle, same investor / market behaviours, but this time round there is a lot more cash in the system to blow up the bubble.
Facebook was just a vehicle for making lots of dosh for it's founders and early investors, and you can't say that hasn't already happened. And you can't really can't blame Zuckerberg and co. for taking advantage either, this is just the way markets operate. The mass of "johnny-come-lately" investors want to believe they can make a profit at no/little risk, because it's such a big, well known company with massive capitalization, surely it has to be safe?. Who cares about the slowing revenue growth? It'll come good in the end. .etc
As the old lags on el Reg know, we've seen it all before. You can never underestimate "greed is good" sentiment in the markets when the big number dollars are raining all around. People just can't resist it.
yes, yes, A. Lewis, this is the big issue on this one,
Go on, Reg, tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth..
Reg, good that you fessed, but when you've told 3,521 of the nosiest and nosiest readers around, there was no other option.
But once you'd decided to fess, there was no point fudging, and that explanation is straight from the fudge factory.
You'd have got more credibility by telling the whole, awful truth. Or, is it that the Reg minion really meant to send out bulk email addresses, unencrypted, by email, but just got the wrong address list!
And when they realised it was hitting the fan, they tried to kill the send, but only managed to do it after it had got down to the 3,521st address!!.
I think we should be told.
Media Coverage of this has been shute
Agree with others who have noted that the media coverage of the technical aand safety aspects of Fukushima has largely been a pile of shite, swallowing and regurgitating official reports and industry connected "experts" glib reassurances without question or any real analysis.
And others who have noted the official Japanese govt methodology, to dish out the bad news bit by bit, so we don't choke on it all right away.
So much misinfo put about by"expert" commentators; like our own Prof Beddington on the Today programme this morning:
"Now don't you worry children, trust us experts, no dangerous, nasty radioneucleuotide things are gojng anywhere near population centres, like Tokyo, that's just not going to happen, ever. 30 clicks is fine, I'd take my grandkids there no problem." That's all OK then.
So it (probably) won't be a Chernobyl, but remember exactly how bad that was, and Japan is about as densley populated England, so any long term contamination in the region will have a proportionately much greater impact than in the relatively sparsely populated Ukraine. With Chernobyl, the Russians only lost it on one of the reactors, and spent hundreds of lives in order to help sort it out / clean up. Fukushima looks like it could well involve three reactors.
Bring back Raymond Burke - or was that Biddy Baxter. Neither could do a worse job than some our our own beebs "science correspondants" - and they're both dead already!
- It's true, the START MENU is coming BACK to Windows 8, hiss sources
- iSPY: Apple Stores switch on iBeacon phone sniff spy system
- Chinese gamer plays on while BMW burns to the ground
- Pic NASA Mars tank Curiosity rolls on old WET PATCH, sighs, sniffs for life signs
- How UK air traffic control system was caught asleep on the job