Re: Bland Bland Bland
Quality of the design matches the quality of the op-eds.
956 posts • joined 15 Feb 2012
Quality of the design matches the quality of the op-eds.
Then you have to explain it in really simple terms even they can understand.
"Does your house have window locks and a burglar alarm on your house? Or do you leave the front door unlocked when you go out? You don't? Because that would be stupid and asking for trouble, right?"
Doesn't always work - many business types are far beyond all rationality - but occasionally it makes a difference.
"On your left it's really dark and there's not much happening. On your right it's really dark and there's not much happening. Oh, and there's James Cameron."
>Yes I do. It took six months to install a line and you had a choice of two phones.
If you live in some parts of the UK it literally takes six years to get broadband working, and you have a choice of two speeds, one of which is regularly zero.
Are BT buying that too? It would be a good match for their business practices.
There are currently 3.5 million children living in poverty in the UK. That’s almost a third of all children. 1.6 million of these children live in severe poverty .
In the UK 63% of children living in poverty are in a family where someone works.
Families living in poverty can have as little as £12 per day per person to buy everything they need such as food, heating, toys, clothes, electricity and transport.
1.6 million children are growing up in homes which are too cold.
Infant mortality is 10% higher for infants in the lower social group than the average.
See also interesting numbers about food banks from the Trussel Trust.
So keep up the good fight. The children and working adults of the UK thank you for it.
>"Cream of sum yung guy...:
It's all startups eat.
>They are not stopping maths, algebra, science, English etc.
But they're certainly not prepared to pay a decent rate for high quality teaching of same. And they're even less prepared to retool the UK economy so it's run by people of clue, and not by greedy little posturing posh-boy wankers and their banker chums.
>The gov doesnt create jobs
Apart from all those public sector jobs. And the ones created by big infrastructure projects. And the ones spun off from academic research funded with grant money.
> The gov didnt make a low wage economy.
Oh yes it did.
The Tories have been playing the same old two-faced 'Bring in lots of super-cheap immigrant labour while stoking up racism to distract the noobs from what we're doing' game for literally decades now.
I'm sure Cameron is terribly, terribly sorry that he hasn't managed to cut immigration. No really, he is.
This has been going on since at least the Empire Windrush. (Possibly much longer.)
> The certainty is that public services and jobs have to be cut (this is a concept still beyond some people) due to the cost being far beyond the tax collected and that tax must go up.
That's the peculiar thing about useful public investment - it creates multipliers. If you do it right eventually you get out a lot more than you put it in.
Cutting spending in the wrong ways creates multipliers too. If you do it wrong you lose a lot more than you think, because it has a chilling effect across the economy - as Gideon has proved so brilliantly during his exemplary term as fiscal peasant-kicker in chief.
People like you, who seem to think running a country is just a bigger version of running a bank account and it's all simple, in a stands-to-reason-dunnit market trader kind of a way, shouldn't be allowed anywhere near economics, because you don't understand how fiscal policy actually works.
Keynes understood it, and Keynesians have a much better record of correct predictions than the loony monetarists and supply-siders who currently run things - but since the loonies run things for their own benefit and not anyone else's, it's debatable if this is a bug or a feature.
>I'm staggered that you could believe that government would be a good steward of any asset.
I'm staggered that anyone would believe corporations are better. Enron? Price-fixing banks? BT? The fact that most UK infrastructure is overpriced, undercapitalised, and barely performing?
The answer is probably some completely new legal and commercial entity, which can be kept efficient enough to avoid bullying by civil servants but is independent enough to avoid bullying by the City.
Might take a while to get there.
Ordered Flappy Bird clockwork edition, got astrology supercomputer.
Item not as described. Would not buy again.
>think starving artists
Starving artists would be delighted to sell direct. Piracy doesn't necessarily help artists, but most artists get screwed far more badly by the music and movie oligopolies.
In an ideal world artists would sell cut out the middle corporation, paying a management/sales team to work for them.
Currently the management/sales team believes it owns the artist's career, which is not a good thing for anyone.
>But none are sound engineers at a high level.
That's not entirely true. Women producers and engineers make up around 5% of the industry. So they're rare, but they do exist.
>We need to somehow stop the situation where girls willingly accept help from boys to solve tech problems for them.
Maybe women simply don't find tech very interesting? They certainly don't seem to get myopically obsessed with it in the way males do.
Thing is, to most of the population tech is a dull incomprehensible world full of dull incomprehensible people, and programming is mostly drudgery, punctuated by management abuse.
When women can become doctors, lawyers, or architects relatively easily, why would they want to be engineers?
I'm always baffled that STEM careers are sold as if they offer a promotion from 'just being a girl'.
"Yes we know you have ovaries and like Barbies, but if you learn C++ and GitHub you'll be all better."
The reality, in the UK at least, is that many STEM jobs are relatively low-status. If you're going to get a degree and aspire to be middle class there are better career paths to follow.
Perhaps a lot of women are savvy enough to realise there are better opportunities elsewhere.
Cultures that don't patronise people who get useful things done inexplicably seem to have a better record on equality.
Apple have already said they'll be moving into streaming. Google don't seem that bothered, but might try it as an afterthought. Amazon probably will, once Bezos wakes up.
Streaming only works when there's bandwidth to support it. Domestic b/band is fine, mostly. Mobile is a data-capped nightmare in a lot of the world. So unless Spotify is planning to become an MNO, customer appeal is going to remain limited.
>what we’ll end up with is a disparate system of barely compatible and loosely interconnected but eminently “cool” yet murderous, hackable self-driving missiles on tyres.
You say that as if it's a bad thing.
This is IT. Grammar is for English teachers, and compiler writers. (Sometimes.)
I think it's a WiFi biscuit tin that Tweets a reminder when you're about to run out of chocolate bourbons.
That's not an arm.
>"It's not copying, it's theft. They stole our time, time we could have had with our families."
Dieter Rams called. He wants his ideas back.
That's because it's been true for nigh-on 2000 years.
>There is an underlying assumption here that there is a right for a mobile user to be able to use their device wherever and whenever they want.
Outrageous, isn't it. People are paying £30-£100 a month, and they actually expect to be able to use their phones in most of the UK?
Imagine if your electricity contract was run on the same basis. 'Sorry for the blackouts, but we just can't get it together to supply the service you're paying for. Your call is important to us, but tough shit.'
>If you forcibly abstract around £400 per customer from the industry,
And you're still blaming an event that happened 14 years ago for today's rip off prices and shoddy performance? Especially after the 4G auctions a while back didn't even meet the reserve? And Voda got a huge tax write-off a couple of years ago?
No. I don't think so.
Haskell programmers are more likely to be hardcore comp sci types, or pros with a serious comp sci background. Java/C++ are going to cover a spread of experience, from new grads at one end to >25 year lifers at the other.
So I think it's confusing two questions. One is 'Do certain languages help you write bug-free code?' The other is 'Do programmers who write good/bad code tend to use certain languages?'
It's pointless, but it highlights the issue Apple is going to have with perceived value.
If you're the kind of moron who spends $$$$ on a blinged-up wristy time keeper, you'll go for one of the big name brands, pay the silly money, and have your silly toy to impress other silly people.
But the Apple Watch isn't that kind of blinged-up wristy time keeper. It's basically an iPhone accessory, not an heirloom wannabe.
Apple have always done brilliantly by creating the illusion of extra perceived value for computers and phones. The illusion of being cool and fashionable has been implicit, which is why it's worked so well.
Now with Watch (brilliant name, btw) Apple are trying to make the illusion explicit, and to move the Apple brand out of tech and into mid-market fashion.
Bad move, IMO. I don't think it's going to work, because the illusion only works as long as it's not conscious. And the fashion/status market is so very different, with different rules.
So when a company that basically does tech says 'Oh hai, we r the new fashion leaderz' everyone is going to be like 'WTF? Seriously?'
Why don't Rolex buyers just have a $10k to $50k lump of gold surgically implanted in their foreheads?
Or would that be - I don't know - too showy and vulgar, or something?
>ou need to keep competing with the other guys who haven't been fined, and the last thing you need after paying a big fine is for your customers to take their money elsewhere.
Corporations don't compete for customers. They compete for shareholder investment and they lobby hard to minimise regulation.
The standard corporate rule in the UK is to provide the most mediocre customer-hostile service you can possibly get away with.
Customers are always at the wrong end of the Financial Penis Substitute.
>You do get that they're opposites, right?
What on earth are you talking about? Everyone knows that above a certain level of seniority you're Too Big To Fail, and below that level you're Too Small To Matter.
>we know what caused this particular megadisaster, and it wasn't a senior manager; as mentioned in the article, it was an inexperienced member of IT staff screwing up a batch job
Yeah, right. The graduate trainee walked in, leaving the usual trail of amniotic fluid, pressed the wrong buttons, and the system went down.
Happens all the time in well-run IT depts with competent senior management who know what they're doing.
>The answer is simple: buy a new TV.
Or just ignore it. [shrug]
>A moderate camera that you have with you is better than a superb camera that has been left at home.
This. And the best way to learn photography isn't to dick around with medium format, which most prosumer users don't know how to use creatively anyway (sorry John...), but to start with a phone cam or maybe a compact and learn the basics of composition and lighting on that.
You can worry about focus, shutter speed and aperture later, after you know how to frame a good-looking shot.
1. Take lots and lots of photos and learn what works and what doesn't.
2. Look at the work of the best photographers - not just the well-known ones like Cartier-Bresson and Adams, but the more obscure ones like the remarkable Vivian Maier.
3. Look at art and learn some art history. (Learning to draw will help, even if you never get very good at it.)
Bottom line is that any £300 DSLR is so good now that you can take semi-pro photos with it. Any £3000 DSLR is good enough for professional use - and you'll see photos taken on this kind of kit daily in high-end print outlets and on the web.
So the idea that 'there is no progression for photographers' is nonsense.
The only people using medium format are geek hobbyists who obsess about the technology but have no clue about visual framing, fashion/food/product photogs who actually need the quality, and a few slightly crazed landscape photographers.
No one else cares. And high end DSLRs are so good now most professionals have absolutely no need to drag a Leaf back around with them.
Back to the Future...
>- every other infrastructure provider sees this coming and takes their investment away. Firesales in the power, water, etc industries. Major economic damage.
As opposed to the major economic damage caused by bandit-like profiteering, an endemic culture of contempt towards consumers, investment still funded in part by government hand-outs, and monopolistic price gouging - which has been one of the main drivers of national inflation for the last five years or so?
Apart from that, it's all working splendidly.
Octopus intelligence is terrifyingly sharp. They are very, very, smart.
Luckily for us they only live for a couple of years, and land adaptation is unlikely.
So we're safe for now.
>Is there anybody who still cares that people are gay?
I'd guess most people here are in the 'So what?' camp. But it's still a big deal in some parts of the world, and it will cost Apple some sales.
Also, he's unlikely to get a Christmas card from Brendan Eich.
>The point is that youtube made a fuck sight more than that off him....
Which is normal for any kind of creative work. Record company/distributor/etc gets x, you get somewhere between 0.1x and 0 depending on how aggressive your lawyer is and how much The Powers That Be rate your prospects.
I'm not saying it's fair, just that's how it works - except on Amazon and in the App Store, where the split is much more favourable.
Incidentally, on YouTube you don't just get ad share from direct plays but from plays of related content. In Psy's case that includes all those parody videos.
>So how many kidneys do I have to sell to get one?
Three. And a spare ARM.
>The Soviets overcame the metallurgy and other issues associated with doing this closed loop system.
Or not. "It's brilliant and it only blows up sometimes" is not an acceptable value for the mission_critical key.
>Steve Ballmer, Microsoft more so.
That's not a cliff. That's an opportunity.
Jury's out on Bezos. I'm willing to believe he knows what he's doing. But Amazon (the site) is getting kind of chaotic, AWS is going up against the likes of Digital Ocean and Linode at one end and Azure at the other, and now Bezos is spending cash on bricks and mortar - as well as tablets (not quite fail) and phone (utter fail.)
It's looking increasingly out of control. A quarter or two of actual profits would do a lot to reassure everyone.
>You are only awoken from your CCTV-induced trance by the sales assistant slapping you around the face a few times while a small child in the queue behind you strains at his mum's hand and kicks you repeatedly in the nuts.
Have you considered not living in Luton?
>I suspect that the vast majority of Mac users have no inkling of this.
The vast majority of Mac users don't need to care.
Mac: it's a car!
Linux: it's a car with extra access panels!
Windows: it's a car with a windscreen wrapped in Lego!
And there is a conspiracy of silence hiding the TERRIBLE HISTORY of GIANT OBESE WADDLING DOLPHINS from the LAST ICE AGE with their own TV SHOWS.
Unless you count Strictly Come Dancing, I guess.
Is Win 10 still sending everything back to Redmond?
>What the hell is the new art here?
Google announcement of a self-driving keyfob cloud that serves you ads in 3, 2, 1...
>one who is educated and intelligent. These are the people who run our financial institutions
I think you may have confused 'criminal' for 'educated and intelligent.'
>"an all-female Mars crew would strike many as exceptionally biased"
If the space thing doesn't work out, I predict a stellar career in deadpan stand-up.
>The average miserable employee is more than welcome to go and work somewhere else that makes them less miserable.
Yes, of course. And if they work really hard they can become CEO.
Do you actually believe that?
>I'm sure you're not suggesting the CEO's salary should be defined by the salary of the lowest paid employee, or vice-versa?
That's exactly the system used in many countries. Sometimes it even does a good job of making sure that upper manudjmunt isn't staffed by posturing, preening dummies promoted far beyond their true level of competence.
Also, you carry one phone instead of [n] cards. So less of the wallety fumblings.
And... you get to pretend you're some kind of consumerista James Bond, which will make you look devilishly cool as you saunter through the barriers with a quick thumb flick during the rush hour crush at Dollis Hill.
>What does a cone made iridium plated panda hymens look and sound like?
You're certainly stuck with it for between 12 and 24 months, during which codec quality, available bandwidth, and available connectivity can all be varied at the cellcos whim, and you have no legal come-back against ever-degrading service because contract.
Instead of touting the usual cellco 'I'm an important opinion former, me' propaganda, Orlowski might try taking the consumer POV and asking what effect open and free carrier hopping could have on service quality.
If I'm with [cellco 1] and can switch to [cellco 2] with a preferences tweak, there's at least a slim chance [cellcos 1..n] are going to have to start offering me the call quality, bandwidth and other service elements I actually want, instead of the ones they might condescend to give me on an extended contract, which sets the bar for PAYG users too.
Will Apple and Google abuse this? Possibly. But the cellcos have already been abusing their oligopoly for years, and no one is going to argue that service in the UK is anywhere near good enough. (You don't know what fury is until you try making a 999 call and the operator has to keep saying 'I'm sorry you're breaking up'.)
The real problem is abusive monopolistic business culture that basically sells crap if it can. Having a rant at Apple and Google about something that's a much bigger problem doesn't exactly demonstrate world-class analytical skills.
>and it comes with a free trial of McAfee.
And runs Windows 10.
Such as Tim Worstall, for example?