* Posts by I ain't Spartacus

7526 posts • joined 18 Jun 2009

Why Comrade Cameron went all Russell Brand on the UK’s mobile networks

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

Re: Advertising Rules

Are you a Vodafone fan by any chance? Don't sit on the fence, tell us what you really think...

Myself I found their coverage OK. It was the several months when they forgot our company had a shared data contract. One month our bill for 7 phones came in at £2,500!!! I think our total usage was about 1.5GB, so even at non-contract pay as you go rates, that's a crimial rip-off. Yes they did credit us. Then forgot for one week of the next month. So our bill was only £600 that time.

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

Re: Change the Panning permission rules first!

I don't know if they've been trying to change planning rules on mobile masts. But there's been a running bunfight within the coalition on relaxation of planning rules, which was a Conservative policy at the last election.

Part of this was because it was policy to try and get more houses built. And infrastructure like HS2. But of course you then get MPs in the effected constituencies whose survival instincts kick in.

To be fair to Cameron, he's pushed quite a few policies that he knew would piss off his own core vote, because he believed they were the right thing to do. Such as HS2, gay marriage, relaxing planning in the crowded South East. Which is something we tell politicians we want them to do. Then scream at them for.

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

Re: Pedantry...

Apparently his booky-wook was at least partially ghost written. So it's always possible that he hasn't even looked at it either. Like so many sports biographies, and I assume all those books by Jordan...

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

Well there would be more of an incentive for one mobile network to build in difficult to reach areas. If it was able to hoover up the calls from all the networks passing through, not just its customers. That might actually be an incentive to fill common blackspots. Although also an incentive not to fix their own black spots.

Whether this is technically feasible or not, is another matter.

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge


Do you remember when BT were a nationalised company? I'm sure Owen Jones doesn't. But a daytime peak rate national call cost updwards of 40p a minute. That's early 80s money as well. Even local calls were about 20p a minute.

I'm not sure government infrastructure is a panacea.

Now that we are where we are, it would seem extremely silly to nationalise the existing mobile companies, as well as being horrifically expensive. So why not just use the existing system to get what we want. Either tell the companies to just do it, put up or shut up. Or pay them to.

However, don't do an Ed Miliband. Don't, as Sec State for Environment, force energy companies to charge their customers a government mandated surcharge to pay for feed-in tarrifs. Then act all shocked as Leader of the Opposition that energy prices have been shooting up, and demand price-freezes on the energy utilities.

We can either throw a few billion of taxpayers' money at this. Although we are running a huge deficit at the moment. Or we can do it as a stealth-tax, by forcing the networks to do it, and get the money off subscribers or shareholders.

Or we could ask them to allow roaming, and then let the one that bothers to have the network get paid by the others for it. If we set the price right, I'm sure one of them would build it to win extra rural customers.

Or something else I'm not clever enough to think of.

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

Re: What

Or that's a story put about by the phone companies as a way to frame the debate as PM had bad call, so decided to act in haste.

I don't know how this idea actually came about, so don't know. I also see that it could have loads of problems. As you need to incentivise people to make the effort. But I'm sure there'd be fees for the networks to roam to each other, and you could allow mutual discounts for those that your users roam to, thus stopping Andrew O's Vampire Network from getting off the ground. Even if it was a realistic idea anyway, as roaming won't be free.

The other way to address this is to say, "you're national networkds, so just bloody do it", and price accordingly. Or have discounts off the spectrum license for those that do.

There does seem to be a bit of special pleading in here. The companies would of course say that they should be given incentives and sweeteners to do the thing that costs money.

That's fair. Taxpayers have to pay for a public good. The other alternative is compulsion, in which case subscribers will be made to pay for a public good. Either are valid options - and both are taxes in all but name. Although only one adds to the government deficit.

But then El Reg has been equally critical of the rural broadband roll-out, and the fact that so much of the cash has gone to BT. I'm pretty sure Andrew O has been one of those critics. So it seems the government can't win here.

Trickle-down economics works: SpaceShipTwo is a prime example

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

Re: Not Trickle-down economics...

but is there really such a thing as a free market, anywhere?

Allan George Dyer,

Probably not. Perfect markets, perfect knowledge and perfect consumers are strictly for economic models... Also free markets require government intervention. To stop monopolies, and require legal fair play for example. Not everyone opposes progressive taxation. Although it does depend what you mean by progressive. Can a 70% tax rate be progressive? A standard maxim is that if you tax something, you get less of it though. So if you tax income, overall there'll be less income than if you didn't. Hence taxing land being a popular idea (no-one makes that anyway).

As to mentioning command economies, I was still talking about technology. The whole point of the article was that even if there's an argument about trickle down economics (if anyone can even decide what that means), it's demonstrably true that technology often works where richer people do the early adopting that pays for everyone else to get it at commodity prices.

I decided to mention that one of the good things about having relatively free markets and allowing people to earn big rewards for taking risks is that some of those risks pay off. Even if big corporations sit on an idea, it's hard to stop an interloper coming in and disrupting them with something new. Unless they can gang-up with government to regulate their industry to stop outside competition coming in. Command economies, and governments in mixed ones, tend to get things wrong a lot. The difference is that they just ignore their failures and carry on regardless. A more open economic system gives you more chances to succeed, by trying many different things.

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

Re: Not Trickle-down economics...

You've missed my point.


Then I confused things with chicken-devliery because I didn't want to suggest that every technology is appropriate everywhere.

My argument was addressing this. The point about free market capitalism, and why it beats command economies, is as much about failure as success. In command economies, the people in cahrge are risk averse. As they often become in big companies. They do the safe thing. And often that works.

But the great thing about free economies is that people can try weird stuff. They might go bust, but it's their own cash at risk, or stuff they've borrowed off investors. So different things will get tried with technologies, and some might work.

Actually I'd be happy to argue the merits of trickle down economics too. But Tim Worstall chooses to ignore that in his article, and only talk about technology. And that was your point too.

Take Twitter for example. They weren't competing with anyone before they existed. They probably pay high salaries, and don't really exploit anyone. You might argue about personal data, but it's not like they're even grabbing much of that. But lots of people get value from what they do, so they're apparently worth loadsa money. So it's very hard to argue that anyone's actually got poorer, while Twitter has created a couple of billionaires, and some millionaires. So that's growth, that's cost society very little, but given us something many people use. And made some people rich. If those people then go on a spending spree with their filthy lucre, then so much the better. The economy grows, and some poorer people get paid for providing them services.

Obviously Twitter may be over-valued, crash and burn. Then there has been a cost to society. But they're just an example I picked out of the air. There have been lots of tech companies who've created value, got some people insanely rich, and even if they only spend some of their cash, that's growing the economy for everyone.

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

Re: @Tim - Trickle-down economics

Be careful with assuming cause and effect? How do we know that any level of inequality has an effect on technological growth? It could be that growth leads to inequality after all...

Think about all the tech billionaires. It's rapid development that makes them so wealthy. If a founder creates a company, and by the time he dies it's worth billions, he'll be well off. But not insanely so. But if you can found a company in your early 20s, then sell it for billions by the time you're 30 - that's a recipe for massive extremes of wealth.

Also remember that the poorest can't have any less wealth. You can't own less than zero houses. So there's always going to be a wealth-gap, It doesn't take that much extreme wealth at the top-end to start making large differences to this ratio. So any period of rapid technological growth not run by the government is likely to increase inequality in the short term at least.

Also remember the point that Worstall makes in other places about measuring wealth inequality. In the 19th century the poorest got almost no government help. In the twenties there was some basic provision for universal primary education and some pensions. Now everyone in Britain can rely on free healthcare, free education to 18, a basic state pension until they die, housing support, sickness and unemployment benefits, as well as a lot of financial help with child rearing. Even free tertiary education so long as you don't earn over £20k a year afterwards). That's a suite of benefits that's worth many hundreds of thousands of pounds each - and we don't all pay that much tax in our lifetimes. Missing that out from any discussion of inequality is insane.

Also remember to measure who the inequality is between. Globalisation has frozen the wages of ordinary people in the Western economies since the mid 2000s. If you include housing costs in the UK, or healthcare in the US, that's probably frozen since sometime in the 90s.

But on the other hand, Africa is getting much richer. Quite quickly now in some places. China has taken hundreds of millions of people out of extreme poverty. As has the rest of Southern Asia. A lot of that's also down to globalisation. And technological development. We're in another uncomfortable period of social and economic change, but it's not bad for everyone.

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

Re: Not Trickle-down economics...

And yet how do these villagers know which market to get their goods to? By checking their mobile phones.

And how do they get hurricane/typhoon/tsunami warnings? Again from their phones (once the fripperies of braces-wearing London stockbrokers), using data from satellites (once the province of Cold Warriors).

Who the hell knows what Spaceship 2 will lead to? It's not a technology we've explored yet. Maybe the current Space industry boom will peter out again. Or maybe we'll have orbital platforms making weird crystals in micro-gravity that start another computing boom. Or give us exotic drugs to erradicate malaria. I've read in several places that one of the benefits of microgravity manufacturing may be improvements in our ability to create difficult molecules for drugs, but I'm not enough a chemist to know if that's still true (or even if it ever was).

Or indeed maybe Virgin will give up, Scaled Composites will be starved of cash, and it'll be Elon Musk who gets us into space, with his technological leap. Who'd have thought ten years ago that a guy could start from scratch and build a space capability that can already sent several tons to LEO and (probably) also land the 1st stage rocket to re-use it? In 2-3 more years he says he'll have a man-rated re-usable capsule that can land on the moon (if it could get there). He's building capabiliites at an amzing rate, and lowering costs while doing it.

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge


Sure the government is responsible for loads of stuff. Including innovation. War (for example) is a real spur to get your thinking cap on...

But remember that in our current 'Western' economic model (since WWII), government is taxing and spending something like 40% of the economy. Varying over time and country between say 30% and 50%.

So you'd expect the government to be involved in lots of innovation. It's doing lots of stuff. Especially as peacetime military spending has been much more of a driver, due to the complication of modern weapons systems, and the fact we had a Cold War.

Railways, mass steel production, mass clothing production and mass car production all stated in the 19th Century with much less government involvement. Innovators went out and did stuff, made money and more of that stuff happened. Since then we've decided we don't want 19th Century levels of poverty, government has got much more involved in areas like science, and we've remodelled our economies.

But even where you might argue government investment has given us new technologies, you need to remember that there's more than one way to do technology. There's basic R&D to give us the shiny new frontier. Then there's boring development to get something that actually works 99.999% of the time, and doesn't blow up so often. Then there's manufacturing development to make things cheaper, so the mass market can have them. And there's cross-pollination where you take innovations in one field, and use them in another.

Very rich people, wanting to communicate mostly for business, drove a demand for mobile phones in the 80s. That's become a mass market technology that almost everyone in rich economies can afford. But because of us relatively rich (in global terms) masses buying into mobiles, they can now be had for a few quid, so even the very poorest in the developing world can afford them. So this continuing development has trickled even further down, so farmers/fishermen in remote places in Africa can now get their stuff to the right market, to get the most money, so they get richer and waste less. This has allowed and is allowing whole swathes of the developing world to leap-frog a developmental stage that we had to go through in order to get national communications. And is getting them the internet too. All of which may allow them to kickstart their economic, social and educational development in a way no plausible amount of aid money could.

Or take solar panels. In order to make them cheap enough to put on our houses, we're pushing development of this technology. Now my feeling is that this is a mistake, at least in Northern Europe. And we'd be better investing our renewables money into nuclear. But for Southern Europe or US, it could be a brilliant technology to use. Possibly both at local and grid scale. But again our relatively rich market may drive down the price to commodity levels. Then people in the poorest bits of the developing world may be able to skip the step of national power infrastructure, and go for local renewable solar electricity, and bootstrap their economies.

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

Stuart 22,

I don't think you're correct at all. And I don't think you have any basis to make assumptions about other people's motives, just because you may happen to like one of them more than the other.

Elon Musk is taking a design that's barely changed for decades, and an industry that's got fat and lazy on government pork, and giving it a mighty kick up the arse. This is great for the rocket industry, as the cosy old one wasn't using newer technology to make things cheaper. Now they'll have to.

But rocketry has its limitations. Even with viable re-usable first stages.

Another way to get to orbit would be to use aerodynamics to get you as high as possible, and only rely on rockets for the last stage. That's what Reaction Engines are doing with Skylon and Virgin Galactic / Scaled Composites are doing with Spaceship 2. In the case of Skylon they're trying to solve the problem with one vehicle, whereas Scaled/Virgin are using a carrier plane to get to 40,000 feet.

This may turn out to be the most efficient. The heavy wings and engines you need for lower atmosphere work can be the most efficient possible, as that's all they do. Then the spaceship component only needs the bits for the upper atmosphere, and space itself. In principle it also ought to be safer, as you're using proven (cheap) technology to get to 40,000 feet, rather than a giant barely controlled explosion rocket.

That shuttlecock tale may be the invention that makes this technology work. Although I don't know if it's good enough for orbital speeds, or if it's possible to carry enough fuel to slow down in orbit enough that you can drop into the atmosphere at safe speed. After all, aeorbraking requires a huge heavy coating of ceramic, to cope with re-entry heating. So it may turn out more efficient to carry a less heavy amount of fuel, and do without the heat shield.

So far as I'm aware none of these 3 options are technological dead-ends. There's loads of development still to do, and materials science is advancing still. It may be we use them all for different things. Rockets will win on heavy lift, but maybe they can never be made much safer, and so spaceplanes will be the way to get people to orbit. And may end up cheaper for small payloads.

Plus there's also hypersonic travel. Concorde shaved 3 hours off the Atlantic crossing. That's nice, but not a game-changer. If you could shave 20 hours off the flight to Australia, that is an enormous difference. Paying £10,000 to fly there in 3 hours, rather than £1,000 to do it in a day, doesn't look like a ludicrous thing to do.

Can you really run your business on a smartphone?

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

Re: I stopped reading when he said "Windows"

Windows phones manage business contacts far better than stock Android. The People Hub is excellent. I admit there's likely to be an Android app that's as good, but I've not found it.

There'll be fewer apps, but then if you're going with Exchange Active Sync (or even Office 365) and Office anyway, the most common business tools - all of the 4 main phone players will do the job.

I admit that even as a fan of Windows Phone, if I were forced to do my work from a phone, it would almost certainly be a Samsung Galaxy Note. Because although I prefer Win Pho to iOS and Android, I'm perfectly happy with all 3, and having a stylus would be the best compromise for text input.

RBS faces biggest ever fine for THAT huge IT meltdown – leak

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

Re: Fine

The banks do have to pay the victims for any cocked up transactions and charges caused by the cock-up. Though nothing for not being able to get at their money for a week. But it was made clear at the time that this would happen, so it's not like people were in limbo.

Sadly I was just organising a mortgage with Natwest that week, and I get 0.2% off my interest bill for having a current account with them. So I couldn't take my custom elsewhere. But other people were free to and most didn't.

So in this case, the regulator are trying to make a point that's easy for the board to understand.

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

Re: As RBS is majority owened by the government..

Sure we're fining the taxpayer, who owns 70% odd. The other 30% of shareholders lose their 30%.

But we're also going to sell RBS in a few years. So if they do it again, they know it's going to cost. As do the other banks. This is a nice incentive to spend a bit more on their IT. Particularly if it's made clear that the next fine will be higher.

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

Re: Yay, lets fine the victims...


It's very hard to prosecute people for screwing up. Especially as you have to prove who did what when. Although I do believe there should have been attempted prosecutions for what I would call deliberate fraud, such as incentivising your staff to sell shitty PPI deals - and hiding it all in the small print. But that's very hard to get criminal levels of proof on.

However this narrative about the banking crisis misses out one fundamental thing. There was punishment. The problem is it was the shareholders who copped it. The government didn't bail out the banks for fun, it did it because it was cheaper than bailing out us, the banks' customers. So they were bailed out, rather than the expense, hassle and disastrous levels of economic dislocation involved in getting our savings back to us via the deposit insurance scheme.

The shareholders got wiped out, as the government put capital in, and took shares. In theory the government may not lose very much money at all - and may even make a profit on the bank bail-outs. Eventually we're going to sell off those shares. We've already made a good chunk of the money back on Northern Rock, and there's even a good chance of turning a profit there, as the mortgages in the bad bank we kept are still being paid.

By going for bail-outs, QE and deficit spending, we balanced most of the costs of the crash across the economy. So house prices dropped, but didn't plummet. This meant most people didn't go into negative equity, which kept us paying our mortgages, and kept the banks us taxpayers now own solvent. Savers lost out due to inflation and low interest rates, but then they got their money saved for them by everyone else, whereas the debt-spiral otherwise would have seen much of their savings wiped out.

Compare this with the Eurozone, where they tried to cut their deficits faster, did some disguised QE (but unwound it too fast) and haven't bailed out their banks. That's been (and still is) a fucking disaster, that's screwed the debtors over horribly. The savers are still mostly safe, but as the debtors are now totally impoverished (including several governments), they'll stop servicing their debts, and then the savers will start losing out. That'll get the creditor states panicking, and then there'll be QE, when they see the choice between losing their badly invested savings or bailing out the rest of the Eurozone.

'You have no right to see me naked!' Suddenly, everyone wakes up at the Google-EU face-off

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

Re: Who wants to forget what might be an interesting question


This decision was made by the ECJ. So it was a judical, not a political one - and should have had nothing to do with the Commission.

Taylor Swift dumps Spotify: It’s not me, it’s you

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

Re: Seems Reasonable

Spotify, and radio for that matter, are less about generating revenue, but more about generating publicity.

Lost all faith...,

Please correct me if I'm wrong, I don't use it. But isn't Spotify a subscription service where you can basically listen to what you want? So basically like renting a music collection. Whereas on radio you listen, and you get what you're given.

So in a normal market, that would make Spot ify cheaper than buying CDs / downloads. But still a significant portion of the cost. If you lease a car you pay several hundred a month. Obviously music doesn't depreciate, or need maintenance. But from the artist's point of view they need to get similar sorts of money out of the deal. Bearing in mind that only the elite few get rich from a music career.

Even if we assume that all the works of the record companies are evil, and that marketing is uneccessary... Music needs to pay enough profit for session musicians, studio time, sound engineers, producers, band management, writers, someone to drive the van, and the musicians themselves.

Now some of that can come from live ticket sales.

But quite frankly you can fuck off with your superior attitude about how someone else should work for free for the privilege of being able to give you stuff that you actually want, in the hopes that you'll throw them some scraps in the form of ticket sales. Maybe. That attitude truly pisses me off. The freeloaders need to be honest in these arguments. If they want to do without music, then fine. But if they want to listen to stuff that requires other people have to spend hours of effort to create it, then they should pay for it. Or just steal it, and be honest about the fact that they're stealing it. Rather than all these verbal gymnastics about evil record companies, some artists being somehow too rich, promotion, or whatever else. If you want it, pay for it. If you don't want to pay for it, go without.

And breathe... Ooops. Sorry. Rant over. I'm sure I'll receive a healthy crop of downvotes for this. And I apologise if I've maligned you. And you were just making a general point about marketing. But I'm leaving the post in anyway, because it's a decent summary of what I feel. And I'm sick of the hypocrisy in these arguments.

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

Re: People will definitely pay for music.

Tom 13,

A lot of the people who say they'll definitely not pay for music, are people who listen to music. The ones who don't download for free or buy, probably don't care enough to talk about it.

Even those people who refuse to pay for music do value it. They derive a benefit from it, or they wouldn't go to the effort of getting it. The question is, how much is that benefit? Is there a way to stop them getting something for nothing, such that you don't piss off the people who are willing to pay? Or do you have to reduce the prices massively to get acceptance from the customers that it's more trouble not to pay? In which case we'll get less music, of a lower quality.

Historically people have been willing to shell out more money on music than they do now. In very recent history. So there's probably money to be had out there. What we haven't found is a way to make a market work such that if you don't think something's worth the price, you don't get to have it. You have to do without it. If that's no longer possible, then we won't have a free market in music, the consumers will underpay (I mean in economic terms here), they will have a consumer surplus, and at least theoretically the supply of music will drop until the amount people are willing to pay for meets the amount people are willing to produce.

Obviously just as there are free-loading customers, there are also musicians who'll work for free. Because they love to do it. As usual, society is moving too slowly to keep up with technology. Maybe in 20 years time we'll praise the free-loaders for having unlocked a new pargadigm of wonderfulness. Or we'll curse them for having destroyed the industry that gave them the stuff they wanted, but wouldn't pay for. Who knows? It's much more of a certainty that the record company executives will be screwing things up as usual...

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

Re: Erm....

who the heck is Taylor Swift?!?

I believe she is a popular, beat combo m'lud. Or to put it another way, she sings both kinds of music. Country, and Western.

To be honest, I've no idea. The only country music I own is by Otis Lee Crenshaw. And he's not taking it terribly seriously... But as he says, "Country music is sitting on the floor, with a bottle of Jack Daniels and the lonely, salty tears rolling down your cheeks. And taking all that pain, misery and heartache, and trying to turn it into cold, hard cash."

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

Re: Sorry.....

That's true in a sense. If the market won't pay, you get bugger-all. And tough luck to ya.

But, on the other hand, we have the law to protect people selling. So that the alternatives don't become greedy consumers saying, gimme your stuff for free, or I'll steal it*, and you get nothing.

That's why you aren't allowed to walk into a shop and steal an iPhone, because you think it's overpriced.

Therefore we only get to know the true value, when the choice is pay for the music, or don't get the music. So I don't buy iPhones, I don't think there's any phone out worth much more than the Lumia 730 or Moto G - at under £150. Similarly if I like some music, and want to listen to it repeatedly, I buy it. If I don't think it's worth it, I do without.

*Yes, I'm aware that copyright infringement isn't really theft. Because you're only taking a copy. But it's a fucking pisspoor argument to try to claim on one hand that someone else's work is worthless, while at the same time you're making the effort to get yourself a free copy of it, and then listening to it. I'm happy to accept the argument if you listen once, then delete, and either buy or don't. I check stuff out on Youtube before buying. But you can't argue that something has no value, and then use it at the same time. That's cheating.

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

Re: Seems Reasonable

Ralph B,

That argument is total bollocks.

If artists are only getting pennies per thousand songs played from Spotify, then it's pretty much impossible to make up the profit from an album sale in per-play fees.

It's just basic maths. If I buy an album, and the artist gets £1. That means I'd have to listen to their songs 100,000 times, in order for them to make the same cash. That also negates them having the chance of selling me 2 albums, if all their stuff's on spotify.

100,000 tunes x 3 minutes / 60 mins / 24 hrs = 208.3 days of solid listening to pay them back. 312 days if I'm allowed 8 hours of sleep...

That's also not including other costs. Obviously record companies take their pound of flesh from a CD sale. Nice profits. Cocaine and hookers for the execs. But they've also got to pay marketing, photographers, people to organise the band's website, studio time.

I don't know if the writers and producers get their cash out of the artist's cut or the record companies'. But someone's got to pay it.

It looks like Spotify doesn't pay.

Maybe artists will switch all their effort to live gigs. Release enough records to get known, then just tour. But if that happens, the quality of recorded music is likely to drop. And I can listen to far more recorded music than I have time to get to gigs. Plus bands won't come to my house to play while I'm cooking dinner, or entertaining friends. Selfish gits!

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

Re: Consumer or supplier

I think the answer is that Spotify is too cheap. But maybe that's all the cash consumers are willing to part with for it as a service?

Of course this does depend on how much cash Spotify keeps for itself and how much it's passing on to artists. i.e. Are they profiteering? Or are they just making bugger-all cash for everyone?

I'm sure the big name multi-millionaires will be OK, whatever happens. But it's the next level of artist who might really suffer.

If society wants to have a decent number of good professional musicians, of varying types, then we're going to have to pay them in some way. How that's organised is obviously up for grabs. But people definitely do want music. People will definitely pay for music. They have been for years. What may happen is a sudden collapse in the industry, due to too many people free-loading. But in the end we'll probably reach some sort of balance where we get what we pay for, and we decide how much that is.

The Great Smartphone Massacre: Android bloodbath gathers pace

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

Re: When I started in the phone business

I need to get some new phones. Not that I've kept any of mine, so I can't set up a museum. But I have owned a lot of phones from companies who no longer sell them. I've had

Motorola MicroTAC

Nokias - couple of green screen ones with week long battery life

Sendo - somethingorother. Plasticky but nice.

Siemens - eletric blue candybar

Sony Ericsson P800

Motorola V3 RAZR (my favourite form factor)

Samsung - slider of some sort

Nokia - candybar w. colour screen, crap battery life and kept breaking. Worst phone I ever had

HTC Wildfire (second favourite form factor)

Nokia Lumia 710

iPhone 5 (work)

I've been a bit of a phone whore. My only loyal period was to Nokia's green screens. I didn't manage an Ericsson before they sold out to Sony, and I've not had a Blackberry yet, but I've done quite well at going through the list, in the last 20 years of use. I guess I need to get an LG and a Microsoft one, before moving on to the Chinese manufacturers.

Nexus 9: Google and HTC deliver Android 5.0 'Lollipop' at iPad prices

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

One of our longest releases in its 24-bit FLAC version (a Wagner opera) takes up 2.6GB.

Proof that the Teutonic reputation for brutality is well founded. Their operas last three or four days, and they have no word for fluffy.

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

I've got an iPad 3, 64GB. I've got 4GB spare.

Sure, I could go through and prune out stuff to keep memory free, and maybe with lots of work have got away with a 32GB one, but why should I have to? It's bad enough that Apple take the piss on storage prices, at least they have the "honest" motive of grabbing as much filthy lucre as possible.

Google's war against storage is just bizarre. I'm not going to use Google services any less, just because they allow me to store my music on my tablet!

That's just content. I could set up some kind of home sharing for that. But I have a bluetooth speaker in the bedroom and a CD player in the sitting rooom with a USB dock. So I'd have to upgrade both of those, or use a tablet/phone/iPod anyway.

So I've got 25GB of audio. 2GB of photos. That's not to mention the gigabytes of podcasts that live on my iPod. I might want to put them on my tablet? Then we add in the apps. OK they do need a clear-out, there's some I've not used for ages, but looked useful. Then comes the games. Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 are 3.5GB! The 2 Lego apps I put on there for my nephews are 1GB each. 500MB for the CBeebies app. I've got about 10 games that I like on there, each at 1GB. I could rotate them on and off as they get used. Again, why should I, storage is cheap. Or should be.

Finally we come to video. There's none on there, that does get streamed. But next time I go on a long journey, I'll probably do some BBC iPlayer downloads, maybe even an NFL game or rent something from iTunes? That needs lots of space.

I want storage. My tablet gets used offline all the time. I won't buy a tablet that doesn't have a decent amount of it. Google need to get over themselves and realise that not everyone goes to work on a free company bus, with free company WiFi.

How's the great dot-thing gold rush going? Well, coffee.club just sold for $100,000

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

I'd like to register: ifyoulikealotofchocolateonyourbiscuitjoinour.club

Is that available?

We've just had the email through offering us .xyz, from our usual registrar. At least they seem to be charging normal prices - altough I'm not interested.

But I'm confused by the other new gTLDs. They're all charging silly money, like £30 a year, some even more. And yet all they're offering me is dot.crap. I can get a dot.com for a quarter of what they're charging.

Virgin 'spaceship' pilot 'unlocked tailbooms' going through sound barrier

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

Re: Why are these guys even in charge?

Destroy all Monsters,

You seem to be under the misapprehension that this is easy. It isn't. Air safety isn't just about making sure the wings don't fall off. It's also about making sure the maintenance department do their job properly, the pilots are correctly trained and that obvious stuff doesn't get missed when things get stressful.

Air satefy has moved into the realms of trying to explain all the reasons why the accident happened, both human and mechanical, then changing all the aspects of the industry necessary to stop it happening again.

Planes have been lost for all sorts of trivially stupid reasons. In many cases there's a combination of several sets of mechanical and/or human errors that lead to a crash. Perhaps an un-recognised design flaw happens to coincide with a maintenance error on a flight where the pilots are tired, miss the signs and it all goes wrong.

Sometimes the solution is simply to add a line or two to a checklist, or to change training methods. Sometimes it's to alter the controls to be less confusing to pilots under stress. Sometimes it requires a change to maintenance regimes. Others it requires the whole aircraft be redeisgned, and modifications done to all existing models.

That's all done by an outside body, in cooperation with the manufacturer and operator. Partly to check up that they're not making basic errors, or worse covering up. But also because investigating accidents is hard, and so you need an experienced body of people to do it.

So we probably know that the tail deployed. But we need to ask why. Perhaps something weird happened. Or the controls are badly designed. Perhaps a sudden jolt of turbulence too strong for the tail to remain in correct position, once unlocked? Or maybe the craft had a pressurisation problem and the pilots were suffering from anoxia, and so making mistakes, that can be an insidious problem. Or something else entirely.

Don't knock the culture in aviation of independent safety inspections. It is one of the safest forms of travel. And the only one I can think of that beats it is rail, which also has independent accident investigation boards.

The idea is not to blame people for errors that are inevitable. But to try to improve methods of working so that these errors don't occur again. Sadly we then find different ways of screwing-up...

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

Re: When can we see the apologies?

Chris Miller,

There's nothing wrong with honest speculation. But rolling out the supposed 'experts' to say that we've been warning all the time against your rocket motors, within hours of an unexplained crash is unacceptable.

There's nothing wrong with saying that such warnings were issues. So long as you make it clear that the cause is unknown. And also make it clear that engine explosions aren't the only reason planes crash. An airframe can only take a certain amount of stress, and can catastrophically fail at those kinds of speeds, if something goes wrong. As appears to have happened here.

The articles in the Guardian and Telegraph that I read were clearly trying to insinuate that Virgin and Scaled Composites were taking huge risks, that they'd been warned against, and doing it anyway. And using experts I've not heard of to back themselves up, while not explaining who those people were, or what their standing was. As against Scaled Composites.

As it turns out, the engines don't look to be to blame. Not that this still might not be down to negligence, or rushing to meet a deadline. But perhaps some evidence might be in order first?

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

Re: Why are these guys even in charge?

Erm, sorry, what point are you trying to make? I can't make head-nor-tail of your post.

The safety board have come out and said that they've found the engine and fuel tanks roughly intact. So an engine explosion is unlikely. But that the first look at the telemetry suggests the tail moved into its re-entry configuration while the rocket was still firing. The cockpit video shows the co-pilot unlocked the tail controls, but didn't command it's deployment.

So the initial guess might be that the craft broke up due to aerodynamic forces it wasn't designed to cope with. But there's still loads to look at. Is the telemetry correct, did the tail deploy? Was there a problem with controls, software or maintenance? Does design need to be changed, so the tail can't be deployed by mistake? Or is this just a co-incidence, and something else happened?

So they'll try to correlate the telemetry with the configuration of the pieces they pick up from the ground. Then try and work out what was going on from that. They'll have tons of information to go through. Telemetry, physical examination of the wreck, manufacturing logs, maintenance logs (I guess roughly the same as this is the only prototype), whatever recorders the craft carried itself, and tons of other stuff.

It is rocket science.

Russians hear Tim Cook is gay, pull dead Steve Jobs' enormous erection

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

Re: Cheap dig

How come we lock up paedos then?


We lock up paedos because you cannot have consensual sex with someone unable to legally give that consent. So even if that was a legitimate sexual orientation, as some people have argued, exercising it is automatically going to be illegal. It's also illegal to look at child-sex materials, because these have also been created without the necessary consent.

If you can't see the difference between this and the activities of consenting adults, then you need to go back and think about your opinions again properly.

As for homosexuality being normal, well define normal. It's a minority pursuit. But it's been with us for pretty much all of recorded history, and seems to be standard practise in lots of the large primates. So people can't exactly say it comes as a surprise...

Would you recognise the Vans shoes logo? Neither would Euro trademark bods

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

It appears "skate shoes" are for people who would like to go surfing but can't swim

Or it could be they're afraid of sharks...

Alternatively they've read 'Snow Crash', and are just waiting for someone to invent the portable magnetic harpoon, before going traffic surfing at ludicrous speeds.

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

Whilst I prefer the ones with the roll of carpet, shovel, quickline and gaffer tape.

Thinks: I did tick anonymouse didn't I?

Apple Watch buyers will feel 'different' after being 'serviced' in spring 2015

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

I've bought you this overpriced Chinese-made gizmo that that will be unsupported and worthless in three years'

This worries me, about the Apple Watch. Not that they'll be binned after a bit, that's just a sad reflection on current consumerism. Not good for the environment and all that.

But there's a gold one. According to Apple's website it's solid gold, rather than plated. Which is by definition going to be obsolote, and even if it could be continually updated for ten years, it's got a built-in battery that'll stop working.

So are Apple about to branch out into Cash-m-iGold?

Or are they going to sell millions a year until world gold stocks are exhausted and Fort Knox is empty?

I predict that in 2030 a company will launch who's purpose is to mine old sock drawers...

Pro-ISIS script kiddies deface West Yorkshire egg-chasers' site

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

Massive miscalculation

It's all very well getting to paradise, ready to enjoy your 72 virgins. But it's not going to be much fun if a bunch of muscly lads with northern accents are kicking the shit out of you for buggering up their website...

Google’s dot-com forget-me-not bomb: EU court still aiming at giant

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

Re: Google goes into Kevin the Teenager Mode

Censoring of search results is the realm of Beijing or Moscow rather than somewhere that values free media.

Adam 1,

Sorry, but this argument is total bollocks. The old slippery slope argument.

Censoring search results in a minor way in order to protect individuals may or may not be the right legal decision. But it's far from state control of all media. If voters fall asleep at the wheel, perhaps it'll lead to such, if they also happen to elect politicians who want to start a dictatorship, with optional reign of terror. But so far we don't have those politicians. Or the electorate to vote for them. And anyway this judgement came from the courts, not the politicians.

It's an attempt to balance the freedom of the individual, with the right to information of society, and the rights of companies to make profits. It's obviously attempting to address the reality that individuals can't realistically issue take-down notices to every website, and so tries to short-cut the system by hitting the search engines. Whether it'll work is yet to be seen. Whether it's a good idea is up for debate. But whether it's going to lead to dictatorship is an easy one to answer - no it won't.

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

Re: @Spartacus

Reread my comment. I did not suggest that they could avoid compliance by blocking their IP range. There is no inherent contradiction between compliance with the law and choosing who wish to offer your services to.

Adam 1,

This is true. However your comment did have the whiff of the Kevin the teenager "it's not fair" about it. Something I often see in commentary on legal disputes between internet companies and the law. And sometimes those comments come from the internet companies' bosses themselves...

There's obviously a lack of trust in politics at the moment. Which puts lawmakers at a PR disadvantage. Also, I don't think society has yet fully decided what the internet is for, and therefore what should be allowed and what should be banned. We're still in the internet wild west phase. Things are changing much too quickly for society, law or politics to keep up.

There's also a lot of utopianism out there. The kind that leads people to say things like, "information wants to be free", or "the internet interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it". That was all very well when the internet was young, full of academics and a small group of relatively well-off young-ish people. But the internet is big business now. And everyone can be on it. Which means crooks, children, little old ladies, global mega-corps, teenagers, advertising account executives, the whole lot. Will people put up with it being a total free-for-all? I doubt it. Will people demand regulation? I'm sure. Will other people complain about that regulation? That's politics. But the penalties of going mainstream are that the whole of society takes an interest, and then everyone wants their pound of flesh.

Finally, I find it hard to feel sympathy for Google. I don't understand the free-ride that some people seem to give them. Here we have a corporation that makes $10 billion a year. And yet their attitude to the law sometimes seems to be that it doesn't apply to us because... Internet. Like it's a magic word.

They've done lots of things that are good for society. And been well financially rewarded for it. The system has broadly worked in that sense. But their actions have had consequences. Some of those just to competitors. But sometimes effects on real people's privacy. Those people may need some kind of protection. Balancing the competing needs of different groups in society is what politics and the law are about. This whole area of law is going to be a problem for years.

For example, what are we going to do about the millions of teened kids who've posted compromising stuff on the internet, when they come to apply for jobs? Are we going to condemn them to have blighted careers so Facebook and Google can continue to have an easy life? Or are we going to ban companies from looking online when they hire? Those are the 3 choices I can see being available. Now in 20 years, this may be a moot point. Many HR people will have their own compromising pictures in their own past, and probably won't care. But HR people now aren't from that generation, and so didn't grow up with the internet - so their attitudes may not be so generous. That could leave us with a potentially huge social problem that either employers, the internet giants or governments will have to solve. So far the internet giants' attitude seems to be, we've got all your data and it's now ours to do with as we please. I can't see that lasting forever. If they don't cut back on the levels of hubris, then I foresee a painful reckoning, either with the politicians, the customers, or both.

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

Re: Geo-location?

If I was Google I would drop all connections from ECJ offices in protest. Or pummel them with random massive streams of data through JavaScript to fill their pipe.

Or, I dunno, Google could just obey the law? Like the rest of us have to.

They're perfectly entitled to lobby to get it changed. Also like the rest of us. The difference being they've got squillions of dollars, and a big old collection of media and academic cheerleaders to back them (not all of whom they pay for themselves).

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

Re: European ruling

In the end, you follow the money. The EU can easily rule on what happens under European domains. In the end, if some foreign company ignores your jurisdiction, you take their domain away. As that is within range of your courts.

At the other extreme, a company operating entirely outside of your jurisdiction and using a foreign domain is pretty hard to get at.

But the EU is a huge market of 500 million people. And Google makes much money selling advertising to companies that want to reach them. Many of these companies are in Europe. So there's a nice revenue stream for the legislators and courts to get at. Also Google employs many people here.

So Google is perfectly happy to ignore North Korea's instructions on what websites it can link to. There's no money or corporate presence. They pulled out of mainland China, to avoid the hassle of censorship. But China doesn't tell them what to put on Google.com, they simply (try to) block it at the border. Their leverage was limited, because Google didn't make that much cash in China.

In Europe, Google makes tens of billions a year. So it'll pay more taxes if it has to, and it'll comply with laws it doesn't like, if it's forced to. Because there's gold in them thar hills.

I guess the compromise may be that Google are forced to have a European version of their .com to go with their country specific domains. Which means you can get round it with a non-EU proxy.

Me give you $14 squillion gadziddly-dillion

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

So I'm not the only one then

Rather than bulk deleting spam, I still find myself picking out the odd interesting nugget. I put it down to incurable nosiness.

So many of them are so boring and professional nowadays. It's rather disappointing. Just subject line of please see invoice, and then a nasty attachment. Where's the panache in that?

Whereas nothing can beat the emphasis that capital letters bring to a grammatically incorrect, appallingly spelled missive. Not just $10,000,000, or even ten million dollars. No, that's not exciting. Who would be attracted by something so boring and businesslike as that? But TEN MILLION DOLLARS just shouts MONEY!!!!

I carefully kept a favourite spam message for months. It was your bog standard nasty attachment, with a small paragraph to persuade you to open it. But amusingly they fell into the trap that so many of us have, they'd forgotten to attach the attachment. I wonder how many million they sent out, before they noticed?

Samsung launches 'perfect pair' of skinny mid-range phones

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

Re: Serious omission there

I'm a bit worried by Rear-cam Selfie mode. Particularly if it's combined with Wide Selfie. Put that with MPs, and you could be talking Eric Pickles...

Is the internet really ready for that?

I'm hoping that Palm Selfie is for getting the perfect shot of you, on a tropical beach. But I'm fearing that it's more for getting every hair in focus on all five knuckles, as they shuffle.

So long, thanks for all the ...er, FISH BRIGHTER than boffins thought

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

Re: Re:

Whilst all the fish have ever done, is swimming around in the ocean having a good time.

Ex-Soviet engines fingered after Antares ROCKET launch BLAST

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

Re: A bit crowded on the Pad

Well why go to the expense of putting up permanent buildings there?

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

Re: Explosive Economisation

Or you could reverse it, and say that Orbital got more buck for their bang...

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

That's why the cow jumped over the moon.

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

Re: Wallops is out of action

But what a picture. What a photograph.

Apple CEO Tim Cook: My well-known gayness is 'a gift from God'

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

Re: Someone

Nah, I think you go downvoted for clicking on a headline that you obviously didn't care about, then presumably reading the story you didn't care about, then clicking on comments on an article you didn't care about, then typing and posting a comment to tell us that you didn't care about it, then clicking back on that comment to see if you'd been downvoted then coming back to the article to post about how you'd been downvoted for saying that you didn't care about the thing that you'd posted about...

That's an awful lot of not caring.

Plus you also forgot the first rule of downvote club. Don't talk about downvotes.

UK consumers particularly prone to piss-poor patching

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

Re: Stupid patching!

That's not how recent Flash versions auto update. Maybe the computer was really really out of date ?

Tom Chiverton,

Nope. My work and personal computers are always up-to-date. And on both I have to manually install Flash updates. As someone else said, it may be that not all releases require this, only point releases. So I'm not noticing when it works properly in the background, only when it upgrades to a new version.

However, even this is crap behaviour - because I'm not aware of any reason to be holding out on old versions of Flash. Unlike with Java.

Fortunately almost no-one who doesn't have a professional IT department needs Java anymore. So I can kill it with no problems. Although I believe there are countries where it's a requirement to use online banking. Which must make people feel oh so secure...

I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

Stupid patching!

I really hate the way that Java, Flash and PDF do their updates. On all of them, you tick the box saying automatically update. And all this does is auto-download the update, then stick a little badge in the notification area that you then have to click on to manually run the damned patch. Just leaving them there doesn't ever seem to force them to run. Certainly whenever I go to fix a friend's PC, the first things I notice are the patches hanging around in their system tray. At least I can uninstall Java most of the time.

Why can't the bastards have proper patching? Other programs seem to manage it. It's not like they haven't got permission. Their setup checkboxes actually say they'll auto-install. And if they're worried, they could give the option that Windows Update does, of auto-install, or auto-download.

Flash is the worst. They put an auto-updater in, but all it seems to be is a link to their website. You click on the bugger, and it downloads the package for the latest version - which you then install as normal. Surely it's not rocket science?

Useless buggers!


I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

Re: Perhaps sooner for IT.

I had planned to retire by 50, but successive governments have raided my pension and changed the law such that I must now work an extra 7 years, with nobody providing input on how I should be expected to make that happen with all the offshoring and agism that's rife.

Remember that social change is slow. When I was born in the early 70s, the average bloke was expected to live to about 76. So they'd be retired for 10 years. Now, forty years later, the average bloke from my cohort is expected to reach their mid 90s. That's an extra twenty years of life expectancy just magically appeared. And the expected pension has gone from 10 to 30 years!

Society just isn't good at coping with massively disruptive changes like this. And people don't want politicians who say, "you're going to have to work 10-15 years longer or double your pension savings". They want politicians who are going to pay for the pensions they feel they've earned.

It's going to be very difficult to earn enough in a 45 year career to pay for a pension that's getting increasingly close to the same length of time. But we all grew up with the expectations that our parents' generation had about life. And so we have struggled to change what we grew up "knowing" about when we should retire, and when people get "old". Hence we still seem to be stuck with this bizarre ageism, at the same time that we're all thinking we're going to have to work until we're older, and we've supposedly got shortages of young people to keep the economy running. The obvious answer being employ and train people who are older, as they're going to live, and be healthy, longer.

How long until society catches up? Attitudes have barely changed in my experience. Yet these demographic changes are huge. I guess it's because people don't talk about this sort of long-term stuff much.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019