Posts by Jimmy Floyd 545 publicly visible posts • joined 7 Oct 2008
My old WIndows Mobile actually did rather well at Skype, so I mourn its passing with a Gallic shrug and a momentary twinge of nostalgia. OK, you so had to wear a handsfree kit to stop the sound coming from the external speaker, and WiFi was really the only sensible option but I made a good few decent-quality calls on that thing.
Once I'd gotten over the surprise at realising that 'birds' in this context actually meant avians (brilliant, Lewis, quite brilliant), I remembered that this research is actually pretty obvious.
A few centuries (or less) ago, plump humans were regarded as more beautiful than thin ones. Generally this was because they ate more and worked less, (duh) and were therefore seen as having the money to support such a lifestyle. Fit, strong 'uns were working in the fields and were therefore peasantry.
Now that most developed cultures have enough food, we return to a state whereby we'll try to mate with what are perceived as healthier bodies - size zero freaks excepted!
'Their own thirsty, aggressive habits are characterised as "just partying and participating in normal college life", but if an older adult behaved in the same way they would be seen as having problems.'
Umm, yes. That's why people go to college / University - to do the things you won't be able to do in later life (one would hope!). And the qualification at the end of it, of course.
Speaking as someone who, before my current Android, owned a Windows Smartphone and then Windows Mobile 5, 6 & 6.1, I can't help but feel Bill missed the point with his very first paragraph.
Part of the reason that Windows Mobile's UI sucked quite so badly was that it *had* morphed from a computer into a phone. You can still see the historical links to PocketPCs and iPaqs from the 1990s as recently as WM6.5. But so what? Notwithstanding the state of the UI, most people don't want or expect the same level of technology in their portable devices as they do on the desktop. Bill seems like he does - and once-upon-a-time I did too - but it's a minority view.
Arguably it took the iPhone to shake the world into recognising this fact, and Android to take it to the next level. Perhaps Bill is simply arguing that Microsoft, having seen two popular, solid platforms go before it (sorry Symbian!), doesn't seem to have moved it on to the third phase and made something which truly combines a decent UI with genuinely portable computing?
That would be fair enough, but given how long MS have struggled with a technically decent but clunky platform you might forgive them for concentrating on producing something people might actually want to buy - and just as importantly use - before dealing with the funky stuff later. Let's hope they do.
I must confess, I didn't believe the $50bn claim. I thought he meant market capitalisation (the total worth of the company) but that's actually $180bn.
Point of order, though. $50bn is the projected revenue for Apple for the year ending September 2010. Revenue for 2008-9 was 'only' $35bn, but that comes with pre-tax profits of $8bn. 22% of revenue going straight to profit is a huge amount, which should make it perfectly clear quite how overpriced Apple's products really are...
Steve gets a halo icon though, because this dig at him comes with admiration at pulling off such a feat.
When I was at school in the early-to-mid 90s it was regarded as something of a game to circumvent the security measures put in place by the sysadmin. Indeed, we suspected the Computer Science teacher in charge actually condoned the practice as it taught us a lot and kept the BOFH on his toes.
Now, these were intelligent A-level Computer Science students on far more basic systems than we have now, but I can't help thinking that kids today will be just as capable of breaking modern restrictions.
Not that it doesn't mean restrictions shouldn't be in place, of course. Just that no-one should be surprised when they fail.
Am I the only one who feels a familiar sense of Soviet restrictiveness about the control Apple exerts on ... well, the world. Naturally if you don't remember the USSR this won't apply but the usual justification that "contradicting the party is to contradict the country" seems to have made a bizarre return.
"Yes, Apple is restrictive," cry the fanbois. "But it's necessary to keep the products so erectile-inducingly fabulous!"
The Soviets believed they had the best country in the world, as the North Koreans do now. Not that I'm comparing Kim Jong Il to Steve Jobs, of course. Steve Jobs wouldn't tolerate a puppet version of himself, for a start...
Forgive my naïvety but as I'm not on Twitter I'm a little curious as to the purpose of this attack. Gaining more followers is hardly a way to siphon funds to a Swiss bank account, or is it as much about a proof of concept as anything?
As another Reg article discussed yesterday, is the next step to use the passwords on some financially sensitive web sites...?
Your point about democracy in Africa is spot on, and I'd highlight another example: Russia. Going from Czarism to Communism to sudden, early 90s democracy didn't exactly sort their troubles out. In fact, it could be argued they were lumbered with it rather than empowered by it - hence the return to authoritarian rule now.
This is the point often made about China, and it's a realistic one. If you have a population used to accepting that the government will do best by the nation, then to suddenly tell everyone that "no, you have to take part in government now" is going to cause a massive upheaval and not one they might easily accept.
Progressive democracy: good. Sudden democracy: chaos. Of course, the problem with the former is that "progressive" might mean "speed of a tectonic plate."
One would like to think that was true - and certainly among Reg readers it probably is - but I'm not so sure about Joe Public. The subtleties of strong passwords might evade them (if they can even be bothered with a complex password), as might the issues surrounding your banking password being at one with your favourite pr0n site.
Internet banking vs. Internet spanking, if you will.
Coat. Yep.
I hereby declare this to be the peak of Apple's powers and that it shall now be on the wane.
No, no. Not some anti-fanboi rant - it's just standard investment common sense. Look, when you see adverts aimed at the general public for such-and-such an investment (like, commercial property in 2007) you can assume that everyone in the know has already had the opportunity and that the only people left to buy it is Joe Public. There's no-one else after that, so no new money to prop up the price.
Similarly, when analyst types state what should be common sense it usually means common sense has gone walkabout. Two analysts in two days making pro-Apple comments? If I were Jobs I'd be quaking in my iBoots.
I quite agree regarding the money making opportunity, but from the point of view of the platform would suggest this doesn't do Apple any good at all.
Case in point: I saw one of those iPhone ads the other day pointing at - among other apps - a VNC client for a whopping £14.99. Now, it isn't a secret that Apple users are overcharged for their products but a very effective VNC client on my Android (or my previous Windows Mobile) cost me zero, zilch, nothing. Whatever additional benefits the iPhone version MAY provide, I doubt they're worth that much.
The public are taking note, and the high cost of iPhone apps is beginning to grate. Yes, there are thousands of fewer (fart) apps on Android, yes market forces may eventually synchronise the two, but it isn't going to take a lot for Apple owners to be branded with a more-money-than-sense stigma that has done for other designer brands.
Thanks for that, Andrew. As a Brit watching US politics with a mixture of bemusement and amusement it's helpful to read something explaining what appears to be a highly extreme system.
I'm curious why the US in particular has become so polarised. Perhaps it's because whenever anyone from either side suggests that maybe 3+ party politics might be helpful they are denounced as advocating something that would take votes away from the 'good' side. The two parties themselves have become so effective that if you have a message or campaign you pretty much have to align with either philosophy, whether or not you really agree with the majority of their rhetoric.
I know that Americans are a wonderfully enthusiastic people and will commit all their energies to a cause, but I can't helpful thinking that the 'black & white' (not a racial reference) thinking might be improved with a few shades of grey...?
"...one parent complained..."
I'm willing to bet that parent is unable to control their child at the best of times, and was simply blaming someone else for those failings. Psychologists have a word for this subconscious transfer of responsibility but I forget what it's called.
Look, he's a terrorist. He was prosecuted* under terrorist legislation, therefore he's a terrorist. Just like Iceland, journalist photographers and that bloke at the back of the Labour Party conference some years back. They're all a menace to society.
* Yes, I know the difference between prosecuted and convicted. Sadly our DNA-gathering overlords aren't quite so enlightened.
Is it such a jump to link car nationality to the type of person who buys one? A Japanese owner will have looked for a solid, reliable model whereas an Alfa driver just wants to have fun - and the quality of care that vehicle has had will reflect that.
I for one believe that cars reflect their national stereotype; so Japanese = sensible, Italian = emotional; British = fun with an undercurrent of good engineering (or visa versa; at least once the unions stopped screwing the car industry) while German cars are precise, wonderfully built and beautifully designed machines that have to be to make up for their owners' complete absence of ability behind the wheel...
If I believed in God (which is still TBC) it would hardly offend me that the tools of my trade were blessed. In any case, I'd doubtless rather take a call from Him rather than T-Mobile customer services - so the vicar emphasising the point that He has a higher communication channel is perfectly sensible.
If I didn't believe in God, I'd be on PAYG with a workhorse Nokia. And I'd have no business taking issue with the vicars remarks.
Mobile reception on the Underground would be horrible and I'm very glad they're not implementing it. There are some places where one shouldn't have to listen to the inane and voluminous witterings of a shit-for-brains local, and the warm, cosy interior of a London Tube carriage is one of them. Data would be nice, but only if you could block VoIP.
Only in so far as it prevents legitimate but inconvenient (for Apple) apps from making an appearance, and without so much as an explanation. That's number 6 in my 'List of Reasons I Will Never Get An IPhone."
Mind you, if the Android Marketplace turns into a dodgy place then Google's options are limited. The level of openness is not an easy thing to decide. That said, there was an intriguing article in the FT about the two approaches to 'openness' employed by Google and Apple:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dbe24d14-fafa-11de-94d8-00144feab49a.html
All of which has done pretty much bugger all to the markets today. Slight dip, recover, keep calm and carry on.
If nothing else, this proves that the market rally over the past 9-months has had little connection to the real world. I predict another stock market crash, or at least a heavy correction, once this is finally accepted.
I really hope Microsoft put a corker out with Windows 7, though I'm not hopeful. I used to love my WM 5 and 6 'phones but it's no secret the UI has become hopelessly out of date. In any case it provides no-one any benefit to have a market dominated by iPhone and Android, with a few other bit players running around.
Apart from the gambling angle, the intentional cruelty, the inclusion of weapons and the notion that the birds, unlike foxes, aren't dangerous vermin that need to be controlled? You've made a poor comparison there.
As it happens, I have very little opinion on the rights and wrongs of fox-hunting. My only issue is that the entire NuLabour-lead campaign was based on flawed urbanite ideas (what, exactly, does Ken Livingstone know about the countryside?), mis-information (see above comment) and class warfare ("how dare rich people make vermin control fun?!").
Regrettably, the welfare either of the fox or the wider countryside was rarely the focus of debate.
Doesn't it just?!
It never ceases to amaze me how many electric vehicles are lumbered with dreadful aerodynamics, as if something that looks like Dali-meets-Kandinsky-meets-a-head-on-collision demonstrates its eco-credentials. You wouldn't put that bodywork on an internal-combustion car - why do it for a 'leccy option?
Bodywork was designed by a Royal College of Art student, apparently, so I look forward to Ross Brawn winning the Turner prize...
A clever way by John-EU Foreigner (see what I did there?) of keeping cretins out of their nations. After all, if you're daft enough to have volunteered for this police state experiment then it's doubtful you have any business in their countries except to cause problems to the locals by virtue of your ineptitude.
This theory may not apply to Italy and non-EU Switzerland, who already are police states.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
