Archive for the ‘technology’ Category
I apologise for the technical jargon but there is only one way accurately to describe this product.
In 36 years of buying and using personal computer technology, I have never suffered such frustration, inconvenience and real consequential losses because of an unreliable product.
When and if the power works properly it’s fine but it is so unpredictable that it is a nightmare. I can never rely on it to power up when I need it, irrespective of its state of charge and it has caused me a real problem on several occasions.
On paper and the display shelf of PC World Currys in Weymouth it looked good. I paid just over £150 for a small, neat laptop with Windows 10. The screen can be detached to form a tablet but that’s not what I bought it for and I have never used it that way. Obviously, at its price and size, it has a lot of compromises which I was happy to accept. It has just 2GB RAM, 30GB of disk space, one conventional USB port and no possibility of expansion. That’s OK, I knew what I was buying.
The first one went back to PC World within a week. They were great about it and didn’t quibble at all – but the replacement machine was exactly the same.
Of course, there is nothing in the pathetic paper manual provided, nor online at the ASUS website. Only when you call the support line does it become obvious this is a well known problem. The solution I am given is ridiculous and nearly six months on it doesn’t work consistently either. The ‘fix’ is to take the power cable out, hold the power key down for 30 seconds, replace the power cable and press the power key once. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes it sorts of half boots up but then hangs. Sometimes you can’t even shut it down. To use another technical expression, it is a pain in the arse.
On several occasions I have needed to fire it up urgently to post something or deal with a problem while I’m travelling and it just hasn’t happened, whether it’s just been charged or not. I’ve had to find a power socket and then mess around for up to a half and hour before it will finally work.
I’m told by my friends who have been suckered into buying Apple iPhones that they don’t work without an initial charge. Apparently, if the battery’s flat you have give it 15 minutes before it will switch on. That’s what you get for buying technology for fashion rather than function. I’ve never had a phone that won’t run straight off the power supply. My Sony Xperia Z3 does so perfectly.
We all know that the real cost of buying technology is not the initial capital purchase cost but the time you have to invest to get it working. On that basis I have put thousands into this machine and it keeps letting me down. One day, some technology company is going to get sued for the consequential losses its faulty or badly designed product has caused. Perhaps then these companies will get serious about serving customers instead of using us, at our expense, for their new product development and testing.
I’ve invested too much in this now and I just have to adapt to its shortcomings. If it worked as it should it would be a great product – but it doesn’t, so don’t buy one!
Canadian researchers have confirmed what most people suspected all along: that internet trolls are archetypal Machiavellian sadists.
In a survey conducted by the group of psychologists, people who partake in so-called trolling online showed signs of sadism, psychopathy, and were Machiavellian in their manipulation of others and their disregard for morality.
The researchers defined online trolling as “the practice of behaving in a deceptive, destructive, or disruptive manner in a social setting on the Internet” for no purpose other than their pleasure.
To achieve the results, the team asked internet users about subjects including how much time they spend online, and whether they comment on websites such as YouTube.
They were also given tests that measured their responses against psychology’s “Dark Tetrad”: narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy and a sadistic personality.
Questions also surrounded sadistic statements including: ”I enjoy physically hurting people,” “I enjoy making jokes at the expense of others” and “I enjoy playing the villain in games and torturing other characters.”
“It was sadism, however, that had the most robust associations with trolling of any of the personality measures,” said psychologists from the University of Manitoba, University of Winnipeg and University of British Columbia in an article published in the ‘Personality and Individual Differences’ journal.
It went on to claim that trolls are “agents of chaos” that exploit “hot-button issues” to inflame and exploit users’ emotions,
“If an unfortunate person falls into their trap, trolling intensifies for further, merciless amusement. This is why novice Internet users are routinely admonished, ‘Do not feed the trolls!’,” the study warned.
The team concluded that those who enjoyed trolling more than other activities, such debating and making friends, had tendencies in line with the psychological “Dark Tetrad”.
Perhaps most worryingly, the psychologists based their conclusion on cyber-trolling being an “Internet manifestation of everyday sadism,” rather than merely on online phenomenon.
It is thought the findings may contribute towards a trend of sites such as YouTube and the Huffington Post requiring users to comment using registered accounts rather than allowing anonymous posts.
If there is idiocy in the coalition this is it.
Chris Huhne, the so-called progressive LibDem Energy Minister has called off the Severn barrage, the biggest tidal energy project ever in Britain. See here.
What more sustainable, reliable, self-evidently ideal source of energy is there than the tide? Until the earth spins off its axis or the moon melts into green cheese, the tides will continue to work. The Severn estuary has the second highest tidal reach in the world. The power inherent in its cycle is unimaginable. When we find a way to harness it efficiently we will have achieved something every bit as revolutionary as cold fusion.
Yet our short sighted Energy Minister has cancelled the project and says that investment in such new energy sources should come from the private sector. Then he says that private sector investment is unrealistic. There is something seriously wrong with this man’s thinking. This is not the sort of project that you judge on the basis of some nit picking consultant’s report. This is akin to the invention of flight or the microprocessor. This requires vision. This is a project that stretches across centuries and dwarfs Chris Huhne and his shameful decision.
This is exactly, precisely and properly the sort of project that government should be investing in heavily. Only government can promote this sort of essential, long term development. As for the pathetic whinging of the RSPB et al, this reveals how many small minded fools there are in the green movement. The birds will find somewhere else soon enough.
A disastrous and terrible decision that will define and should destroy Chris Huhne’s career.
At five o’clock yesterday evening I stood on top of White Horse hill and watched the Red Arrows perform for Weymouth carnival.
From this perfect vantage point I could see them soar a mile high above me then swoop down five or six miles to my left (east), climb again and explode out of formation five or six miles to my right (west).
They say the Red Arrows are the best recruiting sergeant that the RAF could possibly have. That is if we have the RAF for very much longer. It looks likely that soon we will have just one integrated service. That makes sense though. In modern times we need an integrated approach using land, sea and air.
Nothing can extinguish or outshine the honour of the RAF or the Army or the Navy, whatever the future holds. As we remember the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Britain, the Red Arrows flew yesterday through the same skies that our young heroes did then in their Spitfires and Hurricanes. Nothing can ever repay our debt to those who enabled Britain to stand alone for more than a year against the Nazis. It is no exaggeration to say that through those dark days they and Britain saved the world. See brilliant BBC story here.
We shall honour them for ever.
I don’t know whether it will work or not but I think I have to support the effort, much as it sticks in my throat to do anything in support of Rupert Murdoch or his unpleasant offspring and cronies.
As a writer, I have to believe in the idea that online content can be “monetised” or what is my own future?
In passing, can I at least blame that revolting new word on Murdoch? It would be some small consolation for paying him £2.00 per week for my online access.
I think The Times is still the finest newspaper in the land and I cannot let its ownership stand in the way of my appreciation of its content. Even though I am now a subscriber, I shall still buy the Saturday edition in print. I have avoided The Sunday Times for years since it size began to offend me and its content became almost indistinguishable from the Daily Mail.
There is one aspect of The Times though, that is gone for ever. Even my paid subscription cannot bring it back. I used regularly to link to The Times’ stories from this blog but now that is useless unless all my readers are subscribers too. So my only solution is cut and paste. In celebration of this heinous, copyright infringing intent, I reproduce below the stand out article from this Saturday’s edition, an intelligent and incisive article about Israel and Palestine from Margaret Atwood. Please enjoy it with the compliments of this subscriber.
In one respect though, I still stand absolute against the Murdoch empire. Though Sky is undoubtedly the finest digital TV system available, particularly with its PVR and HD capabilities, I will not support its outrageous charges or dreadful customer service. Freesat, Freeview and BitTorrent for the programmes I miss is a much happier solution.
From The Times, 14th August 2010 by Margaret Atwood
Seven futures are possible. Which will it be?
Wiped out by nuclear bombs? Constant war? But the crystal ball also shows the path to peace for Israel and Palestine
Picture a minor prophet. Perhaps he’d be working as an astrologer. He’s looking towards Israel and Palestine, consulting his charts and stars, getting a handle on the future. But the future is never single — there are too many variables — so what he sees is a number of futures.
In the first one, there’s no Israel: it’s been destroyed in war and all the Israelis have been killed. (Unlikely, but not impossible.) In the second, there’s no Palestine: it’s been merged with Israel, and the Palestinians either slaughtered or driven beyond its borders. Israel has become completely isolated; international opinion has been outraged, boycotts have been successful, financial aid from the US — both public and private — has evaporated, and the US Government has cooled towards Israel, and swung towards entente with the Muslim world. Israel has become like North Korea — an embattled military state — and civilian rights have suffered. Moderate Israelis have emigrated and live as exiles in a state of bitterness over wasted opportunities and blighted dreams.
In the third future there’s one state, but a civil war has resulted, since the enlarged population couldn’t agree on a common flag, common laws or a common set of commemoration days — “victory” for some being “catastrophe” for others.
In the fourth, the one-state solution has had better results: it’s a true one-person, one-vote democracy with equal rights for all. (Again, unlikely in the immediate future, but not impossible in the long run.) In the fifth future, neither Israel nor Palestine exists: nuclear bombs have cleared the land of human beings. In the sixth, climate change has turned the area into a waterless desert.
But there’s another future: the seventh future. In this there are two states, “Israel” and “Palestine”. Both are flourishing, and both are members of a regional council that deals with matters affecting the whole area. Trade flows harmoniously between the two, joint development enterprises have been established, know-how is shared, and, as in Northern Ireland, peace is paying dividends.
That, surely, is a desirable outcome, thinks the stargazer, but how was it achieved? Since he has the gift of virtual time-travel, he leaps into the seventh future and looks back at the steps taken to get there.
The impetus came from within Israel. Its leaders saw that the wind had shifted; it was now blowing against the policy of crushing force and the appropriation of occupied lands. What had caused this change? Was it the international reaction to the destructive Operation Cast Lead invasion of Gaza? The killing of flotilla activists? The gathering boycott activities in the US and Europe? The lobbying of organisations such as J Street? The 2010 World Zionist Congress vote to support a settlement freeze and endorse a two-state solution?
For whatever reasons, Israel had lost control of its own story. It was no longer Jack confronting a big bad giant; the narrative of the small country struggling bravely against overwhelming odds had moved to the Palestinians. The mantra “plant a tree in Israel” was no longer respectable because it evoked images of bulldozers knocking down Palestinian olive groves. Israel could not continue along its current path without altering its own self-image beyond recognition. The leadership decided to act before a peaceful resolution slipped forever beyond reach. Leaders are supposed to guide their people towards a better future, they thought, not over the edge of a cliff.
First, the Golan Heights was returned to Syria under a pact that created a demilitarised zone with international supervision. The few Israeli inhabitants were allowed to remain if they wished, though they then paid taxes to Syria.
Then, with the help of a now-friendly Syria, Hamas was invited to the peace negotiations. The enlightened leaders realised that they couldn’t set as a precondition something that remained to be negotiated, so they didn’t demand the pre-recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. Hamas, to the surprise of many, accepted the invitation, as it had nothing to lose by doing so. Peace was made between Fatah and Hamas, and the Palestinians were thus able to present a single negotiating team.
The negotiations were complex, but people worked hard not to lose their tempers. Remembering South Africa, they knew that yelling and denouncing would not accomplish anything. The agreement took less time than expected, as happens when people are serious. Then the occupation — disastrous for those in both countries, physically and morally — was over, and Palestinian independence was declared. A mutual defence pact was signed, along with a trade and development pact. As Israel had realised that it could not rest its foundation on international law while violating that law, the borders reverted to those of 1967, with a few land swaps along the edges. Jerusalem was declared an international city, with both an Israeli parliament building and a Palestinian one, and access to the various holy sites for believers.
Gaza was joined to the West Bank by corridors, as in the East/West Germany of old; ports were opened and fishing boats could sail once more. Development money poured in, creating full employment. Fair-access- to-water agreements were signed, pollution cleaned up, and more fresh water created through a new cheap solar-driven desalination process.
What about the difficult matter of the settlements? Settlers could stay in Palestine if they wished, under lease agreements. The leases and taxes paid by the settlers were a source of income to the Palestinian state, and as their products were no longer boycotted, the settlements did better. On the whole, peace reigned. There was even a shared Memorial Day, in which all those fallen in past wars were honoured.
The seventh future is within reach — the stars favour it — but the stargazer knows that many prefer the status quo; there can be advantage as well as profit in conflict. However, change often comes abruptly, as with the fall of the Berlin Wall, the storming of the Bastille, or the end of apartheid. The amount of blood shed in such transitions — from none to a great deal — depends on the wisdom of the leadership.
How to promote such wisdom? It’s a prophet’s traditional duty to lay out the alternatives: the good futures and also the bad ones. Prophets — unlike yes men — tell the powerful not what they want to hear, but what they need to hear. “How can I put this?” thinks the stargazer. “Something beginning with the handwriting on the wall . . ?”
© O.W. Toad Ltd. 2010