It's quite interesting - I read an article speculating about something that may be happening pointing to a number of blogs. What was interesting was that each of those blogs all pointed to the same root story citing evidence.
In other words, there was one root story but it looked much bigger.
I think that one thing that blogging may do is to get people to realise what happens in a lot of other journalism - that most of that should at least be treated with your brain engaged first.
There's no difference between that and the publishing world, though. How many journals and books are written? And out of these, how many are Tolstoy or Dickens?
The difference is the removal of the "premises". At one time, your information on which things to consume in terms of information was maintained by gatekeepers, and becoming a gatekeeper was expensive. You had to be a bookshop, and put a book in the window, or be a newspaper owner with premises, expensive presses and a distribution network.
Blogging means that someone can post something about their town or their politics and people can just go get it. Sure, most of it is noise, but there are now "shop window" blogs that people go to to find other news (like boing boing and fark.com) and are doing the filtering.
The difference between this and traditional "shop windows" is that it's very easy to find other ones. It's frictionless and more about quality than established position.
In some fields, traditional journalism can't touch blogging. Areas like science are covered badly by a lot of newspapers and TV. They often have a "science correspondent" who covers everything from astronomy to botany to the internet. They mostly don't know what they are on about except in one area. The net is great for this. I don't have to get some watered down version of the facts - I can get the raw data and process as I see fit.
In my experience, I've never had a virus get past a scanner. Not only that, but they get new defs out very quickly.
Government IT projects here in the UK are not exactly what I'd call excellent. Millions spent on software that goes down the toilet.
Government antivirus wouldn't work particularly well, cost millions more than anywhere else, due to over-regulation, bureaucracy and would function in ways that suit government political agenda, and not what people want to use it for.
I completely agree about vigilence. People just go and install anything. Then again, hardly any businesses educate people in any way about computers. They just assume people know things.
I even get people in IT sending me exes via messenger, which I refuse followed by a long argument about the source of the program (normally off a mate somewhere). Basically, a humourous animation should be in a sandboxed format, not a fricking exe.
I would advise an anti-virus, though. If nothing else, if you've skipped a patch, they can sometimes act as extra insurance with you.
That said, I've never had a virus cause damage, either.
Well, that's the free market for you. Take a gamble on not having the insurance you need, and if the gamble doesn't pay off you are up the shitter. Someone else will pick up the customers who walk away when you have crappy records and can't deal with them properly.
A lot of businesses don't think it through. Spend about £30 a year for NAV or lose thousands of pounds of data (or lose days recovering your situation).
Oh, and don't spend less than £1 a week on a blank DVD and run a backup while you are having a coffee break on Friday.
If a business is using something without expertise, they are being stupid. If you can't use something, either get skilled or hire someone to do it for you. It might cost you cash, but it will free you up to do the things you should be doing instead of undoing a mess.
I think the fire issue was more about simplicity. Fire services are one of the few things run by government that ever works.
The problem with government is that they are often incompetent. That's why as a rule they are best kept out of things. From what I've seen anti-virus companies generally do an excellent job. The fact that there is a competitive market also helps this.
When someone asks the government just what they are doing to prevent terrorism on the 6 O'clock news sometime, it's something else to pad out the answer.
Completely useless and ineffective, but that's not really the point.
Not only that, but I imagine a lot of companies use the demographic information entered, even though much of it will be suspect.
Maybe 5 years ago, there was some reliability. Now I see people putting in "a" or "b" into address lines, choosing the first dropdown, any old date for DOB.
If companies just want an email address for a newsletter, and offer people the option to put details in, the reliability is likely to go up. Some people will just go ahead and put it in.
I think they make some really good stuff, but this Mac fanaticism drives me around the bend. Sometimes, people genuinely know what they are talking about, and have good reasons for loving the Mac, and I respect that.
The problems for Macs is that most people don't have them at work. In all the places I've worked, the only time I've seen a Mac is in the design department. Yeah, bring on the examples of where they are used in your small company. Trust me, it's not the norm.
Whilst this pervades, people won't want to have a Mac. I spoke to a friend recently, and as they use their PC for basically email, internet and office, that they could go look at a Mac. But, they want a machine like their office one - they don't want to switch when they get home. If something goes wrong with their home machine, or need advice on software/games/whatever, they often know the tech at work, who probably maintains Windows or Linux.
If anything, Linux will go past, because people will find their desktops getting switched and go with it in the home. It's also a zero or small hardware switch cost, they can run dual-boot for a while.
As a Brit, I think there are some things that are done best in the USA.
We do a lot of great off-beat comedy, but our mainstream stuff really, really stinks. My favourite sitcoms are Frasier and Cheers. Also I'm a fan of Larry Sanders.
Also, I like a lot of US drama, which to be honest is superior to UK stuff. We don't make series as good as The West Wing or The Sopranos.
I'm not even sure how great it was. How many people did it convert?
Nearly everyone I know who saw it was already anti-Bush. And once certain facts about the presentation were shown, it discredited it in the eyes of people who may have been in the running to be converted.
In fact, the problem with nearly all documentaries coming out now is that they preach to the converted. If someone could find out a way to talk about the bad shit that junk food does to you in a way that inner city single mothers would watch, they'd be useful.
The big difference with British films and actors is that they generally come through the theatre, unlike Hollywood which generally comes through TV, music or modelling.
British actors are often used for character roles because they can do them so brilliantly (because they have the training). If you think of most British actors, like Patrick Stewart, Anthony Hopkins, Daniel Day-Lewis, Alec Guinness, Ben Kingsley and Ralph Fiennes, Kenneth Branagh they all were theatrical actors.
I think we act as a fill-in for where the US doesn't have enough talent. The reason why we have very few "stars" (except maybe Catherine Zeta Jones) is that you have enough people heading for that.
Also, we don't make films quite like Hollywood movies. We don't make giant size blockbusters because most studios would be putting their existence on the line - so often they are smaller films that serve an audience looking for something a little different.
There are, however a lot of good US character actors as well. People like William H Macy, Samuel L Jackson, Kevin Spacey, Holly Hunter and Jennifer Jason Leigh.
If you want good meat, find a good local butcher or a farmer's market.
Not all butchers are good. Some just buy in stuff. But if you can find a good one, you'll get lovely meat that's been properly hung. I buy bacon at a farmers market - properly cured, tastes lovely.
Go on then, what parts of the UK did you visit to sample our food? Because I hear this complaint, and it's normally from people who've eaten at the nearest place to a major tourist attraction in London, that do generally suck (they don't have to try to hard).
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, there was one root story but it looked much bigger.
I think that one thing that blogging may do is to get people to realise what happens in a lot of other journalism - that most of that should at least be treated with your brain engaged first.
The difference is the removal of the "premises". At one time, your information on which things to consume in terms of information was maintained by gatekeepers, and becoming a gatekeeper was expensive. You had to be a bookshop, and put a book in the window, or be a newspaper owner with premises, expensive presses and a distribution network.
Blogging means that someone can post something about their town or their politics and people can just go get it. Sure, most of it is noise, but there are now "shop window" blogs that people go to to find other news (like boing boing and fark.com) and are doing the filtering.
The difference between this and traditional "shop windows" is that it's very easy to find other ones. It's frictionless and more about quality than established position.
In some fields, traditional journalism can't touch blogging. Areas like science are covered badly by a lot of newspapers and TV. They often have a "science correspondent" who covers everything from astronomy to botany to the internet. They mostly don't know what they are on about except in one area. The net is great for this. I don't have to get some watered down version of the facts - I can get the raw data and process as I see fit.
Government IT projects here in the UK are not exactly what I'd call excellent. Millions spent on software that goes down the toilet.
Government antivirus wouldn't work particularly well, cost millions more than anywhere else, due to over-regulation, bureaucracy and would function in ways that suit government political agenda, and not what people want to use it for.
I even get people in IT sending me exes via messenger, which I refuse followed by a long argument about the source of the program (normally off a mate somewhere). Basically, a humourous animation should be in a sandboxed format, not a fricking exe.
I would advise an anti-virus, though. If nothing else, if you've skipped a patch, they can sometimes act as extra insurance with you.
That said, I've never had a virus cause damage, either.
A lot of businesses don't think it through. Spend about £30 a year for NAV or lose thousands of pounds of data (or lose days recovering your situation).
Oh, and don't spend less than £1 a week on a blank DVD and run a backup while you are having a coffee break on Friday.
If a business is using something without expertise, they are being stupid. If you can't use something, either get skilled or hire someone to do it for you. It might cost you cash, but it will free you up to do the things you should be doing instead of undoing a mess.
The problem with government is that they are often incompetent. That's why as a rule they are best kept out of things. From what I've seen anti-virus companies generally do an excellent job. The fact that there is a competitive market also helps this.
Completely useless and ineffective, but that's not really the point.
And didn't cost much*
*this is not true.
Maybe 5 years ago, there was some reliability. Now I see people putting in "a" or "b" into address lines, choosing the first dropdown, any old date for DOB.
If companies just want an email address for a newsletter, and offer people the option to put details in, the reliability is likely to go up. Some people will just go ahead and put it in.
The problems for Macs is that most people don't have them at work. In all the places I've worked, the only time I've seen a Mac is in the design department. Yeah, bring on the examples of where they are used in your small company. Trust me, it's not the norm.
Whilst this pervades, people won't want to have a Mac. I spoke to a friend recently, and as they use their PC for basically email, internet and office, that they could go look at a Mac. But, they want a machine like their office one - they don't want to switch when they get home. If something goes wrong with their home machine, or need advice on software/games/whatever, they often know the tech at work, who probably maintains Windows or Linux.
If anything, Linux will go past, because people will find their desktops getting switched and go with it in the home. It's also a zero or small hardware switch cost, they can run dual-boot for a while.
We do a lot of great off-beat comedy, but our mainstream stuff really, really stinks. My favourite sitcoms are Frasier and Cheers. Also I'm a fan of Larry Sanders.
Also, I like a lot of US drama, which to be honest is superior to UK stuff. We don't make series as good as The West Wing or The Sopranos.
To be frank, there is probably more great comedy around than then.
If you could get a major manufacturer to invest in more automation, more demand leading to more competition, they'd end up very cheap.
Then, you'd want housebuilders to start fitting them instead of people adding them later.
I hope it comes soon.
It's a shame Lucas seems to think he's a great idea. Anyone else would have done a "Poochie" on him.
most screwed up franchise
most annoying animated character
most pointless plots
Nearly everyone I know who saw it was already anti-Bush. And once certain facts about the presentation were shown, it discredited it in the eyes of people who may have been in the running to be converted.
In fact, the problem with nearly all documentaries coming out now is that they preach to the converted. If someone could find out a way to talk about the bad shit that junk food does to you in a way that inner city single mothers would watch, they'd be useful.
What's bad for you about British food that isn't bad for you about food from the USA?
British actors are often used for character roles because they can do them so brilliantly (because they have the training). If you think of most British actors, like Patrick Stewart, Anthony Hopkins, Daniel Day-Lewis, Alec Guinness, Ben Kingsley and Ralph Fiennes, Kenneth Branagh they all were theatrical actors.
I think we act as a fill-in for where the US doesn't have enough talent. The reason why we have very few "stars" (except maybe Catherine Zeta Jones) is that you have enough people heading for that.
Also, we don't make films quite like Hollywood movies. We don't make giant size blockbusters because most studios would be putting their existence on the line - so often they are smaller films that serve an audience looking for something a little different.
There are, however a lot of good US character actors as well. People like William H Macy, Samuel L Jackson, Kevin Spacey, Holly Hunter and Jennifer Jason Leigh.
I've talked to people about restaurants and one of the measures of quality is whether they could "hardly stand up" afterwards.
It's actually Moron
Most "ice cream" here is terrible. One exception is a company I know in Wiltshire called Hill Station. Their stuff beats B&Js.
Cracking. Every American who likes Python should try and find it.
Not all butchers are good. Some just buy in stuff. But if you can find a good one, you'll get lovely meat that's been properly hung. I buy bacon at a farmers market - properly cured, tastes lovely.
Go on then, what parts of the UK did you visit to sample our food? Because I hear this complaint, and it's normally from people who've eaten at the nearest place to a major tourist attraction in London, that do generally suck (they don't have to try to hard).
Actually, the acting is more about the fact that in general, British actresses can outact American ones.