BBC Blog Network

User Profile

simonbanyard

Listed below are comments made by simonbanyard between Tuesday, 5th August 2008 and Monday, 26th October 2009.

«Newer
Older»

24 hours with Ubuntu 3:50pm on 26 Oct 2009 What a narrow minded op-ed this is! The colour of the background can be changed, just as easily as i can in other desktop operating systems! Speaking for myself, the default background for all of the Windows releases can only be described as fugly! Bliss? Come on! It's a picture of Teletubbies land! the new default in Windows 7 can only be described as chintz. As for ease of use, I give you the single biggest UX gaff in the history of user interfaces - clicking start to shutdown! It's essentially still there too!

Joking aside, giving an operating platform that is entirely new to you just 24 hours to meet you own preconception of what an OS should be and how it should work based on your experience of Windows and OS X is at best narrow minded, at worst very stupid and in truth, naïve. Give it a week, then we'll talk. FTR; I use a Mac.
A week with Windows 3:31pm on 26 Oct 2009 Turkeybellyboy, 3 mistakes;

1 Fanboyz. really? That, my friend, is trolling, rendering any point that you make irrelevant.
2. Wikipedia is not the most reliable of sources. They even say so themselves! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer)
3. The GUI was not "invented" by Xerox. It was in fact developed a quite few years earlier than that by Doug Engelbart and his team at the Stanford Research Institute after working on the mouse (1963). Many of this team, including Engelbart, went on to work at PARC and further developed the idea there in the 1970's. What Apple actually *licensed* from Xerox was WIMP. Look it up.
YouTube, Cat Stevens and me 09:42am on 20 Sep 2008 Firstly, the musician receives very little in the way of royalties from recordings (the paragraph starting "A phone-call to YouTube's owners Google..." alludes to this) unless they own the rights to the recording of the music - most of the bigger stars make money from touring and endorsements. In general, record labels advance money to a recording artist who then, in theory, records the music. This is then distributed by the label at, hopefully for them, a profit. This is a very basic business model. The label repeats this process to turn bigger profits. The actual profiteers are the distributors - non-independent music shop chains that put the frankly ludicrous mark-ups on music and video.

MusicMan80, re 'stealing'. Have you ever recorded music from the radio? Have you ever recorded at TV program/a film to watch again and again? Have you ever lent someone a DVD or CD? This is basically copyright theft. Just like sharing files. No different. It is not 'cool' to steal, but then again, it not 'cool' to con people out of money - just like music shop chains do. We all shared CD's and records as kids, file-sharing is no different. I'm not saying that it is right or wrong.

Which brings us on to "Intellectual Property." (I REALLY hate that expression). Prove to me that the melodies in 'I Love My Dog' are entirely original. If as I understand, knowingly of otherwise, there is a bar of a melody that could be found in a piece, for instance by Mozart or Beethoven, then the recording should default to the public domain as the "original" piece is. Note to lawyers - I'm not accusing Mr Yusaf Islam of any form of plagiarism. To qualify my initial statement, IP is incredibly hard to prove as it suggest original thought - musically and artistically very difficult to prove - put easier to disprove (some people refer to influence - arguably that is infringing IP). Designers and architects go on about this too - but looking and listening around you how much original thought is evident?
Treasury injects £3bn into Rock 2:13pm on 05 Aug 2008 @ John_from_Hendon

Thanks for the clarification of NR ownership.

Whilst I agree that some aspects should be left in the past (although NEVER forgot, and absolutely used as an example of how not to run a bank and learned from), I feel that the board of NR have gotten away with it. That is what stinks! The warning signs should have been obvious the minute 80 percent mortgages and above were made available. Personally I think it is grossly irresponsible to lend this amount of money to individuals. Perhaps a precedent should be set now and stop rewarding failure. These people are blight on our society - just as much as those that collect ASBO’s for fun! I’m sure that if it was their own capital, they wouldn’t be as blasé about investing in sub-prime markets.

The Government should do everything in its power to save the homes and belongings of people who have mortgages and loans that they are diligently paying off - but they should not prevent the bank/business from going under. (Slightly OT - What about the newly weds that have lost their gifts after Wrapit called in the administrators? Surely they are as deserving.)
Treasury injects £3bn into Rock 12:43pm on 05 Aug 2008 @ YummyCarolKirkwood

My spelling on the other hand could use some work... :D
Treasury injects £3bn into Rock 12:34pm on 05 Aug 2008 @ YummyCarolKirkwood

So they've given back £9m (well, now technically £6m) SO WHAT!? They should never, categorically been bailed out with taxpayers money. More rewards for failure. Failure in business is not acceptable, no matter what New Labour/Bleeding Hearts say or do. The people at the top should loose their jobs - and any golden handshakes/bonuses/parachute payments should be lost as well. Anyone else would be sacked for these sorts of massive failures - why are these people any different? They chose to make unethical irresponsible investments in the name of greed - why is that ok? I understand that risk taking is an important part of this game (well, it is a form of gambling after all) but there is a duty of care, a responsibility to its investors if you will.

If the £27bn was indeed a loan, then why it is generally recognised now that NR is State owned. My level of English comprehension is fine - thank you for asking though.

Patronising in the manner that you have is childish –and rather pathetic. I was merely pointing out – perhaps ineloquently - that the issue shouldn’t be about Europe, as plodge had asked, rather it should be about NR’s and the Governments gross ineptitude – which is unforgivable IN MY OPINION (what these comment are about after all) – and the fact that of the £9.whateveritwas that has been repaid, £3bn has been give straight back. Top be fair to NR, a loss £585m is a whole lot better than was perhaps expected. Still not good enough though.
Treasury injects £3bn into Rock 08:07am on 05 Aug 2008 @plodge

Don't make this about petty anti European views. This is a global economy. Like or not, we are a member state of the EU. Though we are not part of the Euro zone, our Economy has a major bearing on all of the other European ones, as well a inflationary rates, etc. The question we should be asking is why, after giving these obviously inept idiots £27bn of OUR money, are we giving them another handout? SACK THE LOT OF THEM NOW Alistair.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

simonbanyard