* Posts by NetworkGuy

5 posts • joined 6 Aug 2009

Poll: One in six interrupt bonking to answer mobile


Get a phone you can turn 'off'...

Don't understand the need to keep a phone on at night - at least one of my phones is timed to switch 'on' at 08:00 and off at 20:30 - if clients need me after that, there's voicemail. It will ring at 07:30 as an alarm without being 'on' as far as calls and texts are concerned... my sister gets miffed if she gets e-mail at 03:00 or 04:00 from some mailing list as her damn phone ((iPhone user) bleeps...

As for those who use Twitter or Facebook before getting out of bed, I'd put some money on it they're mostly female ( BICBW !) ... and if some interrupt sex to answer the phone, then that's good, as it suggests there will be fewer 'slaves to the phone' in the future as the current 'slaves' might not achieve conception so often!

iPhone 5 a no-show at Apple's 'Let's talk iPhone' event

Big Brother

never been a die-hard, but ...

If I buy a phone (or get one in a contract), I just want to turn it on and use it. Am I right in thinking I MUST have iTunes to get any of the iPhones to work ?

It isn't software I use, I don't even want to install it, and as I happen to use some incarnations of Linux, am I stuffed because I don't have iTunes ?

Don't get me wrong, I have the odd friend using Apple kit, and know they are 'very keen' about the things 'just working' but I don't have the wish to buy either Apple or Windows kit just to get an iPhone to work for me.

(OK, I bet someone in CPW would do something to get it up and running, but transfer of MP3s to my Android phone (using a microSD card) and an MP3 player via USB are easy.)

Government ready to round up opinions on DNA database


"More or Less" commented too...

I've just heard the harshest criticism of the use of statistics in this consultation - an eminent statistician described the misuse of the statistics as comparable to "lying to the House" and seemed to lay the blame on Jacqui Smith (without actually saying her name)!

Just take a listen - BBC Radio 4 - "More or Less" within the last 10 minutes of show.


Murdoch says Page 3 won't be free from next year


of course the real problem is ...

... that other news services might be tempted to follow suit. They have also seen big drops in (print) advertising, which has been 'carrying' the internet output. They have been thinking about charging, on various models, but don't want to be first to do so.

They will watch what happens, and possibly follow (and probably reverse out of charging again, even if NewsCorp continues, once they lose viewers for online ads).

Simple fact is that WSJ and other specialist media (FT, Racing Times, etc) have a tight enough market that a charging model might work, but still loses some viewers.

Advertisers will be following the audit figures to see if they want to bother with any CUG (closed user group) readership publications, and might divert to the ones still free and still being viewed.

NewsCorp has the finances, no doubt, to play the experiment, but because Mr Murdock is known to be 'out of touch' with the internet, it goes without saying that one needs to take his comments with a sack of salt - he can indicate what he thinks, but whether there's much logic behind it is another matter.

NewsNow shows whether a service needs a paid-for subscription, so I can spot from the headline entry whether it can be viewed or not 'at a glance' .

I will look forward to seeing whether the NewsCorp websites last more than 6 months after starting to charge for viewing content - it's enough of a pain to register for some sites which don't charge - I'd be even less likely to touch a site which does.


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021