As October becomes November, I often feel a little nostalgic. Because November is "Remembrance" month, and having "done some time" with the forces (specifically the RN), I like to look through the list of "deaths in service" and remember those who're on the list, mainly through no fault of their own and are no longer alive.
Guilt maybe ? dunno. But I find it comforting that if it was me on that list, that at least somebody would remember me.
Then of course, it comes to today. Christmas day.
It should be a time of peace and calm. Uneventful is good, as it means that we can get on with whatever we've decided to do for the time of year.
Yet I often feel (again) nostalgic, maudlin and perhaps a little guilty, remembering the friends who are still here, yet I haven't managed to find (or make) the time, too visit in the last year.
I'm sure I'm not the only person who hates being middle aged. Remembering the earlier years, in my 20's and early 30's when I could just make a phone call and pile over for pretty much no excuse, just to turn up, have a drink or maybe a bite to eat, etc.
Only to find that 10 or 15 years later, I end up taking my life far too seriously, realising that I'm stuck in the rut of work, sleep, work, sleep. With every bit of bad or serious news heard or seen on the various media outlets, seeming like another weight on my shoulders.....
Sometimes wishing I had "the bottle", just to say bollocks to it all and as the Aussies would put it, "go walkabout".
But I can't. It seems that all I can see from this navel gazing point of view, that I have too many responsibilities for that.
So the best I can do, is to say that friends, past and present, you're in my thoughts and that I really hope you're enjoying the time of year with those who're closest to you, and that the time passes uneventfully and peacefully as you'd like.......
Tuesday 25 December 2012
Sunday 30 September 2012
Constitutional Clarity ?
Here in the UK, we like to pride ourselves, that we are a "fair minded" nation. Wish would be a nice thing to be, if that were the case.
Ha! I can imagine you reading this thinking "what the fuck is this idiot on about now?".
Fair enough question (there it is again, the word "fair").......
So, too start with, I'll quote the definition of "fair"
As you can see, there are a number of meanings (the above quote is only the first part of the entire definition according to this location there is more of it if you feel inclined to look it up) for such a small, 4 lettered word.
So given that we, as a nation (British) feel that it's one of our qualities or attributes, why does it seem that we are unfair to ourselves ?
Ok, so I understand that to non-English speakers, or at least those attempting to learn to speak English, it can seem quite daunting as it does appear that some words have many meanings, yet some meanings can have a number of words (and the word chosen, will often depend on the audience it's aimed at, or the target audiences educational standard/ability, or the "type" of people it's aimed at i.e. class of person, a professional body, etc).
Language will often be used in different ways, in different places, which can make it hard to understand, or at least hard to understand the point of view that is being displayed. My attitude is that while this might be the case, why shouldn't we have a "standard English", that is defined from a specific place (place in this sense, would mean a "Standards organisation" of some sort).
But where ? Well maybe a good place to start, might be something like the "Concise Oxford Dictionary" which is also known as the "Oxford English dictionary" or OED. I'd guess that this would need to be enshrined in law, but as long as the OED didn't try and "protect" words or language, so that they could derive some revenue from their use, I can't think of any reason why this couldn't happen.
Ok, so the last paragraph has thrown up a small phrase, well a word actually, that is often considered as a "bone of contention", the word "Law".
Why is it, that the legal world find the need to use English, in such an archaic, mysterious and generally hard to follow (except for linguistic experts and the "legal types" themselves) ? Perhaps it's so that they can look down their noses at the rest of us, in a patronising way so as to make the presumption of ignorance, stupidity or any number of words that can be used to project arrogance toward the target of their words ?
After all, it's government that are supposed to "make" laws. Can't they just make the laws so we can all understand them ? Instead of how it seems to be at the moment, where the government "make" a new law, but it seems that it means nothing, until a Judge has decided exactly what it means, so it can be properly enacted within a court of law.
Lets face it, government and the judiciary work, pretty much, hand in hand. Yet they seem to operate with a large amount of the "unfairness" I alluded to earlier.
The UK/Great Britain, is the largest industrialised country on the planet, not to have a formal written constitution and an accompanying "Bill of Rights". In many cases, people claim to have a right to something, it doesn't matter what they're claiming, according to the UK/British government, they don't have any such "right". Yes, there are a few "rights" that come down from historic legislation, but most of the "rights" that you do have, have been granted to you by the EU - the largest number of which, have been granted under the "Human Rights" European legislation, which in turn, was accepted into UK law under our membership of the European Union.
So if you haven't already worked out what I'm really asking for, it's a Formal Written Constitution and accompanying "Bill of Rights", and "Standard English". I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't be too difficult for this to happen, except that the "ruling classes" have to much of a vested interest for this not to happen. It means that they still get to bully the general populace around, exploit us in various ways and allows "business" and commerce to "take the piss" and engineer how we act, work and "are", to their own end.
All you currently end up with, is the two fingered "V" sign and the attitude of "fuck you".
Maybe it's time we did something about this apparent "unfairness".....
Ha! I can imagine you reading this thinking "what the fuck is this idiot on about now?".
Fair enough question (there it is again, the word "fair").......
So, too start with, I'll quote the definition of "fair"
adjectivefair
2.
legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: a fair fight.3.
moderately large; ample: a fair income.4.
neither excellent nor poor; moderately or tolerably good: fair health.5.
marked by favoring conditions; likely; promising: in a fair way to succeed.6.
Meteorology .
a.
(of the sky) bright; sunny; cloudless to half-cloudy.b.
(of the weather) fine; with no prospect of rain, snow, or hail; not stormy.7.
Nautical . (of a wind or tide) tending to aid the progress of a vessel.8.
unobstructed; not blocked up: The way was fair for our advance.9.
without irregularity or unevenness: a fair surface.10.
free from blemish, imperfection, or anything that impairs the appearance, quality, or character: Her fair reputation was ruined by gossip.11.
easy to read; clear: fair handwriting.12.
of a light hue; not dark: fair skin.13.
pleasing in appearance; attractive: a fair young maiden.14.
seemingly good or sincere but not really so: The suitor beguiled his mistress with fair speeches.15.
courteous; civil: fair words.16.
Medicine/Medical . (of a patient's condition) having stable and normal vital signs and other favorable indicators, as appetite and mobility, but being in some discomfort and having the possibility of a worsening state.17.
Dialect . scarcely; barely: It was just fair daylight when we started working.
As you can see, there are a number of meanings (the above quote is only the first part of the entire definition according to this location there is more of it if you feel inclined to look it up) for such a small, 4 lettered word.
So given that we, as a nation (British) feel that it's one of our qualities or attributes, why does it seem that we are unfair to ourselves ?
Ok, so I understand that to non-English speakers, or at least those attempting to learn to speak English, it can seem quite daunting as it does appear that some words have many meanings, yet some meanings can have a number of words (and the word chosen, will often depend on the audience it's aimed at, or the target audiences educational standard/ability, or the "type" of people it's aimed at i.e. class of person, a professional body, etc).
Language will often be used in different ways, in different places, which can make it hard to understand, or at least hard to understand the point of view that is being displayed. My attitude is that while this might be the case, why shouldn't we have a "standard English", that is defined from a specific place (place in this sense, would mean a "Standards organisation" of some sort).
But where ? Well maybe a good place to start, might be something like the "Concise Oxford Dictionary" which is also known as the "Oxford English dictionary" or OED. I'd guess that this would need to be enshrined in law, but as long as the OED didn't try and "protect" words or language, so that they could derive some revenue from their use, I can't think of any reason why this couldn't happen.
Ok, so the last paragraph has thrown up a small phrase, well a word actually, that is often considered as a "bone of contention", the word "Law".
Why is it, that the legal world find the need to use English, in such an archaic, mysterious and generally hard to follow (except for linguistic experts and the "legal types" themselves) ? Perhaps it's so that they can look down their noses at the rest of us, in a patronising way so as to make the presumption of ignorance, stupidity or any number of words that can be used to project arrogance toward the target of their words ?
After all, it's government that are supposed to "make" laws. Can't they just make the laws so we can all understand them ? Instead of how it seems to be at the moment, where the government "make" a new law, but it seems that it means nothing, until a Judge has decided exactly what it means, so it can be properly enacted within a court of law.
Lets face it, government and the judiciary work, pretty much, hand in hand. Yet they seem to operate with a large amount of the "unfairness" I alluded to earlier.
The UK/Great Britain, is the largest industrialised country on the planet, not to have a formal written constitution and an accompanying "Bill of Rights". In many cases, people claim to have a right to something, it doesn't matter what they're claiming, according to the UK/British government, they don't have any such "right". Yes, there are a few "rights" that come down from historic legislation, but most of the "rights" that you do have, have been granted to you by the EU - the largest number of which, have been granted under the "Human Rights" European legislation, which in turn, was accepted into UK law under our membership of the European Union.
So if you haven't already worked out what I'm really asking for, it's a Formal Written Constitution and accompanying "Bill of Rights", and "Standard English". I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't be too difficult for this to happen, except that the "ruling classes" have to much of a vested interest for this not to happen. It means that they still get to bully the general populace around, exploit us in various ways and allows "business" and commerce to "take the piss" and engineer how we act, work and "are", to their own end.
All you currently end up with, is the two fingered "V" sign and the attitude of "fuck you".
Maybe it's time we did something about this apparent "unfairness".....
Monday 30 July 2012
Light reading......
http://www.progress.org/archive/fold144.htm
It still takes a bit of thinking about, if economics are your world, but I found it very interesting.......
Well done Fred E. Foldvary.
It still takes a bit of thinking about, if economics are your world, but I found it very interesting.......
Well done Fred E. Foldvary.
Monday 16 July 2012
Whoop de fucking do !
Wow ! The Olympic Torch relay runner has just gone down the main road, at the end of the garden.
Big, fucking, deal !
Do the Olympic organisers and the government think we're all fucking stupid ?
I mean ? How fucking much has all this crap cost us ?
I know the powers that be, couldn't have forecast the economic downturn, but you can guarantee that does stop them plugging the fuck out of anything that takes the collective national mind off the negatives that come out in the news day after day......
Plus it feels like a conspiracy, that between the government, the Olympic organisers and the media, are telling us that we must be happy and cheerful because of the events surrounding and directly from the games.
Well, I'm already fed up with it all. I've got very little interest in it all (most of the events I like get zero coverage), so wny force it down our throats ?
Wednesday 4 July 2012
Bloody stupid ideas.......
This is, of course, opinion !
With foods, etc, some locations are known for either the quality and standards or the food/cuisine, yet other places "think" their food ideas are good, yet everyone else seems to .find their tastes/flavours, mediocre (here included).
There could be many reasons why that could be, yet some things just don't go together.
One of the few things North American agriculture has given us, is the humble peanut. Now I like peanuts. Peanuts can be found used in a number of different ways, but one thing that's hard, is to extract the taste and use just that with something else. Of course, I know they're not a true nut, but legumes, and you can process them and use other flavours to compliment (a good example being a stay i.e. ground peanut, chilli and sugar or honey).
Now, while I might be missing out, there are somethings, where its pretty obvious, so why some of the US based mead makers can't get their heads round the concept is beyond me. Or is it that the people who do understand that somethings just don't mix, and don't want to try mad combinations, or just don't bother to say anything ? (forum rules etc, perhaps just being polite ?)
Well, you'd be aware that I like to make meads, but the point of this is to question some stupidity I've come across, and that stupid idea is "peanut butter mead".
Now if you're making a gloopy spread for bread, then peanut would be fine, but with nut flavours, its proved hard to concentrate the flavour enough to use it with alcoholic drinks. Not impossible of course, but certainly not easy.
I suspect peanut oil would be broken down by the alcohol, and some material would either emulsify, or settle out as rancid slime.
For many reasons, nut is hard to incorporate into many recipes (in whole lumps, with decorative justification seems to work) its not the easiest of materials to use.
Plus, its just a bloody silly idea in a mead.
A bit like "pumpkin pie". It's a finished thing, not an ingredient (plus pumpkin is bland as fuck, so why they "bang on" about it, is a mystery. "Spiced pumpkin" ? Perhaps. Maybe I just haven't tasted pumpkin that's been prepared nicely ? Equally possible. Or it might be that for historically cultural reasons, it just didn't.catch on elsewhere).....
So go on you lot ! I've nothing against innovation or invention, but take time to consider why something isn't used in a certain way. It's probably been tried somewhere and hasn't worked. Or perhaps, for chemical type reasons, its just a fucking stupid idea.........
Tuesday 29 May 2012
Who gives a fuck !
Why do the media wankers keep telling me how wonderful the Olympics and/or the jubilee celebrations are ?
Most of the sporting events that I like to watch, get zero coverage, its all the high profile crappy that gets the TV time.
The fucking jubilee is about the queen having enjoyed sixty years of living, at tax payer expense, in complete luxury and all she has to do is open a few public buildings, make a few speeches and sit in the passenger part of a very comfortable car waving to the crowds of mug punters......nice work if you can get it !
So shut the fuck up, all you TV, radio, newspaper and other media pricks! Cos I just don't give a fuck.
All the jubilee is to me, is an extra day off work. The Olympics is a load of self promoting sport bullies trying to show us how clever, fit and healthy they are........
Sunday 15 April 2012
Fashions from the past........
When I was a kid (in the 70s), there was this "fashion" for so called, "Platform shoes". Which wasn't really a good look, irrespective of whether it was womens or mens footwear.
That type of footwear looked like it was "orthopaedic", designed for people with foot or leg disabilities.
Now it so happens, that the FOL (father-out-law...... we're not married, just shacked up) buys the Sunday Mirror (part of the "Mirror group" newspapers) as his paper of choice on a sunday. Fine.
They publish a shiney suppliment magazine, that has pictures of "celeb's" (celebrities i.e. somebody worth celebrating - which amazes me as I haven't heard of most of them, and of the ones I'm aware of, most are "Z list"). Anyway, it seems that some fashion designing fuckwit, has managed to use these platform soles, and sometimes heels on the womens footwear. Convincing these women, who after all, seem to have more money than sense, that they look good.
Well, I've got news for you! They look shit! They make you look like you're wearing "Spastic shoes" (damn, I haven't used that phrase since I was a horrible bugger of an 8 year old). But it's true, they make you look like some sort of retard, to use American parlance.....
Sure, if you're not that tall, and want to appear taller, then heels are fine. A flat, thin soled, yet high heeled shoe, in the right shape is aesthetically pleasing in appearance. It accentuates the length and shape of the leg, but heavy/thick soles may you look like a "spacker"!
It could be that you think you're "cutting edge" in your fashion sense ? Well you're obviously not, because a lot of stuff that is labelled "fashionable" is ugly looking. It doesn't matter who designed it, if something is ugly looking, that's the way it will remain. In fact, if something is ugly looking and you're wearing it, just because some so called "famous designer", "designed" it, then it's even worse. It makes you look a complete fool, not only because that "thing" is ugly, but because you probably paid a shit load of money for it.
So well done, you fucking idiot. Just carry on, so we know that you're just another foolish "mug punter"!
That type of footwear looked like it was "orthopaedic", designed for people with foot or leg disabilities.
Now it so happens, that the FOL (father-out-law...... we're not married, just shacked up) buys the Sunday Mirror (part of the "Mirror group" newspapers) as his paper of choice on a sunday. Fine.
They publish a shiney suppliment magazine, that has pictures of "celeb's" (celebrities i.e. somebody worth celebrating - which amazes me as I haven't heard of most of them, and of the ones I'm aware of, most are "Z list"). Anyway, it seems that some fashion designing fuckwit, has managed to use these platform soles, and sometimes heels on the womens footwear. Convincing these women, who after all, seem to have more money than sense, that they look good.
Well, I've got news for you! They look shit! They make you look like you're wearing "Spastic shoes" (damn, I haven't used that phrase since I was a horrible bugger of an 8 year old). But it's true, they make you look like some sort of retard, to use American parlance.....
Sure, if you're not that tall, and want to appear taller, then heels are fine. A flat, thin soled, yet high heeled shoe, in the right shape is aesthetically pleasing in appearance. It accentuates the length and shape of the leg, but heavy/thick soles may you look like a "spacker"!
It could be that you think you're "cutting edge" in your fashion sense ? Well you're obviously not, because a lot of stuff that is labelled "fashionable" is ugly looking. It doesn't matter who designed it, if something is ugly looking, that's the way it will remain. In fact, if something is ugly looking and you're wearing it, just because some so called "famous designer", "designed" it, then it's even worse. It makes you look a complete fool, not only because that "thing" is ugly, but because you probably paid a shit load of money for it.
So well done, you fucking idiot. Just carry on, so we know that you're just another foolish "mug punter"!
Tuesday 6 March 2012
Big Tasty ? Not...
We're a funny bunch. We sit there, hypnotised by the fucking TV, with all the advertising forced through our consciousness.
Fine! The TV companies earn a profit, the actual advertiser increases sales as we all troop through their sales outlets...
So, today, after trotting round and finishing my deliveries, after driving passed a chippy, I find myself at the nearest services that happens to have fuel etc, but also a small McDonalds. Now only having a half hour left of my mandatory break, I pile in and select what seems to be the current deal being pitched at the punters.....I'm sure you can envisage this as I park the truck, put the tacho on rest and go in for "A big tasty meal please".
My point is, that we're all brainwashed into going to these places, yet the so called big tasty was far from that. Big Blandy would have been more accurate. Even as I type this all I can really taste in my mouth is salt from the fries, and from the wafer thin piece of plastic like, processed cheese, with an after taste of vinegar with a hint of mustard from the burger sauce. Yes, the bun seemed fresh, the salad items moist and crunchy etc, but completely lacking in flavour.
Through the doors, like lambs to slaughter. All for some salt, vinegar and mustard. Oh and I'm surprised that there aren't vultures circling overhead, when I think about how dry the bloody meat part of the burger was....
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
Fine! The TV companies earn a profit, the actual advertiser increases sales as we all troop through their sales outlets...
So, today, after trotting round and finishing my deliveries, after driving passed a chippy, I find myself at the nearest services that happens to have fuel etc, but also a small McDonalds. Now only having a half hour left of my mandatory break, I pile in and select what seems to be the current deal being pitched at the punters.....I'm sure you can envisage this as I park the truck, put the tacho on rest and go in for "A big tasty meal please".
My point is, that we're all brainwashed into going to these places, yet the so called big tasty was far from that. Big Blandy would have been more accurate. Even as I type this all I can really taste in my mouth is salt from the fries, and from the wafer thin piece of plastic like, processed cheese, with an after taste of vinegar with a hint of mustard from the burger sauce. Yes, the bun seemed fresh, the salad items moist and crunchy etc, but completely lacking in flavour.
Through the doors, like lambs to slaughter. All for some salt, vinegar and mustard. Oh and I'm surprised that there aren't vultures circling overhead, when I think about how dry the bloody meat part of the burger was....
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
Tuesday 28 February 2012
Is it just me ? Or can some of the demographic see it too ?
While watching some stuff on SyFy and they've run an advert for "Olay" products of some sort.
Ok fine, but the advert starts off saying how wonderful the product is (to be expected), then the dialogue changes to the challenge of whether you believe it or not, some statistics and more of how wonderful it is.
I suppose that's the nature of advertising, but there's been plenty of factual info about how none of this age reducing shit doesn't work, etc. So why are people, of whatever demographic so gullible ? With the products aimed at them ?
I know I'm not perfect, but I try to be as cynical as I can be. As I know that these people are professional con merchants, who're only concerned with extracting the contents of the wallet/purse.......
Of course, its a bit dramatic and excessive, but it would be nice to be able to have a few of the biggest piss takers and have them executed and hung up with signs on them to warn the rest.
Ha! The same would apply to these banking and other financial incompetents.....
I'm convinced that you'd only need to do a few, to be an example to the others and then get the message out.
Ok, so I realise that that sort of thing would be over the top..... but I'm equally convinced that our politicians need a kick up the arse to realise that they weren't voted in just to do what they "think" we want them to do, but to actually find out what the majority want and to sort it out.
Yet they don't. They use all the spin and other shit to convince us that "they know best".......patronising cunts, one and all, irrespective of political allegiance....
Sunday 29 January 2012
Fairness - "the British way" ?
I was reading an article in the current Web User magazine (issue 284 dated 26 Jan 2012), about "Not Paying for Ebooks".
Firstly, the article, in no way, supports piracy etc. It focuses on what content is out there, that is available for Ebook reader devices, that can legally be obtained free of charge e.g. "Classics" that are out of copyright etc.
The article has been produced, apparently, because of some statistic, about how many people in the UK received an Ebook reader (mainly Amazon Kindle devices) as christmas gifts.
It happens, that I'm not one of them, as I've had ebook reader applications in a number of smart phone devices for some years now. While I'm not familiar with all of the sites/sources that were mentioned in the article, I'm familiar with places like Project Gutenberg. And while I do like to read some up to date stuff, I've also learned to enjoy some of the so called "Classics" (some of which I'd already seen as films).
Anyhow, the point of this, is that at the end of the article, there's a sub-article on "Why are Ebooks so expensive" ? It explains some of the apparent business justification that is churned out by the Publishing industry, but finishes with the comment
I'm more than happy to say that that is a direct quote from the magazine article, though I couldn't find the name of the author at the time of typing this.
My point, is that this highlights the larger picture that here in the UK (and probably many, many other countries), many "Business Practices" are tantamount to theft.
I don't mind paying a reasonable mark up on the cost of producing either this type of products or for any other things that I might "consume", but therein lies the rub. It seems that I have a very different idea of what is a "reasonable mark up", than what seems to be considered by Business/Commerce.
I can't say for other countries, as we all have different ideas of what might be fair, unfair and what might be considered as virtual theft.
Most other (all ?) developed countries, have proper rules and regulations laid down, in the form of Laws, written constitutions, Bills of Rights and other documentation, so the citizens of those countries know where they stand. We don't. Sure, we have the laws, but we have no written constitution and certainly no national Bill of Rights. In fact, the only actual "Rights" I have, are a few that have been included in some very old law that is still extant and those that have been granted by the EU in the human rights legislation, to which, the UK is signed up.
What's the relevance of that ? Well it would be relatively straight forward to work through British Law and produce a proper written constitution and bill of rights. Yes, it wouldn't be a quick thing, as there's many millions of words that make up the laws of the UK. It would be easier for a government to "start the ball rolling" and it would be equally as easy for our law courts to start finding the results of cases in any such constitution/bill of rights. After all, aren't the upper levels of the judiciary supposed to be some of the smartest minds in the country ?
Again, it would be just as easy to include a few new things. Like, for instance, a maximum cap to the amount of money a business could put on top of the cost of producing something ? I don't know, lets say 30%. At the same time, if the "product" is one that is sold through intermediaries of various types, be capped at 10% per intermediary, to a maximum of 30% (so 2 intermediaries could add their 10%).
But "they" won't, will they. Despite all the modern technological methods of being able to work out exactly how much something costs to produce, right down to unimaginable levels of accuracy, the governments wouldn't let that happen would they. The businesses themselves would "squeal like stuck pigs", because they'd have to expose all their sordid little secrets, about how they've been taking the piss and ripping off the consumer. Plus the lobbyist's who purport to speak for the various businesses would have to flag up just how many "back handers" (of any form, no just money) they use to put across their point to the various politicians, so that various laws that affect goods, services, etc are only enacted in their favour.
The "vested interests" have too much of just that i.e. a vested interest, in being able to keep ripping the consumer off.
A similar analogy could be drawn to the news this week, that the man currently in charge of the currently, 82% state owned, RBS, is being awarded too high a bonus, because it's one of the main recipients of government money (ultimately that's our tax money). Then there's all the bollocks that's been spoken that he "needs" this bonus and RBS need to pay it (in one form or another), too attract the best, most able/capable person to help RBS recover and for the tax man to get our money back.
Well how about this ? This person doesn't need some mega bucks bonus, because he already receives enough money as his salary! So why pay extra in bonuses ? After all, isn't the "bragging rights" of how much of a wonderful job he's done/is doing, also worth something ? I'd say it is and will do nothing to damage his "employability" in some future high level banking position.....
Ha! I could go on and on about these apparent, business related inequities. They are just a bunch of legalised thieves, one and all. If they're not taking the piss out of the consumer, they're taking the piss out of the business and the shareholder.........
Britain is "chockablock" with examples of "fairness" but only if it suits business and government to be so. The rest of the time "we", the public, just get the shitty end of the stick!
Firstly, the article, in no way, supports piracy etc. It focuses on what content is out there, that is available for Ebook reader devices, that can legally be obtained free of charge e.g. "Classics" that are out of copyright etc.
The article has been produced, apparently, because of some statistic, about how many people in the UK received an Ebook reader (mainly Amazon Kindle devices) as christmas gifts.
It happens, that I'm not one of them, as I've had ebook reader applications in a number of smart phone devices for some years now. While I'm not familiar with all of the sites/sources that were mentioned in the article, I'm familiar with places like Project Gutenberg. And while I do like to read some up to date stuff, I've also learned to enjoy some of the so called "Classics" (some of which I'd already seen as films).
Anyhow, the point of this, is that at the end of the article, there's a sub-article on "Why are Ebooks so expensive" ? It explains some of the apparent business justification that is churned out by the Publishing industry, but finishes with the comment
"However, the simple truth seems to be that ebooks are expensive because publishers can currently get away with it, perhaps as a way to offset the money lost through the decline in paperback and hardback sales."
I'm more than happy to say that that is a direct quote from the magazine article, though I couldn't find the name of the author at the time of typing this.
My point, is that this highlights the larger picture that here in the UK (and probably many, many other countries), many "Business Practices" are tantamount to theft.
I don't mind paying a reasonable mark up on the cost of producing either this type of products or for any other things that I might "consume", but therein lies the rub. It seems that I have a very different idea of what is a "reasonable mark up", than what seems to be considered by Business/Commerce.
I can't say for other countries, as we all have different ideas of what might be fair, unfair and what might be considered as virtual theft.
Most other (all ?) developed countries, have proper rules and regulations laid down, in the form of Laws, written constitutions, Bills of Rights and other documentation, so the citizens of those countries know where they stand. We don't. Sure, we have the laws, but we have no written constitution and certainly no national Bill of Rights. In fact, the only actual "Rights" I have, are a few that have been included in some very old law that is still extant and those that have been granted by the EU in the human rights legislation, to which, the UK is signed up.
What's the relevance of that ? Well it would be relatively straight forward to work through British Law and produce a proper written constitution and bill of rights. Yes, it wouldn't be a quick thing, as there's many millions of words that make up the laws of the UK. It would be easier for a government to "start the ball rolling" and it would be equally as easy for our law courts to start finding the results of cases in any such constitution/bill of rights. After all, aren't the upper levels of the judiciary supposed to be some of the smartest minds in the country ?
Again, it would be just as easy to include a few new things. Like, for instance, a maximum cap to the amount of money a business could put on top of the cost of producing something ? I don't know, lets say 30%. At the same time, if the "product" is one that is sold through intermediaries of various types, be capped at 10% per intermediary, to a maximum of 30% (so 2 intermediaries could add their 10%).
But "they" won't, will they. Despite all the modern technological methods of being able to work out exactly how much something costs to produce, right down to unimaginable levels of accuracy, the governments wouldn't let that happen would they. The businesses themselves would "squeal like stuck pigs", because they'd have to expose all their sordid little secrets, about how they've been taking the piss and ripping off the consumer. Plus the lobbyist's who purport to speak for the various businesses would have to flag up just how many "back handers" (of any form, no just money) they use to put across their point to the various politicians, so that various laws that affect goods, services, etc are only enacted in their favour.
The "vested interests" have too much of just that i.e. a vested interest, in being able to keep ripping the consumer off.
A similar analogy could be drawn to the news this week, that the man currently in charge of the currently, 82% state owned, RBS, is being awarded too high a bonus, because it's one of the main recipients of government money (ultimately that's our tax money). Then there's all the bollocks that's been spoken that he "needs" this bonus and RBS need to pay it (in one form or another), too attract the best, most able/capable person to help RBS recover and for the tax man to get our money back.
Well how about this ? This person doesn't need some mega bucks bonus, because he already receives enough money as his salary! So why pay extra in bonuses ? After all, isn't the "bragging rights" of how much of a wonderful job he's done/is doing, also worth something ? I'd say it is and will do nothing to damage his "employability" in some future high level banking position.....
Ha! I could go on and on about these apparent, business related inequities. They are just a bunch of legalised thieves, one and all. If they're not taking the piss out of the consumer, they're taking the piss out of the business and the shareholder.........
Britain is "chockablock" with examples of "fairness" but only if it suits business and government to be so. The rest of the time "we", the public, just get the shitty end of the stick!
Saturday 21 January 2012
Current government....condescending bastards ?
Last year, we had that referendum about whether we wanted to change the way votes were counted, from "first past the post" to "AV" (alternative voting method). Now it was the current prime minister who was one of the leading lights of the "No" campaign, which was basically run on a "don't change it, because it's too complicated" line.
If it was so complicated, then how the fuck do people like me KNOW that that is the exact way that the leaders of the political parties are elected here.
I might just be an ordinary working bloke, but I'm not fucking stupid Cameron. If anyone is, you are, you old Etonian, Oxford educated, rich, tory cunt! I'm not stupid enough, to be patronising to people like that. Even if they might not understand something, give them the benefit of the doubt, they're entitled to that at least.
Now last week, there's some government judicial committee, who apparently says that we need a new law, because a jury wouldn't or couldn't understand the legal point of "Joint Enterprise".
Joint Enterprise ? Well I'll draw an analogy. A gang of youths, possibly young men, go out and commit a crime, lets say a murder. Now there's enough evidence to link some, or all of them to the scene of the crime, yet for a number of reasons, the police might not find enough evidence or proof as to which member of that group/gang/whatever actually committed the murder. Well using the legal point of Joint Enterprise, the law would or could consider them all guilty of the murder charge, and depending on the strength of the evidence linking them to the crime, they're then sentenced accordingly.
Sound familiar ? Yes, that's right. It's how the 2 of 5 suspects were convicted in the "Steven Lawrence" case. Of course, it does seem that because of cock ups by police and/or the CPS at the time, they didn't get all of them, but a jury did find that there was enough evidence to convict the 2....
How to I know this ? Well obviously, according to the Judicial committee I mentioned earlier, I don't because it's too complicated a concept for me, Mr Ordinary Bloke in the Street, to understand.
Don't patronise and/or condescend to me like that you jumped up fucking arseholes.....
I know what it fucking means and suspect that if I was ever called for jury service and had to sit on a case like this, I'd be able to work out exactly what the fuck was going on and whether there was enough proof/evidence of guilt or innocence..........
Wake up you "know it all" government cunts........
If it was so complicated, then how the fuck do people like me KNOW that that is the exact way that the leaders of the political parties are elected here.
I might just be an ordinary working bloke, but I'm not fucking stupid Cameron. If anyone is, you are, you old Etonian, Oxford educated, rich, tory cunt! I'm not stupid enough, to be patronising to people like that. Even if they might not understand something, give them the benefit of the doubt, they're entitled to that at least.
Now last week, there's some government judicial committee, who apparently says that we need a new law, because a jury wouldn't or couldn't understand the legal point of "Joint Enterprise".
Joint Enterprise ? Well I'll draw an analogy. A gang of youths, possibly young men, go out and commit a crime, lets say a murder. Now there's enough evidence to link some, or all of them to the scene of the crime, yet for a number of reasons, the police might not find enough evidence or proof as to which member of that group/gang/whatever actually committed the murder. Well using the legal point of Joint Enterprise, the law would or could consider them all guilty of the murder charge, and depending on the strength of the evidence linking them to the crime, they're then sentenced accordingly.
Sound familiar ? Yes, that's right. It's how the 2 of 5 suspects were convicted in the "Steven Lawrence" case. Of course, it does seem that because of cock ups by police and/or the CPS at the time, they didn't get all of them, but a jury did find that there was enough evidence to convict the 2....
How to I know this ? Well obviously, according to the Judicial committee I mentioned earlier, I don't because it's too complicated a concept for me, Mr Ordinary Bloke in the Street, to understand.
Don't patronise and/or condescend to me like that you jumped up fucking arseholes.....
I know what it fucking means and suspect that if I was ever called for jury service and had to sit on a case like this, I'd be able to work out exactly what the fuck was going on and whether there was enough proof/evidence of guilt or innocence..........
Wake up you "know it all" government cunts........
Saturday 14 January 2012
Accident waiting to happen ???
This mornings news had the reports about the cruise liner, Costa Concordia, at the Island of Giglio, off the Tuscan coast, with a severe list to starboard (right hand side - just looked at the latest pic's I can find and the liner is shown on it's side, I don't know whether it's actually "turned turtle", a la "Poseidon Adventure" or not.......).
Now I've been present at a nautical incident in 1988 (during my time with the RN - and the incident I was involved in was a collision between 2 ships, caused by a mechanical breakdown). So I know just how fucking scary such events can be (the one the ship I was on wasn't as bad as the news reports of the Costa Concordia is showing).
It's fair to point out that I'd received some training about such problems as part of one of the training courses I attended was about saving a ship after battle damage/missile strike has occurred - it still doesn't really prepare you for the shock of the incident.
Anyway, for some time now, whenever one of the cruise lines shows the pictures of their "latest and greatest", both myself and my partner have wondered about the possibility of such an incident. Because these vessels always look like they're top heavy i.e. with more showing above the waterline that might be below it. Here's a link to the "Daily Mail's online article" about it. And yes, at least one of the pictures shows what we seem to think might be correct.
It's like looking at pictures of earlier vessels that have sunk (specifically, some pictures of the Mary Rose, Henry VIII's flagship come to mind).
So is current cruise liner design more about the arrogance of "ship designers" thinking that technology will overcome both nature and "human error" ? Looks rather like that might be the case!
Doesn't matter how much the technological innovation of stabilisers, bow thrusters and other positioning and stability aids are fitted, if you put a fucking great hole in the ships side, especially below the water line, there's a likelihood of being problems.
I mean, damn, the ships master seems to have done pretty well in getting the damaged vessel close in to Italy, to enable the authorities to be able to do something to minimise casualties, but for fucks sake, you wouldn't want to sail a "skyscraper" would you. After all, I know that that's a shit analogy, but if you think on the depth of the footings/foundations of a high rise building when compared to what's above ground, you might think twice about whether it's such a good idea. Especially when it comes to the likelihood of something that could shake or know the damn building over (earthquakes etc), so why the fuck design a ship like this, when the damn sea's are infinitely more unstable than land, plus either lack of, or misuse of kit that "looks" into the water below the keel (echo sounding and similar equipment) can't guarantee that it's clear and safe for the vessel, then it's patently bloody obviously that it should only be going places where the depth of water is known as well as whether there's likely to be underwater obstacles.
But no, yet again, another fucking brilliant example of seamanship, shows that there's no guarantee of total safety.
Ha! And it's the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic (parallels will have been drawn.....) this year.
My partner doesn't like the idea of sea travel anyway, so shit like this reinforces her view........
I bet that all the planets "cruise line companies" will be looking to make sure that all their kit for checking safety and depth below their ships keels will be either double checked for function, or upgraded.....
Now I've been present at a nautical incident in 1988 (during my time with the RN - and the incident I was involved in was a collision between 2 ships, caused by a mechanical breakdown). So I know just how fucking scary such events can be (the one the ship I was on wasn't as bad as the news reports of the Costa Concordia is showing).
It's fair to point out that I'd received some training about such problems as part of one of the training courses I attended was about saving a ship after battle damage/missile strike has occurred - it still doesn't really prepare you for the shock of the incident.
Anyway, for some time now, whenever one of the cruise lines shows the pictures of their "latest and greatest", both myself and my partner have wondered about the possibility of such an incident. Because these vessels always look like they're top heavy i.e. with more showing above the waterline that might be below it. Here's a link to the "Daily Mail's online article" about it. And yes, at least one of the pictures shows what we seem to think might be correct.
It's like looking at pictures of earlier vessels that have sunk (specifically, some pictures of the Mary Rose, Henry VIII's flagship come to mind).
So is current cruise liner design more about the arrogance of "ship designers" thinking that technology will overcome both nature and "human error" ? Looks rather like that might be the case!
Doesn't matter how much the technological innovation of stabilisers, bow thrusters and other positioning and stability aids are fitted, if you put a fucking great hole in the ships side, especially below the water line, there's a likelihood of being problems.
I mean, damn, the ships master seems to have done pretty well in getting the damaged vessel close in to Italy, to enable the authorities to be able to do something to minimise casualties, but for fucks sake, you wouldn't want to sail a "skyscraper" would you. After all, I know that that's a shit analogy, but if you think on the depth of the footings/foundations of a high rise building when compared to what's above ground, you might think twice about whether it's such a good idea. Especially when it comes to the likelihood of something that could shake or know the damn building over (earthquakes etc), so why the fuck design a ship like this, when the damn sea's are infinitely more unstable than land, plus either lack of, or misuse of kit that "looks" into the water below the keel (echo sounding and similar equipment) can't guarantee that it's clear and safe for the vessel, then it's patently bloody obviously that it should only be going places where the depth of water is known as well as whether there's likely to be underwater obstacles.
But no, yet again, another fucking brilliant example of seamanship, shows that there's no guarantee of total safety.
Ha! And it's the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic (parallels will have been drawn.....) this year.
My partner doesn't like the idea of sea travel anyway, so shit like this reinforces her view........
I bet that all the planets "cruise line companies" will be looking to make sure that all their kit for checking safety and depth below their ships keels will be either double checked for function, or upgraded.....
Sunday 8 January 2012
Fashion Fuck up's ?
What is it about the fashion industry ? More's the point, it doesn't matter what it is that these people say is currently "fashionable", because they'll say anything...... just to get a sale and a few more £/$/€ out of your pocket.
A lot of women and girls are still wearing "Ugg" boots. Why they might wear them in the first place is a better question. Yes, I'm sure they're warm, if the weather is cold, but they're fuck all use if it's wet. Plus too make things worse, they're fucking "Ugg"ly, or maybe just fuggly..... They look like the sort of footwear that was advertised in the "sunday supplements" 20 years ago at old people. They have no style to them whatsoever.
So if you own a pair and use them for anything other than keeping your feet warm, then you're a style free, "mug punter"...... cos they're fucking ugly !
The same applies to any type of womes shoes, that have been designed with thick soles. The use of a high heel is different, because the look and more specifically the height of a heel is more about how they make your female leg look i.e. the higher the heel, the more "scrunched up" the calf muscle is and the more shape it gives the lower leg. Fair enough then, yet to look good, the shape of the heel must be thicker, directly under the base of the heel, tappering down to a slimmer/thinner base that actually connects with the floor below the shoe (does that make sense ?). In other words, it's wider below the foot and tapers in. Of course, a womans ability to actually walk with such heels does take practice and is dependant on the height of the heel.
Now that is very different from shoes designed with thick soles or shoes that have a heel that splays out from the base of the heel. It doesn't matter which type, both heels that splay out and thick soles, irrespective of the style and design of the shoes upper, it make it look like you are wearing orthopaedic footware, designed for those with some sort of foot disability. In other words, like the Ugg boots, they're also fucking ugly! It doesn't matter who made or designed them, they're fucking ugly.
Before I finish, and yes, it's still shoes/footwear....... some other total cunt, seems to think that brining back "wedge heels" was also a good idea. Well the person who thought that, and convinced some shoe manufacturers that it was a good idea should be dragged out into the street and be beaten to death. Cos they're just like Ugg boots, thick soles and wide splayed heels, they look like shit, and they make the wearer look like a total fool, with a mental throw back to the 70's. They were ugly then, and they're ugly now.
It doesn't help that the current trend for women to wear "leggings", "skinny jeans" and thick wooly tights as trousers (which in a lot of cases, does look good/nice) because wearing any of the footwear I'm mentioned above, makes them look like they've got golf clubs, some with wooly/sheepskin covers, sticking out their arse. Or it makes them look like they're wearing footwear for the deformed!
Lets face it, there's a million and one styles and types of footwear out there. If you're gonna get something new, then make sure that it's either practical and/or stylish and/or appropriate, and more than anything else, it suits you. Hell, if need be, go and try on the new look/style, but get a friend to take a picture of you wearing them, take the image home, then scrub out the face, as knowing and seeing that it was you, is a distraction. Then look at your shape and see if that style will actually suit you and not make you look like a complete fucking idiot!
And yes, there's also a problem with mens footwear, except in most cases, it's more subtle. The ones that looks completely fucking foolish, are some of the designs of sports type footwear i.e. trainers and the like. Don't let the design nazis at the likes of Nike, Adidas, Reebok, etc etc churn out styles and designs of footwear that look fucking rubbish, but come with all the brain washing shite of how you won't be able to live without them - ha! you won't if you end up paying what they want to get out of your pocket! I mean, unless it's specialist sports footwear from professional sports people, then paying anything over about £50 or £60 is complete robbery. They don't cost a fraction of that to make, because they use sweat shops in the far east i.e. the "dollar a day workers"......
A lot of women and girls are still wearing "Ugg" boots. Why they might wear them in the first place is a better question. Yes, I'm sure they're warm, if the weather is cold, but they're fuck all use if it's wet. Plus too make things worse, they're fucking "Ugg"ly, or maybe just fuggly..... They look like the sort of footwear that was advertised in the "sunday supplements" 20 years ago at old people. They have no style to them whatsoever.
So if you own a pair and use them for anything other than keeping your feet warm, then you're a style free, "mug punter"...... cos they're fucking ugly !
The same applies to any type of womes shoes, that have been designed with thick soles. The use of a high heel is different, because the look and more specifically the height of a heel is more about how they make your female leg look i.e. the higher the heel, the more "scrunched up" the calf muscle is and the more shape it gives the lower leg. Fair enough then, yet to look good, the shape of the heel must be thicker, directly under the base of the heel, tappering down to a slimmer/thinner base that actually connects with the floor below the shoe (does that make sense ?). In other words, it's wider below the foot and tapers in. Of course, a womans ability to actually walk with such heels does take practice and is dependant on the height of the heel.
Now that is very different from shoes designed with thick soles or shoes that have a heel that splays out from the base of the heel. It doesn't matter which type, both heels that splay out and thick soles, irrespective of the style and design of the shoes upper, it make it look like you are wearing orthopaedic footware, designed for those with some sort of foot disability. In other words, like the Ugg boots, they're also fucking ugly! It doesn't matter who made or designed them, they're fucking ugly.
Before I finish, and yes, it's still shoes/footwear....... some other total cunt, seems to think that brining back "wedge heels" was also a good idea. Well the person who thought that, and convinced some shoe manufacturers that it was a good idea should be dragged out into the street and be beaten to death. Cos they're just like Ugg boots, thick soles and wide splayed heels, they look like shit, and they make the wearer look like a total fool, with a mental throw back to the 70's. They were ugly then, and they're ugly now.
It doesn't help that the current trend for women to wear "leggings", "skinny jeans" and thick wooly tights as trousers (which in a lot of cases, does look good/nice) because wearing any of the footwear I'm mentioned above, makes them look like they've got golf clubs, some with wooly/sheepskin covers, sticking out their arse. Or it makes them look like they're wearing footwear for the deformed!
Lets face it, there's a million and one styles and types of footwear out there. If you're gonna get something new, then make sure that it's either practical and/or stylish and/or appropriate, and more than anything else, it suits you. Hell, if need be, go and try on the new look/style, but get a friend to take a picture of you wearing them, take the image home, then scrub out the face, as knowing and seeing that it was you, is a distraction. Then look at your shape and see if that style will actually suit you and not make you look like a complete fucking idiot!
And yes, there's also a problem with mens footwear, except in most cases, it's more subtle. The ones that looks completely fucking foolish, are some of the designs of sports type footwear i.e. trainers and the like. Don't let the design nazis at the likes of Nike, Adidas, Reebok, etc etc churn out styles and designs of footwear that look fucking rubbish, but come with all the brain washing shite of how you won't be able to live without them - ha! you won't if you end up paying what they want to get out of your pocket! I mean, unless it's specialist sports footwear from professional sports people, then paying anything over about £50 or £60 is complete robbery. They don't cost a fraction of that to make, because they use sweat shops in the far east i.e. the "dollar a day workers"......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)