Guy Kewney from PCW - RIP

Discussion in 'DIY Computers' started by Nozza, Apr 15, 2010.

  1. Nozza

    Nozza Guest

    Nozza, Apr 15, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. :-(

    He'll be greatly missed by those of us who've grown up through the rise of the PC.

    Andrew McP
     
    Andrew MacPherson, Apr 15, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
    "He was lined up to speak to the BBC News Channel about a legal wrangle
    between Apple and the Beatles case, but in a now famous blunder, a
    Congolese graduate - Guy Goma - who was waiting in the BBC lobby to be
    interviewed about a job as a driver - took his place live on TV.

    The resulting interview has gone down in television history."

    I remember that - hilarious.

    RIP Guy.
     
    Grimly Curmudgeon, Apr 16, 2010
    #3
  4. Nozza

    Adrian C Guest

    Adrian C, Apr 16, 2010
    #4
  5. We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
    drugs began to take hold. I remember Albert Ross
    I knew the writing was on the wall when it reduced to about half its
    previous thickness two or more years ago, as advertisers fled.
     
    Grimly Curmudgeon, Apr 16, 2010
    #5
  6. Nozza

    Rob Morley Guest

    I think that's happened to all the magazines as more people just find
    stuff on the Internet rather than the newsagent's shelf. Remember back
    in the early/mid 90s when PC mags were like phone books?
     
    Rob Morley, Apr 16, 2010
    #6
  7. Indeed. Loved the Register's dig about the front cover - the Sinclair
    machines were always pictured with a chimp :eek:) including a chimp in a
    bowler hat for the QL, which was supposed to be a business machine...
    Hadn't read it for years. The PC comparison tests missed the pint - by
    the time the mag went into print the industry had moved on.
     
    Mike Tomlinson, Apr 16, 2010
    #7
  8. Eggzactly. Same goes for the top shelf stuff - why pay for dead tree
    pr0n when it's available for free on the 'net? (Not that I know anything
    about that, you understand.)
     
    Mike Tomlinson, Apr 16, 2010
    #8
  9. Nozza

    johannes Guest

    Yeah, I used those to get extra height under my trolley jack when lifting
    the car up. Now no longer possible.
     
    johannes, Apr 18, 2010
    #9
  10. Nozza

    Adrian C Guest

    Bit of a pity, as something printed clearly needs to be distributed
    'downmarket' to improve the computer literacy of a generation and the
    one before it, which nationally ain't too great.

    The national mainstream media do a very poor job here, and seem more
    interested in telling people why they should *not* get on with the big
    bad nasty internet, the daily maul especially :-(

    If someone had some proper writing talent, and could fire something
    sensibly dumbed down into the Womans magazine sector (or the weekend
    magazine supplements) on exactly what a web browser is, where to type
    the WWW stuff, how to read and send email, how to maintain PC security,
    how to backup data, and cope with other problems - without doing a
    'Which' magazine "Gosh, don't you wish you could be doing this!!" type
    of thing - then we would be getting somewhere.

    However, 'exclusives' of the useless lives of idiots is seemingly of
    more critical importance :-(
     
    Adrian C, Apr 19, 2010
    #10
  11. In <>,
    What, there's something worse than the BBC - where nobody's allowed to
    mention Wikipedia without claiming it's 100% inaccurate (although they
    do let Stephen Fry off occasionally)?
     
    Tony Houghton, Apr 19, 2010
    #11
  12. Nozza

    Tim Watts Guest

    Indeed. There is probably better access to information now than ever before,
    eg:

    Full British Medicines online (check those drugs): bnf.org
    What your MP is upto: www.theyworkforyou.com

    Not to mention Wikileaks

    Although some information takes a little digging, there is the best search
    engine of all time: google

    Can the *majority* of people be bothered? I suspect, sadly, they are happy
    watching prole TV aka endless reality drivel, fictional and "true life"
    *cough*.

    In this respect, I suspect we were better off with 3 TV channels - there
    certainly seemed to be less drivel on in the 70's when there wasn't the
    bandwidth to waste and the BBC and IBA concerned themselves with "quality"
    both of picture and content.
     
    Tim Watts, Apr 19, 2010
    #12
  13. I think the problem is, non-Internet-savvy people think it's
    authoritative, whereas in reality many (most?) articles are written by
    those with a vested interest or an axe to grind.

    I ((((love)))) Wikipedia but it is best consumed with a generous pinch
    of salt. Like much of the internet, really.
     
    Mike Tomlinson, Apr 19, 2010
    #13
  14. In <>,
    What the other media would have you believe is that anyone and everyone
    being able to edit it means that it's full of bullshit. But it also
    means anyone can correct it, and there are more people interested in
    keeping it correct than using it to put rubbish online.

    Whenever I've read Wikipedia articles about some subject I (think I)
    know well, I've never found anything which I think is significantly
    inaccurate, whereas TV and newspaper reporters frequently just make
    things up.
     
    Tony Houghton, Apr 19, 2010
    #14
  15. Nozza

    Tim Watts Guest

    Indeed. One of my friends is a british train driver (mainline) and I used to
    lodge in his house. Whenever various "incidents" happened on the railways
    in his region, it was very interesting to compare the media reports (BBC,
    better newspapers) with what he found out.

    It wasn't that the railways were lying or the media were deliberating making
    it up. It was more like a report on the usefulness of USENET being made by
    a reporter who thinks IE=Internet and thinks Word is the operating system.
    The resulting media report was formed around a core nugget of truth but
    with the lack of understanding of the subject matter and thus the lack of
    knowledge to research further, the reporter took the story, made it "public
    friendly" and not only lost the point completely, but actually changed the
    emphasis in some areas completely.

    After that I decided to take all newspaper reports with a pinch of salt. If
    I care about the issue I let the media alert me to its presence and go off
    and do some more research of my own.

    Wikipedia OTOH seems to do very well, especially for popular articles where
    many "experts" are vetting and contributing which leads to the odd rogue
    being nullified.

    Not only that, you get to see the edit history, unlike the BBC, who edit
    their web news stories regularly but do not leave a record of the changes.

    Cheers

    Tim
     
    Tim Watts, Apr 19, 2010
    #15
  16. In <hqif9v$e21$-september.org>,
    It's not just lack of understanding, they do make things up. My sister
    and mother once appeared in a local paper because they graduated
    together (albeit with different nursing qualifications). Hardly tabloid
    sensationalism, but the "quotes" were fictional :).

    I've also seen some made up crap about a celebrity's ex who I know.
    That was in the Mail's gossip column, but I think I'd blame it on being
    a gossip column rather than being in the Mail.
     
    Tony Houghton, Apr 19, 2010
    #16
  17. Yes, I concur.
    Integrity. They've heard of it.

    I read the Guardian - their liberal view appeals to me and they provide
    a platform for controversial figures to express an opinion. Every day I
    look at the BBC news, the Telegraph and the Guardian and look at the
    slant each applies to a given story. It can be quite illuminating.

    I also read Private Eye, have done for many years. Interesting what
    goes on behind our backs with our money.
     
    Mike Tomlinson, Apr 20, 2010
    #17
  18. Up to a point I prefer the non-liberals, because they don't try to
    hide their editorial bias.

    On the other hand, having seen the Mail tout "Party X to reduce tax"
    on the front page a couple of weeks back, while the Guardian next to
    it said "Party Y to increase tax very slightly more than Party X will
    increase tax"... sometimes the middle papers *are* infinitely better.
    And the Eye is the top of the lot.

    Cheers - Jaimie
     
    Jaimie Vandenbergh, Apr 20, 2010
    #18
  19. Nozza

    Tim Watts Guest

    Jaimie Vandenbergh <>
    wibbled on Tuesday 20 April 2010 10:03

    I'm sure the Mail wasn't as bad 30 years ago - my parents took it and they
    were average intelligent people. Looking at it now, along with all of of
    the other tabloids bar the broadsheets in tabloid format, they make me
    sick. Sensationalism, lack of factual reporting, grotesquely opinionated.
    Sick, because the majority of the population are taking their views on the
    world from these pitiful rags.

    Personally I find the Independent about the best at present.

    And Private Eye of course ;->
     
    Tim Watts, Apr 20, 2010
    #19
  20. Nozza

    Adrian C Guest

    And similar poison in the guise of the Metro and the Evening Standard,
    distributed free in influential cities of this country.

    A particular nasty trick of theirs is to make a bigoted headline in
    large print, and a dull article with little relevence to the headline.
    The article is skipped, and the bigotism is taken home by the reader.

    A problem worldwide too, with the URL spamming that DMGT excel in, that
    this rubbish gets regurgitated in newsgroups and picked up as 'UK
    factual' by foreign news organisations.

    The mail used to have far-right links with 'organiations' such as the
    BNP. If the Conservatives get their way in in the next parliament, those
    links are likely to be remade for the following local elections. :-(
     
    Adrian C, Apr 20, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.