saintbletch

I think the JK Rowling analogy is a good one alpine_saint. The question remains whether the 'story' will be interesting enough to get kids excited about developing software that is so basic compared to what they can download for free on their tablet or phone of choice. I hope so.

Agree with the general trend of moving to the cloud. But it does depend on what you're developing. Hardware is a commodity? The iPhone, the iPad, Kindles? I think you're limiting your thinking saint si. Having run Amazon EC2 instances, I wouldn't want to own hardware again - unless I was developing a device driver or custom hardware. Look at the packaging of this thing - or rather the lack of it. It was launched so that we get to see the circuit board because it's all about showing kids the physical hardware. It's about removing the layers of abstraction that makes technology inscrutable to so many people and showing our youth the direct result of their computing efforts.

...it might be nostalgia but I'm not quite that cynical. I imagine those behind the initiative remember the swathes of programmers that were created from the last mass-computer ownership drive, and who lament that the youth of today look at the wondrous technology around them and don't challenges themselves to get involved. I do like the initiative but I'm not sure it'll wake our youth from their treatment of technology as some sort of invisible or abstracted utility that is supplied to them from they know not where. But if this gets 10-16 year olds programming or even challenging themselves to consider what they could achieve in a career in high-technology then it'll be excellent.

The Hand.

Couldn't have put it better myself View From The Top. Personally, I'm not sure it's about the wealth that one amasses in one's life but perhaps more about how one got it and what one does with it. Surely? Not wanting to hijack this thread and turn it into a Bragg love-in but...we probably had the same albums at the same time VFTT. I have the cassette of Life's a Riot with Spy Versus Spy which was recorded on one side only. On the other side was an invitation to "Bootleg the Bragg - Confuse the Enemy". He actively encouraged bootlegging of his own gigs. I have other LPs that have "Pay no more than.£....for this record" actually built into the design on the front to limit the amount anyone should pay for his albums. I've attended benefit gigs for which he gave his own time freely. His "Capitalism is Killing Music" slogan was the closest he came to actually being anti-capitalist but that was more about a witty antidote to the "Home Taping is Killing Music" music industry campaign. I think if you're as active as he is (was) over such a long period of time and own the sole rights to the majority of your work, then you're going to end up wealthy. That he has amassed a fortune and has two homes must be an inconvenience and a something of a stick that people will use to beat him with. Also his involvement in the campaign to ensure that musicians got a fair deal from music downloads also made him appear keen to protect his income. I feel that he's done his bit overall, and the message was always more important than the money. But I'd freely acknowledge that I'm also probably too much of fan to see it any other way.

OK. I see where your views come from. So, to paraphrase you, you actually don't see hypocrisy in being a millionaire and believing that socialism should be about compassion. If that's the case then we have no argument. I just couldn't see how your prejudices about socialists generating wealth related to my post. Instead, you can see hypocrisy in having held extreme views as a younger man about certain behaviour and then potentially being shown to exhibit that behaviour later in life.Yep, I can see the potential contradiction there. But to torture your Animal Farm analogy a little further, I always saw Bragg as Boxer, back from the dead, a new set of tack, and having two stables but looking into the room at the pigs not in the room looking out.

I still don't see any hypocrisy between stating that socialism is about compassion and being a multi-millionaire. Why bring up his wealth? Is it not possible to be a wealthy socialist or a compassionate millionaire?

I do have watch myself, to make sure my enjoyment of his music doesn't make me blind to his faults. Thanks for the sanity check bridge too far.

An interesting non sequitur, but I'm not sure how someone's compassion for others is influenced by their wealth. You sound like a mate of mine who never stops reminding me that Bragg - the bloke who first politicised my head, has two homes! Beware false idols. Eh? I guess wealth might make it more difficult to relate to the day-to-day lives of others unless you make it your business to stay in touch with your roots. On pap's right-or-left-wing-ometer I'd certainly be left of centre (whatever we feel that might mean) but I don't have a problem with people amassing wealth - as long as it doesn't overtly exploit anyone. What is your problem with someone being a millionaire Sergei Gotsmanov?

Aww, I'm blushing Cap'n. You shouldn't read books - they give you ideas!

You're a thread-starter, a twisted thread-starter. pap, I can go for days, weeks even without posting on here. But you know how to push my buttons. I couldn't resist and it's a great question but then I saw the post below by Lord Duckhunter and I'm not sure I can add much to that.... ...except perhaps to add a massive simplification that Billy Bragg once taught me... Socialism should be about compassion but this is too weak a motive, too far removed from an end in itself, for those on the right.

But I'm not sure that the bankers were all 'not doing a good job' (my words). As employees, given the direction from the board, the rabid expectations of the market to continually generate greater returns and the lack of regulation; they did exactly what you would expect them too. And they did it well. Very well. It's the free market and capitalism in the raw pap. They invented ever more complex financial products, split up risk and sold it around the world so that it was impossible to understand exposure to risk, made short bets on the death of 100+ year old companies, exploited 'weak' world currencies, delivered returns, and in the process created a house-of-cards fabrication of assets to back their exposure. It was brilliantly creative and wonderfully 'successful' given the parameters they were allowed to work within. We have to change the parameters they can work within and as you say, we have to somehow force a notion of public duty and responsibility on to management of these organisations. Taking a gong away from Fred Goodwin isn't going make the next bank CEO to think twice about chasing rainbows. Shooting him in front of his family might. But we'll probably have to settle for somewhere in the middle.

Completely agree in principle, but I think the Lloyds' loss was largely due to a special charge for the mis-selling of payment protection many years ago. I read that the underlying profit was something in the order of £2.7B which means that from an operations perspective, employees are contributing to the health of the company and shareholder (us) value. If I were an employee that had delivered the £2.7B, I don't think I would want my part in that reduced due to the decisions of senior management 3+ years ago. The size of the overall bonus pool should however be influenced by the general health of the business - including special charges. All of that said, I do feel that the size of some of the bonuses paid by banks - and particularly the investment side are very unhealthy. But worshipping people and throwing massive amounts of money at them simply because they are the best at exploiting others is unlikely to result in loyalty, and there will always be another bank willing to pay more.

I see. For the record I don't intend putting anything in your mouth trousers - least of all words - well perhaps words are not quite the last thing I would want to put in your mouth. Anyway, that's why I asked if it was another sort of face-palm. I like reading your posts, perhaps I can ask you to post more than just the face-palm in future. It comes across as a bit arrogant and know-it-all. And I know you're not a know-it-all.

trousers, is that a or a or some other sort of face palm?

Community chest: You've won the lottery - 7 seasons of premier league TV money. Either invest in club's infrastructure or take a chance.

Chance: You are trading insolvently. Either pay £500K and chose your own administrator or have the court appoint one for you.

Pay poor tax £2.4M.

Why of course - the lovely Debbie McGee.

Well I think we've found the line of the thread. Classic. Thank you s**** fan!

Thanks for clearing that up.

Can I ask you a question Turkish? How do you reconcile such a passionate defence of our nation's status as a Christian country - given that you mentioned lower down the thread that you are 'not religious'. (OK several supplemental questions) What has motivated you to engage with the posters above and argue so passionately on this thread in defence of a belief system you don't ascribe to? I can understand that you might, as a someone who is not religious, still recognise our inherited trappings of Christianity. And you might even post in defence of them. But why go to such lengths to defend the Christian status of our nation? Just thinking out loud here so please don't take offence, but...is it possible that you can see that if Christianity is no longer the number one actively practised religion in our country, then it may in years come to be replaced by other religions/faiths from other immigrant cultures? I only ask because I can see that day coming - not for some considerable time probably, but given the trends it'll likely happen. I can also see those of other faiths pointing at future census results to try to use the parliamentary system to get rights and funding for their own religions in much the same way that the Christian faith benefits today. And the one constant will be that those who are 'not religious' will be forced to see their state wasting time and money on things that, from their perception, is just superstition. Much as it is today in fact.

Ha! Well according to Wiki (I know, I know), 2.6% of Brighton's population was Jedi in 2001 and Jedi was the fourth largest religion in the UK ahead of Sikhism, Judaism and Buddhism.

Are you ex-wing-communicated?

That may be the case Sergei Gotsmanov, but the survey was carried out by Ipsos MORI and is statistically significant with a likely error of +/- 2%. Whether we agree with the terms or the motives behind the commissioning, it is 'proper research' and the details are on Dawkins' foundation's site, so I think dismissing it with such an easy hand is lazy, clumsy or based on another agenda. But whilst we're debunking primary research, I seem to remember reading that in the 2001 census somewhere close to 1% of the population claimed to be Jedi.