Crazy in the Dark

Once more to the boundaries! Of week out that is. Air temperature markedly increased. Executed constitutional with only a light jacket and a glow-in-the-dark boonie hat. No, not a Daniel Boone fur hat, a jungle hat except it’s made of eye-burn-orange cloth that glows nastily in reflected illumination. That’s so I can be seen by any others, especially highly strung out young women with pepper spray. Or electron accumulator wands.

On the subject of crazy in the dark I ran across a few articles. First, an article about the maths knowledge/skills of biology graduates. [Link] The simple result is that they aren’t calculate. In fact, they’re something of order sub-high schule in such.Which isn’t a surprise to me since I have had to deal with biology acalculates for years. And yes, that is redundant. The distressing thing is they brag about it. Makes them almost as bad as bogs.

Almost.

Next, an article [Link] maundering about whether ‘digital’ magazines are dead? I find the adjective odious. The magazines are not themselves digital. A better designation would be eMagazine or some such but then one expects stercus from WIRED. What is worse is that the piece is an apology for eMagazines being slow. No wonder. Not many people want them. I don’t. I know that isn’t very sustainable but that’s it. Even though slablets satisfy Gullidge’s Manifesto that you be able to take the reading to the entropy cellar with you, I don’t find them utile. And I want something I can get back to and fundamentally, ePublishers come across as charlatans and carpetbaggers. And like everyone else I don;t want to pay for eContent.

I used to subscribe to WIRED. Found it has a pony to poo comprehension ration of less than 0.1. So I dropped the subscription. I still get them in the post. And put them in the recycling bin. Which is an improvement. Now WIRED is pretty direct that it isn’t looking to ORFs as its demographic. But its demographic, at least those among my colleagues, say it is eCrap. Or pCrap. Take your pick. So I have to wonder about the integrity of an eMagazine article by WIRED.

And lastly, an article [Link] proclaiming that the internet sleeps. Another WIRED article. Also fundamentally inaccurate. It turns out that what happens is that the internet gets disconnected – or deconnected? – during local sleep time. The humans turn off the physical equipment, the routers and boxes and such. To save money on electron potential difference flow.

What makes this interesting is other articles I have read about kids staying up all late hours to use the internet, No reconciliation. To be expected from WIRED?

I have been frustrated this week with the small screen. I now understand why GEN Ys spend all their time staring at their phones. It’s because the things have worse execution speed than an original IBM PC. Mine has turned blue with the different languages I have used to express my dissatisfaction with it. There really is a difference in screen size and speed. And the phones have neither.

Advertisements