Dave's Free Press: Journal
http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/journal
violence, pornography, and rude words for the web generationen-us2020-09-25T16:23:18Z Goodbye cruel world!
http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/journal/id/goodbye-cruel-world
In the rather unlikely event that anyone is reading this, then this is the last post. I have decided to restart my blogging <a href=https://davesfreepress.wordpress.com/>at Wordpress</a>.<p>I have also decided to split my <a href=https://larvalstageumpire.sport.blog/>cricket blogging</a> to another Wordpress blog, and technical blogging out to <a href=https://dev.to/drhyde/>dev.to</a>.<p>And for the duration of the Pestilence Of 2020 I am keeping <a href=https://plagueyearjournal.com/>yet another</a> Wordpress blog. 2020-09-25T16:23:18Z The Most Important Word in Publishing
http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/journal/id/the-most-important-word-in-pubishing
Dustin Kurtz works for a publisher, and <a href=http://www.mhpbooks.com/there-are-exactly-zero-defensible-reasons-for-authors-to-link-to-amazon/>writes</a> on their blog. His thesis is that authors do themselves a dis-service if they link to Amazon, and that they should instead link to some random small independent bookshop if they want to visitors to their websites to buy their wares.<p>In this piece, he omits the single most important word in the whole of the publishing industry. That word is "readers". He does mention customers twice, but only in the context of making sure that a bookshop is willing to post stuff to them and when he says "even if not a single customer finds them through you, [the bookshop] will be happy" - which is wrong. A bookshop to whom you direct no custom at all won't be happy. They won't be sad either, they just plain won't care, or even notice. Well, I suppose they might be pissed off if they made a special effort to stock your wares when you told them you'd be linking to them, and then didn't sell any. At no point does he consider even for a moment what readers, the people who are ultimately paying his salary, want.<p>Actually, the whole piece is confused. For example, he says that most people will go straight to Amazon in the first place and not visit author websites at all (which is probably true) but then thinks that that is a good reason for authors to not link to Amazon. Errm? The links to Amazon are for people who <em>have</em> visited the author's website and <em>have not</em> gone straight to Amazon. What people do who go straight to Amazon is irrelevant. Once someone has come to your website, they are, provided your site doesn't suck, yours, and they will keep coming back. Just like I keep going back to <a href=http://www.antipope.org/charlie/>Charlie Stross</a> and <a href=http://www.hughhowey.com/>Hugh Howey</a>'s websites, via their RSS feeds.<p>But anyway, back to readers. What readers want is a combination of convenience and reliability. Amazon does both of those brilliantly, and with excellent customer service for the very few times that they screw up.<p>So, authors - please don't link to small local bookshops. It's far less convenient for your readers, who end up with a bazillion separate accounts with a bazillion separate online shops, and have to type all their details in a bazillion times, often fighting against idiotic web forms that simply won't accept their address* or phone number** or email address*** or whatever. Once the reader has fought through all that, he has to hope that your order fulfillment process works, that you know how to get stuff reliably to his door, and that if anything goes wrong you have heard of customer service.<p>Nah. Far better to just use Amazon.<p>In addition, I hear anecdotally that some authors make more money in Amazon Affiliates kickbacks than they do in royalties. If you don't link to 'em, I'll go there myself anyway if I want to buy your stuff.<p>* too many insist that all addresses have a state or a county, or don't have enough lines<p>** many won't accept phone numbers from other countries<p>*** many won't accept addresses with a + sign in them 2013-06-29T13:26:51Z The Nicaragua Canal
http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/journal/id/the-nicaragua-canal
<a href=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Ship_measurements_comparison.svg/800px-Ship_measurements_comparison.svg.png><img src=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Ship_measurements_comparison.svg/800px-Ship_measurements_comparison.svg.png width=300 align=right></a> I doubt it'll happen - just about every mega-project that flares up in the news never actually happens - but one thing in <a href=http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/nicaragua-rushes-on-for-canal-deal-with-chinese.php>this article</a> grabbed my attention.<p><blockquote>" Many have been asking whether Central America needs two canals, even in an age of growing world trade. "</blockquote><p>No-one who cared about free trade would ask that. Competition is Good. While there are other routes between the Atlantic and the Pacific, they are either very long (around south America) or not reliably open (Northwest Passage). The Panama canal is also not big enough for many modern ships, and still won't be even after the current upgrades are complete (see image to right). Broadly speaking, the larger your ship the cheaper it is to run per ton-mile of cargo, and it's less polluting too. And, of course, shorter routes between the same two ports are also cheaper. 2013-06-12T17:53:06Z Electric cars: the green threat
http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/journal/id/electric-cars-green-threat
Finally, the media are <a href=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19830232>realising that electric cars are not such a good idea</a>.<p>I find the hoops they jump through with lifetime mileage assumptions interesting. They assume that electric and petrol/diesel cars have the same lifetime mileage, and then run the sums for different assumptions. Even with that bogus assumption, they struggle to show that electric cars are cleaner than normal ones. They can show that they emit less CO<sub>2</sub>, but that ain't the same as being clean. You also have to account for, as an example, the polluted run-off from the mines where the rare minerals that go into the batteries come from, and the waste products from processing those minerals into batteries.<p>I read some research a coupla years ago which took into account that hybrids' batteries (and I presume that this applies to all-electric cars too) give an expected lifetime mileage of only 100,000 miles, whereas yer typical diesel pickup has an expected lifetime mileage of 250,000. While the pickup may have a higher environmental cost over its entire lifetime, the environmental cost *per mile* was lower because manufacturing the hybrid took so much energy, produced so much nasty pollution, and involved the sacrifice of baby elephants and seals with ritual incantations to the Elder Gods.<p>But it's all a bit suspect, because none of this appears to take into account where they are driven and how they are driven. Not only are different vehicles and powerplants more suitable to different types of driving (eg motorways, low speed country roads, stop/start city traffic, carrying a heavy load, ...), they quite probably attract different kinds of people with different driving styles. You'd generally buy a Prius (for example) because you care passionately about polar bears, but you'd buy a normal car because you care more about making the best use of your time and money.<p>In summary, if you care about the environment, you should avoid electric cars, avoid hybrid cars (unless you live in a big city and expect to do most of your driving there; hybrid wins in stop/start and slow traffic), buy a small efficient diesel. There are useful data <a href=http://carfueldata.direct.gov.uk/search-by-fuel-economy.aspx>here</a> and <a href=http://vanfueldata.dft.gov.uk/Default.aspx>here</a>. 2012-10-05T08:24:20Z Kiva microfinance
http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/journal/id/kiva-microfinance
I'm a loan shark. Through <a href=http://www.kiva.org/>Kiva</a>, I've been lending money every month for the past few months to people in the third world so that they can invest in their businesses or education. I feel that it's a far better way of being charitable than just giving money. When you give money, it often gets used and then ... it's gone. And even when it does go to something useful in the long term, there's still a lot of waste. When you make a loan to help someone start or expand a business, they have something tangible at the end of it, and will be <em>less</em> reliant on charity and loans in the future. They can employ people too, and build up a reserve themselves to get them through lean times. And finally, when they pay back the loan, that money can go straight into making another loan, helping another person.<p>Making small loans for well-defined capital projects where the borrower gets something tangible at the end of it is just so much more efficient than giving to charity, and it's very affordable. By putting lenders together into ad-hoc syndicates, very small amounts of money from many lenders come together to make substantial loans.<p>So far, I've lent to a Palestinian who wanted to buy mics and sound mixing equipment for his radio station; to a Colombian to buy tools and equipment to set up his own metal-working business; to a Kenyan so she could buy seed to expand her farm; and to a Tajikistani student to pay for university fees.<p>There are, however, lots of people looking for loans on the site who don't meet my criteria, and who won't gain from taking a loan. Take <a href=http://www.kiva.org/lend/458414>this example</a>. She wants to borrow money to buy stock for her shop, which she will promptly sell, and then be left with a debt to be paid off over 14 months. She might make a very small profit, but once she's sold it all she'll need another loan to buy more stock, and so on, a never-ending cycle of debt and interest payments. No ma'am, not gonna "help" you with that.<p><a href=http://www.kiva.org/lend/463352>This</a> is even worse. He wants a loan to pay off a loan and to buy food. This chap seems to have taken on debts that he couldn't pay off in the first place, so how can we trust him to be able to pay off the loan he's asking for? And borrowing money <em>for food</em>? That's just about the worst thing you can buy on credit, as you will have absolutely nothing to show at the end of it.<p>I really recommend Kiva - or one of the other microfinance sites. They do good work, and I don't think that any other form of philanthropy comes even close to achieving their benefit to hassle ratio. Just be careful not to invest in dependency. 2012-09-08T13:10:50Z Olympic evictions
http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/journal/id/olympic-evictions
Gotta love the Olympics. Not only is it costing many times more than was originally budgetted, not only are the organisers quite open about <a href=http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/journal/id/olympic-bribery>taking bribes</a>, not only are they going to screw up public transport with their <a href=http://www.gamesmonitor.org.uk/node/1495>Zil lanes</a>, and they're happy to <a href=http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/journal/id/olympic-job-losses>close down small businesses and put loads of poor people out of work</a>. They do, of course, bleat about how building the stadiums for their pointless events employs so many people, but it only employs them temporarily, whereas many of the businesses they closed down were well-established and could have been expected to provide employment for the long term.<p>But now we find out - and are shocked, of course, because we could <em>never</em> have predicted this - that landlords are <a href=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17986383>evicting tenants</a> from housing near games venues so that they can rent them out to rich visitors. The only thing that's surprising about this is that some landlords are doing it illegally at short notice, and that the press have only just noticed. I knew that it would start happening in about January, as tenants would need two or three months notice to quit and then landlords would need some time to spruce up the properties before the scum they'll be renting them to arrive.<p>Of course, after the Olympics have been and gone, rents will go back down, but not to current levels. Having had their refurbs paid for by Olympic vermin, landlords will be able to set their prices higher than they are now.<p>Thankyou very much Seb Coe you <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Coe>midget Tory CUNT</a>. 2012-05-08T13:37:27Z Oh look, more Olympic financial incompetence
http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/journal/id/olympic-costs-yet-again
So we've known for <a href=/david/journal/id/LJIMPORT-More-Olympic-cost-over-runs>for years</a> that the Olympics would end up costing nearly four times the original budget, being £9.3 billion instead of the £2.4 billion we were originally told. Naturally, those extra seven billion will be taken from the pockets of tax-payers. Now the National Audit Office <a href=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16036435>says that even that much higher figure might not be enough</a>.<p>And now, for no apparent reason, the budget for the opening and closing ceremony has just been <a href=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16030785>doubled</a>. How it managed to cost £40 million in the first place is beyond me - all that's needed is: <ul><li>a brief welcoming speech; <li>for the participants to take the "Olympic Oath" which they will then blatantly ignore; <li>a brief closing speech</ul>and what on earth they'll find to spend £81 million on I have no idea.<p>Thankyou very much Seb Coe you <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Coe>midget Tory CUNT</a> 2011-12-06T22:36:07Z Rugby World Cup roundup
http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/journal/id/rugby-world-cup-roundup-2011
<table> <tr><td style='font-weight: bold' align=right>Best game</td><td>Canada / Japan</td></tr> <tr><td style='font-weight: bold' align=right>Best national anthem</td><td>Italy. Those of Wales and Russia are also excellent, but Italy's was better suited to the soprano-heavy choirs used.</td></tr> <tr><td style='font-weight: bold' align=right>Best Morris dance</td><td>New Zealand</td></tr> <tr><td style='font-weight: bold' align=right>Best facial hair</td><td><a href=http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/home/teams/team=50/player=26476/index.html>Adam "Bigfoot" Kleeberger</a> (Canada)</td></tr> <tr><td style='font-weight: bold' align=right>Worst facial hair</td><td><a href=http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/home/teams/team=51/player=27143/index.html>Louis Stanfill</a> (USA)'s pathetic moustache</td></tr> <tr><td style='font-weight: bold' align=right>Best hair</td><td><a href=http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/home/teams/team=38/player=21349/index.html>Radike Samo</a> (Australia)'s humungous 'fro</td></tr> <tr><td style='font-weight: bold' align=right>Best team</td><td>New Zealand</td></tr> <tr><td style='font-weight: bold' align=right>Hardest workers</td><td>Japan, against France; and Fiji, against South Africa</td></tr> <tr><td style='font-weight: bold' align=right>Most exciting team</td><td>Fiji</td></tr> <tr><td style='font-weight: bold' align=right>Most exciting players</td><td>Ma'a Nonu (NZ); Martin Castrogiovanni (Italy)</td></tr> <tr><td style='font-weight: bold' align=right>Most impressive player</td><td>Tendai Mtawarira (South Africa)</td></tr> <tr><td style='font-weight: bold' align=right>Biggest disappointment</td><td>Takudze Ngwenya (USA) having no impact whatsoever</td></tr> <tr><td style='font-weight: bold' align=right>Biggest annoyances</td><td>New Zealand's timezone, and scrums not being fed straight</td></tr></table> 2011-10-23T13:14:23Z Star ratings revisited
http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/journal/id/star-ratings-revisited
<a href=/david/journal/id/star-ratings>Just over a year ago</a> I started awarding books and things that I reviewed shiny gold stars. I also retrospectively scattered stars on some of my older reviews.<p><!-- ack '\[\% stars' `grep -l keywords:.*books *txt`|sed 's/].*/]/;s/.*\[/\[/'|sort -r|uniq -c --><p>I thought it would be a good idea to see how many of each I'm awarding, and so how well I'm sticking to my rating system. I'm expecting a <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution>normal distribution</a>, with the mean somewhat above 3 stars to reflect the fact that I deliberately don't read shite, and that lots of what I read is because other people have raved about it. Well, the results are in ...<p><table> <tr> <td>17</td> <td><img src=/david/journal/images/green.png width=170 height=10></td> <td> - Excellent: 5/5</td> </tr> <tr> <td>24</td> <td><img src=/david/journal/images/green.png width=240 height=10></td> <td> - Very good: 4/5</a> </tr> <tr> <td>24</td> <td><img src=/david/journal/images/green.png width=240 height=10></td> <td> - Good: 3/5</a> </tr> <tr> <td>19</td> <td><img src=/david/journal/images/green.png width=190 height=10></td> <td> - Meh: 2/5</a> </tr> <tr> <td>1</td> <td><img src=/david/journal/images/green.png width=10 height=10></td> <td> - Rubbish: 1/5</a> </tr> <tr> <td>0</td> <td></td> <td> - DANGER: 0/5</a> </tr></table><p>I think this is good. It's roughly what I'd expect given my reviewing criteria and the small number of options available. If I had a larger scale to work with - if, say, I was awarding marks out of 20 - I'd expect a smoother drop-off, and at both ends instead of just at the bottom end. 2011-06-20T12:26:54Z Olympic ticketing fiasco shows the Olympics aren't wanted
http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/journal/id/olympic-tickets-show-olympics-not-wanted
The lottery by which Olympic tickets were allocated is universally known to have been a poorly-organised disaster. In particular, you should consider that money to pay for tickets was taken from peoples' credit cards as early as the 10th of May but it's only today that LOCOG could tell people what tickets they'd actually got. That's a bit odd, cos I would have thought that they'd have known that, and therefore been in a position to tell people, back on the 10th of May.<p>But there's something more interesting hidden in the numbers describing the ticketing fiasco. 700,000 applicants got tickets, and 1.2 million didn't. This means that less than 2 million people in the entire country wanted to go and see any of the events, and 58 million didn't. Just 1 in 30 people are interested. For those one in thirty, the government has bent over backwards, introducing <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Olympic_Games_and_Paralympic_Games_Act_2006>oppressive laws restricting trade and free speech</a>, <a href=http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/blog/2010/jul/29/london-2010-olympics-games-lanes>fucking up public transport</a> and, of course, pissing billions of pounds of Londoners' money up the wall. All of this, for something that just one in thirty people give a shit about. For god's sake, no-one tell the government how many people care about football!<p>Thankyou very fucking much Seb Coe you <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Coe>midget Tory CUNT</a>. 2011-06-22T16:13:54Z