28 Jan
2012
28 Jan
'12
5:17 p.m.
On 27 January 2012 21:50, Tony Duell <ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Accurate, yes, for technical stuff, although I'm not sure it applies
to things like comment columns.
Well, sure.
Ah, well, that is a common problem.
If you're curious:
http://search.theregister.co.uk/?author=Liam%20Proven
(Yes, you will need web access.)
I spent Yule Day at a friend's house in Edinburgh. He collects old
phones and phone equipment. The house - quite big and rambling with a
bunch of guys living there - has an internal switchboard and
extensions in every room, including the bathroom, just for fun. There
is a live, active Strowger exchange in the hall cupboard, and another
in bits in the hall.
I tried to persuade him to join ClassicCmp - I think he'd fit in well. :?)
Me, obviously, I'm a fake. I had to whip out my smartphone and look up
what a "strowger exchange" /was./
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884
There are many
different kinds of tech journalism. For starters, there
are the basic formal categories: news, news analysis, previews,
reviews, comparative reviews, features & columns. Then there is the
medium: daily/weekly/monthly. Then there is the audience:
nonspecialist/specialist/trade/domain experts.
However, all of those should be accurate and as complete as possible. And
alas many articles are neither.
Well, true. Sturgeon's Law says that 90% of everything is crap.
THis is not just a computer-related article/book
issue. My favourite is
nothing to do with computer oe electronics. It's that old photographic
chestnut that the focal length of your camera lens affects the
perspective of the image...
O_o
It's not
all just one thing.
As an outsider, or as a reader, I would not expect people to know or
Maybe not. But I do understand when an article is talking nonsense. Look, I am not expecting every article to contain
schematics and source
code. But when I read that 'Uni is a programming language that...' I know
that the author doesn't know what the hell he is talking about.
Is this a specific example? I've not heard of a language called "Uni"
myself.
understand
this, but it's as different as building a packing crate
compared to a Chippendale chair.
Sure. But what annoys me is the equivelent of claiming to be making
Chipendale chairs while actually you're making crates. I am not going
to attempt to defend myself and say that I aim to
As I said, I wasn;t poining my finger at you, or anyone else. I've not
read any of your articles, so I can't possibly comment on them. But Iv'e
read a lot of rubbish for other authors... produce the
sort of in-depth technical piece you would want. I am not.
I probably never will. But there is a need for things that are at a
less formidable technical level than that.
I also feel it's possible to simplify things too much and thus make them
incomprehensible.
I am interested in telephones and related stuff [1]. ?I read several
introductory books and found I couldn't understand them. I actually felt
that the operation of a Storwger exchange was beyond me. And then, by
chance, I got a copy of 'Telephony'. Volume 2 is about automatic
echanfes, and it contains full schematics. I spent a couple of weeks
reading it through, following the operation of overy relay. And it all
made sense. Yes, it was heavy going, but it was worth it. The
introductory books were useless.
[1] No, I am not interestiend in gettign free calls, or in listening to
other people's conversations. I am interesed in the electrical and
electronic side. To me 'Telephone hacking' doesn't mean what it means in
the gutter press (to listen to somebody else's calls(, it mans making
parts for old rotary dial phones from scratch.