Leave a comment

Comments 38

gonzo21 September 3 2013, 11:07:34 UTC
Yeah, the saturation of young children with hardcore porn off the internet is certainly going to lead to some interesting studies in young adults sexual behaviour and expectations over the next few years. I suspect the effect is going to be quite dramatic.

And yes, I blame the parents too.

Reply

cartesiandaemon September 3 2013, 11:28:48 UTC
I've already heard many stories of people apparently modelling their first dating behaviour on what they see in pornography, simply because it's the only prevalent depiction of sex they have to copy.

Reply

gonzo21 September 3 2013, 11:44:11 UTC
I can remember when one of my nephews was 9 or 10, there was a craze where all the little boys were swapping memory sticks and CDs around the playground with the hardest of hardcore porn on them.

And I thought at the time, when I was 9 or 10, the biggest thrill was finding the occasional boobs on late night channel 4. But for kids these days, they're watching the most bizarre and extreme degrading stuff. And as you say, thinking it is normal.

Reply

a_pawson September 3 2013, 16:34:46 UTC
Yeah I remember when I was about that age someone at school passing around pictures cut out of some Playboy's that he found in his fathers cupboard. That was probably the most pornographic thing most kids ever saw back then. Its so different nowadays.

Reply


bart_calendar September 3 2013, 11:10:01 UTC
I wonder how much of the sex worker stereotype exists because sexual policing among women means that many women have no idea at all that their friends are sex workers.

I can think of at least 10 women I know who are sex workers and while they've told me and some of their other male friends always swear us not to mention it to any of their female friends, because they are worried that they'll be judged.

This has led to many awkward nights when I've been sitting in a bar with three female friends - two of them escorts who sometimes do porn, one not - with the one who is not ranting against porn/prostitution, etc... leaving me to be the one who has to say "you know, it's not all exploitation" and then looking like a dirty old man to the non sex worker female friend.

Reply

bart_calendar September 3 2013, 11:11:05 UTC
And also to many awkward conversations on my blog - which has about 30 people (both male and female) who are secret sex workers among the regular commentators - when other women start making comments about sex workers and stuff and I want to intervene but can't really do so without outing the sex workers.

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

bart_calendar September 3 2013, 20:36:46 UTC
Glad I'm not the only one!

Reply


Spotify danieldwilliam September 3 2013, 11:15:48 UTC
I might put off buying an additional SONOS component for a few months if Spotify are taking music streaming to your stereo to a mass market. I’d still like one but I’d like to see what this move does to the price before I buy something.

Reply

Re: Spotify bart_calendar September 3 2013, 11:45:02 UTC
The thing is Spotify pays artists so little you might as well just pirate and then buy a T-shirt sold by the bands you like.

Reply

Re: Spotify andrewducker September 3 2013, 11:50:55 UTC
It pays about 1cent per stream. Which means that if I listen to a song 99 times then it's the equivalent of buying the single.

And that's if I listen to it 99 times _over my whole life_.

So rubbish songs that I listen to once or twice are a lot cheaper. But the songs I love are actually making the artists more than if I bought them.

Reply

Re: Spotify danieldwilliam September 3 2013, 12:25:18 UTC
Is that 1c into the hands of the artist i.e. after distrubution costs (?), marketing overheads etc?

And does that compare with paying $0.99 for the single in terms of the cutting and slicing of the revenue?

Reply


philmophlegm September 3 2013, 12:31:45 UTC
"I theorize that Nokia was either going to switch to Android or was on the verge of going bankrupt. (I suspect the latter: part of the deal included €1.5 billion in financing available to Nokia immediately, and the fact Microsoft had to take Asha but not the brand or maps suggests they were trying to keep the price as low as possible). And, had Nokia abandoned Windows Phone, then Windows Phone would be dead."

That sounds altogether likely.

Reply

momentsmusicaux September 3 2013, 12:38:48 UTC
Yup. Microsoft desperately saving face.

Reply

andrewducker September 3 2013, 12:48:27 UTC
Desperately staying in the game, anyway.

I mean, the first XBox lost money, but they were determined enough to stay in that they threw money at it and the 360 did pretty well (although I don't know if it actually made much money overall).

I suspect that they _really_ want to be in the phone business, because that leads into the tablet business, which is eating the PC business, which is where they make their cash.

If they let Android own the phone business, then everyone buys a Nexus 7, and then they don't see why they should buy a PC (or so the thinking goes).

Reply

anton_p_nym September 3 2013, 12:55:17 UTC
I can't remember where the numbers are, but I do remember hearing that the 360 was running a profit from the 3rd year on even counting the write-down due to the RROD returns. I don't think that Xbox line overall has yet broken even.

As for the Nokia take-over, a lot of the "inside baseball" folks in the industry have been speculating about that for the past year, ever since Surface came out IIRC.

-- Steve's interested in seeing how things turn out in a few years.

Reply


nancylebov September 3 2013, 13:24:50 UTC
Great bunch of links. I may resurface after I've read the reddit about Scientists, What’s The Craziest Thing In Your Field That You Suspect Is True But Is Not Yet Fully Supported By Data?

Reply

andrewducker September 3 2013, 13:50:30 UTC
Oooh, that science one is great, thanks!

(I read SlateStarCodex religiously - I'll get to him tonight!)

Reply


Leave a comment

Up