Month: August 2011

Over the past few nights, London has been ravaged by riots. Apparently caused by a community backlash in response to the killing of a criminal suspect during an arrest, it has spawned a whole sequence of riots across London which have spread to some disaffected areas across the UK. It’s not the epidemic that the media (and especially Twitter) would contend, but it highlights a discomfort in the inner cities – and this makes the new middle class (which includes anyone reading this) really uneasy.

But we have swathes of the twitterati middle class shouting “mindless! thuggery! scum!”. They’re pointing from their lofty pedestals at the disaffected.

Because the people rioting are obviously mouth-breathing morlocks. Would it actually be better if they had raised the Penguin Classics section, if there were youngsters running through the streets clutching works by Austen, Wordsworth and Shelley? We live in the most “aesthetic” era in history, enabled by technology. Of course they’re going to steal technology.

Thomas Jefferson:

“A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither.”

Because it’s important these people are imprisoned. For decades. That’ll help. This is the same genius that wanted the Army on the streets. People would die (and yes, it’s even more scary that he has a seat in the House of Lords. Obviously didn’t turn up to the orientation classes).

I imagine a dystopia caused by this willingness to turn to force, to fight fire with fire. To turn our armies, populated by the young and disaffected, upon their brothers and sisters.

So we surrender the streets to the Army and sit comfortable in our homes. Rather than resolve the problems. Yes, I hold the perpetrators of violence and destruction wholly responsible for their individual actions but I hold society (not just the government) responsible for creating a situation where the only response is violence. Why is it that we can find billions for corrupt bankers but we are being asked to tighten our belts when it comes to education, health and social wellbeing. Because the destabilisation of the banks would cause the disintegration of the country? Surprise surprise. Your actions to save everything may have caused the current unrest.

A change in society would require more effort. The disaffected will destroy everything they do not have a personal investment in. This has been shown time and time again. And yet projects which benefit the disaffected, which channel their abilities constructively, are being cut time and time again.

We’re going to have to be part of the change we wish to see.

Selflessness
Holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends.
Integrity
Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties.
Objectivity
In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.
Accountability
Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.
Openness
Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.
Honesty
Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.
Leadership
Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.

John Gruber highlights that Gogo Inflight WiFi usage reports iPhones are nearly 2/3 of mobile devices using in-flight services, the iPod touch makes up 20% and Android makes up 12%. By these numbers, three quarters of handheld devices accessing this WiFi service are made by Apple.

He also points out that the iPad accounts for more than a third of large screens (which carry a higher tariff) accessing the service and Mac OS machines make up a further 20%. So, over half of the “large” screen devices accessing this WiFi service are made by Apple.

In attempting to interpret this I’m going to make two sweeping assumptions.

1. Apple people are data hungry, ravenous in their consumption of news. They’re more tech-savvy, more travelled and generally more worldly.
2. The service is an additional expense and people who use Android (and other mobile platforms) are cheap. Or they read dead tree books.

While this assumption may be countered by the appearance of a data-hungry, extravagant and outward-bound Android user, I think the trend holds. And developers will continue to target the platforms owned by potential customers who have more cash, want to try new things and enjoy their technology.