tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-313287772024-02-19T19:34:20.781+13:00Seeby Woodhouse's BlogWelcome to my Blog where I ramble about the environment, computers, science, business, politics and anything else that takes my fancy.Seebyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05841548941220735208noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31328777.post-79096915541429991112011-11-01T13:58:00.001+13:002011-11-01T15:36:23.454+13:00iPhone 4 to 4S and Vodafone to Telecom in under 24hrsIn my previous post, I was less than impressed with Telecom NZ**. However, in this post, I must say that I am extremely IMPRESSED with them.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhn7lvFzDeKdP3AlStSLdxZ413zqf17OvFlhGNfjsNEGRBdylt3bvMrKbQ5KMEe-fjuSMA6vMBYDPZYBDof4BgSuNRkKxdXRJGRvJfsbYBciL9HQguf4X9gROp_wM4xaoJO1zE6jA/s1600/photo%255B1%255D.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhn7lvFzDeKdP3AlStSLdxZ413zqf17OvFlhGNfjsNEGRBdylt3bvMrKbQ5KMEe-fjuSMA6vMBYDPZYBDof4BgSuNRkKxdXRJGRvJfsbYBciL9HQguf4X9gROp_wM4xaoJO1zE6jA/s320/photo%255B1%255D.JPG" width="239" /></a></div>
You see, I recently got my hands on a new iPhone 4S, flawlessly migrated every single setting, app, contact, account and picture on my iPhone 4 to 4S using only iCloud (no cables at all), and then started using the "Siri" voice recognition abilities of the new phone. To say that Siri is impressive would be a BIG understatement. You can dictate txt messages to send, you can book appointments, you can dial, you can do all sorts of things. In addition, you can ask Siri such things as the meaning of life (and get an answer), you can ask it inappropriate things, such as "Do you love me", and get clever responses. In short, Siri is pretty bloody amazing.<br />
<br />
However, the Siri service uses 3G data to send your voice to Apple servers to process and do the voice recognition, and this means that the service is only as good as the data service of your provider.<br />
<br />
I have been a loyal Vodafone NZ customer for over 15 years, never really questioning that they were doing a good job, and regularly paying a phone bill of around $400 a month. I have suffered from having 1 bar of signal strength on my iPhone at my castor bay house, and generally blamed the iPhone and not vodafone, and figured that 3G data was just never going to be that great, and would never compete with DSL or wifi type speeds.<br />
<br />
So it was with some amazement, that yesterday when my friend and I were playing with Siri, that he was getting almost immediate responses (via Telecom XT), and my phone barely seemed to be able to work (on Vodafone). That was the last straw for me, and I promptly walked into a Telecom XT store at 5pm yesterday and asked them to port my number across. I expected this porting process between telephone companies to be a horrible process, fraught with stuff-ups where I would probably lose access to my phone for a day or so, and maybe even my number, but I HAD to get Siri working, it's just that cool.<br />
<br />
So I was surprised to wake up at 7am today, and find that my phone was reporting "no signal". They can't have done my porting already? can they. To my delight, I put my XT sim into my phone, and found that it was connected with Telecom XT. Even more impressive, was the fact that at my house, I now had FULL signal strength, where I had previously only had one bar. And EVEN more impressive, was that I started surfing around on the Internet on my phone for an hour or so, before I realized that I wasn't connected to my Wifi network, but to Telecom XT. Using data on Vodafone is workable, but it's often slow and Facebook needs to be refreshed, shut down the app etc. On XT, the speeds are just incredible - I highly recommend the switch if you are a power smart phone user. The XT network is 3G ONLY, so there is never a time when you're on GPRS or no data or some slow speed connection.<br />
<br />
Even nicer, I found a plan on Telecom for $120 a month that gives me 3Gb of data (not one), 5 times as many txt messages (2,500 not 500), and about double the calling that I have been making on Vodafone. and my bill is now a fixed $120 a month, instead of a variable $400 a month. Thank you Telecom XT!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifdqjy_OdWrGZe3pTTM1xDB7ZksQBPgJyUZAiHstCz39UDprBV0fgg_HhuEhN1JNwj8293E8jNVSsO1PJRV5_jZt3RCHh8j0IGQUc98Ah6wgPlFGpFH2zuNFEnv04O4t-6_SX3Ow/s1600/photo.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifdqjy_OdWrGZe3pTTM1xDB7ZksQBPgJyUZAiHstCz39UDprBV0fgg_HhuEhN1JNwj8293E8jNVSsO1PJRV5_jZt3RCHh8j0IGQUc98Ah6wgPlFGpFH2zuNFEnv04O4t-6_SX3Ow/s320/photo.PNG" width="212" /></a></div>
The only issue I had, was that all my contacts no longer seemed to recognize the names in my address book. (see picture) If I looked at my phone, all my txt messages were now just numbers, despite the fact that the contacts were still there. Initially, I thought my exchange account must have been deleted, but upon calling a friend, I found that this is a bug. To solve the issue, you simply need to connect your iPhone to iTunes and download a carrier update, which fixes the issue with Telecom sending through spaces in the phone numbers, and the iPhone not recognizing the numbers.<br />
<br />
**I am not, and have never been a Telecom hater, I just call things as I see them. I think Telecom is a great company, with a marketing department that doesn't always do them justice.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Seebyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05841548941220735208noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31328777.post-41339725578933781822011-10-20T13:01:00.000+13:002011-10-20T13:01:15.370+13:00Did Telecom steal a young father's song?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguAmQsr5aPZtnrLczwkxl979vL8g-dyoCaOLZfZNynMomGwyjVAq7R3KqX-ceP68XtWz-PJ8P66pLspOuTKkCPFPBmPXpTdZyvj9AWGnrsbcH-XmQSV1PTYqA-7TMdYVQacYeueg/s1600/Abstain.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguAmQsr5aPZtnrLczwkxl979vL8g-dyoCaOLZfZNynMomGwyjVAq7R3KqX-ceP68XtWz-PJ8P66pLspOuTKkCPFPBmPXpTdZyvj9AWGnrsbcH-XmQSV1PTYqA-7TMdYVQacYeueg/s1600/Abstain.jpg" /></a></div>
<div>
I'm sure most kiwis will remember the disastrous Telecom "<a href="http://www.stoppress.co.nz/news/2011/08/thou-shall-abstain-from-a-sense-of-humour-telecom-and-saatchi-saatchi%E2%80%99s-all-blacks-campaign-of-adstinence/">Abstain for the game</a>" campaign, which consisted of getting poor Sean Fitzpatrick to drive around in a giant pink fist on telly, encouraging everyone in NZ to give up sex for the duration of the world cup. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Widely regarded as one of the WORST ideas for an advertising campaign in history, the concept cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As a result of a public backlash against the campaign, Telecom decided to put their efforts into a much more conventional, and family friendly "Backing Black" campaign, which has so far picked up a massive 131,000 followers on their <a href="http://www.facebook.com/BackingBlack">Facebook Group</a>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Recently, as part of Telecom's new "Backing Black" campaign, Telecom ran an "<a href="http://www.backingblack.co.nz/events/80/open-mic-night--game-build-up.html">All Blacks Anthem competition</a>" on Saturday 15th October, which was won by a young kiwi father called <a href="http://www.facebook.com/franko.yates">Franko</a>, with his song entitled "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9y70uIcAjY">We are one</a>", and who has been campaigning for his song to be <a href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/Support-Frankos-song-We-are-One-to-be-the-Anthem-for-the-All-Blacks/110418408993544">an anthem for the All Blacks</a> for several months.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
When Franko won Backing Black's song competition, he asked Telecom's representative at the venue, James Sommersett, if his song could possibly be posted to the <a href="http://www.facebook.com/BackingBlack">Backing Black Facebook group</a> since he had won the competition. Franko was told by Telecom that they would "think about it".</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Today, on the 20th October, 5 days after Franko won Backing Black's "Anthem" competition with his song "We are one", Telecom released a video advertisement on their Facebook group ALSO called "<a href="http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10150427149915903">We are one - backing black</a>" that was immediately "liked" by around 500 people. The imagery in the Telecom video is of historic moments in rugby, inspirational quotes, and backed by a random classical music track. Quotes include "United together", "One Nation", "One land", "One voice". </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
All of this is fine and dandy, except that a LOT about Telecom's video (including the name), is VERY reminiscent in concept and execution to Franko's "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9y70uIcAjY">We are one</a>" video, including the lyrics in his song.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgR5ZyoqlMugILli26FZr1W9wPpQHYxmZHHhKhv9EoPB_98NvU7j_4tViX99QkawHUbOjtxtNMz38UMj7bfL41-ba4bRwmTXL6MJec86oJBWv8O_cq3j5QEP9GwhFIUiBrBN5O5Wg/s1600/screen-capture-17.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; display: inline !important; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="304" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgR5ZyoqlMugILli26FZr1W9wPpQHYxmZHHhKhv9EoPB_98NvU7j_4tViX99QkawHUbOjtxtNMz38UMj7bfL41-ba4bRwmTXL6MJec86oJBWv8O_cq3j5QEP9GwhFIUiBrBN5O5Wg/s320/screen-capture-17.png" width="320" /></a>After people started making comments to this effect on the "<a href="http://www.facebook.com/BackingBlack">Backing Black Facebook page</a>", that their new "<a href="http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10150427149915903">we are one - backing black</a>" video reminded them STRONGLY of Franko's song, Telecom quickly changed the name of the video to "We are backing black", instead of "we are one - we are backing black", although the attached screenshot still shows the old title, as it was posted.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I should mention, by way of disclaimer, that I do have a personal interest in this matter, because I gave <a href="http://www.facebook.com/franko.yates">Franko</a> the money to produce his "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9y70uIcAjY">We are One</a>" video, as I was inspired by his song, and by his desire to create a song that truly brought all New Zealanders together in sporting events such as the RWC, The America's cup, and the upcoming 2012 olympics. There are people who have cried upon first watching Franko's video, and I am proud to have been able to help make it happen, as it is a great song, and has been a labour of love for Franko.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Now, it's nice of Telecom to voluntarily change the name of their inspirational video, but wouldn't it be better if they had simply promoted <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9y70uIcAjY">Franko's video</a>, since he DID win their OWN Talent competition with HIS song? Perhaps Telecom's marketing department has correctly deduced as a result of their disastrous "Abstain for the game" campaign, that they should NOT use their own ideas under ANY circumstances.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Like Adidas, charging people for over-priced jerseys, Telecom might do well to learn that brand goodwill comes from actually walking the walk, not from your marketing team taking the key elements from a young father's song who wins your talent quest, because they can't come up with anything original.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I'm sure <a href="http://www.facebook.com/franko.yates">Franko</a> would be interested to hear from Telecom on this matter...</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/t9y70uIcAjY?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>Seebyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05841548941220735208noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31328777.post-88616618765811693622011-07-12T16:47:00.007+12:002011-07-15T07:20:06.924+12:00Advice for Kiwis wanting to minimise roaming charges when in the USA<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">I am a frequent traveler, and get to the USA from New Zealand probably four times a year.<br /><br /><b>A dilemma that often faces travelers, is:<br /></b>a) do I use my regular mobile number overseas and pay huge roaming charges, but not have the hassle of stuffing around getting a new SIM and/or phone in the country I'm in, </span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">or do I:<br />b) go to all the effort of setting up a new local number, often for a short period of time, just to save a bit of money?<br /><br />In previous years, I simply put up with huge roaming charges, because of the convenience of landing, turning on my phone, and having it work straight away. But each time I went to the USA, I'd often end up with $500-$1,000 bills for a week or two abroad, and this only started getting worse and worse more recently, as the need to use data has increased to answer the odd email, or cache an invaluable google map. In addition, I now have a broad circle of friends in the USA, and some of them didn't like calling my NZ number to get hold of me down the road, as then they're paying through the nose, and so am I to receive the roaming call.<br /><br />I started looking for a better, more permanent solution. And now I wish that I'd done this the first time I landed in the USA. You can potentially save a lot of time and money by following my recipe, whether you are going to the USA on a short holiday, or travel there for business regularly.<br /><br /><b>Investigating the options</b></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">A year or so ago, I spent about three solid days going through all the carriers, plans and options for a temporary traveller in the USA. The USA has a BIG choice of phone companies, unlike a fairly simple telecommunications market like NZ, and let me tell you, it's downright confusing to work out the best deal, even for a techie like me. </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">There is <a href="http://www.att.com">AT&T</a>, <a href="http://www.sprint.com">Sprint</a>, <a href="http://www.verizon.com">Verizon</a>, <a href="http://www.t-mobile.com">T-mobile</a>, <a href="http://www.boostmobile.com">Boost mobile</a> and more. <a href="http://www.verizon.com">Verizon</a> runs a CDMA network (like <a href="http://www.telecom.co.nz">Telecom NZ</a> used to), which means that their phones don't have SIM cards, which ruled them out for me, as I wanted to use my iPhone and have all my contacts, settings and things preserved. AT&T had no pre-pay options, and I didn't want to sign into a term contract. Sprint was hard to deal with and I couldn't understand some of their pricing, and in addition, their pre-pay credit expired every month.<br /><br /><b>Choosing a carrier</b></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">In the end, I settled for <a href="http://www.t-mobile.com">T-mobile</a>, as their service was good, their rates were decent, they have an international presence (which means you can use your account for things like hot-spot access in Germany etc), and they had a pre-pay option. Most importantly, they have a feature that none of the other carriers had - which i discovered by reading the fine print. if you top up your account by $100 or more, then they increase the expiry time on any unused minutes to 1 Year, instead of the usual pre-pay 1-3 months. Note that this is a VERY important feature for me, as it allows me to keep the SAME number every time I go to the USA, without having to worry about getting a new SIM, topping up, etc. In addition, T-mobile has 4G support, which is nice.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial; "><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial; ">Every time I land in the USA now, I simply pop in my USA pre-pay SIM & I'm up and running in one minute flat. If by chance I wasn't going to be in the USA for over a year, I could still keep my number by topping up $100 on the <a href="http://www.t-mobile.com">T-mobile website</a>. So basically I have a permanent number in the USA for a maximum of $100/yr. The ONLY options with other carriers would have been to:</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial; ">a) go pre-pay and have to get a new number every trip (as my SIM would be de-activated after a month of no usage), or </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial; ">b) go on a contract at $50/mth for 1-2 years.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /><b>Cutting my SIM down to size</b></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Now that I had my T-mobile SIM, and permanent number, I had to get it working in my phone. I happen to have an iPhone 4, and these take micro-sims, which are smaller than a regular SIM. The bad news is that T-mobile doesn't sell micro-SIMs, because they don't support the iPhone. The good news is that you can cut a regular sized sim down to micro-SIM size with a pair of scissors. How I did it, was by taking out my existing NZ micro-SIM, lining up the contacts with one SIM above the other, and then cutting off all the excess plastic around the edge of the normal SIM, making sure it ended up exactly the same size as the micro-SIM I was using as a guide. I worked it out myself, but if you are scared, just google for more detailed instructions on the process.<br /><br /><b>Getting mobile data working</b></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><b></b>Once I put my cut-down SIM into my iPhone, calling and txting on the T-mobile network started working with no problems - as you would expect. However, it took me a while to figure out how to get Internet data on my iPhone, as the iPhone is not supported by T-mobile. </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">The first step was that i had to go into the "settings / general / network / cellular data network" menu of the iPhone, and enter the APN ID "<a href="http://wap.voicestream.com">wap.voicestream.com</a>". This tells the iPhone what gateway to use to get cellular data. </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">The next step was that on pre-pay, Internet access is disabled by default. You can buy unlimited access on your pre-pay SIM for just US$1.45 per day, but you have to go to "<a href="http://home.web2go.com">home.web2go.com</a>" on your phone, and enable the "T-mobile Web-day pass". The cool thing is that the iphone now has a portable wifi-hotspot feature, once you have internet on your phone, you can turn your phone into a portable hot-spot, and then you have Internet access for your laptop, Ipad etc, for just a total of $1.45 per day, rather than having to spend $30 a night on Internet like some rip-off hotels charge. It's not always particularly fast, but fine for checking emails and the like.<br /><br /><b>Keeping costs down</b></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Calling to any number in the USA on T-mobile is about 10c/min (it's cheaper if you top-up higher amounts as I described above), and TXTs are 10c each (to USA, NZ or anywhere). so basically for US$100, you get about 1,000 TXTs (anywhere) and combined minutes of calling (USA only), which seems to be plenty for me. I went to the USA for four weeks on one trip, and did a bunch of calling to all my friends in the USA every day, and it only cost me around US$15/week. </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Note than in the USA, unlike NZ, cellphone users have to pay to make AND receive calls. US landline users don't pay a different rate to call a cellphone than any other number. (This also means that no-one needs to know your USA number is a mobile - it could be a landline in the USA for all anyone knows). </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Calling back to NZ from your USA mobile will empty your pre-pay balance REALLY FAST, so it's a good idea to avoid it if possible. My solution was to simply TXT anyone in NZ I needed to speak with, and it's usually only a few cents a minute for them to call me. I am lucky in that I own a phone and Internet company (<a href="http://www.voyager.co.nz">www.voyager.co.nz</a>), so I get good calling rates to the USA! However even at Voyager's RETAIL rates of 5c a minute from NZ to the USA, someone calling my number in the USA from NZ is only going to cost $3 per hour. At that rate, I can afford to divert my Auckland work DDI, and have it permanently diverted to my USA mobile for anyone who wants to call me, and who might be worried about the NZ to USA toll charges.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><b>Apps to use</b></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Another way of keeping costs down, is of course to use the internet as much as possible, which at $1.45/day is a bargain. I have an app called "<a href="http://www.whatsapp.com/">whatsapp</a>" on my iphone that allows me to send unlimited txts and picture messages to anyone else on the network for free. I also use another called "<a href="http://heytell.com/">heytell</a>" that is a push-to talk application that works over the Internet, and allows you to use your phone like a walkie-talkie to anyone else in the world. This allows me to push to talk anytime I have a thought, and then my business manager in NZ can push to talk back and respond whenever she likes. Email, <a href="http://www.facebook.com/seebyw">Facebook</a>, <a href="http://www.twitter.com/seeby">Twitter</a>, <a href="http://www.skype.com">Skype</a> are also of course communication options, and there are many more. Skype for iphone can be used for video-chatting with the iphone's front facing camera, likewise <a href="http://www.apple.com">Apple</a> has FaceTime for that purpose too. All in all, I found on my most recent trip that I was spending $2-3 a day on TOTAL communications costs, and I had full access to the Internet and communications all day long. My friend who came over at the same time as me spent $500 over a short period, and this was just from turning his phone on in emergencies to grab the occasional email, and download google map data as required. Estimated savings - $100/day at least.<br /><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><b>Miscellaneous comments</b></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Before I left NZ, I changed my mobile voicemail to say "please don't leave a message, txt me, or call my USA mobile". So then every few days, I put my NZ SIM back into my phone, get any txt messages, and then use my USA mobile to respond to people at much lower costs.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">I couldn't get PXT messaging working natively on my USA number, although I didn't try very hard. I haven't bothered to put any effort into getting it working, because as above, I use <a href="http://www.whatsapp.com">WhatsApp</a> for that purpose. It will be a case of fiddling around with MMS settings, but because T-mobile doesn't support the iPhone, it's a matter of trial and error. It may also be because I don't have a plan with native data support (just the Web-day pass system).</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">I have put all of my numbers into my phone into the format "+64 xxx xxxx or +1 xxx xxx xxxx" for NZ or the USA, this way, the numbers work perfectly for all my contacts no matter which SIM I have in, and no matter which country. If you have numbers stored for Vodafone NZ as "021 xxx xxx" for example, and you txt using your USA SIM, the txt's won't go to the correct place.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /><b>Summary of the steps<br /></b>1) buy T-mobile SIM<br />2) cut SIM to micro-SIM size if necessary<br />3) top up SIM with min US$100 credit so number won't expire<br />4) change APN on phone to "wap.voicestream.com"<br />5) go to "home.web2go.com" on your phone's browser to activate web day pass - unlimited Internet access on your phone for US$1.45 per day<br />6) communicate via email, skype, whatsapp, heytell etc, basically any Internet method, and your costs will just be that $1.45/day<br />7) if you need to talk or txt people in the USA, it's not expensive, will just cost you 10c/min or txt<br />8) likewise of you want to TXT people in NZ - it's the same price 10c/txt<br />9) if you need to SPEAK to someone in NZ, TXT them, and tell them to call your USA number for cents per minute, rather than you emptying your pre-pay credit. Calling NZ off your pre-pay number will empty your credit in no-time. Voyager.co.nz and Skype offer calling from NZ to USA for just a few cents per minute.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">10) put NZ SIM back in to phone every few days to check TXT messages.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">11) Save all numbers in phone in full, correct International format.<br /></span><br /><p class="blogpress_location"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Posting Location:</span><a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?q=W%2019th%20St,New%20York,United%20States%4040.739426%2C-73.992080&z=10"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">W 19th St,New York,United States</span></a></p></div></div>Seebyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05841548941220735208noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31328777.post-15403356552296793172009-09-02T15:00:00.004+12:002009-09-11T13:59:23.885+12:00District 9 Movie: Brilliant!I enjoy going to the movies as much as the next person, but unfortunately I must say that most of the time over the last few years I've been sorely disappointed with most of the new releases I've seen. <div><br /></div><div>One of the worst movies I've ever seen was the recent release of 'GI Joe'. I could tolerate most of the stereotypical and poorly thought out plot, right up until the point where a piece of Antartica was blown up and then pieces of iceberg started sinking and piercing the stereotypical 'evil under water lair of the bad guys'. They probably spent about $2M on that CGI scene, and they couldn't think to get someone with a brain to work out that if a BIG piece of ice is floating above an underwater city, and you blow it up, the SMALL pieces aren't going to start sinking. Ice floats no matter what. Duh. Sooo painful.</div><div><br /></div><div>So I was delighted and surprised when I went to see 'District 9' produced by NZ's own Peter Jackson (and directed by Neill Blomkamp). This was a movie where you could easily initially assume that the plot would fall into the same "I've seen this movie 100 times before" category, with aliens, bombs etc, but Peter did a MASTERFUL job of getting on board with a movie that ACTUALLY made you believe it could be real - Filmed in a kind of 'CNN documentary' fashion, I don't think I've ever seen another movie quite like it. And I actually enjoyed the movie significantly MORE because there was no big name actor like Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise in the action scenes. Made it so much more believable. Peter must be starting to become very popular with film backers, because not only does he make great movies that I personally want to go and watch, but he must save at least $20M by not hiring big name actors. The small time lead actor in District 9 I think did JUST as good a job of acting the part as any 'big namer' I've seen recently.</div><div><br /></div><div>I wonder if there is a bit of a sea change happening in the movie industry at the moment - all the pressures of Piracy, DVDs, Home Theatres and YouTube toward non-star based films must be having some effect. If more films like District 9 start being made, and less of the Hollywood junk films that look the same as 100 other films, and you can't remember which film is which, because they all start the same people, then it's got to be a good thing...<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></div>Seebyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05841548941220735208noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31328777.post-81416532248687269782009-01-23T13:32:00.007+13:002009-01-23T15:50:11.094+13:00How to value a companyI was recently asked by a friend of mine how to accurately value a company. I guess my answer is that 'There is NO such thing as being able to ACCURATELY value a company!' However, there ARE standard methods by which to get an IDEA of value. The value of a company can really only ever be accurately obtained by what someone is willing to pay for it.<br /><br />In my time I have purchased around 40 small Internet companies, a bar, a Barter company, and various small other companies. I have also then sold a large internet company (the aggregation of all the small ones), and the other companies off again.<br /><br />When I am looking to purchase companies, I generally use a variety of valuation methods in combination, as one by itself is often not reliable. The valuation methods I most commonly use are:<br />- Assets minus liabilities (net position)<br />- Price / Earnings multiple<br />- Seeby's patented 'heads and eyeballs method of valuing an Internet company'<br />- Discounted Cashflows<br /><br />ASSETS MINUS LIABILITIES METHOD<br />This valuation method is very simply explained as: add up all of the things the company owns (assets), subtract what it owes (liabilities), and then you can come up with a figure. Say for example there was a company that owned $4M of residential properties, and had $1M of mortgages. It would be pretty fair to say that the value of the company was about $3M. However - this valuation method can break down or be incorrect at times. For example - say you had a property company that owned $100M of commercial property, and had $100M of debt. If the property was returning $10M a year in rents (a yeild of 10%), and had costs on the debt of 5% ($5M a year), then this company would be making $5M per year. Clearly the company has a zero net asset position, but is not worth 'zero', as a $5M per year cashflow would be very nice! (The fact that the company is highly geared and may fall over because the bank decides to withdraw funding is another matter again which should be taken into account)<br /><br />PRICE EARNINGS MULTIPLE<br />This valuation method is explained as: Take the money that the company makes each year, and then multiply that by some factor in order to work out the value of the company. If you had a company that was making $5M per year (as in the example above), you would expect that it was at least worth $5M (unless under risk of imminent closure), because you could buy the company, and then you'd have your money back in a year, after which you get money for jam. Personally, I like to buy companies at multiples of around 3x earnings, and sell them at multiples around 5x earnings, but companies are bought and sold on earnings multiples all the way from 1 to 100 or sometimes even more depending on all sorts of other factors. This valuation method might fall down or be incorrect where you had a company that had lots of assets and no debt, but didn't make much money. Think of a company that owns $100M of residential property with no debt, but none of the houses is rented out, so there is no income. Clearly it's not a great business from an income perspective, and close to zero from the p/e multiple valuation, but it's probably worth close to $100M.<br /><br />It's worth noting that a comon way that people such as Eric Watson, Graham Heart and other corporate raiders and leveraged buyout guys make huge amounts of money, is by buying companies that are valued in traditional ways such as described, but then they either break them up and sell off the pieces, or re-package them in such a way that a different valuation method can apply, that allows previously hidden value to be unlocked, and then retained.<br /><br />I myself have been researching a public company that has a net asset position of $20M, and solid earnings, and yet it's 'market cap' or net worth on the share market has dipped to just $10M because investors are scared of even good businesses right now. This means that if I was able to successfully buy the whole business for $10m, I could sell off the assets and I'd get $20M back (and $6M of their $20M of assets is just cash in the bank, so that would come back instantly). Companies like this are said to have a higher 'asset backing' than market cap - which is rare, but is definitely a good thing, because it means that if the company went out of business, the value of the assets sitting there is more than what you could purchase the company for. It's like buying a company for $500,000 that happens to own a $2M house with $1M of debt, and is therefore worth $1M, but no-body has picked it up - perhaps because the business isn't 'sexy'.<br /><br />SEEBY'S 'HEADS AND EYEBALLS VALUATION METHOD'<br />This method I developed myself after 5 years of doing deals to buy Internet companies. It is useful when the other two methods above break down, and can be used to find or justify hidden value. Most often it applies to Internet and tech companies, but doesn't need to. If you think of a company such as Netscape back in the Dot Com Bubble days, they didn't really have many assets other than a bunch of computers and desks (so wouldn't have been worth much on an 'assets' basis), they didn't have much revenue because they gave their product away (so they weren't worth much on a p/e basis), in fact all they did was lose buckets and buckets of money, and yet the sharemarket at various times valued them at hundreds of millions of dollars. The reason for this huge valuation was because of all the 'eyeballs' that they could control, which is an opportunity for future sales. Instinctively you would know that if you had a company that could advertise to almost anyone on the planet, and yet didn't have any assets, and didn't make any money, that it would still be worth a lot because of the potential to up-sell, move into different markets, evolve the business model etc. This is what Netscape was, but ultimately they didn't evolve - if they had evolved into Google in time, then their investors would have been very rich instead of losing their shirts. Using my own more complex inputs and this valuation method, I was able to accurately identify Internet companies that had hidden value that I could sell for a higher price, but that could be purchased for a low price based on traditional valuation methods.<br /><br />DISCOUNTED CASHFLOW<br />The discounted cashflow method of valuing a business basically takes into account the time value of money, and works out what future income streams are worth today. The discounted cashflow model might be usefull for valuing a company that has no income, no assets, but has a business plan that is likely to succeed and shows considerable growth in the future. Wikipedia probably does a better job than me explaining this, so have a look at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discounted_cash_flow">their article on the subject</a>Seebyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05841548941220735208noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31328777.post-81463872283591056812008-11-15T09:34:00.007+13:002008-11-19T01:33:35.543+13:00Dinner with Sir Bob GeldofLast night I went to a charity dinner in Auckland where Sir Bob Geldof was speaking. Thanks to the guys at Duco who organised the event, I was lucky enough to be seated on Sir Bob's table, and close enough to have a chat to him for a good half an hour or so over dinner about our shared passions of people and the planet (To be honest, Sir Bob is probably more passionate about the people, and I'm probably more passionate about the planet). My polite request for a photo was unfortunately stymied by Paul Holmes, but Paul had his own problems to worry about after publicly calling Sir Bob 'Bob Dylan' more than once during the evening.<div><br /></div><div>To be honest, Sir Bob is probably one of the best, most compelling, most human and accessible speakers I've ever heard. I've heard the Clintons, Obama, Kissinger, Branson and others speak live, and rarely have I been more moved or compelled by one person's passion and life story. Geldof has achieved some amazing things including being better known for Live Aid than singing, raising hundreds of millions of dollars for Africa, being the person instrumental in getting billions of dollars of third world countries debt waived, and pressuring the G8 leaders to do more to help. Surprisingly he had much praise for President Bush for doing more than any other President to help Africa, and related his humorous tales of them hanging out as buddies only a week or so prior.</div><div><br /></div><div>Sir Bob's information about how Europe has subsidies for farmers that mean that their farmers produce more food than could possibly be required, while African farmers are priced out of the global markets, while Europeans are taxed to store all of that excess food, and then ultimately dispose of it when it goes off, all occurring while millions of Africans regularly starve to death (especially during the Ethiopian Live Aid era), when Africa is just 8 miles away from Europe, did a good job of making everyone in the room feel ashamed to live in the first world.</div><div><br /></div><div>Sir Bob's aims of brining the third would out of poverty, or at least into a more equal playing field are certainly admirable, and definitely compelling - and I think that we have a human obligation to implement a lot of the policies that he is so passionate about. HOWEVER, as far as the planet is concerned, I have some real concerns that it's just NOT going to be possible in the utopian manner in which a lot of people including Sir Geldof would like to believe.</div><div><br /></div><div>Currently humanity is ALREADY using up the resources of the planet in a non-sustainable manner. In fact we are already chewing up the planet at a rate that is at least twice the replacement rate of natural resources in every area - so for example, forests are getting chopped down at least twice as fast as they are planted, fisheries are being exploited at least twice as fast as they can recover, water is being diverted for dams and irrigation twice as fast as our needs expand, and the list goes on. In fact, in the case of oil and coal, it took billions of years for those resources to form, and it's only taken around 100 years for us to use perhaps half the resource, so in that particular case, we're using up the resource perhaps a billion times faster than those resources will recover.</div><div><br /></div><div>What this all means is that even if our global population was to stay steady, and use the same amount of fuel, resources etc, there WILL be a point in the future where we come up against a wall (which will be MUCH worse than the financial crisis), where we simply run out of resources to live in the way that we have, and we will either perish in the billions, or find new, more sustainable ways of living. Even if you don't believe in global warming, it's still easy to see that the whole world has been built out of the energy from coal and oil, and that perhaps there is only 50 years of those resources left. The whole world is going to have to shift to running on sustainable energy over the next 50 years or we're stuffed. Considering it can take 20 years to get a dam consented, planned and built, this isn't a lot of time.</div><div><br /></div><div>Now here is where my concern for us and the planet really kicks in. As I have outlined - we ALREADY have a HUGE problem to deal with in the way that we are living in terms of Global Warming, and environmental degradation. Now if our impact on the planet was to DOUBLE, then obviously that problem would become a lot worse and we would hit the wall twice as fast. But I guess you might say 'well - we have to solve these problems anyway, so it won't be much worse to solve the problems for twice the number of people'. But what if I told you that our impact on the planet was going to be HUNDREDS of times the current environmental impact if we implement all of Sir Bob's wildest desires and lift all of the third wold out of poverty to a level of living comparable with our own?</div><div><br /></div><div>You see, the Impact on the planet "I", is not just a factor of population, but also a factor of the Affluence, and resource use of each person "A", as well as the Technological impact "T" of each person, such as whether they use a hand plow, or a giant mechanical plow. We have been told that the population is going to grow to 9 billion people by 2050, so that's already an increase in resource use of 50%. But one thing that a lot of people aren't aware of, or don't think about, is that the average third world person currently consumes JUST 1/50th the resources of the average first world person. So for example, they don't have a car, plasma TV, big house, lots of water use, throwaway meals, clothes etc. The other thing is that there are currently TWICE as many third world people as first world people. So if ALL of the third world was to achieve a level of Affluence on par with the first world, we would have twice as many people using 50 times the resources, or around 100 times the resource use. The other factor is if course the Technology factor, that allow a single person to have so much more of an impact on the planet than previously - think of a chainsaw vs an axe, a tractor vs a manual hoe etc. The technological impact I believe would be around a 10 times multiplier, but lets just assume that it doubles.</div><div><br /></div><div>So: our impact "I" on the planet in the future, if we lift the whole world out of poverty, will be an increase of: 50% (6 billion to 9 billion people); TIMES an Affluence impact on the planet of around 100; TIMES a Technological multiplier of at least 2; EQUALS: around THREE HUNDRED TIMES THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ON THE PLANET OF TODAY. Who wants to put their hand up and say that they believe that the planet could support a rate of exploitation 300 times current levels?</div><div><br /></div><div>Now, the first world is already in population decline, because we have a level of Affluence that makes us comfortable, and we don't need to have large numbers of children to support us. In some African countries, the AVERAGE number of children per family is 9. So the challenge is HOW do we lift the third world to a level of wealth where they don't feel the need to have so many children BEFORE the world runs into an environmental crisis hundreds of times worse than the current financial crisis? Well - to be honest, I just don't believe that we can. My personal opinion is that in the coming decades we will see mass starvation and famines that make the Ethiopian crisis of 1984 look pale by comparison. We need to do what we can, but perhaps its time that the world started talking about having voluntary goals of a world population lower than todays, and a 'one child' policy similar to China's if the third world is to receive aid at all?</div><div><br /></div><div>I'm NOT suggesting we kill anyone off, or let people starve if we can prevent it. BUT if humanity is going to co-exist with the rest of the animals and the planet for thousands of years to come, do you think it would be better to have a steady-state of around ONE billion people on the planet, all living sustainably and harmoniously, all being able to live close to the sea or in beautiful natural surroundings, or do you think it would be better to have TEN billion people all living in a polluted and charred earth, and all living in tiny concrete apartment blocks next to smouldering rubbish dumps? It took 10,000 generations of humanity to reach one billion people, and it will take just over ONE generation to go from one billion to ten billion. Perhaps it's time that we put the needs of the planet and the millions of future generations first, and talked about that taboo subject of setting a population limit for the planet before it's too late.</div><div><br /></div><div>Sir Bob Geldof visits NZ herald article <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10543191&ref=rss">here</a></div>Seebyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05841548941220735208noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31328777.post-20691806804401642842008-10-19T22:45:00.004+13:002008-10-19T23:16:56.457+13:00John Key under fire from the sloppy thinkersOn page 24 of the NZ Herald on Sunday today (and quoting from the opposable thumb blog), there is the following statement: "Key would be the last person qualified to run an economy, especially as the particular business he was in - investment banking - is all about maximising profit pretty much regardless of other considerations, and doubly especially given the current crisis, which has been visited on us by the colossal mismanagement of, you guessed it, investment bankers".<div><br /></div><div>I didn't think this was fair on Key, so I thought I'd make a few brief comments:</div><div><br /></div><div>- If you were in a plane, and planes all around the would started falling out of the sky, and then your pilot died, would you rather put someone in the seat with plenty of prior experience as a pilot? or would you think it sensible to blame the problem on all pilots and put someone with no experience in the job instead? </div><div>- All Kiwi's should want the country to do well - what is wrong with being aspirational and having a leader who wants the country to run profitably? I like the idea of sound business principles being applied on a country level so that we all end up wealthier. If Key has experience and a successful track record in maximising profit, then isn't that a good thing for us all?</div><div>- Would Key *really* be the *last* person qualified to run the economy? I suppose a P-addicted gang member could be more exciting...</div><div>- Is cutting political commentary really your skill if you use expressions like 'doubly especially'?</div><div><br /></div>Seebyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05841548941220735208noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31328777.post-23562554348562660012008-10-10T22:42:00.005+13:002008-10-10T23:29:24.606+13:00Encourage standardisation, reduce waste, and save the worldStandardisation is a wonderful thing. Without standards, we wouldn't have telephones, tyres that fit our cars, electrical appliances that you can plug into the wall, batteries to fit anything, or in fact almost anything that you see in the modern world. The Internet was in fact so successful ONLY because it was based on standards that any computer, on any platform could access, and so it cut through all those Mac/PC/Desktop/Server and other device compatibility issues that used to exist, and therefore made electronic information much freer and accessible to anyone, on any device.<div><br /></div><div>But although standardisation is all around us, there is still SO MUCH that could be standardised, and wherever you standardise, you generally reduce inefficiency, waste and cost. And if you can do that, you can help reduce the environmental mess that we have all contributed to, that has spoilt almost every corner of our precious world.</div><div><br /></div><div><div>Let me give you a simple example of how standardisation could save consumers money, save businesses money, AND be good for the planet - all at the SAME TIME.</div><div><br /></div><div>- Think about it - Every laptop, cellphone, camera, music player or portable device currently comes with it's own plug in charger when you purchase it. I just counted, and I personally have around 20 of these little black transformers lying around my house unused at present from old laptops, digital cameras, or devices that I can't find or can't remember what they are for.<br /><br /></div><div>- Imagine what a revolution it would be if ALL the electronics companies worldwide actually decided JUST to standardise on a power adapter, so that every time you wanted to charge something, you could easily borrow ANY charger - at your friends house for example. It's an environmental crime that there isn't a universal charger with a standard voltage for mobile phones, a universal charger for laptops that would work on any laptop, and so on. <br /><br />- The companies who make all the devices would all benefit, because they wouldn't need to produce all those millions of chargers every time they produce a new product - saving them money. Chargers could then be sold separately (a new revenue stream), so you'd just buy 2 chargers - for example - one for work, one for home, for your laptop. When you got a new laptop, you'd simply keep your existing chargers for home, car and work, and hopefully you'd get a discount on the new laptop too because it wouldn't have come with a charger.</div><div><br />- The planet would benefit, because far far fewer plastics and raw materials would be used in manufacturing things that are just thrown away, so resources would be conserved for other things, and less pollution and waste would reach landfills, meaning fewer heavy metals and poisons leeching into our water supplies.</div><div><br />- Other benefits would pop up as a result of the standardisation. For example - charging leads or ports could be provided at places like bus terminals and airports, and in every new car, so that you'd be able to recharge any device you had with you easily if it went flat by accident. Wouldn't it be nice to have a port on the bus that would re-charge your iPod and phone?</div><div><br /></div><div>This is just one example I can think of where standardisation would produce a benefit for everyone, and the planet too. How about other ideas such as making standard components for every day items, so that not everything needs to be thrown out to be upgraded? I must have 10 old, unused cellphones lying around from years of being in business - imagine if I could re-use the cases of the phones, and just buy a new 'brain' for the phone much more cheaply in order to upgrade. Again - it would be cheaper for consumers, and produce vastly less waste. What about making standardised computer cases with easy to upgrade parts, so that anyone can upgrade to a new PC more cost-effectively without having to take the whole metal case to the dump?</div><div><br /></div><div>Most people have no idea how much energy is required to actually manufacture the things we use. To make a plasma TV, literally hundreds of tons of rock are dug up to mine the raw materials. Humanity needs to start being smarter, by re-using things as much as possible so that things can be upgraded rather than continually manufactured and thrown out a few months later. Re-using things and standardisation will not only be good for our pockets and the environment, but I believe will become a vital part of combatting Global Warming in the years to come.<br /><br /></div></div>Seebyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05841548941220735208noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31328777.post-85107541566017961952008-10-05T12:36:00.000+13:002008-10-05T12:31:58.211+13:00Maths, The worlds largest machine, and the US economyLets face it - regular people just aren't that good at doing maths, and don't have brains that comprehend really huge numbers. In fact - almost no-one does, because our brains didn't have any evolutionary pressure to deal with numbers in the thousands, millions, billions or trillions.<div><br /></div><div>Ask most people how much a a Billion dollars is, and they have a concept in their head of 'more than a million', but in actual fact it is 1,000 times more, which is actually a really large and staggering number, considering how large a million already is. Try counting to 1,000 sometime, and it will give you a much improved concept of how much bigger a Billion is than a Million.<div><br /></div><div>This issue of comprehending large numbers gets us into trouble, because we often end up making scenarios equivalent in our minds that really aren't. For example - 3,000 Americans dying in 9/11 was a terrible tragedy, but was it really that much more important than the 1,000,000 people that died in the genocide in Rwanda, where basically the whole country cut each other up with machetes, an event that the world pretty much ignored?</div><div><br /></div><div>Geeks are the perfect people to deal with these issues, because they are much more used to dealing with large numbers. Where a normal person might be tempted to spend $100,000 to try and save a first-world person dying of self-induced lung cancer and diabetes from smoking and over-eating, Bill Gates does the math and works out that he can save people in Africa for just a few bucks each, and therefore that is a much more efficient way to spend his money.</div><div><br /></div><div>So when it came to spend a huge amount of money, and build the worlds largest and most advanced machine, of course geeks were our only option. A week or so ago, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider">Large Hadron Collider</a> was switched on, bringing to life an amazing machine that: was built by 10,000 of the worlds smartest people; must be kept colder than the outer reaches of space; can accelerate particles to 99.999999% the speed of light; has a diameter of 27kms; houses the worlds most powerful electromagnets; uses more power than most countries; and can essentially re-create the conditions that were present at the dawn of the universe. </div><div><br /></div><div>Now - The LHC was deemed so expensive and complex that no one country could fund it or design it - so a consortium of 80 countries pulled together to try and find the money to answer the largest question of all - "where did we come from, and what are we made of" - and the total cost of the LHC? Around $10 Billion. Now - knowing that figure, and the fact that 80 countries pulled together to find that kind of money (which is actually an ENORMOUS sum), do you feel a bit more nervous that the USA is having to bail out it's financial institutions to the sum of SEVEN HUNDRED BILLION? I sure do - that's about $2,500 for every man, woman and child in the USA, and considering how many people I saw there that can't even afford a square meal, it makes me wonder if the problem won't take a bit more fixing than good 'ol boy Bush signing a cheque.</div><div><br /></div><div>I think that the only way that that kind of money can be found is if the USA frantically starts printing money (as I believe it has already been doing to fund the 'war on terror'), the end result of which I suspect may be a permanent devaluation of the US currency. Are we witnessing the end of US world dominance? I suspect so, but we'll all be worse off, as the US has done a pretty good job of keeping the world an orderly place. In the future, with a USA that's falling apart, high oil prices, high food prices, Global Warming, and an environment that's falling apart every where you look, humanity will really need to start rolling up it's sleeves...</div></div>Seebyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05841548941220735208noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31328777.post-37147710721075870232008-10-04T15:57:00.002+13:002008-10-04T16:55:28.916+13:00Palin: A celebration of mediocrityI've been watching the US vice-presidential race unfolding, and I have to say that I'm scared. Sarah Palin i'm sure is a nice, decent person, but frankly I don't believe she has any of the necessary skills to run the world's most powerful country. Which is exactly what will happen if the Republicans win the upcoming election, and then the ageing Mcain kicks the bucket mid-term.<div><br /></div><div>The scariest thing is that the Americans seem to be completely in love with Palin precisely because she is 'normal'. "She's one of us" they say, She's not elitist, we like her 'down to earth' values. But in what other profession would you ever give someone huge responsibility because they are 'like you', rather than having the necessary skills? Would you want a pilot who is a 'good guy', or an excellent pilot? Would you want a brain surgeon who plays ball on Sundays, or who has trained for more years than anyone else?</div><div><br /></div><div>Another concerning thing is Palin's confidence - she seems to have no sense of her own limitations. She's up for anything. Everything is an immediate "YES". No financial experience? "no worries - i'll guide the country through this difficult period". No international political experience, and I only just got a passport in the last few months? "I'll handle the crisis in Iraq and Iran". No medical training? "I'll operate on this wounded soldier right now!". </div><div><br /></div><div>To be honest I would be a lot more comfortable if she had some idea of her own inexperience. But her enthusiasm combined with her extremely right-wing values such as "No abortions - even if the mother is under-age and has been raped", and her belief that everything happens due to the will of god, and not because of complex political interactions, make her a ticking time bomb in international relations. If she ever controls the world's most powerful army and largest Nuclear weapons arsenal, then I think we all need to be very, very afraid... (watch <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r36Xc0GG4iQ">this video</a> to laugh and shudder)</div>Seebyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05841548941220735208noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31328777.post-73004100883480331612008-10-03T14:56:00.000+13:002008-10-03T14:58:31.318+13:00Windows 98 Rocks! (In 2008)I recently employed a university student to do some work for me, and when I sat him down at the computer I had set up for him, was embarrassed to find out that all of a sudden it had decided to grind to a complete halt. MS word took around 5 minutes to start up, and even the shiny Vista start button took half a minute to pop up with it’s lovely animated fade in.<br /><br />Which got me thinking: how come my $800 Playstation3 can reliably immerse me in amazing 3D, highly-graphic, CPU-intensive gameplay day after day, but a relatively new $1,600 workstation can’t even render a boring, static word document without having some problem or another?<br /><br />After checking for rogue programs, doing a full virus scan, and other trouble-shooting basics, no solution to the problem could be found. The only solution seemed to be to do a complete re-install. Then I realized that I have been doing this same routine on all of the PCs I own, and some of the Macs, at least once per year for the last 10 years or so.<br /><br />As I was looking for my box of software installation disks, and the one that came with this particular machine, I came across on old version of Windows 98 second edition, and suddenly had a sneaky thought – why not give downgrading a go?<br /><br />As the installation process for Windows 98 started on my P4 machine with 2GB of ram, I couldn’t help giggling joyfully at the speed of the install, and the fact that I could remember installing this piece of software on a machine with a 2GB hard drive – let alone 2GB of RAM.<br /><br />This giggling turned into sheer amazement once I had installed a few old applications - they would open instantly almost in advance of a mouse click. I had never experienced such speed! Of course, I started running into problems – such as the fact that drivers haven’t been released for parts of the machine, or many of my peripherals. But it got me thinking:<br /><br />I realized that hardware and software manufacturers have been keeping in step - machines are getting faster and faster, but software is getting more and more complex at exactly the same rate. Which means that the actual speed of our experience on the computer has been exactly the same for years. In many respects, I can’t remember Windows 3.1 being any slower to do word processing than my current machine.<br /><br />One solution could be to make all the software companies take an enforced 2-year sabattical so that they end up a bit behind the hardware guys, and then hopefully our computers will always be speedy!<br /><br />Another option perhaps is that someone could write a game for the PS3, that is actually an advanced, 3D version of Windows 98, with word processing, spreadsheets, databases, storage and internet browsing, and is also a closed system (like a game) so that it can’t get viruses or slow down.<br /><br />Then with all the productivity we’d all gain by everything working so much faster, and the money we’d save by the whole package being cheaper, we could get off the computer and read a book every now and again!<br /><br />*of course I’m partly joking with my suggestions. But perhaps…Seebyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05841548941220735208noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31328777.post-1160970460480033632006-10-16T16:38:00.000+13:002006-10-16T16:47:40.490+13:00Don't ever buy a F***ing Ferrari...Ok. I'm F***king depressed. My stupid Ferrari decided to blow up a couple of months ago, so I've been paying for the damn thing, and not getting to 'enjoy' it at all.<br />I never missed a gear change the whole time I owned it, and yet after 75,000 km's a Ferrari gearbox apparantely has to blow up. Shame that it's not like a Toyota where you can abuse it for 400,000 kms and it'll still work perfectly. And oh yes - the clutch needs replacing too.<br />Cost to fix gearbox and clutch? More than the deposit on a decent NZ home. What a waste of time Italian engineering is!<br />So basically, because there were only 1400 of my car ever built, my options are now either to sit on the car while it depreciates and gets rusty waiting for a second hand gearbox to turn up somewhere in the world, or trade it in at a pretty nasty loss.<br />Unfortunately it looks like the trade in option is the only one left. Total cost of owning a Ferrari as an experiment for 18 months? Well over 6 figures. *OUCH*<br />NEVER buy one. Not only are they mechanically a damn nightmare, but you can't get parts, repairs are expensive, and little things that work perfectly in Japanese cars will drive you mad - such as leaky windows, lights that don't work, flat batteries, electrical problems, aircon problems, poor build quality compared to a Japanese robot and many more...Seebyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05841548941220735208noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31328777.post-1153265398684371082006-07-19T11:26:00.000+12:002006-07-19T11:29:58.696+12:00Easy!I'm impressed with Blogger's ease of set up. Not too many intrusive questions and up and running straight away. I notice that the sub-domain setup is not instant (i.e. seeby.blogger.com doesn't work for a while), so this might be a bit of an issue for users who can't guess that it takes a little time to start working, but otherwise very good. I notice that blogger is owned by Google - I wonder if Google developed it, or whether they are now just buying up small innovative companies like everyone else...Seebyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05841548941220735208noreply@blogger.com0