The Tax Payers' Alliance and the BBC

I'm getting fed up with the bloody Tax Payers' Alliance. They seem to crop up more and more on the news and in newspapers, trotted out to provide a comment about council or government spending which usually involves them saying that whatever it is is bad news, and that tax payers demand better.

The Guardian has been giving them some attention recently, exposing their funding and ties to right wing politics. It's ironic that many of their highest profile supporters are also people who benefit most from government spending such as those involved in building the 2012 infrastructure (the Olympics being a TPA target) or transport subsidies (don't get the TPA started on that). The contradictions are rife.

As the cleverly named anti-TPA group The Other Taxpayers' Alliance points out, journalists seem keen to include quotes from an organisation that only has 20,000 "members" (they don't pay, just sign up to an email) rather than, say, a union that represents a million or more taxpayers.

It's worth visiting The Other Taxpayers' Alliance for some excellent analysis of the TPA and an amusing quote generator.

I read a story on the BBC's news website earlier that typifies the sort of crap we're having to put up with. Kent County Council has spent £20,000 on producing an online soap opera to help educate young people about issues such as sexual health and personal safety. Sounds interesting, sounds innovative, sounds like the sort of thing that other councils and organisations would be interested in hearing more about. Let's see some samples, let's hear from the people involved, let's hear from some of the target audience. What a great story! Does it work? Does in not work? £20,000 seems quite cheap...

Oh but I'm sorry! The story doesn't cover any of that. Instead it simply says how much it cost and then devotes a third of the story to a quote from Matthew Elliot, chief executive of TPA which the BBC describes as a "pressure group which campaigns for lower taxes."

Here's the section:

The TaxPayers' Alliance said people would prefer to pay lower council tax than spend money on experimental drama.
Matthew Elliot, chief executive of the pressure group which campaigns for lower taxes, said: "I'm sure most taxpayers would rather their money was in their pocket in the form of lower council tax, especially in the middle of a recession.
"Most young people will see through such blatant propaganda.
"It would be better to teach them about these issues in the classroom than try to be young and hip, reaching them by online television."

So here we have a problem. It's clear Matthew Elliot hasn't seen the video, or spoken to the people involved. He says "I'm sure most taxpayers would rather their money was in their pocket in the form of lower taxes". So he's not talking about research here - he hasn't gone out and asked anyone. He's offering an opinion. But he hasn't offered any evidence or context. For example, how much does Kent County Council spend on youth education and other projects each year? What's £20,000 as a proportion of that? How much does it cost to get someone off drugs? Or help a single teenage mother?
He then says "Most young people will see through such blatant propaganda" but hey, if a journalist at the BBC can't see through the TPA's blatant propaganda I think it's a fairly safe bet that young people will fall for anything too. Never mind, because there's another contradiction here: "It would be better to teach them about these issues in the classroom" because of course, young people will fall for anything if it's taught in the classroom in front of their peers rather than watched privately at home, won't they? You don't have to be a genius to know why online video is likely to be more successful than forcing a lesson on teenagers from a teacher who'd rather be talking about anything other than underage sex.

The Other Taxpayers' Alliance has a very funny media guide on their site which includes an analysis of a story on Moray council's advertisement for a street football coordinator. The TPA spat feathers and their press release was dutifully printed in various newspapers without any attempt at seeing the bigger picture. Their assertion was that spending money on someone to set up street football was a waste of money as all it takes is a couple of jumpers for goalposts and a football. Er, wrong! Street football is actually an excellent scheme that has managed to reduce petty crime and vandalism in areas where it's been tried out. It saves more money than it costs, but it needs coordinating because just dumping a couple of cardigans in the road doesn't cut it.
Street football is an excellent example of an easy, cheap scheme that gets results and should be encouraged. It saves taxpayers money, it doesn't cost them anything. But the arses at TPA don't care about that. They don't do research, they don't network, they don't think.

Well I give in. I just sent a complaint to the BBC which I've asked them to reply to. I'll post their response here when it comes. I think it's ironic that the BBC, a taxpayer-funded organisation that really should know better, is stooping to the same level as tabloids by failing to give value for money by simply recycling a press release and not entering into any actual journalism beyond getting a balancing quote from the council rather than, oh I don't know, talking to the people involved?
It's also ironic that the BBC is reporting this story without realising that the biggest producer of educational video tackling similar topics is... the BBC! Brilliant.

Here's my complaint:

In your story on an innovative scheme in Kent to educate young people on social issues using online drama, the report gives a great deal of coverage to criticism from the Tax Payers Alliance. There is no analysis and there are no examples of the videos in question.

There is no attempt to interview people who work in the area - for example social workers or teachers - or who have worked on the project, or to talk to the intended audience. Neither is there any context provided, For example, have similar schemes produced results? What are the costs associated with the issues being dealt with (for example, how much does it cost taxpayers to deal with the consequences of poor sexual health or personal safety?)

The quote from TPA is clearly one from someone who knows nothing about the issues involved, or who has seen the materials, or who has entered in to any research on the matter. The UK has many academics and professionals who would have been better options for comments based on knowledge, rather than politics.

This is a potentially very interesting story but has been turned in to the sort of thing I'd expect from a tabloid newspaper - hardly the standard I expect from the BBC. Perhaps the TPA should be asked if this is the sort of quality journalism we expect from our license fee?

I am particularly concerned that you have used the Tax Payers Alliance, yet again, for a comment. This organisation is not representative of tax payers, undertakes no research other than a trawl through local papers looking for odd-sounding stories and, as demonstrated in this story, is clearly willing to come up with some damning reactionary quote rather than look in to the story more carefully before offering a considered opinion.
It's "membership" is tiny, especially compared with, say, the unions that represent the people concerned here: social workers, teachers, council staff. Or, indeed, the many voluntary organisations that work in this area. These would have made far better sources.

This is a very poorly written story, and relies on an uneducated non-specialist comment to frame the project as "a waste of money" when in fact it could be money very well spent. A better-researched story might have offered illumination. Instead it demonstrates poor practice and poor journalism.

Bear baiting and cock fighting (aka US journalism)

The last couple of weeks of The Daily Show have been particularly good - some sort of end of term feeling, perhaps? Or maybe it's the increasing frustration with the absurdities of the health care debate in the US (especially the bizarre claims about the UK's NHS which, incidentally, isn't even the model that's being proposed for the US).

Anyway, it's good to see someone in the US media call the "death panel" idiots out on their claims. It's a shame it has to be a comedian on a cable channel.
Here's the difference between UK and US journalism:
In the UK, someone makes a bizarre claim. Journalists investigate it and if it's loony they ignore it (and make a note not to listen to that person again). If there's something behind it, they report the story, not the claim.

In the US, it seems, the claim itself is the story. Irrespective of whether there's any substance to it. Just get that person on camera and let them make their claim, then ask someone to respond. It's like bear baiting, or cock fighting. Except the journalists are the owners, setting up a fight for the entertainment of the audience.
Where's the analysis? Where's the fact checking?

I'll tell you where: it's on the Comedy Channel! How screwed up is that?

What Jon Stewart and his team do is invite people on to the show and instead of simply letting them repeat their claims, they ask them for evidence. Or present them with reasoned, logical arguments. He did it with Bill Kristol recently and got him to admit that military health care for veterans was excellent - that would be government-run health care.

He also pointed out that a discussion on cable news about health insurance was sponsored by an insurance company. But not a health insurance company - no, a car insurance company. The irony being that it is illegal to drive in the US without insurance, but not illegal to have no health insurance.

Here's Stewart interviewing Betsy McCaughley, who identified the "death panels" in the health care bill. Except that when she's asked to show where it mentions those, she can't. She points to how doctors will be evaluated on their use and adherence to statements from patients about "life sustaining treatment" which as Stewart points out could mean "keep bringing me back no matter what" rather than mandatory "do not resuscitate" instructions.

Something Stewart points out but which is lost in the general melee is that "end of life counselling" was actually introduced by a certain George W Bush. It was seen as a great idea back then - allowing people to make their wishes known to avoid burdening loved ones with dreadful decisions or putting people through long and painful but ultimately futile treatment. But that was then. A Republican was in the White House. Now we've got a Kenyan Nazi (apparently) who wants to ship anyone over 60 off to the gas chambers.

Apparently that's what we do here in the UK. Really?

Er, no. Far from having death panels, and poor health care because of the NHS, the UK not only has a better life expectancy than the US but the number of 100-year olds is steadily rising to such an extent that it's no longer a big news event when someone reaches their century, as it was when I was a kid.

"Babies born nowadays in the UK are expected to live to the age of 100, while it is predicted that the number of centenarians will increase from the present-day total of 10,000 to 1million by the year 2074"

Compare "death panels" with the current denial of care that exists in the US, as covered in this fascinating but depressing story.

Or, for an uncomfortably funny/despair-inducing few minutes, watch as Jon Stewart tears apart the "death panel" argument with logic rather than rhetoric.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Betsy McCaughey Pt. 1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Healthcare Protests

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Betsy McCaughey Pt. 2
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Healthcare Protests

Most of the images of "town halls" I've seen have shown politicians standing dumbfounded in front of the (somewhat organised and well-briefed, if wrongly briefed) critics. You really want them to say simply that their concerns are unfounded.
All praise to Barney Frank who had the guts to go one step further:

Interns - something needs to be done

I'm getting more and more angry about the subject of design internships and the bizarre excuses that many in industry and, let's be honest, education, use to excuse the practice.

Internships, also known as placements, are "opportunities" for graduates to get experience of "real world work" which apparently makes CVs look better and increases your chance of getting a job.

The trouble is, the likelihood of getting a job is much reduced as a fair proportion of work is being done by interns working for free!
Or as Tory MP Philip Hammond recently told a constituent after being asked why he doesn’t pay his own interns: "I would regard it as an abuse of taxpayer funding to pay for something that is available for nothing"¹. This, unfortunately is the endless loop we find ourselves in: many people agree that internships are bad, however there are many people wanting to do them, therefore you either stick to your principles and miss out on all that lovely "experience", or you give in.

Internships strike me as evidence firstly that the design industry doesn't rate qualifications much, and secondly that it certainly doesn't think "outsiders" (i.e. design educators) should be the ones to judge who's good enough to work among its number². To support the first argument we can point out that the majority of designers don't have degrees - it's not a "degree-level position" and many degree-holding designers work at the same level, for the same "salary", as non-degree holders. In that sense, design is meritocratic - you're valued on how good you are, not on how qualified you are.
I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is undervaluing graduates. Other sectors don't do it - law, retail, medicine, architecture, teaching. What sets these apart is that either they recruit graduates in to well-paid jobs with responsibility and then train them, or they require a period of high-level apprenticeship which is highly structured and leads to a well-paid career at the end of it.

The argument that graduates shouldn't be paid because they are not experienced enough is, quite frankly, one of the most stupid fucking arguments I've ever heard a supposedly intelligent person make.
(And yes, I said fucking. It's unacademic, it's unprofessional, but it's how I feel, okay?)
Seriously, think about it for a moment. Try this scenario:

You go to visit your daughter's school to find out how she's doing. You chat to the young teacher who's in charge of her class, and who your daughter absolutely adores. She's young and you realise you're getting old for noticing. She talks expertly about your daughter's progress and clearly takes a lot of interest in her, and you're grateful. You later go to the head teacher and compliment her on the quality of her staff, making particular mention of your daughter's class teacher.
"Oh her," she says. "Yes, if she keeps this up we might start paying her and take her on full time. But only during term. We can't afford to keep her on during the school holidays".

This is plainly nonsense. It doesn't happen. New entrants to teaching are paid a decent salary (it could/should be higher, but let's not get in to that - the point is, they're paid a graduate-level salary and given responsibilities. They are also mentored and given time to continue with their development. Indeed, all teachers are. It's how people stay on top of their game.
But can you imagine if you discovered that schools were employing unpaid interns to do the teaching?

Compare that to design. New entrants are not given responsibilities, they are often not paid (and if they are, it's often peanuts) and, ultimately, they're not trusted. Internships or placements are trials. A company that uses them as a way of recruiting new staff is acting in a bizarre manner. It makes little sense.

When I left college at 19 I got a job as a designer/marketing assistant. I hadn't really wanted to be a designer but this was all I could get. So I effectively taught myself on the job, having gained a bit of experience with Pagemaker at college. Three days after joining the company, because of the oddities of their pay cycle, I received a payslip for three weeks' salary. I'd only just started, and I wasn't even up to speed. I didn't even know how to use the phone system, or have my own desk. Yet there I was with more money than I'd ever had before. Because I was - get this - working for them. Giving them my time in return for money. They didn't say "hey, you're new. We're effectively giving you our time so really, you owe us money. So how about we just don't pay you and call it quits?"

Which is interesting because that's exactly how internships work.

And you know how the company knew they wanted me to work for them and not someone else? They interviewed me. Twice. They looked at my work, they asked me questions about myself. They decided I was worth a chance and knew, as I did, that if it didn't work out, either of us could say "thanks but no thanks" and I'd be on my way.
Yes, employing someone is risky, yes it requires time and effort on the part of the employer but you know what? That's part of running a business. Building a team, nurturing it, valuing it.

---

I'm going to come back to this issue as there's much more to say but let me end this first instalment with a pointer to Seth Godin's blog where he talks about free work versus internships.
Like me he doesn't like internships for some of the same reasons. "Most of the time, the employer thinks he's doing the intern a favor, but he doesn't trust the interns to do any actual thoughtful, intelligent work worth talking about."

He loses me with the next bit: "And to be fair, most of the time the interns are busy hiding, not grabbing responsibility but instead acting like they're in school, avoiding hard work and trying to get an A."

I disagree with this assessment because an internship generally is not carried out as part of a course, it's a prelude to employment. I think he's mixing things up a bit here. Genuine work placements, part of a course, are rare. They shouldn't be, but it's not for want of trying. Many of the ones I know of are just a couple of weeks' "work experience" but a truly educational placement should be well-structured, include shadowing, not working, and be assessed. Which means the host has to be heavily involved in planning, implementing and evaluating it. And if that were the case, then anyone "trying to get an A" wouldn't do it by "avoiding hard work". For one thing, they shouldn't be working. That, after all, would be a case of the taxpayer subsidising free labour for the design industry, and in England and Wales, and other countries where students pay fees, it would be a case of the poor bastard literally paying to be "employed". But really, if Seth's first point is correct, that many employers don't trust people on placements, then I really couldn't blame anyone for not giving 100% in return. You get what you pay for, after all.

But Seth goes on to talk about the concept of "free work" like it's something else entirely. Now I have long advocated "free work" to my own students but I mean working for non-profits - local groups, charities, schools etc - as a way to give something back to the community and to get something in your portfolio. I would never advocate working for nothing for a company that can not only pay you, but is getting paid themselves. Seth seems to excuse it by its networking potential or karmic value - but you can network without selling your soul. It's this passage that really caused me to spit out my dummy:

"But you'd be amazed at how many fast-moving companies or influential individuals are all too happy to share credit if it helps the work get done."

As I twittered to Fergus Bisset, 'he says companies will "share credit". Wow! Thanks! Er, why not the money then?"'
If the argument is that a start-up needs help, and that if they're successful you will be too fails on a simple logic test: if that start-up is going to be successful you can bet your life they don't do it by doing free work for people. So why should you?³

And this ultimately boils down to the best argument against internships. I'll discuss the social impact of internships and the legal implications another time, but let me leave you with this: if the company you are working for is making money from the stuff you produce, they should be paying you. There is, as far as I can see, no reasonable argument against this. To do otherwise is theft, plain and simple. And something needs to be done.

[end of part 1. Coming soon: why internships are unfair and why they are illegal]

---

Update: as you may see from the comments, as well as Interns Anonymous, you can also discuss internships at The Water Cooler

¹For what it's worth, I made a complaint about Mr Hammond to the Low Pay Commission. Phil Willis MP is, quite rightly, raising the issue on his site and via a press release.

²Easy answer: stop recruiting graduates and start recruting school leavers and run proper apprenticeships! Oh you used to do that. What happened? Oh yes, you "subcontracted" the role to colleges, funded by taxpayers, and saved the money didn't you? Trebles all round, as Private Eye would say.

³There is, of course, another aspect to this which is the concept of co-ops or labour exchanges. In this, you contribute your skill or time to help others and in return others help you. ("Time Bank" is a similar idea).

The important thing is that they need to be organised with a strong social aspect. When I lived in Brighton there were a few schemes like this kicking around including a skills swap for techies where someone who knew a few tricks in, say, CSS, would give a presentation to others and learn something in return. Or maybe they'd help someone out on their small company's site. In return that company might "pay" with free printing.

In effect, it's not work for free: it's work for favours. It relies on strong social/peer disapproval along the lines of the attitude you get if people you occasionally drink with notice that you always seem to benefit from someone else's round, but never seem to buy one yourself. Before you know it, you're not part of the group any more.

I recently advised someone to try this method of getting work but it does depend on you being in the right location and tapping in to an existing group - or setting one up. One thing it's not, though, is "work for free".

Why eBooks must fail

John Naughton, writing in The Guardian, identifies excellent reasons why eBooks must fail:

I own my copy of Nineteen Eighty-Four and can do with it what I wish. I can, for example, lend it to friends, family and students. I can, if I wish, tear out pages and send them to people in the post, or stick them up on noticeboards. I can sell the book - if I could find a buyer. I can donate it to the local Oxfam shop. I can read sobering or inflammatory passages from it at political demonstrations. And so on.

But if I had purchased an electronic copy of Nineteen Eighty-Four to read on my Kindle device, I would have none of those freedoms

[...]

Up to now, the debate about eBooks has been dominated by technical issues: ergonomics, portability, storage capacity, the readability of display screens, the quality of the user interface and so on. These are important matters, but ignore the biggest issue of all, namely the ways in which the technology enables content owners to assert a level of control over the reader that would be deemed unconscionable - and unacceptable - in the world of print.

He's right - designers tend to focus on the aesthetic and affective aspects - how useable is the technology, how open is it, does it replicate the "experience" of reading a paperback... but the real "experience" of reading a book is bound up in the tactile and the social. Lending a book to someone - or even just saying you'll lend it to someone, is an important part of reading.

All the hoo-hah about Amazon deleting books and tracking what you do with what you buy aside, the real issue with eBooks is that all the focus and research has gone into the technology and completely missed what it means to read a really good book.

(Via MediaGuardian.co.uk.)

Critical Response to Art Projects

It's a dirty little secret in art and design education that the beloved routine of the "critique" or "crit" doesn't work. Although many tutors cling to it as an essential way of providing guidance and feedback, plenty of research has shown that it leaves the vast majority of students confused and, in some cases, distressed (trust me, I've seen the tears - and from normally "tough" students).
The only purpose the crit appears to serve is to emphasise the tutor's status as alpha male (or female, but it's usually male).

The crit was wonderfully lampooned in "Art School Confidential" by Daniel Clowes (transferred moderately well from comic book to big screen in 2005).

The big problem with crits is coming up with things to say. From my observations they have to sound profound, critical and completely vague and meaningless so that what a student thinks is "encouraging" can later be claimed to have been a warning of dire consequences. And with so many students these days, it's becoming much more difficult to come up with something new.

What we need is a tool to create endless amounts of critical responses to art projects (CRAP) from a few random seeds. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the CRAP generator!



Click the green button to start!

Disclaimer: the words come from a document circulating among staff at the university I worked at, and I don't know who wrote them (I added some of my own).

Incidentally, if you're interested in the research I mentioned, drop me a line and I'll send you a list. It's interesting that I've never found one bit of research that suggests the crit is a positive experience for anyone other than the person doing it.

Tentsmuir

Some photos from Tentsmuir that I took a couple of years ago.

In case you skipped the link in the last post, here's the official website for Tentsmuir, a large nature reserve about five minutes from where I live. It has everything - seals, sand, forest, deer, red squirrels, rare flowers, rare insects (and their not so rare or lovely cousins, unfortunately), an icehouse, world war 2 pill boxes and anti-tank defences, an RAF airbase...

The odd cat...

Well worth a visit if you're in this (pardon the pun) neck of the woods.

You can see some of my photos of the area on my other website

Accidental bike ride

I went for a bike ride the other day and decided that instead of the usual ride to Tentsmuir Sands through the forest near where I live that I'd head on to Leuchars. But when I got to Leuchars it felt too easy so I decided to carry on - to St Andrews (home of golf!)

The weather was pleasant and warm, I had plenty of water with me and even thought I'd never cycled that far, or that way, before I reasoned that as I was on part of the national cycle network I couldn't really go wrong (plus I had my iPhone with me so if I got lost I could locate myself on Google Maps).

It was a fairly easy ride through a couple of small Scottish towns. After Tentsmuir Forest it is, for the most part, a mix of small suburban districts and cycling alongside a small motorway - not much to see really until you get to just outside St Andrews when you once more begin to see the coast.

What was odd was that even though I'd cycled quite a long way, all I'd done was cycle inland a bit, following the estuary, cross the bridge and then cycle east again, which meant that just as I was reaching the outskirts of St Andrews I could easily see RAF Leuchars across the water, which made my achievement much less impressive!
(Cycling near the RAF base is quite impressive as aircraft regularly come in to land. Last week at the beach I'd seen about four or five come in to land in close formation, sweeping out across the North Sea and back in again. On this ride two flew just a few hundred meters - if that - above my head - again in close formation. RAF Leuchars lost a plane a couple of weeks ago when it flew into a mountain near Glasgow and even though it looks like they're going slowly from the ground, it must be a case of split-second timing inside the cockpit).

Anyway, just as I was reaching St Andrews I could see dark clouds looming from the south and realised why all the cows had suddenly started lying down when I was cycling through the fields just outside Leuchars. It began spitting at first but as I got in to St Andrews a steady drizzle started. Fortunately I'd packed my raincoat and went off to find a café to have lunch and a sandwich.
St Andrews isn't short of nice independent cafes but of course I ended up in Starbucks! As it turned out, I was served by one of my own students! Small world...
I could see outside that the rain was now quite bad so I went back to the bike and got my waterproof(ish) trousers out, intending to change out of my shorts. Which meant finding another café...

The cycle back was in the rain which didn't feel so bad but when I got back to the forest I took a wrong turn and ended up getting a bit lost, finding a small group of houses and following a minor road/track figuring it must end up in civilisation. I stumbled upon a bridge standing in the middle of a clearing. It didn't connect to anything, just an old brick bridge on its own. Turns out it used to be part of the railway line that led from Edinburgh to Tayport, back when it was called Ferryport-on-Craig and was the main route to the north. Before the Tay rail bridge was built you had to get a ferry (while still on the train). After the bridge was built the line became less important (until the bridge fell down, of course) and eventually it disappeared, leaving just the bridge standing alone in the forest. I'll go back and take a picture next week maybe - it's very strange.
It turns out I'd ended up in a nature reserve and in better weather I'd have gone looking for deer and highland cattle, but as it was I was now feeling rather wet and despite it only being about 4pm the light was very poor. So I kept cycling and found a row of telegraph poles and cycled under them for a while, coming out at a farm and onto the road just south of Tayport. Home at last.

When I got in I realised quite how wet I was - absolutely soaked to the skin. But feeling quite good. A few minutes later, after a shower and a change of clothes, though, I sat on the sofa and my body caught up with what had just happened...

45km or 28 miles. That's nothing to some cyclists, of course but considering my longest ride up to that point was about 18km, it's quite a leap. Three hours, excluding the rest at St Andrews.

So, a somewhat unplanned adventure but a good one - fairly flat and easy. I intend to do it again when the weather improves (we've had a week of sun and showers after a couple of weeks of hot sunshine when, of course, I mainly sat around). But I also fancy trying a few other local rides. The Salmon Run goes from Dundee to Dunkeld via Perth, following the Tay and the route the famous Tay salmon take. There's also a ride from here to Arbroath where the Smokies are produced (I could follow that route up to Aberdeen and then on either to John O'Groats or take a ferry to Orkney, but I think that would be a bit too much!). And the route to St Andrews carries on to Edinburgh and beyond in to England. You can see all the routes in the National Cycle Network at Sustrans's website. But all those routes are trickier, over hills and a mix of on- and off-road.

I had planned to use my holidays for this but they seem to have flown by with little achieved - which is of course the point of a break. But there's still plenty of summer left so time to do a few of these rides yet.

Microsoft's failed marketing strategy

Having staked out a business that serves PC makers first, IT drones second, and consumers dead last, Microsoft is left only to advertise that its software arrives on cheap hardware that isn’t burdened with being cool or sexy like Apple’s. As a marketing strategy, that’s so blatantly moronic that it’s hard to imagine a Fortune 500 company could decide to do that.

Roughly Drafted Magazine on why Windows 7 is Microsoft's next Zune. It's a long article but well worth reading. Having lived through 1995/96 it brought back a lot of memories...