Windows 10 to instal or not to instal, that is the question

Today Microsoft are giving away Windows 10 to those who already have Windows 7 or Windows 8.1 users. It is free for one year.  After which it is going to cost you real greens. However, the golden question really is should you or should you not change over. Personally I feel my fingers itching to get this because it is free, but I'm not going to rush to press the download button.  For a start I would be upgrading not clean installing which is a worry.  A rule of thumb for any sane person is never to buy anything which is new for there are always problems which need to be ironed out.  Although in this case it is free, in the long run it may not actually be as free as it seems to be.  I personally love to use a basic operating system for a few years four or five years at least.  Although Microsoft would have given Window's 10 to Beta testers you still have to be reserved.

Windows 7 is a good operating system, I use it all the time and use three different versions, professional, home and enterprise.  It is easy enough to go from one to another and in many respects it has been built with familiarity in mind.  Even if you had gone from windows 3.11 to Windows 7 you would catch on pretty quickly.  Whereas Windows 8 which I never owned but had seen in use on other peoples computers was never impressive.  Especially after giving it time and finding what the reviews were like, it became a highly unlikely option to ever update to this system.  So it goes with caution in mind should you upgrade to Windows 10?  Here are a list of reason why you might or might not change over:

• It's newly developed software so will have bugs. However, it is probably the most beta tested operating system ever so there will be fewer bugs as well.

• You would be one of the first to download it and therefore a cool dude who would be leading the pack. Yet I can't think there is also a little bit of stupidity in people who act in this way, like those who wait outside shops just so they can be the first to buy a new product. It's crazy.

• The software is new and therefore independent third parties have not had time to upgrade patches or new releases to be compatible.  It is necessary to think about your peripherals, printers, scanners, cameras etc.  In a worst case scenario they may not work at all.

• It is not known if you can uninstal Windows 10, or if you do install it whether it would leave your hard-disk in such an untidy way an uninstall is going to make things worse.

• What's the catch? There is always a catch as the saying goes there is no such thing as a free lunch, what are Microsoft going to get out of this are we all going to become the equivalent of Windows 10  heroine junkies, will there be a critical update in 18 months time where you have to put your hand in your pocket? Or worse a denial from Microsoft such a fault in the system doesn't exist but third parties are willing to provide the solution.

• At some point Microsoft will cease to support other Windows versions. However this is inevitable the only hope is when the date comes it is easier to convert to a different operating system because you had left it so long.

• Is Windows 10 safe, how secure is it going to be?  Well of big unknowns this could be one of the biggest. Have you heard the joke about making something idiot proof then along comes a 24 karat idiot who shows it is not idiot proof.

• Will it become like Windows 8 a useless piece of bloat ware which after a couple of years use makes your computer/tablet unusable?

OK these may well be depressive or fearful thoughts of what could happen, but whether you like it or not lightening does strike in the same place twice.

Well I can't help myself, I will not being going to install Windows 10, not immediately but will keep an eye on it and see what happens in about 7 or 8 months time. Keep an eye on youtube videos and on reviews and wait for the problems to arise.  Then make a more educated and weighted decision over whether to change or not change.

Crack the glass floor - the social divide

I was reading an article which makes the claim that stupid wealthy kids had more of an opportunity to get into well paid jobs than their smarter lower class equivalents.  This was the findings of a study by The Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission (SMCP), which has become termed the glass floor effect. It's interesting to call it a glass floor, a bit like the glass ceiling which prevents women from achieving higher success than they should. Glass must mean it is invisible but it's there, this glass however is probably toughened and even bullet proof. Such a glass floor or glass ceiling means social stereotypes remain valid stereotypes.  The parents of such stupid children have an advantage because of their social status and their money.  The findings are:

• They invest time and resources in their children's education.

• Better careers advice and guidance.

• Ability to move to the right catchment area to enable choice of school.

• Giving their children self confidence, making them resilient and guidance on how to lead.  

• The use of informal social networks to help their children into work.

• Help with unpaid internships.

In reading a press release it states there were a lot of soft skill sets which wealthier parents were able to instil their children.  When looking at these skill sets there are all basically psychological.  Self confidence, is perhaps one of the most valuable items an individual can have when needing to present themselves especially in an interview situation.  Without this what comes across is a train wreck of nerves. However, lower class and working class families do not always have this skill because they are so overly involved in making ends meet. The most predominant item on their radar is just being able to survive.  It is true there is a working poor in the UK, who just about live with the help of government subsidies in the form of  Working and Child Tax credits.  A support which is needed because wages are kept low, because labour is common in an employers market and because the skills needed to do a job are not what they have.  Being confident also means being able to be calm and collected when giving an answer to a question. Performance anxiety is more likely to affect someone who doesn't have self confidence than it does someone who does.

Lets also look at employers.  They clearly want the best employees they can get so they use the interview process and a cursory look at exam grades.  The first hurdle is to be shortlisted for an interview and this is what exam grades can help pass. As well as a competently completed application form. What an employer might look for is a set of grade "A" or grade "B" applications and then disgruard the applicants with grade "C."  They would not be able to see that perhaps some of those applicants who had these lower grades had a lot more to deal with in their family life than those who were advantaged enough to get higher grades.  Such as a manic depressive mother, or an alcoholic father or a parent with a disability and the child being a full time carer, or a large family with siblings where each child just does not get the time and attention needed.  Or being brought up in a household where poverty rules everything and forces choice on the family and especially children.  Opportunity is not afforded to these individuals because they do not get through the selection process. Whether they are motivated or not they must may not have the skill sets and the family support to raise out of their social class.  Some parents will even feel resentment if their children do better than they have done, get a better job or earn more money or get better grades. Their love comes with a barbed tail and spite veiled in what they say and do. Which is great for the self esteem issue as well.  They will deny such behaviours exist, but they would then be liars because I have seen it and experienced it with my own family.

Being lower class doesn't mean you are stupid, but it sure ensures you are at a disadvantage. When your peers think a good time is to sniff glue or get drunk, stealing is a socially acceptable act and rite of passage then the lessons you learn are dictators of your future.  The kids who fight against this  are considered outcasts and may even be bullied. For being different from the pack makes them an easy target. The in-group feel better about themselves and boost their own extraordinarily lacking self esteem. Working and lower class parents just don't have the time to help coach their children. They can't protect them and the bond which comes with small children is a lot easier to form than the bond which is needed to help a teenager become an adult. A teenager who is fighting against the system and fighting to understand who they are, where as those above the glass floor will have a lot more support.

Wealth brings opportunity and life chances.  Middle class kids are likely to have experienced holidays to farther places and had a diversity of life experience the working and lower class kids don't get exposure to, this can be seen in attitudes towards food.  The great frequenters of fast food chains are certainly not going to be rich kids. They will get the vitamins and minerals from foods they eat, so some will either have obesity problems or cases of malnutrition. Something again the more socially advanced families are sure not to have to worry about. Get a child from a working class family and show them a collection of herbs, then ask them to name them.  I bet the results would be startling when compared to the middle and upper classes.

This glass floor ensures not only is the country not run by the brightest people, it ensures the divide of the classes continues and continues in perpetuity.  For it is a strong family, especially one which sticks together where the glass floor which is really a glass ceiling is broken through.  This country we live in is not a meritocracy and this is a fact.

Virgin trains no luggage please

It is a known fact, no matter who you are, if you travel by Virgin rail there will be very little space. This company have designed their new Palomino to fit people on and the more they can fit on the merrier. In the older styles trains there are luggage compartments at the entrance of each car, there also happens to be a guards car so if there is no space near the seats luggage can be put here.  There is only one emphasis which Virgin has here and it is to make money. Unfortunately they now have a complete monopoly if you wish to travel by train from London to Scotland the greater proportion of trains will only be Virgin, either east coast or west coast. Although there exists National Rail Conditions of Carriage which you might expect there to be a minimum standard of luggage space provided, there simply is not.  These conditions indicate a passenger can take on a train a piece of hand luggage plus two items of luggage not greater in size than 60 x 70 x 90 cm however this is not the case.  Pun not intended. Were just a handful of passengers to take on their two larger cases of these dimensions then the train becomes difficult to endure. There are times it becomes virtually impossible to get off the train because of the luggage blocking the aisle.  I would of thought such times constituted a health and safety hazard but they don't because if they did the the health and safety inspectorate would of done something about it. Perhaps they have not received enough complaints.

So if you want something done just complain, the more complaints that flood this company, the more protests to MPs and other authorities the more likely eventually some one will think something has to be done. Maybe passengers will bus, drive and fly instead.

BB 2015 letters from home task

The letters from home task on BB 2015 for Monday 2nd July 2015 showed a clear divide between the posh and moralists house mates and those with higher values.  We saw Joel ruthlessly pick again on Sam eating her letter and
trying to justify it with a little presumptuous logic. It is funny how Joel had always included the phrase "the moral thing to do" when talking about decision but this time he chose a non moral decision.  Or is it rather the way he did it, without apologising for his actions but justifying them. Whereas we saw Harry pick a red ball and break into tears because she knew someone would not get a chance to hear from home. She ate Jack's letter, and was a right decision in light of Jack previously saying it didn't matter to him if he did not get a letter.  Of course Jack had made the earlier bartered money for some items, i.e. football scores and a cheap jacket and trousers.  After he felt the wrath of Chloe and of other house mates he realised it was a bad decision.  It was a time when it really did test Jack to see if he was true to his word and friendships were more important to him. He managed to reverse his decision which was good news. 

Then we saw Nick get his letter read to him from Danny.  Nick the second rich boy of the house, one who has never worked a day in his life and loves to be an internet troll.   I personally could not understand why Danny chose Nick after Nick had just bought himself a finalist ticket.  We saw Nick  justify to Chloe why he made the decision to swap his nomination place with her.  Regardless his selfishness had broken a social norm for then Harry gave Nick

her opinion on buying a ticket to the final.  Quite rightly
saying if he was not good enough to get through to the final on his own merit he certainly didn't deserve to be there.  Nasty Nick was on his own journey and he had to do the best for himself.  Yet it is the public viewing his actions who will make a decision on him as an individual. Such behaviour we repeatedly see with Posh well to do people who think they own the world and proceed to make money by immoral means.  This reminds me of Lord Freud the ex banker taking a ride in government on the backs of the Tories, he isn't even an elected MP. He certainly should not be in such a position.

BB has gotten more devious and evil as this series has worn on. However, house mates, Chloe, Danny and Harry have shown a moral compass lacking in others. Lets also not forget the easily forgettable Cristian who though not at all entertaining has spoken some wise words and shown he to is morally upstanding.  Each day now as BB creeps to the final things heat up, what dilemma is going to be next, just watch this space.

BBOTS fake Psychologist

On Big Brother's Bit on the side for 01.07.15. the guest speaker Anna Williamson was annotated as being a Psychologist.  She is not. The extent of her knowledge of psychology is achieving a diploma in counselling for which she has counselled children.  She has not been through seven years of study and then gained chartered status from the British Psychological Society and she does not have the authority to call herself a psychologist. Even though on the show Ryland jumped in with some pop psychology comments and Anna Williamson enjoyed the misleading notion she was a psychologist.

Perhaps it was BBOTS which got this wrong, and wanted to try and get viewers to see Anna as though she has some kind of professional validity. However, Anna is firstly a TV presenter and is so far from being a psychologist it is more likely that aliens actually exist. Channel 5 have been wrongly attributed a title to Anna and in doing so have demeanoured the hard work and professionalism of every real psychologist there is out there.  Every comment she has made on this show is no more than opinion and conjecture something of which we can all give.