ThunderDragon Blog

XKCD - A hilarious webcomic “of romance, sarcasm, math, and language”, and has the following warning:

Visit it here.

More than 5,000 people have joined a Facebook group opposed to HSBC’s scrapping on it’s free overdraft on graduate accounts, and have caused the bank to retreat:

That a bank the size of HSBC has been forced to retreat on this policy shows the power that the internet and social networking sites such as Facebook can wield. It wasn’t long ago that Cadbury brought back the Wispa chocolate bar after on-line campaigns.

What their action of ending the free overdraft facility has done is dealt them a huge blow. The purpose of student accounts is to encourage a graduate to continue to bank with them after they have closed that account. What HSBC have done will cause big problems for them, especially with students, both now and in the future. If they are willing to change the conditions on an account in such a way and at such short notice, what will they do in the future? If I was a fresher going to University this September, I know that I certainly wouldn’t get a HSBC student account, and I have every intention of avoiding using HSBC myself.

Whoever at HSBC thought up this idea is an idiot. It has caused a PR disaster for them. I would be surprised if many freshers signed up with them, and if many of their existing student customers did not go elsewhere. the other banks must be laughing, with the problems HSBC have caused for itself.

Sources: The Telegraph, BBC

A decade ago, a woman was killed in a car crash in Paris. This caused extreme outpourings of “grief” from people who had never even met the woman, let alone actually had any sort of relationship with her. And this has led to what Cranmer has referred to as to the “Dianaification” of society:

I don’t like the absurd lengths to which it seems necessary to go with the demonstration of grief at any public - or just publicised - death. They are just people, and people die every day in every way. Unless you actually knew the individual, there is really no excuse for such overt demonstrations. It’s fine to feel sorrow at the loss of a life - we all do - but there is a line, which has been passed at seemingly every single opportunity since that event a decade ago today.

When she died in that car crash, I was 12. I remember mainly being annoyed at the way that the death of just one woman had completely taken over the airwaves, obliterating everything else than had been planned to be shown. And neither was it just for one day. I remember it went on for the best part of a week!

Diana the woman was not as saintly as he has been made out to be in the decade since her death. I know that it is the natural response - to erase the natural faults of a person in order to idolise them better, “never speak ill of the dead” as the saying goes. But the sanctification of Diana has come with the demonisation of Charles and Camilla, primarily along the whole “they committed adultery” line. But Diana did too. Maybe not until after Charles had, but she still did it. She is by no means a completely innocent partner in their break-up.

I hope that after the memorial service today that the ghost of Diana will finally be put to rest. Let it be over, for everyone’s sake, not least that of her sons. She is dead, and has been dead for an entire decade.

The second part [but third post] in my guest post series at the Wardman Wire is now up:

To read the rest, go here.

My second guest post over at the Wardman Wire isn’t really the next post in the series that I am writing whilst Matt is away on holiday [hence the "1.5"] but primarily to point to a couple of replies to my first post.

Good replies have been made by Graachi and Matt, which very cleverly picked up on the general thrust of the real Part 2, which I should [hopefully] be posting over at the Wardman Wire tomorrow morning.

No, I didn’t actually step on them. I just bent them to make them sit right and they broke. Which is very, very annoying. The picture above is of the temporary repair job attempted by my brother - with a few cocktail sticks and some tape. For a while I was either wearing them or my prescription sunglasses. But I found my spare pair, which I had presumed lost - unfortunately they’re the spare pair for a reason.

Since it has been not far off two years since my last eye test, then instead of just paying to get a new frame, I’m going to have a test as well. Hopefully I won’t be one of the millions being prescribed the wrong glasses…

And, just because it’s great song and gave me the post title:

The TUC are saying that employers should allow their employees to access social networking sites such as Facebook during office hours.

Except that during office hours, it doesn’t matter if you have a life outside of it. While you are at work, your time is the companies time. When they are paying you to work, they have the right to say what you can’t do.

I don’t think that the outright ban of those sort of sites is a good idea, but there is no denying that the companies have the right to ban them during working hours if they want to and feel that it is necessary. I think that it is unnecessary to ban the use of such sites if they are not interfering with the employee’s work, really, but I also very much accept that the employer has the right to say whether or not social networking sites are off-limits during working hours.

A total ban is never really a very good idea, as it will only inspire people to break it. But the choice is up to the company. If they want to prevent their employees from using Facebook, that is their prerogative.

Sources: The Times, BBC, The Telegraph

I have just finished watching David Cameron on Newsnight last night - you can watch it here, but only until 5pm tonight. This has been all over the blogosphere, and I’m sure mentioned in more places than I’ve looked, so I won’t bother writing too much.

He did very well indeed. He came across as reasoned, confident, strong and in control. He managed the questioning of the four interviewers very well, although they are hardly up to the standard of Jeremy Paxman. This shows that the Conservatives are moving off the back foot, and moving forward with their plan. This is no “lurch to the right”, but a balancing of priorities. The Conservative brand has been “decontaminated”, and now Cameron and the Conservative Party can move forward with the setting up an alternative to this failing Labour government of the past decade.