If you can't cook get out of the kitchen...

I recently had a debate with somebody about the pitfalls of social networks to the general public. He is of the firm opinion that they do not do enough to explain what happens to your information, are misleading the general public in what they do in order to release further products that track more of what WE do, and provide little to no assistance when you wish to close your account and remove your information, the whole process being very convoluted.

I've read articles by prolific IT journalists who agree, although most in recent times have gone silent, primarily due to the fact that Facebook and Google+ have made all of the above substantially more accessible and easier to understand, bowing to pressure from these journalists and the general public.
Personally, I also believe that it's because as each day that's passed and continues to pass, people understand that much more about what they are doing. It's called learning. We do it all the time, we go to school to learn, learn within our day to day routine. Every single action we take results in us understanding that much more about the world we live in. As IT related products continue to play a larger role in our day to day lives we will continue to learn more about them.

As IT becomes more and more prevalent in our lives people cannot continue refusing to understand how the vast majority of the Internet operates so my questions are these:
Why are people given soap boxes to complain, that it's the IT companys fault that they failed to understand how to use their product?
Why do members of the general public listen to them and why are these peoples opinions supported by those who deliberately choose not to take the time to understand what they are even talking about?
I don't buy in to the arguement that they should make privacy controls and terms of use easier , despite the fact they have. If you don't understand a technology it's not technologys fault.

If somebody who has never driven before gets in a car, smashes the accelerator to the floor and proceeds to mow down 3 old grannies, a cat, 2 iPhone hipsters and a Facebook employee before embedding themselves forehead first into a concrete wall, you don't blame the Ford Fiesta. You blame the idiot who did not understand how to drive a car but who felt they'd try to drive it anyway.

Facebook and Google+ do nothing with your information that is illegal, questionable, yes. It is firstly, under your control. They provide the means for YOU to set what is and is not shared with friends, co workers, family and the rest of the world.
If you learn about the tool you wish to use and find that you don't agree with how it uses your information or the control you'd have over it's use, you would not sign up. That is in your control. Nobody is holding a gun to your head.
Secondly, they also completely outline what is stored and how it's used should YOU provide it to them, in their privacy policy as well as the terms and conditions.
Now, I'll admit I'm as guilty as the next person but nevertheless when did it become acceptable for people to act shocked, and to criticise how a voluntary membership website uses data because WE couldn't be bothered to read and learn about the tool we are about to use. When they put the links 'Privacy Policy' & 'Terms and conditions' right before the Sign Up button what right do WE have to say they didn't make it clear enough.

Now some people think that Facebook and Google+ are selling your personal information you supply in return for advertising revenue and that is 100% true. They do. And that it's wrong. It's not.
Facebook was recently valued at over 100 billion dollars because of this fact.
As an interesting side note, if you divide their valuation by the number of members you get roughly $166. That is how much each person is worth, not directly to Facebook, but more to the people who use the information that Facebook provides to them.
Information that YOU willingly accepted could be shared by agreeing to the terms and conditions that YOU chose not to to read, and whether you want to believe it or not, information that by being sold benefits YOU.
How? Well the Internet in it's most distilled definition is an encyclopedia. Information and nothing more. Whether your looking at information on wikipedia about the Falkland war (past and possibly present) or looking at cute pictures of cats it's all information that YOU choose to look at. So how does the information you give Facebook correlate? Thanks to what you tell it about your likes, dislikes, age, sexual orientation and whatever else you choose to share, Facebook tries to tailor the adverts you see so that they'd be of interest. They offer an entirely free non compulsory service yet need to operate and advertising is really the only method they can use to provide this. Nobody likes adverts, that's a given, but the alternative to targeted advertising is men seeing adverts for Tampax, children seeing adverts for SAW XVI or Bill Gates an iPhone.

So what am I getting at?

Ignorance is fast becoming a legitimate defence as well as the norm and not only is that a slippery slope to be on, but is one that extends far beyond the social network example. One that we often see applied to the public view on governmental operations and policy.

Here's an example. I'm willing to bet many of you know all about SOPA, and maybe even PIPA (Bonus points if you also know ACTA). These issues have been opposed for over a year by people who over their lives have taken the time to learn about the tools they use, not just in the last few weeks where it's gathered enough public interest that the mainstream media have started covering it. And not just people in the IT industry but all walks of life.
If not for these people a crippling law may have passed, and may YET pass in another form should opposition not continue to increase in the general populace.

Right, I better lay my cards on the table...

Imagine a world where everybody who used a computer (which is a world we're rapidly approaching in one form or another) actually took the time to understand what they were doing, how to use the websites they spend hours a week on. Actually spent time understanding how one of the most influential pieces of technology to ever touch their lives operates.
Would companies be able to use our information as freely as they do? Possibly, although I very much doubt it; I'd expect that a large portion of the public would flatly refuse to use their service, instead of as it now where people choose not to understand what they are doing, choose to blame others, choose ignorance.

Imagine a world where people took a real interest in the way the world operates, how potential government policies would stifle and cripple the Internet, freedom of speech, expression, creativity...

If you are one of those internet users who chooses to use Facebook, Google+, fuck it, ANY WEBSITE for that matter, yet do so with no understanding and a refusal to spend the time learning about the technology regardless of how much it affects the whole world quite honestly you are to blame for how companies have the power to use information the way they do and how governments can get away with atrocious policies.

Now I understand not everybody has the time or will to learn, and that's OK, it really is, but at the same time people with this mindset are the most vocal about how poor certain companys policies are.
If you choose not to learn about something that affects you in every facet of life, you may as well refuse to learn how to use a gun, refuse to listen to those who do know how it works and then proceed to shoot yourself in the foot and blame everybody but yourself.

Tuition Fees

Despite not being a student this subject is close to my heart because it highlights not just many problems with this government, but I'm sorry to say, problems with peoples perception as well.

First of all, lets make one thing clear. The government lied about it's policies prior to the election as it has now u-turned on many fundamental issues people would have based their voting on.

But...

The government at no point EVER debated raising tuition fees. They have instead debated raising the CAP on fees  which universities can charge. There is a massive difference. If a university decides to charge more for its tuition, it was their decision, not the governments. What this has done is given more freedom for universities to charge what they deem fair for their services. Not only that but it opens up a bidding war between universities to charge as little as possible to get students, or, it will improve course standards so universities can justify charging higher amounts. Thinking all universities are going to charge the maximum is scare mongering and idiotic, it would result in very few people being able to afford to go and universities would close round the country. If you think your university does not have this level of common sense, trust me, you've put your faith in the wrong one. This is not to say that there will not be elitest universities who will charge the maximum, or 'budget' ones who charge as little as they can afford, but what's the difference between that and universities being elitest or budget with peoples grades? Nothing is the answer. OK, you can say:

'Well, I got straight As and therefore qualified to go to Oxbridge but I can't afford it now!'

Sorry but my attitude is boo-fucking-hoo. Why should the university and government (taxpayer/general public) fund the vast majority of your education when it's nothing more than a gamble whether you'll actually pass? A person who can cover their costs are not only a more stable student for the establishment but also PROVIDE the money for the education and equipment others use by proxy, resulting in better teaching environments, resulting in better pass rates and better qualified people.
I'm not saying there aren't many deserving highly intelligent people who, given the best funded education could go on to do genuine wonders IF they actually achieve during their education. Unfortunately it's a gamble that quite simply this country cannot afford. Why do students believe that with the current economic climate they should have no part in helping support the rest of the country? For years the rest of the country has been supporting students.

If I was a business (which most universities are as very few are state run or owned), and the government told me I can only charge up to a certain amount for my services provided, I would be in the street protesting. It is a situation that would not sit right with every single business owner in the UK, yet this is the situation universities have been in for years.
Education is a right, yes, up to secondary level. Not further. People saying they have the right to an affordable university education is unfortunately a misconception brought about by the tabloids printing 'right to education' every other shit stirring sentence and because compared to the rest of the world the British student has enjoyed some of the lowest further education costs in Europe. Times are not always so easy.

Simply, rape.

Rape is a horrendous act that causes, in the vast majority of cases, irreperable longterm mental damage to the victims.

Being falsely accused of rape is a horrendous act that causes, in the vast majority of cases, irreparable long-term mental damage to the victim.

We live in a society that prides itself on "innocent until proven guilty", but this is gradually being turned in to nothing more than a cheesy line for the BBC and other television networks to broadcast in shows when they need to film a dramatic scene in a courtroom and need that punch line. This could be no better illustrated than by a friend of mine who is currently going through the courts for retaliating after being jumped on a night out in Swansea. Only after being hit around 19 times did he retaliate. Let me say that again. He did not retaliate until he had already been assaulted around 19 times and he's looking at 2 to 3 years. That's all I can say on that matter out of respect for him and his family, but take my word for it, the situation is only showing the British legal system for what it's become, a joke smothered in beaurocracy.


One of the reasons I supported this coalition government was its pledge to strengthen our legal system with new legislation protecting defendants (if the start wasn't clue enough I'll be referring primarily to rape suspects) and what a lot of people don't realise was that it would also by proxy help protect victims.


There's no doubt being a victim of rape is a horrifying experience, but so is being falsly accused of it.

From here on out I want to make it clear that I'm not glossing over the magnitude of how horrible being a victim of rape is. I know it, you know it, and well, if you've got this far and don't at least partially understand how terrible being the victim of rape is then your intelligence doesn't rate much higher than an amoeba suffering from downs syndrome. But rape is not going to go away in our lifetime. I'd also bet that it will not go away in some shape or form, ever. So at the risk of sounding like a git, discussing rape victims’ rights is like shagging Jordan. Very risky, yet everyone’s doing it.


So, back to my primary subject matter, the rape suspect. Today the Ministry of Justice confirmed that "the law will not be changed to grant anonymity to men accused of rape in England and Wales". Instead, their proposal is, and I shit you not on this one, "... [The] Press Complaints Commission guidance recommending the media do not identify people before they are charged with rape might be strengthened."


That's like saying to a morbidly obese kid "Here's £20 and there's an all you can eat buffet round the corner, but please don't go there..... Please."


Can you imagine what it must be like to be falsely accused of rape. Regardless of whether you are found to be truly innocent the damage may already be done.

Picture the scene; you're happily married with the 2.4 children that still confuse the hell out of me because I know nobody that has a girl, a boy and a torso living with them. You work in your stereotypical office block in close proximity to many others and your general social life comprises of going round both your wives and your own friends for the occasional glass of wine or binge drink if your welsh.


So one day you came home from work, your better half has set the table and there's a knock at the door. It's the police come to arrest you on suspicion of raping a 17 year old girl.


Now still having a little faith left in humanity, I believe your close friends, wife and kids will likely stand by you the whole time knowing you are innocent. If I'm wrong then that only ads weight to how detrimental to ones life false accusations can be.

Anyway, what about the other 200,000 people that live in your area? That will see you walking about every day? That you work with? How many of them are going to read that newspaper with your face plastered opposite some Swedish 18 year olds ample cleavage and see you as an innocent. How many of them after you have been found to be innocent will read the outcome of the case? If the newspaper goes all out and states 'THIS MAN IS A RAPIST AND ONCE PUNCHED FATHER CHRISTMAS!" how many will read the minute retraction somewhere under the sections devoted to sales of Stanna Stair lifts and good dogs free to a loving home?

Congratulations you are now the face that raped a 17 year old girl.


You go to work to be met with cold stares and cold shoulders. You and possibly your family have abuse thrown at them in the streets, and one night out a drunken lout spots you and decides it's his moral responsibility to punish the person he sees as a rapist.


I'm sure that on balance being a victim of rape with its physical and mental anguish is far FAR worse than being falsely accused. But does that mean we should continue to only protect the victim and not the defendant? The defendant is a victim.


I could write a lot more but for now I'm just leaving you with one word:


Discuss...

Bags, Women, and Baggy Women

Right then ladies!

Your bags are not the Tardis and nor does having 3 bags give you more space to carry things when you put them inside each other!
I think it's happened to everyone, including women. You know, you've been in the queue at a checkout in Tescos and some little old lady in front of you begins to pay for something. Read the below paragraph only if you don't suffer from regular migraines.

First she opens her shoulder bag, then her carry bag in her shoulder bag, then her purse in her carry bag in her shoulder bag, then opens the coin pouch in her purse from her carry bag from her shoulder bag, counts her money out in front of the cashier, cashier counts it again as customer is likely to be senile, cashier gives change, change is counted by lady at checkout, change is put in coin pouch in her purse, purse is put in carry bag, purse inside carry bag is put in shoulder bag....... and she only wanted a fucking Kit-Kat.

GIVE ME A BREAK!

Is it really necessary to carry that many bags? Do you really need all that space? What do you keep in there? Honestly, this is a mystery to me as I've seen less crap come out the back of a removal van than what you can pull out of there.
Fuck me, I wouldn't be surprised if one day I'm in Tescos behind the aforementioned old lady and she proceedes to pull a fucking white rabbit out of it while wearing top hat and tails.

........................

And another thing. Old people. Or more specifically, old people who believe that due to their age they are to be held in high regard and have no need to exchange pleasantries with us common folk.
FUCK. OFF.
Don't get me wrong I was raised to respect my elders and I hope that I have always fulfilled that onus, but I was also brought up to believe that in order to gain respect, you must give it also.
I've lost count how many times I've held the door for them, let them pass, allowed them to go in front of me in a queue somewhere and yet, I can say no more than 10% of them have ever said thank you or done the same in return.

If this kind of behaviour continues your likely to find old women up and down the country holding up checkout queues with their nest of bags, trying desperately to pay for a Tesco Value replacement hip as I've kicked them in the arse!

God? Pfft, I'm all for the Feta

I haven’t written a rant in quite a while which I suppose is a good thing; it shows the percentage of irritating general public in my life has taken a sharp decline in the past few months. This may be down the fact I have a secret hobby of peeling warning labels off things and leave God sort them out.

Speaking of which I demand you all stop preaching to me about God/Gods/Allah/Deities/Omn

ipresent Beings/Flying Spaghetti Monsters/Invisible Pink Unicorns/Vishnu/Jeremy Clarkson and any other ‘supreme being’ you wish to add to that list.

I cannot walk through Swansea without somebody trying to sell me a book detailing how to find my inner peace written by some priest that lives in the middle of a forest and lives off sacrificial lambs. Although my personal favourite does have to be (cue dramatic voice over...) “CAAAAPTAAAAAIN BILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLBOOOOOOOOOOOARD”. Bloody hell! This guy must have the hardest sell in the world. “YOU’RE ALL DAAAMNED!”, “YOU’RE ALL GOIN TO HELLLLLLL!”, “JESUS IS THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN SAVE YOU!”.
Rightyho... I gotcha... My life is so evil that I’m going to hell and by you using the word ‘damned’ you intimate that I’m condemned to this fate already. Oh but forgetting that last bit about fate, Jesus COULD save me should he feel inclined, ignoring one important fact my dear fellow; he’s dead, kaput, worm food. If Jesus was that powerful, compassionate and forgiving, what was to stop him living forever and keeping all us little beings in check, be the saviour and rule us all with an even hand?
Well the reason, according the Bible is that God gave us minds in which to be a free and self ruling race, independent from His will and to give us the chance to prove ourselves worthy of His graces. Well sorry if I sound a little ungrateful for this amazing gift oh Lord but whose fault is it then when we decide to be a bit of a cunt and shoot some kittens or trip up old ladies? Hmm? Perhaps if you’d made us all vegetables we’d be much happier and you wouldn’t have to Damn those of us who saw Hitler as a mighty fine chap.
Oh and while I’m on this topic, why as a result of your son and your actions did 2,038,344 people die in the Bible, when Satan killed a pitiful 10? I’m not shitting you by the way reader, read it for yourself.

It sounds like I got a real beef with Christianity sure, but picking holes in any religion is like shooting fish in a barrel. What bugs me the most is not that people believe in religion but that they do so in blind faith. Blind faith is not a proof of existence and does not make your belief true!
To me having blind faith in something is akin to hypnotherapy. Both make you believe something, both would have you defending said belief and both, if told to do so, would make you preach your belief to others... So like I said earlier about belief making things fact, what would stop me getting hypnotised to have blind faith in my next lottery ticket purchase being a jackpot winner? And what about the Pied Piper? He was a hypnotist, made children follow him in blind faith, look what happened to them?

Look all I ask is keep your beliefs to yourself and leave me with mine, which are that Feta Cheese is fantastic and that Opitimus Prime should be president of the world.

FACT! Smokers save lifes!

Before you read any part of this I wish to make a few things clear...
I do not endorse people taking up smoking
I understand the possible risks to others through passive smoking
I understand the possible risks to my own health
I understand that smokers are more likely to use the NHS
I understand smokers are more likely to die younger

Now that's out the way let me tell you what's really pissed me off lately.
I read yesterday, about a student union pub in Bangor that is charging everybody 50p to come back in every time they go for a cigarette. The grounds for this being to cover the costs of the outdoor heaters as well as maintaining the whole outdoor area in general due to what they call "excessive use". Before I really... and I mean REALLY get on a rant about this I'll also paste 2 comments from students interviewed.
-"Making them pay to go outside gives them another reason to think about giving up. The less people who actually smoke the better, because it helps the health service etc."
David Farnsworth, psychology student
-"I think it is actually good, it makes people stop smoking in there - they've got to come out."
Niyi Adebowale, business student

Right... Here it goes...
THIS IS FUCKING RIDICULOUS AND GOES TO SHOW WHAT AN IGNORANT FUCKING COUNTRY WE LIVE IN. IT PROVES YOU DON'T NEED TO BE INTELLIGENT AT ALL TO GO TO UNIVERSITY AND THAT PEOPLE ARE HAPPY TO SPOUT COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSHIT WHEN IT SUITS THEM OR THEIR IMAGE.

Let's set a few things straight here...
First of all I can't really comment on the pub charging aspect. It's private property and they are entitled to do as they wish within reason. That's not to say I think it's right from a moral point of view or business point of view for that matter. Smokers already have to go outside to smoke, which I completely agree with, but this is demonising them, making them more of the outcasts and I'm sorry but without them everyone else would suffer greatly, but I'll come back to that later. With regards to it as a business, if just under a 3rd of the UK legal drinking age population smoke (31.6% for those interested Source: World Health Organisation Website) then you run the risk of putting them off going to your pub entirely, and possibly slashing your profit by the same percentage. In the current climate there's no business that could weather that much of a cut.

Right, back to what's pissed me off.
OK, Mr Farnsworth let me ask you a question if I may, where did you hear that nugget of wisdom and fact that the NHS is suffering due to smokers? Mmm? Ohh I agree it gives us a another reason to quit, but let's be honest, when we know all of the other negatives to smoking that I've detailed above, charging us 50p is kind of like pissing on a forest fire to put it out. But back to your comment about us costing the NHS, in the words of the Virgin Mary, "You are talking out of your fucking Arse".
What I'm about to do may scare a lot of you, a lot people tend to be frightened by what follows, but I'm about to give you some.... FACTS!
Yes ladies and gentleman, actual fucking facts. Not the 'red top newspaper' facts that people have been so keen to absorb into their tiny minds alongside character names from Hollyoaks and who's shagging who from OK Magazine.
In 2008 a survey of income was done on the NHS. Yes pretty much all the money given to the NHS is from the government but they get it from somewhere and that somewhere is what this survey was conceived and executed to discover. What follows is the contribution to the NHS from sources relevant to this argument.

Smoking Tax (England only)-
9.2 Billion Pounds per year
(Additional 3.4 Billion pounds lost due to cigarette imports)
Source - FOREST (Smoking Alliance) & Confirmed as accurate by the W.H.O.

..... That's a lot of money isn't it? £9,200,000,000 given to the NHS from smokers. What a considerate lot we are ey? And if we stopped buying cigarettes from the frogs during Calais to Dover trips then we'd be contributing a further 3.4 billion.

OK now for the important part. My whole argument hinges on this..... Ready?

"Treating smokers costs the NHS in England £2.7bn a year, compared with £1.7bn a decade ago, a report claims. Anti-smoking group Ash says the cost would have raised to over £3bn had action to curb smoking not seen numbers fall from 12 million to nine million."
Source - BBC Website http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7654153.stm

Hang on a second; let me get this right...
We give you 9.2 billion pounds and you use 2.7 to treat us? I'm sorry but if any non-smokers think they aren't getting the treatment they should due to cost cuts treating smokers, they are fucking delusional. If it wasn't for us you'd have 6.5 billion pounds LESS treatment. And if we're covering the costs of our own treatment plus about 3 others why are we being made out to be the bad guy. We're the good guys, contributing to the NHS like money was water, the rest of you are tight ass bastards.
The next time a loved one is having a life saving operation; it could well have been paid for by me.

Ohh and another thing, did you know treating alcohol related illness, dealing with crime caused by alcohol and it's repurcussions and the loss of productivity in the workplace costs 20 billion a year?! (When did you ever hear of someone going on a fag fuelled rampage? Actually, don't answer that)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3121440.stm
That's nearly 10 times MORE than smokers. Stick that on your fucking high and mighty soap box next time you look down on smokers while you’re in the pub!

What annoys me the most is that people generally listen to whoever shouts the loudest and for the longest, ignoring the quiet guy at the back who knows what he's talking about. And unfortunately for anybody with an ounce of common sense the loudest people around are the media. Even the most dense around should know, good news doesn't sell newspapers. It's an example in bad taste but it best proves my point, Jade Goody. The girl gets cancer, and you can't walk 5 feet in Swansea without seeing or hearing one thing or another about it. If she did charity work, you'd be lucky to hear about it at all.

In summary smokers save lives and 90% of the general public are ignorant.

I'm going to start off by.....

.... pissing off a large proportion of you.
Here is a accurate, drawn, representation of 99% of people who own Apple products.

8===D

And here is a representation of you when you purchase an Apple product.

Apple --> 8==O") <-- You (Sucking off Apple)

--------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, time I think to explain before half off the internet read this, come to my house and start launching miscellaneous fruit and vegetables at it.
You are all a product of, admittedly, brainwash clever marketing, and my cases for example shall be the I(Look at me I'm packed with 5 year old technology and overpriced)phone and the MacBook(Fits in an envelope as there's nothing in it and incredibly overpriced) Air.

Iphone (1st Generation)
This one is so clear cut that a simple list of cans and cant’s will demonstrate what I'm getting at...
Small Print: Before people start defending it from what I'm writing by saying "Ooo but Apple has fixed all that now" while having your penis up Steve Jobs arse, I'm using the 1st generation Iphone for a reason. This is the one that was more hyped than Jesus, from a company bigger and worshipped in more countries than Jesus and cost more than the Holy Grail..... Drank from by Jesus (Fans of The Da Vinci code, don't even think about it), and better illustrates the point that people are uninformed and unintelligent consumers.

Can't or Doesn't:

• Have a user battery replacement option


• Send picture messages


• Record Video


• Copy and Paste


• Have built in GPS


• Have 3G!(This one is incredible for something that boasts video calling, someone please tell me what the quality is like without it)


• Allow 3rd Party plug-ins, only Apple extensions


• Allow for OS customisation


• Take good quality photos (2 Megapixel)


• Have a flash

Does, Can or Will:

• Explode in your face (I'm not shitting you, Google 'Exploding Apple Battery')


• Allow you to move things with your finger (Just because you can doesn't mean you should. I can think of plenty of things that are not good to touch or move with your finger, poo for example)


• Make a dent larger than a nuke in the Grand Canyon to your bank balance


• Tie you to a specific network meaning they can charge what they like for price plans as you have no other option


• Limit you to 4GB or 8GB or storage

Now for a competitor product that has more features, is cheaper on contract, more robust, more customisable and fuck me I could go on but I won't.
Nokia N95 - In the interest of fairness I will use the 1st generation of this as a comparison.
Can, Does or Will:

• Unlimited storage with cards


• GPS, 3G and Video Calling


• Have a user battery replacement option


• 5 Megapixel camera with flash


• Customisable OS


• Have almost limitless options of software from 3rd parties


• Cheaper

Yet people still buy the Iphone

And I could go on but I'm bored of the Iphone already so I'm going to move onto the Air now before making my overall point.
I bet a large number of people have seen the advert for the Air where some anonymous person pulls it out of an envelope to show have amazingly thin it is ("The thinnest laptop ever!"- Steve Jobs). Now try and think of another key selling point Apple advertised about it..... Still thinking? Go on, keep trying. Good. You’re fucked for one aren't you?
Click here after reading the whole note!
What that is a link to is an article describing the fact that Hewlett Packard developed a thinner laptop in, wait for it 1997! 11 years ago! Wow, Apple, you’re on the cutting edge of technology here my friend. Currently there is a Sony Vaio out that is 0.5 millimetres thicker than the Air(about the width of a gnats cock), and that is the only part where the Vaio falls down.
For the same price as the Air you get.... Better battery life, faster processor, more and faster RAM, more storage, Nvidia graphics chip, ohh, and a little thing called a DVD drive and burner and it's that part that grips my proverbial more than anything else. How many people in this day and age would seriously think, "Hmm I need a new desktop computer but I don't need any form of drive CD/DVD or otherwise"?
Yet it's of this exact statement, Apple has convinced the thousands of douches that have purchased it thus far is something to consider.

Yet people still buy the MacBook Air

But I don't hate Apple and I mean it. Really.
I am in unequivocal awe of their marketing team who, like a demented ape, is able to shovel and throw shit at the consumer in such vast quantities yet still retain a clean, zero poo stained, image.
What this is all about is you. Yes you with black polo neck sweater, silly beret and an affinity for fine cheese and poetry readings who seem to be the stereotypical crApple consumer.
These people have bought into Apple so much it's no longer a producer, company or any other business orientated synonym, it's a fucking cult. Here follows an actual quote by an Apple product user.

"I am so happy to be part of the Apple movement, it like being welcomed into a loving family"
- Anonymous tithead in the New York Apple store queue waiting 3 days for an Iphone.

It's because of these people technology is restrained from progressing.
Style in most aspects of life is a good thing. Clothing, food, housing, haircuts, music, art are all good examples where style is paramount to the average consumer. Technology should NOT be one of these things.
Apple make great looking products I'm willing to concede that point but by fuelling the demand for styled technology you slow down it's progress. If everybody was to accept this point and purchase based on substance, who knows where we'd be now!?

Personally I blame Apple consumers for why I'm not flying round in my own personal hovercar and why we haven't developed 3 million ways to cure cancer.