Making a point about privacy

Worth $30million and under 'regional arrest'. This article "Grounded: Millionaire John Gilmore stays close to home while making a point about privacy" is about John Gilmore's attempt to get the US government to come clean about the encroachment on civil liberty that is happening in the name of security in the post 9/11 world. As Bruce Schneier points out, many of the things we are asked to do in the name of 'security' often do nothing to make us more secure, yet do much to compromise our freedoms. I'm impressed by what Gilmore is doing - if he needed it I'd probably even send him money.

Public service announcement

Firefox 1.0.1 has just been released. There are a bunch of security fixes in there, so it would probably be a good idea to install it and maintain your smug position as 'safer than an IE user'. The page describing the security updates has not yet been updated but they should get around to it in the next day or so. Firefox - YKIMS.

More subversion

In Growth of Human Factors in Application Development, Alastair Coburn says:

"Projects succeed because people break out of the prescribed process to make sure the system delivers, or because the process is deliberately vague, allowing people to do whatever is necessary. The best modern processes are of the latter form. This is

(P1) Trust in people to do what is necessary."

I have always instinctively believed that organisations that attempted to use process as a compensation for a lack of ability were unlikely to succeed - software development cannot be reduced to a 'paint by numbers' exercise. I had not realised that so many others shared this belief.

Breaking the Rules

There's a book out, called "Contagious Success" , and as part of the marketing for the book (and her company's consultancy services) the author Susan Lucia Annunzio was a guest blogger on Fast Company Now. The point she chose to emphasise in this post is that the leaders of high performance teams have to break the rules of their organisation to allow their teams to succeed. The interesting thing for me is the way this reinforces the Dilbertian view of the world, where you naturally assume that your employer is part of the problem. Is this inevitable? Is it not possible to build an organisation that actually works? Or is it true that the only way to quality is subversion?

..and now, a message from our sponsor...

If you are into neoprene related water sports, you will be familiar with the problem of wetsuits that ming. Use Mingaway and your problems will be over. A natural product, it de-mings your rubber leisurewear in minutes.

Giving and taking offence

There's been a media row in the UK over the last week about some insults the London mayor, Ken Livingston, aimed at a journalist. Various people have chimed in saying that Ken should apologise, but now Tory MP Boris Johnson has weighed in with the opposite view. As Boris has pointed out, nothing Ken said was anti-semitic, it was just rude and offensive. And since it was meant to be rude and offensive, and Ken feels that he had reason to behave in this way, he really doesn't want to apologise and I can't see why he should. So called 'political correctness' has us thinking twice before we say anything, but it is worth remembering that being rude is a perfectly natural thing to do - it is part of the way we communicate, and sometimes we need to let the other person know that we are really pissed off. Those who would sanitise our language to the point that rudeness becomes impossible are mealy-mouthed weasels and they should sod off, right now.

Lessons on how to fight terror

I came across this article, written only a couple of days after September 11th 2001, while following a chain of links from the Register. I was struck by how prescient it was, and sadly by how many of lessons listed here that the Americans (and British to some extent) have ignored and must learn again. As the article points out, the British have spent more time fighting terrorists than just about anybody else. You could speculate why that was, and what the two current greatest victims of terrorist tactics, the US and Israel, have in common with the Britain that aroused such hatred. The question you have to ask is not 'how can we stop the terrorists', but 'what is it we are doing that makes these people feel that they would rather die than share this world with us?'. Only when you understand that can you start to stop the killing.

Case Study: A Billion Dollar Boondoggle

If there weren't enough warnings for the proponents of ID cards close to home, perhaps they should look at this Expert Project Management - Case Study: A Billion Dollar Boondoggle
The article discusses the fiasco of the Canadian gun registration scheme. The paragraph that particularly caught my eye is this one:

Aside from monumental fiscal waste, this is ultra-bad law. "It's designed to operate on the law-abiding, without touching the outlaw. People who register their firearms rarely use them for crimes, and people who use their firearms for crimes rarely register them. The law's net effect is to diminish public safety rather than enhance it, first because it consumes financial resources and manpower that could be more usefully employed in other areas of law enforcement, and second because it reduces people's own ability to fight crime."

Very similar arguments could be applied to ID cards. In fact, if ID cards are accepted, they will become a powerful weapon for the criminal, as he will be able to 'prove' his lawful status by presenting his card (forged, stolen, or illicitly acquired) and thus lull the suspicions of his victims.

Another blog victim - or is there more to it?

Mark Jen lasted 11 days at Google before he was sacked, probably for reasons related to his blog. Mark puts his side of the story in ninetyninezeros: the official story, straight from the source , although it is a bit light on detail.
The comments are interesting - a sort of 'all human life is here' experience. There are the 'hello mother!' types, who just want to get their name in lights, the people trying to hijack an event to generate publicity for whatever they are selling, conspiracy theorists, reactionary 'serves you right' posters and plenty more.
For my part, it has always seemed a bit daft to clearly identify ones employer and then bitch about them without a fairly thick cloak of anonymity. My economic well-being depends on my employer's success, and doing stuff designed to undermine that would be, well, just stupid. If there is stuff you don't like, do your best to make the changes from the inside. If you really don't like it, then leave. Or perhaps I've missed something?

The Cuddly Menace

This is absolutely what the internet is for. Forget all this blogging, e-commerce, education and stuff, this kind of thing is all the justification I need.

Fixing stuff

I've been working in IT for the last 20 years and to my contemporaries and I it sometimes seems that problem solving skills are not what they were. I've been wondering why this might be, when it is alleged that modern educational methods emphasise teaching children to reason and think, rather than learn by rote. I got a clue when I was helping my son set up the Scalextric , and as usual the track didn't quite make a good electrical contact, and the cars were full of fluff so they didn't run so well. I remember being really interested in how things worked, and my friends and I would disassemble all sorts of things, Scalextric cars included, in the search for knowledge. Some of them we even managed to re-assemble, occasionally so that they worked. Most of the technology we used was relatively simple and understandable - lift the lid on a 60's car and you'd see things that a village blacksmith could fix. An SU carburettor was basic, an Amal even more so, ignition systems were mechanical and very easy to comprehend. Even looking at a radio, you could imagine the electrons flowing from anode to cathode. There were also plenty of books that described these technological wonders and their workings. I think that this was useful in shaping our world view and teaching basic problem solving and diagnostic skills. Our mental abilities were further honed by having to cope with imperial measures and pre-decimal currency, without the benefit of electronic calculators!
Today, the technology we use is vastly superior, but more importantly, far less transparent. As Arthur C. Clarke said, 'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic', and my suggestion is that to the vast majority of people the things they use every day might as well be magic. This gives rise to a new irrationalism which hinders rather than encourages the development of engineering skills. Despite the huge increase in the number of people going on to higher education, the number studying mathematics and physical sciences is actually declining. Those of us who must work in fields that require these skills find ourselves increasingly isolated. Perhaps it is a race to perfect Artificial Intelligence before the skills we need to do it die out.

So much to choose from today

But it has to be this :BBC NEWS | UK | Terror plan may spark fresh outcry

I listened to Charles Clark on the BBC today, trying to justify why we had to give up civil rights to save our society from these shadowy people who want to destroy it. I'm sorry, but it really doesn't work like that. You can't give up a fundamental principle and pretend that no damage has been done. Principles are like that, they are either wholly intact, or completely broken. Governments that say 'trust us, we won't misuse this power' must be treated with the deepest suspicion. Ironically, I think the Tories understand this, but Labour clearly doesn't (I suppose Stalin claimed to be a socialist too). It reminds me of this possibly apocryphal story, which I always thought was attributable to Winston Churchill, but which a quick Google reveals an equal number of people think was by George Bernard Shaw, with a minority claiming Mark Twain as the source. Anyway:

Mark Twain/Winston Churchill/George Bernard Shaw is at a party, mingling with the upper crust, and he's talking to an obviously rich matron who is busy lamenting the death of morality. Shaw/Churchill/Mr. Twain interrupts her to ask, "My dear madam, your complaints are well-grounded, but I wonder if you would sleep with me for one million dollars?" The woman replied, a bit flustered, "For one million dollars Well, who wouldn't?" "Unfortunately," Churchill/Mr. Twain/Shaw continued, "I don't have one million dollars. Will you sleep with me for twenty?" The woman became offended and said indignantly, "Certainly not! What kind of woman do you think I am?!" To which Churchill/Shaw/Mr. Twain replied, "We've already established that; now we're just haggling over the price."

The point being, regardless of attribution, that principles are absolute, and once given up, they are gone.

Do they want my business?

Last night, I tried to buy a digital camera over the net. I buy thousands of pounds worth of stuff online every year, but I'd never used this particular company before. The price was OK, and they had the camera in stock, allegedly. I was a bit put off when the checkout process kept adding extras to the bill without asking (a loyalty card for £14?!!) but I removed them and completed the checkout. All seemed well, until I checked my mail this morning and found the following:

Dear Mr X

In our bid to reduce fraud on the internet, we have issued new measures of security.
To proceed with your order we will need some extra details from you.

If you are opting for delivery to the same address as your invoice address, please send us something that has your name and address on it from the following :

• A copy of your driving licence, OR
• A copy of your social security card, OR
• A copy of your bank statement, OR
• A copy of your council tax bill, OR
• A copy of a recent utility bill.

If you are opting for delivery to a work address, please send us :

• A copy of your passport, driving licence or recent utility bill, AND
• Company letterhead or business card, with switchboard number that we can call to verify that you work there.

If you are opting for delivery to a private address that differs to your billing address, please send us:

• A copy of your passport, driving license or recent utility bill, AND
• A copy of a driving licence, recent utility bill, or something else that has the name and address of the person who will accept delivery.

This can be sent to us either by fax on 00 33 1 nnnn nnnn, or by replying to this email with either jpeg, pdf or gif attachments.
We do not accept mobile phone bills or online statements. If you have not already done so, please provide us a daytime landline contact number.
We are sorry about the inconvenience this may cause you. These measures are intended for our customer's protection, due to the large amount of credit card fraud on the internet, and to allow us to quickly reimburse anyone who has been a victim of a fraudulent transaction.


Since I don't own a scanner, fax machine or photocopier, this was going to be inconvenient to say the least. I was also uncomfortable about the security implications of sending all this stuff to some firm I'd never done business with before. That fax number was also an international call (I'm in the UK, that's a French number). So, I emailed them back and told them to cancel the order, I'll go somewhere else that doesn't give me so much hassle. I can't believe that they'll stay in business if they go on behaving like this.

Why is Software Development Difficult?

Bloody good question. For those of you with an interest in software and who live in the antipodes, this might be worth attending. For the rest of us, just read the session description.

When inspiration fails, wibble

In my CD autochanger today, making the M40 bearable:

Who Killed The Zutons, The Zutons
Vertigo, Groove Armada
My Aim Is True, Elvis Costello
Into the Great Wide Open, Tom Petty
Well Kept Secret, John Martyn
Use Your Illusion Vol. 2, Guns'n'Roses

More than usually eclectic, though I say so myself. The Zutons are the only new band in there. Slightly reminiscent of Talking Heads, which can't be a bad thing. I was introduced to Groove Armada by a friend, I'd never have considered picking it up if he hadn't suggested it, but I'm glad I did. Elvis' debut album was an incredible piece of work, still sounds fresh all these years later. Killishandra calls Tom Petty 'jangly American rubbish', but whatever I think of their president I am rather partial to a number of their musicians. John Martyn, almost as grumpy as Van Morrison, almost as good a songwriter. Guns'n'Roses, possibly the ultimate hard rock band - they had the look, the attitude, the substance abuse and that sound. They really understood what it was all about. Not their best album by a long way, but still worth a listen.

More on US hypocrisy

So, this country that is so God-fearing that it re-elected an idiot simply because he was against gay marriage spends three times more on porn than it does on its other passion, baseball. Actually, I think this points to the reason that they are so successful - the ability to hold two completely contradictory positions simultaneously is incredibly useful. It enables you not to worry about whether what you are doing is right or not, and just lets you get on with it. From this simple beginning comes world domination.
Perhaps I should start to refer to Bush as the Red Queen...
'Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one CAN'T believe impossible things." "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."'- Lewis Carrol

Jonathan Meades

As I was reading Rageboy's latest missive (subscribe, why don't you?) when it struck me that when he is in his more rational moods, his writing reminded me of someone. So I googled for Jonathan Meades and came up with this.
Then flicking through the paper this morning, I discovered that Mr Meades was on television tonight, with another of his discourses on architecture. It was his first architecture series, Secret Architecture, that first introduced me to his rather eclectic style. Mr Meades is a little smaller than he was then, but the programmes are none the less interesting. Both visually and aurally poetic, with wide-ranging comments on social history, art, politics and of course the architecture. He wanders around his subjects, dressed in a dark suit and Ray-Bans, delivering his theses with style and a few well aimed swipes at politicians and religion. I particularly liked his description of the C of E as 'The First Church of the Obese Adulterer, currently trading as the Anglican Church'. There are two more in the series, don't miss them.

Bendy buses - why?

What exactly is the advantage of a bendy bus over a double decker? As an engineering solution the double decker looks better - smaller footprint, simpler mechanism and so on - so why has it been abandoned in favour of the elongated single deck bus? Just curious, that's all.

Human Rights, Hypocrisy and the USA

"Human Rights Watch says the US can no longer claim to defend human rights abroad if it practises abuses itself.", reports the BBC.
The hypocrisy inherent in the US position has been obvious for some while now. Since they became the only superpower, able to do exactly as they pleased, the Americans have become increasingly careless about how they use that power. After all, what censure do they have to worry about? Still, it is comforting to think that God will get them on the Day of Judgement - shame I won't be there to see the look on their faces as he condemns them to the fires of hell. Bwahahahaha

Rageboy's back!

Thought it was worth recording that Rageboy is back, with his customary well read and erudite but scarily unstable postings, both on Entropy Gradient Reversal and ChiefBloggingOfficer. I've read and enjoyed his stuff for about 5 years since the launch of the Cluetrain Manifesto back in 1999. I just can't figure out how he reads so much. Anyway, it is good to hear from you again Chris, and thanks for all the entertainment so far.