Back to Work

Note: This blog entry was written in mid January but somehow failed to get posted. Since I went to all the trouble of writing it I thought it was still worth presenting here, even if it is a bit late...

After a break of about three weeks over Christmas I am back at work today. That is always a challenge but today has been particularly interesting! Before I even arrived I got a cell phone call from someone experiencing problems with Microsoft Word hanging - I know, that hardly ever happens! (sarcasm)

And now I have just finished setting up a PC (I am a Mac specialist and hate PCs) which was hideously slow and yes, Internet Explorer (which I only ran for 30 seconds) crashed, followed by the printer installation program hanging. So it's got to get better from here.

One positive note is that I spending the last three days of the week in Auckland working on some computers up there, so that will be a nice break (although still work).

I do find that, even though I am a Mac consultant and programmer, most of my problems are caused by Microsoft products. In all the time I have used Pages it has never crashed on me where I almost expect Word to crash several times if I'm working on a document of any complexity. Of course, I don't use Word myself unless I really have to, but I do support a lot of people who do.

And I get more issues with Exchange based email than any other type. Again Microsoft products destroy the elegance and reliability of the Mac experience. I do avoid using Exchange for email as much as possible but that isn't always totally practical.

I often wonder how much better the world would be if Microsoft hadn't wormed its way into the dominant position it is in now. What would have happened if we had genuine innovation going on? Look at the progress in areas not dominated by Microsoft (tablets, cell phones, etc) and they seem a lot better than the world of PCs.

Not that I should complain too much because, as I intimated above, I refuse to use Microsoft junk unless I am really backed into a corner. Generally that means I am helping out a client who has to use a Microsoft program for some reason.

The most common reasons for using Microsoft software are interesting. In my experience the most common is "that's what everyone else uses", closely followed by "that's what I was given" and "I didn't know there was an alternative".

Licensing agreements sometimes make using Office almost compulsory. If an organisation pays a large sum every year for a site license it makes sense to use that licensed software even though it might be better economy if there was a choice.

There are genuine reasons to use it too. The "everyone else uses it" argument is valid because sharing documents with someone using a different program does introduce an extra layer of complexity. And I will admit that Microsoft programs do tend to be fairly feature rich (they do a lot of things very badly) which is an important factor for some people.

So it is a tough one. I am convinced that if Microsoft hadn't reached the monopoly situation it is now in we would all be better off, but now that it is there in many ways it is just easier for most people to accept the inevitable and use its products, despite how frustrating an experience that is, especially for someone who has seen how much better similar software from other companies usually is.

2012-02-03

Computers
Rating 3
ID 1357

Things Could be Worse

Things could be worse, apparently. According to some people almost every complaint can easily be dismissed because whatever is being complained about is trivial compared with certain other similar situations.

For example, they say you shouldn't complain about your conditions of work because there are other people with no job at all. And similarly there are people who do have jobs but are working in much poorer conditions than you.

And complaining about the government is pointless because at least it's not as corrupt and dysfunctional as the governments of some some African states such as Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. And the same applies to complaining about the management at your place of work because at least you're not a slave on a plantation, or something similar.

But these are really silly arguments put forward by people who are either too lazy to argue the real points or genuinely have some extreme feeling of entitlement which makes them think that they are so superior that they are above criticism.

No matter how bad things are elsewhere there should always be the opportunity to make things better here and now, and criticising existing conditions has got to be a significant way to initiate change. Or at least it should be because it seems to me that in most situations where there is one group in a position of power and another in some form of subjugation that criticism of one by the other is always seen as a personal attack to be repelled without any thought about its validity.

The "things could be worse" argument is effective because it puts the person complaining on the defensive and possibly even introduces an element of guilt. After all, if you wanted an increase in your salary wouldn't you feel guilty when your relative affluence is compared with the situation of the poor working in a factory in China or India?

The natural endpoint of these arguments is that we should all be working for a subsistence wage apparently, which in turn will make us more competitive and force other countries to reduce their wages and conditions even more. It's a classic "race to the bottom" scenario and it's commonly advocated by modern right-wing governments such as New Zealand's.

Of course it's no surprise to anyone that this idea does seem to be applied evenly. According to the same people who encourage us to make sacrifices for the greater good of the economy the same logic doesn't apply to the rich. If an executive, politician, or some other useless bureaucrat wants a pay rise they deserve it, even if there are people in similar jobs elsewhere making much less.

Apparently for these people things could be worse, but thanks to the immorality of the economic system we live in, in their case it won't be!

2012-02-03

Comments
Rating 3
ID 1356

Those Foreigners!

A current debate here in New Zealand involves foreign ownership of our land and other assets. In reality it isn't a "current" debate because it is something which has never really gone away. Foreign ownership of key assets has been a point of contention especially since the economic revolution of 1984 when New Zealand started the privatisation process.

The two sides of the debate both have good points. Favouring it is the idea that foreign ownership brings in foreign investment and expertise. Against it is the idea that foreign ownership means lack of control and loss of income as profits go to overseas owners.

As you will probably have guessed, I am generally against the idea. In fact I am against the idea of even local private ownership of key assets. I'm not going to go to an extreme communist or socialist position and say the state should own and manage everything, but I would like to see the basics, such as electricity, communications, health, and education, managed by a central non-profit driven organisation, maybe something like the state owned enterprise system we have now (which I realise must return a profit but actually shouldn't need to).

Private companies, in areas such as retailing, could build on top of these knowing that the basics are safely in local control and being run for the greater good of the community rather than for pure profit.

A current example of the ownership debate is over the sale of some significant dairy farms to Chinese investors. The majority of New Zealanders (according to surveys) don't want these sales to proceed. Whether this is specifically because the buyers are Chinese or whether the same would apply to Australians or Americans (for example) is unclear. I suspect the degree of resistance would depend on the country involved but I have no supporting evidence for this.

The prime minister has indicated he wants the sales to proceed and has defended this with two points. The first is that opposing these sales is illegal and the second is that the previous Labour lead government were also responsible for land sales.

On the first point I would say that it is irrelevant. It is up to the government to set the laws for the greatest good of the country. That doesn't seem to be an issue when it comes to creating new laws to favour big corporations and disadvantage workers so why should it be in this instance?

On the second point I would say, yes the previous government did many things that we disagree with. Do two wrongs make a right? And I've never heard the PM justify actions (or lack of action) based on what his opponents did anyway. Does that really make any political sense?

So really it gets back to ideology again. The PM and his government are dogmatically dedicated to free markets, laissez-faire economics, and all the other standard right wing methodology. The fact that these have so often failed in the past and that they make no sense when examined logically is of no interest to them at all because, like all ideologues, the facts (while of a certain academic interest) are not part of the decision making process.

2012-01-29

Politics
Rating 3
ID 1355

MegaUpload

I'm not a great fan of draconian laws intended to strengthen copyright restrictions and to combat piracy. I think it's important that people should be rewarded for their creative work, but I don't think that's what so-called intellectual property protection, copyright enforcement, or anti-piracy laws are really all about. What they are primarily about is protecting the immoral and antiquated business model which media (movies, music, books, etc) companies currently enjoy.

The greatest part of the price the consumer pays for these items goes to individuals and companies other than the artists who originally created the work. In many cases the actual creator could do a lot better if they could bypass the publisher or distributor. And that's what the internet allows which is why these corporations are so enthusiastic about shutting it down.

I recently saw a graphic which divided up where the money goes from the price we pay for a CD. It showed the record company making about 70%, the artist about 1% and the producer, manager, and studio, etc making the rest. I suspect this isn't accurate but according to other sources the artist gets at most about 16%.

So yet again we have a case of worthless parasites (business people, lawyers, accountants) exploiting both the artists and the consumer (you and me) so you can see why some people feel justified in bypassing the corrupt system and acquiring their music and movies by other means.

I don't support piracy in most cases but I would rather have piracy than restrictive laws which cripple the freedom of the internet. So if I was a person charged with enforcing the law I would ignore most of what currently goes on but I wouldn't extend that to people who are professional pirates.

I'm usually hesitant to criticise sites which encourage file sharing, but the alleged piracy site, MegaUpload, which has recently been raided by the New Zealand police, is an interesting case. The rather suspicious seeming founder of the site, Kim Dotcom, was allowed into New Zealand despite his rather dubious background. That was an interesting decision and there are now allegations he "bought" his way into the country - something which seems entirely possible.

I think everyone agrees that swapping of copyright material does happen at this site but that doesn't mean the owners are responsible for that activity and it doesn't mean that they technically broke any laws. After all, whether something is immoral or ethical has little to do with whether it is legal or not.

There is also the consideration that Dotcom has made a fortune from this site plus his mansion contained many weapons: both legal and illegal. The police assault on the place, with a helicopter and armed defenders, did seem a bit over the top though. Are there not more important crime-related problems we can spend this sort of money on?

Another interesting event related to this whole sorry story is the attacks by the "Anonymous" movement who retaliated against the organisations who originated the charges by attacking several sites, including the Universal Music Group and the US Justice Department.

Some people have labelled Anonymous as terrorists, criminals, or hackers. Well according to some definitions they are, but they could also be labelled as activists who are doing what they think is right. Sure, they are using illegal tactics but when the laws exist almost solely for the benefit of big corporations who can blame them? Again, I don't want to see laws broken without good cause but at the same time people must do what they think is right.

The internet is currently under attack. Sure, in some ways it is the "wild west" but do we really want it subdued and turned into yet another tool for making the corporations even richer and more powerful? If a corporation can use the internet in a positive way then that's fine. I buy stuff at the iTunes and app stores because they work well, have reasonable prices, and return most of what I pay to the actual developer (70% to the developers of iPhone apps). That's reasonable and if the traditional media companies gave us what we wanted at a fair price I think people would avoid piracy. But they're too ignorant and arrogant to do that. Who are the real criminals here?

2012-01-23

Computers
Rating 4
ID 1354

A Few Days in Auckland

As I write this I am flying at about 10,000 meters on my way to Auckland (there’s my traditional opening for travel related blog entries, although the destination is not always Auckland of course). Yes, I have been back at work for a total of two days and I am away again already. Well, unfortunately, that isn't quite true. The fact is that I am spending the next three days in Auckland doing some work on the computers at the Auckland Centre of the University of Otago, so it's still work I'm afraid.

Interestingly I have spent a lot less time in New Zealand's main city than I have in some similar places in other countries. For example, since I spent any time in Auckland last I have been to Brisbane, Melbourne, Sydney (several times), and San Francisco. I hope that I might have a few hours to look around between the time time spent sorting out computer issues, but that will have to wait to see just how dire the problems actually are!

It sounds sort of unpatriotic but I can't see a lot of point in spending time in Auckland because anything it has Sydney also has, but more. And the travel time and cost to get to Sydney isn't that much greater. But they say a change is as good as a holiday and Auckland's weather has finally improved so it should be quite pleasant.

On the subject of the weather, I will be in a good position on that front during my visit. Generally our friends from the more northern parts of New Zealand like to make subtle (and not so subtle) comments regarding the superiority of their weather in comparison to ours near the more southern, cooler part of the country. But this year the south has got great weather over the holiday period so I can reverse the trend on them this time.

This second part of the entry is being typed from my hotel room on the second day of my visit. There has certainly been plenty to do here and I could probably stay a week to get everything sorted out properly but instead it has turned into a frenetic burst of activity to get as much done as possible.

I have also had a chance after work to have a bit of a walk around the city and down to the harbour and I have actually enjoyed being here more than I thought, although I still think Sydney's better!

I'm flying out early tomorrow afternoon so I have about 3 hours in the morning to get a few tasks finished. I also hope I have configured enough remote access services so that I can administer some of the servers, computers, and other devices by "remote control" from back in Dunedin. Or maybe I should avoid that technique and aim for another trip here in the future!

2012-01-19

Travel
Rating 2
ID 1353

One More Thing

Today I finished the (600 page) biography of Steve Jobs. I should have spent more time working on my programming projects but I found the book so well written and so full of interesting details that I couldn't stop reading it. And an ironic aspect of this was that it was a real, paper book. This is the first "real" book I have read for a while. Most of my reading now is in the form of audio books on my iPhone and eBooks on my iPad (two of Steve Jobs' last great creations).

Most people agree that Jobs was a genius. He wasn't a genius in the same way that Einstein was - having exceptional intelligence - but he had a unique combination of artistic and engineering skill, amazing intuition about how his devices should work, and an unstoppable ambition to make Apple the greatest technology company ever.

His professional life seemed to have two stages: the early years which were full of disasters, ridiculous fiascos, and crazy decisions which made Apple a huge success story and then almost destroyed it a few years later; and the later years when he returned to Apple when the company just produced one exceptional product after another: the iMac, Mac OS X, the iPod, the iPhone, the iPad, the iTunes store, and the Apple stores.

How did he do it? I don't know, but there were elements of genius, elements of luck, and maybe most important: elements of pure determination and persistence. Apple became the world's most important and biggest (by some measures) technology company under his leadership. Could anyone else have done it? I doubt it. Will Apple be able to continue succeeding now that Jobs is gone? Only if they remember the lessons he has given them.

There was one big reason Apple did so well when other great technology companies gradually sunk into oblivion (I'm thinking about HP, IBM, Microsoft, and RIM, but I'm sure there are many others). That reason was that Apple did not follow the standard corporate business model. It was better than that.

I guess the number one edict of the standard model is: profits first. Given the huge profits Apple makes you might think that philosophy applies there too, but I don't think it does. Jobs himself said so and I think his actions showed that. Jobs' philosophy was "products first". He created products people wanted and were prepared to pay for. Because of the success of the products, profit naturally followed.

Another unusual aspect of Apple's strategy was that it didn't give its customers what they asked for. Jobs said that if Henry Ford had given his customers what they asked for he would have given them a a faster horse, instead he gave them what they really wanted (even though they didn't know it). Of course it's easy to create something you think people might want but only Jobs has consistently created new products which genuinely are so highly loved by their users.

Apple does no product testing, it does no focus groups, it doesn't do PowerPoint presentations, and it's very suspicious of the advice and opinions of experts in business, management and marketing. Many of these are contrary to "best practice" and that's why other companies don't succeed like Apple does: they just follow the crowd. And many of them have the audacity to claim they are innovators or entrepreneurs. What a joke!

For Apple to continue to succeed it must continue valuing the opinion of the engineers and artists (people like Jony Ive) who have the real talent. The CEO is currently Tim Cook who has a degree in industrial engineering (that has to be good) and an MBA (that is very, very bad). Let's just hope he forgets all the crap he learnt when he did that MBA!

2012-01-15

Computers
Rating 2
ID 1352

Thank You Hitch

Last year two people I really admired died. They were Apple founder and technology leader, Steve Jobs, and well-known essayist and political commentator, Christopher Hitchens. Both had been diagnosed with cancer and were not expected to live long but their death was still a bit of a shock.

I'm not pretending these people were perfect because they clearly weren't. Steve Jobs really was often totally unreasonable and arrogant. Hitchens had some odd political views which many people would disagree with. But they were both also geniuses and that makes it easier to overlook their deficiencies.

I've already talked about Steve Jobs (in an entry titled "Think Different" on 2011-10-07) so this time I should say something about "The Hitch". If you have never experienced Hitchens speaking search for a video of him on YouTube and you will see what I mean. He generally destroys those who dare to debate him with a combination of excellent recall of information and vicious wit (some titles include "Hitchens vs God (god loses by the way)", "Al Sharpton Gets Hitchslapped", "Christopher Hitchens Destroys Biblical miracle", and "A Big HitchSlap!"). His victims are often described as being "Hitch slapped"!

In this entry I want to discuss some of his best quotes. As I have said before, quotes don't necessarily mean much but they are often a good starting point for discussion and sometimes a concise description of a philosophical position.

My first quote is this short and simple one: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

That is a very compact definition of many skeptics' views and I think it's true. Anyone who has a theory based on no evidence can have that theory rejected without the need to present evidence against it, because a theory with no evidence isn't a theory, it's an opinion. So anyone who believes something "on faith" can never have that belief taken seriously simply because there's just no need to, it's simply irrelevant.

Here's another: "The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species. It may be a long farewell, but it has begun and, like all farewells, should not be protracted."

So not only should the religious faithful not be taken seriously but they are also infantile and their way of thinking belongs in the past. Again I agree: one of my objections to religion is that it's embarrassing. People who really believe the world is 6000 years old and that those who don't believe the same thing as them are evil are stupid and embarrassing to our species.

Finally here is the ultimate quote (of life, the universe, and everything): "Beware the irrational, however seductive. Shun the 'transcendent' and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don't be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish. Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence. Suspect your own motives, and all excuses. Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you."

I will analyse this point by point. First: "Beware the irrational, however seductive." Many religious fundamentalists ask me why I won't believe what they do because if I did I would get eternal life. That idea is irrational but the idea of banishing death is certainly seductive. But believing something doesn't make it true. If I believed in Santa should I expect lots of expensive gifts next Christmas? Believing something doesn't make it true, it just makes the believer deluded.

Next: "Shun the 'transcendent' and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others." We should not enslave ourselves to any god, real or imagined. If a god actually existed and required humans to fully submit to his will I still wouldn't be interested in worshipping him. The poor Christians who let their imaginary god and their churches think for them are truly pitiful.

Then: "Don't be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish." I think many people in the skeptical and atheist communities have been too "nice" in the past. They have been so careful when discussing their views that they have failed to say what they really believe. The new atheists, including Hitchens, have been far more open in what they say and this has, of course, lead to conflict.

I'm occasionally accused of being arrogant myself! I remember on one occasion discussing religion with an Anglican minister and being accused of being arrogant simply because I didn't believe the same thing he did. I think we need to say what we really think without any regard for how it will be perceived - at least in most situations although I admit sometimes a more subtle strategy might be more effective.

Then: "Picture all experts as if they were mammals." That one short sentence is important but can be easily misused. All experts are prone to errors. But this shouldn't be extended and used as an excuse to reject facts. Even though the experts who support evolution and climate change are mammals they should still be believed because those mammals also have plenty of facts on their side!

Then: "Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity." We can't all spend our lives protesting or occupying Wall Street or being arrested over environmental activism but we should do what we can. We should always be prepared to do what's right because there's plenty of unfairness and stupidity out there.

Then: "Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence." I love arguing (or to put it more politely debating) with people over the big issues even though many people think it's a waste of time. But I agree that argument is good for it's own sake, as long as it is about things that really matter.

Then: "Suspect your own motives, and all excuses." If everyone followed this one rule most of the world's problems would be solved. I so often see people criticise others for doing exactly what they do. And yes, I know I probably do this myself occasionally and I am aware of which of my beliefs are weakest. One of the reason I engage in debates is to test them and I have changed my mind on some subjects in the past - a phenomenon I have never seen in a fundamentalist of conservative.

Finally: "Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you." We do live in connected social communities and we do need to consider other people in how we live but in the end we need to do what we think is personally right, not what anyone else tells us.

That's it. One of the greatest quotes of all time, in my opinion. I think anyone who follows the deeper meaning behind this will be a good and worthwhile person. Thank you Hitch.

2012-01-06

Philosophy
Rating 4
ID 1351

Fiordland Adventures

As I write this blog entry I am returning from a few days in Te Anau. For those of you not familiar with New Zealand, it is a small town on the eastern edge of Fiordland National Park in southern New Zealand. Fiordland is well known for its wet weather, and is mostly covered with rain forest, but on this occasion the weather has been quite brilliant (it is mid summer in the southern hemisphere of course) which is particularly gratifying considering the poor weather in the rest of the country.

Fiordland is mostly wilderness and covered with dense forest and it has some of New Zealand's best walking tracks, including the Milford and Kepler tracks. We aren't into serious tramping but we did do a few shorter walks along these tracks and I got a few photos which I will post on the relevant sections of my web site when I get the chance.

The main walk involved a bus trip from Te Anau to a small harbour half way up the lake, followed by a boat trip to the head of the lake where the Milford Track begins. The track is about 50 kilometers long and usually takes 3 days to complete but we just walked a couple of hours up the valley and didn't get as far as the big climb up to the pass and out to Milford Sound on the other side.

I walked the whole track many (and I mean many, like about 40) years ago but it is hard to remember what the experience was like so it was good to have a small reminder of it. Of course, I would have loved to have got up the pass for the awesome views and gone down to Sutherland Falls on the other side (one of the tallest waterfalls in the world) but that will have to wait for another occasion.

The main purpose of the visit was to catch up with the rest of the family and to celebrate my brother's 50th birthday. So we had 18 family members for meals and other events including a rather pleasant al fresco dinner at an Italian restaurant where we enjoyed some good New Zealand wines in the sunshine until quite late.

I can write this blog entry now instead of driving like I usually would because my daughter is driving. That has turned out to be quite useful and she is not too bad a driver. Good enough anyway that I feel reasonably secure sitting in the back typing on my iPad.

Yes, I took my iPad on holiday with me but it does get worse because I also took my iPhone and laptop, plus we had another iPhone, two other iPads and two other laptops there as well. I don't think it's bad using technology like that as long as it doesn't keep you too much out of the sun enjoying the great outdoors. And knowing Fiordland it could just as easily have rained most of the time and then the technology would have been really welcome! As it happened I just used the laptop to process photos in the evening after we got back to the house.

So that's by quick report on my summer holiday. Unfortunately the rest of my summer break is most likely going to be spent more on programming work than relaxing but that's my fault for starting too many projects I guess!

2012-01-01

Travel
Rating 1
ID 1350

Belief in Woo

It's almost Christmas again so I guess it's also time to deal with belief in superstitious nonsense (also known as "woo") again. A recent report showed that belief in the paranormal, superstition, and various other oddities is quite strong in new Zealand although it's better than in some other countries like the US where superstition in the form of religious belief is much stronger.

There were various statistics presented in the report so I might just go through a few of them and comment on related matters of (I hope) interest.

According to the survey of 1000 people about a third think the Earth has been visited by aliens. So called "minority" groups such as Maori and Pacific people had a higher rate of belief than New Zealanders of European origin. I'm not sure what that means.

There's nothing too silly about believing in aliens. After all, just about every rational person thinks there is life elsewhere in the Universe, that life should lead to intelligence at least in some cases, and that some intelligent life must be far more advanced than us since our planet formed almost 10 billion years after the Big Bang.

The problem is that if aliens have visited Earth they have certainly acted strangely. They seem to have been very obvious to certain groups of people and kept themselves well hidden from others (for example, very few UFO reports come from astronomers). So even if we think aliens should exist I think it's still safest to work on the interim hypothesis that they haven't visited Earth.

The same survey found that 55 per cent believe that some people have psychic power, such as ESP. I guess a lot of popular culture does push the idea that psychic powers are real and few people have much familiarity with the real research (and even then there are a few results which seem to support the idea) so this level of belief isn't a surprise.

Psychic powers in general would require new laws of physics because it's hard to see how they could be accommodated within the current understanding of the Universe, but they aren't completely impossible. However the requirement to change the well understood laws of physics to explain a phenomenon which has almost zero evidence for existence is not rational. So people who believe in psychic powers are very likely either ignorant or irrational. Still, the fact that those labels apply to only just over half our population is actually fairly good!

The fact that women (67%), older people (63%), and Maori (60%) are more likely to believe is probably best left alone. It's hard to comment on a phenomenon like that without seeming sexist, ageist or racist!

So what about that ultimate question: Does God exist? In New Zealand 60% of the population believe in a "god or universal spirit". It's rather unfortunate that the "universal spirit" bit was added there because I don't think anyone (myself included) really knows what that means. It can mean so many different things that it really means nothing so the whole statistic is almost useless.

That result is actually quite low, especially when the "universal spirit" stuff is included. Obviously genuine religious belief is low here and other recent statistics seem to indicate it is declining. Good news at last!

Related to this 80% think that Jesus was a real person and 57% believe in life after death. Belief in Jesus as a real person is yet another question which is open to interpretation. Obviously the Bible stories aren't true, and no rational person would believe them, if only for the reason that the stories are contradictory!

So how close to the traditional portrayal of Jesus would a real historic figure have to be before we could say he actually was the person described in the Bible (because he really wasn't described anywhere else, a suspicious fact in itself)? Would it be sufficient to have someone who vaguely fitted the description? Should we say the Bible gospels are "based on a true story" like some movies?

Regarding life after death. Maybe this is based on wishful thinking although it was interesting to note that older people believed in it less than younger! There has been real research in this area with some interesting results but the more solid studies which should reveal good evidence have all revealed nothing, a classic sign of a phenomenon which doesn't exist.

Yet again men were more cynical and women more credulous regarding the existence of god (and don't forget that rather poorly defined "universal spirit"). Obviously women are more open to poorly supported ideas. Is this good or bad? I will leave it to you to decide!

Finally the saddest statistic of all: a quarter of the participants in the survey believe that astrology can predict the future. Astrology is really rather silly and I'm a bit surprised that belief in it is that high. Still, I suppose it's all those women pushing the rate up!

2011-12-22

Skepticism
Rating 4
ID 1349

Tax the Rich

Is our society fair and equal? Should it be? And what do we mean by those terms anyway? I think it's becoming increasingly obvious that society is a lot less equal than it used to be and to most people that means it is also less fair. Most people (although certainly not all) would say that we want a fair society but the last point: what fairness and equality actually mean, is the tough one.

A recent OECD report highlighted the increasing unfairness in most societies and put the blame on modern economic policies. This is quite extraordinary from an organisation which has been associated with the economic mainstream in the past. There does seem to be a developing consensus that something must change (a point I've been making for years) and even the IMF has admitted the current system has gone too far.

New Zealand was once seen as a very egalitarian society but recently the gap between the rich and poor has increased here faster than most other countries. Between 1985 and 2008 this was particularly obvious. Of course this was triggered by the great 1984 economic experiment where neo-liberal economics was forced on the unsuspecting New Zealand public.

Predictably the current advocates of this ideology disagree that we have a problem. National and Act (the two right wing New Zealand parties) think we should stick with the same policies, but more of them! Yes, the policies which got us into the mess are what we need to get out of it, apparently. I think few people would agree with this analysis now.

The OECD report totally rejects the famous "trickle down" theory which claims that more money going to the rich also results in increased wealth for the poor. How anyone could believe such nonsense is almost incomprehensible but now we have official confirmation that it's a lie, or worse maybe, a wrong but sincerely held belief of the neo-liberal camp.

It's interesting to listen to our politicians discuss the subject. They just spout a load of unsubstantiated propaganda. Why do the interviewers let them away with this stuff? Still, at least Peters, Dunne and Banks commented. The finance minister didn't even bother. I can imagine his thoughts on this: we've decided what we want to believe, please don't bother us with the facts!

So I think it's beyond doubt now that the economic theories most countries base their politics on lead to greater inequality, unemployment, worsening conditions, and social unrest. The question is this: would we be even worse off following a more interventionist Keynesian approach and is having distinct economic classes like this necessarily a bad thing?

Some people say the rich deserve what they have. They say they work hard for their money. But how do they know that? Many assume that if someone is rich they must have worked hard and they assume that if someone works hard they will get rich. It's just worthless nonsense. In general (and this is a generalisation which there are exceptions for) the rich are rich because they are self centered and greedy and they have found a way to exploit society for their own benefit.

I say tax the rich hard (if they make over $250,000 tax them at 80%) Most people with extreme wealth say they don't do it for the money anyway, and many are actually asking to be taxed more. Let's give them their wish! If they don't like it they can leave, because we don't want them anyway.

Interventionist economics can be taken too far. Most people would say it had gone too far in New Zealand before the 1984 "revolution", but that doesn't mean it isn't a good approach if used more sensibly. Correcting one extreme economic situation by going even more extreme in the opposite direction isn't a valid approach. Interventionism is really the only sensible solution but it must be used correctly.

When the so-called "markets" are allowed to rule we just end up with a very efficient system to do nothing of any value. We get people making a fortune by trading non-existent financial packages and manipulating markets and whole economies for their own benefit, while other people who are doing scientific research, trying to find a cure for diseases, and producing great art have no money to produce genuinely worthwhile outcomes.

We get real progress when long-term research, good education, and social equality are allowed to flourish. For that we need guidance from some entity which has real values beyond simple greed. Unfortunately that generally means governments, which have their own problems, but they are the best we have.

We need a revolution in how society works but that can't happen quickly. Until that revolution happens (and it will) we need to re-align our current systems. We need to re-distribute the wealth. Yes, that is what the OECD said. We do need to tax the rich and tax them hard. But we should be careful with what we use that extra tax income for. It should go to truly useful education, health, technology, and scientific projects, because they are the only route to real progress.

2011-12-14

Politics
Rating 3
ID 1348

It Might As Well Be Me

In a few recent sources (mostly podcasts) I have come across a recurring theme which relates to many current world problems. It's what I call the "it might as well be me" syndrome. Actually, it might have been called that by others as well but I can't find it anywhere so I'm claiming naming rights here!

This syndrome results from the idea that if anyone is going to do something which itself is bad then it might as well be me who does it. For example, if a resource, such as fish, is being overexploited then eventually the last fish will be taken. If that is going to happen anyway then I might as well be the person to take that last fish before anyone else does, since the end result is the same.

The same applies to many environmental and social phenomena, such as global warming, war, and exploitation of any natural resource.

What did the person think as he cut down the last tree on Easter Island, for example? He must have known that it meant disaster in the long term but he did it anyway. But since someone else was going to do it if he didn't it was actually entirely sensible for that person to do it, just like it's entirely sensible for individual countries to continue to pollute the atmosphere or decimate non-renewable resources because other countries would do the same thing if they didn't.

It's a classic case of the "prisoner's dilemma" where a prisoner must either inform on his fellow prisoner or not, but where the punishment he receives depends on both his and his fellow's actions. If neither informs there are few negative consequences, but if one does and the other doesn't the informer gets off free but the person informed on has a harsh punishment. The best response is to stay silent as long as the other person also says nothing but that risks receiving the worst punishment if the other person does say something against you.

This phenomenon relies on individuals acting independently and exhibiting no collective wisdom and, as I said above, it's the basic cause of many of the world's problems. Why should a fishing company avoid overfishing and why should a forestry company log sustainably when they know that their competitor might not follow the same rules? Competition is usually touted as the solution to all of our problems but (although I admit it can produce good outcomes) the reality is that it actually the cause of most of them.

It's a difficult problem to solve because being greedy and acting in what seems like an illogical and immoral way is actually the only sensible approach in these situations. It is actually entirely rational to act that way in a competitive environment where trust is uncertain. The prisoners' should both betray their partner and individual countries or companies should act in the most self-serving way possible even though the final outcome for both will be worse.

The best solution is to remove the environment where these rules apply. We should base our economic and political systems more on cooperation than competition or we should introduce a higher authority than simple market pressures and have extremely strong controls in place to prevent individual behaviour being detrimental to the long term future of the majority.

That has been contrary to accepted wisdom for many years. But current economic dogma is increasingly obviously a failure. The outcome of neo-liberal economic strategies is clear both through the predictions of gaming theory and the actual observations of what is happening in the world. We should start making the necessary changes now rather than waiting for them to be forced on us. Do we want the whole world to end up like Easter Island?

2011-12-07

Comments
Rating 3
ID 1347

Education Standards

I often hear interesting stories of apparent incompetence from many different areas, and education is no exception. I wont mention any names, or even the school involved, because it is unfair to criticise individuals without giving them the chance to defend themselves. Yes, I know that I do that to public figures but I think that by becoming politicians, entertainers, etc these people no longer require the protection of anonymity.

First I want to mention a materials scientist who was being interviewed in a podcast who claimed the atomic number of iron was 56 and that it had an odd number of electrons. I'm a computer consultant/programmer and have only a passing interest in chemistry but even I know the atomic weight of iron is (approximately) 56 and that it's atomic number is actually 26. Also, last time I checked, 26 is an even number, not odd!

I guess it's easy to say something in a pressure situation like a public interview that you would know is wrong if you thought about it in a more relaxed situation but I hear this sort of stuff all the time. Many of the computer technology commentators I hear interviewed for example say some really interesting stuff. The basic knowledge of the public regarding sci-tech is poor enough already without them being mislead by "experts".

But why is the basic knowledge of science and technology so poor? Maybe it's because the teaching of the subject is also poor. Here's a few interesting stories from that school I mentioned above...

The ICT (information and communications technology) teacher uses Netscape Navigator as her web browser. According to Wikipedia (I wonder if she's heard of that) the final release of Navigator was in 2007. And yes, it does matter, because the web is a very quickly evolving environment where browsers need to be constantly improved to keep up with new standards such as HTML5.

I have also heard in that class that the teacher is just as often the pupil because the more IT literate members of the class often have to show her how to do things. Sure, it's tough trying to keep up with the latest in an area like IT but you would think a teacher might be able to do a bit better than that!

In the same school I have been told that the class was told by their social studies teacher that global warming is all made up. Luckily a lot of the class hold the teachers, and the school in general, in such low regard that they didn't take them too seriously, but this is not only incompetent it's actually malicious. Most global warming deniers have moved on from denying it is happening to denying that humans caused it. Maybe this clown hasn't caught up with the latest dogma yet.

Again at this school (I have to say this is certainly not the best school in town but it's not the worst either) there is a maths teacher who told his class that they would get detentions unless they learnt the New Zealand national anthem in Maori in a few days. This was just before the end of year exams when the students probably had more critical things to do. I don't think he carried out the threat but I do wonder if anyone failed the exam because they learnt something totally useless instead.

Finally I want to recount another anecdote regarding ICT. During the end of year exam the computer systems were so badly set up that the exam had to be postponed. The computers took 30 minutes (I'm assured this is genuine but there may have been some exaggeration) to launch Word, and then the link to the internet failed. This was the PC lab and the Mac lab works better of course, but even so it does seem rather incompetent.

So these anecdotes indicate some teachers are out of date, ignorant, malicious, politically motivated and incompetent. Of course, it is easy to present any organisation in a bad light if you just list the bad points and ignore the good, and I'm sure there are good points about this school, although I can't think of any right now. I am also sure that I could make any organisation look bad by listing incidents like this (I certainly could for one place in particular which I won't name here).

You might think that a libertarian agenda of performance based pay and personality tests for new teachers might help in these situations but I don't think so. The problem with paying on performance is the definition of that word. It often gets back to who is the best at filling out the paper work and who is most skilled at petty office politics rather than who is genuinely the best at their actual core job (teaching rather than filling in forms) so I have no confidence in that process. And the idea of requiring a personality test is frankly quite scary. I dread to think what sort of mindless automatons are likely to arise from a system like that.

So whatever the education system's deficiencies might be I think it could be worse. The fact is half of the teachers we have are below average, but doesn't that apply to everyone?

2011-12-02

Comments
Rating 4
ID 1346

Democracy Fails Again

Well, the New Zealand general election is over and, as expected, the center-right National party has been easily returned to lead the new government. That was no surprise to anyone but it was perhaps the only result which wasn't surprising because there were a lot of other unexpected outcomes.

New Zealand First provided the biggest surprise by getting 6.8% of the vote. So Winston Peters has done it again despite John Key's best efforts to discredit him. And it's good to see Winston back in parliament. No matter what else you think of him, he is a real character, plus he actually has some quite worthwhile policies.

Act failed miserably. Despite gaining one seat through the rather unsavoury agreement between them and National, which effectively meant Act only existed because National let them. The Act leader, Don Brash, resigned as leader and perhaps this time he might finally realise that not only is he just not the right type of person for politics but his far right policies are just not wanted by the voting public.

The Greens exceeded their target of 10% (compare that with the opposite extreme of the political spectrum where Act aimed at 10 and got 1) and it looks like they might become a genuine long-term option in the future.

The Maori Party suffered the almost inevitable fate of small parties who get too friendly with a bigger one and lost a lot of support. Why they would ever have entertained the idea of teaming up with National is beyond me. Do they really want to commit political suicide?

So National superficially seem to have a mandate for their agenda of right wing privatisations and nasty social changes. But they don't really. Many polls show the people of New Zealand don't want asset sales, and the pathetic turnout (for New Zealand) of under 70% of eligible voters hardly represents a real mandate.

It's rather depressing that so many people didn't vote (over one million which is a lot for a small country) even though I can see why. Many on the right would have assumed a victory so perhaps not voting seemed OK. And the left equally assumed a defeat and might not have voted for that reason. But under MMP no battle is ever lost and everyone should have voted. If everyone had voted the right would probably not have the power they do now.

It seems to me that people didn't vote for National or for right oriented policies, they voted for John Key. For some reason people really like him. Actually I did when he first became our prime minister too but I was astute enough to soon realise that appearances can be deceptive.

Phil Goff in comparison just didn't really connect with the public and it didn't really matter who had the better policies because that's just not what people were voting on.

National also had the advantage of experiencing some bad luck during their time in power. First there was the continuing global financial crisis then the Christchurch earthquakes. Even though they were average at best in how they handled those that was enough.

So we had a low turnout and even the people who did vote probably voted for poor reasons. It looks like democracy fails again!

2011-11-28

Politics
Rating 3
ID 1345

More Thought, Less Dogma

I have heard that foreign share and currency traders are getting a bit nervous about the political situation in New Zealand. Up until recently it looked like the existing government would be re-elected comfortably but now it seems that the center-left coalition has a chance of winning.

Is this a good reason to vote for the right? Some people think so but I would encourage the opposite. If greedy, corrupt foreign traders want National to win then I would say they should lose. Not only are these people just intrinsically immoral but their incompetence was a major factor in the failure of various economies around the world.

I find it really disturbing that some people would consider changing their vote based on what some foreign trader wants. People should do what they consider is the right thing of course, and they might consider these traders are an important part of our economy, but I say we need to set up an economy which doesn't rely on immoral behaviour.

New Zealand took the moral high ground when the Labour government of the 80s stopped visits by American nuclear ships. Many were concerned there would be economic repercussions but I don't think there is any real evidence that happened. So doing the right thing is possible and the threats of dire consequences are usually exaggerated.

A similar idea applies to so-called free trade agreements. Many people just assume that all agreements of this type are good. But the much bigger economies we are negotiating with aren't doing it because of their high ethical principles. The secret negotiations this country is currently involved in for the Trans-Pacific Partnership are unlikely to result in a truly positive outcome for the majority. And if these deals are so great why are they negotiated in secret?

If anyone wants to invest in or trade with our country we should be suspicious. They want to deal with us because they think they can make money that way. That's not necessarily a bad thing but it should be regarded with some suspicion and it certainly shouldn't be automatically considered as a good thing.

Global trade can be a good thing but the ultimate aim of completely free trade with no control is just another neo-liberal ideology and I don't think we should have anything to do with it despite the fact that New Zealand has been a leader in the area.

I think a more considered approach is required. The great global free economy is failing. We need more controls and direction, not less. We need more thought and less dogma. And we sure as hell don't need to consider the opinions of people whose sole purpose is to exploit our country for their own greedy purposes.

2011-11-24

Politics
Rating 4
ID 1344

A Nice Cup of Tea!

They say that if you can't stand the heat you should get out of the kitchen. Politicians are the ultimate seekers of easy publicity and you would think that a well publicised public meeting would be likely to attract a lot of attention. If that's the case why would those same politicians then be concerned or offended that people took a interest in what they said?

I am of course speaking of the infamous "tea pot tapes", a recorded conversation between prime minister John Key and Act candidate John Banks. The recording was made without the politicians' knowledge, accidentally according to the person who was responsible, but now the PM seems to want to take legal action over the recording even though he claims there was nothing of any importance said at the time.

Meanwhile people are becoming almost paranoid wondering what the tapes (whether they actually are old technology like a tape I'm not sure but I'll stick with that description) really contain. Key and Banks won't give permission to allow the material to be released because they claim that would encourage secret recording in the future, but that has just fueled speculation even more.

The fact is the meeting was in a public place, it was well publicised ahead of time, it was an obvious ploy to garner political publicity, it was of unmistakable relevance to the voters of this country, and (if the journalist's story is true) the recording was only made through an error and as a result of intimidation by the extensive security personnel the PM employs. I say release the conversation whether Banks and Key like it or not.

And the symbolism of the meeting over tea is also interesting. In the US the "Tea Party" is a collection of far right political nutters, rabid libertarians, and some other more moderate (mostly) right wingers. Does this sound familiar? Maybe the choice of meeting over a cup of tea was more than just coincidental!

A second political issue where the government seem to be over-reacting is over the so-called vandalism of their political hoardings. A group changed the messages on National's billboards by adding what they say are more realistic comments such as "The Rich Deserve More" and "Drill it! Mine It! Sell it!". It later turned out that the "attack" had been coordinated by a member of the Green Party, but wasn't officially endorsed by them.

In fact the Greens have also over-reacted on this issue and have fired a staff member involved as well as exposing another person responsible. I guess the Greens are trying to gain a more mainstream and respectful image but surely this is unnecessary.

The changes were made with removable stickers and they seem to be very much a reasonable form of political commentary. Any threat by the National Party over this just shows them for what they really are: a petty bunch of hypocrites totally lacking in any real ideas.

National is very much about making the rich even richer and exploiting our resources and selling our assets without much appraisal of the consequences. Drawing these obvious facts to people's attention seems perfectly reasonable.

Interestingly, as the election approaches, it actually seems possible that National might really lose it. Yes, they really might snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Sure, National are still by far the most widely supported single party but their coalition partners are disappearing fast and a collection of more left oriented parties, especially Labour and the Greens, looks increasingly viable.

National would still have to be clear favourites to win but if Key continues to be so incompetent who knows what might happen? He really might throw it all away! When it comes to asset sales when will he understand: no means no!

I certainly hope that a miracle happens and National are defeated, because the last thing we need now is more of the inept, unimaginative, unfair policies they have already introduced and are promising to give us much worse of in their next term - if we are stupid enough to let them!

2011-11-16

Politics
Rating 4
ID 1343

What a Deal!

Here in New Zealand we are preparing for a general election (in about a week and a half) and it looks at this point that the current National (conservative) government should be re-elected fairly comfortably. It's interesting really because if people voted in a logical way they should be thrown out in a landslide.

The key factor (if you'll excuse the pun) in National's favour seems to be their leader, our current Prime Minister John Key. Key is by far the most popular leader and it seems that many people want to vote for National just because he is there. The leader of the main opposition party, Phil Goff, is far less favoured as a leader and although he is gradually gaining a bit more support, he is far behind Key in the current polls.

I must admit that when National first took office about 3 years ago I was fairly positive about them, although they wouldn't have been my usual preferred choice. But as time goes by it has become apparent that they really just represent the same old right-wing unthinking nonsensical policies of the past.

So why is Key so popular? I think he's just like a slick life insurance salesman. He ends up selling you something you don't really want or need but he does it in such a clever way that you don't even notice you've been ripped off! It does make sense because, as I said above even I was fooled initially.

It is unfortunate that people vote for emotional reasons rather than actually looking at what the parties really stand for. Surely the vast majority of New Zealanders would be far better off under a Labour government than they would under National. Even if the election promises (also known as bribes) offered by both parties were discounted it's still obvious that Labour has a far fairer and more reasonable political philosophy than National.

National have already driven our economy down by giving the rich huge tax cuts. This has resulted in the need for increased borrowing and has made refusal to fund worthwhile projects so much easier. The economy is a mess because of National's incompetence therefore we must reduce the minimum wage, sell off assets, and cut funding for useful projects. And yes, I know there have been events beyond the government's control (the global financial crisis and the Canterbury earthquake being the most obvious) but these are even better reasons not to give tax cuts to a sector of the population who most definitely don't need them.

John Key has been caught lying on several occasions, including over significant points such as increasing GST and the country's credit rating. He clearly cannot be trusted and people must realise that anything he says should be viewed with great suspicion. Yet, just like the devious insurance salesman people seem to go along with what he says anyway.

New Zealand still has a few worthwhile assets left, even after the loathsome asset sales of the 80s and 90s (ironically started by a Labour government). One reason we still own anything is that people realised asset sales were a really bad idea so the government stopped them. The other is that many of the companies sold were such a disaster under private ownership that the government had to buy them back at a huge loss. Yet these despicable clowns in National want to start the whole sorry process again. They're either morons or just so intent on following their discredited ideology that they are blind to the facts. Either way, why would any sensible person vote for them?

I've often said that I become quite despondent when I see how poorly democracy really works. John Key with his failure to debate the facts, insistence on repeating carefully designed catch phrases, and just general lack of honesty and integrity really is a poor example of the type of leader we need. Still, if people want a smug, dishonest, sleazy insurance salesman as their leader I guess that's their choice!

2011-11-11

Politics
Rating 4
ID 1342

Relevant Quotes

Many famous figures have made statements that people like to quote to prove their points. It's a waste of time really because a quote from a great leader, or scientist, or artist, or anything else, is no more a source of real proof than a random statement from anyone else.

But I do think quotes can be a good starting point for pursuing an idea and can be a clear way to express a concept, assuming the quote is supported by the facts of course.

So after that introduction explaining that quotes must be treated with great suspicion I am now going to present some quotes which I think support a theme I want to develop in this entry.

My first quote is this: "Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." This quote is from legendary science fiction writer, Isaac Asimov.

I have often commented on the threat that the voting power of ignorant groups presents to the modern world. It's entirely possible that through valid democratic processes there will be no action on climate change for example, simply because various groups in society vote based on the ideological premise that climate change is some kind of vast left-wing conspiracy.

Climate change deniers are both ignorant and anti-intellectual. A friend of mine, when challenged over why he believes the opinions of a journalist but rejects that of the vast majority of climate experts, said he doesn't trust scientists and thinks expertise based on "common sense" is more important. What he really meant to say was that he would prefer to believe anyone who supported his ignorant political belief that climate change cannot be true.

My second quote is this: "The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history". This well known quote is from the German philosopher, Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

This does seem to be depressingly true. People seem to repeat the same mistakes over and over again. Maybe this is a further side effect of the anti-intellectualism I mentioned above. People don't want to listen to historians and other experts because what the experts say often contradicts what they desperately want to believe.

This related quote is from Einstein: "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

This seems to get to the core of the world's problems today. The big problems we have: environmental disasters, unstable political systems, dysfunctional economics, and others, are all caused by an economic system which just doesn't work. It relies on constant growth which cannot continue, cheap energy which is running out, and unfair distribution of wealth which is becoming unacceptable.

But the answer most people give is more of the same, sometimes in an even purer form. They say we need even more growth, cheaper energy, and greater redistribution of wealth. It's obvious that this cannot work and we are now seeing the beginning of a revolution which our leaders don't seem to have noticed. Einstein and Hegel were both right: more of the same will not work and we can see from history that is a fact.

I'm not sure what will work better but the first step to improving the current system is to admit that it needs to change. I don't mean we have to fine tune the current system, I mean we have to replace it. And I'm not advocating communism or a return to a pre-technological simpler time. That would also be ignoring the lessons of history.

What we do need to do is decide what we want to achieve and design a system to make that happen. And I'm fairly sure that won't involve rescuing big banks, giving corrupt corporate leaders even more money, or reducing taxes for large multinationals which actually contribute very little.

That is one quote which I think really is true: we can't solve the problems of the world by using the same tactics that caused them in the first place.

2011-11-09

Comments
Rating 3
ID 1341

That's Blasphemy!

A podcast I listened to recently discussed the idea and relevance of blasphemy. Even a country like New Zealand, where religion is largely irrelevant to the majority, has blasphemy laws and it's technically illegal to say something like this: "Jesus was a cynical invention of the evil leaders of the early church", even if there might be good reason to say that it's true. OK, I'm waiting to be arrested for stating that blasphemous idea in public.

Of course no one has ever been convicted because of an act of blasphemy here and there has only been one court case, many years ago, which failed. So the whole thing is a bit of a joke really, like a lot of laws of this type.

You could say these laws were originally more relevant because at the time they were formulated society took religion a lot more seriously and it was an important part of life in that era. But like many other laws, time has made what might have been a reasonable idea obsolete and irrelevant. But the law is so silly and trivial now that's it's not even really worth removing.

A case could be made to say that some people would be offended by blasphemous statements and should be protected. But should they? Isn't it a problem for the person who was offended, not the person who made the statement? If I say "Christianity is silly and based on ridiculous superstition" an appropriate response by someone who disagrees is to show how I am wrong through the presentation of facts. Relying on laws specifically designed to protect a belief system instead of presenting evidence to support it just shows that I am probably right in criticising it to start with!

The same applies to other organisations. An employee of Apple was recently fired for criticising the company on his Facebook page. So what? If he was wrong in his criticism why didn't someone correct him, and if he was right Apple should do something about it. Individuals, organisations, and companies should welcome criticism. Otherwise how will they know when they need to improve something?

I should say here that I don't know what the specific criticism of Apple was, and I do agree that there are some opinions which shouldn't be allowed. If a person is inciting violence, hatred or other socially unacceptable responses then they should be stopped in some way.

But if they are just saying something like "the historical evidence for Jesus is very weak" or "Apple uses cheap labour in China to keep its costs down" then sure, that's fine. If the statements are true then they should be made public, if they're not then someone should refute them.

Religion has been given a "free pass" on so many things in the past, and continues to enjoy special treatment even today. If a religion is real and true and if a religious figure (Jesus, Allah, or whatever) is so powerful and great then surely they should be able to defend themselves. Why would they need a law which most people would consider a joke? That just makes the religion look even sillier than it did to start with!

2011-11-08

Religion
Rating 3
ID 1340

IT Support Fun

Being a computer consultant and programmer provides its fair share of challenges. First, there is the temperamental nature of some computers, then there is the constantly changing nature of the IT world, and then there is the ultimate challenge: the users!

I work almost entirely with Macs so I'm not exposed to the same level of troublesome behaviour that my PC colleagues have to put up with. I'm not necessarily saying Macs are totally free from odd and unexplained problems (they certainly aren't) but Apple's control over the hardware, operating system, and some of the software means that most Mac systems suffer less from bizarre behaviour than Windows PCs.

The constant change in the computer world can be seen as both its greatest challenge and as its greatest attraction. Having new technologies appearing so quickly does make working in IT interesting but it also makes it hard to keep up. Supporting whole new technology areas, such as iPads and the extremely capable smart phones we now have, is a challenge but would we really want to do without these cool new toys?

And then there's the users. Few people realise how difficult it can be to support some computer users. It's not so bad if you have direct access to the computer in need of your intervention, or even if you have screen sharing or terminal access to it, but trying to support computer users by "remote control" over the phone is probably the ultimate exercise in frustration!

It's not just computers where this happens, because other forms of technology can suffer from similar problems. A friend recently described an experience she had trying to describe how to change the settings on a new TV over the phone for example. And it's probably significant that TVs (along with almost everything else) are actually controlled by small computers and their on-screen control systems suffer from similar issues to conventional computers.

Ironically it was easier in the "old days" where the primary way to control a computer was through a command-line interface. Asking someone to type a command like "cd /" is often easier than asking them to find the icon for the hard disk and double-click on it. Issues with the "visual" approach include: is the HD icon visible? what does it look like? what is it called? can the user double-click at the correct speed? what display mode is the hard disk window set to display? (and, no doubt, many more) And yes, I know you can control modern computers through a command-line (I love the Mac terminal) but explaining how to launch that can be a major process in itself!

I sometimes wonder what users are thinking. These aren't stupid people but when it comes to working on their computer they can do some odd things. Here's a few examples which illustrate the problem...

First there's the phenomenon of inappropriate use of terminology. A user I was trying to help once told me something like "I pointed my font at the box and clicked but the mouse didn't appear." Say what? I recognise all of those words but I have no idea what they mean in that context!

Then there's the users who just can't respond appropriately when asked a question. I once asked a user "Is the Finder at the front? You can tell that because the first menu at the top-left (next to the Apple) is called Finder." I was assured it is so it was then safe to say "go to the Go menu and choose Connect to Server". But there was no Go menu. That was odd. So I tried a new approach. I said "press command-K" and was informed "it just beeped". Stranger! Anyway after a while I said: look at the top-left of the screen and read out what it says. The response was "an Apple symbol, then Mail, then..." What? Did you say the second word was Mail? I thought it said Finder? Who knows what the explanation for that slight inconsistency was. It's still a mystery!

Many users can't describe real physical objects much better. Recently I was trying to find out what type of computer a person had. She said it was something like a Mac 72. A Mac 72? What is that? The closest thing I could think of was a Power Mac 7200 but that was from the distant past. Anyway it turned out it had a built-in screen, was quite heavy, and didn't have a CD drive. That didn't seem to fit anything either but then the name "eMac" was recalled. So I showed this person an old eMac waiting to be recycled and I was assured it was like that except blue and with no CD drive. When I finally saw the computer it was a white iMac with a CD drive. And one other thing: the person wanted to replace the old machine because it had no ethernet to connect to a broadband router. Except, of course, all iMacs have ethernet built-in! Another mystery!

So, as you can see, working with users is a real treat. It's like a game where they try to deceive you as much as possible and it's your job to help them despite their best efforts to stop you from doing so. It's great fun and I really enjoy it when I finally see through the deception and the truth is fully revealed!

2011-11-04

Computers
Rating 2
ID 1339

Conflict is Good

At my place of work I'm known as a bit of a rebel, someone who doesn't care too much about the rules and established ways of doing things, and someone who has little regard for my so-called superiors. It's all true and it does occasionally lead to situations where a certain amount of conflict with authority arises, but so far I've managed to escape with no serious consequences.

Most of my colleagues (in fact all of them as far as I'm aware) have a more relaxed view and tend to stick a lot more with the official line. That could be because I'm wrong and the official way really is the best, but I would prefer to think that it's just that they aren't quite as prepared to take the hard route as I am.

There are many ways to bypass bureaucracy and get things done. One of the best is to lie: saying one thing while doing something "subtly" different is a good strategy in my experience. Another is to just do things and keep quiet about them: what people don't know won't hurt them. And another is to do things better than the established standards so the people who get those better outcomes are your supporters.

Many people wonder why I bother. I would get paid the same by just following the tedious and mediocre standards and I would have a lot less work and stress as a result. But I think it's only when I'm involved in this sort of conflict that I'm really doing my job properly. After all, I'm not there to provide the best solutions for managers, I'm there to do that for my clients and that is often quite different to what the managers want.

Management in every organisation tend to claim they are dedicated to providing the best customer service but that is almost never the case, generally because managers don't deal with their clients directly and are primarily involved with playing petty politics instead. Of course there are exceptions and where good guidance is provided there's nothing wrong with following that.

A quote I have used in this blog before is Edward Abbey's "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government" and another from Thomas Jefferson is also relevant: "When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty". They were thinking about the bigger political picture but the same applies on a smaller scale to the workplace, I think.

The principle these quotes endorse is currently being applied in the larger political domain because this is exactly what's happening with the "Occupy Wall Street" and related movements. The world has become unjust and many of the world's governments have become the enemy of the people. Those people protesting across the world are the real patriots and heroes. They are doing their duty.

By the way, I know several people at my workplace read this blog and they might be surprised that I am so openly critical. But it's nothing personal: it's the system that's the problem, not individual people or organisations. If the way I work leads to inferior outcomes for my clients then I think that needs to be discussed but until then I think I'll just continue doing what I think is right.

2011-10-28

Comments
Rating 4
ID 1338