{hangin’ on a shoogily peg}

They’ve hung their jackets on a shoogly peg, these people have.

Oh, what? You have no idea what we’re talking about? Let us fill you in.

A gentleman from the old property management firm we rented from, whom we called Lurk – because he did, though he was a nice enough man – called D. today. “Oh, hello, there,” said he. “This is X from Y Housing. Yep, I’m calling about the old place, on Lynedoch. Could you tell us how to reset that boiler? The new renters say it’s been out for two weeks, and we haven’t been able to get someone in…”

Oh. Good. Grief. Hello, inappropriate and ridiculous. How hard would it have been for the owner to have fixed that before insisting that someone new was shuttled in? How hard would it have been for the property management firm to have insisted on a new boiler!? Of all the stupid things! And then to call us — so we can tell yet another generation how to fish around inside a machine capable of blowing them up, with a wooden spoon, feeling around for one small gray switch that you can’t actually see too well, since there’s no light in the boiler closet…??

Aaaaaaaargh!

Oh. About that shoogly thing. It’s a footballer term, which we’re told has nothing to do with the game. As near as we can tell, it’s a trash-talking phrase that means you’re about the get the sack – your job is in jeopardy. (Maybe you don’t have control of the ball anymore?) All we can say is that “Y Housing” never did have the ball, never were on the ball, and if it were up to us, we’d take the jackets of the whole lot of them, plus the owner of the flat and put them on the shoogliest peg we could find.

And then let all the jackets fall on the floor.

Those poor new renters…!

Patent? Copyright? Oh, no you didn’t!

Greenock BW 05

I’m disturbed a bit after having read this article: http://www.chicagolawyermagazine.com/Articles/2011/07/01/infotechcolumn-07-2011.aspx. Read the last paragraph and think upon what it really means for those of us who write code.

When I think about code, I think that, well, I wrote it. Sure, I wrote it when I was employed by XXX company. They have it, they “own” it. But do I not, also, own it? Why is it that copyright / patent law should be able to dictate that my prior employer owns my code exclusively? Can I not also own that code? After all is said and done, they still have that code. They still get the benefit of using that code. Why should it be that they get to slap some other company for using the same concepts?

The next company I work for will need for me to build the same kinds of things that I built for the last company (after all, I focus on companies who need my services and skills, and I’m very skilled in a very narrow area). I’ll no doubt use the same methodology as I used for the previous employer. Am I violating copyright by using the concepts inside my own brain? According to U.S. copright law, well, yes, I am. I’m “stealing” from my previous company.

I wrote the code. I thought of the code. And now I’m “stealing” the code. No – I really don’t think so.

In “the days of old,” coders would bring their code with them. That was one of the reasons people hired old coders: they’d have a wealth of code when they came. Today, though, such things are copyrighted / patented, so that the “old coder” is essentially no different from the “young coder” except that the “old coder” is … well, older, more likely to die, or retire. How is this better for the world? How does this improve things?

Copyright / Patent Law is entirely broken. Its purposes have been subverted for the profit of a few and only serve the interests of those few.

Copy at will.

Creative commons license: attribution, non-commercial, derivatives OK.

-D

Oxford Did WHAT?

As Leila points out, some enfeebled, grammar-deficient numpty has decided that Oxford University no longer requires the Oxford Comma. True, it’s only their “branding” people who have been given the go-ahead to be tumshies, but you’d think that somebody would have at least given it a bit of thought!

I suppose that expecting marketing to actually, oh, consult a grammarian is asking a bit much? The Oxford Comma serves to separate items in a list. Without it, lists become unclear.

There are clearly three items in this list:

The fashionable colors are red, green, and blue.

There may be either two or three items in this list:

The fashionable colors are red, green and blue.

The first example is the “Oxford Comma” – it tells you that the list keeps on going and consists of three items. The “and” in there just makes things flow a bit better, but really is optional; it’s perfectly valid to say:

The fashionable colors are red, green, blue.

True, we may not be accustomed to hearing things spoken without that “and,” but I’ve certainly used sentence constructs without the optional “and” and had them not stand out as awkward – because I was using the Oxford Comma as it’s intended and knew that the silly “and” wasn’t the important bit; the Oxford Comma was!.

This rant isn’t about standards, nor resisting change in standards. This rant is about language as an exact tool, being used to convey an exact meaning. If it ceases to function in that manner – if you’re using finger-paints instead of a drafting pencil – then language becomes even more ambiguous and communication becomes more difficult. Leave out punctuation if you want to be intentionally obtuse, or poetic, or vague; if you want to communicate clearly, learn to use it properly!

What next? Will Oxford perhaps abandon the apostrophe? Will they not see the need to distinguish between plural, singular-posessive, and plural-posessive? I don’t know why I even bother. Numpties.

-D

Rational Discourse

Washington D.C. 004
US Capitol Building

Election Day in the US comes tomorrow. It’s a bit strange, for us, because we voted months ago, so when we hear about such-and-such a ballot measure looking good in the polls, we have to think back to what we answered on our absentee ballots, do some research into the measure, and … well, think about it all over again. It’s also a bit nice, because we don’t have to actually participate in the discussion of the issues: we’ve already voted, so cannot be convinced of the rightness or wrongness of an issue any more, or not so that it “counts” for anything. Another strange thing about being so far removed from the US media is that we don’t have to hear the advertising. This has been quite nice, because it doesn’t look like any of the discussion taking place is … well, very nice.

Washington D.C. 147
4th of July Parade, Virginia

I don’t know if you’ve been following along with the Rally to Restore Sanity and its meta-discussion about political discourse, but it’s worth having a look, and a think. The whole thing has gotten me to thinking a bit about political discourse and the role it plays in today’s world as compared to the way it used to be incorporated into the world* 30 years ago; that is, the world prior to Reagan’s policy of “deregulation,” which began the changes which were eventually incorporated into the Telecommunications Act of 1996, whose results are summarized quite nicely by Molly Ivins.

Oakland 1
US Embassy, Oakland, CA

The world of my childhood, as I remember it, contained quite a rich element of both discourse and debate. It was the world of the McNeil/Lehrer News Hour, which usually included a round-table debate between 5 or 6 people who held different views; these were lively discussions between people who could actually discuss an issue without attacking each other, and their arguments served to bring out the nuances of the situation. It was also the world where every political candidate was guaranteed access to a certain amount of air-time on whichever news outlet was appropriate: if they were a national candidate, they were carried on a national news channel; a local candidate, they were carried on a local channel. The world is now a different place: the type of debate of today seems filled with vitriol and hatred, and politicians must buy their access to television.

Vallejo 07
Vallejo Marina & Yacht Club, Vallejo, CA

These two differences, I think, have made the world a poorer place. The Rally to Restore Sanity is an effort to address the vitriol and hatred. However, it isn’t addressing the (perhaps far more important) issue of access to media; when access to media requires the outlay of huge sums, the messages presented will necessarily be shorter, and the politicians will necessarily be driven into being beholden to large donors. So, our politicians are not only not able to engage in the type of dialog which would encourage understanding, but they are selected for success by the wealthiest in the nation.

Perhaps the reason the discussion has degenerated is because that selection process has given us candidates which represent no section of society – perhaps we are frustrated and angry merely because of this fundamental change in the way the world works.

True, I am always willing to have a rational discussion. But, there again, I’ve stood somewhat outside of the political system, recognizing that all of the politicians presented were those who, on some level or other, were endebted to people whose aims and goals went opposite to my own: the ruling elite / the ultra-wealthy.

Napa County 31
Downtown St. Helena, CA

When I became old enough to think rationally about politics (my mid-20’s – being able to vote doesn’t imply being able to be rational about it), I realized that there were no politicians which embodied my own views. This allows me to step back a bit and have a meta-discussion on the way the system is constructed.

Perhaps those tens of thousands who attended the Rally have started something huge: a change to the fundamental political structure in the US. We can only hope, because the change that is needed is more than just a change in the way people speak, but in who has the ability to be heard.

-D

* Note: this article is about US politics, so let’s just agree that when I say “the world,” here, I’m talking about that context. I have no idea what goes into political discourse outside of that context, except within the very narrow confines of Scottish Academia and perhaps a bit about the political discourse of Germany as presented by Spiegel International (having read that for several years now).

Um, Remember What We Said About the Food of Evil Cupcakes?

…About how the whole tiny-bites-of-frosting-in-annoying-paper thing is seriously out of control in the way a trend can only be when influenced by both our memories of classroom birthday parties, and the saccharine gushing of celebrity chefs? Part of the charm of the cupcake is the pastel link to childhood — but overexposure makes everything lose its charm. EVERYTHING. To wit: behold, The Electric Cupcake Maker.

You know that phrase “jump the shark?” It’s not just for TV shows anymore. The cupcake thing is OFFICIALLY out of control.

Six silicone cupcake “cases.” Little flashy lights. Ten minutes “and not an oven in sight.” Insane, isn’t it? You cannot find a decent bloomin’ waffle iron for love or money around here, but a cupcake iron? We’ve totally got your back on that one.

Foodies are just the weirdest people sometimes.

Image courtesy of Lakeland

Royal (Pain in the Posterior) Mail

Today’s comic was just simply too appropriate to pass by. This morning we’ve been next door to pick up a package, and have had another neighbor come by to give us some flowers which were misdelivered to Number Fifteen. The flowers sat for a couple of days until they got around to letting us know, and the package from next door had been there for a week!

You see, we live on the “first floor,” but the flat numbers don’t correspond to the buzzer by the front door. So, in order to get us, you must press buzzer #3. That means that we’re routinely told that nobody was home, despite the fact that we’ve posted a handy little guide next to the buzzers which explains which flat goes with which buzzer.

D. has spoken with the route supervisor about our troubles, and the supervisor’s response was to curse up a storm about how illiterate his postmen are. It would be funny, except it’s not, really. Not at all.

In our next flat, we’ll be looking for someplace which is sensible enough 1) to have the buzzers match up to the flat numbers, and 2) which doesn’t have a “street,” “crescent,” and “place” all within several blocks! Not only will that make getting our mail easier, but we’ll have hopes of having the cab drivers know where we live when we call a cab: we’ve had several drivers sit around for 15 minutes or so on the “place” version of our “crescent” and finally telephone us. It’s gets a bit old, that.

Technically, it’s not the RM’s fault at all nor is it the cab company’s – after all, they’re not the ones who named the streets. But it is a bit alarming that they have to take exams in order to drive the routes and deliver. Maybe the crescent is new enough (Georgian times weren’t that long ago, right?) that it wasn’t on any test.

Of course, we are counting our blessings. It could be worse, as always. Just up the way from us are the “Park” streets:

  1. Park Avenue
  2. Park Circus
  3. Park Circus Lane
  4. Park Circus Place
  5. Park Drive
  6. Park Gardens
  7. Park Gate
  8. Park Quadrant
  9. Park Street South
  10. Park Terrace
  11. Park Terrace East Lane
  12. Park Terrace Lane

No, we’re not kidding.

Hope you get the mail today.

-D & T

Light Reading?

By way of some light reading, I picked up Gordon Dickson’s novel Dorsai! Now, I know the book was published in 1959, so I didn’t expect for it to be particularly … progressive in its thinking about women. And, being Military Science Fiction, I knew that it was even less likely to treat female characters with any decency. I was unprepared.

“It is Woman’s ancient heritage to appreciate something without the need to know.”

“Surely you see that the oldest and greatest of the female instincts is to find and conserve the strength of the strongest male she can discover. And the ultimate conservation is to bear his children.”

Oh, so woefully unprepared.

Finnieston 210

It’s a problem, really, which hasn’t really been addressed even in modern science fiction novels: women tend to be woefully presented, weak, oversexualized, simply props for the manly men who actually have the adventure. Why should this be? It’s not as if the readers want female characters to be so mistreated. Do these authors believe that readers expect this? Do these authors believe this about women in real life? Or are these authors just as sexist as their characters?

I know, there are exceptions to this behavior – but they are exceptions, rather than the norm.

So much for light reading. Back to Hannah Arendt, Jürgen Habermas, and / or Bruno Latour. Definitely not light reading.

-D

Who Owns Your Information?

Lynedoch Crescent D 440

Just a bit of food for thought, as you go about your increasingly-online lives: what happens to your personal information if your online service goes bankrupt? In at least one case, things have turned out all right, but only after “Creditors of XY Magazine claimed that the magazine’s subscriber base and its readers’ personal information was an asset that they were entitled to in a bankruptcy proceeding.” (See Bankruptcy Proceeding Threatens Readers’ Privacy for the full article.) In this particular case, because the magazine had a privacy policy which stated that they would protect its users’ personal details and never share them, the users were protected (fortunately for them, as the magazine’s market was young, gay males, at least some of whom hadn’t gone public with the fact).

What does that mean to you, though, when you routinely enter your private information, ticking the box which says, “I have read and agreed to the terms of service?” Well, let’s consider what you’ve signed away, if you have a FaceHook account (as do half a billion others), shall we?

Dundee 207

According to their Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, are your personal photos protected? Your “notes”? If they go bankrupt, since you’ve agreed (in the T.O.S.) to them sub-licensing your content – without paying you – I’d suspect not.

Further, they explicitly state, “By using Facebook, you consent to having your personal data transferred to and processed in the United States.” So, all of you in the US, you’re already there. What does that mean to the rest of the world, though? Well, it means that they are not subject to, for example, The UK Data Protection Act, which means that they are not required to destroy your information should you decide to leave them.

Dundee 265

Should you be worried? Well, is the company earning any money?

This doesn’t just apply to FaceHook, of course. It also applies to any number of companies out there, any number of which may decide to sell some of their assets, should they run into trouble, just as XY Magazine did.

I realize that not everybody is bothered by this – it’s become just the way things are – but I wonder whether the world wouldn’t be a better place if all of our information were safeguarded by law, rather than simply by caveat emptor, because the buyers do not read the privacy policies, and are not being aware.

-D

On Poorly-Reasoned Media Articles

Finnieston 68

I don’t know if you’ve been following the whole WikiLeaks story, of how some 90,000+ classified documents concerning the war in Afghanastan were leaked, or whether you think it’s a good thing for democracy or not. I’m not about to answer that question, but I did have a few thoughts, in light of the latest article in the series: Shortcomings of US Drones, and in light of my current reading, The Quest for Responsibility: Accountability and Citizenship in Complex Organisations (TQR, from here out).

Taken in light of what I’ve been reading in TQR, I’d have to say that there was a proper procedure which probably wasn’t followed prior to leaking this information (whistleblowing in the military is protected, the same as whistleblowing by civil servants). So, the person doing this … well, certainly didn’t follow procedure. I don’t know how I feel about that, particularly, but I must say that there’s a definite agenda on the part of WikiLeaks, and I’m not entirely certain that I can fathom it. Nor do I wish to, particularly. I am fairly amazed, though, that nobody’s asking questions about the motivation and procedural correctness surrounding this leak. I read lots about WikiLeaks in general, but nothing about how any grievance could have been addressed within the military rather than dumping masses of data into the public domain.

Woodlands 4

The latest article, in which der Spiegel paints a grim picture of unsecured, military databases being carried off when military drones crash … well, that bothers me just a bit, because I’d like to think that somebody bright enough to design a remote-controlled weapons platform would at least know how to secure the thing from having its data stripped out by an opponent. I mean, 5 minutes of thought says to me:

  1. Encrypt the hard-drive using strong encryption,
  2. Require an external key be provided to even launch the operating system (on a USB stick, or something of the like),
  3. Load in some encrypted keystores onto each of the onboard missiles when the platform is initialized, such that they are required for boot in the event of radio-loss
  4. Continually update the encryption requirements as those missiles are spent (so that, when the device reestablishes radio communication, you’d be able to remotely boot the system, or could provide a missing key),
  5. Design the system to go into a safe shut-down in the event of a certain number of minutes of radio silence, or upon a signal provided by an impact-sensor.

Now, that probably sounds like a lot of gibberish … but, basically, it would require a monetary expenditure which far outstrips the value of data supposedly “lost to insurgents.” Does anybody believe that, in addition to the “remote-controlled ‘zero-out’ procedure,” the manufacturers didn’t include an extra $100 worth of hardware (and free software) to make these things less vulnerable? When their per-unit price is supposedly around $4.5 million each? Please.

This is not a political rant, this is merely a rant against stupidity.

-D