Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutly

If a prison kept all the people in their cells with no work and no money, the hard line among us, and even the moderates, might say "they are criminals and that is what they deserve"

If you then found out that they had not done anything wrong and they were in prison because of where they were born, we'd start to question the justice in the situation. 

Even if the prison was large and people could move around. Whole families were inside and they had built schools and hospitals it would still be a prison. 

If there was a strict controls on what went in and out. Even if some people were aloud out to work during the day, but had to be home at night it would still be a prison.

If the prisoners saw the injustice and started to protest. The guards could just ignore them and we would think nothing of it.

If the prisoners climbed on the roofs and threw stones and slates we might wonder what was going on. And if the guards started shooting the prisoners we would probably see it as heavy handed. However, if the prisoners still protested, despite getting shot, we would want to know more about why.

Would the prisoners be justified in trying to kill the guards? Or should they accept the losses and just go back to being repressed?

Should the Palestinians accept their lot or are they justified in resisting. Are the Israelis abusing their power and using excessive force?

The situation is the result of an early attempt by the West to interfere with another country/political/religious system. The WWII allies gave the land to form the Israeli state. It wasn't empty, other people lived there. They probably did it because they felt guilty for not stepping in earlier to prevent the holocaust. 

Like so much imperial interference its left a mess that seems to go on and on..

"And the Germans kill the Jews

And the Jews kill the Arabs

And the Arabs kill the hostages

And that is the news"

Roger Waters, Perfect Sense, 1992

Why the Cloud is a bad idea.

For a number of years now various organisations (mainly with a vested interest) have talked about the Cloud as the next step in the evolution of computing. It is in fact a step back.

Cloud can mean a number of things from simple storage of current and archive data, to processing, collaborative and automated workflows. Anyone around in the 70's and 80's would remember large central computing rooms with dumb terminals (a keyboard and screen - No mouse, it was DOS) on the desk. All the processing and data was provided centrally. A sort or private/enterprise cloud. When these central systems went down departments would grind to a halt. Not even the rudimentary e-mail systems worked. These outages would be a day or two. The rest of the businesses didn't rely of computers as much then so would keep working until the pipeline emptied leaving the computers as the bottle neck. 

Businesses couldn't afford these stoppages so as processing storage and memory become smaller and cheaper Desk Top PC's appeared. There was no, or limited, central functions and outages affected one work station or one function. Despite the claims for central computing the businesses voted with their actions. Desk Top PC and later Laptop's have become the norm.

TV broadcasters have been digital in the back office for some time now and have digital tapes going back many years. Production companies and post-production (where they add the special effects, SFX) use and have used digital technologies for over 10 years. They have enormous files and need enormous processing power to render these SFX. Each company has traditionally built their own render farms and stored the content in purpose built wholly owned facilities. So why have they not gone for cloud computing with the cost savings and efficiency improvements promised? For the same reasons those with money have not moved to bit coin.
1) The current method works - its not broken so why fix it.
2) Trust - if you lose all my valuables you bankrupt me/kill my business (also £1 = £1 or 1$ = 1$ and can be replaced with no noticeable difference. Loose the Mona Lisa (and Film/TV is art) or you order/delivery details, and its gone forever Just ask the BBC if they have any regrets, about their habit of wiping tapes of Dr Who etc.
3) Time and effort verses gain - I'll wait for someone else to do it first
4) Security - Theft, remote and physical access, all out of my control.

Google, Microsoft, Apple, Netflix, Sony etc have all had outages or security compromises. Google has deleted years of bloggers' regular inputs because someone complained. Then when the complaint proved unjust have been unable to restore it. Do you really trust the Cloud and what IT say?

Remember the "millennium bug" that doomsday scenario that had all the computers stop working on 1 Jan 2000? Whole countries never did a thing and I'm not aware of even a minor incident. Now IT would claim its because they did such a good job. Really! The shear scale would make the probability of an error high. No it was mumbo jumbo, gobildy gooke speak of the high priests of a new religion. Like selling burglar alarms to 86 year old widows, they use fear to make their sale. No one was going to get blamed for doing what they said, but if you didn't and they were right it would have been bye bye.

Cloud computing is the other way around. Keep doing what you know works and if it goes wrong there are a number or people to share the blame. Plus it probably wont be catastrophic. Follow the IT to the bright future of Cloud computing and its a bit like following an Officer over the top of the trenches in WWI. You could be a hero, but more likely you and he would both be shot.

Other thoughts! Isn't the internet Cloud computing? Can't you share stuff? Send stuff? Search for stuff? I can even set up rules on my e-mail that do things with files that arrive from specific people! Isn't that (at least the start of) an automated workflow?

Don't we learn from nature, that diversity and having multiple copies of the same animal mean that when a Lion takes out a gazelle (sad though that may be for the gazelle), there are herds that carry on (moments later) as if  nothing happened? Isn't that the way you'd want you mission critical business operations to run?

Chrome Stopped Loading Pages

Chrome Stopped Loading Pages Yesterday between PC booting in the morning and working OK and booting in the afternoon not loading.

I read an awful lot of web sites over the past 20 hours and watched a number of YouTube videos before I eventually solved my problem. There maybe several reasons why this happens but this one took me so long to find that I thought I'd post it in case someone was going through the same haystack.

Symptoms

What’s working?

I have Chrome in my “start up” and it opens with my home page (web mail) I can read mails and navigate around that domain. I can create a duplicate tab with the same capabilities.

I can open/follow links from within web emails and they open new tabs. Once these new sites are open I can navigate within the site, but not outside. i.e. right click and select Open in New Tab gives “Loading” etc

All other web browsers work.

What’s not working?

1. If I create a new tab and copy the web address from my web mail (or other web site) into the new tab I get “Loading” and eventually a pop up saying “Page(s) Unresponsive” with “Untitled” as the page name.
2. If I try to navigate away to a new site or load an HTML from my local drive (so it’s NOT a firewall issue) it hangs with “Loading” and eventually a pop up saying “Page(s) Unresponsive” with “Untitled” as the page name.
3. If I close Chrome and reopen it won’t open my home page I get “Loading” and eventually a pop up saying “Page(s) Unresponsive” with “Untitled” as the page name.
4. I can’t access “Settings”, “About”, “History”, Downloads or any other menu item that displays as a web page as I get “Loading” and eventually a pop up saying “Page(s) Unresponsive” with “Untitled” as the page name.

What I tried

1. Firewall settings
2. Uninstalling and installing Chrome (with reboot between)
3. Adding “ -no-sandbox” and variations suggested, to the file location
4. Full scan for malware
5. Checked I’ve got the latest drivers
6. Tried downloading and using Chrome Canary (same results) 
7. The only success was that Chrome works in “safe mode”
8. I’d updated graphic and other divers all to no avail.
9. I then read about Malwarebytes and anti-malware. This found more malware than my previous software (Glary Utilities) and quarantining them, + a reboot, solved the problem.

Always the last thing you try by definition but if I'd have done this first off it would have taken about 20 minutes rather than 20 hours to solve.

Tech Specs

1. Windows 7 Ultimate (x64) Service Pack 1 (build 7601)
2. Google - Chrome Version 35.0.1916.153
3. 3.40 gigahertz Intel Core i5-4670
4. 16334 Megabytes Usable Installed Memory
5. Microsoft - Malware Protection Version 4.5.0216.0 (64-bit)
6. Microsoft - Security Client Version 4.5.0216.0 (64-bit)

The future of the UK in the world

The UK was the the leader in the world because it was an aggressive aquisitional nation. Success allowed self belief to grow. The belief that the race was unique and destined to rule the world. In the UK itself the ruling classes treated their fellow nationals (the poor and working classes) with contempt, so not all benefited from the Empire. Like most empires those that benefit the most are those that exploit the opportunity the most.

There may never be another empirical power in the world as education and communication inform populations. The US public eventually pull back military expeditions. Will the Russian people do the same in Ukraine? Slightly less education and slightly more information control so the elite there may be able to take their ambitions further. China is the largest of other nations that have limited/controlled information but they have good education. There are other Arabic, African and Asian nations with poor general education and controlled information. Most of these seem focused on trying to maintain this internal control rather than an aggressive development of an empire. 

Empires have moved from governments to corporates. Ford, Coke, Microsoft, Tata, etc. Here money rather than arms are the tool to expand and dominate. These corporations don't want war, as it stops trade. This corporate objective increases the barrier against an aggressive nation attempting to dominate another. But what has enabled both the early national empires and the later corporate empires?

Technology & education.  More precisely a technology that was unique to and gave an advantage and usually several cascading technology advances that accumilted so that the whole was bigger than the sum. Education that includes training and discipline. The ability to build ships, the weapons, the processes, sexton, marine watches, communications. These enabled those equipped with these to adapt to changing situations. As they were deployed they would be adapted and new technologies and information would emerge. Corporates too used multiple technological advantages to get ahead.

Both national and corporate empires required investment to develop maintain technologies and both seem to get to a stage where their size prevents innovation. Where the received wisdom stifles innovation allowing competitors to catch up and weaken, undermine and evetully destroy the advantage. 

However, innovation in technology today does not need as much money, and the drivers to develop and evolve are not just based on greed and power, but on humanities and problem solving. Education, information are readily available in most developed countries. Some of it especially the state/mass education is limited. It is more about training people for jobs than educating them to make the most of their lives or contribute (other than as a worker).

In Israel they still have national service, they have a clear identifiable enemy, they have a high standard of standard and higher science focused education. The national service equalises the population deminishing the elitism increases cooperation and team work. The identifiable enemy gives focus, showing that a common objective with team work can lead to innovation. The sience based education enables evidenced based progress. The result is that Israel has more research centres, start ups and incubators per capita than anywhere else in the world. It has more start ups on NASDQ than Europe and India combined.

They are not all going to succeed but evolution is about creating lots and seeing which survives. It also creates the opportunity for them to combine or take parts of each other to make a something new and better. With limited natural resources, technology is the way to generate wealth and a unique place in the world economy. Is it sustainable? Nothing is, but if you can get far enough ahead, not just in what you do but the way you do it, others will take a long time to catch up.

In the UK the world wars levelled society. Since then inequality has crept in. The politicians have become subservient to the business elite and between them are holding their position by keeping the working classes relatively poor, educationally and financially. Even where the working classes make it they still remain outside those born into money. This imperial class view, the poor sience based education, the promotion of the individual over the team, are gradually squandering the opportunity for the UK to retain and improve its position in the world.

A Deliberately Spoiled Ballot Paper Is A Vote

Not voting is dismissed as apathy. 

If you put your X on a party as a protest vote it is just counted put in a bundle with an elastic band around it. 

Vote for whomever you really want, but if you want to show you are dissatisfied with the UK electoral system or the choice of policies, then there are two options;

1. Leave the ballot paper blank and put it in the ballot box.
2. Spoil the ballot paper

Leaving the ballot paper blank means it is counted as such. There is an organisation suggesting this action (http://www.blankvote.org.uk/). My feeling is that this could be almost dismissed as easily as “apathy” as “a mistake”. An idiot that doesn’t know to put a cross in a box! Clearly this harder to dismiss if numbers are large, but the opportunity to vote is infrequent so why leave any doubt. 

However, spoiling your ballot paper does four things; 

1. It shows you are not apathetic 
2. It is counted
3. it can’t be dismissed as a mistake, If you do it correctly
4. It is shown to each of the candidates in turn (not just counted and bundled). So if you write “you’re all a load of self-serving, lying bastards” Each candidate is asked “is this a vote for you?” The most common text is “None of the above”. Another common text is to right “No” in each of the boxes.

What you write is up to you (suggestions welcome, please try to be witty not crude), but don’t be dismissed as apathetic, make your vote count, make you opinion heard. You have a much louder voice than you think if you use it at the ballot box

Some interesting info around UK elections

There is a petition to get a box on every UK ballot paper for None Of The Above (NOTA). So protest votes are properly registered and recorded. Here 

The lowest turnout in a general election was recorded in 1918 at 57.2 %, due to the end of the First World War. Between 1922 and 1997 turnout remained above 71 %. In 1950 and 1951 the turnout was 83.9% and 82.6% respectively the two highest turnouts recorded. 

These two elections on consecutive years of 1950 and 1951 show some interesting things. That 1.3% drop saw the Conservatives get in over Labour. Plus in 1951 Labour had the highest number of votes ever (to date of this blog) for any party and still Labour lost. This is a problem of the “first past the post” voting system and was a result of the Liberals not contending some seats that resulted in Liberal voters voting Conservative.

Party	Votes	Seats	Change	UK Vote Share (%)	GB Vote Share (%)
Conservative	13,718,199	321	+ 23	48.0	47.8
Labour	13,948,883	295	- 20	48.8	49.4
Liberal	730,546	6	- 3	2.6	2.6
Others	198,966	3	n/c	0.6	0.3

In 2010 only 65.1% voted and only 20% for the Conservatives. 80% didn’t vote for the party that governs the country. 45% voted against the Conservatives.

Pub Quiz Question

Yesterday I took part in a pub quiz where one of the questions (really it was the answer) did not seem believable.It maybe trivia but, I spent this this morning researching it and thought I's share the result

The question: What event in the UK was the first where the TV audience exceeded the Radio audience?

The answer: The coronation of Queen Elizabeth II

This "fact" is on several websites all with the same figures. Which makes me think there is a single source, which is always questionable.

The given wisdom is, that 20-million people watch it on TV and only 10-million listened on the radio (wireless).

The breakdown for the TV figure is 7.8-million watched it in their own home. 10.4-million watched it in other peoples homes and a further 1.5-million watched it in cinemas, halls and pubs. (19.7-million)

The case against

The BBC estimates that there were 2-million TV sets in the UK. Manufacturer figures show there were 2.957-million sets. By the end of 1935 BBC estimates there were 3.1-million set.

The population was 51-million so 21-million (40%) didn't watch or listen (according to the figures above) to this once in a lifetime national/patriotic event? It was a public holiday so what were they doing? 

An estimated 3-million lined the streets. so down to 18-million unaccounted for.

Some town halls and churches had TV sets with around 30 people watching. (from the photos I can find) . It would have been difficult to have more as the screen size was so small (around 14") plus you had to sit relatively close as the image lacked contrast and definition. As can be seen from the picture in the church below. The people at the back were effectively listening to radio, or am I biased. 

Apparently neighbours went into each others house to watch TV. 

I think this photo is not just posed but is a fake. The image on the screen is two contrasty, is at the wrong angle and given that this was taken with a flash and the curved nature of the screen there would have been at least one reflection. Finally the TV sets looks post WWII and maybe even American.

You also had to be relatively well off to own a TV. These people have even got books on a shelf! A TV would cost over £100 which was more than 12 time the average weekly wage and 40 times the most common weekly wage. So most working class people couldn't afford TV. 

In 1953 there were only 4 transmitters Alexander Palace (London), Sutton Coldfield (Birmingham), Holm Mose (Manchester), Kirk O'Shotts (Edinburgh and Glasgow) and Wenvo (Cardiff and Bristol) these had the potential for 11-million homes.

Many villages and even houses in large towns didn't have electricity. They couldn't power a TV. they would get batteries recharged regularly (usually a swap out of the discharged battery for a charged battery) regularly to power their radios.

The TV coverage was undoubtedly a great success as by the end of 1953 their were 3.2-million sets. I started out to disprove the TV audience size based on a lack of infrastructure but, all the other infrastructure was in place to make the TV audience the size claimed. 

Conclusion

In conclusion, while it might have been that 20-million watched the coronation on TV the other 31 million probably listened to it on the radio. My gut feel is this was hype at the time that has become fact and this wasn't when TV overtook Radio.

The fall of Christianity?

There have been a few comments on Christianity in relation to Muslim fundamentalism recently. How Christians need to be proud, speak up and not be intimidated. David Cameron, Tony Blair and now Dominic Grieve is chipping in. They see the threat from the Middle East and it spreading out around the world with an anti-Christian mantra.

What has put Christianity on the backfoot?

In one word the answer is, education!

While the elite of the world have received an education, for many centuries, (mainly in the classics; reading, writing, basic mathematics, history, Latin, military stratergy) formal education for the masses didn't arrive until the industrial revolution, when the populations of predominantly Christian nations needed to be educated to operate, build and maintain machines. This education became more science based. It wanted questioning, so that new hypothesis could be created. It wanted cause and effect evidenced proof of these hypotheses, to ensure they were real, repeatable and could improve industry's output with better products and better machines.

The trouble for Christianity and most religions in industrialised countries is the questioning/proof based education gives rise to knowledge and understanding which erodes belief in an all powerful being, which most religions are based on. This has been a slow process over 100+ years. It has resulted in an increasing number of agnostics and atheists in these societies. Even those that may say they are Christians, are at some other level. They were baptised or they. live by the morel code, rather than believe in the existence of Christ.

Industry has been driven by competition and business rules and goals that have become their own religion, with business gurus the new spiritual guids. Everyone for themselves and survival of the fittest have become the dominant faces of businesses. 

Science and research has become another religion, with maybe some morel code for benefitting humanity, but often with profit, or at least prestige and status, as the driver. 

These business and science drivers and goals have made education valuable as an output of industrial societies independent of the products they produce. Education leads to innovation, new products, new discoveries and can be summed up in the phrase "competitive advantage". This advantage is so great that manufacturing is done outside the original industrial societies, but education (especially higher education) and knowledge based industries  (research, banking) have been guarded.

The result, at this moment in time, is religion has lost its dominance in Developed countries, but is still dominant (and threatened) in Developing countries. Developed countries have rejected leadership by heritage and have becoming republics and/or democratic. Developing countries are still dominated by leaders that are there for life and often dynasties. 

During the recent wars in the Middle East there have been claims that The West wants to bring democracy to these countries. However, without education it is relatively easy for some charismatic leader, religious, political or military, to dominate democratically or otherwise. Today you could look at India and Pakistan with propaganda and corruption used to influence voters, educationally ill-equipped to challenge what they are told. Historically you could look at the French Revolution which gave way to several dictatorships, including Napoleon, before it became an educated democracy. Those deprived or repressed may revolt, but like the Arab Spring, wanting something else without ability to know what that something else is, leaves a vacuum that is quickly filled by those able and willing to exploit it. Maybe like the French Revolution this is their first step.

So if this is the end of Christianity then education is the cause. If Muslim fundamentalism is a threat to the West then, at least part of the cause, is a lack of education. With education people can make their own mind up, whether they want to be Christian, Muslim or Jew, or something else.