Alcohol Fueled Violence

 General, Politics  No Responses »
Oct 062007
 

There is no such thing as alcohol-fueled violence; there is only idiot-fueled violence. Claims about how alcohol fuels violence are regularly heard on TV and radio, and in one small sense they are right. Violence can be found in areas where a large amount of alcohol is consumed. But take a closer look …

It is not everyone who goes out drinking on a Saturday night who ends up involved in violence, or even everyone who drinks far more too much who ends up in violence. If that were the case, the level of violence in certain streets would be probably two orders of magnitude worse than it is (i.e. 2 fights would be 200 fights; 10 fights would be 1000 fights). It is only a tiny minority of idiots who cause problems with violence.

These idiots may blame the alcohol, or they may even only become idiots when they have consumed large quantities of alcohol. Either way, the alcohol is not the problem, it is the idiots themselves.

Most of those who complain about the violence want to fight it by doing something about alcohol sales … make it more expensive, stop selling to people who’ve had a few, etc. But why should the majority who drink be punished because of the idiots ? That is not to say that the violence should not be tackled in some way … and the majority of drinkers would be happy to see something done about it. After all we have more interest in seeing something done than those who prefer to stay at home.

One simple idea is to ‘tag’ those who get involved in violence (both sides … one person may be obviously to blame but I’ve seen myself people who go around trying to provoke a violent response) with an electronic tag, and give them on the first occasion a month’s ban from all drinking centres. For a second offense, it becomes two months, then four, and so on, doubling each time. This would be in addition to any other punishment the law may enforce … a prosecution is (and should be) difficult to get a result from, but a simple curfew could be given without so much evidence.

To enforce the curfew, give each doorman a tag detector so they can easily scan people going into a pub or bar, and prevent them.

Don’t punish the drinkers; punish the idiots.

The BBC TV License

 Politics  No Responses »
Sep 292007
 

One of the things that periodically surfaces to my attention is the debate over the TV license that those in the UK pay. This funds the BBC including TV, radio and Internet activities (there are ‘fringe’ activities which are not funded by the license fee such as the BBC’s World Service. The notion of a tax on watching television is archaic and unfair to commercial broadcasters. However it should stay.

Why?

The first reason for keeping the license fee is that the BBC actually does quite a good job. Not all of it’s activities please everyone, but that is impossible goal to achieve and it is not something that the BBC should be trying to do anyway. Look at BBC News. This is the largest news organisation in the world with a well deserved reputation for probity and honest reporting … in any “big” news event, the UK population tends to switch to the BBC for news.

There are those who criticise the BBC News for impartiality … the one who makes the biggest noise is Israel who claim the BBC is anti-Israeli. Of course Israel views any kind of criticism of Israeli government actions as anti-semitic, so we can probably discount this criticism. In fact the BBC probably is not doing its job properly if it does not get criticised by Israel.

The BBC also produces a large range of original drama, documentary and entertainment programmes of high quality. In recent TV awards, the BBC was awarded 9 out of 20 awards. That sounds like the result a quality organisation would get.

There are those who say that having a well funded public broadcasting organisation is unfair to commercial broadcasters. They are right. So what? Life is unfair, get over it.

A far more subtle point is how the BBC could well be improving the quality of commercial broadcasting by existing. Thus those who only watch commercial TV (I have trouble believing anyone in the UK can actually stick to this!) are actually benefiting from the BBC without watching the BBC! It is hard to justify this claim especially if we are talking about the quality, but we can sort of see the effect on something that most people find irritating … the frequency of ad breaks on commercial channels.

When you watch American TV imports you can often see the pauses where advert breaks would have occurred had you seen the programme in the US; however over here we seem to have settled on having rather fewer breaks. Why? Well there is little commercial reason for doing so, except that if people get too irritated by ad breaks they can switch over to the BBC. So it seems that the existence of the BBC may have resulted in fewer ad breaks on commercial TV in the UK … which I’m sure most would agree is a good thing.

So we have decided that the BBC is good, but what about the license fee ? Well, the license fee is bad but it works … the BBC gets a fairly big chunk of money from it. Any change would risk how much money the BBC gets, and why break something that is not broken ?

Northern Rock Bank Run

 Politics  No Responses »
Sep 162007
 

The fact that the Northern Rock is undergoing the beginning of a “bank run” will not be surprise to anyone reading this; it is all over the news at the moment. It is understandable that people want to take their money out of Northern Rock; in some way perhaps people are remembering the bank crashes during the 19th century when many people lost all their savings. But we live in a very different society these days.

In a way bank runs are a self-fulfilling prophecy; an unsupported bank will crash during a bank run even it is otherwise healthy. No bank keeps enough cash in the till to pay out to all their savers; they need that money to lend to others so that a saver earns interest! The only hope an unsupported bank has is that the panic will fizzle out before they run out of money.

But the Northern Rock is not in that position as the Bank of England is standing behind them as the “lender of last resort”. What people don’t realise is because the Bank of England is always available as the lender of last resort, other banks who are being cautious may not lend Northern Rock money when without that lendor of last resort, they could well do. And the Bank of England is not going to lend money to a lost concern.

There are two things that make the panic amongst Northern Rock customer more than a little silly. Firstly it seems there is full government protection for depositors with less than £35,000 in their account (something that should be trumpetet a bit louder). Secondly Northern Rock has not used the ‘lender of last resort’ facility as yet … they arranged the facility just in case.

The funny thing is that people are busy trying to read something into the fact that the apparent average age of the person queueing is in the “grey zone”. Use some sense people! Most young people have to work … which kinds of limits the amount of time one has to queue outside a bank, and those who don’t work don’t tend to have much in the way of savings.

There are a couple of opposition politicians who have made a speach about the problems. They are busy throwing rocks at the government and the banking sector for alleged failures … now is not the time for that sort of thing. Politicians throwing rocks is to be expected of course, but now is not the time to do anything to undermine public confidence. Of course you can expect politicians to do anything for their own advantage rather than put the public good first. Are you listening David Cameron and Vincent Cable ? If the current situation gets any worse, you will have to carry some of the blame.

By all means come back to this subject later when things have settled down a bit.

I’m A Rascist

 General, Politics  No Responses »
Sep 122007
 

I’m part of the human race and I’m mostly happy about that. We have a bewildering variety of members … tall ones, short ones, fat ones, thin ones, bright ones, dim ones; we even have two different sexes (which makes things even more interesting). We also have a wide variety of different shades of skin colour, and for some totally incomprehensible reason some people seem to get excited about this. The overly excitable people seem to want to divide us up into different “races” based seemingly on what colour our skin is, and use this arbitrary division to make assumptions about the person wearing the skin. As if the colour of the dead matter that keeps the squishy bits in, and the Sun (and rain) out is particularly important. Of course it is not just skin colour that matters to these people …

Apparently I’m white (although it being at the end of the summer, I’m not really sure I’m white enough to qualify). Which makes me a member of a certain “race”. I’m also English which makes me a member of a smaller “race”, and could mean I’m also Anglo-Saxon (another “race”). I live in a land called “Britain” which gives me a good chance of being a member of the “Brythonic” “race” as well. I live in the south of England so I’m also a “southerner”, and I live in Portsmouth so I’m obviously better than someone from Southampton. In addition I live on the south side of a certain road which makes me far better than those who live on the north side.

Well that’s obviously rubbish! And for the record, historically that last division (north and south of a certain road in Portsmouth) was viewed in that sort of way. If you look closely, what I’m demonstrating is that if we get hung up on differences then we can make smaller and smaller sub-divisions where the group we belong to is “better” and those outside are “worse”. And the factors that determine what sub-division we belong to (skin colour, ancestry, etc.) are the worst possible factors in determining someone’s value.

Apparently being determined not to recognise any sub-division of the human race as being valid makes me some kind of liberal wuss, which bothers me not at all … and those who criticise and call me a wuss for holding this position should sit back and think for a bit. It’s not liberal wusses that cause so much grief with their artificial sub-divisions of the human race.

I’m a rascist and fully prejudiced in favour of the human race … every single last one of them.

IT: Linux, ZFS and Open-Source Licenses

 Computing, Politics  No Responses »
Aug 252007
 

If you’re hoping to read about Linux finally getting ZFS (except as a FUSE module) then you are going to be disappointed … this is merely a rant about the foolishness shown by the open-source world. It seems that the reason we won’t see ZFS in the Linux kernel is not because of technical issues but because of licensing issues … the two open-source licenses (GPL and CDDL) are allegedly incompatible!

Now some may wonder why ZFS is so great given that most of the features are available in other storage/filesystem solutions. Well as an old Unix systems administrator, I have seen many different storage and filesystem solutions over time … Veritas, Solaris Volume Manager, the AIX logical volume manager, Linux software RAID, Linux LVM, …, and none come as close to perfection as ZFS. In particular ZFS is insanely simple to manage, and those who have never managed a server with hundreds of disks may not appreciate just how desireable this simplicity is.

Lets take a relatively common example from Linux; we have two disks and no RAID controller so it makes sense to use Linux software RAID to create a virtual disk that is a mirror of the two physical disks. Not a difficult task. Now we want to split that disk up into seperate virtual disks to put filesystems on; we don’t know how large the different filesystems will become so we need to have some facility to grow and shrink those virtual disks. So we use LVM and make that software RAID virtual disk into an LVM “physical volume”, add the “physical volume” to a volume group, and finally create “logical volumes” for each filesystem we want. Then of course we need to put a filesystem on each “logical volume”. None of these steps are particularly difficult, but there are 5 seperate steps, and the separate software components are isolated from each other … which imposes some limitations.

Now imagine doing the same thing with ZFS … we create a storage pool consisting of two mirrored physical disks with a single command. This storage pool is automatically mounted as a filesystem ready for immediate use. If we need separate filesystems, we can create each with a single command. Now we come to the advantages … filesystem ‘snapshots’ are almost instantaneous and do not consume additional disk space until changes are made to the original filesystem at which point the increase in size is directly proportional to the changes made. Each ZFS filesystem shares the storage pool with the size being totally dynamic (by default) so that you do not have a set size reserved for each filesystem … essentially the free space on every single filesystem is available to all filesystems.

So what is the reason for not having ZFS under Linux ? It is open-source so it is technically possible to add to the Linux kernel. It has already been added to the FreeBSD kernel (in “-CURRENT”) and will shortly be added to the released version of OSX. Allegedly because the license is incompatible. The ZFS code from Sun is licensed under the CDDL license and the Linux kernel is licensed under the GPL license. I’m not sure how they are incompatible because frankly I have better things to do with my time than read license small-print and try to determine the effects.

But Linux (reluctantly admittedly) allows binary kernel modules to be loaded into the kernel and the license on those certainly isn’t the GPL! So why is not possible to allow GPLed code and CDDLed code to co-exist peacefully ? After all it seems that if ZFS were compiled as a kernel module and released as a binary blob, it could then be used … which is insane!

The suspicion I have is that there is a certain amount of “not invented here” going on.

 Older Entries  Newer Entries