General – Page 24 – More Zonkyness

The Mad Psycho-Killers of Paris

Nov 142015

Let us not dignify the mad psycho-killers who went on a rampage in Paris last night with the title of "terrorists"; there is very little dignity to the title of "terrorist" – they are after all scum of the earth, but these mad psycho-killers are too contemptible for even that status.

If as is likely that the mad psycho-killers were aligned with ISIS, let us not call them muslims; let us instead call them islamic apostates. There is nothing that will insult them and those who would follow in their footsteps more than to call them apostates.

And to those who would blame Syrian refugees (like the fascist I unfriended last night) :-

To people blaming refugees for attacks in Paris tonight. Do you not realise these are the people the refugees are trying to run away from..?

Emails: More or Less Stress?

Computing, General No Responses »

Nov 132015

There was a story this morning about how normal people find a constant flood of emails very stressful because it is constantly interrupting whatever they are doing. As someone who has been emailing since 1987 (with a six month break), I find dealing with it less stressful than phone calls and desk visits because you can leave it until later.

It is definitely true that being interupted whilst trying to concentrate on some tricky piece of work can be somewhat stressful (and it is cumulative). One aspect that was not mentioned is that you have to discard everything you were thinking of and bring some other subject to mind; not always the easiest thing to do especially if you are deep in concentration.

Of course it is also unavoidable, and not always unwelcome. But back to emails,

Don't read emails when they arrive, and if you have a ping that announces each email that arrives, turn it off. Check your inbox regularly – on the hour, every half hour, or even every 15 minutes (although that is perhaps too frequent for when you are concentrating on something). You can change the frequency based on what you are doing – if you're concentrating on a project or for a deadline, check less often.

The point is you choose when to deal with emails.

Another source of stress is the amount of emails in your inbox; your inbox is not a "todo" list. Create a "todo" folder and move emails from your inbox into it, and concentrate on keeping that folder reasonably well processed. Your inbox becomes a cesspool of spam (there's always some that gets through), near-spam, and general information. Of course you can get much more organised than this!

And make your own decision on the priority of tasks given through emails. You may agree with the priority a sender sets on a task, or you may disagree, but you decide.

Ultimately the more control you take over your email, the less angst it causes you.

The Dangers Of Red and Processed Meat

General No Responses »

Oct 282015

In response to the WHO announcement of the dangers of processed and red meat, as a vegetarian I could say "I told you so". But that wouldn't be the case – I'm not a vegetarian for health reasons.

But what I can do as a vegetarian is comment on the issue from a position of neutrality, or at least slightly more neutrality than someone who is having his favourite food labelled as cancerous.

There's been a few reactions from butchers who comment that we're evolved to be carnivores; wrong! We're evolved to be hunter-gatherers which makes us omnivores. Hunter-gatherers don't have meat every day, and even if they hit a particularly lucky streak it wouldn't be every meal. Essentually we're evolved to eat meat on an occasional basis – perhaps every other day.

And even if we're evolved for a hunter-gatherer diet, that doesn't mean to say that such a diet is the best possible diet for us. Although hunter-gatherers probably (if they avoided all the accident risks of such a life) lived longer than their agricultural cousins and descendents, that doesn't mean they lived long in comparison to modern expectations.

Processed Meats

Apparently the biggest risk is down to processed meats. But which ones?

Even I know that there are many different ways to process meat; or cure it. And if there are many different ways of curing meat, there are many different levels of risk. There are those who say that the risks associated with processed meats are to do with cheap processed meat, and proper bacon and sausages are fine. They could be right, or completely wrong. Who knows?

So it would be helpful to identify what level of risk is attached to each different processed meat. Or even more craftily perhaps someone can discover a new way of curing meat so we can have safe bacon and sausages (well, you anyway).

In the meantime, eat processed meat in moderation and to be safe seek advice on what "in moderation" means.

Red Meat

The risk of cancer associated with red meat is much lower than the risk associated with processed meat. Of course lower doesn't mean no risk, but just about anything has it's risks.

And the less red meat you eat, the lower the risk.

Cooking

This is a tiny bit speculative. There are a group of chemicals called nitrosamines which are nearly all cancer causing. They are formed in various different ways (particularly ways involving sodium nitrate which is added to cured meat to make it look red or pink), including two particularly interesting mentions: frying and the combustion of tobacco (i.e. smoking).

It is possible that exposing certain organic materials above a certain temperature forms nitrosamines; in other words cooking meat in ways that produces burning or charring could produce nitrosamines.

So you may be able to reduce the risk associated with that big lump of steak by eating it rare.

Volkswagen: Fixing Emissions Tests, But What Else. And Who Else?

Computing, General 1 Response »

Sep 222015

So it looks like Volkswagen has been fixing emissions testing in the US …

It seems that they have probably built into the engine management software something that detects when the engine is being tested for emissions. This apparently detects testing conditions and switches to a test mode where the engine power is reduced sufficiently to reduce emissions below the legal limit. Real emissions are up to 40 times the legal limit.

Volkswagen are apparently very sorry about this, but probably more about being caught than anything else. It could be just a one-off aberation, but frankly it is more believable that this sort of thing only happens within a company that has a culture where deceiving the customers and regulatory authorities is seen as perfectly acceptable practice.

So what else are they up to?

In a Science Fiction story by Charles Stross (Halting State), auditors do a much more thorough job of checking companies for ethical behaviour and screening executives for sociopathic tendencies; Volkswagon's path out of this mess involves and up close and personal relationship with a savage group of auditors looking into the ethics of the company.

But who else is using engines that lie to emissions tests? Not only do many other car manufacturers use Volkswagen engines, but other car manufacurers also have an incentive to do the same sort of thing. How much do we trust them?

How many Volkswagen engineers and managers involved in this "special" project have gone on to work for other manufacturers?

Are Drone Strikes Self-Defence?

General, Politics No Responses »

Sep 082015

The big story of the day is the news that a UK drone strike took out an ISIS terrorist in Syria; one who used to be a UK citizen. After all, ISIS claims to be a nation state and so their "fighters" (actually terrorists) could be said to have given up their previous citizenship.

Arguing about whether it was justified is completely pointless without access to all of the relevant information which we won't get. It would be a very good idea for someone sensible (i.e. not a sleezy politician) outside of the intelligence community to review that secret information and to be the one authorising such activities.

But is a drone strike self-defence? It may well be under military terminology or even under international law.

In terms of ordinary understanding of self-defence, it is not – in terms of someone assaulting you, it is self-defence to break someone's arm as they are striking you; it is not self-defence to break their arm because they have promised to assault you tomorrow.As ordinary people understand the term, a drone strike is not self-defence.

It might be somewhat less contraversial to call a spade a spade and term this attack a "pre-emptive defence againt an imminent mass terrorist act" (or whatever phrase would fit the facts). On the face of it, using a drone strike to kill two terrorists only who are about to launch a terrorist attack, is the least-worst action.

That does not justify so-called "collateral damage" (in honest spade terms, that would be the indiscriminate murder of innocent civilians), and anyone who authorises drone strikes that results in murder should be prosecuted.

Older Entries Newer Entries