45's spinning in my head
"No time, tryin' to get a watch repaired
No time, never got a thing to wear
Hear the ringing of the telephone, oh no
Hear it ringing in my head now"
"I'm here alone on the telephone line
I'm right where you want me to be
And I'll wait alone and never ask why
I'll be where you want me to be"
"In another life
You’re always the hero
In another life
You always win the game
In another life
No one ever cheats you
In another life
You never have to change"
"Sometimes I try to do things and it just doesn't work out the way I wanted to.
I get real frustrated and I try hard to do it and I take my time and it doesn't work out the way I wanted to.
It's like I concentrate real hard and it doesn't work out
Everything I do and everything I try never turns out
It's like I need time to figure these things out"
Saturday, April 15, 2006
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Now the games are over....
Now that the Commonwealth Games are over, I can rant about the security that was in place. I think that the security was completely useless and that it was only put in place to make the masses feel like something was being done. Here are two ways in which the security system was shown to be faulty.
Case 1
On the night of the opening ceremony, the Australian team was told to meet at the village at 4pm. One of the competitors, a female mountain biker, heard that the team would not be marching into the MCG till 10.30pm that night. Since she wasn't staying at the village, she decide to ride her bike to Vodaphone Arena (where the team would be just before marching in) later that night. The competitor arrived and notice that there was security everywhere, including walk-through metal detectors. As the competitor neared the security entrance, one of the guards noticed that it was an Australian athlete and proceeded to let her in without going through the security procedure. So all you would have to have done to walk into the MCG was wear a Trinity Grammar blazer and rock up to Vodaphone arena. You are an Australian athlete so therefore you must be OK. Enter Vodaphone arena and do your business.
Case 2
I went to a few nights of the athletics at the MCG which was surrounded by fences and checkpoints. You had to pass through the checkpoint which consisted of a walk-through metal detector and security searching your bags. This system was flawed and I'll describe how you could have smuggled in explosives and a detonator.
Step 1: Strap plastic explosives around your waist.
Step 2: Modify your mobile phone so that it contains the detonator. Use a phone that is at least a few years old, like a chunky old nokia.
Step 3: Wear a t-shirt and have your tracksuit top tied around your waist to cover the bulge.
Step 4: As you walk towards the metal detector, place your mobile phone, wallet and keys in the cardboard container provided and hand it to the security guard.
Step 5: The security will ask people to remove their tracksuit top from off their waist and hand it to be check. Little girls standing in front of you will. Just look as if that is going to be a hassle and then they will just ask you if you have anything in the top. Reply you don't.
Step 6: The container that was handed to the guard will be given a cursory look and then passed around (not through) the metal detector.
Step 7: Step through the metal detector. It won't go off since you don't have metal on you.
Step 8: Collect your phone, keys and wallet and move on.
Step 9: Go to a toilet inside the MCG and assemble your device.
This is how I walked in one day (except for steps 1,2 and 9).
Security is only as good as its weakest point. The above two cases show, in my opinion, that the whole exercise was a waste of time.
Case 1
On the night of the opening ceremony, the Australian team was told to meet at the village at 4pm. One of the competitors, a female mountain biker, heard that the team would not be marching into the MCG till 10.30pm that night. Since she wasn't staying at the village, she decide to ride her bike to Vodaphone Arena (where the team would be just before marching in) later that night. The competitor arrived and notice that there was security everywhere, including walk-through metal detectors. As the competitor neared the security entrance, one of the guards noticed that it was an Australian athlete and proceeded to let her in without going through the security procedure. So all you would have to have done to walk into the MCG was wear a Trinity Grammar blazer and rock up to Vodaphone arena. You are an Australian athlete so therefore you must be OK. Enter Vodaphone arena and do your business.
Case 2
I went to a few nights of the athletics at the MCG which was surrounded by fences and checkpoints. You had to pass through the checkpoint which consisted of a walk-through metal detector and security searching your bags. This system was flawed and I'll describe how you could have smuggled in explosives and a detonator.
Step 1: Strap plastic explosives around your waist.
Step 2: Modify your mobile phone so that it contains the detonator. Use a phone that is at least a few years old, like a chunky old nokia.
Step 3: Wear a t-shirt and have your tracksuit top tied around your waist to cover the bulge.
Step 4: As you walk towards the metal detector, place your mobile phone, wallet and keys in the cardboard container provided and hand it to the security guard.
Step 5: The security will ask people to remove their tracksuit top from off their waist and hand it to be check. Little girls standing in front of you will. Just look as if that is going to be a hassle and then they will just ask you if you have anything in the top. Reply you don't.
Step 6: The container that was handed to the guard will be given a cursory look and then passed around (not through) the metal detector.
Step 7: Step through the metal detector. It won't go off since you don't have metal on you.
Step 8: Collect your phone, keys and wallet and move on.
Step 9: Go to a toilet inside the MCG and assemble your device.
This is how I walked in one day (except for steps 1,2 and 9).
Security is only as good as its weakest point. The above two cases show, in my opinion, that the whole exercise was a waste of time.
Friday, March 24, 2006
NSEW
A few years ago, when quite a few of us were procrastinating during our PhD’s, we stumbled upon the Political Compass web site. It defined your political leaning not just by traditional left/right categories, but also whether you were social libertarian/ authoritarian. It then placed your position on a Cartesian grid and you could compare yourself to dictators, humanitarians, etc. Most of us turned out to be left leaning libertarians. My score was –7 (ie left) and –6.05 (ie social libertarian).
Anyway, recently I was thinking whether the following two scales would also form a compass of some sort. Maybe it’s exactly the same as the political compass, I’ll have to think about it. Here are my two scales.
1) The first one is in regards to legislative law.
After the fact ----------------------------------------- Preventative
Examples.
After the fact: The law against murder exists to provide justice after the act has been committed It is assumed that a person will murder someone whether or not the law exists.
Preventative: The law against murder exists because, if it didn’t, everyone would go about murdering willy-nilly.
2) The second scale is with respect to your social conscience.
Selfish ------------------------------------------------------ Selfless
Examples.
Selfish: You only do things to benefit yourself and this ultimately benefits society as a whole.
Selfless: You only do things to benefit others and this ultimately benefits you.
Do you think this would make a good compass? Where would you put yourself?
Aside: I think the second scale may also apply to relationships. I have seen couples where one is at one end, and the partner is at the other. Seeing these couples and how they have gone, only one seems to get hurt, the selfless one. I think you need to be on the same side for both to be happy. Is this too simplistic?
Anyway, recently I was thinking whether the following two scales would also form a compass of some sort. Maybe it’s exactly the same as the political compass, I’ll have to think about it. Here are my two scales.
1) The first one is in regards to legislative law.
After the fact ----------------------------------------- Preventative
Examples.
After the fact: The law against murder exists to provide justice after the act has been committed It is assumed that a person will murder someone whether or not the law exists.
Preventative: The law against murder exists because, if it didn’t, everyone would go about murdering willy-nilly.
2) The second scale is with respect to your social conscience.
Selfish ------------------------------------------------------ Selfless
Examples.
Selfish: You only do things to benefit yourself and this ultimately benefits society as a whole.
Selfless: You only do things to benefit others and this ultimately benefits you.
Do you think this would make a good compass? Where would you put yourself?
Aside: I think the second scale may also apply to relationships. I have seen couples where one is at one end, and the partner is at the other. Seeing these couples and how they have gone, only one seems to get hurt, the selfless one. I think you need to be on the same side for both to be happy. Is this too simplistic?
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Jingo-Bingo
I can't watch the commonwealth games coverage. The 'how good is Australia' crap that they go on just gets me angry. Just to let you know, I am not a fan of nationalism, patriotism, and any of those similar isms. I judge a person on their individual merits or achievements, not on their nationality. I refuse to praise someone just because of an accident by birth. An analogy that springs to mind is the monarchy. I see no difference in monarchists who follow someone just because they were born into a particular family and so called patriots who follow someone who happens to have been born in a particular country. It' s the same line of logic.
There are 71 countries and territories competing. But why is the division at the country level? Why isn't every Australian state represented by its own team? At the Olympics, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland don't compete as separate entities. I mean the Australian federation of states was only just successful in coming together. Image if the states competed against each other. Channel 9 would have to have a separate commentary team for each state exhibiting that parochial crap. You would only see Victorian winners and Victorian interviews in Victoria, Tasmanian winners and Tasmanian interviews in Tasmania, and so on. Victory ceremonies and anthems would only be shown in the appropriate state. Stuff the other states.
And another thing. In the individual sports, and I hate to tell you this, but competitors compete for themselves. They don't compete for 'queen and/or country'. What drives them is their desire to be their best. I have no problem with that. In fact I think that is what sport should be about. I don't give a rats about what banner they happen to compete under, I want to embrace their grit, determination and talent. This is what should be highlighted no matter where they come from. So until the coverage reflects this I don't think I'll be watching much. I won't hold my breath.
There are 71 countries and territories competing. But why is the division at the country level? Why isn't every Australian state represented by its own team? At the Olympics, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland don't compete as separate entities. I mean the Australian federation of states was only just successful in coming together. Image if the states competed against each other. Channel 9 would have to have a separate commentary team for each state exhibiting that parochial crap. You would only see Victorian winners and Victorian interviews in Victoria, Tasmanian winners and Tasmanian interviews in Tasmania, and so on. Victory ceremonies and anthems would only be shown in the appropriate state. Stuff the other states.
And another thing. In the individual sports, and I hate to tell you this, but competitors compete for themselves. They don't compete for 'queen and/or country'. What drives them is their desire to be their best. I have no problem with that. In fact I think that is what sport should be about. I don't give a rats about what banner they happen to compete under, I want to embrace their grit, determination and talent. This is what should be highlighted no matter where they come from. So until the coverage reflects this I don't think I'll be watching much. I won't hold my breath.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Fact or fiction
If there is one thing that gets me going, it's newspaper articles that are poorly researched. Take, for example, an article from the Good Weekend about a tribe called the Sentinelese who live on North Sentinel Island. It's an article that was first published in the London Observer under the title Survival comes first for the last Stone Age tribe world".
The last paragraph in the Good Weekend edition reads
"When the tsunami struck in 2004, the Sentinelese knew the evil spirits were up to no good. Minutes before the waves struck, tribal leaders scattered pig and turtle skulls around their settlement and hurled stones toward the ocean before gathering their baskets, bows and arrows and amulets of ancestral bones for protection.
They all survived - for how long, though, it is hard to say."
I found this hard to believe mainly because the whole article was about how isolated this tribe was and how little contact they had had with the outside world. The first question to arise was, how did the reporter know that this scenario in fact happened? I decided to check the facts.
Firstly let's look at the first contact after the tsunami struck. Two days after the tsunami, the Indian Coast Guard decided to check the damage caused to the island. The helicopter pilot saw and took pictures of a lone man firing one arrow at the helicopter. This fact turns into a group of tribesmen firing a shower of arrows. Sounds so much better then just one guy. This "fact" is now used in subsequent stories.
The paragraph states that all of the islanders survived. I'm sorry, but the author cannot definitely know this to be true. Why? Firstly, no one outside the island knew before the tsunami what the population was. The Indian government made an educated guess but that's all it was, a guess. Other guesses put the population between 50 - 250 inhabitants. After the tsunami, no outsider was able to count the population. So to say with certainty that they all survived is just fiction.
As to the story of turtle and pig skulls being scattered around by the Sentinelese, this again is just made up. No one has successfully interviewed an islander since the tsunami struck (highly impropable since no one knows how to speak the language) so it is impossible to know what they did. So where do they get this story from? It is known that that Onge tribe from another island of the Andamans do scatter these objests about during ceremonies. Onge/Sentinelese, what's the difference? Anyway, it makes for a better story. Why let the facts get in the way.
The last paragraph in the Good Weekend edition reads
"When the tsunami struck in 2004, the Sentinelese knew the evil spirits were up to no good. Minutes before the waves struck, tribal leaders scattered pig and turtle skulls around their settlement and hurled stones toward the ocean before gathering their baskets, bows and arrows and amulets of ancestral bones for protection.
They all survived - for how long, though, it is hard to say."
I found this hard to believe mainly because the whole article was about how isolated this tribe was and how little contact they had had with the outside world. The first question to arise was, how did the reporter know that this scenario in fact happened? I decided to check the facts.
Firstly let's look at the first contact after the tsunami struck. Two days after the tsunami, the Indian Coast Guard decided to check the damage caused to the island. The helicopter pilot saw and took pictures of a lone man firing one arrow at the helicopter. This fact turns into a group of tribesmen firing a shower of arrows. Sounds so much better then just one guy. This "fact" is now used in subsequent stories.
The paragraph states that all of the islanders survived. I'm sorry, but the author cannot definitely know this to be true. Why? Firstly, no one outside the island knew before the tsunami what the population was. The Indian government made an educated guess but that's all it was, a guess. Other guesses put the population between 50 - 250 inhabitants. After the tsunami, no outsider was able to count the population. So to say with certainty that they all survived is just fiction.
As to the story of turtle and pig skulls being scattered around by the Sentinelese, this again is just made up. No one has successfully interviewed an islander since the tsunami struck (highly impropable since no one knows how to speak the language) so it is impossible to know what they did. So where do they get this story from? It is known that that Onge tribe from another island of the Andamans do scatter these objests about during ceremonies. Onge/Sentinelese, what's the difference? Anyway, it makes for a better story. Why let the facts get in the way.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
