* Posts by Graham Wilson

890 publicly visible posts • joined 14 May 2008

Page:

Stubborn trojan stashes install file in Windows help

Graham Wilson
Grenade

McAfee seems surprised. Where the hell has McAfee been all these years?

McAfee seems surprised. Where the hell has McAfee been all these years?

"This is hiding in plain site," said Craig Schmugar, a threat researcher at McAfee Labs. "The help file trick is pretty new to us. Usually on the client, we don't see this very often."

Am I reading this right? Is McAfee really saying that they are not used to viruses being stored in non-executable files?

Are you going to tell me that the method this virus is using is somewhat neat and a new trick to Mc Afee? Viruses have been obfuscating themselves for years in all sorts of files, big deal.

What he's really saying is that anti-virus software cheats. When scans are done, they are normally only done on executable files, exe, scr etc. to speed up the scan.

Well, it's about time ALL AV software defaulted to scanning ALL files including those without an extent.

Anyone who does not scan every file--executable or not--is a damn fool. No wonder I've not used McAfee for years.

Survey: Only 1% of Torrents non-infringing

Graham Wilson

@Disco-Legend-Zeke "Cascade Routing..." Ok, fine, I concede that but...

Ok, fine, I concede that but the retards to which you refer are screwing up any chance of better copyright reform for the rest of us.

If you read any of my posts on copyright, you'll realise I'm concerned about its extreme unfairness and the difficulties it causes ordinary users who’ve no rights to use whatsoever other than those determined by the copyright holder. Copyright is an absolute Monopoly that makes Gates look reasonable (after all he has some competition).

Torrents and the retars that abuse them give the RIAA and BSA and their cronies every excuse they need to call for tighter legislation. Any call for a proper debate and analysis of copyright law in the digital age gets lost in the noise of the RIAA et al squawking and shrieking over torrent piracy. It does the case for reform of copyright laws no good.

Think of it this way, RIAA etc. doesn’t want it too quiet on the copyright front as it would be much harder in a proper debate for it to put a cogent argument to hold onto its absolute monopoly (much of which has been 'stolen' from society as no copyright is created in a total vacuum of ideas). Torrents and such provide that distracting noise.

Graham Wilson
Flame

I assume he's looking for an investigative job with the RIAA or BSA.

I assume he's looking for an investigative job with the RIAA or BSA. There's always someone who'll slum it at the lowest level.

The figures seem high but I'd imagine they're probably correct. Why else would anyone waste time on p2p Torrents networks unless they have ill intent?

Is there any real legit use for torrents (I've difficulty thinking of any)?

Missile missed in criticism-busting interceptor test failure

Graham Wilson
Alert

@ A.C. "X-Band radar?" - BTW, I forgot to mention the bit on Jamming.

@ A.C. "X-Band radar?" - BTW, I forgot to mention the bit on Jamming.

ANY microwave frequency* that's useful for tracking planes, rockets or similar has the potential for being jammed. And potential jamming devices, irrespective of the frequency, are easily available and comparatively cheap.

However, military RADAR is not easily jammed. In fact, it requires considerable effort and expertise--that of the level expected of a military opponent to jam it. Electronic warfare is now very sophisticated and small low power stuff will have little or no effect. There are many reasons for this, a few include very high power (produces good signal-to-noise ratio), directivity--you have to be in the line of detection which can be very narrow and highly directive with those huge golf ball-type microwave lenses, and specialised signal processing (in which special and often secret algorithms can separate crap and interference from the wanted signal).

Military radar is now extremely sophisticated and the least of its worries are people toying around with Tandy bits or surplus ex-WW-II disposals equipment.

___

* Some microwave frequencies are just not suitable for tracking flying objects, especially wavelengths at the edges of the microwave spectrum, or those where atmospheric absorption (water vapour) or excessive scatting are problems; and some wavelengths are just not suited to providing the appropriate resolution for this type of work.

Graham Wilson
Alert

@ A.C. "X-Band radar?" - Uh? Microwave ovens & X-Band does not compute!

Uh? Microwave ovens & X-Band does not compute!

Microwave ovens are on 2.45GHz (S-Band) and X-band is around 10GHz (although the band is quite wide and it depends on which country you are in and which service you are allocated to--assume X-Band extremities between 8-12GHz).

Here's a bandplan list from Wiki (but get accurate info from the ITU):

L band 1 to 2 GHz

S band 2 to 4 GHz

C band 4 to 8 GHz

X band 8 to 12 GHz

Ku band 12 to 18 GHz

K band 18 to 26.5 GHz

Ka band 26.5 to 40 GHz

Q band 30 to 50 GHz

U band 40 to 60 GHz

V band 50 to 75 GHz

E band 60 to 90 GHz

W band 75 to 110 GHz

F band 90 to 140 GHz

D band 110 to 170 GHz

It's possible that harmonics from μWave ovens will interfere with X-Band and they sometimes do but there's a lot of other activity on X-Band including intruder alarms and such that cause interference. Also, there are other technical reasons why the coppers have moved mostly elsewhere.

The reason why X-Band was and still is used has to do more with the propagation characteristics of those frequencies than interference. For certain applications, X-band provides a good compromise between atmospheric penetration (absorption), range and object resolution.

In WW-II, X-Band was the Allies' pièce de résistance--the secret king hit that gave them the competitive edge in RADAR. However, being old is irrelevant, it's applicability to the application that matters, and X-Band works just as well on flying objects now as it did back then.

MPs demand UK government end secrecy over ACTA

Graham Wilson
Big Brother

@ Roger_Melly - Drinking US KoolAid. RIGHT, SECRECY STINKS!

WELCOME TO NAZISM(c) EVERYBODY

THE NEW MACH-III VERSION

(c) Copyright: Once-liberal Western Democracies*

* US, UK, Australia, NZ, Canada, France etc. etc.

MACH-III NAZISM(c) REVISION NOTES - KEY CHANGES:

1. Nuremberg-style rallies are now held in secret (doesn't frighten the horses).

2. Intergovernmental meetings are now held in secret - even knowledge of such meetings should be kept secret until after the event and decisions made. Reason: must continue the facade of democracy until new propaganda model is fully deployed, as there are remnants of population who still don't have the new plasma version of Big Brother (and we've yet to make them succumb).

3. Many large corporations and organizations are now integrated into government. Reason: Lobbying was getting tedious and we always agreed with them anyway so it was better to incorporate them within the government structure.

4. Democracy has been phased out although, to keep up appearances, we're still running with the democracy delusion until 2020.

5. Secret Proprietary aspects of Mach-III Nazism. Reason: we don't have to give a reason.

=========================================================

The damn hide of governments to hold these ACTA negotiations in secret.

Fuck them!

I can only partially understand why the population doesn't rise up over the way our governments are throwing our democratic rights out the window without we citizens having any say in the matter whatsoever. It is truly unbelievable.

If you are a corporation in our Western democracies you get special treatment, corporations and organizations are the new citizens. A week or so ago, similar matters came up on El Reg on the topic of 'Record-fine Napsterer wants retrial with RIAA discussion' where in the feedback post I mentioned some of the underlying issues which are the cause of this secrecy in the post titled: 'Soon, murder and terrorism will be lesser crimes than sharing music'. Here's the link:

http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2010/01/05/tenenbaum_files_for_retrial/#c_659154

Therein I discuss the fact that corporate influence on governments is now so powerful the corporations are essentially setting the agenda for our laws--steal a song from a big corporation and the ramifications so high that soon the punishment will be in the same league as murderer. Sure there's some hyperbole here but this sort of distortion of our legal systems in Western countries is making an mockery of the myriad of gains we've made in the past, since Magna Carta, The Enlightenment and so on. We're now going backwards as far as our democratic freedoms are concerned.

For the first time in my life I'm genuinely worried about Democracy. In years past, I put these aberrations down to corrupt individual politicians and incompetent stuff-ups. However, with ongoing secrecy governments have shown over ACTA and WIPO etc. as well as secrecy across a broad spectrum of other government activities down to the stuff that is considered 'commercial in confidence', it's clear we citizens are now just bit-players. We have to be because we're told bugger-all of anything of significance. Now I'm getting the sense of what it must have been like to live in Nazi Germany in the 1930 where citizens had no say in Government whatsoever.

The situation is that we citizens have had no say in these ACTA international trade negotiations but after the secret deals are done with other governments we are just presented with a fait accompli and we're expected to unquestioningly accept the outcome. The same happened with the WIPO negotiations too.

Of course, large corporations have no trouble lobbying government and they also get what they what, especially in the area of so-called intellectual property law. ACTA for example is essentially a front for large corporations which initially called for it to be set up.

A more sinister issue of recent years has been governments' insistence on increased superannuation across the board--right, a good thing in itself but... Superannuation funds of millions of citizens are invested in these mega corporations, thus governments have very successfully nuked any criticism of them from large sections of the population which have their money invested with them. Criticism, effectively, has been white-anted from within. Talk about a brilliant strategy to keep potential complainers quiet, it just about deserves the Nobel Prize for economics. Essentially, governments have thrown away the keys to effective regulation of large multinational corporations.

Where the hell have we all been whilst this has been happening? Why the hell didn't we see it coming earlier?

It's a totally unacceptable situation but I'm damned if I know what to do about it.

Defects in e-passports allow real-time tracking

Graham Wilson
Megaphone

THIS PROBABLY WILL NOT WORK.

Left over electrostatic charges from CRTs etc. may not do it. (I've failed to kill circuit boards this way but if you didn't want a static failure it probably would fail).

The only truly effective way is using a microwave oven, here you have access to 700plus Watts of microwave energy. Nevertheless, even this can be a tricky process.

Graham Wilson
Flame

IMPORTANT: Microwave Zapping Rules.

Don't leave it in the Microwave too long or the damage will be obvious. Too long and you'll not only have killed the electronics but the μWave will heat up plastics, paper--just about everything if the energy is concentrated enough.

RULES:

1. μWave cookers of the ~700W variety take a finite time to get going--when switched on they sound as if they're working but they're not. It takes a few seconds for the filament in the magnetron to heat up (the filament emits electrons when hot). This is important for if this 'dead zone' time is added to the real zapping time it's possible you will overestimate the zapping time if you need to add a 'bit more' zap on the second time around.

For example, if the machine takes 3 seconds dead zone time and only 1 second zapping time you may think the zapping operations is 4 seconds when it in fact 1. If you double this false zapping time to 8 seconds you are in fact applying 5 times as much μW (1+4) and that'll be too much.

2. To well and truly fuck-up integrated circuits etc. you only need a second or two of μW at 700 watts. (But you do need to calibrate the effect with a similar sample beforehand--too much μW and the IC centres start popping out and things begin to smoke--you never need to go this far. Besides, going too far and it's bloody obvious to everyone you're the Smart Alec who made the mess.

3. Applying too much μW can be as little as 3 seconds zapping time (depending on what it is).

4. To test the dead zone time of an empty microwave place an old standard CD (commercial type with 'silvered' mirrored surface) onto the rotating platter and switch on. Start stopwatch simultaneously and watch for the moment the flashes start (as microwaves disintegrate the surface) then immediately stop the watch. Read off the dead zone time in seconds

5. Typical zapping time = dead zone time + 1 or 2 seconds.

6. Putting non-standard stuff in a μW can be dangerous (some things when heated produce lots of vapour and the object might shatter). As with anything that's heated sufficiently, combustion fumes will be given off and stink out the μW

7. WARNING! You may suffer considerable damage to your person when the head of the kitchen throws a rolling pin at you for having stunk out the μW.

8. Putting Government property into a μW is most likely unlawful. I'm not recommending that you break the law--check with your lawyer first.

9. Some things can be resilient. You must check RFIDs after zapping to ensure they're actually dead.

10. DO NOT DO THIS unless you are a professional nerd, techie experienced in such matters, or experienced pyromaniac. If you're not careful it's possible that you could have both the head of the kitchen and The State after your nuts. Not a bright idea!

11. There are similar examples of μW zapping on YouTube.

P.S. For the less adventurous. Wrap RFID devices in suitably shielded materials when you carry them around. The minimal amount of RF/EMR shielding should be determined empirically by checking it with an RFID reader (note not all RFID readers will be the same--some will be more sensitive than others). Shielding materials typically are metal boxes, metal foil, metal gauze etc. If you consider that protecting your ID is important then make sure that you fully test any RF/EMR screening system that you employ before you put it into service.

Graham Wilson
Megaphone

Do not rely on this working - see my other posting

Do not rely on this method to working, in fact it should not - see my other posting.

To 'kill' RFIDs you either:

1. have to zap them with sufficient energy (microwaves etc.), or,

2. Adequately shield them from detection using RF/EMR shielding.

Entire UK will be on ID database sometime in next 3 millennia

Graham Wilson
Stop

Oh, if only foresight was as good as hindsight...

Oh, if only foresight was as good as hindsight then things might be very different now.

If the UK had done the 'unthinkable' and had capitulated to the Germans in say '42 and Britons had had to live a few years under jackboot Nazism until it had self-exploded (which it would have soon done), then it's almost a certainty that UK citizens wouldn't be so accepting of the creeping totalitarianism which is overtaking their country today.

There's a time when too many victories weaken the victor, the sense of living on the edge is lost and complacency takes hold, Democracy requires eternal vigilance and UK citizens let their guard down once too often. Then unexpectedly, in rolls the ID card and everyone is appalled, yet history points to numerous past examples of complacent citizens ignoring early warning signs.

The Roman Empire is a good example of how victors eventually lost the plot, and both Germany and Japan illustrate the opposite--how defeat kills complacency and brings long-term strength, tenacity and development to a society.

If the English speaking democracies are to get out of mess which complacency and insufficient vigilance has gotten them into over the last 50 or so years, then their citizens need to aggressively stamp out the misfeasance, ineptitude and arrogance which has beset their sleazy politicians.

Moreover, citizens must decide fundamental policies such as what constitutes freedom and what it is to be free--not the politicians and not their backroom advisers and certainly not the Sir Humphrey's of this world. Citizens have the job of setting ground rules, and they ignore them at their peril. Being distracted is easy when politicians disrupt, subvert then divide and rule--all under the guise of being helpful.

The amount of unethical 'shit'--the spin, propaganda and outright lies that continually pours out of Westminster and Washington and Canberra these days would have been inconceivable 40 or 50 years ago. Sure, sleaze and deception happened back then but there was much less of it, and the Tricky Dicky's of this world would eventually be found out before it was too late. Today, political deception is essentially a science and the Tony Blairs and John Howards of this world its high priests, so esteemed are they that the likes of Houdini and Mandrake come, watch and take notes.

Remember, every single tiny bit of legislation or regulation that passes through the parliament reduces citizens' freedoms, even the seemingly trivial has its effect--for a law now exists whereas yesterday it did not.

Furthermore, legislation is rarely if ever fully revoked--rather it's just changed or added to. Thus, year in and year out, every time the parliament passes legislation and new laws are created, ipso facto, citizens' freedoms are a little further eroded. In a modern democracy, there is no efficient way of purging old law and starting again; instead, a Byzantine labyrinth that passes for law and which is almost certainly unintelligible to the ordinary citizen, evolves and gets deposited on the statute books. Thus, it's possible to have multiple laws covering the same restrictions. Of course, lawyers love the overlays of double, triple and quadruple rewrites and just laugh all the way to the bank.

It is hard to say where the system of law breaks down and citizen's tolerance gives out (as the French aristocracy found out to its peril in the1780s and 90s). However, it seems to me that modern society, with all its distractions and time-wasting devices, has an exceptionally high threshold. Politicians instinctively know this, and whilst we snooze or are otherwise distracted by playthings--plasma TVs, video games etc.--then they'll surreptitiously push the boundary in their favour for all it's worth.

A familiar proof's of fact now stares us in the face. Is your ID photograph to your liking?

Graham Wilson
Thumb Up

Pitt is remembered because of straight ethics, straight logic and integrity

Pitt is remembered because of his straight ethics, straightforward logic and his integrity. All characteristics sadly missing in a large percentage of current day politicians.

Although succinct and powerful, Pitt is only reiterating what has been known for millennia.

It is a sad fact of the human condition that each generation has to relearn the rules from scratch. However, when it comes to self-interest relearning the rules can take an unduly long time--and some politicians never learn.

Graham Wilson
Joke

Good on ya Pommy Bastards!

Good on ya Pommy Bastards! This Kangaroo even offers ya his cheers.

Really didn't reckoned ya had the balls to do it!

... For that ya even deserves to win The Ashes (just once mind ya)!

Down Under, we's intelligensha is intensely a watchin' Democracy's foot kinda poised un hoverin', very stressful like, next tuh a bright shiny new bucket. We's 'ad odds on 6 to 1 things would go a flyin' any minute, now ya buggers been a forcin' us tuh lengthen thems odds just a smidgin.

For wunce, we's dont mind yuh Pommies for havin' f%$#@!~ up our bettin.

BTW, keeps up the pressure on thems Westminster mongrels or our luv mightn't last.

Australia leaves the internet

Graham Wilson
Thumb Up

@ Yes... and no. - GOOD POINT, I've never stumbled onto it either....

Good Point, I've been surfing the net for years and I've never come across really nasty or illegal stuff.

It would be informative to know the stats on this stuff. I'll bet there's much more FUD--Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt--in the figures than real threat. It makes sense that those who act illegally do so deliberately.

Again, as I've said elsewhere, Net censorship is just a minuscule part of the much bigger agenda of keeping the population mute and under control. Governance is much easier this way.

Unfortunately, as we saw what happened in Germany in the 1930s, there's a point beyond which freedom and democracy suffer irrevocably. We must never forget that lesson (nevertheless, we now seem to be getting too close for comfort).

Graham Wilson
Stop

@ Yet Another A.C. - CORRECTION, it's 'civilized'

You said "to the rest of the uncivilized world". Surely you mean civilized?

'Tis we Australians who are uncivilized, we're ensconced in Neanderthal ways of thinking and we've 'Neanderthals' for our parliamentary representatives.

Civilization is beginning to seem a long way off 'down under'.

Graham Wilson
Flame

@ Ihre Papiere Bitte!! It wouldn't work--Hey, it's Australia - not any other normal place!

It wouldn't work.

Australia is full of bloody-minded sheep so forget any arrangement or cooperative agreement. You would not only have to break every mind-numbing plasma TV and computer in Oz but also bust up the sports venues before you even got the attention of average Australians.

Even if you got their attention for a millisecond or two, this gullible, ultra-conservative lot still wouldn't understand the issues if democracy bit them on the arse on its way out.

As I said here at El Reg about a week ago, the Internet censorship is only one bit of it, everything--from the threat of terrorism to every aspect of the nanny state imaginable--is an excuse for Australian Federal and state governments to pass wide-sweeping draconian laws on all sorts of issues. Moreover, they do so with impunity and with the command of a Caesar because they know they can get away with it without so much as a whimper.

Consider the problem this way: so unquestioning and gullible are our bloody-minded sheep that had Goebbels been here he'd have had a mighty field-day. We should be forever thankful that he had much tougher stuff to work with.

The trouble is those who are in power today ALSO understand the true effectiveness of shock-jock, beat-up propaganda and how easy it is to win over the somnambulant, the gullible and the badly educated by frightening them with spin and FUD--Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. (Tragically, we've had a soporific non-questioning education system here since about the early 1970s that discourages debate, political discourse and argument and critical thinking.)

I live here in Australia and day-by-day I witness the disaster unfolding around me. I wish I had sufficient resources to vacate.

Is it art or is it pr0n? Australia decides it's ALL filth

Graham Wilson
Flame

Absolutely agree. But what the $#@! can we do about it?

Absolutely agree. But what the $#@! can we do about it?

Australian citizens haven't taken to the streets in any force since the anti-Vietnam demonstrations of the late 1960s; even then this was an aberration in an otherwise very conservative country. There is no mood for any such radical action now, it'd take a landmine under Australians to get them to even think about civil disobedience let alone act upon the thought.

Unfortunately, whilst we were asleep at the wheel, our institutions were taken over one by one. The parliament, the public sector and our education system--perhaps putting the wrong ideas into kids' heads is a form of child abuse and someone ought to be held accountable.

So too has the media been parasitised, especially shock-jock radio. Not only can any loony get on the radio but the stations have amalgamated into gigantic state and country-wide networks whereby the propaganda is more easily spread.

I'm damned if I know how you break this nexus, and I'm damned if I know what one does when one finds the very heart and fabric of our democracy has been infiltrated and subverted to the degree which it has.

How does one undo the damage of years and years of propaganda when those causing the problem are still entrenched in power and in BOTH the left and right of politics? This is not only an Australian problem but it's alive and well in the UK and the US--in fact, the problem is present in most western democracies but the disease is especially virulent in English speaking countries.

The only idea I can come up with is that the libertarian left strikes an accord or covenant with the libertarian right. Both sides would not only have to redefine what constitutes the extent, limits and reach of government, its bureaucracies and its utilities but also they would have to fully and wholeheartedly agree on those limits and extents. Only then would we be in a position to take on the mealymouthed do-gooder creations who have infiltrated both the left and right of politics and just about ruined our democracies.

By outnumbering them with a model of democracy and government whose extents and limits fall far short of their interfering, paternalistic nanny state may we have any chance at all of recovering from the rotten mess we're in.

If you've a better idea then sprout forth.

Graham Wilson
Thumb Up

Right on.

Right on. Every reasonable person wants and expects the best for all kids.

But unfortunately this issue is just the tip of an iceberg when it comes to bad governance in Australia. Last week it was something else, next week it'll be another hair-brained proposition courtesy of Australia's top woolly-thinking department.

It's a tragedy that Australia has sunk so low that's its' the subject of such international ridicule.

Graham Wilson
Boffin

Once there was a book written on this very subject.

Once there was a book written on this very subject. It commences:

"It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen."

Graham Wilson
Unhappy

Unfortunately, it's not a joke, a new puritanism has hit Australia.

Unfortunately, it's not a joke, a new puritanism has hit Australia and the average kangaroo-brain hasn't realised it yet.

We other few Australians with slightly larger sheep-sized brains, having failed to find a solution to the crisis, mull around in paddocks awaiting the sheep dog to round us up for slaughter.

Graham Wilson
Alert

Yeah, it's a lucky escape.

Yeah, it's a lucky escape.

It's better to put up with your lousy weather and expenses-rorting sleazebags than to have to continually mingle with bloody-minded sheep.

Graham Wilson
Joke

@Maty - Right on mate, got it in one!

Right on mate, got it in one.

We Aussies are in our overcrowded Tardis and headed straight for the first millennium complete with cheer squad and fearless leader Rudd at the helm. Pronouncements from on high say we'll be in plenty of time for the First Crusade--95 years in fact.

A few of us who were forcibly dragged on board however have niggles about the iPhone not working, no electricity, no El Reg, no penicillin when the plague hits and that the en suite mightn't even have a grassy floor but rather one of mud and s#@!

[Warning to minders: ensure that fearless leader's blinkers and rose-coloured glasses remain on until arrival. We wouldn't want any last minute change of plans, now would we?]

Graham Wilson
WTF?

@John Smith 19. Right, Australia is now a 3rd-world country in a number of respects.

@John Smith 19

"Coupled with an education system that sounds like a big fail, you make it sound like the economy of a 3rd world country."

That's pretty much the right conclusion, Australia is now a 3rd-world country in a number of respects, but it definitely wasn’t so about 40 years ago.

1. We're traded hi-tech and industrialization for buying cheap imports from China and elsewhere. Consequently, we've deskilled our workforce especially in highly skilled areas where those skills are of a strategic importance to the country. In manufacturing, we can't even make a hot-dipped galvanised bucket anymore let alone something like a turbine blade. The Government says these old-world, smokestack industry jobs will be replaced with better ones. Correct, and they've already been replaced--but in China, not Australia!

Gone are the apprentices, gone are the skilled metalworkers, gone are the skilled toolmakers, and gone are the factories that housed the industry in which they worked. Large multistorey flats and apartments now adorn the same landscapes, they house migrants who do unskilled and service industry work. There's no doubt the net skill base has dropped down and careers which are of strategic importance to the country have disappeared.

2. Hi-tech's gone too. The electronics, medical, pharmaceutical industries etc. have either gone or are about stuffed, what's left of them just repackages stuff made overseas. Australian hi-tech works, myself included, have had to work overseas because incompetent governments have nuked our professions. And, as anyone who has vaguest the clue about such things knows, it's nigh on impossible to successfully re-establish an industry once disrupted; skills, infrastructure, contacts, educational institution support etc are gone. All's lost permanently.

To make matters worse, successive Australian Governments have entered into international treaties--free trade, copyright and intellectual property agreements etc. but they've not done so on a level playing field. For fear of offending anyone--especially the US--they have given away our bargaining chips to the point where Australia has been screwed into the ground. Essentially, it's treason committed by Australian governments against the Australian people. Once they used to shoot people for actions like that.

3. A quick example from mining, Australia has about 40% of the world's known reserves of uranium yet we do no pre or post [ex-reactor] processing of the element. This timid little non-entity of a county, like the reluctant virgin, doesn’t want it get its hands dirty with that "nasty nuclear stuff", yet the hypocrisy stenches to high heaven as we're prepared to and do sell the stuff for filthy lucre. Even worse, we're thinking of selling uranium to India and India hasn't signed the non-proliferation treaty. …One's simply lost for words.

All up, together with the failure in our education system over the past 40 or so years, as a triage case, Australia falls into the 'don't bother with' category.

If, however, you were to talk to the Australian Government then you'd find that nothing could be rosier. To do so however might be difficult, be prepared to first extract heads from the sand.

Graham Wilson
Flame

I'm expecting a ban on 'Lady Chatterley's Lover to be reimposed any day now.

I have to live in this IQ-forsaken hole that's called New South Wales. It's a timid, risk-averse, conservative society in the grip of a moral panic, caused by an irresponsible media and a 40-year systemic failure of the education system. Attitudes are plummeting us back to Victorian times.

Australia has always suffered from what's known here as a 'cultural cringe', a highly tuned inferiority complex based on the correct assumption that culture is better just about everywhere else, especially Europe.

Australians has one of the most conservative populations on earth, you only have look at the voting trends since federation (1901) and you'll see it's voted conservative for about two thirds of the time. And, if you consider that the so-called left (Labor Party) is also extremely conservative then that covers most of the past 100 years or so. We lead the earth in small-minded petty thinking.

Take the current Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, he's supposedly on the political left but in fact he's a conservative, bigoted Trojan horse who's undermined the party which he heads. Moreover, his religious beliefs are just about to manifest themselves in an Australian Internet Censorship. Right, this democracy will be the first country to have internet censorship outside totalitarian states such as China. Think of Rudd as a pip-squeak version of Tony Blair with self-aggrandisement chevrons on his arms and you'll get the picture.

Unfortunately, the other side of politics isn't any better. Not long ago we chucked out Prime Minister John Howard, he was the conservative of conservatives, devotee and loyal follower of George W. Bush Jr, and warmonger--he sent Australian troops into Iraq.

That's how Australia is: a country full of intellectually-moribund, sport-obsessed tragics who keep getting involved in other people's wars. This mob would never have the gumption to put into power anyone of intellect. For starters, we'd have difficulty reconsigning intellect if we fell over it. Even when we finally do so, we then ritualistically chop intellect down in what's known here as the Tall Poppy Syndrome--put your head above the average and you'll be soon cut down to size.

We don't manufacture or build things in Australia anymore, all of our trades-based industries have been sold off to the Chinese and our trades jobs are going the way of the dodo. Training here has gotten so bad that the average bloke has enough difficulty working out one end of a screwdriver from another let alone the complexities of say a woodworking hand plane.

Our once-free university education system, the envy of the world in the 1970s, is now kaput. $100,000 or so might get you a degree if you're lucky. Lucky enough to get in, as our universities have been 'sold-off' to overseas students who now buy their degrees with extra money and lots of plagiarism courtesy of Wiki.

You would think the architects of this latest anti-porno/censorship bill was actually the New South Wales Government--that wretched dishevelled rabble of pathological liars and sycophants who couldn’t organise a piss-up in a brewery--but you'd be wrong.

For many years now, Australia's governance has taken place through lowest-common-denominator talkback radio, it's hugely influential here. Thus, in the dying days of a very unpopular government, any loony or popularist cause will get up when the radio squawks loudly enough. Zealots, the Right, the Religious Right, and corporate interests are Australia's rulers.

It's little wonder that were now making international headlines about the triviality inconsequential. I'm expecting a ban on 'Lady Chatterley's Lover to be reimposed any day now.

Oh, BTW, we're very good at digging minerals out of the ground and flogging them off raw and unprocessed. Processing, what's that I hear someone ask?

US faces critical lack of (mad) computer scientists

Graham Wilson
Flame

Here we go again... (I thought we all understood the problem).

Here we go again...

Unless you foster a love of science and techie things by the time they're 7 you'll lose them to something more appealing or that which is more lucrative. Good scientists and techies need to have an almost apriori love of science and you can only get that at a very early age by being exposed to technical or scientific things.

With most education systems in English-speaking democracies having been $#@!ed up by do-gooder postmodernists over the last 30/40 years or so, there's a lot to do even if we could begin tomorrow.

Stop mollycoddling kids, bring back things like fireworks, chemistry sets and such. Unless kids get real hands-on experience at a very early age they essentially be useless to science.

Record-fine Napsterer wants retrial with RIAA

Graham Wilson
Happy

Steve, thanks for the encouragement.

Thanks Steve for the encouragement.

I've written stuff like this before but it rarely gets any attention, however this time the English was a little neater and the post's headline was about as good as it gets for such comments (I enjoyed writing it and the words came easily). ;-)

Unfortunately, the copyright debate has degenerated into little more than a slanging match between copyright holders and those who want to purloin, borrow, steal or license their works. The reason is that copyright holders have reached the end of the line--they have everything the legislators and the Law can possibly provide with the possible exception of copyright duration. Essentially, they've had everything since the Berne Convention of 1886 (completed Paris 1896). When you're at the end of the line, you can return or anchor yourself there, and they're anchored in with the highest tensile stuff around and with every intention of staying there indefinately. Thus, there's no real discussion or intellectual debate over copyright other than squabbles about 'rights' holders defending their turf.

It's been like this for years, long before the PC--I first encountered the absurdity and extent of the problem in the mid1970s when I was involved in setting up a radio station. That's when I came across another first-class scam. Not content with royalties alone from recordings, these bastards (middlemen who'd put Ronald Biggs to shame), extracted an extra royalty called The Mechanical Performing Rights charge. That is a government-granted exclusive right to authorize someone to stick a pickup needle into a record groove! I saw red back then and I've still not cooled down. Such charges are immoral and they're only there because the 'rights' holders got to the legislators first (as these sort of people always do). Berne was one of the biggest con jobs of all time, as Victor Hugo [the French author] and his cronies thought the whole idea up and were its main instigators. Yep, they had the show all to themselves. It stinks to high heaven.

It's a terrible shame that the press hasn't done any lateral thinking about the broader copyright issues because there are many alternatives, some of which provide artists with a better income stream than they're getting now, most, however, mean cutting out the middlemen. There are other considerations too; copyright would be better served if the laws covering printed works, software, music etc. were different. Today, one-law-fits-all is very rough and ready--unless you're the copyright holder.

For the record, I'm not against copyright, just its extreme unfairness and its ludicrous and extortionate life span.

I'm quite happy for anyone to use my comments (and attribution would be nice). Finally, this is just the overview, there's a lot more to these arguments and it would be good to have them mature by being tossed around by many minds. Contact me at your leisure (if you want a direct email address then I can arrange that).

Graham Wilson
Happy

Ha, reckon he'd be better off with expert Silk who've learned from the stuff-up!

Thanks for your much appreciated comments, I often write to posts and I usually wonder if anyone ever reads them, it's rare for someone to take the trouble to reply.

Anyway, read my reply to Steve Roper, they're addressed equally to you too.

Graham Wilson
Happy

Thanks very much for your comments, they're really appreciated.

To save duplication, read my reply to Steve Roper.

When one's so often out on a limb as I am, occasionally, it's really good to have company!

Thanks again.

Graham Wilson
Flame

Soon, murder and terrorism will be lesser crimes than sharing music.

If decisions such as this continue, soon murder and terrorism will be lesser crimes than sharing music.

Sharing music has been a part of every culture since the beginning of time - or it was up until these cultural terrorists said we couldn't do so.

So entrenched and powerful are these jackbooted authoritarian copyright bullies that nothing less than a popular worldwide revolution will unseat them. With one hand they've a gun pointed at Government's head and with the other a noose around its short-and-curlies.

If anyone needs a quintessential example of why the powerful treat Democracy as a joke or something just to be manipulated at their beck and call, then this is it. Everyone knows instinctively - or ought to - that there is something fundamentally wrong with copyright as presently constituted, and that suing kids, mothers and ordinary people for vast fortunes over comparatively minor infringements is not only counterproductive, morally wrong and humiliating for those concerned but it's also corrupting the very heart of our democracies. Yet those representatives who supposedly run our democracies are totally powerless to do anything about it - except to continue to give ever-increasing 'rights' to those who should not have them.

Simply, modern democracies are no longer democratic; at every twist and turn the average citizen finds himself undermined and debased by the very politicians who purportedly seek to serve him. No matter how bad or weak Joel Tenenbaum's defence was, he does not deserve the draconian and tyrannical 'justice' that was inflicted upon him in this way. Clearly, the normal checks and balances of the democratic process are just not working anymore. It ought to be a stark reminder or wake up call to all citizens about how really dangerous the State can be.

Nothing less will fix the problem other than shredding to dust the Berne Convention together with its all-encompassing anti-democratic WIPO add-ons. Then we can start afresh: we can ensure artists, authors and performers get fair dues for their work but also we can ensure society gets back its culture - its music, its art, its written heritage and its science.

What's at stake is huge: it's whether we citizens independently own our culture or whether it's to remain locked up in the controlling hands of a few powerful elites to be dished out not only in ways that are immensely profitable for them but also in ways that keep the masses numb and compliant as did the Roman elites 'sedate' Roman civilization with colosseums and controlled mass entertainment - a complete hardware and software package deal to facilitate easier State control. One doesn’t have to be Einstein or Chomsky to figure out history has repeated itself.

To the greedy, mindless or ill informed, let me remind you that the greatest works of humankind were produced in environments that essentially had no copyright protection. The works of Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Shakespeare, Goethe, Vermeer, Michelangelo and Rembrandt just to mention a few. When faced with people copying their works these great artists responded with new works. For example, when faced with people copying parts of his masterpiece, Don Giovanni, Mozart responded by writing a new derivative work - a work that never would have made it into the repertoire if copyright, as we know it today, had been in force in the 1780s.

Current copyright law and the immoral international copyright - so-called intellectual property treaties that our governments have entered into to our considerable disadvantage are not only a huge restrictive obstacle to cultural development and a severe hindrance to science and development, but also they allow the privileged few upon whom are conferred such 'rights' to actually 'steal' with impunity ideas from the existing cultural corpus without whatsoever any redress to us - we the collective owners of the culture.

The one-sidedness of Copyright Law is just outstanding; it is patently obvious to everyone who gives it a modicum of thought that the Law does not require 'rights' holders to contribute one single iota - not one penny, dime or idea - back to the community from which they came. 'Rights' owners have every conceivable form of control imaginable - it's total control. And now, since an almost worldwide enactment of the 'Mickey Mouse Protection Act' [DMCA], that to the average citizen, copyright protection is now so long as to be effectively perpetual. (In one sense it simply beggars belief that things have gotten this bad without citizens rioting in the streets, but as we know 'technical' law, brought about through the lobbying of vested and special interest groups, is usually foisted on the masses who don't realise the significance* until it's too late.)

We have educated 'rights' holders in our culture, we inculcated them with our cultural and social norms and way of life; early in life we encouraged them to absorb every aspect of our rich cultural heritage - our art, our literature, our science and every aspect of human behaviour - usually at our expense. Yet, Copyright Law grants them - with absolutely no strings attached - totally exclusive 'rights' to produce DERIVATIVE works based on OUR long lineage of wonderful cultural history, yet we ordinary citizens are totally excluded from the process and without any say whatsoever. To add insult to injury, Copyright Law automatically confers all 'rights' onto the copyright holder whether he wants them or not let alone whether he can justify his total ownership of them or not.

(To say or imply that a copyright owner produces content or works out of a cultural vacuum is an absolute absurdity. For example, as brilliant as he was, Beethoven could only produce The Ninth Symphony or his Late String Quartets because Hayden, Mozart, Bach, Buxtehude, Palestrina, et al, had all gone before him. He stood on the shoulders of this cultural legacy.)

As if exclusive rights alone aren't enough. Injustice is perpetuated when any poor unfortunate perpetrator intrudes into or disturbs this exclusive 'copyright' in any way, as he will be made bankrupt by the pernicious, unjust and unfair provisions of vindictive Copyright Law, as we've witnessed the injustice inflicted on Joel Tenenbaum.

As it is currently contrived, Copyright Law is not only anti-democratic but also morally wrong and ethically obscene in that it allows non-government and third-party entities, RIAA et al, to have carte blanche to do ruin the lives of ordinary citizens. That these entities can do so with total impunity and with a level of authority that a prosecutor has at a terrorist trial, is both Orwellian and truly frightening.

Even if you do absolutely nothing, at least spend a moment to think about your own vulnerability.

_______

* At the Berne Convention(s) so ineffective was representation for copyright consumers that they essentially received nothing. Even 'fair use' provisions were so vague that just about everyone erred on the side of caution to avoid potential lawsuits.

Laws that contain simple notions such as 'good' or 'reasonable' but without adequately defining the terms or putting a measure on them are commonplace in Western democracies. Because these extents or boundaries are not adequately defined, most law-abiding people stay well within them thus their actual freedoms are effectively considerably less than the legislature actually defined. This ploy or ruse of playing off the 'defined' against the 'intended' and achieving effectively more law than actually written is clearly anti-democratic, and Copyright Law is but an excellent example--120 or so years on and we're still arguing about 'fair use' or what constitutes 'orphaned' works attests to this.

Masses marvel at 'Most Useless Machine'

Graham Wilson
WTF?

That device is nearly as old as time itself.

That device is nearly as old as time itself.

Are there really people out there who have not seen it before?

Telstra rejects Aussie gov calls for split

Graham Wilson
Flame

@Simon 36

"once they figure out that running wires on telegraph poles is simply short-sighted."

What would you do? You can't use wireless as there's not enough radio spectrum.

In above, if you really mean 'wires'-Cu then I'd agree with you. Presumably you mean fibre.

"in Australia Telstra owns and maintains 98% of the hardware and infrastructure of the country, which given the distance and size of Australia makes it the largest provider of it's kind in the world - yep a world leader"

Correct, but Telstra should not own it.

The distribution system should have remained in the hands of the Govt. as a revenue-neutral utility. There are many models for stopping such a utility from becoming an inefficient dept. such as having large users with board members on the utility and voting with respect to funding priorities etc.

The main issue is to get the distribution network back out of Telstra's hands--back to the Australian people where it belongs. We couldn’t care less about the exchanges, retail etc. let Telstra keep that--then they'll be on par with other providers.

"Telstra now answers to it's shareholders, and the government will be in the High Court for a long time explaining why now it's stuffed up the roll-out of the NBN some four years ago (1.4 Billion given to Optus and it's consortium)."

Agreed. In other countries the citizenry would be rioting in the streets by now if the government had done what the Australian Govt. did with the Telstra sell-off.

It's a disgraceful tragedy. And we idiot citizens let the Cretins in Canberra do it.

"Why on earth would Telstra invest in new hardware and infrastructure if the next short-sighted political light-weight thinks he can carve it up for the rest of the market (who incidentally have not installed any meaningful infrastructure in years). - You will only see and OPTUS Van in the country if it's either lost or stolen."

Who cares what Telstra does if the distribution infrastructure is back in the hands of the Australian public? Presumably only Telstra shareholders. (And thankfully I'm not one of them.)

"Telstra is the only company maintaining and servicing infrastructure in Australia - let's see the rest have a go? With the majority of of our population (and easy money) on the east coast no other company is prepared to make any investment in the future."

Telstra doesn’t do much maintenance--ask all the ex Telstra employees [no, I've never been one.]

The effective level of service (line maintenance etc) since Telstra took over the network has dropped substantially. (I could provide pages of examples.)

"Telstra is a company - if the government wants to make the game fair - then another multinational company needs to decide on it's infrastructure solution for twenty million people and to pay for it themselves..."

None would bother. It would be insane for large multinational to try and replicate the 130 or so years of infrastructural development in the network. That's why we need the distribution network back in public ownership.

THERE IS NO OTHER WAY--OTHER THAN PERHAPS PAY AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE MORE FOR OUR TELECOM COSTS THAN CITIZENS DO IN OTHER COMPARABLE COUNTRIES.

Graham Wilson
Flame

Telstra's like Microsoft's--arrogant, greedy, and forget customer service.

Telstra's behaviour is akin to Microsoft--arrogant, greedy, and couldn’t care less about the customer: essentially an almost absolute monopoly with only bit players for competition. Telstra exercises by far the greatest control over Australia's telecommunications distribution network for which other Telcos have to come a begging for access.

For readers who don't know of Telstra or who have never experienced this ugly unpleasant corporation first hand, it's very difficult to explain in just a few words how much trouble a customer can experience with this Telco and still sound rational and coherent. Just last week Telstra emptied the full amount of top-up credit I'd put into my prepaid mobile cell phone only a month earlier without me even making one phone call. A month previously it did exactly the same except then the remaining credit was three times as much--about $60.

Several months earlier I was completely unsuccessful in trying to resolve both account issues and why my cell phone had been disconnected from the network whilst my account was well in credit. For my efforts I got absolutely nowhere except to be transferred over 17 times--eventually I lost count--only at the end to be transferred to a 'dead' line which was not answered. After a few hours of getting absolutely nowhere with Telstra's Customer Lack-O-Service, I began to sound like the recording of that British guy [that's doing the email rounds] whose unrelenting tirade against a British Telecom telemarketer will go down in history as a classic.

This was not the first time either that Telstra had cut off my service whilst my account was in credit, the same thing happened several months earlier when its accounts registration server previously spat the dummy. Of course, there was no apology--no extra credits for the service being down--or for the 'non-functioning' [useless] customer service, nothing. Customer Service even refused to send me an itemised account through the mail.

…Moreover, that's just the most recent mobile service I've had--for similar reasons two others have bitten the dust in the last couple of years through Telstra's inability to provide me with even a modicum of customer service. And I can't even begin to tell you of the problems I've had with my fixed line services over the past 20 years or so except to say that I've been charged thousands for services which were not delivered--problems which have never been resolved.

Through delays, multiple transfers, having to deal with incompetent customer service staff or those who simply don't have the authority to act to solve the problem, Telstra wears its customers into the ground to the point where they simply give up. The stamina and effort needed to keep complaining has to be of Herculean proportions. Presumably, there's a secret report somewhere inside Telstra that provides the cost benefit figures in taking such an aggressive approach with its customers.

Last week's stuff-up was just the last straw. When I found Telstra had nobbled my account yet again by reducing its balance to zero, I was so annoyed that I chucked the phone full force at a brick wall, now its LCD is smashed to pieces. Problem solved: no phone, no phone account, and eventually I'll get over not having a cell phone.

The fact is it's the Australian Government that's wholly responsible for the Telstra debacle. In its greedy grab for money, the Government sold off, holus bolus, what was once part of the PMG--Postmaster General's Dept (later aka Telecom Australia) without any effective regulation to control its wayward child (as tight regulation or properly managed deregulation would have reduced the share price).

Moreover, everything was sold off as a single entity; this tragically also included the intracity and intercity cableways and their rights of way. Throughout the towns and cities across Australia--a sparse and difficult land to service--a massive public infrastructure that took about 130 years to build just fell out of public ownership--and thus also out of public control.

Any reasonable, rational or independent assessment of the Government's decision to include its divestment of the Telecommunications cable network infrastructure along with the sale of Telstra would have to conclude that not only was the decision cold-blooded, negligent and self-serving but also that it was much more than the typical 'legalised misfeasance' committed by disingenuous governments everywhere. Rather, it was on such a scale as to amount to a grand malfeasance committed against the Australian people, and an action which will eventually cost Australia many times over the income from the initial sell-off, and that it will also take many years to fully rectify.

Selling off the cableways meant that Telstra's competitors (a) had to negotiate new access and rights of way for their cables right across Australia and then build a new telecommunications cable network infrastructure from scratch to compete and run in parallel with that of Telstra's; and/or (b) buy access to the now-Telstra-owned cable network at wholesale rates far in excess of the rates which would have been charged by a Government owned revenue-neutral utilitarian 'Telecommunications Cable Authority'.

Building a parallel cable infrastructure across Australia to cover the same service area as that of Telstra is a truly daunting and monumentally expensive task in a country with an area roughly the same size as the continental USA but with about one fourteenth the population. To date, only part of the network has been duplicated by other telcos [mainly Optus], and only in profitable areas such as in the inner city and intra-city links.

To date, the alternative of the smaller telcos buying access to the Telstra cable network has proved divisive and problematic. Needless to say, Telstra doesn't relish its competitors using its cableways (with their rights of access), and concomitantly, in Australia, communications prices and charges are outrageously and exorbitantly high.

With Australian telecommunications prices remaining so high through the lack of effective competition, and with the installation of optical fibre to the 'last mile' still basically at a standstill, let alone fibre directly to the home--an advanced telecommunications infrastructure for Australia was essentially just a pipedream until this announcement. Eventually, the inept and bungling Government had to do something to reign in the out-of-control, metastasising Telstra, thus Minister Conroy's statement of yesterday.

That the Government was ever initially allowed to get away with such a huge debacle as selling Telstra, and now with the prospect of having to buy at least parts of it back at many more times its initial value (as part of its multi-billion dollar 'Broadband Initiative') says a lot about the Australian people.

Perhaps the characteristic indifference and apathetic attitude that most Australians traditionally exhibit towards matters of their governance (and concomitantly their failure to act over the Telstra debacle) is best summed up by large hand painted graffiti, which for over twenty years adorned a high brick fence that surrounded a racecourse not far from my home. It read:

"The Australian People are bloody-mined sheep."

Recently, redevelopment gobbled up the message but in all the years it blazoned across the wall by a busy intersection with traffic lights and a nearby bus stop, not one person bothered to deface or alter the message in any way. Perhaps therein lies the real reason for the Telstra debacle.

Greenpeace unleashes Captain Kirk on HP

Graham Wilson

As usual, they've the wrong target

As usual, Greenpeace has the wrong target:

1. They'd be much more productive if they targeted the cheap plastic crap etc. from China and elsewhere in Asia that only lasts a day or two. For instance, plastic buckets whose handles fall off before one even gets them home. Millions of tones of this 'disposable' rubbish which ought to have a service life of many years is just chucked out because it is unacceptably substandard and shoddy when for little extra manufacturing effort the stuff would last for many years.

2. Why isn't Greenpeace demonstrating outside the Microsoft headquarters? The imminent release of Windows 7 will see many millions of tones of perfectly serviceable computers disposed of into landfill because of this forthcoming fashion-statement upgrade. If Windows 7 were a worthwhile advance to the computer world, then maybe there would be some excuse but it's little more than a repackage of mostly eons-old code wrapped in bright shiny coloured paper.

As it is, Microsoft accepts no responsibility for the collateral environmental damaged it causes with irresponsible software upgrades. Moreover, when there's no Greenpeace-type group outside its Redmond headquarters to demonstrate and embarrass Microsoft into much longer and better upgrades then M$ will continue to get away with such unacceptable practices.

Of course, the first people to be mesmerized by the computer glitz of Win 7 will be these klutzes. Now we wouldn't want to deprive them of their Internet addiction now would we? Strange how hypocritical environmentalist can become when an environmental cleanup might 'cost' them something personally.

If Greenpeace were to target issues that really mattered then we'll all be much better off. But then again, I suppose we can't expect too much from an organization whose collective IQ couldn't figure out the casual relationships between junk and pollution as mentioned above.

Kodak retiring iconic Kodachrome film

Graham Wilson
Flame

@ Anonymous Coward re: @ Richard 45

""digital will never be able to replicate the tonality nor depth of colours in my slides"

Much as no human would be able to withstand the forces generated by travelling at the sort of velocities an early steam locomotive, nor climb to the highest peaks of the world, nor reach its poles, nor survive in space, nor stand on the surface of the Moon."

Correct but....

Colours are subjective and so are colour films etc. Modern monitors--especially LCD--have pretty pathetic colour gamuts and since the demise of the CRT (Cathode Ray Tube) monitor things have gotten worse. Colour television (especially its cousin digital photography) are not capable of reproducing, either on photographic paper or on a monitor screen, the subtle changes in gamut that many films have. This is not because the gamut of the digital photographic system is less but has more to do with the precise colour coordinates of the reproducing phosphors (photographic paper etc.)--even the system additive or subtractive colour [as here respectfully] makes a difference.

Let me give you an example, get any ancient photo that has a patina on the silver halide part and has gone sepia colour with age. I defy you to scan/reproduce this image in any way you wish on any digital system to wish to try it on and not notice how bad the reproduction of the patina is and how 'yellow' or 'red' or whatever colour the sepia has become--the sepia is no longer a subtle colour. This is typical of gamut limitation even though the overall range of the electronic system is better than the original photograph--perhaps considerably more so.

I don't have the time here to elaborate in detail about the intricacies of colour systems etc. but I do understand what Richard 45 is trying to say. Here's another example which may illustrate the point: you get a good-to-excellent Kodachrome slide and project it onto a good screen with good optics then scan the same slide at 48 bit--even use a drum scanner if you wish--then display it on a monitor, and I'll bet that--even if you are very familiar with the 'Kodachrome look' (which is unique in my opinion)--in a double-blind test you'll fail miserably to detect the Kodachrome slide on a digital monitor in any consistent manner. Why? Some intangible quality of the picture is missing--and it's missing because of limitations, primarily but not exclusively, in the display monitor.

Let me prove the point:

If you are not familiar with Cineraria then have as look at this flickr photo (no it's not mine).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/36916122@N03/3430574665/

Now go to any large conservatory (usually in some botanical garden etc.) where you can see thousands of these lovely little flowers growing. Seeing one is not sufficient--you must see many of them to appreciate the very subtle variations in the blue colour that different flowers can produce.

Cineraria are absolutely fabulous for this test: not only do they produce a vast range of blues but those blues gradually fade on a continuum into brilliant white at the end of the petal--so good this white you can use it as a reference. Picture in your mind this huge range of blues then compare a photograph of the same flowers with any photographic reproduction system at your disposal.

So devastating this test, the first reaction of many photographers is that they want to throw away their cameras. Thousands of shades of blue just morph into one or perhaps two shades of a much less vibrant blue.

The point is that colour display technology is essentially pathetic in its colour gamut when compared with a pair of good human non-colour-blind eyes. As good as colour systems are today, they still can't measure up with the colour discrimination of our eyes---especially so in the blue region of the spectrum.

Thus, when an observer, familiar with a specific colour dye (with its unique distinctive colour spectral response), is disappointed by the reproduction of its colour after it has passed though and been reproduced by some other colour chain, that his reaction is not only unsurprising but also we ought to expect him to be disappointed with the change in colour.

___

BTW, the flower shown in the flickr photo is typical of what I'm talking about--there's very little variation in the blues after the colour has been reproduced by an electronic (or photographic) system--as here, but the subtle gamma possible in some films often give them the edge over electronic ones.

Kodak to kill Kodachrome

Graham Wilson
Unhappy

Kodachrome's demise is a great shame as it was a very special film.

Kodachrome's demise is a great shame as it was a very special film. Not only was it the longest manufactured of colour films but it also had some special characteristics which meant that Kodachrome images were (and are) remarkably stable and thus excellent for long-term archiving. It has been estimated that the least stable of its dyes would last about 170 or so years if the film was stored correctly.

What made Kodachrome different* was that it really was a special black & white film in disguise. Normal colour films, such as the positive slide emulsion Ektachrome and colour negative films such as Kodacolor, contain both the light sensitive silver halides and the colour couplers that are necessary to produce the colours, whereas Kodachrome only contained three black & white layers together with a yellow filter layer in the emulsion, but which during the film's processing, the black & white layers were replaced with dyes supplied by the development process.

Adding the colour later had two benefits, it allowed Kodak to use dyes that were very much more stable than those produced from colour couplers (as used in Ektachrome etc.) and the lack of colour coupler technology made the emulsion very sharp indeed (and comparable with that of black & white films). Unfortunately, whereas 'coupled' emulsions were easy to have processed by the end user, Kaoachrome was not, the K-12 development system is long, convoluted and more expensive.

Kodachrome's demise is especially a tragedy from an archivist's perspective as there is no other film emulsion that comes anywhere near Kodchrome for longevity--there is no other film capable of replacing it. In essence, is means careful digital archiving will even be more essential or having to use film products that are very much Kodachrome's inferior when it comes to stability.

There too is another reason to lament Kodachrome's passing. Kodachrome's development in 1935 and its release in 1936 was around photography's 100th anniversary--at 100 years of age photography had finally gone colour with a truly reliable colour film. It put an end forever to the many false starts colour photography had had.

Kodachrome also represented a remarkable Tour de Force for chemical engineering. Being able to produce a photographic film with such excellent colour fidelity was a remarkable achievement for both Kodak and chemical engineering as a whole (most people have very little appreciation of how complicated colour film is--we all so often take this remarkable technology for granted). Just for this alone, Kodachrome's passing should be celebrated--its introduction was truly was a milestone in the most advanced of all engineering disciplines--that of chemical engineering.

I will sorely miss Kodachrome, but its legacy still lives on as bright and unfaded and as ever in my old photographs.

________

* I know, I'm at the risk of over simplifying here, but so be it....

Microsoft, Asus launch anti-Linuxbook campaign

Graham Wilson

Next time I won't buy an ASUS

Next time I won't buy an ASUS.

I have an ASUS netbook, which incidentally runs Windows, and I wouldn't have bought it if I'd known that ASUS and M$ were going to team up to fight Linux.

Right, you must have been bribed big-time but it won't pay off in the long run.

Not onlty do I own an ASUS but I'm also involved in recommending brands etc. Marketing people at ASUS take note--just stick to making hardware.

Top prosecutor warns against growing state power

Graham Wilson

@Mark re @Graham Wilson

(...So this is a very late reply. But I felt compelled to reply to Mark.)

.

I have always regretted not having the ability to write as do luminaries such as H. L. Mencken or Hunter S. Thompson who, in a single sentence, can express tremendous outrage and proffer a solution, yet still convey it to readers with crystal clarity.

The following is too long, but....

"bin Laden has denied he did it. Given he and his family were such good friends with the Bush's and that he has since had to go into hiding REAL deep under cover, this has some evidence to support its veracity.

Al Quaeda didn't exist. It was a cover name for several groups of "terrorists". Now they exist because of the overreaction in 9/11 (where Shrub said that America would not stand for terrorism against them."

Agreed. Here, I used 'bin Laden' as a broad-brushed metaphor or symbol for those responsible.

Also, whilst not disagreeing with your point, mine was that increased State control over the citizenry in times of threat usually results in a 'bull in a china shop' approach, it's not very effective and can have negative outcomes for society. The fabric that underpins society is fragile and is easily damaged; protecting it requires considerable care and sophistication--a smart approach rather than brute force.

"HEY! WHERE WERE YOU IN THE 80's??? Oh, yeah, supporting Gerry Adams...)."

I assume you mean by this comment that I would have had us all sit back and allowed the outrages by the IRA to go unchecked. Certainly not, many innocent people were hurt or killed and society has full right to defend itself. Nevertheless, with respect to the Northern Ireland problem, the State's response (which supposedly represents its citizens' interest) should have been more cautionary and above reproach. In hindsight, it did a pretty woeful job: the 'war' went on far too long with lots of counterproductive rhetoric and little effective negotiations, lots of dead and injustices, such those committed against the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four, not only undermined citizens' faith and confidence in the State but it confirmed in the enemy's eyes that the State was essentially disingenuous.

Perhaps I should have mentioned in my last post [1] that in certain circumstances I believe the State should use surveillance to protect its citizens but not as a first-line, default method of investigation as it is increasingly becoming. As electronic surveillance is extremely easy for the State to conduct and increasingly so, there is an almost overwhelming temptation for the State to give itself unlimited powers to do so (as it is intending to do with Data Communications Act).

Given the very real dangers that surveillance poses to personal privacy and safety of citizens, with even potential to undermine democracy [2] itself, undertaking surveillance should never be an easy option for the State, it should only go down this route after extremely rigorous and independent oversighting by those directly affected--the citizens themselves.

Electronic surveillance is now such an all-powerful all-pervasive tool it has the potential to directly alter the existing balance of power between state and citizens - to turn the State from servant into 'enemy'. Consequently, for their own safety, citizens need independently monitor and administer its use through an authoritative and transparent arm of government as the judiciary administers laws of the State. In a process similar to the separation of powers, executive government (and its enforcers, police, monitoring agencies etc.) should be directly accountable to others whose primary brief would be to protect citizens, uphold basic freedoms and democratic tenets whenever surveillance is used.

Perhaps by now readers are thinking I am putting an undue emphasis on one aspect of our governance--surveillance. Then I should point out that governments are much more likely to instigate and pass laws which increase their powers if it is easy to do so, even if expensive or unpopular (as is the proposed Data Communications Act). Governments often justify such laws in the name of safety, law enforcement, security etc., but in reality, they are little more than dictates that have had little or no public involvement during their drafting. Moreover, the propaganda or spin that surrounds them is often couched in motherhood statements that are hard to argue against and which assures them a swift passage through parliament.

A closer inspection often shows those who stand to gain the most from such laws are usually governments themselves along with already-privileged public-sector bureaucrats who will administer the provisions of such laws, for after all it is they who initially instigate them. The Data Communications Act, not only remove citizens' powers over privacy and undermines democratic principles but one assured outcome would be to confer better work conditions for these secret gnomes. Proving the hidden agenda would be nigh on impossible but you can bet one outcome of this proposed law will be to confer an 'affirmative action' status onto spooks. No longer will the bulk of them need to get their hands dirty with traditional, messy in-field investigations. In future, many will never have any need to take leave of their desks. Right, connotations of the Gilbertian line about 'sticking close to one's desk' come readily to mind.

An all-embracing electronic surveillance will make for lazy policing; lazy policing means bad law enforcement.

Those whose work involves protecting and securing the State takes several distinctive forms, generally the more arduous the job the less they are paid. Usually the military covers external threats, law enforcement: internal, and spying, data gathering and surveillance cover both internal and external threats. The military has (and always has had) the worst end of State security, especially the poor bloody infantry.

At the other extreme will be those who administer the Data Communications Act, they will be paid the highest, sit at their desks and never get their hands dirty...

...and never will they ever have to worry about whether a land mine will jump up in front of them and nuke their manhood.

---------------------------

[1] The previous post was a long and I'd have had to explain many caveats that I believe ought to cover covert surveillance to ensure that citizens are properly protected from State.

[2] Right, this sounds all very esoteric and impractical you might say. Perhaps it is, but as any thinking person would have to agree, Democracy is under more threat now than ever before. It is not just surveillance and increasing control of the citizenry by the State that is at issue, there are many others. For instance, erosion of one's vote through lobbying, vested and corporate interests influencing and biasing government processes, the covenant between the citizenry and government is being decoupled, citizens' increasing disrespect for their parliamentary representatives and the institution of government itself, and growing numbers of parliamentary representatives who have a Burkian determination NOT to represent their constituents or defend their wishes, and so on.

Graham Wilson

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Who watches the watchers?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

I wonder when bin Laden was congratulating himself over 9/11 whether he had the foresight to know he had already won the greater war.

Did he have the forethought to know his horrific act of malevolence would reawaken grotesque leviathan convictions deep within the depths of the West which would become his unwitting ally?

The once latent notions of totalitarian State control united with unbridled power and sustained by all-encompassing surveillance, which in the 1930s and '40s, subverted and undermined democracy and wrought havoc and mayhem on the world, have with 9/11 arisen anew. And with breakneck speed they have spread, meme-like--with the tenacity of a metastatic cancer, throughout the minds of democracies' governing elites.

Governments of the so-called free world, in one fell swoop, have made the biggest grab for power in modern democratic history under the guise of protecting citizens from terrorism, yet those who are primarily and mostly affected are the citizens themselves. Our democracies have paid a horrendous price for the 'The war on terrorism' to the point of the citizen being reduced to little more than a serf with respect to his freedom of movement, the right to privacy and his/her ability to hold government to account.

Modern electronic surveillance in its many and varied guises has made a mockery of privacy laws. The ability of modern computer networks to bring together many disparate and seemingly non-connected snippets of one's life can produce a picture of extraordinary detail. As tiny little information snippets are collated an image appears about one's life as a photograph appears to emerge and pop up from nowhere in a developing tank, yet the citizen's ability to have even modest control over his data is now nigh on zero.

Having a one-way flow of power from the citizenry to the ruling elites or through increasingly intrusive surveillance will not solve terrorism. Surveillance is the bluntest of blunt instruments for resolving political disputes: voyeuristic, snoopy, leaky and often incompetent bureaucrats, spooks and law enforcement who are on unjustified fishing expeditions, increasingly harm the citizenry with this one-way flow of information, whilst only incompetent or silly criminals or terrorists are caught. For example, witness the incredible--almost unbelievable--bungle with the MoD--Ministry of Defence's loss of the personal details of 600,000 people in the Armed Forces or those who were interested in joining them.

Never the reverse occurs. After a surveillance operation, you never have the State go to the citizen and hand over the gathered information. The State never opens its books, records or files for public scrutiny, never lets those who are performing the surveillance be seen or named in public and never lets citizens know that they were under surveillance. A State with secrets is a democracy compromised.

Terrorism will only ever be fully solved through bona fide political means. This is not to say the problem of terrorism, especially when targeted against defenceless and innocent civilians, is not a tragic problem of monumental proportions--it certainly is. Nevertheless, undermining our democracy and well-established way of life in the process is not only idiotic but also acknowledges the terrorists have won. On every count, it is wrong.

.

The Communications Data Bill

Perhaps, in the horrific light of the UK's pending Communications Data Bill, it's time to visit the prophet once more. Those who know the text below will sigh with disturbed resignation and concern, those who have never read it before should commence at the beginning--some 246 pages back--at least it is in my 1972 Penguin Edition:

" …Much had changed in him since that first day in the Ministry of Love, but the final, indispensable, healing change had never happened, until this moment.

The voice from the telescreen was still pouring forth its tale of prisoners and booty and slaughter, but the shouting outside had died down a little. The waiters were turning back to their work. One of them approached with the gin bottle. Winston, sitting in a blissful dream, paid no attention as his glass was filled up. He was not running or cheering any longer. He was back in the Ministry of Love, with everything forgiven, his soul white as snow. He was in the public dock, confessing everything, implicating everybody. He was walking down the white-tiled corridor, with the feeling of walking in sunlight, and an armed guard at his back. The long-hoped-for bullet was entering his brain.

He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother. "

Depressing. How many of you Winstons are out there?

When you've finished you should contemplate why there's hardly a whimper from the citizenry, especially those of the English-speaking countries, over their enormous loss of rights since 9/11; or congruently, consider the transfer--or more correctly--the compulsory acquisition of powers [rights] by the State from the citizenry since then. It's pretty simple really, governments, through their propaganda and spin departments have 'manufactured consent'* for the transfer of power. In the hands of skilled propagandists, the citizenry is very pliable. A tragedy it may be, but true.

What has happened to our democracies and to our democratic rights and freedoms over the last few years has been simply appalling, there are no other words for it. Moreover, the pending Communications Data Bill has to be the very bottom of the barrel, if passed it would have to be the very worst legislation to come out of any democratic society. It is hard to imagine anything could be worse.

Whether you are for the legislation or not you should read about how governments go about conning you, the citizenry. Yes, we all know it is by incessant, all-present, all persuasive, seemingly logical messages from governments, their spin-doctors and propaganda departments. Well, here is pretty much the original template: the master document for all propagandists, spin doctors, public relations companies, BS artists et al. Of course, it is not one they would ever have admitted reading or even knowing about. Written by one of the most reviled and despicable persons of 20th Century, this now dated document, parochial in parts--with some references that won't be familiar to everyone and written in a form a little unfamiliar to us today--arguably changed the 20th Century, and not for the better. Nevertheless, it's brilliance shines though, and it ought to be read by all citizens as a salient lesson in the remarkable power of professional propaganda, from either the State or elsewhere. We should ALL learn from it, not just those who expect to order us citizens about. Heed its methods, and try to make yourself much less susceptible to them: http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb54.htm.

…So, 'who will watch the watchers', who will guard the guardians?' Democracies have the separation of powers between the executive, judiciary and legislature for this purpose. However, as the proposed Communications Data Bill clearly attests, something is not working. In the end, it is we citizens who have to take responsibility. Write, complain and make a nuisance of yourselves. As Thomas Jefferson and perhaps Thomas Paine said 'The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.'

* No, I won’t be tempted mention the author of that phrase for fear of it being indexed, it would then attract his loony critics.

Home Office guides plods on photography

Graham Wilson

What goes on in the minds of these people?

What goes on in the minds of these people?

Mince meat perhaps?

All that will do is to send those with evil intent underground. Lapel cameras, button cameras etc.

Right, one can envisage the logical loony end to this: imagine a copper checking every male fly or female blouse that passes by to see if one of its buttons is running at 1680x1050x32bit colour?

What next? Better check bees' eyes to see if their little 'radomes' aren't transmitting vital info to Al Quaeda.

In the meantime, legit tourists, amateur photographers, anyone on legit business with a camera is stuffed, or so embarrassed to use the camera that he or she will not do so.

Such utter nonsense at a time when multi-megapixel camera sensors really are smaller than buttons.

...On second thoughts, what marvelous material for a new Monty Python series. But this time we won't need the actors. Cleese, Palin, et al--you're out. We've plenty of coppers on the beat, and what's more we can film them clandestinely.

Ought to be a real circus!

.

MoD loses most of the armed forces

Graham Wilson

Key issues concerning the massive loss of data by British MoD.

I'd suggest there are a number of key issues to keep in mind when considering the massive loss of data by British MoD. Here's a few to begin with:

1. The data/security paradigm changes when data are moved from hard/paper copy to a machine-readable form. Most people still think of security and access in paper-based terms, not that of electronic data which is a very different animal. Had the records been stored on traditional paper-based record systems then there would have been no breach of security.

2. Data in electronic form acquires a range of new and powerful properties when compared with that of the same records stored on hardcopy/paper. For example, stealing 600,000 plus paper-based records would be nigh on impossible, but this electronic 'loss' is not even theft as far as we know--just incompetence and mishandling. Those handling or using this data do not understand this differences between the electronic data and hard copy paradigms (especially a problem in government bureaucracies). Ipso facto, if they did then this data security breach would not have happened. Unfortunately, this lack of understanding is not unique; even those in the data processing/security game have a very poorly understanding of the problem: for they usually concentrate on specific security issues and technicalities, not why or whether certain facts or information should or should not be committed to electronic storage, or what the implications are if the data falls into unwanted hands.

3. It is questionable whether certain forms of sensitive data should actually be transferred into an electronic format, especially if bound into fully collated databases (as here). If electronic records are absolutely essential then the data can be held in multiple parts in distributed databases--one part alone being useless without others. (The fact that this data is not secured and managed in such a way that its loss would be trivial ought to be of great concern. Computer science just hasn't evolved sufficiently to always guarantee security and simultaneously make it easy and foolproof to implement: only electronic encode that which is essential.)

4. Governments, control freaks and penny-pinching accountants etc.--those with a police state mentality--want all records conveniently to hand, often for very questionable reasons including very little practical justification or need. In this instance, not only have they collected and collated vast amounts of sensitive personal data and stored it in an easily 'losable' form but the very act of doing so is one of utter irresponsibility. The loss of such important data (and on such a grand scale) together with security systems that are so weak and in such disarray--to the extent that they permit such losses--has to be an act of malfeasance.

4.1 Essentially, what has happened here is that an act of treason has been committed against the 'collective of citizens' [who constitute part of the state]--those who gave their personal data on the understanding that their government would keep it secure but who failed though negligence, inter alia.

4.2 There's little doubt that this incident will be hushed up, and there will be an scapegoat or two or possibly not even that. Moreover, I'll bet it happens again sometime soon, remember this is not the first of such incidents. With Britain going to a universal ID card what would happen if Al-Qaeda or similar organization were to ever get such a file? Even a friendly power such as the USA would be only too happy to snap up such valuable data, no questions asked.

5. Whether relevant or not, Governments, bureaucrats and security services have a Nazi-like obsession in collecting vast amounts of data on citizens, and there is no obligation on those collecting it to even tell citizens that they are doing so let alone let the citizen see or review the data. Whether storing so much detail about citizens in vulnerable electronic format (such as in single but comprehensive databases) is warranted or not ought to be publicly debated, especially by those whose data it is. Again, this incident only highlights the privacy debate which isn't happening!

6. It's questionable whether sensitive data of this kind really needs to be fully collated in one location, but if it is then there should be no reason for it to ever move from that location (except to another of the same status/security for backup purposes).

7. There is NO need for any other person or entity to have this data, and--in human rights terms--NOR does anyone else have the right to the data (just on basic privacy grounds alone let alone other reasons). If contractors require data to test systems etc. then non-identifying aggregated data should be supplied. Duplicating such data without the full consent of the citizens involved should be seen as a breach of not only their privacy but also their human rights. Remember, these are no ordinary records, an enemy could use them to annihilate soldiers before they're engaged on a battlefield--the lost records could perhaps put the very security of the country at risk. Even if this loss is not a high risk then the modus operandi that let it happen will inevitably repeat itself sooner or later, and most likely when the stakes are higher.

8. Computers, through their vastly increasing processing capability, are availing governments with new and unprecedented powers by stealth, and we citizens need question and scrutinize them--if but for no other reason than our own safety. Surveillance and monitoring of the citizenry is at an all-time high and justified, as always, in the hoary old name of 'security'--an emotive word whose very use 'justifies' the excuse to quell any in-depth public debate on the subject.

8.1 This incident, and others similar, should never have been allowed to happen. Again, it proves beyond reasonable doubt that governments can and do act irresponsibly towards their citizens whilst knowing better; moreover, they continue to get away with it without necessary scrutiny and public accountability because we continue to let them do so.

Events such as this data 'loss' enable us the citizenry to gain a small insight into the creeping and inextricably increasing powers of governments and we should use every such opportunity to reign in these abuses. If we ignore them then we do so at our own peril.

In the interests of Democracy and good governance, when our governments act so deplorably it is the duty of we citizens to ensure that those responsible be held accountable, and we must insist the issues be widely and publicly debated, and not hidden and whitewashed in the name of security.

SMS costs more than using Hubble Space Telescope

Graham Wilson

Dr Nigel Bannister is correct about SMS costs. Now, what about the exploitation by telcos?

Dr Nigel Bannister is correct to say that SMS costs more than using Hubble Space Telescope!

I reckon his calculations are ballpark as they echo my own similar experience when as far back as 1999 I did a rough comparison between the costs[1] of local SMS messages and that of NASA receiving messages from its Voyager spacecraft billions of kilometers away.

My calculations show that on a byte-for-byte basis it cost kids several orders of magnitude more money to send [to text] a single character across a schoolroom than it does for NASA to receive the same message from its Voyager spacecraft as they approach the heliosheath--that boundary where edge of the solar system gives way to deep space some fourteen billion kilometers from earth.

The SMS service was originally devised as a quick and dirty maintenance channel for field use by technical staff to adjust and maintain mobile telephone networks--not for general use by subscribers. Well, that was until the telcos realised they were sitting on a goldmine and they could ACTUALLY sell the SMS service to subscribers. Moreover, this twee, almost-unacceptable, almost-unusable and awkward communications system with its strange and kluged way of keying in messages, was extremely easy to sell to a remarkably gullible and unquestioning public who lapped SMS up no matter what outrageous and extortionate price the telcos charged. For the telcos, SMS was the telecommunications equivalent of heroin, the public, world wide, became addicted overnight.

Had SMS been initially planned as a consumer service then it would have been much more extensive than it now is. The telcos just couldn't believe their luck: for almost negligible establishment costs they've made billions. And, on a dollar-for-effort basis, they've made even more money than Bill Gates and Microsoft.

Moreover, the world's telcos are all very aware of the SMS goldmine they're sitting on. Thus, they're forever engaged in seemingly competitive SMS price wars which, in reality, just oscillate or nibble around an artificial and outrageously high price. No telco is wiling to enter into true price completion in the SMS arena, and no telco wants the secret SMS oligopoly to be exposed. The stakes are enormous.

The tragedy of SMS is that governments, regulators and consumer advocates let these miserable telecommunications carpetbaggers get away with such huge exploitation, it was on such a grand scale. In the broader sense, SMS pricing--which ought to have been included in the base subscriber price with no charge for messages (as the bandwidth is so negligible)--can be seen as another consumer casualty in the worldwide headlong rush that was telecommunications deregulation.

Matters, too, were made worse when governments also divested themselves of their telecommunications regulators and engineers, as governments no longer had easy access to professional and independent technical advice (they would have picked up the SMS scam then referred it on for the drafting of appropriate lemon laws and consumer protection legislation).

SMS and its pricing is truly an amazing phenomena. One day when we eventually realise the huge extent to which the consumer has been deceived and conned over SMS, it will go down in history as a quintessential example of what happens when the synergies of corporate greed, marketing propaganda and deception, consumer gullibility and the new and strange addiction of SMS messaging come together. It's what happens when all involved are blinded and mesmerised by technology's new and pretty baubles bangles and beads. With SMS, it is as if the Pied Piper had really come this time.

What is urgently needed now is to expose this SMS pricing sham once and for all. I call on whistleblowers, insiders and those of us who still posses a modicum of rationality and who understand the issues, to leak and expose true and quantifiable figures (not guesstimates) about SMS installation and running costs and the extent to which the public has been deceived and extorted over the years. This information can then be used to force regulators and legislators to act.

___

[1] At the time, my reason for the calculation was in response to my then unit manager who suggested we use SMS to replace regular telephone conversations. Responding I'd said that SMS is, at best, a clumsy, slow and an inefficient means of communication but he remained insistent but he then dropped the idea when the costs of SMS were compared to that of Voyager's communications.)

Page: