The launch of "a national conversation" is to determine the political and constitutional future of Scotland and the UK. The status quo, more powers for the Scottish parliament or full sovereign independence. In contrast to south of the border, the Labour party is now a poor second to the SNPs ever growing record lead over all other parties. Is the public warming to the SNP and will the independence debate be given a fair hearing?
read more | digg story
05 August 2007
Traditional Gaelic events at the Edinburgh Fringe
For 2008 events please see the 2008 event listings.
2007 programme of events
Com-pàirteachas Gàidhlig Dhùn Èideann (Edinburgh Gaelic Partnership)welcomes you to the Edinburgh Festival Fringe with:
"Cèilidh in the City"
Colmcille Centre, 2 Newbattle Terrace, Edinburgh
Ceòl (music)
Òrain (songs)
Sgeulachdan (storytelling)
Monday 20th August (7.30pm – 9.30pm)
Alasdair Codona (vocal & guitar) & Mairead Callan (vocal) with Martin Macintyre (storyteller) plus supporting local instrumentalists & singers.
Tuesday 21st August (7.30pm – 9.30pm)
Gillian Mackenzie (vocal) with Gaelic musicians and singers from Edinburgh Schools combine with Lothian Gaelic Choir for an evening of traditional entertainment for all generations.
Wednesday 22nd August (7.30pm – 9.30pm) "A taste of the Mod" with Medallists, Kirsteen Macdonald (vocal), Calum A. Macmillan (vocal), Màiri Macleod (clàrsach), Falkirk Junior Gaelic Choir, young musicians from Lochaber, & others.
Thursday 23rd August (7.30pm – 9.30pm)
A night with "Am Bothan" & guests – Roddy Campbell (vocal & instrumentals) & Don Mackenzie (guitar) with local artistes.
Friday 24th August (7.30pm – 9.30pm)
Top pipers Iain & Allan Macdonald & Griogair Lawrie with Margaret Stewart (vocal), Martin Macintyre (storyteller) and local musicians.
Saturday 25th August (7.30pm – 9.30pm)
Ever popular Kathleen Macinnes (vocal) & Griogair Lawrie (vocal & pipes) with Martin Macintyre (storyteller) & local musicians.
Nach tig sibh a chèilidh oirnn gach oidhche!
Tickets £8/£6 available 9.00am to 9.00pm
Fringe Box Office (0131 226 0000) or at the door.
2007 programme of events
Com-pàirteachas Gàidhlig Dhùn Èideann (Edinburgh Gaelic Partnership)welcomes you to the Edinburgh Festival Fringe with:
"Cèilidh in the City"
Colmcille Centre, 2 Newbattle Terrace, Edinburgh
Ceòl (music)
Òrain (songs)
Sgeulachdan (storytelling)
Monday 20th August (7.30pm – 9.30pm)
Alasdair Codona (vocal & guitar) & Mairead Callan (vocal) with Martin Macintyre (storyteller) plus supporting local instrumentalists & singers.
Tuesday 21st August (7.30pm – 9.30pm)
Gillian Mackenzie (vocal) with Gaelic musicians and singers from Edinburgh Schools combine with Lothian Gaelic Choir for an evening of traditional entertainment for all generations.
Wednesday 22nd August (7.30pm – 9.30pm) "A taste of the Mod" with Medallists, Kirsteen Macdonald (vocal), Calum A. Macmillan (vocal), Màiri Macleod (clàrsach), Falkirk Junior Gaelic Choir, young musicians from Lochaber, & others.
Thursday 23rd August (7.30pm – 9.30pm)
A night with "Am Bothan" & guests – Roddy Campbell (vocal & instrumentals) & Don Mackenzie (guitar) with local artistes.
Friday 24th August (7.30pm – 9.30pm)
Top pipers Iain & Allan Macdonald & Griogair Lawrie with Margaret Stewart (vocal), Martin Macintyre (storyteller) and local musicians.
Saturday 25th August (7.30pm – 9.30pm)
Ever popular Kathleen Macinnes (vocal) & Griogair Lawrie (vocal & pipes) with Martin Macintyre (storyteller) & local musicians.
Nach tig sibh a chèilidh oirnn gach oidhche!
Tickets £8/£6 available 9.00am to 9.00pm
Fringe Box Office (0131 226 0000) or at the door.
31 July 2007
Airport security, mostly hype
As someone who flies to work, I have made some observations on flying and airport security which I thought I would share here. Having gone through the same routine over 50 times this year alone, you get to spot the subtle differences that are maybe lost on the more casual traveller.
First off, security.
Good security is when an independent 3rd party checks my bags. Like putting them in a scanner and deciding if I’m carrying anything inappropriate. Questionable security is trusting passengers to be honest. When you check in, you are asked the following questions:
1. Did you pack the bag yourself?
2. Could anyone have interfered with your bags?
3. Are you carrying anything for anyone else?
4. Are you carrying any sharp or dangerous items?
Whilst I answer honestly to the above, it is of course open to any would be terrorist to simply lie. I don’t really understand the point of the above questions. Like much of airport security it is simply taken as a given that passengers will do exactly as asked when questioned. This is just the routine for an airport, do it anywhere else and it’s just weird.
For instance, in most train stations you buy your ticket, go through the barrier and then wait on the platform to board the train. Not so at Great Victoria Street, Belfast where they act as if they are an airport departure lounge. There you buy the ticket, wait in an overcrowded concourse and then are only allowed to pass through the barrier when the ticket inspector has word that the train is approaching. Herding the passengers around like cattle in this way is exactly the same way they are treated at airports. Completely normal at an airport, completely weird at a train station. This isn’t a security issue at the train station, since many of the other stations on the same line are completely unmanned.
Next, as part of the check in procedure to fly you are asked to show Photo ID. For "security reasons" however the standards for acceptable ID between airlines vary enormously. For a UK domestic flight no passport is required yet for most people this is the preferred form of ID. Some opt for a driving licence and especially if you want to fly domestically, but don’t want your details added to the national ID register then this is a good alternative to the passport. However, despite this being for security reasons, EasyJet (the web’s favourite airline, see earlier blog about rip-off credit card charges) accept any valid form of photo ID they tell me. So an easily forged form of photo ID would be acceptable and it worries me that something done in the name of security could be so easily forged. If they took security more seriously, they might even list the acceptable forms of ID on their website but instead to find out you have to mail their premium rate contact centre, how unhelpful.
Then when you get to the security area you have to show a boarding card, however I am unsure why this is since there is no cross checking that I am indeed the person named on the boarding card. In the security section itself we have the new rules about taking liquids. Since the terrorist threat about liquid based bombs is now largely behind us, this focus on liquids to me seems inappropriate. For instance, I can take 5 100ml bottles but not a 200ml bottle. All bottles must be under 100ml, fit in a clear plastic re-sealable bag and be scanned separately. Yet, whilst the paranoia about liquids exists (I don’t carry any, makes my life simple) I am nonetheless allowed to carry a tie, belt, 10m of Ethernet cable, power supply cables, shoe laces and any number of items that could be misused on a plane. Yet, I can’t take a vacuum sealed bottle of water over 200ml, even if I take a sip first. These differences in security are never adequately explained, instead the travellers are herded around the airport like sheep expected to do exactly as they are told and not question why. The arbitrary limit of 100ml is bizarre since of course the 5 100ml containers could be combined post-security into 1 500ml bottle that was bought in a shop on the other side of security. Who are they trying to kid that this is effective?
Indeed I wonder why it is that at peak holiday season and in a queue of holidaymakers, there am I with my laptop bag being told to take it out of the bag. As if I don’t know already. Yes, I’m aware that’s what I have to do, yes I saw the notices and yes I would have taken it out already if there was more than 1 table to unload the bag onto and you give me more than 2 milliseconds to actually put my bag on it to empty the contents first. Yes, at an airport everyone feels obliged to give you verbal instructions. Why then do they bother with the written signs? Maybe the queues wouldn’t be so long if the tables before x-ray were bigger, giving people more time and space to unpack their bags, remove coats etc. Why also am I asked to remove my belt for x-ray – is this a mad plot to take over a plane using belts? If so, I wonder why no one questions the several metres of electrical cable I carry in my laptop bag. Typical “body search” stats are around 20-25% for random searches. Whilst there are still some people who don’t empty their pockets and set off the electrical scanners, the rest of us still get stopped randomly about one time in 5. You should also be prepared to take off your shoes a similar amount of times, something that evidently doesn’t occur to those people who fly in flip flops, have to remove them and go barefoot through the security scanners. You and several tens of thousands of people before you – enjoy the infection you pick up, never mind the dirty feet you’ll have until you reach your destination.
Next, we come to the gate. I frequently fly through gate 13 at Edinburgh. Well it’s actually called gate 12b for the stupid superstitions nitwits who wouldn’t fly out of a gate 13. As if isn’t obvious. Gate 12, Gate 12b, Gate 14. Doh!. Even Homer Simpson could figure that one out. Look, if people were actually that superstitious could some bright spark kindly explain when I recently flew on Friday 13th May that it was just as busy as any other Friday? Maybe some of us actually live in the 21st century rather than the dark ages?
So to the gate. Here they claim completely erroneously “please present your boarding pass and photo ID for final inspection”. Nope, wrong. What they should say is “please present your photo ID for final inspection together with your boarding pass”, because when you get into the actual plane they check your boarding pass again, THAT is the final inspection. The number of times I have been stuck on a queue on the stairs in the rain to get into a plane because someone has thought they didn’t need to present their boarding pass again you think the airports would at least be clear with their English.
On board the flight if you are not elderly, handicapped, pregnant, obese, a child, or a deportee under escort then please make your way to the emergency exit rows. The seats here (usually over wing) have approximately 50% more legroom than standard seats. Seats big enough for someone over 5 ft 8”. Seats big enough that you can actually sit in comfortably and not worry about DVT. Seats that you might stand a chance of being able to sleep in. However, despite the large notice pasted to the seat in front that you are in an emergency exit is it still mandatory for the cabin crew to remind me that the big door next to me is an emergency exit and have I read the very large notice 2 feet from my face? Well of course so, I didn’t have much choice did I, I could hardly miss it. More mandatory verbal instruction. However, I just wonder what the probability would be of me actually needing to reach up, remove the top panel in the door and carefully pull the lever whilst holding the handle underneath the window so that I could carefully ease the door into the cabin at a careful angle before jettisoning it outside in the event of an emergency in my airbus A318. My experience reading about emergencies is that sitting on top of tens of thousands of tons of flammable fuel I am more likely to be burned to the crispiest of crispy things before I’ve even got as far as thinking about undoing my seatbelt. The probability of ever needing the knowledge that the cabin crew have forced upon me regarding the door operation is, well, pretty small. Especially as the emergency exit door is in fact over the fuel tank.
I turn now to the other nonsense regarding airline security. What is the great mystery that surrounds walking under a wing that for our safety we are not allowed to do so if we disembark from the rear of the aircraft? Why is this never explained? Why is it that the cabin lights must be dimmed for takeoff and landing and why is it that I can quite happily fall asleep during the safety procedure but for reasons of security I have to have my window shutter left open for takeoff and landing? Does the crew never think that passengers might be interested in an explanation for these bizarre rituals and customs? Perhaps these rituals might even be a bit more relevant than the likelihood of ever needing to know how to operate the emergency door. Curiously, now that I am fully aware on how to open the emergency door, the one thing neither the flight crew nor the instructions tell me is when I should open it. I am naturally assuming that mid flight I can’t just feel a bit adventurous and decide to open it on a whim for some fresh air. I am also naturally assuming that there’s some equivalent announcement such as the one after landing when they say “cabin doors to manual”, but in all the safety announcements I’ve sat through in the emergency row not one person has explained to me how I will know when I should open the door and what mechanism allows it to be opened. Even if the flight crew said “in an emergency then you must open the door immediately” it would be something, but no. Perhaps if I am in an emergency and not burnt to the crispiest of crisp things first I might find out.
Once those of us sitting in the emergency exit rows have been instructed on the contents of the safety sheet staring us in the face, it is the turn of the rest of the plane to get the safety briefing, informing us of the safety features of the plane, the oxygen masks, seat belts, life jackets (they also carry life cots for babies don’t you know!), pull the toggle to inflate and so on. Don’t forget your seat must be in the upright position with the armrests down and the tray secured. All very well, but if it’s so important why not explain it properly. Having useful instructions like this available somewhere in the airport could actually make people interested in the whys and wherefores of the safety briefing rather than most of them falling asleep before it has started.
And so we inevitably turn to the nonsense of the mobile phone ban. Those of you still living under the mistaken belief that mobile phones are banned on planes for security reasons, where have you been hiding the last few years? Let me recommend this article as a good place to start on why a mobile ban is silly at a purely technical level. However, let me expand that further by making the following comments:
1. If the signal from a phone could interfere with the equipment on the plane, why do they let any mobile phones on the plane at all? They don’t allow nail clippers, plastic forks and other devices that would stretch the abilities of a ninja warrior to cause trouble on a plane, yet allow a mobile phone that could be left on, used in the toilet and act at a distance to crash the plane. You tell me whether it makes more sense to ban a device like that or a plastic fork.
2. If the signal from the phone is that dangerous, can someone tell me what protects the plane’s electronics from the constantly broadcasting signal from the mobile phone mast that clearly penetrates the aeroplane’s body? Especially as so many people have misgivings about living near mobile phone masts but not about actually using a phone themselves every day. They believe the mast is more dangerous, if the airlines have information to the contrary maybe they should jump in when people start opposing the building of masts near schools etc.
3. If mobile phones could interfere with electronics, surely they would install a Bluetooth receiver that picks up broadcasting signals since these are more than likely coming from mobile phones left on in the plane. On most flights I’ve been on, there are at least 4 signals within range inside the plane. Typical Bluetooth networks often have the phone make and/or the person’s name in them so it wouldn’t take a lot of effort to identify some offenders. “Could John with the Nokia 6280 please turn off his phone please” could be entertaining on the aircraft speakers, if security with phones was taken as serious as we are led to believe.
4. If mobile phones did cause problems with ground masts and roaming to multiple masts, which is the most common believable technical problem, the people living under flight paths and near airports would live in a perpetual mobile fog. With the figures above from Bluetooth, my guess is that at least 10% of people just put their phones on silent, that being the case as the plane takes off the phone begins to roam to multiple masts and anyone one ground using one of those masts could have problems. I have never heard of anyone reporting such a problem. Secondly, if airlines and mobile phone companies took airline security with mobile phones seriously they would be able to tell who the offenders were. Something along the lines of “at 7:48am your phone was in the reception area covered by Springfield international airport, then roamed to three masts before disappearing out of reception. The positional information indicates you were travelling at 150mph and regained reception near Donutsville International airport 200 miles away 40 minutes later, 2 minutes before a plane from Springfield landed and we have good reason therefore to believe your phone was left on in the plane. As such we are fining you for not complying with airline security regulations.” This does not happen. Why?
5. Why are mobile phones safe to use in hospitals but not on a plane? If the electronics on a plane are more sensitive than those on a hospital ward shouldn’t we be complaining to plane manufacturers to build airplanes that are more robust against actual malicious electronic attack?
Next, why do we assume terrorists are stupid when plainly they are not. These are the sort of people who operate covert international networks for years undetected, who planned the 11th September raids, who plan and make sophisticated devices and are capable or remaining at large years after their pictures and arrest warrants are posted. Anyone seen Bin Laden lately? So what is our reaction? There was a shoe bomber threat so we have random shoe x-rays. There was a threat about liquid bombs and so we now have liquid limits. There was a car drive into Glasgow airport and so Edinburgh airport has concrete blocks at the doors. I think the one thing we should assume is that a clever terrorist is unlikely to repeat the same tactic twice, meanwhile the rest of the law abiding population has to deal with increasing levels of somewhat questionable security.
Don't just take my word for it, the increased security and delays are causing queues at check in desks which are now considered by MPs as a risk in their own right.
This is no longer just the opinion of a bored frequent flier, nor it is just the opinion of a few MPs in grey suits, it is also the opinion of the airline industry. The International Air Transport Association's head has said that the UK has
Give the guy a medal. Now, what are we going to do to have effective security that not only treats passengers like adults but is in fact secure and which doesn't assume terrorists are stupid and grind airports to a standstill?
First off, security.
Good security is when an independent 3rd party checks my bags. Like putting them in a scanner and deciding if I’m carrying anything inappropriate. Questionable security is trusting passengers to be honest. When you check in, you are asked the following questions:
1. Did you pack the bag yourself?
2. Could anyone have interfered with your bags?
3. Are you carrying anything for anyone else?
4. Are you carrying any sharp or dangerous items?
Whilst I answer honestly to the above, it is of course open to any would be terrorist to simply lie. I don’t really understand the point of the above questions. Like much of airport security it is simply taken as a given that passengers will do exactly as asked when questioned. This is just the routine for an airport, do it anywhere else and it’s just weird.
For instance, in most train stations you buy your ticket, go through the barrier and then wait on the platform to board the train. Not so at Great Victoria Street, Belfast where they act as if they are an airport departure lounge. There you buy the ticket, wait in an overcrowded concourse and then are only allowed to pass through the barrier when the ticket inspector has word that the train is approaching. Herding the passengers around like cattle in this way is exactly the same way they are treated at airports. Completely normal at an airport, completely weird at a train station. This isn’t a security issue at the train station, since many of the other stations on the same line are completely unmanned.
Next, as part of the check in procedure to fly you are asked to show Photo ID. For "security reasons" however the standards for acceptable ID between airlines vary enormously. For a UK domestic flight no passport is required yet for most people this is the preferred form of ID. Some opt for a driving licence and especially if you want to fly domestically, but don’t want your details added to the national ID register then this is a good alternative to the passport. However, despite this being for security reasons, EasyJet (the web’s favourite airline, see earlier blog about rip-off credit card charges) accept any valid form of photo ID they tell me. So an easily forged form of photo ID would be acceptable and it worries me that something done in the name of security could be so easily forged. If they took security more seriously, they might even list the acceptable forms of ID on their website but instead to find out you have to mail their premium rate contact centre, how unhelpful.
Then when you get to the security area you have to show a boarding card, however I am unsure why this is since there is no cross checking that I am indeed the person named on the boarding card. In the security section itself we have the new rules about taking liquids. Since the terrorist threat about liquid based bombs is now largely behind us, this focus on liquids to me seems inappropriate. For instance, I can take 5 100ml bottles but not a 200ml bottle. All bottles must be under 100ml, fit in a clear plastic re-sealable bag and be scanned separately. Yet, whilst the paranoia about liquids exists (I don’t carry any, makes my life simple) I am nonetheless allowed to carry a tie, belt, 10m of Ethernet cable, power supply cables, shoe laces and any number of items that could be misused on a plane. Yet, I can’t take a vacuum sealed bottle of water over 200ml, even if I take a sip first. These differences in security are never adequately explained, instead the travellers are herded around the airport like sheep expected to do exactly as they are told and not question why. The arbitrary limit of 100ml is bizarre since of course the 5 100ml containers could be combined post-security into 1 500ml bottle that was bought in a shop on the other side of security. Who are they trying to kid that this is effective?
Indeed I wonder why it is that at peak holiday season and in a queue of holidaymakers, there am I with my laptop bag being told to take it out of the bag. As if I don’t know already. Yes, I’m aware that’s what I have to do, yes I saw the notices and yes I would have taken it out already if there was more than 1 table to unload the bag onto and you give me more than 2 milliseconds to actually put my bag on it to empty the contents first. Yes, at an airport everyone feels obliged to give you verbal instructions. Why then do they bother with the written signs? Maybe the queues wouldn’t be so long if the tables before x-ray were bigger, giving people more time and space to unpack their bags, remove coats etc. Why also am I asked to remove my belt for x-ray – is this a mad plot to take over a plane using belts? If so, I wonder why no one questions the several metres of electrical cable I carry in my laptop bag. Typical “body search” stats are around 20-25% for random searches. Whilst there are still some people who don’t empty their pockets and set off the electrical scanners, the rest of us still get stopped randomly about one time in 5. You should also be prepared to take off your shoes a similar amount of times, something that evidently doesn’t occur to those people who fly in flip flops, have to remove them and go barefoot through the security scanners. You and several tens of thousands of people before you – enjoy the infection you pick up, never mind the dirty feet you’ll have until you reach your destination.
Next, we come to the gate. I frequently fly through gate 13 at Edinburgh. Well it’s actually called gate 12b for the stupid superstitions nitwits who wouldn’t fly out of a gate 13. As if isn’t obvious. Gate 12, Gate 12b, Gate 14. Doh!. Even Homer Simpson could figure that one out. Look, if people were actually that superstitious could some bright spark kindly explain when I recently flew on Friday 13th May that it was just as busy as any other Friday? Maybe some of us actually live in the 21st century rather than the dark ages?
So to the gate. Here they claim completely erroneously “please present your boarding pass and photo ID for final inspection”. Nope, wrong. What they should say is “please present your photo ID for final inspection together with your boarding pass”, because when you get into the actual plane they check your boarding pass again, THAT is the final inspection. The number of times I have been stuck on a queue on the stairs in the rain to get into a plane because someone has thought they didn’t need to present their boarding pass again you think the airports would at least be clear with their English.
On board the flight if you are not elderly, handicapped, pregnant, obese, a child, or a deportee under escort then please make your way to the emergency exit rows. The seats here (usually over wing) have approximately 50% more legroom than standard seats. Seats big enough for someone over 5 ft 8”. Seats big enough that you can actually sit in comfortably and not worry about DVT. Seats that you might stand a chance of being able to sleep in. However, despite the large notice pasted to the seat in front that you are in an emergency exit is it still mandatory for the cabin crew to remind me that the big door next to me is an emergency exit and have I read the very large notice 2 feet from my face? Well of course so, I didn’t have much choice did I, I could hardly miss it. More mandatory verbal instruction. However, I just wonder what the probability would be of me actually needing to reach up, remove the top panel in the door and carefully pull the lever whilst holding the handle underneath the window so that I could carefully ease the door into the cabin at a careful angle before jettisoning it outside in the event of an emergency in my airbus A318. My experience reading about emergencies is that sitting on top of tens of thousands of tons of flammable fuel I am more likely to be burned to the crispiest of crispy things before I’ve even got as far as thinking about undoing my seatbelt. The probability of ever needing the knowledge that the cabin crew have forced upon me regarding the door operation is, well, pretty small. Especially as the emergency exit door is in fact over the fuel tank.
I turn now to the other nonsense regarding airline security. What is the great mystery that surrounds walking under a wing that for our safety we are not allowed to do so if we disembark from the rear of the aircraft? Why is this never explained? Why is it that the cabin lights must be dimmed for takeoff and landing and why is it that I can quite happily fall asleep during the safety procedure but for reasons of security I have to have my window shutter left open for takeoff and landing? Does the crew never think that passengers might be interested in an explanation for these bizarre rituals and customs? Perhaps these rituals might even be a bit more relevant than the likelihood of ever needing to know how to operate the emergency door. Curiously, now that I am fully aware on how to open the emergency door, the one thing neither the flight crew nor the instructions tell me is when I should open it. I am naturally assuming that mid flight I can’t just feel a bit adventurous and decide to open it on a whim for some fresh air. I am also naturally assuming that there’s some equivalent announcement such as the one after landing when they say “cabin doors to manual”, but in all the safety announcements I’ve sat through in the emergency row not one person has explained to me how I will know when I should open the door and what mechanism allows it to be opened. Even if the flight crew said “in an emergency then you must open the door immediately” it would be something, but no. Perhaps if I am in an emergency and not burnt to the crispiest of crisp things first I might find out.
Once those of us sitting in the emergency exit rows have been instructed on the contents of the safety sheet staring us in the face, it is the turn of the rest of the plane to get the safety briefing, informing us of the safety features of the plane, the oxygen masks, seat belts, life jackets (they also carry life cots for babies don’t you know!), pull the toggle to inflate and so on. Don’t forget your seat must be in the upright position with the armrests down and the tray secured. All very well, but if it’s so important why not explain it properly. Having useful instructions like this available somewhere in the airport could actually make people interested in the whys and wherefores of the safety briefing rather than most of them falling asleep before it has started.
And so we inevitably turn to the nonsense of the mobile phone ban. Those of you still living under the mistaken belief that mobile phones are banned on planes for security reasons, where have you been hiding the last few years? Let me recommend this article as a good place to start on why a mobile ban is silly at a purely technical level. However, let me expand that further by making the following comments:
1. If the signal from a phone could interfere with the equipment on the plane, why do they let any mobile phones on the plane at all? They don’t allow nail clippers, plastic forks and other devices that would stretch the abilities of a ninja warrior to cause trouble on a plane, yet allow a mobile phone that could be left on, used in the toilet and act at a distance to crash the plane. You tell me whether it makes more sense to ban a device like that or a plastic fork.
2. If the signal from the phone is that dangerous, can someone tell me what protects the plane’s electronics from the constantly broadcasting signal from the mobile phone mast that clearly penetrates the aeroplane’s body? Especially as so many people have misgivings about living near mobile phone masts but not about actually using a phone themselves every day. They believe the mast is more dangerous, if the airlines have information to the contrary maybe they should jump in when people start opposing the building of masts near schools etc.
3. If mobile phones could interfere with electronics, surely they would install a Bluetooth receiver that picks up broadcasting signals since these are more than likely coming from mobile phones left on in the plane. On most flights I’ve been on, there are at least 4 signals within range inside the plane. Typical Bluetooth networks often have the phone make and/or the person’s name in them so it wouldn’t take a lot of effort to identify some offenders. “Could John with the Nokia 6280 please turn off his phone please” could be entertaining on the aircraft speakers, if security with phones was taken as serious as we are led to believe.
4. If mobile phones did cause problems with ground masts and roaming to multiple masts, which is the most common believable technical problem, the people living under flight paths and near airports would live in a perpetual mobile fog. With the figures above from Bluetooth, my guess is that at least 10% of people just put their phones on silent, that being the case as the plane takes off the phone begins to roam to multiple masts and anyone one ground using one of those masts could have problems. I have never heard of anyone reporting such a problem. Secondly, if airlines and mobile phone companies took airline security with mobile phones seriously they would be able to tell who the offenders were. Something along the lines of “at 7:48am your phone was in the reception area covered by Springfield international airport, then roamed to three masts before disappearing out of reception. The positional information indicates you were travelling at 150mph and regained reception near Donutsville International airport 200 miles away 40 minutes later, 2 minutes before a plane from Springfield landed and we have good reason therefore to believe your phone was left on in the plane. As such we are fining you for not complying with airline security regulations.” This does not happen. Why?
5. Why are mobile phones safe to use in hospitals but not on a plane? If the electronics on a plane are more sensitive than those on a hospital ward shouldn’t we be complaining to plane manufacturers to build airplanes that are more robust against actual malicious electronic attack?
Next, why do we assume terrorists are stupid when plainly they are not. These are the sort of people who operate covert international networks for years undetected, who planned the 11th September raids, who plan and make sophisticated devices and are capable or remaining at large years after their pictures and arrest warrants are posted. Anyone seen Bin Laden lately? So what is our reaction? There was a shoe bomber threat so we have random shoe x-rays. There was a threat about liquid bombs and so we now have liquid limits. There was a car drive into Glasgow airport and so Edinburgh airport has concrete blocks at the doors. I think the one thing we should assume is that a clever terrorist is unlikely to repeat the same tactic twice, meanwhile the rest of the law abiding population has to deal with increasing levels of somewhat questionable security.
Don't just take my word for it, the increased security and delays are causing queues at check in desks which are now considered by MPs as a risk in their own right.
This is no longer just the opinion of a bored frequent flier, nor it is just the opinion of a few MPs in grey suits, it is also the opinion of the airline industry. The International Air Transport Association's head has said that the UK has
unique screening policies inconvenience passengers with no improvement in security.
Give the guy a medal. Now, what are we going to do to have effective security that not only treats passengers like adults but is in fact secure and which doesn't assume terrorists are stupid and grind airports to a standstill?
26 July 2007
24 July 2007
The conversation club
Working away from home during the week, I have the company of a hotel bedroom 4 nights a week and the company of an airport departure lounge on a Friday night. It's a bit of a dull and repetitive time. Like GroundHog Day I sometimes look for ways to brighten up the routine to make each week more interesting than the last. I've tried the gym, various local restaurants, looked into going to the cinema, hiring DVDs to play on the TV in my room via the laptop, watched some TV, gone for long walks, paid the bills, caught up on email, surfed the web, read the what's on guide, magazines and newspapers and I'm also doing a distance learning course. I even blog occassionally.
Yet the one thing that is surprisingly difficult to get is simple conversation. Having lived in the same hotel for several months, I know most of the staff, chatted with reception many times, helped out the hotel with their IT and spent a few nights at the bar people watching.
However, it was following my recent letter in the Belfast Telegraph that I managed to get to meet people socially in the evening, not eat dinner alone and spend the evening in pleasant conversation about life, politics, language, culture and all manner of things.
How much more interesting and less lonely it would be if it was easier to do this on a regular basis. It isn't most people's cup of tea wandering up to complete strangers in a bar to make conversation not knowing if they think you are either weird or misinterpreting it as a chat up. There needs to be a context and in the world of frequent travellers there must be hundreds of thousands of people each worknight bored out of their minds in dull hotel rooms. Yes, I appreciate there are probably more exciting things to do but not if you're already married....
So the context is the conversation club. A place for the traveller who wants to meet up in a strange city with other business travellers, have some conversation and company, meet with people staying for anything from a few nights to many months and possibly network for opportunities, find out what's going on and make a global network of contacts. Could just be a social drink down the pub and some food in a local cheapish restaurant or whatever.
Imagine a network of places around the world where you can go on business and simply meet up with people for conversation and company. No dodgy dating club, no lonely hotel rooms.
Maybe something worth talking about.
Yet the one thing that is surprisingly difficult to get is simple conversation. Having lived in the same hotel for several months, I know most of the staff, chatted with reception many times, helped out the hotel with their IT and spent a few nights at the bar people watching.
However, it was following my recent letter in the Belfast Telegraph that I managed to get to meet people socially in the evening, not eat dinner alone and spend the evening in pleasant conversation about life, politics, language, culture and all manner of things.
How much more interesting and less lonely it would be if it was easier to do this on a regular basis. It isn't most people's cup of tea wandering up to complete strangers in a bar to make conversation not knowing if they think you are either weird or misinterpreting it as a chat up. There needs to be a context and in the world of frequent travellers there must be hundreds of thousands of people each worknight bored out of their minds in dull hotel rooms. Yes, I appreciate there are probably more exciting things to do but not if you're already married....
So the context is the conversation club. A place for the traveller who wants to meet up in a strange city with other business travellers, have some conversation and company, meet with people staying for anything from a few nights to many months and possibly network for opportunities, find out what's going on and make a global network of contacts. Could just be a social drink down the pub and some food in a local cheapish restaurant or whatever.
Imagine a network of places around the world where you can go on business and simply meet up with people for conversation and company. No dodgy dating club, no lonely hotel rooms.
Maybe something worth talking about.
Call centre clear thinking
I got called by Dell today. Several times I had to correct the person on how to pronounce my name. Cockburn is a 700+ year old Scottish name that is pronounced Coburn. It is even advertised on national TV, Cockburn's special reserve is the UK's best selling Port (Fortified wine) and every advert details how to pronounce the name.
Yet I get countless contact centres who ask me for my name, I pronounce it correctly and then they pronounce it the way it is written in front of them, seemingly deaf to the fact that the owner of the name has just told them how to pronounce it. Some even say "well it must be spelled incorrectly here, I'll just change it for you", not realising that doing so would then mislabel my addressed mail.
Goodness knows what difficulties they have with pronunciation with some of the more difficult names from Eastern Europe, Africa, Arab speaking countries and so on. How embarrassing it must be for those customers and how needlessly difficult for contact centre operators.
How much simpler life would be if the customer record had a separate field where the phonetic spelling of the customer's name could be written in.
At last, no more mispronunciations. It also has the other advantage that if the company ever starts using voice recognition then the phonetic encoding of the field is likely to be more accurate than the original.
Why does no one do this? Sounds like a good idea to me.
Craig
Yet I get countless contact centres who ask me for my name, I pronounce it correctly and then they pronounce it the way it is written in front of them, seemingly deaf to the fact that the owner of the name has just told them how to pronounce it. Some even say "well it must be spelled incorrectly here, I'll just change it for you", not realising that doing so would then mislabel my addressed mail.
Goodness knows what difficulties they have with pronunciation with some of the more difficult names from Eastern Europe, Africa, Arab speaking countries and so on. How embarrassing it must be for those customers and how needlessly difficult for contact centre operators.
How much simpler life would be if the customer record had a separate field where the phonetic spelling of the customer's name could be written in.
At last, no more mispronunciations. It also has the other advantage that if the company ever starts using voice recognition then the phonetic encoding of the field is likely to be more accurate than the original.
Why does no one do this? Sounds like a good idea to me.
Craig
17 July 2007
Restaurant choice
I write this blog from Wetherspoons, the UKs #1 restaurant by sales (McDonalds is the only food outlet to sell more in the UK however it is stretching it rather to call a place with no table service a restaurant...)
Anyway, while I wait for my order I think back to the days many years ago when trying to get a vegetarian option was a novelty. Until fairly recently, trying to get a healthy option in certain fast food outlets was even more of a novelty. Nowadays, pretty much every restaurant has a vegetarian option (except perhaps the famous Monthy Python Spam restaurant and maybe also Jake the steak Texans big Texas steak, grill and burger bar in red neck county, deep south, USA but I digress)
It is clear that restaurants are increasingly accommodating the needs of the consumer. First it was vegetarian options and more recently it has been low fat/healthy options. Yet, buy your food in a supermarket and the information is decades ahead of restaurants.
If I buy food in a supermarket, I get the calories, fat, salt, sugar content and a whole load of other info including whether it is high or low in relation to the RDA (recommended daily allowance).
In a restaurant, no such info is ever on a menu and you are lucky to get vegan or healthy indicated by some symbol that varies from restaurant to restaurant, if it is included at all.
Whilst accepting that it can be hard to produce such detail for individually hand crafted food, surely an approximate indication on the menu would be useful? Moreover, if Subway can tell me the fat content of certain sandwiches, it should be possible for large food retailers with set menus across the country to provide the sort of detail on food composition that people are now expecting to get.
Certainly as someone who eats out 4 nights a week, I would find such info on my diet very useful indeed in trying to ensure I dont put on weight when eating out extensively on business and I expect I am not the only one. If subway can tell me the fat content of a meal, I should expect no less from a mid or upmarket restaurant, and in a standard format too.
Craig
(Not sent from a Blackberry, Nokia doesnt believe in signature spam)
14 July 2007
Have you had a rude (no reply) email recently?
I hate companies being rude to me. This includes Amazon.com, Dell and other companies that supposedly pride themselves in high quality customer service.
They are rude to me by sending me emails and then denying me the opportunity of replying via the same channel. Obviously they know I have an email address, as they are using it. Obviously they know I have access to the Internet because I can use it to collect said email. They then assume incorrectly from those two assumptions that my preferred means of response is via a secure web form. It isn't.
They write to me via email, they get a reply via email. That's the way it works.
Problem 1.
You are disabled and although some sites might be web accessible it's a slow process navigating round them. Every site is different. Your email client is laid out identically regardless of who you email, it's convenient. Companies that deny you the opportunity to use email waste your time.
Problem 2.
An increasing number of people pick up email on PDAs (Blackberry, Nokia E61 etc). Said people have no problem connecting to pick up email, a few Kb if you have a decent spam filter. Sending a quick reply is less than 1K. Fast and cheap. Bring up a web browser on a small screen and wondering where the relevant link is an then navigating drop list spaghetti to find the right option, and then eventually getting to the right form and typing in all your details whilst staying connected the whole time is extremely wasteful of time and it only takes a few such instances to use up several Mb of bandwidth which isn't much if you are on a fixed package. It's astronomically expensive if you happen to be abroad (or even close to a border as your phone can roam to the foreign network even though you are inside the border). A huge waste of time and money compared to the 1K email. There's a vast difference between broadband access from a fast PC and "dial up" speeds on a PDA in another country. Make no assumptions when dealing on the net where your customers are or how they are accessing the Internet.
Problem 3
The website isn't compatible with your PDA. I can't use Jobserve with my PDA web browser as I get a crippled version that is totally unusable (it is impossible to log in and actually apply for a job without having to write to the job link sent to me in email manually and hoping I have entered it correctly). So much for click and go. I can't access the full site as they have disabled access from PDAs.
Problem 4
The website requires you to log in. Since you access hundreds of websites that require log ins and for security reasons you have a different log in for each site, more time is wasted while you fire up the browsers, access the forgotten password feature, wait for the mail to arrive and then try again.
Problem 5
Amazon gave me this reason
OK, My email is secure. My system has no viruses. I assume that a company the size of Amazon can buy a decent spam filter, virus filter and can assure me that none of its employees will ever introduce a virus directly. However, since Amazon have told me that email isn't secure, why are they sending me correspondence via email? I want a web form right away. I want every company on the planet to have to use my webform to contact me. I want every company to have an annoying random graphic to decipher before they get anywhere near my mailbox, oh and they can have 10 annoying drop lists like ebay to fill in before they get anywhere near the webform. I'll even throw in a useless wizard to hinder and annoy then. Then when they have filled in their details on my secure webform I'll even give them an auto generated response that tells them to get lost if they even think of replying to it. Yeah, that'll do nicely. I'll be secure then. I wonder how bloody inconvenient the companies that send tens of thousands of email each day would find THAT. Then when they reply they might appreciate how valuable MY time is with all this secure webform bollocks nonsense.
I sent my comments to Amazon who then changed their tune somewhat and wrote:
Yeah, right. Like you can't get a decent spam filter? How many billions are you worth? Here's my response if you still have problems, even with a spam filter.
1. Send me an email using a custom reply address with the issue number in it. e.g. amazon-helpdesk-abcd1234@amazon.com
2. Only accept emails to the above address from the email address used to log the particular issue (in this case, my address)
3. If you like, you can expire the above address a few weeks after the issue is closed.
That's it. Didn't take a brain the size of Jeff Bezos' to work out that one. Indeed if they did implement such a system, rather than trying in vain to navigate PDA hostile webforms at great expense, I might actually have more free time when I get back to a real PC and use that time on the Amazon site buying that Harry Potter book etc. that's coming out soon. We all want more free time and certainly I would have more if I didn't have to waste it on webforms when email should be good enough.
I have worked on a large number of help desk systems that deal with responses to emails, filter them correctly and then file them against the relevant issue provided the subject is left intact. It works. Big Rude Companies Please Pay Attention.
I realise it is somewhat ironic having to fill in a webform to reply to this blog, but this blog is a web based medium, so using the web to reply to a web based medium doesn't contradict the above.
Thank you for listening to Rant Of The Day.
They are rude to me by sending me emails and then denying me the opportunity of replying via the same channel. Obviously they know I have an email address, as they are using it. Obviously they know I have access to the Internet because I can use it to collect said email. They then assume incorrectly from those two assumptions that my preferred means of response is via a secure web form. It isn't.
They write to me via email, they get a reply via email. That's the way it works.
Problem 1.
You are disabled and although some sites might be web accessible it's a slow process navigating round them. Every site is different. Your email client is laid out identically regardless of who you email, it's convenient. Companies that deny you the opportunity to use email waste your time.
Problem 2.
An increasing number of people pick up email on PDAs (Blackberry, Nokia E61 etc). Said people have no problem connecting to pick up email, a few Kb if you have a decent spam filter. Sending a quick reply is less than 1K. Fast and cheap. Bring up a web browser on a small screen and wondering where the relevant link is an then navigating drop list spaghetti to find the right option, and then eventually getting to the right form and typing in all your details whilst staying connected the whole time is extremely wasteful of time and it only takes a few such instances to use up several Mb of bandwidth which isn't much if you are on a fixed package. It's astronomically expensive if you happen to be abroad (or even close to a border as your phone can roam to the foreign network even though you are inside the border). A huge waste of time and money compared to the 1K email. There's a vast difference between broadband access from a fast PC and "dial up" speeds on a PDA in another country. Make no assumptions when dealing on the net where your customers are or how they are accessing the Internet.
Problem 3
The website isn't compatible with your PDA. I can't use Jobserve with my PDA web browser as I get a crippled version that is totally unusable (it is impossible to log in and actually apply for a job without having to write to the job link sent to me in email manually and hoping I have entered it correctly). So much for click and go. I can't access the full site as they have disabled access from PDAs.
Problem 4
The website requires you to log in. Since you access hundreds of websites that require log ins and for security reasons you have a different log in for each site, more time is wasted while you fire up the browsers, access the forgotten password feature, wait for the mail to arrive and then try again.
Problem 5
Amazon gave me this reason
The reason that Amazon.co.uk do not provide customers with email addresses to respond directly to us is to prevent spam and viruses from getting onto the Amazon system. This policy also protects the integrity of our customers' accounts, keeping their details secure.
OK, My email is secure. My system has no viruses. I assume that a company the size of Amazon can buy a decent spam filter, virus filter and can assure me that none of its employees will ever introduce a virus directly. However, since Amazon have told me that email isn't secure, why are they sending me correspondence via email? I want a web form right away. I want every company on the planet to have to use my webform to contact me. I want every company to have an annoying random graphic to decipher before they get anywhere near my mailbox, oh and they can have 10 annoying drop lists like ebay to fill in before they get anywhere near the webform. I'll even throw in a useless wizard to hinder and annoy then. Then when they have filled in their details on my secure webform I'll even give them an auto generated response that tells them to get lost if they even think of replying to it. Yeah, that'll do nicely. I'll be secure then. I wonder how bloody inconvenient the companies that send tens of thousands of email each day would find THAT. Then when they reply they might appreciate how valuable MY time is with all this secure webform bollocks nonsense.
I sent my comments to Amazon who then changed their tune somewhat and wrote:
In response to your comments on our email communications system, email is not necessarily a "risky medium". But by not having a direct email address, we can prevent time consuming spam and junk mail that is often automated and sent indiscriminately. By not having a direct address, we avoid this, and spend our time replying to relevant customer queries.
Yeah, right. Like you can't get a decent spam filter? How many billions are you worth? Here's my response if you still have problems, even with a spam filter.
1. Send me an email using a custom reply address with the issue number in it. e.g. amazon-helpdesk-abcd1234@amazon.com
2. Only accept emails to the above address from the email address used to log the particular issue (in this case, my address)
3. If you like, you can expire the above address a few weeks after the issue is closed.
That's it. Didn't take a brain the size of Jeff Bezos' to work out that one. Indeed if they did implement such a system, rather than trying in vain to navigate PDA hostile webforms at great expense, I might actually have more free time when I get back to a real PC and use that time on the Amazon site buying that Harry Potter book etc. that's coming out soon. We all want more free time and certainly I would have more if I didn't have to waste it on webforms when email should be good enough.
I have worked on a large number of help desk systems that deal with responses to emails, filter them correctly and then file them against the relevant issue provided the subject is left intact. It works. Big Rude Companies Please Pay Attention.
I realise it is somewhat ironic having to fill in a webform to reply to this blog, but this blog is a web based medium, so using the web to reply to a web based medium doesn't contradict the above.
Thank you for listening to Rant Of The Day.
11 July 2007
Language and culture are above politics - Letters - News - Belfast Telegraph
In a week of particular cultural significance to the Orange movement, I made these comments in the Belfast Telegraph. Perhaps one day, language in Northern Ireland will be a non-political issue. I was in the debating chamber at Stormont recently and it is quite an old fashioned contrast to the equivalent in Scotland. Hopefully the cultural issues of Northern Ireland won't be as stuck in the past as the politicians' surroundings.
Craig
Craig
25 June 2007
Linlithgow property for sale
We have a 4 bedroom house in Linlithgow for sale, please contact the solicitors to arrange viewing.
Craig
Craig
23 June 2007
Email security. But it is more secure than the phone
I just got another one of those Very Annoying messages. One where you send an email to the very useful customer service email address for a company and they respond with a stock template
"We are unable to discuss account matters via email, please call our contact centre".
Which is of course another way of saying "we live under the mistaken impression that email is less secure than the phone, so please contact our contact centre, press loads of irritating buttons, pay a premium rate, listen to annoying hold music and adverts and generally waste your time". Especially when I can send email for free then read the response at my leisure but taking up 15 minutes of my time listening to hold music on my mobile is certainly not free.
I wrote about this in 2003 and the arguments are just as valid today.
Since getting email in 1983 and sending on average 30 emails a day (would have been less in 1983, considerably more since 1987 when I've used it on a daily basis for my job) I figure I must have sent around 260,000 mails. In that time, I can't think of a single instance where one has been maliciously intercepted en route.
Consider those odds of 260,000:1 versus the odds of calling from an open plan office or in the street and everyone hearing the login details that you have to speak down the phone or indeed hearing the gist of why you are actually phoning and then using that to commit fraud.
I accept email isn't 100% secure. However, I believe the phone to be less secure than email. So why can't we move on and accept email as a valid communication channel for secure conversations and then build the appropriate support and encryption channels around this rather than sticking our heads in the sand and resorting to plain text expensive 19th century communications technology?
Craig
"We are unable to discuss account matters via email, please call our contact centre".
Which is of course another way of saying "we live under the mistaken impression that email is less secure than the phone, so please contact our contact centre, press loads of irritating buttons, pay a premium rate, listen to annoying hold music and adverts and generally waste your time". Especially when I can send email for free then read the response at my leisure but taking up 15 minutes of my time listening to hold music on my mobile is certainly not free.
I wrote about this in 2003 and the arguments are just as valid today.
Since getting email in 1983 and sending on average 30 emails a day (would have been less in 1983, considerably more since 1987 when I've used it on a daily basis for my job) I figure I must have sent around 260,000 mails. In that time, I can't think of a single instance where one has been maliciously intercepted en route.
Consider those odds of 260,000:1 versus the odds of calling from an open plan office or in the street and everyone hearing the login details that you have to speak down the phone or indeed hearing the gist of why you are actually phoning and then using that to commit fraud.
I accept email isn't 100% secure. However, I believe the phone to be less secure than email. So why can't we move on and accept email as a valid communication channel for secure conversations and then build the appropriate support and encryption channels around this rather than sticking our heads in the sand and resorting to plain text expensive 19th century communications technology?
Craig
10 June 2007
Bannockburn day 2007
With the event this year being attended by government ministers, perhaps it will grow in importance in the Scottish events calendar?
- original message -
Subject: Bannockburn update
From: "Ian McCann" <ian.mccann@snp.org>
Date: 08/06/2007 19:03
Dear Sir/Madam,
I write on behalf of the Young Scots for Independence and the Federation of Student Nationalists to give you more details regarding the Bannockburn Rally as promised. Please forward this onto as many of your members as possible.
It has been hard work and we've come across a lot of obstacles but we've made it! Bannockburn day for the SNP will be Saturday the 16th of June.
As in previous years we will assemble at 13:30 at Lower Bridge Street with the march kicking off at 14:00. The route will be the same as last year. We will be lead by the Edinburgh Postal Pipe Band.
After the march Nicola Sturgeon MSP will lay the wreath at the rotunda on behalf on the SNP. Nicola and Bruce Crawford MSP will speak to us about this important time in our history. For entertainment we will have some music - Eva Christie and Five Park Drive. Eva Christie is a member of the YSI and sings Gaelic songs as well as more traditional Scottish tunes. Five Park Drive is an up and coming indie rock band from Falkirk/Stirling.
his year Professor Christopher Harvie MSP will deliver the Allan Macartney Lecture. If you would like to come along the Lecture will take place at the King Robert Hotel, beside the Bannockburn field, at 16:30.
If you would like any more details or have any questions please contact us at contact@bannockburnday.com. Alternatively go to www.bannockburnday.com for more details.
Hope to see you there!
Gail Lythgoe
YSI and FSN
- original message -
Subject: Bannockburn update
From: "Ian McCann" <ian.mccann@snp.org>
Date: 08/06/2007 19:03
Dear Sir/Madam,
I write on behalf of the Young Scots for Independence and the Federation of Student Nationalists to give you more details regarding the Bannockburn Rally as promised. Please forward this onto as many of your members as possible.
It has been hard work and we've come across a lot of obstacles but we've made it! Bannockburn day for the SNP will be Saturday the 16th of June.
As in previous years we will assemble at 13:30 at Lower Bridge Street with the march kicking off at 14:00. The route will be the same as last year. We will be lead by the Edinburgh Postal Pipe Band.
After the march Nicola Sturgeon MSP will lay the wreath at the rotunda on behalf on the SNP. Nicola and Bruce Crawford MSP will speak to us about this important time in our history. For entertainment we will have some music - Eva Christie and Five Park Drive. Eva Christie is a member of the YSI and sings Gaelic songs as well as more traditional Scottish tunes. Five Park Drive is an up and coming indie rock band from Falkirk/Stirling.
his year Professor Christopher Harvie MSP will deliver the Allan Macartney Lecture. If you would like to come along the Lecture will take place at the King Robert Hotel, beside the Bannockburn field, at 16:30.
If you would like any more details or have any questions please contact us at contact@bannockburnday.com. Alternatively go to www.bannockburnday.com for more details.
Hope to see you there!
Gail Lythgoe
YSI and FSN
31 May 2007
New Labour, stoneage huff
Report by the BBC on how Tony Blair and Gordon Brown appear to be having a royal huff between them over the new SNP led Scottish Government.
Well not really a Royal huff, even The Queen came up especially to say hello.
Tony Blair apparently thinks rubbing shoulders with Colonel Qaddafi is more relevant than picking up the phone to the new leader in the biggest devolved region in the UK.
Hopefully the working relationship between the governments in Edinburgh and London will improve on what has been a disappointing start and that things will improve when Gordon Brown takes over.
Well not really a Royal huff, even The Queen came up especially to say hello.
Tony Blair apparently thinks rubbing shoulders with Colonel Qaddafi is more relevant than picking up the phone to the new leader in the biggest devolved region in the UK.
Hopefully the working relationship between the governments in Edinburgh and London will improve on what has been a disappointing start and that things will improve when Gordon Brown takes over.
30 May 2007
Scotland the Brand
Scotland: a proud nation with an international reputation. You would be hard pressed to find a country with such a wide spectrum of achievement globally and such a strong identity for a country of only 5 million people. Besides the global traditional appeal of tartan, The Highlands, bagpipes, the kilt and many other unique selling features, we have a proud record in education, the Scottish enlightenment, economics, inventions, medicine, engineering and right up to the modern day the quality of Scottish graduates and talent is just one reason why Amazon.com chose Scotland as its first engineering centre outside the US. We have a parliament that most people accept should have more powers, a renewed national pride and talk of sportsmen and women competing under a Scottish flag for the first time in the Olympics. On many fronts, Scotland has achieved much and still achieves much. Scotland the brand is strong and growing.
Having now covered the sales pitch, can anyone with half an ounce of common sense in PR explain to me why major international companies think it is trendy to ditch the word "Scotland" from their name.
We had the rather excellently named "Scottish Telecom" rebrand itself as "Thus" (snigger)
We had the very descriptive "Bank of Scotland" partially rebrand itself as "HBOS".
and to cap it all the biggest success story of recent years, The Royal Bank of Scotland is now the non descript "RBS". Yes, one of the world's biggest banks with not only "Royal" in its title but also the nation of its founding and headquarters now looks like an abbreviation of "ROBS".
In May 2005 I received a new bank card from them which had "The Royal Bank of Scotland" on it.
In August 2006 my other account had a new card and on it was RBS (big letters) and in minuscule font was "The Royal Bank of Scotland".
and in May 2007 the anonymisation was complete with the replacement of the first card and nothing more than just "RBS" on it. No mention of the valued Royal title, no mention of the country where it has its origins and headquarters.
I see no movement from the Bank of England to rebrand itself as TBOE or BOE nor Bank of America to rebrand as BOA. With the notable exception of BA who thought it was trendy to ditch the British flag for a while from their planes (a PR disaster) most other national airlines have their country's name on them - they are proud to fly the flag and promote their country abroad rather than be an anonymous 2 or 3 letter acronym (TLA for the few who like them).
When as a country we spend millions of pounds each year promoting Scotland the brand and how proud we are of what the last executive called "The best small country in the world" should we not be making more of our nation's name in major brands and companies rather than silently subsuming it within letter combinations that mean so much less.
One of the most famous Scots of all time, and once the world's richest man, Andrew Carnegie also became known as a great philanthropist founding 2,800 libraries around the world and giving away much of his vast fortune. These days the Carnegie brand is still strong. Nearly 100 years after his death, his name is still used because it means so much to so many people and is such a respected brand.
If only the same could be said about how some companies treat the name of our country.
Yours For Scotland,
Craig
Having now covered the sales pitch, can anyone with half an ounce of common sense in PR explain to me why major international companies think it is trendy to ditch the word "Scotland" from their name.
We had the rather excellently named "Scottish Telecom" rebrand itself as "Thus" (snigger)
We had the very descriptive "Bank of Scotland" partially rebrand itself as "HBOS".
and to cap it all the biggest success story of recent years, The Royal Bank of Scotland is now the non descript "RBS". Yes, one of the world's biggest banks with not only "Royal" in its title but also the nation of its founding and headquarters now looks like an abbreviation of "ROBS".
In May 2005 I received a new bank card from them which had "The Royal Bank of Scotland" on it.
In August 2006 my other account had a new card and on it was RBS (big letters) and in minuscule font was "The Royal Bank of Scotland".
and in May 2007 the anonymisation was complete with the replacement of the first card and nothing more than just "RBS" on it. No mention of the valued Royal title, no mention of the country where it has its origins and headquarters.
I see no movement from the Bank of England to rebrand itself as TBOE or BOE nor Bank of America to rebrand as BOA. With the notable exception of BA who thought it was trendy to ditch the British flag for a while from their planes (a PR disaster) most other national airlines have their country's name on them - they are proud to fly the flag and promote their country abroad rather than be an anonymous 2 or 3 letter acronym (TLA for the few who like them).
When as a country we spend millions of pounds each year promoting Scotland the brand and how proud we are of what the last executive called "The best small country in the world" should we not be making more of our nation's name in major brands and companies rather than silently subsuming it within letter combinations that mean so much less.
One of the most famous Scots of all time, and once the world's richest man, Andrew Carnegie also became known as a great philanthropist founding 2,800 libraries around the world and giving away much of his vast fortune. These days the Carnegie brand is still strong. Nearly 100 years after his death, his name is still used because it means so much to so many people and is such a respected brand.
If only the same could be said about how some companies treat the name of our country.
Yours For Scotland,
Craig
25 May 2007
Firefox useragent - changing the string manually
I appreciate there are tools to change the useragent in Firefox, however the plugin needs to be compatible with the version of Firefox you are running and if you have the latest alpha / nightly build etc the plug in might not work.
I had this situation recently where I couldn't get Firefox 2.0.0.3 to run reliably, so I downloaded Firefox 3.0 (Gran Paradiso). All was well, except I was barred from banking sites because my browser ident string wasn't on their authorised list. Silly banks, surely they know that checking the browser user agent via Javascript is more reliable?
Anyway, even if I did have a compatible user agent switcher plug in, very few of them include the latest released version of the browser in the pre-programmed list which again makes it hard to convince the banks that you are running the latest stable software.
So here are the instructions on how to set the user agent string yourself on Firefox
Goto the browser address bar:
Enter
About:config
Right mouse click to get the context menu and choose New->String from the menu.
Enter
As the preference name.
Then enter this as the value
For the average user running Windows XP, this should be fine to get past the pedantic banking sites who don't have a robust way of checking the browser version.
I had this situation recently where I couldn't get Firefox 2.0.0.3 to run reliably, so I downloaded Firefox 3.0 (Gran Paradiso). All was well, except I was barred from banking sites because my browser ident string wasn't on their authorised list. Silly banks, surely they know that checking the browser user agent via Javascript is more reliable?
Anyway, even if I did have a compatible user agent switcher plug in, very few of them include the latest released version of the browser in the pre-programmed list which again makes it hard to convince the banks that you are running the latest stable software.
So here are the instructions on how to set the user agent string yourself on Firefox
Goto the browser address bar:
Enter
About:config
Right mouse click to get the context menu and choose New->String from the menu.
Enter
general.useragent.override
As the preference name.
Then enter this as the value
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/20070309 Firefox/2.0.0.3
For the average user running Windows XP, this should be fine to get past the pedantic banking sites who don't have a robust way of checking the browser version.
24 May 2007
Why it's important to prepare a Digital Will
Many of us can't be bothered to prepare a real Will, with the resultant tax confusion and uncertainty that this causes especially in the event of premature death. However, we live in the first age where our digital possessions matter and important emails, contacts, music collections, online accounts, photos, domain names and online financial details may be difficult or even impossible to obtain after our death especially if they are encrypted.
Living in the age of the birth of the machine, I suggested last August to Cambrian House the idea of how to access files after the owner dies. With a strong interest in genealogy, I imagine a future where the online assets of the people of today will be of interest to the genealogists of tomorrow. My grandfather was born in the 1870s and lived to old age, yet despite living in the era of photography only 2 pictures of him remain. In this modern age where we have thousands of digital pictures, our grandchildren will surely appreciate access to these historic pictures rather than having them wiped out by bureacracy.
Consider this. A close friend dies, but like many people nowadays their contact details for their friends are electronic, many held online. The funeral is in 5 days. You have approximately 3 days to get access to their account and contact people and they need to pick up the e-mail or instant message in time to be able to make travel arrangements for the funeral. In many cases, with the complexity of bureaucracy surrounding getting access to a person's account, faxing death certificates (often sending them overseas) and dealing with ISPs and organisations many of whom might not have an "after death" procedure or policy, you probably wouldn't be able to contact these people in time. As the digital age progresses, our dependency on hard copy letters from friends, address books and so on will diminish and the problem will get worse. Encrypted and password protected data (including accessing paypal balances) is another matter entirely.
Take just one element of this puzzle - accessing the deceased person's webmail to contact people is at the whim of the webmail provider, some might not provide access at all - as was discovered last year in the case of families trying to access the accounts of Iraq war victims, If you're not successful in gaining access, within a few months it will be deleted forever. Law.com covers this story in further detail. On the other hand, trying to cancel an AOL account is difficult enough when you're alive - if someone else tries to do it on behalf of a deceased person it's only going to be much more difficult.
Another popular email provider, Gmail, doesn't publicise their terms, I looked for death in the Gmail help centre and got this:
For the level of complexity regarding access to digital data you need only look at this article which details the Gmail procedure as follows:
It is all very well for online providers to uphold user's privacy, but as detailed in this zdnet article that on death, privacy rights cease yet this is often what is cited when trying to access the deceased's data.
In summary, I would suggest these things.
1. That you list your important accounts in your Will
2. Your Will references a file where the passwords are kept. Don't put the passwords in the Will itself, they change too frequently for this to be practical. The file should be in a location that is secure, but ideally not online.
3. That collectively, online service providers agree a common procedure for dealing with the accounts of deceased people which is secure yet still allows efficient and
straightforward access to the account once a death certificate is produced and allows the account contents to be retrieved and closed under the control of the deceased person's estate in a way which is no more complex than closing their bank accounts.
Please help to promote this important campaign. One day you, or future genealogists, may need it.
Craig
Living in the age of the birth of the machine, I suggested last August to Cambrian House the idea of how to access files after the owner dies. With a strong interest in genealogy, I imagine a future where the online assets of the people of today will be of interest to the genealogists of tomorrow. My grandfather was born in the 1870s and lived to old age, yet despite living in the era of photography only 2 pictures of him remain. In this modern age where we have thousands of digital pictures, our grandchildren will surely appreciate access to these historic pictures rather than having them wiped out by bureacracy.
Consider this. A close friend dies, but like many people nowadays their contact details for their friends are electronic, many held online. The funeral is in 5 days. You have approximately 3 days to get access to their account and contact people and they need to pick up the e-mail or instant message in time to be able to make travel arrangements for the funeral. In many cases, with the complexity of bureaucracy surrounding getting access to a person's account, faxing death certificates (often sending them overseas) and dealing with ISPs and organisations many of whom might not have an "after death" procedure or policy, you probably wouldn't be able to contact these people in time. As the digital age progresses, our dependency on hard copy letters from friends, address books and so on will diminish and the problem will get worse. Encrypted and password protected data (including accessing paypal balances) is another matter entirely.
Take just one element of this puzzle - accessing the deceased person's webmail to contact people is at the whim of the webmail provider, some might not provide access at all - as was discovered last year in the case of families trying to access the accounts of Iraq war victims, If you're not successful in gaining access, within a few months it will be deleted forever. Law.com covers this story in further detail. On the other hand, trying to cancel an AOL account is difficult enough when you're alive - if someone else tries to do it on behalf of a deceased person it's only going to be much more difficult.
Another popular email provider, Gmail, doesn't publicise their terms, I looked for death in the Gmail help centre and got this:
Your search - death - did not match any answers in this Help Center.
For the level of complexity regarding access to digital data you need only look at this article which details the Gmail procedure as follows:
Google needs your full name and contact information, a verifiable email address, the full header and content of an email you have received from this person's account, a copy of the death certificate and a copy of the document that gives you power of attorney over the email account.
"If you are the parent of the Gmail account owner and she or he was under the age of 18, you must submit a copy of the birth certificate as well, and power of attorney is not required," he says. But keep in mind that after nine consecutive months of inactivity, Google is likely to delete the email account.
It is all very well for online providers to uphold user's privacy, but as detailed in this zdnet article that on death, privacy rights cease yet this is often what is cited when trying to access the deceased's data.
In summary, I would suggest these things.
1. That you list your important accounts in your Will
2. Your Will references a file where the passwords are kept. Don't put the passwords in the Will itself, they change too frequently for this to be practical. The file should be in a location that is secure, but ideally not online.
3. That collectively, online service providers agree a common procedure for dealing with the accounts of deceased people which is secure yet still allows efficient and
straightforward access to the account once a death certificate is produced and allows the account contents to be retrieved and closed under the control of the deceased person's estate in a way which is no more complex than closing their bank accounts.
Please help to promote this important campaign. One day you, or future genealogists, may need it.
Craig
UK Phone Roam
With the recent news that EU wide phone roaming charges are to come down, I would like to ask why the major networks in the UK can't get their collective acts together for UK phone roaming. This would mean that in areas covered by one network and not another, my phone would switch networks to ensure I remained in coverage. The alternative is to muck about with multiple sim cards, which is hardly a solution.
Why is this apparantly so difficult?
Craig
Why is this apparantly so difficult?
Craig
Scottish Executive News Online - Latest
Scottish Government News. Point your news reader / browser at the link to get a feed of the latest stories from the historic new Scottish government.
Free 3D first person shooter in your web browser
Visit Rasterwerks for a great, free, multiplayer, first person shooter game all running in your browser. Amazing!
BBC NEWS | Have Your Say | User Profile: Craig Cockburn
This is no longer available due to a BBC site redesign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Popular Posts
-
An article on how Agile can sit alongside PRINCE2 and where DSDM Atern fits in. In 2007, I put "used an Agile/PRINCE2 development str...
-
Find me on LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/siliconglen/ Medium https://siliconglen.medium.com/ thanks Craig
-
The UK Government Digital Service (GDS) has just had a reboot . However will it be value for money and deliver its objectives? Will th... -
Your profile indicates you have been contracting recently, therefore you will only be interested in contract work then? Incorrect. Thi...
-
Buy and sell anything online using Twitter for free. I thought this was worth a try. Twitter has taken off because it is short, simple, easy...
-
Every time I go to the post office there's a queue. No matter how much they try and keep the queue length down, inevitably you get stuck...
-
I thought I would write this to document the ongoing problems I have with my Nokia N97. It seems from the conversation in the phone shop tod...
-
Introduction You may be wondering the significance of the three Scottish flags in the image. I took this picture a few weeks ago. I...
-
I've been having a busy time over on the Cambrian House site lately. Check out my profile and the full set of awards I completed last ...
-
I first promoted Demon in June 1992, the month they set up. I joined them as a customer the following year. This is the first time I have mo...
