I woke up this morning to find that my google analytics was working again, and that as many new people are hitting my blog for the photos as for the written content.
The other bright spark of the day is that I am off to an interview today, and I plan to make this the start of things to come.
Watch this space ...
January 05, 2010
January 03, 2010
Full body scan at Heathrow
According to Reuters and Yahoo News, BAA have just announced that they are going to introduce full body scanners at Heathrow, which should be good news.
The justification is that there was a failed bomb attempt on Christmas Day on an outboard US airplane.
However they also say that the new scanners would probably not have spotted or prevented the latest bomb threat anyway.
So, because a perfectly good security system was successful in stopping an "allegedly" genuine bomb threat, they are going up update said system with a new, more expensive and more invasive system that would be no better at stopping bomb attempts than the old one!
- - -
The BBC show Click also documented a shops displaying all the latest high-tech, small, powerful, and harder to detect personal surveillance and key-logging devices.
However when they questioned Julia Wing, the stores salesperson, about the legitimacy and invasiveness of their devices, she defended their lines with words to the effect of 'it all depends on how the devices are being used. They were originally designed for parents to prevent unruly children and for businessmen to protect against industrial sabotage by their cleaning staff. But of course, such devices can be mis-used'.
When pushed on whether licences or restrictions should be places upon such devices she rallied back with the golden oldie defence of "the innocent have nothing to worry about and it is only the people that are up to no good, who should be scared".
The fact that it is the very criminals who will be using these devices to perfect their crimes seems to escape her.
For me also the whole "it is only criminals who should be scared" arguement totally sidesteps the fact that such devices can and frequently do strip a person of their modesty, dignity and rights of privacy, but I guess it is only celebrities who can fight the system and demand their right to privacy, to sell it to the highest bidder or both.
- - -
Both the above just further nudge us in the direction of a big brother overseen distopia, one that I would happily leave behind for hotter climates, were it not for the majority of my family and friends being back here in good old blighty.
I would be more happy with the whole thing IF I was also allowed to have a direct say on what constitutes a crime and what the punishment should be for each crime. However, with the sentencing totally out of whack for the crime and with new laws seemingly passed every week to create more criminals, I fear that soon every man, woman and child will be guilty of having committed at least one crime, whether they did so intentionally or not.
And the fact that being a kind, honest and law abiding person does less and less to protect my rights and civil liberties with every passing day, I see no reason why I should toe the line or help create and pay for a system that will inevitably one day find me guilty of something and punish me accordingly.
The justification is that there was a failed bomb attempt on Christmas Day on an outboard US airplane.
However they also say that the new scanners would probably not have spotted or prevented the latest bomb threat anyway.
So, because a perfectly good security system was successful in stopping an "allegedly" genuine bomb threat, they are going up update said system with a new, more expensive and more invasive system that would be no better at stopping bomb attempts than the old one!
- - -
The BBC show Click also documented a shops displaying all the latest high-tech, small, powerful, and harder to detect personal surveillance and key-logging devices.
However when they questioned Julia Wing, the stores salesperson, about the legitimacy and invasiveness of their devices, she defended their lines with words to the effect of 'it all depends on how the devices are being used. They were originally designed for parents to prevent unruly children and for businessmen to protect against industrial sabotage by their cleaning staff. But of course, such devices can be mis-used'.
When pushed on whether licences or restrictions should be places upon such devices she rallied back with the golden oldie defence of "the innocent have nothing to worry about and it is only the people that are up to no good, who should be scared".
The fact that it is the very criminals who will be using these devices to perfect their crimes seems to escape her.
For me also the whole "it is only criminals who should be scared" arguement totally sidesteps the fact that such devices can and frequently do strip a person of their modesty, dignity and rights of privacy, but I guess it is only celebrities who can fight the system and demand their right to privacy, to sell it to the highest bidder or both.
- - -
Both the above just further nudge us in the direction of a big brother overseen distopia, one that I would happily leave behind for hotter climates, were it not for the majority of my family and friends being back here in good old blighty.
I would be more happy with the whole thing IF I was also allowed to have a direct say on what constitutes a crime and what the punishment should be for each crime. However, with the sentencing totally out of whack for the crime and with new laws seemingly passed every week to create more criminals, I fear that soon every man, woman and child will be guilty of having committed at least one crime, whether they did so intentionally or not.
And the fact that being a kind, honest and law abiding person does less and less to protect my rights and civil liberties with every passing day, I see no reason why I should toe the line or help create and pay for a system that will inevitably one day find me guilty of something and punish me accordingly.
January 01, 2010
Image Vs Reality
In the past someone called me a psycho, the definition of which is someone that has a warped view or grasp on reality.
Having discussed the matter with a few friends, it does indeed appear that I have a very different take on reality than that of most people, and while it might make me interesting to talk at times it can be a handicap.
During these discussions however, I also realised that I am not alone in this pyschosis and one of the reasons is that people lie, both to one another and to themselves. The problem is, that if you have incorrect information ( i.e. you are believing and acting up on a lie ) then you cannot make a sensible and balanced decision and this results in your view of reality being different to other peoples.
A good personal example of this, is with my previous and fairly disasterous attempts to date women overseas who I met online.
Ignoring the fakers and scammers that I came in contact with, a frequent occurrence would be that I would meet a woman online and after corresponding for a few months we would agree to meet up. And of course with me being the "rich" ( even though I never claim to be rich ) one of the two of us, I would fly out and meet them and spend some time with them before returning home.
The problem would be that they would often have a 'fairy tale' image in their mind of what it would be like to date a rich and famous travelling foreigner, they see me as this and it is this unrealistic ideal that they continue to base their decisions upon.
However, when I arrive and we start to do the same normal and everyday things that they would do if they were dating a local man, then the routine reality of life shatters this illusion and the relationship falls apart.
However, when I arrive and we start to do the same normal and everyday things that they would do if they were dating a local man, then the routine reality of life shatters this illusion and the relationship falls apart.
Another problem was that they loved the idea of being in contact with a rich guy from overseas, and get all enthusiastic about it, but at the same time they feel very safe and brave believing that I would never actually keep my promise to travel and meet them, thus they get caught up in their own imagination and make all sorts of outrageous promises.
Then, when I actually do fly out and try to meet them, the 'long distance' safety barrier of living in a different country is suddenly stripped away from them and they are confronted by a person who wants to do the things that had been discussed but they don't have the confidence to go through with them.
So as they are unready or unwilling to do keep their promises, they have to adjust their reality in order to regain some control. Sometimes they ask that we take things slowly or that we try to just be friends for awhile so that we can get to know each other, as before they were never actually trying to get to know the real me, preferring instead to enjoy the illusion and make believe world they had created for themselves.
Of course, the big problem with this is that once they then start being more honest with both me and themselves, we soon find out that we actually have very different views, likes, hobbies and interests from each other and are not such a good match after all.
So, the fact that this or something very similar pretty much describes almost every long distance relationship I have had, go to show that it is not just me that has a distorted view of reality and why from now on I have given up on looking for love or romance overseas, as people are just not honest enough ... not with me or with themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)