Road Maintenance and Sarcasm

Over the weekend, one of the significant crossroads near us was completely closed for re-surfacing. The problem was that at least one route to get to that crossroads didn’t have any mention of said road closure.

Which means I get to send sarcastic emails to Norfolk County Council. (Again)

To whom it may concern,

I’d just like to congratulate the person(s) involved in sorting out signage for the road closure in Hingham this weekend.

If (as many people did) you took the road from Little Ellingham towards Hingham using Hingham Road->Little Ellingham Road -> Attleborough Road to the crossroads in Hingham, there was not *ONE* sign saying that the road ahead was closed. The signage was in fact before this junction (at roughly the spot of the red circle in this map)

This meant that anyone coming through on the route from Little Ellingham came round the corner to find the entire road closed off, and then had to turn round and go back. This also had the effect of stuffing a significant amount of the newly resurfaced road before the junction.

Of course, the road from Little Ellingham isn’t that heavily used. Except when Little Ellingham has its Vintage Working Weekend event- yes, the weekend just passed.

I look forward to any response Norfolk Council deigns to give in explanation of why there was no thought given to this route, or signage on it.

Sincerely

Lyle

I know it’ll do bugger-all good, but I felt better having written it. And that’s what matters.


Cost Less, Make More

Another work(ish)-related post, but a subject close to my heart, and usually good for some thoughts and rants.

In this case, we’re currently considering buying one of the most-pirated pieces of software in Christendom, Adobe’s Creative Suite. The reason it’s massively pirated is simple – the fucking ridiculous cost of it.

If we look at getting one licenced copy of the full bells-and-whistles CS5 Master Suite, it costs no less than £2,700. For a piece of software that’ll be updated/outdated within a year. What small company (or even medium-sized company) is going to pay nearly three grand for CS5 ? Let alone what little one-man-band web design company.  And yes, you can get a smaller/cheaper CS5 Web Premium for web design. That’s a mere £1,680.

Even more insane, that’s the prices if they send the software in a box. For download purposes, CS5 Master Suite is – um – £2,780. Yep – it costs you more to download the fucking thing than for them to box it up and stick it in the post. What?

Adobe are forever bitching that their software is the most pirated. There’s a reason for that – it’s priced itself out of the “reasonably affordable” market.

I’m pretty sure that if Adobe charged (for argument’s sake) £270 for the CS5 Master – 10% of the current price – the piracy figures for it would drop like a stone. £270 is reasonable for the software – perhaps even a bit more, but 10% was a nice example. Piracy wouldn’t stop completely – there will always be those for who even a pound is “too much” – but it would reduce epically. More people would buy the software – my own suspicion is that they’d actually sell more and make more by having the software at the cheaper price.

Sure, the price has been cut by 90%. But if you get 100 people buying it at £270 instead of one or two at £2,700, you’ve made a shitload more money on your bottom line than you have at £2,700 per copy. Even on the upgrades, people would be more likely to pay again for an upgrade, rather than pirating it.

And that’s the logic that seems to escape these companies. Reduce the price to a sensible/affordable level, more people will buy, less people will evade. Seems logical to me, anyway.


Repeatedly Released

Sometimes you look at a story and think “Oh, there’s got to be a lot more than that behind it”.

In this case, the story was about Arran Coghlan, the Cheshire ‘businessman’ who’s now been cleared of murder on three separate occasions. That’s going some. But really, the guy’s either incredibly unlucky to be caught up in these types of situations, or he’s involved in some way or another.

The three cases were :

  • Cleared in 1996 of shooting Chris Little dead at the wheel of his Mercedes in Marple, Stockport.
  • Stood trial for the murder of drug dealer David Barnshaw, who was kidnapped and forced to drink petrol before being burned alive in the back of a car in Stockport in 2001
  • (The most recent) accused of shooting dead Stephen Akinyemi in a fight at his £2m home in Alderley Edge in February

Additionally, on New Year’s Day 2008, Coghlan was stabbed in the head, face and back in a frenzied attack in Cobdens Bar in Stockport.

There’s also the ‘small’ matter of an assault charge in an unrelated matter, for which he will be back at Liverpool Crown Court for a mention hearing in September.

You look at that story and you just have to assume that his businesses can’t be completely legitimate. That’s a lot of trouble for one businessman to be in, isn’t it?


Speed Cameras

It’s currently looking like one of the victims of this new political Age of Austerity (AKA The”Can we cut it? Yes, we can!” years) will be the funding for speed-cameras. Sorry, ‘safety cameras’.

So far Oxfordshire is one of the first to say they’ll be turning the fixed cameras off, which will save them some £600,000 a year.

I have to say that I really don’t have an issue with this – I think that getting rid of the cameras will (in most cases) actually make the roads a bit safer. Yes, there are rat-runs where people are stupid and drive too fast – but in my experience, speed cameras cause far more dangerous driving than they prevent.

One prime example of this is the A11/A14 around Cambridge (and I think I’ve written about this before) – the intersection where they join has a speed camera just after it. I’ve seen far too many near-accidents at that point, where people have been feeding in just fine from the A11 at 70mph(ish) and then have to slap the brakes on because the people in front of them have dropped from 70mph to 50mph to get past the camera.  Yes, it’s down to human stupidity to drop to 50mph – 70mph is fine for going past that particular camera – but it’s still a much more dangerous junction because of the speed camera.

You see the same thing all over the place – people suddenly slowing from an already-legal speed, just to “make sure” they don’t get done by the camera.

So yeah, I think that getting rid of the cameras might just be an improvement to road safety in general, rather than a detriment to it.


Ferrari and F1

Over the weekend at the German Grand Prix Ferrari were deeply unsubtle about their team orders, and forced one driver to give way to the other, allowing Fernando Alonso to win the grand prix. For this, they’ve been fined $100,000 (approx £65,000) but haven’t lost points or anything.

The fine is pretty much insignificant to Ferrari, and this just sends out the message that it’s OK to run to team orders, you’ll just fork out a bit of cash. (In Formula 1 terms, £65,000 is probably a new engine or something)

If the race stewards had really wanted to send a message that running to team orders (and making it public knowledge) then they would have docked Ferrari all the points they gained from both Alonso and Massa, as well as all the manufacturer’s championship points from the race. That would’ve been a significant loss.

Personally I don’t have that great an issue with team orders. Sometimes they make sense – for example, if there were a standing order that if your team-mate is coming through, you’re not quite so aggressive at trying to block them, so you don’t wipe out both cars and stuff the team’s race completely. But the clear-cut engineering of who they want to win, that is (to me) not on. If you know there will be team orders like that, it puts F1 at the same level of competitiveness as professional wrestling.


Security Reading

All quiet round here at the moment, as my brain is utterly failing to process stuff.

I’m stuck with reading a metric butt-load of security stuff (as written about at the tail end of last week) which is about as interesting as you’d expect.

Check out this – it’s the first paragraph of the documentation, which (as I understand it) is meant to make you want to read more…

CLASP — Comprehensive, Lightweight Application Security Process — is an activity-driven, role-based set of process components whose core contains formalized best practices for building security into your existing or new-start software development lifecycles in a structured, repeatable, and measurable way.

In any game of Buzzword Bingo, that paragraph/sentence will get you “House!”

There’s 600+ pages of this shit to wade through, so posts here might be a bit slow


Do as we say, not as we do

Part of my current work deals heavily with web security, data security and the like. As part of that, I subscribe to a number of information lists, mail services etc.

I signed up to a new one today – one of the better regarded (and indeed recommended by another security auditing agency) ones.

What concerned me during the signup process was this :

You may enter a privacy password below. This provides only mild security, but should prevent others from messing with your subscription. Do not use a valuable password as it will occasionally be emailed back to you in cleartext.

Seriously? Sending – and one assumes storing – a password in clear text is such a bad idea. It’s also a major no-no in every security list – including their own one. D’oh!

Obviously a case of “don’t do what we do, do what we say”.