When I moved into my new flat, it was connected to Genesis Electricity. Getting the bill put in my name resulted in the remains of several trees being delivered to me in the form of bills, corrected bills, bumph, "charity" begging, etc. Destroying the planet is a hard job, but somebody's got to do it.
Amongst the bumph was a document with the following statement, which is repeated at their website:
We know that New Zealanders are concerned about future generation. So we are committed to keeping the energy coming. If lake levels drop we can rely on our other energy sources such as wind and thermal energy.
Now, that would suggest to me a claim that where other generators might cut power in a crisis, Genesis would be able to keep their customers going. That's how I read it anyway.
So I checked this fact with somebody in the industry. Can the customers of power generators be selectively connected / disconnected from the mains? (perhaps in the same way as your hot water tank gets turned off at peak times through a device called a ripple relay).
Nope - can't be done either technically or legally.
So basically, Genesis are putting out a blatantly misleading statement to sell power. As a customer and shareholder (they're an SOE) I object to this.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Monday, November 12, 2007
Sorry, I gave earlier
I guess I might be being a bit curmudgeonly, but I am slightly irritated with this "Movember" thing that has induced a substantial proportion of the males around town to grow facial minge.
Firstly, I have this belief that essential public services, like healthcare, should be funded out of taxation, not dependent on charitable contributions. The several thousand dollars I fork out each month in tax ought to pay for a decent health system without my having to find a few more quid voluntarily. If it doesn't, then we should be paying more tax.
For me, charities should be funding "nice to have" areas of spending, like sport, parks and art galleries; they should also be campaigning for change (which government obviously can't do).
Secondly, charitable donation should be an act of entirely voluntary altruism. If charities try to guilt trip me into giving them money, the iconoclast in me says no. I object to chuggers, badges, stickers, etc. The Movember thing is getting a bit like poppies are in the UK - you're obliged to have one or people think you're a callous bastard.
Incidentally, did you know that when you give money to charity via a business through the "do you want to donate a dollar for cute babies" thing they hit you with at the till, the supermarket company or whatever is taking a tax deduction. So basically, as you give money to the charity, you decrease the amount of tax money that's going to fund healthcare, etc.
I gave some money this month to the Urewera 17 legal fund. Plus I gave some to the SPCA, just because they're were some chuggers buttonholing people next to a nice SPCA lady sitting quietly with a bucket - so the latter got my money.
Firstly, I have this belief that essential public services, like healthcare, should be funded out of taxation, not dependent on charitable contributions. The several thousand dollars I fork out each month in tax ought to pay for a decent health system without my having to find a few more quid voluntarily. If it doesn't, then we should be paying more tax.
For me, charities should be funding "nice to have" areas of spending, like sport, parks and art galleries; they should also be campaigning for change (which government obviously can't do).
Secondly, charitable donation should be an act of entirely voluntary altruism. If charities try to guilt trip me into giving them money, the iconoclast in me says no. I object to chuggers, badges, stickers, etc. The Movember thing is getting a bit like poppies are in the UK - you're obliged to have one or people think you're a callous bastard.
Incidentally, did you know that when you give money to charity via a business through the "do you want to donate a dollar for cute babies" thing they hit you with at the till, the supermarket company or whatever is taking a tax deduction. So basically, as you give money to the charity, you decrease the amount of tax money that's going to fund healthcare, etc.
I gave some money this month to the Urewera 17 legal fund. Plus I gave some to the SPCA, just because they're were some chuggers buttonholing people next to a nice SPCA lady sitting quietly with a bucket - so the latter got my money.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Distorted fireworks
More distortion in the Herald today, this time with fireworks as the target.
They claim that "at least nine people were injured in fireworks-related incidents at the weekend" and report calls for a ban on all private firework sales. Apparently we have been told by the Prime Minister to "behave" or fireworks will be banned.
Let's examine those reported nine injuries:
Incident 1 was two kids slightly injured when a home firework malfunctioned and shot fireballs, apparently with enough force that they were still able to inflict burns 10m away.
Incident 2 was three children slightly injured by a faulty firework at a public display.
Incident 3 was a 22-year old man with an eye injury from a private firework. No details are provided on what happened.
Incident 4 was two idiots in the South Island1 throwing petrol on a fire and each other on top. This dumbass accident involved petrol not fireworks.
Incident 5 was a professional pyrotechnics operator injured by a firework at a public display.
So actually, three people were injured by the private use of fireworks. Four people were injured at public displays. Two were injured by stupidity with gasoline, which I assume the government isn't going to ban, at least until supplies run dry.
Two, maybe three of the injuries stemmed from "misbehaviour" rather than product or procedural failure. Only one of these involved fireworks (and we don't know they were being dumb, it might have been another dud).
But the Herald manages to turn no evidence whatever that anyone was injured by fooling with fireworks into an unanimous call for a ban. They didn't even question the fire chief when he said "[the new restrictions] are a positive thing but they just don't work". They're meant to be journalists - should they not have asked what his criteria was for a success? Or why he was saying that, when *nobody* had been seriously injured in Auckland as a result of fooling with fireworks. Should they maybe have asked whether the reduced sale time for fireworks was having a bad effect on product quality?
1. What is with South Islanders? They're only a quarter of the population but account for a disproportionate amount of dumbass injuries (eating ten party pills at a go also springs to mind). Maybe just the South Island needs a ban on anything flammable, toxic, or longer than it's wide?
Saturday, October 27, 2007
The imaginary Crown
I just got back from the rally against police oppression of thought criminals in Aotearoa. We had a good turnout despite the shite weather. People were fluffy. There were no cops apart from those lined up outside Wellington nick trying to look staunch (only one of them had a coppers beard - what's with that? Are they going out of fashion or are they auditioning for undercover work?)
One of the speakers, as is traditional, used the term "Crown" to describe the NZ government. I so don't like that shorthand - here's why:
The decisions to send armed cops against Tuhoe and arrest peaceful activists in Te Aro aren't being made by an old lady in a castle in England.
They aren't really being made by a younger lady in an office block in Wellington (who believes that a right-wing government run by her is better than one run by John Key).
What drives those decisions is the attitudes of a bunch of New Zealanders listening to talkback radio on their way to the mall.
- They think that because they pay rent to a bank instead of a landlord, they actually "own" their house.
- They think that their tax money, rather than being coming straight back in services and benefits, is being handed out to The Other to subsidise indolence.
- They think that because they have a desk, phone and business card, they're actually partners in the enterprise they work for rather than human machinery.
- They think that the passage of 150 years erases the property rights of brown people and makes any attempt to reclaim those rights an act of racism.
- They think that spliffs and pills are bad, evil drugs; but their six pints while watching a rugby game is a chap's reasonable refreshment.
- They believe that all of this is not a political stance, but something called "common sense" and that the media which echo this all back are "impartial".
Which is all a lot harder to deal with than to just rail against an imaginary "Crown".
That's my rant for today. Have a good one.
One of the speakers, as is traditional, used the term "Crown" to describe the NZ government. I so don't like that shorthand - here's why:
The decisions to send armed cops against Tuhoe and arrest peaceful activists in Te Aro aren't being made by an old lady in a castle in England.
They aren't really being made by a younger lady in an office block in Wellington (who believes that a right-wing government run by her is better than one run by John Key).
What drives those decisions is the attitudes of a bunch of New Zealanders listening to talkback radio on their way to the mall.
- They think that because they pay rent to a bank instead of a landlord, they actually "own" their house.
- They think that their tax money, rather than being coming straight back in services and benefits, is being handed out to The Other to subsidise indolence.
- They think that because they have a desk, phone and business card, they're actually partners in the enterprise they work for rather than human machinery.
- They think that the passage of 150 years erases the property rights of brown people and makes any attempt to reclaim those rights an act of racism.
- They think that spliffs and pills are bad, evil drugs; but their six pints while watching a rugby game is a chap's reasonable refreshment.
- They believe that all of this is not a political stance, but something called "common sense" and that the media which echo this all back are "impartial".
Which is all a lot harder to deal with than to just rail against an imaginary "Crown".
That's my rant for today. Have a good one.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Crap security advice
If you use a corporate provided computer system, you probably have a number of passwords to "remember". You probably have these written on a postit attached to the monitor or stored in a convenient file on the desktop called Passwords.doc.
Here's some advice a dude with dodgy hair at Computerworld that explains why:
Use strong passwords: No user password should be shorter than eight characters. It's even better if they are nine or 10 characters long. Elevated accounts should have even lengthier passwords. Passwords should not be shared between internal and external sites, and they should be changed every 90 or so days.
Users won't remember those passwords. Particularly if they access an "elevated" system like payroll that only needs to be accessed every quarter. They'll be on postits or in files.
Look, if the data/system is too important for a six character password it should be protected by two factor authentication, like one of those security dongles you see. Otherwise you might just as well hand your users a printed card with the password on and tell them to keep it safe.
And while I'm at it, something that wasn't recommended in the article, but which is very popular, is to have a convoluted system of forms and approvals to get a login. Which pretty much guarantees that once Doris in accounts has finally obtained a password for the payroll system, it'll be written on the whiteboard for the whole office to use.
No?
Here's some advice a dude with dodgy hair at Computerworld that explains why:
Use strong passwords: No user password should be shorter than eight characters. It's even better if they are nine or 10 characters long. Elevated accounts should have even lengthier passwords. Passwords should not be shared between internal and external sites, and they should be changed every 90 or so days.
Users won't remember those passwords. Particularly if they access an "elevated" system like payroll that only needs to be accessed every quarter. They'll be on postits or in files.
Look, if the data/system is too important for a six character password it should be protected by two factor authentication, like one of those security dongles you see. Otherwise you might just as well hand your users a printed card with the password on and tell them to keep it safe.
And while I'm at it, something that wasn't recommended in the article, but which is very popular, is to have a convoluted system of forms and approvals to get a login. Which pretty much guarantees that once Doris in accounts has finally obtained a password for the payroll system, it'll be written on the whiteboard for the whole office to use.
No?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
