Warning!

I am sure that once upon a time warning signs were used to actually warn people where there were a significant (even if small) number of people unaware of some possible danger. There are places for such things. Indeed, instructions for fire exits on a hotel door are a case: where we all know what to do, not because we have survived several hotel fires, or know people that have, but because we have read the signs.

Once upon a time you had to pay a sign writer to put up a sign, so they were generally sensible - used only where it was worth the money to put up a sign.

I am not alone in the pet hate at warning signs, but really, do we live in a world where a hotel could be sued because someone did not know to "take care when standing or walking on wet surfaces" ?

I mean, who is their target audience for this sign? People old enough to read, and have unsupervised access to a hotel shower, but stupid enough to have not learned that wet floors are slippery? Do such people actually exist?  Does the world really allow that lack of common sense to somehow be the hotel's fault?

If we really live in such a crazy world, surely a simple sign like this cannot be sufficient to make the hotel blameless? E.g. if I slipped, and broke my arm - I could sue.... and...

(a) They could not really say "you should know that wet floors are dangerous" can they? If that was true then they would not need signs. They clearly expect there to be guests that do not know this.

(d) Also, they somehow expect that I failed to learn this lesson in several decades of my life up until now, so surely they are naive to think that a simple sign will somehow give me an epiphany and educate me on the dangers of wet floors. They must have known that teaching me about wet floors would take way more than just a silly sign - after all, they think I have not learned this in well over 40 years of life so far.

So surely that would make them negligent for not insisting I go on a three day common sense training course, with tests I have to pass, before entering the building?

Yes, crazy, but surely as crazy as any excuse for needing such a stupid sign in the first place?!

What if someone did a "common sense training course", with a test. Then when you book a hotel they just need a tick box "have you passed your common sense training course" and never need a stupid sign again. :-)

Heartless git?

I have spent the weekend sat at home, doing very little work, and with the TV on. It happens! It should be relaxing. Yes, clearly I am getting old...

Today, almost every bloody advert break is trying to get me to pay money to help starving kids somewhere. It is not just one charity. I think there are at least three. Apparently 22,000 children will die today! Do they pick Sundays specially for some reason?

Now, just to be clear, I am not a heartless git, honest, though I am sure my kids would rather I gave them money than to a charity. So what is winding me up?

1. The adverts are very specifically targeting empathy and parental instincts in us all - deliberately exploiting the way most people's minds work with images of a starving kid on screen. That annoys me! I always look for the real meaning in any advert, and this just winds me up. If I am going to donate to a charity I want it to be my choice, not someone cleverly making an advert to trigger an emotional response. The effect is negative, in my case. I deliberately avoid these charities because of the tactic.

2. Whilst I am not one to be convinced by most of the environmental crap we see these days, it seems somewhat hypercritical that these adverts are not also required to state the environmental impact. How much CO2 is produced by saving one child? Not that saving a child is not worthwhile, but if they did state the environmental impact of one more person on the overpopulated planet in such adverts, it would make the car adverts stating CO2 emissions look meaningless irrelevant...

So, proper rant today, sorry...

I'll go back to watching TV.

Found RF interference - won't tell anyone.

Seriously, can a simple grid reference be considered "personal information" and so subject to DPA? Even an address is not something that inherently identifies a living individual.

BT will send engineers to find the source of radio interference (REIN) affecting a DSL line. But they won't actually tell anyone what they find. They won't even provide a grid reference where they found RF! They blame the DPA first, and then insist that they (BT plc) don't have the information, but the REIN team (BT plc) have it and will not tell them. This is a communication company point blank refusing to communicate with themselves to the detriment of the customer and it really pisses me off.

Am I too mean? My latest reply to them:-

---

Stop doing that now.

I am asking you, British Telecommunications plc, for information that British Telecommunications plc have.

Stop refusing to communicate with YOURSELF - you are ONE COMPANY, ONE LEGAL ENTITY and are a COMMUNICATION COMPANY. Your constant refusal to communicate internally is demonstrating how totally INEPT and INCOMPETENT you are as an organisation and I am totally fed up with it.

As a shareholder in BT Group plc the sole shareholder of British Telecommunications plc, the company that has the data we are asking for, please provide the data. Also explain to this shareholder why you have wasted money getting information that you are refusing to provide. Do not make up crap about DPA. I am not asking for any PERSONAL INFORMATION. I am asking where you detected RF, a grid reference, nothing personal.

Try again.

If you once again even suggest or imply that any other part of British Telecommunications plc is a different entity from any part of British Telecommunications plc that you work for, as any sort of excuse to not do something, I will have to consider that a knowingly false or misleading statement that is for the purpose of some gain on your part (to avoid work) or to some detriment on my part (even just to annoy me), both of which constitute a criminal breach of the Fraud Act. Is that clear?

I am really really fed up with this crap.

---

P.S. There are people that will say "this is what the industry asked for". I did not ask for this. And I am sure the industry did not ask for BT to use this as a way to cause more problems to customers or for BT to start lying to us. Regardless of OFCOM rules, BT plc is a single entity, and they cannot escape that.

Meet Ignis...

This is Ignis, which is Latin for "fire". Ignis is the new mascot for FireBrick, and will have a 1,000 colleagues in "up to 3 months starting after the current Chinese national holiday" or some such. We are hoping for before Christmas, but you never know.

We are going to try and get people to upload pictures of odd places that Ignis has traveled and been photographed. We're kicking it off with the revolving restaurant at the top of the BT Tower in London. Once upon a time the restaurant was open to the public, but these days it is somewhat more exclusive with airport style security to get in. Fortunately the BTW ISP forum is held there and people like myself are allowed in. So this is Ignis at the BT Tower.

We should have something, probably a facebook page, for him sorted before we actually have a shed full of them and start handing them out. In the mean time, Ignis will be on the FireBrick stand at this year's IPExpo in Earls Court 2 in a couple of weeks, keeping a close eye on the orc. We may even have him at UKNOF next week.

Here's Ignis with a nice view of docklands and The Shard...

Is it true that a picture of a cat will get more hits?

I have to wonder what adverts pop up for a picture of a cat?
The Pashley bike post just got adverts for a different bike manufacturer.

And before some smart arse comments on the card number, yes, gimp (windows users read "photoshop") is great, isn't it... :-)

Bike shops

Berkshire Cycles seem to be causing me a few problems at the moment.

For a start, when my wife purchased a new Pashley bike and bike rack from them (Reading branch), they fitted the rack and bike to the car (which was nice). She drove the couple of miles to Wokingham only to find that they fitted the bike so it rubbed against the boot paintwork. Not a good look for a new BMW! I'll send them the bill and see what happens.

We then took two Pashley bikes in to the shop for a service. My bike had a broken bell and loose chain, which we pointed out.

First off they say that the bell is a problem, and it will be a few days. They call back to say it is ready but when my wife gets to the shop they say that it is not as they did a test ride and found another problem!

When we finally get it back, two weeks later (walking to work every day!) they have not in fact changed the bell. They say that they still don't have them in. You could not sell a bike new like that, it would be illegal. Funny how I have just gone on to google, searched for a Pashley bell, and found a supplier with them in stock for next day delivery. It is not like I can't fix a bike myself - I used to when I was a kid, and the bike is the same Sturmey Archer gears I had back then. I like my Pashley. But these days I am not that inclined to get my hands dirty which is why they got nearly £200 to service two bikes.

Of course they did do some work - the chain is no longer loose. Well, it was not, but cycling a couple of miles I find that the wheel is not actually done up tightly and now has slipped. I had to walk back to the office to find a spanner and tighten it as the wheel was now rubbing against the frame. Again, not funny. Getting fed up with walking.

For some obscure reason, they also decided to move the gear changer so it is now out of reach when my hand is on the handle bars. Why do that? I have found a screwdriver and fixed that too.

Overall, I have to say, not impressed with Berkshire cycles. They are the only Pashley dealer near here though, sadly.

It is a shame that nobody seems to put the same care and attention to detail in to their work these days. I must be getting old.

P.S. After the "service" my lights no longer work, when at least one did before - arrrrg!

Not quite "OSPF for Dummies"...

RFC2328 is 246 pages, and RFC5340 is 94, and they are a triumph of ASCII art over clarify :-)

To be honest, not that bad, on the second reading. I think I am getting the hang of it now.

Plan is to start adding OSPF to FireBricks some time tomorrow.

I really hope this is not one of those protocols that leaves me pulling my hair out. Watch this space...