Re: Body language
Of course, that's it. Criminals will wear a stripey T-shirt, a narrow eye mask and carry a bag that says "Swag".
5611 publicly visible posts • joined 31 Jul 2009
I don't get the impression, from this report on El Reg, that the paper had any kind of rational way to define criminality. Without that the AI has no rational starting point., even before you start on trying to recognise it (whatever "it" is) with AI. And I don't think there ever could be one. Because it is defined by the laws that are broken Would such an AI, for example, be able to include rich people who hide their company's income and profits through a whole string of shell companies? Would the AI change in some magical way when a dodgy practice that enables tax evasion is outlawed and the actions become suddenly criminal. Or reverse itself when an activity is decriminalised. Or when a person crosses a border between localities when any given activity is or is not legal. Is the 18 year old who legally drinks in one US state somehow changed when they visit one where 21 is the age? Does the change occur as they cross the border? Or only if they lift a glass of alcohol to their lips?
i.e. There is no objective thing called criminality. Criminality is a breach of the law, whether wilful or not, whether the law is justifiable or not, whether the law is significant or not. And breach of that law remains criminality even if the law is later repealed as unjustifiable. It's a status, not a state of being.
And at what point does criminality make one a criminal . One offence? Two? Three?
I'm a criminal, I definitely drank before I was 18. I once tried an illegal substance, I'm sure I accidentally went through a red light once. I've definitely walked out of a shop with a newspaper and forgot to pay once. I frequently, as a kid and within the age of criminal responsibility, jumped off a bus without paying. And I've got on and off a bus while it was still moving!!!
And I'm equally sure that I've breached a few other laws (when was the one about archery practice repealed?).
Not every....
There's the sponsored survey - which will mysteriously support the clients' views.
There's the purely academic research survey, which is what scientific studies should be.
There's the research survey done to aid the production of a paper that will be accepted by the journals and enhance an academic's career prospects.
And, sadly, there are the, arguably numerous, scientific studies that fit in neatly with the conclusions that academic boards want to hear. Because funding for academic research, these days, is very contingent on approval from above. And that in turn is contingent on funding the kind of research that won't upset the politicians/press/donors.
Have to declare an interest here - I'm not an academic- but my teaching used to be very informed by what the academic research was saying about how we acquire reading. Research that seemed to dry up once the Behaviourist and business lobbies were able to impose the view that Reading = =Phonics ( and a certain type of phonics that is coincidentally very easy to market). All the academic research that crossed my desk after that was pretty much useless - even for phonics teaching e.g. comparative studies of phonics acquisition between Croat and Canadian learners ( I may have got the countries wrong, though there were a lot of similar ones so it doesn't matter).
Underlying a lot ( not all, I guess) of the conspiracy belief is an anger at the know-it-all clever folks that tell them their fears are nonsense. And as we were told not too long ago, we've heard too much from experts.
These are the ones that were labelled the "elites" in the Brexit discussions by the Leave campaigners despite the fact that the people saying this were ( or were backed by) mostly Etonians and millionaires.
Think of those stories we've read and posted in El Reg comments. The people who call in the IT experts, but then refuse to do what they tell them to. Or who's own close family* will buy a piece of over-priced useless crap because Elsie down the road tells them to, rather than asking us, with years of training and experience in using, sourcing or repairing the stuff.
*OK this is personal. My late mother got sold a rubbish overpriced laptop and stuff she couldn't use because an Elsie told her to. And I ended up spending far too much time sorting it out for her.
This, and all the preceding comments in the thread just serve to confirm what I've already thought. That the whole world wide dialling code system (and the way it's described to users who need to use it) is a mess.
A small example,of course, is the London dial codes. Because in the transition to the 020 system you could dial the original number or the 020+7+local number there are still lots of people that quote and even write their numbers in the format 0207 123 1234. And since most people these days seem to phone using a tiny mobile with terrible sound rather than a nice comfortable, clear home phone, it will still work for them because you have to dial the full number. But if you use a fixed line phone within London you don't dial the 020 bit. You must still dial the 7 though.
And of course, when you ask someone to read out a number to you (within London) you never know when they're starting with 7/8 whether it's coming in the form 7712 3456 or its 7123 1234 - unless they say the 020, which you then have to kind of ignore for a few beats until they get to the main number.
This is trivial and parochial, I know. But it's indicative of the mess that dialling codes have become.
We Brits get pretty crap service from a lot of companies. Complaints are usually avoided, by making email addresses impossible to find. And the "contact us" links on web pages are constructed to make sure that we don't contact them, by never actually linking to the page that has the web contact form. The "contact us" link takes you to an FAQ page full of questions that no one has ever asked. Which has a "need more help" link, which takes you to the generic "Help" page, which takes you to the "contact us" link.......(repeat ad infinitum). For a short while, while it was still fairly new, you could bypass this with Twitter etc. but by and large they've learnt how to dodge or ignore that now too.
But a Fax! .
That always got results. As good as a written letter, but immediate and cheaper.
London Transport used to claim that long waits and a convoy of buses arriving at the same time was the result of "bunching" on the long routes through Central London.
But I used to get a bus from time to time a couple of stops after a terminus. Over the course of 40 or so minutes I'd see 4 or 5 buses ( same number I wanted) go up to the terminus, a couple of stops away. And nothing coming down for me to get on to. Then they'd appear. Together, in a row.
Precisely. Bean counter thinking is that the "brand" has a value. So let's see how they can provide the brand while cutting the costs of the product. In effect the product is just a carrier of the valuable brand to them. They'd flog you the label without the bottle (or contents) if they could get away with it.
The worst example (imo) was when Timberland started producing tacky products with TIMBERLAND emblazoned on the front in 4" high letters instead of their previous discreetly badged, brilliant quality stuff. I stopped buying their stuff for a couple of years - I'm guessing I wasn't alone.
A fair point. And we, like many home and small office users, do print. A lot. Even now in lockdown, and a Hell of a lot more when we're actually meeting people.
Materials for Guides meetings, committee minutes,classroom templates, invitations ( for close family and friends who don't appreciate a message on social media), letters of complaint (for posting when various companies have provided crap service and there's no way to get through the [Help Page-Contact us-FAQ-Not found what you need?-Help page] loop to find a phone number or email address.
But I'm guessing that those beta tester types don't run Guides groups, volunteer in the community, work in public service or send (written) letters of complaint. Not that I would dream of stereotyping them. :-)
Home and small business users use printers for; Courier labels, kids homework, drafts of mail that needs to be read properly and edited ( much better on paper than on a screen), menus, price lists and soon.
Also this update apparently fucks up PDF virtual printers!
I agree, but would comment that quality control, to the mind of the corporate bean counter, is a cost centre and so only gets considered as much as it absolutely has to be. These are people trained to think that actually providing the services and goods that people paid for is just one of the business costs that need to be controlled.They probably dream at night of a business that can keep charging fees without providing a service. And then wake up in the morning and remember that Adobe have pretty much achieved that. (And Capita are pretty close in as much as they don't seem to provide much of the service they get paid for).
I've heard one or two stories about companies that do this informally. Marking certain staff members cards and then making their lives a misery till they leave. Being careful not to do anything that would get them before a tribunal. But targetted staff could do nothing right. There would always be a fault found. That sort of thing
In my few weeks working as a filing clerk for a mail order company - and knowing that I and all the others would be fired eventually (written about previously) I found a clipboard lying around. For two weeks I wandered round the building holding this and generally avoiding being where I was meant to be. I wasn't missed in that office, probably because no one knew or cared what we were doing. And no one, ever , questioned who I was and what I was doing. The suits were not interested in any part of the business either too busy to notice a 20 something menial worker.
The problem arises when a manager *thinks* he knows everything and doesn't trust his own team
This is the Managers' Disease. It can strike down any manager, but especially one who's team are doing stuff that's technical ( in the broadest sense - so could include pharmacy or psychology workers etc). Promotion into incompetence (Peter Principle), age and rustiness, but above all people who want or need to get away from the frontline doing of stuff (or need to be got away from it).
It includes teachers who can't wait to get out of the classroom to become headteachers, and have a promotion plan even before they get through their first year - they're easy to spot- whatever the current bandwagon > they're on it. And mostly are crap teachers. They also tend to be crap heads too, but the Powers-That-Be love them, at least until there is a crisis.
It includes Psychologists who are wedded to a School of Psychology they learnt on their degree or MA and were uncritical about, but got good marks (because they were uncritical about it). And in turn promote to the next generation of young Psychologists.
And so on.
There's also the matter of the English flag having been pretty much hijacked by far right nut jobs, to the point that anyone hoisting a flag is defining themselves as a far right nut job.The union flag, however, still serves for the English. Last Night of the Proms and all that.
Exactly. When a company says it intends to so something very specific, say, have its existing paper records put on a computer, you can have some hope at least that a definite computerisation programme, with a definite purpose, will have definite useful outcomes.
But a vague "Put it all in the cloud" or such like plan is just magical thinking.
It's also that some metric ( and decimal) measures are a tad clumsy.
A litre is too bloody small a volume for measuring petrol. No one ever puts a litre of petrol in a car.
The jump from cm to m is too big when measuring height. 5' 8" is easier to say ( and visualise, I think) than 172cm or 1m 772cm.
A kilometre is a bit too small when measuring journeys, arguably. But is reasonable for the purpose. People seem to use Km quite happily.
And use degrees C with no problem at all for the most part.
But a litre is too big for a swift pint, and who'd want to ask for half a litre? The phrase is just too clumsy and rather prissy sounding. ( Also a good linguistic rule of thumb is that people use the fewest and easiest syllables they can. Pint works better here than litre). And should you just want a half with your lunch, "Could I have 0.3 of a litre of your best ale please, landlord..." No.Just no.
Part of the problem was when they decimalised our money ( not a moment too soon imo) they determinedly set out to remove the familiar intermediate units instead of allowing them to fade slowly - or not as the case might be. These did no harm and were useful. A shilling is a shilling whether it's 5p or 12d. Saying "5 shillings" instead of 25p or "10 bob" instead of "50p" hurts no one and if it stopped being useful or clear would have gone the way of all things. But it provided useful intermediate units. "What, 5 bob for a bar of chocolate!" Sounds better than " What, 25p...etc.". I doubt these units would have been used for precise amounts, which would have encouraged a natural demise. But simply going out of their way to discourage the humble friendly shilling and its derivatives was counterproductive.
And I'd argue made people less amenable to losing pints\feet/lbs and so on.
The question of interest is why users are so scared about closing down running programmes/web pages. It points to a fear of not being able to find stuff. Which itself implies poor training and arguably poor software that just isn't as clear and intuitive as we would like to think it is.
No. They still teach them those basics at school. Despite the insane requirement for every kid to be taught "coding".* Despite the calls, (frequently from within El reg commentard comments) to change school IT to something that wasn't just about how to use WORD/EXCEL/Access ( or equivalents) this is still something that they need to learn.
*Everyone, from CEO to caretaker (janitor) needs to be able to use the standard office programmes, find their way round a computer and use a keyboard, even in the 2020s. Almost no one needs to be able to code. Which is just the 21st C version of us all having to learn metal and woodwork when I was at school in the 70s. School should be about gaining a education and generalisable skills. Not about training to do the job that you are expected to enter because you are one of the working classes and didn't go to private school.
To be fair, as a test, for the Devilment* I just switched off my trusty little Brother HL-1110 laser printer. Rebooted and all was fine when I switched it back on.
*I have a few recent restore points and images if I need to use them. And a Canon multifunction printer that's on wifi. But this little old USB Brother has done sterling work for printing everyday black print documents and drafts of stuff I'll print properly in colour later. For years.
I do wonder, in these situations, whether the testing is a most obvious/easiest case only. e.g. Reboot," Check printer.Yup, printer works. Next..." Rather than thinking about , say, bolting the USB printer that no one normally bothers with ( or just bought) onto the computer that's been in use all morning.
I've posed this before, but probably worth repeating in this context.
The management consultant that used to come to us was convinced that management was a self-contained profession and that you didn't have to know about the specific business.
The stuff he recommended and the stuff I had to study in my educational Leadership qualification was pretty much the same. And it was all about getting compliance - mostly by being manipulative. Very explicitly, in the lectures etc. doing the right thing by your staff was seen as a management method to obtain outcomes. Not something you did because it was the right thing, as such. Working with staff to determine appropriate outcomes was not seen as being of any relevance. We, as managers ( Head teachers, advisors etc) were there to manage the (highly qualified and experienced professional) minions. There is no doubt that the staff are meant to be cogs in a well regulated mechanism - according to modern* management ideas.
*Might have changed, but I see no signs of that. I did this 10 years ago and educational management is always about 10 years behind the outside world anyway, so that we are made to take on the nuttier ideas after they've failed already.
As is often the case this is a problem that's not unique to the IT world. But the nature of computery stuff is that there is far more complexity and far greater consequence than some ordinary businesses running the same shoddy practice.
In the 80s or thereabouts my late father was managing quality control for a coat manufacturers - mostly supplying M&S who were notoriously demanding (quite rightly).
He'd reject a batch of garments - his bosses would override him and dispatch the stuff with the ones that had passed ( they actually used to try to hide the duds inside the batch thinking M&S' people wouldn't spot them ffs!) rather than fix or remake them or sort out the quality issues. M & S would find the duds then reject the entire delivery. And of course not pay for it,. Time after time. The company began to get into problems, (not just due to this, but since M&S were practically their sole customer......) so they started to fire various middle managers, one after another - no senior heads rolled of course.
Dad got out before he was pushed out. Within six months the company had gone belly up.
Yes, the lessons learned seem to be that if you are sufficiently well connected and have had a senior establishment job you can slide from a fiasco in one major organisation to an even more senior job in another and so on.
And also that if you are one of those above you can lie and cheat with impunity and still get that plum establishment job.
Private prosecution is one thing. Being the investigating police, and the prosecution, as well as the expert witness testifying in front of a lay judge - when you are in effect under judgement yourself if you lose the case (i.e. have a vested interest in the outcome beyond simply righting the specific alleged wrong) is very different.
Once upon a time I was (peripherally) involved with some software testing. In which a set of criteria for success were established, agreed and written down. As far as I remember there were a few issues that were resolved and it was sent out.
I've a nasty suspicion, based on stuff I've hear/been told over the years that that sort of regime is less common than I thought it was.
How they test instead is beyond my experience, but I'd hazard a guess that the suppliers demonstrate the flashy bits they know will work and sort of sideline the dull but essential bits that maybe...don't.
It's more that;
* Johnson has no idea what to do and say without Cummings
*The Old Etonian buddy ideology guides his decisions and that
*There's a culture of impunity (and probably promotion) for the incompetent or dishonest Great and Good. They screw up and move on to better things when us little folks get sent to the knackers.
The latter holds for corporate failures as much as individuals. Probably why the likes of Crapita keep getting new contracts.
Years and years ago ( at the time of the Woolworth's fire in Manchester - we were on the next block) I worked a few weeks at a mail order company. Our job was to stuff little slips of paper that customers had filled in from newspapers into the right place in plastic wallets stuffed as tightly as they could possibly be, in alphabetical order. They were quite random and I have no idea why they weren't already in those wallets, I guess they'd been located and used somehow and had to be replaced.These were packed insanely tight so it was impossible to get the papers in and the plastic cut into your fingers each time. It was a truly horrible job- and you could see why they used temporary staff. The papers were in laminated layers. They'd be in order for a few days worth, then get more and more random until that bunch of workers got fired and a new set rolled in. Which meant that by and large these files were useless. They had to be that tight to save space. It was a big old building and the space was used really poorly. But there wasn't really a shortage of space. Just that they had always done it that way. What is interesting in the context of this thread is that the system clearly didn't work. Most of the stuff was way out of place, they had to employ staff to recruit new teams of cheap workers every six weeks or so ( that's how long we lasted - though I'd stopped even pretending to work about two weeks before). And there was no way anyone could have located these bits of paper except by pulling a whole section of wallets and checking every one until the right name appeared.
But there was clearly no intention of ever reviewing this system.
This also points to another all too common management phenomenon. Effort ==success.
The staff members who who appear to be slogging away doing what has always been done will get approval, pay rises and promotion - irrespective of actual productivity and effectiveness (within broad boundaries).
Efficient staff who find better ways of doing stuff and achieve all that's required of them and more within the standard working day are seen as dangerous slackers - even though their productivity exceeds the sloggers. This, in part explains the ( pre-Covid ?) suspicion about working from home. Those managers need to see effort, not outcomes. Home working can see measurable outcomes - but not effort. It also explains the popularity among some management for installing key logging and screen viewing etc software on computers used for home working. It's the time bashing the keyboard that matters - not the outcomes.
My theory, supported by experience (arguably), is that those managers are themselves sloggers -promoted through effort not achievement or imagination/innovation. Not very bright or efficient they work hard at doing what has always been done - and doing lots of it, making sure their staff do the same And their managers ditto, to the top.
I came down to London early 80s. Walked into my local shop and saw an enormous row of cheeses. At first sight this was very promising. Until I realised that almost very single one was a variety of Cheddar. Including various imported Cheddars. I quickly learnt that this was replicated even in the big supermarkets. Up to 50% of the shelf space and of the number of varieties of cheese were all just varieties of Cheddar.
I don't mind a bit of Cheddar. I had some grilled on toast for my lunch today. And for a Plough Person's Lunch with a pint it seems perfect.
But it ain't that special. It's a good almost generic, slightly sour flavoured, slightly waxy OKish cheese.
But that's it.