Not really a saving after all...

It seems these days that almost every product on the supermarket shelves is being sold with a "buy one, get one half price" promotion, or some variation on that theme. I'm not so sure that it is as good a money-saving idea as it first appears. Firstly, when customers take advantage of the savings to be made from buying multiples of each product, they are effectively storing more of the supermarkets stock in their own homes and therefore less storage at the supermarket is needed. And, of course, all this extra storage customers kindly supply to the supermarkets is free of charge. I know this is probably not significant, but it's worth a mention.

What set me thinking was when I went to the fridge the other day and threw out a barely-started pack of sliced ham because it was drying out and beyond its "use by" date. I remember having bought two at the same time, because of the saving to be made. By throwing out the pack of unused ham, I had effectively paid one-and-a-half times the regular price for a single pack of ham. So I would have saved money by buying just a single pack in the first place. This would explain the advert I saw recently which stated that in this country, we are currently throwing away around a third of the food that we buy.

My view is that supermarkets should stop charging us for "bags for life" (a bag that lasts till it gets to the car park is all I need), and should address the issue of wasted food which uses far more of the planet's resources. How many people actually use the "bags for life" more than once? This is just another cynical revenue stream created by the supermarkets, which makes hem appear green.

Gone Phishing

Every day I receive several phishing emails which purport to be from various banks asking me to enter my banking details for a variety of reasons. Interestingly, of all the banking names these scammers use, they never use the name of the bank that I actually bank with.

Anyhow, I received a new twist to the theme yesterday, when I received an email supposedly from HM Revenue & Customs regarding a tax rebate. Since this was the first phishing email I had received about tax rebates, I could have been easily fooled. Particularly as it is about the time of year when I would expect to receive a rebate, what with the year-end being April. Also, as I was on a reduced income towards the end of the last financial year, being notified of a rebate did not surprise me. In addition, the amount being reimbursed seemed to be about right.

What did surprise me, however, was that I was being asked for my banking details so that the rebate could paid. Paying closer to attention to the email I then noticed the occurrence of several typos, the hallmark of most phishing emails.

What worries me is that the excitement of potentially receiving a tax rebate, could have easily made me do something rather silly. Fortunately I stopped and thought about what I was doing.

I just thought it might be worth warning people. Hey folks, be careful out there.

I'm not sure that I can see the connection...

I received the following email from Amazon this morning:

------------------------------

Greetings from Amazon.co.uk,

We've noticed that customers who have purchased or rated 1984 by Rick Wakeman have also purchased Funky Gibbon: The Best of the Goodies by Bill Oddie.

For this reason, you might like to know that Funky Gibbon: The Best of the Goodies is now available.

You can order yours for just £4.78 by following the link below.

------------------------------


I'm not sure that I can see the connection...

New Technology

I find it interesting and also a little saddening to see how a particular technology can be refined and perfected over many years, and sometimes several lifetimes, and just as it reaches the pinnacle of what can be achieved with the state of the art, a newer technology arrives and sweeps it away. The newer technology is is often cheaper, faster, more efficient, less harmful to the environment. Also the newer technology is usually more fashionable, or "sexy", which cannot be underestimated if it is to be sold the the general population.

A good example of this would be steam travel. The basic principles of steam locomotion did not change, but the locomotives produced just before the demise of steam were fabulous examples of what can be achieved and really pushed the envelope of what steam could do. However, as we know, steam disappeared almost overnight, replaced by diesel and electricity. These new ideas were cleaner, cheaper, more efficient and certainly kinder to the environment. But, apart from the loss of the romance associated with the steam beasts and the loss off the associated skills needed to build, maintain and operate them, there was not too much to be missed.

Occasionally it happens that a new technology is introduced purely because of cost benefits and has no regard to its inferior performance. Combination boilers are a good example of this. Yes, that's right, combination boilers. You know, those small white boxes that hang on the wall and heat water on demand. They seem to have replaced regular boilers and hot water tanks. I won't go into describing my endless, fruitless attempts to extract hot water from the tap. Suffice to say I either get blasts of cold water or drips of water at nearly the temperature of super-heated steam. Not to mention the gallons of water wasted during my efforts. It's one of those things that was designed right in the first-place (i.e. the hot water tank), then cocked-up on the grounds of cost. It's one of those things that angers me almost every day. From an environmental viewpoint, the water wasted each day by these annoying devices, must negate any advantage gained by heating water on-demand.

Dustmen

Oh yes! Dustman! It was only a matter of time before I got around to them. Around here, our dustman usually call at around lunchtime. However, a few weeks ago, for reasons best known to themselves, they decided to empty my wheelie bin at around 7.00 am. Unfortunately I was unaware of this and put my bin out at around 8.00 am when I left for work as usual. Incidentally, when I say "put the bin out", I mean move it from my drive onto the pavement. You see, unless the bin is "over the line" and on the pavement, it will not get emptied. As was the case on this particular morning.

Obviously, when the bin-men called the following week, I had more refuse to dispose of than usual which amounted to more than a bin-full, so I placed a couple of black sacks containing the additional rubbish next to the bin. Aware that the bin-men were unlikely to take them, I thought I would plead mitigating circumstances and explain that the change to their timetable was what caused the extra rubbish.

The bin-men advised me that they were agency-workers, and as such were unable to make a decision about whether to put the black sacks in the back of the refuse lorry. I suggested that it wasn't really much of a decision to have to make and could they help me out here. They declined and mentioned that one of their colleagues had recently been suspended for complying with a similar request. However, they did suggest that the driver may be sufficiently senior to make the decision.

I approached the driver, who at first seemed reluctant to roll down his window. This did not bode well. I retold the story of my dilemma to the driver, who was sympathetic , but told me that he was only responsible for driving the vehicle. I suggested to the driver, that if he was to look across the road for a few moments, he would probably not notice if a couple of sacks were thrown into the back of the lorry. He agreed, providing that it happened quickly. I thanked him for his understanding, did the deed, and they were soon on their way.

I will probably remember this experience when these same men are knocking on my door around Christmas time expecting a tip for all their hard work throughout the year. However, I have calculated that the distance from the front of my house to the pavement is greater than the distance from the pavement to the back of the refuse lorry. I therefore conclude that, during the year, I move the bin further than they do. So, if anything, they should be tipping me. I am undecided if I should make them aware of this when they call.

On-line forms

Some on-line forms seem to be rather borked. I remember a couple of years ago, when I lived at my previous house, I entered my postcode on the British Telecom web site to see if they could offer a broadband service at my home. The web site stated that unfortunately their broadband service was not available at my address but would I like to try another postcode. My question is this: why would I want to know the availability of a broadband service at an address other than my own?

I was reminded of the above example of silliness by a more recent experience with the Government's Self Assessment On-Line web site. I seem to recall that I did my tax return on line last year fairly painlessly. Although I remember at one point the system telling me that I couldn't register with my name as it was already in use. So what was I to do? Use somebody else's? Mindful of the fact that any inaccurate disclosure is punishable with a large fine, I persevered and managed to sort things out.

This year it has gone all strange on me again. I tried to log in using the log in information that I had used the year before. (I made a note of this in a Notepad file on my PC, not the most secure thing to do but at least I could be sure of being able to log in successfully next time I needed to.) However, when I tried to log in I was informed that either my log in name or password was wrong. I tried several times, nope, it wasn't going to work. I thought I'd humour the system and get it to send me the password. After entering some additional information the password was emailed to me, and yes, it was a completely different password. So I tried the new password with my log in name, and guess what? It didn't work. I decided to persevere, and just to double-check I decided to check my log in name by entering the password I had just been sent and letting the system send me the log in name. Ah! Now my log in name is different too. But that should all be sorted now, the system has sent me both a log in and a password, I'll try both together and... they didn't work.

I then decided to click on the link that says "Online Service Helpdesk". This took me to a page which tells me that the department I need is the "Online Service Helpdesk". Useful. No link, no address, no phone number... nothing.

I turned my attention to changing the address on my driving licence. Uh oh! Just like the Self-Assessment Tax page, it needs a Government Gateway log in. This time it wouldn't accept either my original log in name, or the replacement one as being valid, let alone the password. However, it offered to set up a new log in and password, which, after entering in some more information, I successfully completed. I duly logged in and ordered a new driving licence with an updated address. Great.

Maybe this new log in and password will work on the Self-Assessment Tax page... nope, not a chance.

So now I have three possible user names and three different passwords, no combination of which will work.

The words "Tax doesn't have to be taxing," keep ringing in my ears...

Life without Windows?

I am thinking that I may be close to being able to extricate myself from being reliant on Windows. Not that I have been consciously aiming towards this, I found myself in this position completely by accident. Also I don't have too many reasons why I would like to ditch Windows, although there are a few.

Generally this has come about because of the availability of on-line applications. Probably the first one that set me thinking was GMail. I have used Outlook at work and at home for many years, the speed of web-based email could never match that of Outlook. However, GMail is very fast, and for my use, has all the functionality that I need.

Other web-based apps are starting to appeal to me in the same way now. The word processor and spreadsheet programs from Google are very good, plus there are other alternatives like ZoHo (http://www.zoho.com) for example. ZoHo is particularly good as it can link directly to major blogging sites.

Of course all social networking sites by their nature need to be online, but the improving chat capabilities of them will soon make separate chat clients obsolete.

So apart from a couple of data intensive applications for editing images and audio, nearly all I need to do on my PC can be achieved within a browser. The only exception I can think of right now is Second Life, and I can't see myself living without that.

The point I am making is this: if all the applications one needs on a PC can be browser-based, it doesn't matter what the underlying operating system is. Even some kind of thin-client would do, providing that it runs a browser.

I realise there are some downsides, like if you lose your Internet connection then you cannot access your files or do any work. But the corresponding upside is that you can access your data and work from any Internet-connected PC.

I am not sure of the future of the various "virtual desktop" websites that are around. I have played with a few of these and none of the apps that they come with are particularly well featured.

Crap in your tray

Have you noticed how every application, no matter how trivial, just has to park itself in your system tray so that the system tray area extends to the centre of the screen? Not content with that, they all have to "phone home" to get updates every time you so much as look at them, while at the same time informing you that there are several "important" messages for you to read. I have a PC in front of me right now that takes nearly 5 minutes to boot and loses untold resources to this crap.

Windows Live Messenger

Just how annoying can Windows Live Messenger be? Don't you just love the way that anytime your mouse pointer gets anywhere near the bottom-right of the screen, a Flash advert leaps out at you complete with audio and won't go away. So you have to steer your mouse pointer in a tortuous route to get to the system tray. What a crock of shit. Can anyone think of a reason why we aren't all using Skype?

Lucky? Or not?

I was silly enough to leave my car unlocked overnight outside my house recently. When I went to my car in the morning I was dismayed to see that the cradle that attaches my Tom Tom sat nav to the windscreen was missing. The person who took it had obviously searched the rest of the car also, because the glove box was open, as were all the doors including the boot. Although I was silly enough to leave the car unlocked, I was not silly enough to leave anything of value in the car. The cost of replacing the sat nav cradle is around £40, which is enough. I'm guessing that the thief, seeing the cradle on the dashboard, figured there was a chance that the sat nav was in the glove box as is often the case. As it happens, on this occasion, it was not. The question I would ask is this: did leaving the car unlocked save me the considerable cost of replacing the glass that would have been broken to gain access, or did it cause the loss of the sat nav cradle?

Maybe I should take the advice of my brother: he doesn't stick a sat nav cradle to his windscreen at all. The resultant ring left on the glass when it is removed, implies that there may be a sat nav unit in the glove box. It is no consolation when you have a £200 bill for broken glass that your sat nav was not in the car to be stolen.

Maybe there is an argument in favour of never locking your car doors, leaving the glove box open and never, ever leaving anything valuable in the car.

iPhone

Is anybody else fed up with hearing about the iPhone? Nothing can be THAT good. Can it?

Alcohol

Do muslims put anti-freeze in their cars? (Just a thought...)

Treated unfairly by my local council

Some months after I moved to a different county I received a summons from the council for non-payment of council tax at my previous address. Apart from the fact that the summons was the first communication I had received from them regarding this, I was also disappointed at receiving it because I did not think that I owed them anything.

After some investigation I discovered that the council had charged me council tax for a period of several months while my old home was empty. (If a property is uninhabited and unfurnished for up to 6 months then council tax is not payable.) In fact, rather than me owing them anything, they owed me around £100, which I had been unaware of. After some discussion with them, they agreed that they were in error and they did, indeed, owe me £100. The council subsequently sent me a cheque but deducted £80 for court costs. So the cheque I received was for £20 and not £100 as agreed.

It is outrageous and grossly unfair that I have had to pay court costs for what is undoubtedly their mistake, and to deduct those costs from what they owe me is beyond belief. Since they already have my money I am in no position to effectively contest their action.

If I had let the case go to court, which would have escalated the court costs, I would have won the case without a doubt, so therefore the costs would have been paid by the council. Since I decided to save them the expense, what right have they got to make me accept the burden of the court costs?

I can't tell you how angry this makes me.

Perhaps that explains why so many people avoid paying tax whenever they can and so many people defraud the benefits system. How can people be expected to "play fair" when they are treated in this way by local authorities?

I try to lead my life in with honesty and integrity, but experiences like this make me start to question if this is the best policy.

Traffic calming

How can the obstacles that councils have installed on the roads in residential areas be described as "traffic calming"? The result of their existence is to violently pitch cars forward and backward, up and down, or left and right depending on the style of the "calming". The effect they produce is exactly the opposite to how they are euphemistically described.

I could go to task, writing about the environmental impact of these measures. The speeding up and slowing down of the traffic between each obstacle creates an increase in noise pollution, both from engines and tyres. There are increased health risks from the asbestos dust caused by the more frequent use of brakes, particularly in residential areas and around schools where most of the calming is sited. There is the cost of additional wear to gearboxes, exhaust mountings etc... Not to mention strain to neck, back and other muscles for the occupants of the cars attempting to negotiate these hazards. There are also additional health risks to patients in ambulances who may have injuries that become exacerbated by the bumpy ride to their local hospital. I could go on...

But instead, I would like to explore the reason why I think these measures are needed.

When I was a child, (and that is quite a few years ago now), I had the "kerb drill" drummed into my head by both my parents and my teachers at school. I remember being a little frightened of cars: I mean they could kill me if they run over me. I understood that cars may not stop if I stepped out in front of them. I also understood that my personal safety was my responsibility and therefore if I got run down by a car it was my fault. This thinking has kept me safe on the roads for around forty years.

So what's changed? Well, when I was a child, if I was hit by a car, it was my fault. Now, as an adult and a car driver I am told that if I hit a child that has stepped out in front of my car then as a driver, once again it is my fault. The rules seem to have been changed.

Now it seems to me that an individual will always have greater care and respect for their own safety than a complete stranger ever would. The best will in the world will not change that. This shift in responsibility is the reason for the installation of traffic calming.

But this causes some problems. Because children are no longer responsible for their own safety on the road as they once were, they have no thought or respect for the danger of traffic, so they step out into the road without a second thought. The only difference today is that cars will probably be traveling slower due to the traffic calming. Which is all fine, providing you accept that although just as many children will be hit by cars, the cars will probably be travelling slower and are less likely to seriously injure the children. If your child was injured by being hit by a car, would you be comforted by the thought that that the car was, at least, travelling within the speed limit? No? I thought not.

I'm not suggesting that car drivers shouldn't take every care when driving in residential areas, but wouldn't it be of benefit if children where taught to take some responsibility for themselves when crossing the road? If children didn't step out in front of cars, they would not get run down, irrespective of the speed of the traffic.

Traffic calming is not the answer. The answer is better education of children.