Rantings via Weblog (Click here to go to the Home Page!)

Okay, I'm cross.

Look - I'm a busy bloke. No, I'm no trail-blazing CEO of a FTSE 100 company, but I have things to do, people to see and all that, just like lots of people.

I buy stuff. I actually take the time to research the stuff I buy - sometimes too much time. But when I research something, then buy it in good faith, then find it is lacking in some "duh"-obvious feature and I furthermore find that the company that makes it does not seem to care about the situation, well then I get mad.

This has happened. This is techno-nerd stuff, but I bought what should have been a super product called a network-attached storage appliance - an external hard disk that connects to your network via ethernet. Such a box of tricks is ideal for backups and for sharing music files on your home network, say.

I ordered a particular device from an online supplier called Insight (http://uk.insight.com). The particular device I ordered was not available so I took the alternative suggested by my account manager. I explained what I was looking for and the alternative - a Buffalo LinkStation Network Storage Center with 250 GB of disk - seemed just right.

Now this hard disk device is pretty cool. It works on Windows and Mac networks. It is quite easy to set up and use, and it has buckets of disk space that is quite quick to access... except when your network uses a Windows domain, rather than a bog standard peer-to-peer network, in which case it is pants. Guess what? I have a Wndows server managing a Windows domain.

But how was I to know this? Product specs? Documentation? No.

Now, I had been thinking, why was my workstation on the domain failing to work with the device, while my occasionally attached (and non-domain) laptop worked fine with it? The penny finally dropped, I checked a couple of techie web sites and found out that indeed a Windows domain was no place for this particular storage device. No matter that the product's admin interface includes a place where you should enter the domain name of your Wndows domain if the device is to be used in such an environment - that's just a bare-faced lie.

But heck, I have to check for sure - after all, this is bloody ridiculous - so I call the Buffalo Technologies tech support, take time that I'd rather be spending with my children speaking to a man called Sven in Holland (okay, I cannot remember his real name) who resignedly admits that this is a genuine limitation of the device, I'm not the first to call about this problem and he doesn't know why management have not done something about it. I said, "I'd sort of hoped you would tell me it's a known problem but there is a new firmware upgrade that fixes it." But he said that there was no such fix and that's just the way it is at the moment. So - we arrange for me to submit a formal product complaint so that I can get my money back from Insight.

No-one wins in this situation. I am sure that the interim interest on the profit that Buffalo got from my purchase wil be outweighed by the cost of them settling the issue. Insight lose time and money and, let's face it, credibility with me. I've lost valuable time - which equates to money. Oh yes, I've learned something, but frankly I would rather not keep learning that the world is full of duplicitous twats in marketing. Well, perhaps my valuable lesson can help you, dear reader.

As a result, I have decided that I will not be buying any product bearing the Buffalo marque again. I will make it one of my small personal missions to spread my negative news about this company as far as I can.

So why am I behaving so childishly? If Buffalo had made it plain that the device would not work in a Windows domain environment, then I would not have bought the ruddy thing. And to hear that their management knows about the problem and are so far doing nothing about it really pisses me off stupendously. So I am bloody well going to get my money's worth. Screw them.

I have also formally advised Insight of the limitation with this product and told them that I expect them to revise their product notes for the Linkstation. I wonder if they will pay heed to my advice. I lie: I don't wonder at all; I categorically expect them to do bugger all. Watch this space for updates.

Happy new year!

Paul McCartney has publicly declared that he would not consider performing in China because of a video he saw which exposed brutal treatment of cats and dogs for their fur.

The story on the BBC's website reported the response by the Chinese:-

Here is the link to the BBC story on Paul McCartney's outrage. You can even feast your eyes on a video clip of these horrors by clicking on a link on the news page.

This is surely sickening and dreadful news to hear about the cruel treatment of defenceless and harmless animals. But is it really that much of a surprise?

I've heard it said that one measure of a nation's level of civilisation is to be found in its treatment of animals. By that measure I think it's fair to say that the UK does not come up smelling of roses, and I am not proud of that. But does this revelation really make us look askance at China?

Let me see. I'm not an expert on this but I do not think one needs to be an expert to know that China has a lamentable human rights record. The government is guilty of religious and political censorship and suppression. Labour and Employment law is scant and often ignored to the detriment of workers. There is ample anecdotal evidence that the implementation of the country's "family planning" rules has resulted in the abuse of the unborn and the newly-born. There's more. You can find some of it at the Human Rights Watch web site.

So, top marks to Paul McCartney for criticising China for its inexcusable treatment of dogs and cats.

However, can it really be true that religious and political suppression, victimisation of common labourers and crimes agains the unborn child, to mention a few misdemeanours, did not deter Sir Paul from contemplating a gig in China, but a video of cruelty to animals and alsation fur coats tipped the scale for him? Either that or the man is showing his ignorance.

And perhaps more disconcertingly, can it be true that we as a nation care more about some dogs and cats than about the other glaring human rights travesties? Why are there, for instance, no covert videos on the BBC web site of Chinese officials taking newborn infants from their mothers and drowning them in the gutter?

A man was shot dead on a tube train yesterday as a police chase ended violently and decisively.

Some people might think this was unnecessary and no different from the terrorism they're battling against. I say that is a specious argument and shows poor analysis.

This link might work:-
http://andymerrett.co.uk/weblog/2005/07/22/man-shot-dead-still-terrorism

I'm right there with the police officers and the decisive action. No way could they guarantee that the suspected perpetrator would not blow up himself and them with him, but the odds of stopping a potential blast are with the head shot.

Two weeks and a day after the 7th July bombings and one suspected terrorist is taken down. It gives a very clear signal that we won't be messed with. It's a sad change to our historically tolerant way of life in UK, where the need for such armed brandishings was not so long ago unheard of, but we live in interesting times and we need to get serious and give the right signals that UK is no longer a soft target.


EDIT 03-Nov-2006

Since my original post, the plot went pear-shaped and then thickened like treacle. First we found that Jean Charles Menezes was not close to being a terrorist but was a tragic victim of mistaken identity.

Then there was news that his stay in UK was not properly cleared, which may have explained why he ran away from the police. Then we heard that there was no chase. Then we heard that the police boss man Sir Ian Blair claimed not to know about the mistaken identity way past when he should have been told, as an explanantion for duff information he gave at a press conference.

I'd still endorse the dread strategy and tactics used by the police in principle but getting your intel right is paramount. They failed in this responsibility.

Since this incident this poor man has become a symbol of us getting it wrong in the so-called war against terror.

It's all a mess.