Penalty for not tapping the Opal card is too high

I've been a bit ranty lately about Opal cards. Not working from within your wallet; the wait even at our small station, even when there are only a small percentage of travellers using it; how much it's going to cost me for forgetting to tap on where there is no gate to pass through.

This last point I guess I could chalk up to forgetfulness tax - perhaps it will even train me to remember. A small price to pay I guess, two dollars or so penalty to rewire my brain. Not so costly as to make me do the wrong thing and jump the gate when I realise that I forgot to tap on.

Today however, I realise* that it is a little more costly than I imagined:

Not only do you get charged for a full network journey, but it does not count your trip! Remember that the "weekly travel reward" fare discounting system on the Opal card is based on paying for only 8 trips per week. That means this trip that was charged full price, and not counted in fact cost me $5.67 extra. This changes things a little. I don't know that I will be as inclined to do the right thing at a cost of five dollars.

The whole idea of penalising people for forgetting to tap on or off is a bit wrong in itself if you ask me, but this almost seems like double dipping with the penalty - I mean I did take the trip, you charged me for it, count it. Can't we just presume that most people are honest and charge me for the journey that I usually take? We could do this at the station window if you like - might give the station attendant that used to sell tickets something to do in this new system... The trip at least should count.

Perhaps it is a bug in the system*. Perhaps it will be one that causes quite a bit of extra revenue** in the system: I wonder just how many people are forgetting to tap and as a result paying for 9 or even 10 trips in a week. I wonder would Sydney Trains be inclined to fix this kind of problem if it will be a cost in lost revenue for them to do so.

I wonder.

---

* Okay, so I did just check on the Opal default fare info page and yes it does mention this. But only mention mind you, I think they should probably point it out more explicitly just how much it will cost you to not tap on or off. And I still think it is too great a penalty, until they have gates at all stations and the only way to "forget" is to "accidentally" jump the gate.

** So not a bug, but I would like to know what percentage of the revenue is trips that are accounted as "No tap to/from xxx"

TomTom sucks for customisation.

I recently emailed TomTom technical support stating that I was a software developer (and TomTom owner) interested in writing software for the TomTom device. I wanted to know where to get the SDK that they did have available up to about 1 year ago but now seems to have disappeared. This was their response:

Dear Mr Clark,

Thank you for your query. Your incident reference number is 090526-001861.

Unfortunately the Software Development Kit is no longer available from TomTom.

Please note that we are unable to offer any technical support for 3rd party add ons or software tools used in conjunction with your TomTom device.

Best Regards,

David A

TomTom Customer Support

Damn that sucks. What is with companies that want to keep you locked down to the software they make on a device that you own. They don’t even sell the navcore, they make nothing from it – they sell the hardware and the maps! It should only increase the value of the device and maps if there is more software available, and the cost to them of releasing their SDK would be minimal. Pretty short sighted if you ask me.

There are lots of little software projects that are now dead in the water due to the lack of an SDK for the latest version.

Tweet Delete?

Ack! all of my twitterings since over a month ago have disappeared!

I feel lost! They were only silly irrelevant mutterings for the most part, but they were my silly irrelevant mutterings and I trusted you to store them!

I have logged a ticket with twitter, hopefully they will return from the void…

Mark-up cleanup

I have just spent some hours going through all of my old posts and editing them in WLW to get all the mark-up nice and neat and how Blogger and WLW likes it.

I have put everything in p tags, removed all of the display oriented tags (fonts, inline classes), and fixed up the code and error message and command text blocks that I had. I think I fixed most of the quote marks and apostrophes too - mainly because WLW does it automatically and they do look pretty neat.

I guess that is all a bit anal, but I do feel clean now.

Gunner gunner

I was going to write about some things that I am going to do this year... but I think that kind of thing might be part of the problem... Gonna neva duzzit. So I'm not gonna right nuffink.

I will say though that I have changed something. As in already, it is done. Not going to be done, not only started, but done. I changed the template. They all pretty much suck though so I am going to... no wait. Scratch that. Let's leave it at they suck.

I realise that I have now screwed up the code snippet thingy but too bad. I just wanted a change. What do I need to look for in a template?

• Quote callouts must look nice
• Code samples
• Picture and Video posts must look nice
• Simple, block oriented
• Should use my own images not generic ones

The tale of Mister Splashy Pants

Online polling is broken.

With sites like digg and reddit and many others, the ease with which a group of people can sway the vote is demonstrated time and again. The problem is differentiating “real” voters from “funny” voters. It is just too easy for someone to give a voting link to a large number of people who are not really interested in the outcome of the poll, who will totally unbalance the results.

Perhaps what online polls need is to use some of the mechanics of regular political voting systems. An electoral roll with a defined closing date that is before polling commences. No need to keep voter information long term, just long enough to have the people interested in a certain poll indicate their participation, and ensure that there are no band-wagon jumpers at the last minute. An online news site post saying “Quick, register to vote on the name of the Greenpeace whale - there is sure to be a funny option: we will let you know which option we think is the funniest in a few days!” is not likely to attract the same level of attention.

‘S not my job.

“It's not my responsibility to fix that” or “I did not think I had the authority to ask for a certain action” You have to ask yourself a question. Am I happy with my current position in the hierarchy? If you want advancement, more responsibility, one way to get it is to assume it. Take on new roles and new responsibilities and they will become yours. That or you will be put in your place. (It may be time to move on.)

There is nothing more frustrating than someone who continually counters your requests with one of the two phrases at the top there. When I hear it some from someone's mouth what I really hear is “I am quite happy just plodding along in my job and I never want a raise again.” If I hear it come out of my own mouth... (It may be time to move on!)

Don't wait to be given responsibility. Don't wait for the person who should be doing something to do it - make it happen. It makes you look dynamic. Perhaps you will overstep the bounds of your current position, but that may just make someone realise that you don't belong there.

Wake up!

For a while now I have had an alarm clock that can wake you up to a CD. I used it a bit to wake up to music, but I had always thought that I could do better than that and create a playlist specifically for waking up. Mostly I had to have the volume up loud enough to ensure that I woke up eventually, meaning that it was too loud at the start, jarring me awake - which I wanted to avoid.

Some things that I have noted about waking up. Waking up to the beep beep alarm is not nice, but it is certain to make you leave the bed. Waking up to white noise it better, but it is possible to sleep through. Waking up to nice music is the best, but again sleeping through is a distinct possibility. When I am not super tired, I will generally wake up at the sound of the CD spinning up, or the light pop sound the amplifier makes when turning on.

So what I have thought might be nice is a kind of ramping up in the volume and wakeability of the noise. I was thinking something like: Low volume environmental sounds, white noise like, waves, wind. Most time I would wake up to this, perhaps drifting in and out of sleep, remembering dreams, getting ready to get up. Low volume relaxing music. This will make me up if I miss the first sounds, I may even get up now if I was fully awoken by the first phase. Medium volume energetic music. This signals the time to rise. Could be possible to sleep until now, if so this will wake me. Loud music that it is basically not possible to sleep through, techno, metal, something like that. The three remaining are the backup plan. I basically don't see getting to this point very often. Medium to loud white noise tones. Loud beeping. David calls in dead.

So what remains now is choice of musics. I am thinking one of the tracks from the glasshouse CD for the environmental sounds. Either one of the early movements from a Bach cannon and fugue or something from hallucinogen for the relaxing. Good wake up music... indy rock, thinking female vocal, rising crescendo... have to think about this one for the medium volume energetic. Loud music backup. So many choices... PWEI, Rage, anything a bit violent and raucous.

Should play with the audio levels on the MP3s that I create for this so that the volume ramps up nicely. May not even have to worry about the final stages, just put another loud sound on with the levels really tweaked in the MP3.

(Might also be interesting to make the playlist, then merge it all into one track so that I can do different ones with different music and use them on shuffle so I don't get sick of the same music every morning...)

Just do it

I feel like productivity people (the GTD crowd, that sleep guy, zenhabits) explaining how to lose bad habits, how to have a morning routine, how to organise your life is much the same as some happy person telling a depressed person to “just feel happy”.

I read somewhere today that when introducing a new habit into your lifestyle, “the first step is getting yourself to do it”. Fuck no buddy - the WHOLE THING is getting myself to do it. Do you not understand that what I have trouble getting myself to do is ‘getting myself to do things’?

Why so glum little girl? “I'm depressed”. Well cheer up, you'll feel much better if you just smile and be happy. Being happy is the first step on the road to not being depressed.

*Barf*

Output filter!

A corollary to the input filtering rule:

Couch your demands in terms that will make your actual desires apparent to the person whose assistance you are soliciting, rather than explicitly telling them what to do.

Let them work with you to solve the problem. Explain what effects you would like to see rather than how they should act. Let them figure that out for themselves.

One, they are probably better qualified than you to judge what they really need to do - assuming that you are involving them because it is their area of expertise.

Two, people are more likely to want to do something if (they think) it was their own idea to do so. Rather than looking at your demand and defensively trying to avoid change, the impetus for the action comes from within and they will likely feel empowered in its performance.

A, B, C

What part of “it has to done in the order A then B then C” do you not understand?

First you do A. Then later you can do B. Finally, when A and B are done, you may do C.

“Okay so, I have not done A yet, but B is done. Can I just do A now then C?”

Nooo! You have to do A first, then B then C.

Input filtering

One important difference between working with a boss and working without one is how you think about what you are asked to do.

Normally when you get a demand from you boss it comes with an express or implied priority, you slip it into your schedule, do it, and report back. Sometimes you may have some say in modifying the priority, sometimes you may question the validity of the task, but mostly you just do it.

Working now without any direct boss, just vague priorities from on high, this sequence of “receive work unit”, “execute” is often counterproductive. I knew that some filtering would be required, but I did fully understand the extent to which one must think about what people are asking for, why they might think they want that, hence what they really want, weigh that with who they are, and decide what I should give them. People seldom take the time to explain why they want something, and often what they want is not the right thing.

I need to focus on getting them to explain the problem they are trying to solve rather than let them specify which actions they think I should take. From there I can understand what really needs to be done (perhaps nothing) and help them to understand how this new action actually solves their problem. Only then can we decide on who will do what and when.

It is the same as with any problem solving. It is important to start with the definition of the problem - particularly when you are asking the help or advice of someone else. It is important not to colour their thinking with your supposed framework for the solution.

Phrases which flip my “no-longer debateable” switch

For the bible tells me so.

If you have nothing to hide, what is the problem?

I'm not a racist but...

It's just a theory.

Others that just make my sigh and shake my head:

Anything that is described as having an infinite number of configurations or settings.

That [insert mechanical device here] totally breaks all the laws of physics.

Make ‘em mandatory!

There is a town in the states called Kennesaw with what might be called the opposite of gun control laws. Each household is required to own and maintain a gun. Must be a real shoot-em-up town right? People gettin’ popped left and right? Check out the article.

When you think about it, the proposition “If we make guns illegal there will be less gun crime” is pretty nonsensical. I would suggest the simplified relation “Gun crime is proportional to the difference between the number of armed bad guys and the number of armed good guys”. From this it seems likely that decreasing the number of guns the bad guys have would be good, just as increasing the number of guns the good guys have should have a reducing effect on the level of gun crime. This subtraction however is problematic: it is difficult to actively reduce the number of bad guns. Installing gun control laws causes the good guys who have guns to turn them in and the bad guys to snigger. Arming the populace may well put guns in the hands of the bad guys, but I would argue that on balance more good guns are created than bad - criminals don't feel they need gun licences, don't register their guns, don't pay retail, don't install gun safes, don't enrol in official how to shoot safely courses. Gun control laws have the opposite to the intended effect.

If you make gun ownership criminal, only criminals will own guns.

Are you packing?

I would like to live in a world without guns. I would like to live in a world without violence of any sort. If people were never even verbally abusive to one another I would consider that we were on our way to the perfect society. If someone threatens your security with violence, I believe the first response should be to try to defuse the situation, to remove yourself and those dear to you from danger into safety. Only as a last resort would I consider meeting violence with violence. But to not take that last step. To turn the other cheek as it were - well I leave that to other folk. For me, if you threaten me and you leave me no other recourse than to violence, then violence you will get.

I am starting to believe that in some societies this necessarily extends to a willingness to counter gun violence with guns. I have often thought, and heard said by others, that the death toll in shooting rampages would be very much diminished[1] by some of the people involved (witnesses, victims) having guns (heroes). I think that is a very difficult argument to dismiss outright.

I recently watched a video by Penn & Teller on the bullshit that is gun control. Their argument is very America centric (citing constitutional amendments), but I think the arguments within translate nonetheless. Then yesterday there was the shooting at Virginia Tech. I wonder how far a lone gunman would progress into his spree if some significant portion of the populace were armed. I wonder how many criminals, who now find themselves in the wonderful position of being likely the only person with guns in a couple of minute radius, would reconsider all manner of crimes. Overnight there was also a shooting by a security guard of a man in Sydney. Two men approached him with a drawn gun, likely not expecting any resistance. He shot them and they fled. Criminals use guns to have a power advantage. By reducing the power of the populace (removing their guns) you let criminals easily tip the balance in their favour - carry a handgun. An armed populace (maybe as few as 2% carrying weapons) could greatly reduce a lone criminal's expectation of being ‘the most powerful’ in a certain situation merely by carrying a gun.

I am not saying that everyone should or needs to have a gun. But those considered stable enough, those who can show they can do so safely, those who wish to take on the responsibility of using a gun if the situation requires, why not?

Gun control folks are always carrying on about needing to ban guns. “If only we could remove all the guns we would be safe”. Well think about this: Virginia Tech was a gun free zone. For the 30 minutes or so between 9am and 9.30am there was only one person in the area who had a gun, and I think we all know now what he decided to do with it. I just wonder what may have happened if some of the teachers, the RA, the seniors, the janitors were armed. I wonder even what would have been different about that morning if the gunman had even the slightest doubts that perhaps he would meet with people in that place that were armed and prepared to defend themselves and others.

I don't think ideas that appear logically sound ought to be dismissed outright by ‘zero tolerance’ style arguments.

[1] There was a shooting at another school in Virginia, not so many years ago. Though there was a different outcome at the Appalachian School of Law. Two students at the scene were armed. They subdued the gunman after he took his first victims.

*Sniff*

You know how when sometimes you are just sitting there and you smell this smell and like, you smell it and you can't work out whether it's toast or dog shit... Yeah, I hate that.

Turn up the suck

I need to work out why the company I work for sucks.

We all want to know why our product sucks. I guess I could benefit from knowing why (you think) I suck.

Seth Godin's new book The Dip (under the lens here) seems just the ticket. I have not had much trouble in the past knowing when to quit. My problem has been more quitting when it is time to... (I just want to know how they get the little guy on the cover to walk along like that)

[Edit: I totally read “help you see what's causing your organization (or you) to suck” rather than “to get stuck”. Seth: Please tell us why we suck too! But in the end, one could say that people and companies and enterprises and relationships get stuck precisely because they suck.]

404

    Error 4.04 - Date Not Found     Please try again at a later date. Maybe the 5th.

Polar(ised) fleece

I tend to be positive during the winter time. Positively charged that is.

I wear polar fleece most of the time and I find that I get a lot of shocks off doors and chairs and people. I just gave someone here at work a wide berth for fear of having all the dust-bunnies, pubes and cat-hairs stuck to his polar fleece leap across onto mine should I venture too close.

π

Happy Pi day.

3.141592653589793 is about as far as I can get