Tag Archives: cables

On the edge of legality

There are two things on my mind. The first one will be addressed after this. The second one was in my mind before I knew it. It is the stuff of nightmares. A setting that could collapse the entire Microsoft. Not for real, it is a story, a script and a far fetched one at that, but the idea has merit. To unleash global fear and mistrust on the slap of a keyboard? What is there not to like. It would be epic to say the least and why Microsoft? Simple, it has the most dodo inspiring population (those dreaming of extinction) And as such I set the idea in motion, but after I finished the other works. I put it here so that I do not forget it and the keywords are optical fibre, blacklight and Diatomite Celite, the simple keywords that can topple a presumptuous great setting. But that is enough of that. You see, I missed the news about 3 days ago (had other things on my mind) but it flew past my eyes today and I caught it this afternoon. The guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/nov/10/uae-says-it-will-not-join-gaza-stabilisation-force-without-clear-legal-framework) gives us ‘UAE refuses to join Gaza stabilisation force without clear legal framework’ it caught me surprised. The idea of a ‘stabilizing force’ without a clear legal framework seems adamant (wherever it is held). So when we are given “Plans for a UN-mandated international stabilisation force charged with disarming Hamas inside Gaza face growing opposition after the United Arab Emirates said it would not participate because it did not yet see a clear legal framework for the force.” So what are the Americans and the UN doing not setting a clear legal framework for this setting? With that setting we are also given “The UAE’s decision, announced by the senior envoy Dr Anwar Gargash at a conference in Abu Dhabi, reflects Arab doubts about the terms of a US-drafted resolution already distributed to diplomats at the UN in New York. The draft places an onus on a US-directed stabilisation force to be the principal means of imposing security in Gaza after Israel has left the territory.”  My first question becomes, what is the UN doing? For years they are so hoping for peace and now it seems they haven’t even considered setting a legal framework for those in that mess? As for the second issue the idea comes that Hamas needs at least a legal framework, if not you are fighting lawlessness with more lawlessness and to see that come America is not that difficult to observe, but to see that setting come from the UN is a bit ghastly. So as such I would agree with the statement by “Dr. Anwar Gargash said: “The UAE does not yet see a clear framework for the stability force and under such circumstances will not participate, but will support all political efforts towards peace – and remain at the forefront of humanitarian aid.”” And as we consider this, the setting of Gaza is becoming less and less stable. So as I read “Neither the UN nor the 15-strong security council are given a supervisory role over the stabilisation force, overseeing the implementation of the resolution, a point largely overlooked by the draft text. Nothing is specified about the funding of this stabilisation mission, which, according to the Americans, should be largely borne by Gulf states, with Saudi Arabia taking the lead.” I wonder, why the UN didn’t set up a legal framework, for agreement, or for alteration, but as I see it, none of that seems to have been done, or at least the Guardian fails to report on it, but that is no attack or opposition to the Guardian. It merely got me by surprise and made me wonder why we are paying millions upon millions to the UN when we see a (seemingly and alleged) flaw like this.

So why a I wondering about this? As I see the world claiming Israel for the slaughter Hamas instilled. I also see the UN failing at its duty to cater to any solution. And the failures seem to be adding up, but that is my (with absolute lack of expertise on matters of diplomacy and the function of the United Nations) view on the matter. So what gives? And in all this, I completely agree with the position that Dr. Anwar Gargash is taking. 

So have a great day and consider the legal framework you face at breakfast (everyone for himself/herself) and don’t take away the Labneh until you see the white in their eyes. But that is my flaky sense of humor. For now I have to consider the idea that there is a cable under the Indian ocean with my sense of innovative humor. Have fun everyone.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Science, Stories

A short sighted wire

I was taken by surprise today, the BBC gave me ‘EU rules to force USB-C chargers for all phones’, the article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58665809) gives us “Manufacturers will be forced to create a universal charging solution for phones and small electronic devices, under a new rule proposed by the European Commission (EC)” which is stupid on several levels. It remains a surprise on how we see the computation of IQ of a population being  AVERAGE(group), whilst the IQ of a collection of politicians seems to adhere to LOWEST(group). Now let’s be clear. I would love to see a stage where power supplies all adhere to the same settings, but the USB-C charger of my MacBook will not charge my Chromebook, my USB-Micro charger of my android phone actually does charge other devices and a generic charger will not work on my android phone, as such the entire setting of all using the same cable is a laughable stage. More important, generic power boards with USB points will not charge everything either (it would not charge my Chromebook), so where set the standard? Set the standard at what each battery has to accept? 

So when we see “EU politicians have been campaigning for a common standard for over a decade, with the Commission’s research estimating that disposed of and unused charging cables generate more than 11,000 tonnes of waste per year.” So how about a mobile phone that lasts well over 5 years? I reckon that this element will save a lot more waste space required. But under what conditions? So how about all chargers for anything battery operated like a wireless WiFi, photo camera’s, film camera’s, webcams, speakers (like Bose and JBL), bluetooth devices. The list goes on, they ALL have to adjust? How stupid is that train of thought? When any asian market decides to take a turn to the right, when they find a new innovative way, where will the EU be left? A setting that can be hammered straight out of gateway, set to ‘unused charging cables’, all whilst the charging cble is the one part that often needs replacing long before the charger is too broken to be used. And these charge cables are also used for consoles, printers, scanners and other devices. So who was the local yahoo that set for “All smartphones sold in the EU must have USB-C chargers”? Someone with a friend at Apple, or perhaps someone who hates non USB-C systems? Perhaps some yahoo who forgot his Android cable that still uses USB micro?

When we see the elements of that article, the numbers do not add up. Even Apple, the people who embraced USB-C give us: “Apple has warned such a move would harm innovation”. So when we see “In 2009, there were more than 30 different chargers, whereas now most models stick to three – the USB-C, Lightning and USB micro-B” we see a level of raw BS. You see my Apple USB-C charger will not charge my USB-C Chromebook, a simple test overseen in 10 second. Then there is “the Commission’s research estimating that disposed of and unused charging cables generate more than 11,000 tonnes of waste per year” I know that this is equally a setting of utter nonsense, because there is no division between unused and broken cables and they cannot, it is mere estimation work. The reason I know this is because I have three chargers that are still in my desk for backup. In case one of the other ones break, the cables are equally important. When at work I keep one cable there in case I forget to charge the night before. All reasons to have more than one cable. I have two additional cables for other reasons and some over time broke. All settings that are an issue, so when we are given that the cables changes are required for 

smartphones
tablets
cameras
headphones
portable speakers
handheld video game consoles

All whilst the console controllers are not part of that equation. This is an attack on the Asian market, it has nothing to do with landfill. That is how I personally see it and that is why I consider that compared to these politicians Homer Simpson is pretty much the Einstein of them all. Oh and then there is the stage that at times the same port is used in multiple ways, so what about portable speakers that cannot be connected to a laptop because the laptop does not have a USB-C port. Issue upon issue all whilst a group of people are now setting a technology limit? So consider one part not seen there (no blame to BBC) “The USB-C connector was developed by the USB Implementers Forum (USB-IF), the group of companies that has developed, certified, and shepherded the USB standard over the years”, so a filtering to less then 1200 companies? How is that not segregation and discrimination? And when we take that list of 1100-1200 companies, how is that drill down per nation? And when we take a close look at waste per nation we see “European plastics production almost reached 58 million tonnes” and we see an article on 11,000 tonnes? This adds up to 1% of 1% of an actual problem, I think the people in the EU needs to sack without any pay the people from that European Commission. To underline that part, consider that my Wifi Router and my Mobile phone use the same USB-Micro charger and when it is not charging it is disconnected, all whilst the Chromebook and the MacBook both need DIFFERENT USB-C charger, as such the line “encouraging consumers to re-use existing chargers when buying a new device” becomes equally debatable. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Science