|Subject: The First Law of Computing|
|From: Veronica |
|Date: 10/8/13 6:57 pm|
The First Law of Computing
States: “Garbage Out = Garbage In”.
Which means, simply, that if you introduce utter rubbish onto a computer, it will simply store the utter rubbish you introduced.
If you (subsequently) read out what was input, it will still be utter rubbish.
The computer will NOT correct it, and turn utter rubbish into “The Truth”.
This Law (which is based on logic & reason) has been known since the advent of computers in the 1960s. Because it is, fundamentally, bleedin’ obvious.
To introduce ANY ‘computerised evidence’ into a Court or Law, therefore requires verification that the information that was introduced was NOT utter rubbish, and can thus be relied upon as a true ‘record of history’.
And the only one who can verify that would be the individual who introduced the information in the first place.
However they have to prove that they were given the correct information to input, in the first place.
Otherwise, so-called ‘computerised evidence’ is just another form of hearsay.
The reason why I write this, at this time, is because I have the (self-appointed, but still) unenviable task of going through the Witness Statements which are to be use to prosecute Guy for ‘abstracting electricity’. These Statements comprise about 48% gross assumption and 50% computerised so-called ‘evidence’.
The remaining 2% can be taken to be established fact and shows the main Witness to be a bold-faced LIAR, by (effectively) claiming to have X-Ray eyes ... such that he can see through walls.
Furthermore he obviously hasn’t heard of Occam’s Razor (“The simplest explanation usually turns out to be the true explanation”).
Instead this main Witness has assumed Guy is guilty, and then constructed an assumed fantasy, based on hearsay computerised evidence, to support his idea that by adding 2 + 2 you get 70.
The main Witness reads his computer database and assumes that it tells him The Truth.
According to his computer database print outs, British Gas is the supplier to the Units in question.
So … as far as he is concerned … “British Gas is the supplier to the Units in question”.
And 98% of what he says is based on that assumption.
Except that British Gas is NOT the supplier to the Units in question.
But his computerised database doesn’t tell him that.
And the reason it doesn’t tell him that, is because Guy diverted the electricity feed … to his tenants … from another supplier. (And paid for the electricity from the other supplier … so Guy hasn’t ‘stolen anything’).
Guy did this without telling anyone. Well … why should he?
The main Witness actually admits (in a Statement) that he can’t find any contract with Guy.
So, if Guy doesn’t have a contract with British Gas … why should he tell them anything? Oh … it screws up the information on their ECOES Database? Oh dear! What. A. Shame.
Err … ECOES DATABASE … what’s that, anyway?
However, these gross assumptions have managed to filter through:
2 x British Gas Revenue Protections Officers,
1 x WPC “Charlie” (Charlotte) Wells … supported by a couple of “thugs in uniforms”,
1 x CPS Prosecutor,
… none of whom seem to have heard of Occam’s Razor. Nor, apparently, have any of them heard about The First Law of Computing. One wonders how they manage to tie their own shoelaces. (They have, actually been told the true situation, btw … but they’ve obviously chosen to ignore The Truth as – presumably – being ‘too inconvenient’).
The time will come, however, when they do hear
Razor and The First Law of Computing, methinks. Sometime after
And then we’ll see if they can actually tie their own shoelaces
from Social Services.
PS The Trial was adjourned because PC "Charlie" Wells (the 'Arresting Officer") didn't show up. She was 'on holiday'. (Yes ... you read that right).