The end of the world as we know it..

OK may be not quite the end of the world but the end intellectual debate and the dumbing down of the English language.

I am designing some new assessment materials at work based around communication skills, part of the folio is some group discussions. These group discussions have now gone out to consultation with our partner groups and I am collating the feedback.

One topic included the world "eradicate", one comment has suggested that we use the word "remove" instead, as people may not understand the word "eradicate".

I am all in favour of not over complicating things, I started nodding and thinking what a good piece of advice that was. Then I had one of those record screeching moments where the needle is taken off the record scratchily (that reference probably lost 90% of the audience but I shall struggle on, if you are not sure what a record is try wikipedia). If someone doesn't know a word it is not cruel or unfair to use it or a reason for me to change it, that is a reason for someone to pick up a dictionary or use the internet to look up the meaning.

To me the two words have distinctly different meanings so I feel it is important to use eradicate. The English language is currently rich with many great words for all occassions, we should not reduce it to a language where there is only one word for everything. What next, get rid of blue and call it light black, where do we stop, eradicate is a good word and I say it stays.

"Say no to the eradication of eradication"

My point is that everyone, if they dont know something should take the opportunity to learn and look it up. It should never be that if people dont know something its the other persons fault for not using the right word. Individuals need to take responsibility, develop themselves and protect the richness of the english language.

Another comment was that I cant use a discussion topic about insurance because some people might not understand the concept. Well if they dont that should form part of the discussion and if they dont, why dont they? Insurance is virtually fundamental to several aspects of life and surely it is a fairly simple concept. Even if you cant explain how insurance works you know about premiums, claims and have a vague knowledge of risk. Again we shouldnt avoid discussing things because people might not know, the things people don't know are the exact things we should be discussing. Humanities job is to learn and develop, there is nothing wrong with ignorance if you do something about it, if you ignore it and hope it goes away then the only person you are failing is yourself.

End of moan, join me next week when I tell you about the new course I have been on, "Effective moaning for professionals". Apparently it even comes with roleplays.

Twas the night before the American Election result

Twas the night before the American election and we the people of the world stand at a fork in the road. One way lies more of the same, the other lies the beacon of change, of hope and the dream that no one dared to dream.

One man tomorrow will be the president, one man will hold the future of millions of people in his hands, one man who has the potential to change the world beyond all recognition will, hopefully, take power.

Barack Obama is the one man to step forward, the one man to step up to the plate and to swing for all his worth. As the crowd clamber to their feet, they wait watching to see where the ball will land.

Today we stand on the precipice of history, tomorrow we fly or fall.

The future may start tomorrow, the future dreamed by Barack Obama and shared by the electorate he spoke to and who have heard his words.

Eagle

The eagle is over the yard arm. I repeat. The eagle is over the yard arm.

Early blast of Arctic air

It was a cold cold day today with weather flowing all the way down the UK straight from the Arctic.

What started as a subtle hint of sleet in the cold rain has turned to solid authenticated winter shows with the non vertical rain drops which can only be described as wet snow.

Nothing much to speak of but the rain is definitely a mix of rain/sleet and the odd bit of snow.

A very early start to the season with a snow flake before the end of October. Does this mean a cold snow filled season or just a normal winter?

Who knows what the winter will hold but as usual it will be watched with anticipation from Northern Oxfordshire, home of the Snow Watch.

Here's to a snowy season of 2008/09.

I have been thinking...

I have been thinking about one thing that will change the world. I have a spare £1 in my pocket and know that there are 60 million other people in the UK that have a spare £1.

Effectively then I have £60 million to make a small change to make the world a better place. I have £60 million because while some will give none a lot of people will give more.

So one small gesture to create a big gesture, to change the world.

If you expand that premise to the world there are 6.7 billion people so £6.7 billion to make an even bigger gesture.

The question is what could you invest £6.7 billion in, to really fundamentally change the world for the better for everyone.

£1 to change the world 6 billion reasons to do it.

Notes:

There is a part of me that wants to write in a post ironic modernism type of way after the above article "Zephyrist Aged 10 and a half". There is a certain idealistic naivety to the article that the entire population of the world could unite to make one change when often charities struggle to get just a few people to donate money.

There is another part of me that says the only people that have ever changed the world are the idealistic dreamers. They dare to dream the impossible, somehow and no one quite knows how, it becomes possible.

Leadership is about creating new realities, drawing people in and breaking down barriers. Great leaders dream both the dream and of how to make it a reality.

One thing I do know is that if you never think of something or never say it out loud you have strangled the dream at birth.

The ten and a half reference harks back to childhood where nothing is impossible, all the bad things don't exist and we can do anything if only we set our minds to it. Growing up is about finding out there are barriers whether in skill or talent or just what seems like luck. However much we want something sometimes it just wont happen.

At times like that it is easier to get cynical and look negatively at things. There is no point applying for that job, I wont even get an interview and they are probably not looking for someone like me. However, if you don't try, how do you really know you will fail. Even if you cant imagine the possibilities, all of them are out there.

Maybe I can't change the world all by myself but maybe if I keep generating ideas someone will pop along, pick it up and run with it.

Our only limitations are the limitations we impose on ourselves.

Palin, republicans, other animals and national forests (New Scientist)

In this weeks New Scientist two short news articles caught my eye.

"Alaska's beluga whales should be keeping their flippers crossed that Sarah Palin won't make it to the White House."

Apparently Sarah is not the whales best friend, she has made strenuous efforts to ensure that the beluga whales in the Cook Inlet in Alaska were not given enhanced protection and put on the endangered species list. She originally tried to claim there wasn't enough evidence to put them on the list but only managed to delay the listing for 6 months while a recount took place.

This was following on from the outrage she expressed when the polar bear was put on the endangered list. Alaska has even unsuccessfully sued for loss of revenue from oil and gas development resulting from putting the polar bear list.

So this year's Cruella De Vil 2008 award for a person most likely to have a stone heart when it comes to protecting the environment and clearly putting financial benefits above environmental concerns goes to Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Give it up for the wicked witch of the north!

In the interests of political balance Sarah may feel that the local economy of Alaska which is heavily dependant on the oil and gas industry should not be put last below animal welfare. Maybe she feels that in Alaska the rights of humans should be put first.

The other reason not to vote republican is because thanks to George Bush "roadless" areas of national forest totalling 230,000 square kilometres which is an area virtually the size of the UK is under threat from development such as phosphate mining or logging.

So if you care for the environment, really, don't even bother thinking about voting for Mcain and Palin.

The Sustainable Growth Development Party (SGDP)

The 22 point manifesto for a sustainable future.

1. We will only consume natural resources at a scientifically determined sustainable level.
2. We will only emit toxic/ waste gasses where necessary within predetermined sustainable levels.
3. Car use will be cut by 10% years down to sustainable levels.
4. Public transport will be increased by 15% each year.
5. Air use will be cut by 10% per year until a sustainable level is reached.
6. Income tax will be abolished.
7. Taxes will be based on inputs and outputs to the environment.i.e consumption of raw materials = inputs and emissions into environment = outputs.
8. Social projects for the poor will be funded by the tax system.
9. Inflation to remain below 1%
   
10. All Tax havens to be abolished.
11. Upper limit for income inequality. 1 to 30 across all sectors.
12. Banking system to have high capital / liquidity balances
13. Debt to be balanced by deposits.
14. More jobs in sustainable development.
15. More jobs in repair, recycling and maintenance.
    
16. More sustainable small businesses.
17. Reduced working week for all to 30 hours
18. Free trade between sustainable development countries.
19. Restricted trade with outsiders.
20. Restricted immigration and birth rate, population to be maintained at sustainable levels
21. Local goods for local shops in local markets.
22. New standards for product life, encourage long lasting products across all sectors.

This manifesto has been loosely derived from an article in New Scientist, 18 October 2008, "How we kicked our addiction to growth" pp 52-53.

It is very much rough thoughts and a starting point for further discussion. I may even pick a few points to expand on later, maybe development some specific policies for certain sectors such as transport.

Luckily I hit on a good name SGDP is a bit like GDP - gross domestic product. With a good name you can go places.

The Folly of Growth (New Scientist)

What I love about New Scientist is that they are not just a pure science magazine. With the recent credit crunch they ran a special issue on "The Folly of Growth - How to stop the economy killing the earth".

You see Capitalism is based on a false premise, that we must have continuous growth. The problem with that is with finite resources you cant have continuous growth as at some point resources run out, prices rise and you get shrinkage. This is the fundamental nature of boom and boost, the credit crunch and everything else that is wrong with the economy at the moment.

It means Gordon Brown is wrong, without infinite resources we cant beat the boom and bust cycle. All because of this one simple premise, which everyone can quite clearly see is wrong but no one wants to admit it because to do so would be to admit that capitalism which has worked for 200 years no longer works. A modern tale of the emperors new clothes.

It would suggest that Capitalism is just as flawed as Communism, in fact you could argue that it is more flawed than Communism as to solve the current credit crisis the governments had to move towards communism by part nationalising the banks and increasing government control of the banking system.

Of course with finite resources the logical economic system would be one that is based on efficient use of resources or more precisely sustainable development. So why do we not have a sustainable or steady-state economy already?

Well,such an economy would mean we would have to live within our own means, no more large debts, greatly reduced oil based travel, less hours worked, the redistribution of wealth from the poor, no benefits to saving and investing, and finally greater control over all aspects of our lives.

The transition period would be much harder as well, just think if tomorrow you were told you could no longer own a car, you had restrictions on the electronics you could buy and only 200 air miles for the year for your holidays. Ouch!

Of course there would be an upside, the end of consumerism, the end of boom and bust, less work, less stress, less inequality, living in harmony with nature rather than against it, better public transport, less pollution, stable prices, no income tax (tax would be on inputs and outputs to the environment), less road congestion, the end of global warming, the end of inflation, no more credit crunch, no more tax havens for the rich, stable population and much much more.

So lets look to the sustainable future and lets hope for the better tomorrow becoming reality.

I have to say all the articles in the new scientist special edition were great and are well worth reading, I may even post some more articles about sustainable development soon.

Credit Crunch Jokes (BBC)

This was a little nugget from the BBC. Amidst all the heavy news stories someone has collected all the jokes that readers have emailed in about the credit crunch.

My particular favourite is:

"Masked man holding a bank cashier up with a gun. Says: 'I don't want any money - I just want you to start lending to each other...
David, Cambridge, UK"

Post ironic modernism

I have invented a new art form, it is called post ironic modernism. I still have not quite worked out what it actually is or what constitutes post ironic modernism but I have a few examples.

Example 1 - Well Bupa, you did ask.


Example 2 - The alternative start to Love Actually, Debate Actually (if it helps imagine Hugh Grant saying it in the same style)

Whenever I get gloomy with the state of the world I think about the "Have your say" pages at the BBC news site. General opinion is starting to make out we live in a world of nutters and madness but I don't see that. It seems to me that the population of the UK is some 60 million people and even the most popular posts are recommended by only 600 people which suggests that intelligent debate does still go on, just not on the internet. Often its not particularly dignified or newsworthy but its always there. Fathers and sons, mothers and daughters, husbands and wives, boyfriends, girlfriends, old friends. When the stock markets were crashing as far as I know none of the phone calls from the people in the banks were messages of hate or revenge, they were message of thought and hope. If you look for it I've got a sneaky feeling you'll find that intellectual debate actually is all around

A solid prudent plan that I heartly recommend to the house

This is a good plan and an even better plan than the American plan. This plan doesn't buy so called 'toxic debt' and make it a government and therefore taxpayer liability. This plan is about investing in the banking industry and potentially even turning a profit in the coming years when the crisis lessons.

This plan should solve the immediate crisis and though it is likely we will suffer a recession it is likely to be shorter and shallower because of the positive action the government has taken. For all the whiners out there who say we shouldn't bail out the fat cats they should bear in mind that a broken banking system will lead to deep recession or a complete collapse in the economy. At its best it will mean high unemployment and high inflation, at its worst it could lead to hyper inflation, housing crashes and the extreme devaluation of the pound. Doing nothing was never an option.

A lot of people are saying how it is costing the taxpayer over £2000 per person. Well it actually isn't, the government will borrow the money either from existing reserves, or by selling government bonds etc which are always in demand. They could even cut spending to compensate or in the worst case the £2000 could be reclaimed off people via the tax system over the next ten years.

Plus don't forget tax can be raised from businesses too or that higher rate tax payers could be made to pay more, £2000 per person is literally only the total cost divided by the number of taxpayers. It is another virtually meaningless statistic.

The government is used to sudden demands on capital reserves, natural disasters cause immediate demands. You may find that some of the £500 bn has already been budgeted for in the budget forecasts, it would be bad financial planning by the government if they had not allowed for contigecy funding.

If the worst came to the absolute worst then the government could just print more money or even sell off gold reserves, although both could cause inflation and the devaluation of the pound.

The other good thing is that we are not kissing goodbye to the £500 bn, some £50 bn of the money will buy banking stock as preference shares which means the government will own part of the banks and will get any profit made in preference to other share holders. There is quite a reasonable possibility of the government making a profit, after all when have you ever know a bank like Lloyds making a loss even in these crazy times.

Some of the money, £250 bn is only available as guarantees for bank loans so that will only have to be handed over if a bank defaults on a loan, I think within the next three years and again as everyone keeps saying most of the banks are perfectly well capitalised and unlikely to default on reasonable loan terms, they just cant cope with the crazy loan rates they are being offered at the moment so cant re-finance their debt.

The short term loans, £200 bn, should by and large be repaid with interest. So in all cases there is a reasonable chance we will get the entire £500 bn back plus interest. Even if we don't it is completely unlikely that we will loose any kind of large amount. Even in the absolute worst case once the money comes back into the government it would be hard to imagine any scenario where the government had lost more than £50 bn. This is simply because none of the UK banks are at risk any more. All of the banks with the heavy mortgage exposure have either been nationalised or taken over. All the remaining banks are well capitalsed with a good balance sheet and assest book.

Of course the stock exchange disagrees but this may be simply because the traders are in a blind panic. Once the dust settles and they run out of steam things should start to return to normal. Of course one of the reasons the market is falling is because a lot of people are making money off selling and buyers are too scared to re - enter the market in any great numbers. Once the buyers feel the market has bottomed out they should buy again. In all likelihood if we have a couple of days of peace the volumes traded will decrease, the sellers wills stop selling and the buyers will re - enter.

The icing on the cake if you like is that any bank signing up for this money will have to sign up to an FSA code of practice of executive dividend, pay and bonus payments. The final element of structural reform which can only strengthen the banking system and the economy in the future.

In conclusion, Mr speaker this is a excellent plan and I heartily recommend it to the house.

Project 10 to the 100th

I saw this ages ago on the google home page, Google are running a competition, in their words:

"Project 10¹⁰⁰ is a call for ideas to change the world by helping as many people as possible."

I have entered one entitled:

"Help local people develop local sustainable energy projects through local resident run co-operatives."

You never know, one day it might just change the world.

If you have a world changing idea why not swing by google and submit it.

House votes down bail-out package (BBC)

Houston, we have a problem. Its not really one of those small problems its a huge global catastrophe.

The business news was fairly scary at the moment but at least there was vague hope and then a story like this gets out. This is why the Bank of England is independent from politicians. Sometimes some things are too important to get right to allow for political positioning and point scoring.

I think it would be fair to say that we are witnessing the beginnings of a global economic meltdown. I really, really hope that we are not about to go into an economic dark ages but with stories like this the outlook is looking very black.

President Bush has two choices, try and amend the plan and resubmit it or go back to the drawing board. Either way he better do it quick cos things are turning bad fast.

On the other hand here in the UK we are doing ok, with another small bank nationalised most of the structural changes in UK banks should be finalised. Plus the politicians are on holiday so they cant really meddle. However, given that the world economy is directly linked to the American economy all eyes are across the pond waiting with bated breath for someone, anyone to come up with a rescue plan.

Has anyone perhaps suggested to the UK MP's that at a time like this it might be useful if they could get back to work?

Playlet: Single for Bicester Town

Audrey Hepburn style girl meets cynic in very southern belle type playlet based in Oxford train station.

Intro: girl rushes across concourse towards the ticket window bumps into man staring up at the departures board.

Dave: Woa there, go steady.
Audrey: sorry more haste less speed, sorry excuse me..
Dave: certainly an interesting first impression.
Dave: I'm Dave and you are?
Audrey: Many things, but today I am Audrey.
Dave:Only today?
Audrey: Maybe.
Dave: I find you intriguing would you like to discuss this over coffee.
Audrey: Why not?
Dave: I will take that as a yes then.
Audrey: might as well, lead on Macduff.
Dave: Macduff?
Audrey: The scottish play.
Dave: Ahhh.

Both sit with coffee.

Dave: What is time?
Audrey: Why it is the tick following tock that shuffles us from birth through to the grave.
Dave: I'm sorry I think you misheard me, What is the time?
Audrey: time is immaterial, I simply don't have any.
Dave: Ermm OK.
[pause while sipping drinks]
Audrey: Are you sure I misheard you.
Dave: I think so.
Audrey: You see... I think you are just afraid of discussing something that reminds you of impending death.
Dave: I'm sorry I did not realise I was going to die this morning.
Audrey: Oh your probably not going to die this morning.
Dave: Only probably, well I can probably relax then, at least in a train station I am unlikely to be run over by a bus.
Audrey: True but only probably, one can not take any chances, one must be vigilant for the metaphorical bus at any time.
Dave: I have enough trouble with avoiding physical buses to be worrying about metaphorical buses.
Audrey: I can see that might be the case.
[Both pause to ponder]
Dave: It is a funny thing fate.
Audrey: I have never seen fate as being much of a comedian.
Dave: Was it fate that I met you today, and fate that you have no time.
Audrey: No, it is something much simpler than fate, it is the vagaries of a train timetable.
Dave: Yes it must be mildly annoying that trains don't leave the station when you want to.
Audrey: Mildly.
Dave: Still the company for coffee is quite good.
Audrey: Mildly.
[Pause while both sip]
Audrey: Are you scared of an impending death?
Dave: No, it is just that impending sounds so immediate.
Audrey: Oh its not, maybe impending was a poor word, maybe ultimate death would be more appropriate.
Dave: Maybe, although it sounds rather grand for what death actually is.
Audrey: Fate and death you are a very curious man.
Dave: You haven't been on a second date with me, then its destiny and Serendipity.
Audrey: My train goes in two minutes and look at that queue, I'll never make it.
Dave: You can buy a ticket at the barrier.
Audrey: I will have to rush..
Dave: wait...tell me if you are single.
[Audrey turns and smiles]
Audrey: Single for Bicester Town please.
Dave: Single...[Audrey turns and nods]... make that two singles.
Audrey: Two singles make a couple.
Dave: Only time, serendipity, fate and destiny will tell.
Audrey: Indeed.

Warning sounded on web's future (BBC)

Well it would appear that the BBC has finally worked out what the rest of us already know, you can't believe everything you read on the internet.

Sir Tim Berners-Lee (No I don't know who he is either, but with a "sir" in front of his name I am busy bowing down and tugging my forelock) has come up with the idea of a "trustworthiness" labelling system for websites.

Sir Tim has set up the WWWF, and to be fair trustworthiness is just one of his aims. He wants to make the web more accessible not just to those of us in the West. Sir Tim wants to expand the web beyond just text to reach those through the web who can't read or write. He also wants to increase mobile web browsing and the usage in Africa . Basically he wants to bring the web to the world regardless of wealth, ability, status and location.

A very noble endeavour.

My take on it is that we need to separate opinion from fact and make some attempt at peer review or evidence based labelling. If an article has credible supporting evidence or is more factual than opinionated then it gets a higher rating. Perhaps any news site could have assessors who are trained and vetted for suitability and experience, who can then rate articles.

The web is a very interesting place with every view represented but off the beaten track away from the main brands such as the BBC and CNN how do you know who to trust especially on the basis of one article. Trust can be easily built on a series of articles but on one short article it is more difficult to judge. This is where bloggers have their niche, they can earn trust and reliability from their readership but how many bloggers have internal standards or a code of practice.

The garlic bread older than me

I had a lovely M & S garlic and parsley baguette last night and while searching for the heating instructions noticed that it was:



Which would make it firstly a very well preserved baguette suitable for decades long space missions and secondly means that the baguette has been around several years longer than me.

Of course it is more likely just to be a product code or factory code and someone did not think through the unintended consequences of the layout of the packaging.

Love Actually is all around

I recently watched Love Actually again on DVD. Its a good film but what I like the best is the intro sequence.

Sometimes I take a moment when travelling through an airport or train station and look around to see the love that is shown in the intro sequence, sometimes its even me getting the love.

Just once I would like the words to come over the tannoy just so everyone can have a look round and see the love, but for now it remains on DVD.

"Whenever I get gloomy with the state of the world I think about the arrivals gate at Heathrow airport. General opinion is starting to make out we live in a world of hatred and greed but I don't see that. It seems to me that love is everywhere. Often its not particularly dignified or newsworthy but its always there. Fathers and sons, mothers and daughters, husbands and wives, boyfriends, girlfriends, old friends. When the planes hit the twin towers as far as I know none of the phone calls from the people on board were messages of hate or revenge, they were all messages of love. If you look for it I've got a sneaky feeling you'll find that love actually is all around."

- Hugh Grant, Love Actually intro sequence

From West Wing to the real thing (The Guardian)

For the last few days I have felt that Barack Obama reminded me of someone and then it hit me there is a link back to the Presidential Campaign of Matthew Santos in "The West Wing".

It was the plain speaking approach of Obama that finally reminded me of Santos. Truth often follows fiction but according to the linked article fiction followed truth only for truth to follow on again, if you see what I mean.

My question will be, in the forth coming election will the "West Wing" story line have subconsciously prepared American voters to vote Obama. Will the fact that in the show Santos won prepare voters for a Obama victory, have the lines between the show, which was almost like a documentary at times, and reality somehow blurred.

New Google Chrome

So google have decided to enter into the browser wars. To be fair it was only a matter of time.

According to reports they have already captured 1% of the browser market share, I suspect due to the prominence of the download link on the google search page and that they are a reasonably trusted brand in the mainstream.

I for one wont be downloading, I like firefox and I love the culture and ethos behind it. I firmly believe in open source software and think it is about the true spirit of the internet. I do not want to get all my services from one provider especially one that seems to collect vast amount of personal data and web browsing habits for research purposes.

Google are good but I think in the same way we don't get internet explorer from Microsoft will be the same reason we don't get Chrome from Google. Firefox users like a bit of independence from any big monolithic company.

However competition is always a good thing and I would guess that some or all of the innovative new features in chrome will be built into the next version of firefox. Although in web browsing terms what would be really innovative these days. There are plenty of incremental evolutionary improvements but nothing recent has been completely revolutionary.

Office Productivity Tip

Its ages since I have written about anything office related.

I don't know about you but my email box is very busy and can get full very quickly. One of the great things I have found to stop emails disturbing my work is to turn off the automatic notification features. After all does any email really need to be looked at instantly, if it does then the sender is communicating badly as they should pick up the phone. Email may be a convenient way of communicating but it isn't an urgent method, if someone needs to contact me urgently they should pick up the phone, but be warned I screen my calls. I certainly don't feel the need to pick up a ringing phone.

Anyway by turning off the automatic notification I only look at my emails a couple of times an hour rather than the up to 14 times an hour I get an email, result better focus and concentration on other stuff I am actually doing and productivity increases.

Trust me, give it a go and see if it works for you.

Creative boost - revitalise the creative thought process

Announcing the launch of my latest web project.

This is a quirky little site based around random images designed to boost the brain, by making you think or perhaps look at things from a different perspective.

At the moment there are 40 random images but I am expanding them as I go and have invited other people to submit their own.

The best thing to do is go and have a look and see what you think.

Dear Google,

This is an open letter, mainly because I couldn't easily find out how to contact them.

I have several google things running and it would be really nice to switch between products via the my account link or even better some kind of drop down menu.

However the menu they do have which works very nicely isn't consistent across the product range. In some it is there in others it is the proverbial vanishing lady.

This is very un-google like behaviour, a simple solution that isn't properly integrated across the product range.

Anyway just to keep it simple, this small menu should always be in the top right hand corner of the screen no matter what part of google you are in so you can always get back to your 'my account' screen.


p.s. its not click able, its an image.

p.p.s. google should read this post within a day or so via the googlebot, but will anyone from google ever read the page and do something about it. Secondly, how long will it take them?

Review of Cloverfield

I saw Cloverfield last night on DVD and although normally monster flicks are not normally my thing just because they turn out to be cheesy. This one was quite good, it was fast paced and not overly gory.

The idea is that it is all shot from a personal video camera which helps add to the atmosphere.

For a monster movie where you never really find out much about what the monster is, it has an excellent plot. There are one or two bits which are hide behind the sofa cushion time but if you are looking for a good monster movie then this may be right up your street.

I particularly like the sequences down the subway tunnels, being underground, in the dark hearing noises always adds to the tension.

Camping for yummy mummies (The Guardian)

Don't let the title of the article put you off. This is the halfway house between a tent and a cottage, a rather posh tent with wooden floors and wood burning stove.

It looks very luxuriousness and has a bit of the Arabian nights about it. My only criticism is that it is aimed at families, hence the yummy mummy connection. Personally I think it would make a very reasonably priced romantic get away for a young professional couple.

The other good thing about this is that it is a good diversification project for farmers, if you look on the website you will find that the whole concept can be franchised out to a farmer. There are the usual key concepts to each site but from a farmers point of view well organised and a strong well behaved target market.

Quite an interesting concept and quite an interesting holiday.

Can anyone hear that picture (BBC)

This BBC article is about hos some people can hear what they see after a student reporting sounds from a screensaver.

There is even a test to try to see if you can hear pictures. I don't think I could hear anything but I could imagine the sounds of rushing a bit like a wave coming in and out.

Anyway her is my DIY test? Can you hear the dots?

Britain tries to block green energy laws (The Guardian)

The article is about Britain trying to water down language in new EU legislation. Basically the EU wants to give renewable energy projects priority access to the transmission grid where as the UK government isn't so keen.

Some interesting facts come out of the article though. According to a recent report 9.3 GW of wind power is waiting to be connected to the grid. This seems to be me to be a bit of a crime, get the turbines connected, according to the guardian that is the equivalent of a new generation of nuclear power stations. I know which ones I would rather have.

There is hints in the article that certain industrial lobby groups have put pressure on the government to water down the legislation. The suggestion is that the nuclear power lobby are pushing hard for these new reactors and want to make sure the economic and political justification is not water down.

I wrote previously in 2007 about generating capacity caught up in the planning system for wind power. It would seem that the renewables sector is hobbled continuously by bureacuracy. The government should do the responsible thing and sort things out. If we got everything on the drawing board cleared, built and connected to the grid we could forget about nuclear power and even start looking towards closing some of the dirty coal stations. No need to worry about renewables target by 2020 either as it would be happily smashed.

"I have never ended on an unstressed syllable!" (The Guardian)

Everyone likes a good rant against the system at some point. There are always useless jobsworths who deserve to be put in their place. I often feel like writing snotty emails to people but it really only gets you into trouble. The best thing to do is phone them up, then there is no hard record of the conversation and you can always claim you were misinterpreted.

Or my other little petty thing is to use the phrase , "If you do have any further queries do hesitate to contact me in the future."

Should they spot the missing not you can simply claim it was a typing error. OK so a small rebellion in the great battle against the dumb and unhelpful.

Anyway Giles Coren, restaurant critic for the times is plagued by sub editors who mess around with his submissions changing the context and destroying his perfectly formed prose. On occasion he writes a snotty note to the sub-editors. Some of them are so good that they hvae escaped onto the internet. They are so good you should go read the article but to give you a teaser here are some of the best lines.

"It's not ******* rocket science. It's ******* pre-GCSE scansion. I have written 350 restaurant reviews for The Times and I have never ended on an unstressed syllable. ....."

He signs the email "All the best" which is a nice touch.

"...what do you think you can achieve with that kind of dumb-wittted smart-arsery?"

"never ask me to write something for you. and don't pay me. i'd rather take £400 quid for assassinating a crack whore's only child in a revenge killing for a busted drug deal - my integrity would be less compromised."

The guardian article does note sadly that these are abridged but not subedited - versions of the emails.

In part you can have the same rant about the Grammer-nazi's on the internet, who insist on correct spelling and grammer even though they are no experts. I have posted on them before and still insist that content is far more important than grammer.

Giles Coren, a glass with you my friend.

Channel 4 - A crusade against science (the guardian)

This is an interesting article from the Guardian with three interesting points. Firstly, that a major TV channel can appear biased in its documentary output towards global warming. Secondly, that there is a fine line between a documentary considering all arguments and a rant pursuing only one version as fact. Thirdly, that there is almost no regulation or punishment for a media outlet misleading the public or misrepresenting the facts.

The background of all this is that Ofcom has ruled following complaints on a programme broadcast last year called "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Ofcom found that the programme treated two scientists and the IPCC unfairly. Channel 4 have had to give a prime-time apology for the content of the programme. This is the second time Channel 4 have had to apologise for an environmental programme against global warning.

Channel 4 bias on the environment

George Monbiot (Another environmental documentary maker who has worked with Channel 4 in the past) who writes the article identifies a history of bias going back to at least 1990. George identifies a previous documentary called "The Greenhouse Conspiracy" ,which was similar to the global warming swindle programme, as a turning point in the channels output. From then on the output of environmental programmes decreased until 2006. Channel 4 themselves state that since 1990 there have been 5 and a half hours of output supporting the view that global warming is not man made. This says George should be considered against the IPCC stating that there is now a 90% certainty that global warming is caused by man and only 10% uncertainty that it might not be. George states that there is no percentage certainty that it is not caused by man, in fact that there is no reliable evidence showing that man made global warming is not taking place.

I would note that this confidence in the science was not so complete in 1990 but was in 2007. So you may consider that channel 4 may have been justified with the documentary in 1990 provided certain safeguards were in place to suggest that it was not fact and that it was questioning the established view as devils advocate. However in 2007 I would suggest they were seriously misleading the public in their programming. Compare with the change in status of smoking between the middle of last century and now.

Most telling is some of the anecdotes or quotes provided by George Monbiot on the Channel 4 response to such accusations.

"I don't know what's important any more."

- Tim Garden, Director of programmes Channel 4, when asked
why the channel seemed so hostile to the environment.

If the quote is accurate it suggests that Channel 4 has no clear understanding of the issues and what they are broadcasting. Channel 4 has no coherent policy on standards or a peer reviewed authority process to determine the accuracy and reliability of the evidence presented.

The differences between a documentary or rant

There are certain conventions for a documentary and a personal opinion show. A documentary generally has a voice over presenting the facts with views from experts and other clips of supporting evidence. A programme representing a personal opinion generally has the person presenting usually interviewing relevant people again with other relevant clips. A documentary is supposed to present both views before reaching a conclusion, a personal opinion programme would push one view and support that with evidence, it would generally not consider alternative views unless they can be disproved.

This is not a written rule but could be said to be a commonly accepted convention. Therefore creating a personal opinion programme in the style of a documentary could be misleading. This is what Channel 4 allowed from the programme makers for "The Great Global Warming Swindle".

In several programmes over the last 17 years George Monbiot suggests that Channel 4 have made the same mistakes in misrepresenting facts in a claimed environmental documentary.

1. Use of a anonymous and authoritative voice over in the documentary style.
2. Contributors commercial interests not disclosed.
3. Opposing view rarely represented to balance view in areas of uncertain science.
4. Authoritative scientists were edited to appear like cranks where as maverick scientists were edited to strengthen their views and opinion (George states that some authoritative scientists were not even told about the overall tone or stance of the programme).

The examples behind this list are in the article and are well worth reading. The usual suspects are there such as the environmental campaigners funded by oil companies or researchers with inflated positions and qualifications. There are also some unusual claims as well such as the definition of current dates on graphs, in one programme the current date varied from 1970 to 2007.

One of the interesting facts in this case is that the judgment was not based on one page opinion complaints on content. Scientists submitted the first 176 page, peer reviewed submission to Ofcom outlining the main errors and faults of the programme which bear in mind was for a 90 minute programme with adverts. This is a huge 2 pages of report per minute broadcast.

It is clear that Channel 4 have allowed a programme to be broadcast with serious flaws which originate in part from the presentation style.

Ofcom regulation

Ofcom comes across as being almost impotent in forcing broadcasters to give a balanced view. Although they are allowed to regulate news programmes which must be accurate, they are unable to regulate other factual programmes.

In Ofcom's report they stated that they were only able to rule on whether the programme mislead the audience so as to cause harm or offence. In a way it is difficult to imagine how any programme on the environment could cause harm or offence. Certainly with 276 complaints such a view would unlikely to be taken.

Indeed this was the opinion of Ofcom, they did have reservations about the way certain facts were represented but there had been no material breach of the regulation code.

Ofcom did find against Channel 4 on grounds of impartiality but interestingly it could only rule on the 20% of the programme that would influence public policy. The 80% of the show questioning global warming could not be judged as it would not change the government stance on the environment.

In other words provided the government has a clear stance on an issue the documentary can be as biased as it likes.

For the two individual scientists and the IPCC, Ofcom found against Channel 4 on the grounds of fairness, stating that these three and their views had been misrepresented.

The penalty of course was an apology in prime time. Sadly the damage had already been done, according to George Monbiot several recent polls have shown that there has been a decline in the number of people that believe global warming is a real phenomenon as a direct response to this programme.

Conclusions

Currently there is little obligation on a broadcaster to check a documentary for bias and accuracy. Basically a dishonest programme maker can represent his or any organisations view as fact. The only boundaries to that is misrepresenting individual / organisations or broadcasting anything that may cause harm or offence.

This has highlighted a greater need for self regulation for media organisations and stronger regulation and punishment when self regulation fails. Ofcom should be able to pass judgment on factually inaccurate and misleading programmes.

The problem remains that Channel 4 have taken a cavalier approach to programme commissioning and the programme makers themselves have questionable journalistic integrity.

Channel 4 is in a position of trust and has a responsibility to check the accuracy and bias of programmes before broadcasting.

The rise of the urban shepherd (The Guardian)

Strangely enough this is not a story about the shepherds having been forced out of the countryside by poverty / global warming, like the foxes becoming urbanised, and herding cats with their shepherds crook and sheep dogs.

Sorry I digressed into a somewhat surrealist landscape there.

Anyway if you cant sleep or just like to tend a flock but never wanted to become a vicar you can now become an urban shepherd.

Brighton having successfully deployed sheep (not in the Worms computer game method) in outlying areas are now bring them into the centre of Brighton. Yes, coming to a park near you is a flock of sheep. Obviously put a hoody on a sheep or a sheepskin coat on a member of the 'youth of today' and it might be difficult to tell them apart. Some but not all would have the same vacant look. They may also be able to converse with each other too.

Apparently this is environmentally friendly as well, sheep are not fuelled by petrol and so will not be affected by the meteoric rise in the oil price.

So if you want to be a shepherd and I certainly would like to be one, you can sign up for a one day introductory course on sheep welfare and then start keeping an eye on your local flock.

There is probably a zen holiday like experience to be had here too. Picture this, a lonely hillside with a shepherds hut, watching and tending the sheep.You could get a lot of thinking done on a hillside with a lot of health benefits.

Tidal power with a twist ( New Scientist)

New Scientist, 5 July 2008 p 40-43

Another week, another New Scientist article about a new renewable technology to generate electricity and maybe contribute to saving the world.

That may sound slightly sarcastic and to some extent it is. Every week I read about a really great technology that I can feel really positive about which could really save the planet. Then the pragmatist in me kicks in and asks if it is really a viable technology and when will it change the world.

This week it is about electromagnetic pumps which is basically the caterpillar drive in reverse as seen in the very great film and book "The Hunt for Red October" by Tom Clancy.

In the caterpillar drive electricity was pumped into the drive which had superconducting magnets and it is then propelled through the water.

With this technology a clever Japanese physicist called Takeda reversed the engine and using tidal power pushed water through to generate electricity. The technology has great potential as a underwater turbine. No moving parts, so little servicing required and can be sited out the way on the sea bed.

Although very positive the technology has a long way to go, the lab prototype has so far only generated a fraction of a watt. So not even enough to light up a very low wattage bulb.

The other interesting part of this article was about the funding for projects such as this one with interesting but unproven potential, potential lets face it to save the world.

Takeda has two assistants and only limited funding from a state ministry, luckily he has been successful in being awarded more funding but it is very much still small scale. As he puts it he can only look at the next small development step.

So funding wise why isn't there the "International Fund for Saving the Planet Through Technology" (IFSPTT - you have to have an acronym). I would support that, it might even be something where I would give £5 a month to.

A charity which gave funding to develop renewable technologies and bring them to market. That would be a worthwhile cause, maybe I should set it up. Of course it wouldn't have to be for new technologies, it could be for revitalising old ones or bring a technology from the design phase through to production. I remember reading years ago about a company that was working on using blimps as slow but cost efficient cargo lifters.

Why should science funding be left to entrepreneurs, academic institutions or government. Why not fund them for the greater good by donations from the public. By the people, for the people, for the planet.

Of course there might already be such a charitable fund, I just haven't heard about it yet. In which case why don't they market themselves more.

Weston Otmoor eco-town

There has been so much about government eco-towns lately and one is unfortunately quite near me.

The whole concept is a bit misleading, the cynical part of me things that the government identified new towns as a possible solution to the housing shortage but realised that a simple 'new town' concept would never be accepted by the general public. That kind of idea is just so 1960's. So anyway bring in the bright spark consultant being paid far too much money who says I know lets make it green, some kind of energy efficient, public transport utopia. If you objected to that kind of thing you must be mad.

Hence just as labour became new labour so new town became eco-town.

Anyway the developer who is really only in it to make money has started off the public relations war. The consultants who drew up the websites and the initial consultation paperwork have so much spin they should work for a washing machine company.

Before we continue I would like to first outline my position on eco-towns. I think the concept of a new town is wrong, we don't need new towns we need to expand and revitalise old towns and villages. If I had to call my concept a reality it would be eco-estates or eco-villages. There are lots of existing towns and villages in prime locations which could be expanded sensitively to improve the local area without overwhelming it.

I agree wholeheartedly with the "eco" concept but I think these develops underestimate the lure of the car. However good the public transport network is people will always use the car, especially in places like Oxfordshire.

Now to deal with the Weston Otmoor design and feasibility.

1. Location

An eco town placed at a major motorway junction. If it really is supposed to encourage you not to drive how is that going to work. You would be 2 minutes drive from the motorway / A34 which would give you the best road connections in the entire of Oxfordshire (even if it would be a slow moving car park). How does this encourage people to use public transport?

The access toll road to the town may encourage people to leave the car at home but it does depend on how high the toll is and whether it outweighs the benefits of taking the car. This will not affect people who commute to London.

On their website the developer happily say that only 6.5% of the land is on green belt which allegedly busts a myth that green fields will be carpeted with concrete. Hmmm, that may be strictly true because over half of the development would be on an airfield which is probably class as industrial land. However the airfield is a grass airfield used for parachute drops, it is not a major international hub and it is a very green field.

The design allows for a nice High street just off the A34. Nice, I think I will be getting into my car and driving to Oxford or Milton Keynes.

2. Transport

One of the big things they are pushing is the tram network with a stop only 300m from your door, although your car will only be 10m from your door and ready to go when you are.

The East West rail link will be rebuilt allowing high speed train access to London, Oxford and Milton Keynes. Again with high speed access you could live their and work in London.

3. Industry

They will be able to attract some industry to the eco town. Probably either office or commercial space or research industries who like the proximity to the university and other research sites in Oxford.

However there is no need for these to be sited here, you could equally and more sustainably build these in several locations around Oxfordshire. There are already new plans to build a business park in Bicester.

4. The Consultation questionnaire.

I think this questionnaire might have loaded questions, even though you can tell I strongly disagree with most details of the eco-town idea it turns out that out of 12 questions I strongly agree with 9 of them. Funny that.

Alternatives:

My concept would be the eco estates or the eco extensions. In terms of location the 15000 houses would be spread round the county. There possibly is scope for a smaller development around Weston-on-the-green. Other developments could be centred around existing small towns and villages. West Oxfordshire is prime for developing especially around the Oxford to Worcester railway line. Other locations could include Bicester, Banbury and Didcot. There would also be scope for major extensions along the east west rail route particularly in the Bicester, Aylesbury and Milton Keynes triangle.

Conclusion

The concept is fairly flawed but not completely without merit in some better locations it may even work.

However to suggest that 35,000 people can be put right next to the best connected road junction in Oxfordshire with access to the capital by rail will turn into a flourishing non car using town is naive. Weston Otmoor will turn into a dormitory town with just as much car use as everywhere else.

How to kick start an economy - the American way.

The US government have decided that the best way to boost the economy is to get the American public to spend more money. The Government has given each household a tax rebate, in many cases worth hundreds of dollars.

The new scientist* reports the findings of two scientists who suggest the plan is unlikely to have much impact. They took 140 students and asked them how they would spend various amounts of money. Students offered a $600 payment said that on average they would spend just $113, however if they received the payment in 12 monthly payments they would spend $420.

Other criticisms can include that the majority of recipients will either save the money or use it to pay off existing debts. Neither actions pumping the money into the economy. The final criticism is of course that it will hurt the government increasing national debt and lowering spending reserves.

All in all probably an inefficient way of spending tax dollars and breathing new life into the economy.

On a personal note I would agree with the findings of the study. If you gave me a lump sum I might pay off some debts or spend half of it on something nice and use the other to pay off debts or save it. If you gave me 12 payments I would not really notice it and just use it to up my general standard of living.

*This has been well publicised in the general media, but I don't have a link at the moment. However as a reference I can give you the New Scientist article which covers the story and Research. The Article "People of America: spend more of your money!" can be found in the 7 June 200 issue on page 15.

Salary converter - convert annual to hourly, weekly, daily or anything

My new site is all done. The salary converter I made ages ago now has its very own home on the internet. SalaryConverter.co.uk

You can convert salary between any of the following annual, monthly, four weekly, daily and hourly.

Very useful for job hunting especially as a temp where everyone quotes different rates.

Prince Caspian - 'The Call' - Regina Spektor

I happened to catch the second Narnia film, Prince Caspian. It was good, some great dialogue, good music and some lovely set piece battles. You can tell it is done by the same team as Lord of the rings. It has very good cinematography, some lovely scenes.

I guess the people who are going to see this are the people that grew up with the books or remembers the tv adaptions etc. Well worth going to see if you liked the first one. I am even looking forward to the next one.

Without ruining any of the plot the end sequence is just perfect. The video below has some well chosen stills but I don't think it gives a great deal away but if you want to watch the film first please do so and feel free to come back.

This song is the final end sequence and titles song, a very haunting melody.

"And then that word grew louder and louder
'Til it was a battle cry"

"No need to say goodbye, you will come back when its over..."

10 things the labour party could do for the UK

Running on from the last post about the labour party not having any decent ideas for ages here are 10 things they could do to really shake things up.

1. Reinstate the 10% starting rate in tax and lower the upper tax rate to compensate

2. Increase tax duty on homes over £500,000

3. Lower Fuel duty and tie it to oil price. When and if the fuel price drops the tax goes back on.

4. Have a sensible binge drinking policy. Don't charge me more just because other people are irresponsible.

5. Integrate public transport, introduce a national 'oyster' smart card and forces all public transport companies to sign up as part of their public licence to operate.

6. Deal with railways, allow greater open access and competition across routes. invest in new rolling stock and infrastructure. Commit to building at least one high speed line.

7. Open up major funding and subsidy schemes for proven renewable technologies. Put a solar panel on every roof in the UK. Encourage community energy projects in water mills, solar power, wind power, biomass generation and implement a national grid strategy to develop a distributed energy generation grid.

8. Create a centre of excellence for renewable energies. Make a UK renewable research centre and commit to bringing new technologies to market.

9. Find a way to deal with crime effectively, bring it a 3 strike rule. Lock people up in more prisons but fight better ways to fight social integration and offender rehabilitation.

10. Make it easy for first time buyers and penalise second home owners.

Feel free to turn any of these ideas into policies.

New Labour = Are they thick or what?

Excuse my language but really I am beginning to think that Labour are trying to get kicked out of office.

There all useless, I thought I would never say it but since Tony Blair left office I don't think they have had one good idea between them. The Tories must be rubbing their hands with glee, they could start burning books and they would still get elected at the next election just because the entire electorate is now completely bored.

Labour has gone past incompetent into territory where no government has been before.

Harriet Harman is the latest new labour muppet to trot out a 'new terrible, potentially frightening missing the entire point' law.

The new equalities act which among other things will allow employers to positively discriminate and with two equally qualified candidates choose the ethnic minority candidate or female candidate over the white male.

Luckily it can work both ways, if white men are under-represented then they can be selected in preference. However in all practicality who would do that?

It is usually at this point in the article that I point out the over reaction of the media or that the legislation actually does a whole load of other things but I feel very strongly about positive discrimination.

I feel the only way to combat discrimination is not only to outlaw negative discrimination but also positive discrimination. Allowing positive discrimination will convince some organisations that negative discrimination can somehow be justified, after all they are just making up for the other organisations that positively discriminate, redressing the balance as it were.

The biggest problem I have with positive discrimination is that it does nothing to address the underlying issues of society and why in some organisations ethnic minorities and women are under represented. Positive discrimination may get them into the organisation but if the culture isn't changed then they will soon be leaving again. Meanwhile you have alienated all sorts of people for not having a level playing field.

What about sectors which are already female dominated. HR is getting to the levels where the women are in the clear majority. There is still a legacy of very senior male HR managers but most of the middle rank is predominantly female. At the lower scale there are some male administrators but again predominantly female. As each year goes by the sector becomes more female dominated. In fact the profession does not even recognise that it has got a diversity issue among the very people who set policy for everyone else.

Will we see positive action recruitment and programmes for men in HR? I doubt it.

Harriet Harman uses the police as an example of why positive discrimination would be a good idea. The Metropolitan police have had targets for years and consistently failed to recruit the number required to meet the targets. They have openly campaigned to be able to positively discriminate in recruitment. There have been equal accusations of both positive and negative discrimination in their recruitment policies from recruits.

This is a very organisational solution to a problem, ignore the root causes and go for the simple solution. Positive discrimination is the equivalent of saying leaves keep getting into the building so lets cut down all the trees in a five mile radius where actually all you need to do is keep the door shut and get someone to sweep the leaves out once a day.

Just because it is hard to establish the reasons for discrimination and a gender pay gap doesn't mean we should not try.

I think a lot of problems stem from the secrecy around salaries, using an economic concept in a market where everyone had complete knowledge of the system then if a company did discriminate and did not pay market rates then its employees would just leave.

Having moaned for half an hour one good thing about the legislation is that it does merge all the previous equality legislation into one new bill.

Mark Easton's BBC Blog raises some more interesting points about equality and particularly about the poor prospects for the white male and some more evidence on why positive discrimination doesn't address the actual causes of the gender pay gap.

I hate to do it but I will give the last word on the legislation to the Tory party,

"This bill should seek to unite not divide. It has good intentions but its lack of detail and clarity is disappointing..."

-Theresa May MP

Beaver 1 Devon Stream 0

One of the cuter stories in the paper today is the first beaver dam in 800 years. Of course tomorrow the beaver will be installing the first beaver hydro-electric power station.

Of course with a beaver story / picture you can spend hours making up captions or "Sun" headlines.

So good work that beaver, keep up the hard work, today a stream in Devon, tomorrow the English channel.

Hard to reach customer groups

I was in an interesting meeting the other day with our new advertising agency. I wasn't supposed to be attending as I wasn't supposed to be at head office and the meeting was only vaguely connected to my work. It was about recruitment but a different project.

As I was at a loose end I popped along, it was a good opportunity to size up the agency contacts on something I didn't necessarily care about.

The interesting thing was that the whole meeting was about how to reach a customer group we don't normally reach. We as an organisation recognised this groups impact on our business and recognised that the way we normally advertise i.e in local media, didn't reach them.

Another good point was that the project team had determined that the best way to determine the key messages for this group was to talk to a focus group of these customers.

After that it went down hill, the group decided that they didn't have the contacts and couldn't afford either the time or money to make the contacts.

The project team then set about assuming what the key messages were and that print media still worked as it did last year with a different customer group.

At this point another colleague pointed out that we had already decided this approach hadn't worked, so why were we resurrecting it, they pretty much got blank looks.

So I weighed in, pointed out it was a different customer group and there was no reason to suggest that approach would work, so why would we waste money.

There was a good ten seconds of blank looks including a staring contest with a senior manager.

You cant win them all ... I am looking forward to the traditional print campaign which achieves nothing not because it was the wrong approach just because the customer group is hard to reach. The really annoying thing is by that time nobody will remember the conversation that the key thing was to talk to the customer group before deciding on the message. My mate Sir Alan would have sacked several of the muppets present in the room.

Is it me or is the first step to talking to your customers actually finding a customer and talking to them.

Seriously, how hard is it?

Dear Steven Spielberg

***Spoiler alert for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) ***

Dear Steven Spielberg,

Overall I think you did a good job on the new Indiana Jones film if you accept that it is a sentimental nod towards an 80's childhood when the first three films came out.

However, I can't help thinking that the film could be improved upon, it has the potential to be the blockbuster it should have been but there were some key aspects that could be brushed up.

Firstly, it was very nice to see that Harrison Ford still has it, I was getting worried in the first half hour as he looked more like he needed a walking stick than a whip but once the bullets started flying he was off like a whippet. What was nice was that he had matured gracefully since the original films, his humour had got a bit sharper and he had grown softer with age.

If I am honest after watching the whole film I found the first 20-30 minutes of the film pointless. It was too slow, a bit unrealistic and was just a mediocre start to the film. If you go for a directors cut my advice would be to start the film where Dean Charles Stanforth has to resign because of the communist witch hunt. Perhaps a two minute intro of news headlines and video footage for the era could set the scene for Indiana being suspected of being communist.

That way you also get straight into the action, the car and motorbike chases were pure Indy territory. Although it was a bit odd that they needed a big chopping machine to get through the jungle, yet when that was destroyed there was basically a three lane jungle motorway to drive along and the road surface was so good that the characters could have a stand up sword fight between vehicles where they were busy worrying about their stance. However, Indiana Jones movies are about suspending disbelief up to a point so I was prepared to let that slip.

What was also odd was that Indy's whip was not ever present. Stuck in a sand pit sinking down with over hanging trees what should the hatted adventurer reach for. His whip clearly, but no he has to wait for his son to throw him an obviously rubber snake. Steven are you really saying that was the only way you could get a snake into the film.

Finally I should move onto the plot. An Indiana Jones film doesn't have a complicated plot, you need good guys, bad guys, an object which everyone is after, a love interest and then some natives.

You went for a poor plot involving aliens. I cant help thinking you were confusing mysticism and legend with science fiction. Indy does mysticism and legend but not science fiction. The alien plot was just pointless and lead to a slightly unbelievable ending.

The love interest was definitely missing, ok so having indy's old flame was good but you could have given the son a love interest.

The natives did not really have any plot connections, they just seemed to be there as an extra obstacle for the adventurers. Where was the human interest aspect of the plot, another part sadly missing.

Other lame aspects of the plot included the Russian villian wanting to know everything, the double / triple agent rubbish, the valley within waterfalls, the surviving the nuclear explosion in a fridge and the swinging through the forest.

The basic concept of the plot is where you have a formulaic plot, in the new film you need to follow the formula.

I could go on but think I will leave it there. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull has the makings of a good film but it could have been so much more.

Yours Sincerely,

Zephyrist.

PS If you need an executive director for the next new Indy Trilogy please do not hesitate to drop me a line.

Burma - 18 days on

18 days on.
78, 000 dead.
56,000 missing.
2.4 million severely affected.
Only 25% of people needing aid being reached.

Naked facts about a horrific natural disaster made worse by human inaction, human pride, human ignorance and human failings.

18 days on and people still die while idiots talk.

I, like others have tried to comprehend or find some understanding in this. Why do the Burmese military Junta refuse to openly accept all the aid that can get into their country. They must know that people are dying because of their decisions.

Humanitarian Emergencies are not about politics, or pride or national / regional boundaries they are about saving lives, helping people and restoring basic services.

Are the Burmese leaders too proud too accept help. Would it cause them so much dishonour to recognise that they need outside assistance? Can that really be what prevents them from acting.

Leadership is often about making the hard decisions, about not being afraid to focus on the end game. Sometimes its about the end justifying the means, its can be about breaking rules. For the Burmese military leadership should be about recognising we need all the help we can get. Call in all the favours and all the debts, accept every bit of charity because our people need help now.

If there is a fall out from such Western involvement it can be dealt with later. There is no honour or pride in 78,000 dead.

Just one vote

Here is logical / illogical premise.

Only one person needs to vote in a UK parliamentary election to elect an MP. Democratic principle can be exercised by just one person.

Proof:

In any election there is essentially only a winner and a loser, in most election only two candidates are in serious running for the win. Therefore anybody that votes for the also runs need not bother voting.

Which leaves two candidates and their voters. Now if candidate X gets 20,000 votes and candidate y gets 23,200 voters then the net win is 3,200. So in fact the forty thousand votes than can be paired in the end don't matter so they can stay at home as well.

Now whether you win by 3,200 or 1 doesn't make any difference you don't get bonus points. So really 3,199 voters might as well save their legs as well.

Just one person needs to go out and vote to elect the new member of parliament.

The trick is identifying the one person.

Sun makes apology to police community support officers

There was a story about two PCSOs who allegedly stood by and did nothing while a lad tried to rescue his sister.

Here is the balanced BBC story of the inquest Police defend drowning death case.

I cant find the original sun story but would guess it wasn't that ethical.

Anyway the full Sun retraction is here and I am happy to reproduce it to ensure that it gets the widest possible audience. PCSOs come in for a lot of stick and such negative accusations are not positive for society in general.

"OUR reports on the inquest of Jordon Lyon who drowned trying to rescue his sister (September 2007) stated two Police Community Support Officers from Greater Manchester Police stood by and did nothing.

We wish to clarify the two PCSOs arrived after Jordon disappeared under the water and they summoned help and directed other emergency services to the scene.

We apologise for any distress our report may have caused."

-THE SUN

Maybe if we start publishing such retractions widely on blogs we can undermine the credibility of the gutter press and stop the culture of publish today, print a small retraction tomorrow.

The media should be held accountable for what they publish and encouraged to act with responsibility as we all know retractions afterwards mean nothing once somebodies reputation has been ruined.

Many thanks to "The Plastic Fuzz" for bringing the retraction to my attention. I shall be keeping an eye on this blogger.

Another House MD remix video

I started looking through videos on you tube some of the mixes are great, some world class directing going on.

This one is set to 'How to save a life" by The Fray, which is an excellent song. Watch out for the perfectly planned and executed piano sequence.

The Future is Bright, the Future is Nano (BBC)

Sometimes you read a news item and you get a feeling this could be the start of the next internet, the small piece of news that will change the world beyond all recognition in years to come.

This is one of those pieces, researchers have built the worlds smallest transistor just 1 atom thick and 10 atoms wide made of a new super material Graphene which is a single layer of graphite (the same stuff in your pencil). You really cant get much smaller than that.

Even better it is a UK research group doing the work from the University of Manchester.

Essentially Graphene will one day replace silicone and is anticipated to be even better than silicon especially in the nanometre range.

Dont expect to see the first Graphene products just yet. The researchers still have to find an efficient manufacturing process and scale it up. It will be at least another 10 years before we start seeing our first products but to be fair they only discovered it four years ago.

I shall leave the last words to Professor Bob Westervelt who was assessing the material and its future applications in the journal, "Science".

"The future should be very interesting"

The "Credit crunch"

The story of the "credit crunch" continues. Twelve months ago it wasn't even a phrase.

Here is my little diagram of the main players, it looks like the consumers are trapped in some dodgy little pyramid scheme and in some respects we are. In a blamestorm (a blame equivalent of a brainstorm) everyone would be found to be at least partly responsible. The other issue is trust, all of the players are closely connected and any exchange in money is based on trust.

To examine the credit crunch more closely we have to examine the concerns and motivations of each party:

Bank of England:

Main concerns: Inflation is now at 2.5%, over the government target and although the interbank credit markets lack fluidity the bank doesn't want to be seen as bailing out past poor financial decisions.

Options: Interest rates cannot be adjusted sufficiently to boost confidence, the risk of rampant inflation is too high. It is likely the Bank of England will have to offer longer term loans or take risk onto its books to increase confidence.

Lenders:

Main concerns: Avoid going bankrupt and reduce their risk dramatically. Spread the blame and get a bail-out from the government.

Options: Reduce risk, find compromise with Bank of England over longer term loans. Learn from their mistakes, leave risky mortgages to specialist companies.

Government:

Main concerns: Win the next election, give the consumer what they want without storing up problems for the next five years.

Options: Reduced since the Bank of England were made independent (A very good thing). Spread the blame to the banks and consumers suggest that their hands are tied while lobbying for other parties to sit round the table.

The government may be able to look at stronger regulation for the financial services or increase funding for home owner schemes to add buoyancy to the housing market.

Consumers:

Main concerns: running out of money fast with inflation, poor pay rises and being heavily extended on credit. If not on the housing ladder now, absolutely no chance. If on housing ladder fears of a market crash and negative equity.

Options: Re-finance debt and lobby for changes to the banking system. If they have over extended themselves learn that the economy can go down as well as up and that no one will come bail you out.

Summary

Somehow we need to regain confidence in the banking system I would expect the Bank of England to make more loan money available to lenders over longer terms. Hopefully, all lenders will learn not to take as many risks.

Consumers will loose out, credit that was available will not be extended to the same extent. Everyone now accepts that lenders made some dubious decision and took on too many high risk loans. This is partly the consumers fault for over extending themselves, just because a lender offers you money doesn't mean you should take it.

For the property market using simple demand / supply economics. Demand will fall especially at the lower end of the market as it is the first time buyers that prop up the market. This will then cascade up. However, supply may also fall which may lead to a stabilisation of the property market.

Best guess is the property market will go through a structural re-alignment, we may see a fall before it stabilises at just below or near inflation growth. Falls will be lower at the bottom end of the market, even with credit restrictions I would anticipate that demand for first houses will still outstrip supply.

When it comes down to it I feel blame lies with both the lenders and the consumers. No one thought that the economy would have a hiccup, we built our finances on a house of cards, when one fell so did all the others.

Surveillance and council spying (BBC)

There have been several interesting news stories this week. This one caught my eye because it is another example of a story that can be twisted depending on which media outlet is telling the story. In my opinion the BBC article is a fair balanced view, although some of their tv coverage has been more sensationalist.

The sensationalist version is that a local council has used terrorism surveillance laws to monitor whether a family were telling the truth about where the live.

The instant reaction is how much of an over reaction that is by the council, a misuse of legislation and yet another example of how the UK is turning into a police state. You can read or see all of the above in different parts of the media.

I even heard 'police state' mention by a commentator on BBC News 24. Which if you read many of my articles you realise that such a comment would be opinion passing itself off as news, which in itself is misleading and inaccurate. Especially if you don't know the political leaning, previous commentary on issues.

I digress slightly about commentary but what I am suggesting is if you have prior knowledge of the commentator you have an idea of how to treat their comments, if you like assign a credibility value. For instance hypothetically, Jeremy Clarkson and Sir Ian Blair make the comment that speed cameras are ineffective in reducing road deaths. If Jeremy Clarkson says it you know he is mouthing off as he always does, as he is a world renown speed enforcement hater. However if Sir Ian Blair says it you treat it with a bit more respect as presumably you trust his opinion more.

This of course assumes you are able to rationalise facts and don't hold the completely opposite view that Jeremy Clarkson is a genius and Sir Ian Blair is a fool. If you do, think of what you might think if Jeremy Clarkson said that you should keep to the speed limits at all times and Sir Ian Blair said the same.

Anyway, the point is if you don't know a bit about the commentator how can you make a judgement of credibility on an isolated comment. So John Brown comes out and says that speed cameras are ineffective. The question should be why is he saying that, what's his background? The danger with unknown commentators is we make a quick judgement, if they affirm our beliefs then they are right, if they don't they are clearluy biased or insane.

Surely we should be willing to explore whether they are right or wrong, but unfortunately the media don't always give us that opportunity.

I digress, we were talking about the use of RIPA laws and survelliance.

First we need to know what RIPA is supposed to be used for. According to the home office website RIPA is

"The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) legislates for using methods of surveillance and information gathering to help the prevention of crime, including terrorism."

Do not focus on the buzzword of terrorism, it is about preventing crime. Basically and I am not a legal expert it legislates the use of surveillance and information gathering when a criminal activity is suspected. My understanding is that you have to have reasonable suspicion of a criminal offence taking place to be granted rights to conduct surveillance.

If we take the surveillance that this article talks about, the council suspects that the family may be making a fraudulent claim and giving a false address. We don't know exactly what information they had but maybe they had two address on file, or the family had provided documents with a different address. Presumably the council must have had some evidence for the RIPA to be granted. Agencies are not allowed to conduct surveillance with out a RIPA application unless they have an immediate need which prevents them from submitting an application.

If you are interested you can look at the seven page application they would have had to submit. It includes questions on whether it is intrusive or proportionate to the need. It is also submitted from a senior officer, in the form the suggestion is senior department head which again suggests that internally to the council a number of people would have reviewed the request.

This application is then reviewed and approved I would assume in a similar way to the police applying for warrants to search premises.

In other words given that the RIPA was granted it should follow that the approach by the council was appropriate and responsible.

Although criminal activity was not proved the family openly admit they resided at the address within the catchment area and then moved out after the deadline had passed. Depending on how you look at things this could still be considered fraud or not in the spirit of fairness to other families.

The BBC article mentions similar surveillance by the council. In the three cases the council investigated two other families had their places withdrawn. This limited statistical evidence would suggest that the council applies the policy fairly, investigating only those where fraud is suspected.

Certain parts of the media may suggest that anything less than a 100% is unacceptable however if this were the case I would be more suspicious that the council is letting people getting away with it. If you were using a better known police comparison you would not suggest that a 100% of suspects arrested were guilty.

On a final note the final quote from a teaching union representative that if you ask people what there address is they will tell you the truth is a bit naive. If people really want something they will lie or in their eyes bend the truth, the families concerned probably don't consider what they are doing as wrong just playing the system and they would suggest that the end justifies the means.

In summary we should be celebrating that such cheaters are being investigated and glad that such regulation is in place to control surveillance. Instead of calling the UK a 'police state' given that this story suggests that minor fraud is endemic across the population then the UK could be said to be a 'nation of cheaters'.

Newsflash: Snow Falling

There is more snow in the air this evening, as of now snow is falling, no sign of settling yet.

One final blast of winter

I woke up this morning to find that winter had left one last blanket of snow to dampen spring's ardour.

Yes, just as spring had started Old Man winter blows down from the north once more.

This is the only significant snow fall of the season and although by the time I was out and about it was well on its way to melting I would estimate that almost an inch of snow fell last night.

Here are the only decent pictures of snowfall this Snow Watch 2008 season taken this afternoon in mid melt.



Snow hiding in the shadows of the mini standing stones.















Check out the interference on the roof tops, I think it is moire or something, the roofs were not wavy.







Some of the trees looked like they had been in a battle with a snow cannon and lost.

House MD

I think House is great, well written and compulsive viewing. House is your standard grumpy genius but you just cant help respecting and admiring him even if he would be hell to work with. However although he would be hell to work with you would go on to great things after leaving his team as you would have learnt so much. House challenges and inspires his team and although it may not seem obvious he is a great leader and mentor.

In HR terms House is difficult to manage as everyone around him knows. House is the loose cannon that doesn't play by the rules and thus can not be treated the same way as every other employee. To a certain extent I suspect that kind of person enjoys bending the rule in the name of doing what is right.

I am a bit House like, I don't toe the party line and I will challenge anything I don't agree with. Many will disagree but I am not in it to make friends and be nice to everyone I am in it to do what is right.

Anyway one episode of House started with a song called Desire by , someone on Youtube had put together a nice video of clips which I thought I would share with you.



I went looking for other remix videos to the same tune about House MD, here is another good one.



For the record the female doctor is lovely and I know in one episode they go on a date but I am not sure if it works out, I suspect not. However House definitely needs his head read on that subject because I would love to take her out to dinner.

Same song different show, this time it its Josh and Donna from the "West Wing", another couple that are great together. Whoever cut this video was a genius although to be fair the original script was also done by a genius.

Wait for the bit where she goes over and sits next to Josh, cross her legs. Josh says" Do you want another drink?" Donna say, "No" and gets up and walks off. Its hot, flirty seductive stuff. We are in bite lip sexy territory here.
Again I would have to say if Donna was available I would taker her to dinner too.



Which leads me to a Josh and Donna West Wing Quote

Josh: If you were in an accident I wouldn't stop for beer.

Donna: If you were in an accident I wouldn't stop for red lights.

What makes these videos good is the dynamic between the two characters and the long lingering looks and secret smiles.

Envelope Psychology: 'See you soon' or 'See you later'

Question:

What do you most often say, or which of the following phrases would you use?

"See you soon."

OR

"See you later."

Theory:

Which phrase you use or choose says something psychological about your personality. Well it might do, I am not sure but this is my notes from the back of the proverbial envelope.

See you soon.

You have a nurturing personality. Usage of this phrase suggests an emotional attachment to the subject and it acts as a reminder both to you and them that you care. This is predominantly but not exclusively use by females who tend to be more emotive in their language. It also suggests that you fully intend to see them and may already in your mind be making plans to do so.

See you later.

You have a more pragmatic, practical personality. Usage of this phrase is slightly dismissive in that the meeting is at an end but we will meet again later at some unspecified point which is not guaranteed. This is predominantly but not exclusively used by males who tend to be more pragmatic in their language. It does not suggest that a further meeting is expected and certainly no thought has been given to a future meeting but such a date may already have been arranged or will be in the future.

Disclaimer:

I base the above on limited anecdotal evidence but I am open to a debate of the issues. I myself use "See you later" and know at least two female friends who always use "See you soon". I realise this is not conclusive evidence but it did make me pose a theorem.