Posts filed under 'News'
Haiti and the act of giving
Why do so many people treat the act of giving to good causes, such as (in my opinion), the RedCross, MSF, Oxfam, CharityWater among many others, as something to be done in response to a disaster such as the Haitian earthquake?
Now, don’t get me wrong, it’s terrific that people do give and the Haitians need all the help they can get, but here’s my point. Why only give when things are desperate?
I have not given to the Haitian appeals. Why not? Simple, because I give regularly. All the time. Every month. All year round. I say this, not to excuse my lack of giving even more, nor to vilify those who do not give at all, nor to trumpet my own philanthropy (I give only amounts I know I can sustain) but to ask those who do give in extremis to consider giving all the time.
Giving regularly is a painless process once you start. Giving just ten pound a month to the RedCross is not much from most people’s salaries and once it starts leaving regularly it is barely noticeable (I know because this is what I do, and if ten pounds a month is a lot from your income then how about two pounds?) – most people in the UK pay ten pounds a month for their TV license and many also pay more than ten pounds a month for broadband, cable or satellite TV! Ten pounds a month to the RedCross means that every year you are providing them with £120 (plus reclaimed tax in countries that permit charities to reclaim tax on contributions). Think about that. Every year, whether there is a disaster or not, the RedCross will have £120 to put toward helping other and to set some aside (as they do) to fund disaster relief.
The point is that make a lump sum contribution of over £100 to a disaster fund such as the Haitian earthquake is something few would do, but setting aside ten pounds a month is significantly less painful and ultimately more productive.
If you prefer MSF’s work, or Oxfam’s work then set up a regular donation to them.
The great thing is that once you start making regular donations you will barely notice, but those who benefit will. What’s more, in times of crisis you can still add more by making additional one off contributions.
Right, I’m off to add what I can to the RedCross funds.
Add comment January 25, 2010
How to be a politician
I have a suspicion that politicians, some of them at least, well, a few – there must be a few – actually do some good in the world. Watching, reading and listening to the news media and the appalling bollocks that politicians spew forth gives pause for thought though. Also, having worked with people who interact with these politicians day-to-day, hearing there firsthand accounts of how astonishingly dysfunctional many of the politicians are, how wholly unsuited to their assigned office they are, how astonishingly ill-informed they are on matters pertaining to their portfolio, I despair.
Don’t get me wrong, every once in a while one sees or hears of a politician actually doing something constructive and even more rarely one who actually knows what they are talking about (regardless of one’s political inclination it is difficult to not acknowledge Vince Cable’s almost prescient comments regarding the financial crises that have befallen the UK over the past couple of years – it’s just unfortunate that he then supports ill considered ideas such as a super-tax on freeholders on properties valued over one million pounds).
The latest offence by a politician is Cameron’s execrable comments on the UK’s “Broken Society”. Dave, Dave, Dave, society is always broken in some respect of other and using the tragic events of Edlington for political advantage is both shallow and reprehensible. Using a tragic, and thankfully rare, crime to promote your own insipid agenda is beneath even the low standards of modern political life.
The problem is not entirely of the politicians making. The media must take much of the blame, as must the public who demand increasing simpler solutions to increasingly complex problems. The sound bite is the staple of the news media. In the words of PR wonks everywhere sound bites like ‘Labour’s broken society’ play well with the masses and the media love them because they fit neatly into a sixty second summary of a bulletin.
Simplistic statements like ‘broken society’ make it sound like something that can be readily fixed when the truth is that societies are never perfect for all its members. There are always groups who see society as broken and no amount of political posturing will change this.
So, if you want to be a media friendly politician I suggest you acquire no skills other than those required to smile on cue. I suggest you prepare a handbook of trite clichéd phrases that can be trotted out whenever a camera points in your direction. When asked about a complex issue, simply reference your handbook of stock phrases and, if at all possible, blame the incumbent government (or, if you are the incumbent government, point out that the opposition have no realistic plan to address the issue, or how they made a mess of things the last time they had power – there is not statute of limitation on this either, even if you have been on power for over a decade it’s still fair game to suggest you are struggling to deal with the legacy of the previous party’s incompetence).
Of course, you may be one of those rare creatures, a politician who actually wants to make a difference. I’m afraid if this is the case you will never rise to high office and will therefore not have an opportunity to actually make a difference.
Add comment January 23, 2010
Turn down that damned hysteria!
When I was a youth I would occasionally be importuned by my mother to “turn down that damned music!” I am fairly sure that she simply found the loud music an irritation, an imposition that she could not freely escape without leaving the house. In the same way I cry, “Turn down that damned hysteria!” to all the world’s media.
Sure I could simply stop watching all news, stop reading all newspapers and websites, mask my eyes at the supermarket to avoid the blaring headlines of insipid magazines arrayed across the checkouts. But, like my mother leaving the house to escape my loud music, this is not a practical solution and seems to me an imposition on the victim of the lack of consideration while effectively rewarding the perpetrator with more freedom and space in which to declare loudly their ill considered and hysterical opinion.
This is a constant source of irritation to me and has been particularly brought to a head by the recent snow in the UK. There is undoubtedly an issue with snow in the UK at the moment but to attend to the media you would think the apocalypse was upon us. Every news report has some hapless reporter buried in clothing more suited to an Antarctic expedition standing in what most countries who actually have proper snow would consider a mild snowfall reporting that devastation and death surrounds them as the ‘country grinds to a halt’.
The country is not grinding to a halt. Only yesterday I drove from the West Midlands over to East Anglia with nary a problem. Clear roads and a relatively light dusting of snow where all I saw on the whole journey. The motorways are open and clear. I crossed several and in each instance traffic was flowing freely, North and South. I drove to and from London over the Christmas and New Year period only a day or two after the media had warned everyone to make only necessary journeys (who the hell makes unnecessary journeys? Oh, I think I’ll just pop out for an unnecessary drive around the country) ,no snow of consequence in evidence. I drove along the South of the country three days after the snow-pocalypse had been declared in that region by the media, no snow to speak of. There is some minor icing on less used side roads but even driving on seldom trafficked roads in the fens the roads were virtually clear of snow and ice.
Yes, the snow is bad in the north. Yes, the south west has had more than its share of snow this year. But the ‘country grinding to a halt’? Really? Seriously?
And the snow is only one minor and current case in point. Almost every story on the news (and for the most part they are stories rather than reportage) is inflated and injected with an unwarranted sense of urgency. It is no longer acceptable to simply report the news, it must be embellished to make it entertainment and what could be more entertaining the impending disaster.
SARS, H1N1, video piracy, the AIDS epidemic of the ’80s, banking collapse, recession, unemployment. Yes, all serious and important issues that should be reported. But. All of them have been inflated by the media into the next apocalypse to befall mankind or business.
The problem of this is summed up in the fable of the little boy who cried wolf. As soon as media started to tell stories rather than report news they were caught in a vicious cycle. Each turn of the cycle required the story to be further embellished in order to attract attention. If the news were simply reported this cycle could never happen, but dry facts are not considered newsworthy. Now we must be entertained by our news.
Then there are those who claim that by presenting the news in this dramatic way it ‘gets through to people’. After all, SARS, AIDS (in the west at least) and H1N1 have failed to become the apocalyptic plagues that the media presented on the news so it must have worked. People must have paid attention and the disaster was averted. Hurrah for the media!
The problem with this logic is illustrated in the following anecdote.
I watched each morning as my elderly neighbour walked to the end of this driveway and carefully administered a nauseous unction to the hinges of his gates. Each day, without fail, he repeated this process. The substance was foul smelling and the smell was apparent as soon as I walked from my front door.
One day I could take it no more. I confronted my neighbour and asked, “why do you put that foul smelling substance on your gate each morning?”
“Why, to keep away elephants”, came his cryptic reply.
“But there are no elephants in London”, I protested.
“See how effective the stuff is!” He proudly declared.
Add comment January 12, 2010
Old IT or over complex taxation system?
The British government’s Public Account committee (bless ‘em) are blaming old IT systems for their failure to collect all taxes due (£11.2bn apparently).
But while the Department is working to improve its debt recovery, its efforts are constrained by outdated systems and it has deferred plans to invest in them due to lack of funding. Better systems would help the Department improve tax recovery and reduce losses.
p. 3, “Summary” HM Revenue and Customs: Improving the Processing and Collection of Tax: Income Tax, Corporation Tax, Stamp Duty Land Tax and Tax Credits – Second Report of Session 2009–10
The argument is that existing IT systems are outdated and insufficiently connected so it is impossible for tax collectors to show all tax owed by individuals or companies in one consolidated report. This apparently makes collection of tax more difficult.
The solution? Spend more money updating the IT systems.
Regardless the government’s less than stellar record when it comes to managing large-scale IT projects or my own vested interest in increased IT spending (I work in IT), surely a better solution would be to simplify the tax system? Simplify the tax system and you save time and effort in calculating the tax owing. Simplify the tax system and you make it more transparent and consequently more difficult to manipulate. Simplify the tax system and you do not then need Deep Thought to figure out who owes what.
Add comment December 10, 2009
Visual Illusion Stumps Adults But Not Kids – Science News
It seems that children are not as visually gullible as their parents.
VISUAL ILLUSION STUMPS ADULTS BUT NOT KIDSFinding suggests that sensitivity to visual context develops slowly By Bruce Bower Web edition : Friday, November 20th, 2009 Text Size EnlargeSIZE DISGUISED In a new study of visual abilities, researchers asked volunteers to identify the biggest orange circle. Here, each orange circle on the right is 2 percent larger than the one on the left. Misleading images usually fooled adults but not children, while helpful images greatly aided adults but not kids.M. DohertySometimes seeing means deceiving before believing, depending on your age. Children and adults size up objects differently, giving youngsters protection against a visual illusion that bedevils their elders, a new study suggests.This unusual triumph of kids over grown-ups suggests that the brain’s capacity to consider the context of visual scenes, and not just focus on parts of scenes, develops slowly, say psychologist Martin Doherty of the University of Stirling in Scotland and his colleagues. Even at age 10, children lack adults’ attunement to visual context, Doherty’s team concludes in a paper published online November 12 in Developmental Science.
via Visual Illusion Stumps Adults But Not Kids – Science News.
The implications of this study are significant for a number of reasons. The one that most interests me is the suggestion that visual interpretation is learned in much the same way as language. This research suggests that we have some innate capacity to interpret images, but somehow we lose the ability to see ‘truth’ and the brain develops faulty, but one assumes evolutionarily advantageous, heuristics for visual interpretation.
Add comment November 21, 2009
Ordnance Survey maps to go online
And not a moment too soon. Given that we pay for this data to be collected and for the maps to be produced, it seems right that we should have free access to them.
Ordnance Survey maps to go online
Ordnance Survey mapping data should be free from April 2010.
Ordnance Survey map data will be freely available online to everybody from 2010, the Government has announced.
The move will allow people to interpret public statistics about crime, health and education by postcode, local authority or electoral boundary.
Currently, the geographical data is only available free of charge to small scale developers.
via BBC NEWS | Technology | Ordnance Survey maps to go online.
Add comment November 18, 2009
Apple’s new tablet?
Once again the Internet rumour mill is abuzz with rumours of an Apple tablet. As a long-time watcher of such rumours, I have to say that this one is more convincing than most. In particular the rumour that Apple have approached newspaper publishers about providing content makes sense especially when you consider that Apple recently added in-application subscriptions for free applications to the Apple app-store.
Consider this, a publisher gives away a free application that takes users to their newspaper’s content, and then sells premium content through micro-subscriptions offered via the app-store. Makes sense as a business model for traditional media. Assuming that Apple attract an iPhone-esk following for the supposed tablet device (and if it offers all the usual Apple design appeal and function of their existing products, I can see that it will) then the appeal for users of the new device to acquire their daily newspaper, at next to no cost compared to the paper and print version, using an application on their tablet device is obvious.
If only Apple can make the device waterproof so we can read out e-books and e-papers while relaxing in the bath…
Add comment October 27, 2009
BNP on TV
The British National Party (BNP) are to appear this evening on a BBC broadcast of the popular Question Time programme and this has cause something of a storm in the media. This issue at hand is whether a political part that expresses views objectionable to many should be permitted such a public platform.
(For the benefit of those unaware of the BNPs views, they are a right wing party supported by bigots, racialists and xenophobes. Their main platform is the idea that Britain should be preserved for the British — their definition of ‘Britishness’ being entirely arbitrarily based largely on the parliamentary Nationality and Citizenship act of 1948 — and that most ills visited upon Britain are the result of a liberal immigration policy.)
Much of the ruckas is, of course, the media feeding upon itself; contention sells news. But there is a serious point about freedom to be made.
The BNP hold views that I find objectionable. They also express some views that I find sensible. It’s a mix. But we should bear in mind at all times that they have elected representatives and are a political party legally constituted and operating within the current British legal framework. To censor their views is to strike down a basic freedom enjoyed, until the government succeeds in its recent move to deny its citizens such freedom, by all British citizens; the freedom to express ourselves in the public forum.
The legitimate fear expressed by some is that allowing the BNP a platform will provide them with a means to propagate their bigotry to a wider audience, or more insidiously, to present a reasonable face to their bigotry. For the BNP to be seen by the populous as ‘reasonable’ is perhaps the most worrying thing for many. If the ubiquitous ‘man in the street’ sees the BNP as a reasonable alternative to the main political parties then he may be encouraged to vote for a BNP member of parliament. There is certainly some evidence to support this view. The BNP have gained ground in marginal constituencies by appealing to the baser instincts of the community, pointing to large immigrant populations and claiming that the economic problems of the area are due largely to this large immigrant population. This is, as any student of history will appreciate, an effective strategy and one employed to great effect by many nationalist leaders of the past (most infamously by Hitler).
None of this though should mean that any sector of society, let alone a legally constituted political party operating within the bounds of the law, should be denied freedom to express their views, no matter how objectionable those views might be.
Arguing that they are free to express their views, just not in a national broadcast, is to miss the point. If you find someone’s politics objectionable, then argue your case in the forum of public opinion. If your case has merit and theirs none then you will prevail. If their views pander to the constituent’s baser instincts then inform and educate people as to why these views are wrong. Glossing over the problem by denying your opponents a voice does nothing to address the problem; the ease with which people respond to such appeals. It is this ease with which people can be stirred to hatred that is the bigger concern and the more difficult issue to be addressed. Perhaps this is why it is easier to deny the BNP a platform than to address the real problem.
Add comment October 22, 2009
Norman Borlaug Dies ages 95
Norman Ernest Borlaug 1914-2009.
Who, you might ask, is Norman Borlaug? Norman Borlaug is responsible for saving millions of lives. He was a leader, if not the leader, in his field. In 1907 he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace. He has worked in some of the poorest countries, all over the world. And in all probability you have no idea who he is.
Norman Borlaug is an agricultural scientist. He has been responsible for many agricultural innovations, leading to increased crop yields in harsh climactic conditions. Put simply, Norman Borlaug has fed the world. We, the human race, would be unable to feed the world population without the plant varieties (in particular improved rice and wheat yields) that Norman Borlaug created.
Add comment September 13, 2009
‘Solving’ Global Warming
There is much to hate about the Global Warming movement, especially the politics involved. Any query is met with, ‘denialist!’, irrespective of the merit of the question. There is also a tendency to overstate the case.
A Newsnight episode back at the start of December 2009 invited an ex-scientific advisor to the UK government to present the case for global warming to the great unwashed public. Almost the first words out of his mouth were, ‘if all land ice melted the sea level would rise by 100 metres’. Now, this may be true but it is nothing, nothing, to do with the current debate. The IPCC present a worst case scenario for the next hundred years, in which it predicts… Prepare yourself… A rise in sea level of… 0.58 meters.
Now, call me a cynic but 100m is just a little different in its impact that less than 60cm.
Yes. The world is warming.
This warming may even be a direct consequence of human activity (the case for this is less than overwhelming). But even if it is the case that current warming trends are wholly attributable to human activity this in no way implies that the solution lies in some form of self flagellation, hand wringing, or even self denial.
The problem is that current climate models are akin to Ptolemaic models of the cosmos. Somewhat shaky in the ability to make predictions and subject to constant revisions in the light of new data (and there is nothing wrong with this providing we do not pretend any degree of certitude where none exists).
I say, continue the research, continue improving our understanding of the immensely complex relationships that affect the climate, but for heaven’s sake do not pretend that by cutting carbon emissions we will fix things or even make them substantially better in the future. Even the IPCC’s own report makes fairly conservative estimates of the difference such measures would make and even worst case predictions place almost all of human enterprise in a better position in 100 years than they are now, even if we do nothing.
Apart from the current inability to accurately forecast climate change, there is the more general problem of how we deal with the change when it comes (and the one thing of which we can be certain is that the climate will change in one way or another, it always has, and it always will).
So, do we succumb to the political promise of a globally concerted effort to change the climate, or do we unilaterally prepare for the worst while hoping for the best?
Let’s consider the global option first. This option assumes that all countries will agree to reducing carbon emissions for the greater good. Even if we assume such action will actually make a difference to the climate the chances of actually getting all countries of the world to agree and actually act on that agreement is so close to zero it might as well be zero.
The governments of the world cannot even agree on how best to control an entirely artificial system like the world banking system so what are the odds they will control something like the climate? What do you suppose the motivation is for rising industrial countries to curb their carbon emissions at the request of countries that have already accrued all the benefits from burning fossil fuels? And if countries like China and India do nothing, what will the response from the West be? Just sit back and lose competitive advantage? I doubt it.
So, there’s pretty much no chance of curbing the current carbon emissions in any serious way. Certainly not enough to actually change the climate significantly.
The alternative approach is to shovel money into dealing with the, pretty well inevitable, consequences of climate change. Figure out how to grow crops in arid conditions and obtaining greater crop yields, using genetic modification if necessary. Work on engineering projects to protect against flood or drought (according to need). Work on better utilisation of land for living to deal with denser populations. This is the approach mankind has always taken; use tools, make fire and clothing, in other words modify your immediate environment to suit yourself and protect against the vagaries of climate, weather and the external environment over which you have little control. It’s has been our evolutionary advantage for over 60,ooo years and I suspect it will continue to be into the foreseeable future.
In the meanwhile, work on alternative sources of energy. After all fossil fuels will eventually run out, even if they are not abandoned. Solar, wind, water are all eco-appealing and all of them are more or less uselessly inadequate to sustain the growing energy demands of the human race. Nuclear is the only realistic source of energy at the moment.
Although nuclear fission has done well, it is not very efficient and has that nasty tendency to produce byproducts that kill people. It is puzzling why governments are not investing more heavily in nuclear fusion research. (Well, actually it’s not puzzling when you look at tax revenue generated from fossil fuels and all the lobbying interests that accompany them.)
Nuclear fusion is safe (sustaining a reaction is so difficult that any accident at a fusion plant would almost instantly result in a failure of the reaction releasing little more than a bang and a cloud of water, hydrogen and helium) and the byproduct of, for example, hydrogen fusion is helium; neither of which pose a great risk in the small quantities required in a fusion reactor. Sadly, producing a sustained fusion reaction is still a few years away.
The really sad thing is that governments are not seriously finding fusion research, the one energy source that holds the promise of fulfilling the worlds energy requirements cleanly and cheaply. It’s more politic to keep talking about measures like carbon capture and carbon reduction. Measures that are easy to promise and almost impossible to deliver. Measures for which an easy promise will garner great headlines today, but with the promised (and far from certain) rewards decades away, politicians today will never be held accountable for their failure.
Add comment February 9, 2010