The Emperor's New Clothes

Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics

2012-03-20T13:43:00.000Z

I recently completed a survey questionnaire for YouGov.

As always, it was quite interesting, and as always, I completed it as honestly as I could.

And as always, there was one rigged question:

"Would you like to see Great Britain divided into England, Scotland and Wales" they asked (I'm paraphrasing!) "Or would you choose to have them stay united?"

At first glance, it's just a stupid question; no-one has even suggested Wales goes independent, so why ask?

But the question invites you to say "Don't be silly, they should stay together" .... allowing YouGov to say "the majority of those asked supported the continuance of the UK", and use it in the context of Scottish independence, even though they never asked it in the context of Scottish independence.

Never trust a statistic!

This isn't the first time I've caught YouGov cheating; when they asked questions about broadcasting, they used to ignore FreeSat - so if you stated you used satellite TV, they could make it look as if you were a Sky supporter.

Every time they did this, I challenged them in the final 'comments' section, finally warning that I would write to any newspaper publishing distorted stats based on their survey. I can't have been the only complainant, as they started including FreeSat from then on ... though it gets a three word description 'free satellite broadcaster', while sky gets a whole paragraph. I wonder who pays for these surveys?

Google's Panda - The Main Factors

2011-12-19T14:55:00.000Z

A member called 'Brinked' wrote an interesting article about Google's Panda - The Main Factors at Webmaster World, in which he described some of his findings in dealing with clients whose sites had been 'Pandalized' by Google's recent "Panda" update.

It's worth reading that thread in it's entirety, but - perhaps unsurprisingly - I have chosen to highlight my response to his excellent work, as the issue is one that I feel quite strongly about.

Re-written content? The sludge of the internet; untold billions of pages that essentially add nothing (except a few Adsense clickers trying to escape).

Un monitored auto-generated pages? A total waste of space.

Poor page design? MFA in effect, though possibly not in intention; no more, no less.

And Panda goes to the heart of the problem - intention - as no update has done before.

Because it's effectively very cheap to produce 'content', and search engines have always favoured 'content rich' sites, there has been an explosion in totally pointless pages, just like the tonnes of pizza delivery leaflets I recycle each year, we have become buried in quantity, leaving quality at the bottom of the pile. Panda has sought to redress this.

I do accept - and always have - that there are some innocent victims of the collateral damage of the Panda process, but you have illustrated the awful truth that if people have nothing to say, they should shut up - not plaster the web with mind-numbingly dull, repetitive content. In fact the only place I would disagree with you, is that I advise people to simply lose those pages, not just try to 'pretty them up' in order to escape the Panda scythe - I suggest that your unsuccessful cases might try that approach with success.

If Panda really succeeds in letting a bit of quality shine through, then the price is worth paying.

Let's face it, if there was a $1.00 per page tax on URLs, 99% of pages on the web would disappear overnight, and no-one would miss them.

I applaud Google's attempts do what the taxman can't - encourage quality rather than quantity. And I note that the vast majority of those who complain are those running sites with millions of one-paragraph-pages, written or paraphrased by machine, surrounded by ads.

Many webmasters cannot see anything wrong with using Google to drive visitors to sites which are no better than those pizza delivery leaflets, while the genuine innovators find it hard to dig themselves out from under the drivel.

Architects - How Stupid Are They?

2011-11-23T14:53:00.002Z

I've long been amazed by the consist stupidity of architects, so I've collected together a few common 'errors' made by that sad profession. In fairness, architects are stuck between a rock (planning law and a hard place (the building industry). On the other hand, you don't hear them complain, they just do the stupid thing and take the money.

In no particular order:

1. Pigeon Sh*te

It's a sad fact of life that pigeons - rats with wings - have taken over many inner city areas. Originally cliff-dwellers, they find the ledges around buildings ideal to socialize, spread disease, and have diarrhoea. So architects need to learn to design buildings that discourage this practice, rather than give them ideal nesting sites, coffee bars and open plan toilets.

You'd think that now we know that pigeons are serious disease vector, as well as a serious polluter, that architects would learn. You reckon? Next time you pass a new building, look up - there's a one in three chance, in this enlightened age, of finding a heap of guano; the building has been designed with pigeon-friendly ledges.

And if a pigeon craps on your head, there's no point reaching for a tissue - by the time you find it, the pigeon will be miles away.

2. Tall Doors

The Tallest man in the world, ever, was less than 9 feet tall - 99.99% of people are below 7 feet tall. So why do so many buildings have doors that are over 9 feet in height?

The doors are heavy to open, prone to falling off their overworked hinges, plus allowing a draught only otherwise seen in a giraffe house at the zoo.

And on the rare occasions that they are mechanized, you can't help but wonder at the pointless waste of energy.

3. Unique Features

I have no trouble understanding an architect's need to add unique features to a building; they are, let's face it, no strangers to vanity. But doesn't it occur to the idiots that uniquity adds hugely to the costs of maintenance?

Repairing a rectangular pain of glass, two feet by one foot, is a doddle - quick, easy and cheap. You try applying those adjectives to an irregular octagonal window with a sepia tint.

A feature of modern cities is new buildings with bits missing, where they are waiting six months for a replacement - or until they can afford that replacement. Or worse, a bodge job that makes the building look even sillier than when it was built.

4. Non-balconies

What, pray tell, is the point of a balcony structure that sticks out less than six inches from the front of the building? Especially when over 50% don't even face the sun? Answers, on a postcard please, to the College of Architects.

5. Sound Insulation

The government has forced architects to factor in some heat insulation; these things can be easily measured (though results can be easily, er, faked), but there has been genuine progress in that area. So why don't these professions apply the same brains (and possibly the same materials), to ensure that a chess game at number 24 doesn't deafen those at number 26? Is it really too much to ask?

6. Bedroom Size

There seems to be an understanding that a three-bedroom house can include one bedroom that's six feet by five. You can tell architects are well paid, as they'd never want to live in such a rabbit hutch. Of course they may blame estate agents, claiming that they really designed a store room; but can they be that stupid?

7. Solar Panels

I'm not saying they don't exist, they may, but out of my sight ... but shouldn't they be designing roofs with integral solar panels on new buildings? Shouldn't every new house have solar panels designed in? Aren't architects the group who should be saying "Hey! WE can improve on current designs?"

8. "Fitting in with the neighbourhood style" - 1

Go to Foster and pay him to 'fit in with neighbouring styles', and he'll design in steel and glass. Give him a greenfield site, and he'll design in steel and glass. Ask him for a building that challenges existing expectations, and he'll design in steel and glass.

9. "Fitting in with the neighbourhood style" - 2

The other extreme is arguably worse; the new building is a monstrous parody of the surrounding buildings, a glass and stainless steel travesty of the beautiful buildings of previous eras.

10. Shoulder width is greater than 15 inches

The difference between a squalid and claustrophobic building and a spacious, airy one isn't just the ever diminishing ceiling height, it's also the width of corridors. An office corridor needs to allow at least two people to pass without touching; fail that simple test, and you have a building where people constantly have to squeeze flat against the wall to allow another's passing. Ridiculous!

Not just offices, it's happening in schools too; two 11 year olds can pass easily, but sixth-formers and teachers struggle. No wonder fights break out and discipline breaks down.

I wonder if it ever occurred to an architect that their work actually affected people's lives? Silly question. Of course not - there's no profit in such weird thoughts.

UK Pension Tax

2011-11-02T18:54:00.000Z

For twenty years, successive governments have raped and pillaged private pensions, allowing companies 'pension holidays' in the good times, and wholesale closure of schemes in the bad times. Now they want to use their success at impoverishing private pensioners as a stick to beat public sector pensioners with.

As ever, the government's case is a sham, based on half truths, and carefully forgetting their own part in the public sector pension 'crisis'.

But on closer examination, the government's role is clear.

Take two public sector pensions; the teachers, and the NHS workers. Similar schemes, both built in the day that a fair pension was taken for granted, and a generous public sector pension was the one 'perk' of an underpaid profession.

Currently, the teachers pension scheme is not in deficit at all; forcing the teachers to pay more to get less is no more or less than a tax. But the health service scheme is indeed in deficit, and appears to have a weak case in resisting the changes proposed. But why is it in deficit?

In education, some small areas have been privatised; cleaning and cooking, perhaps the grounds too. But in total, a small percentage of jobs have been put out to tender, and so the current scheme members can adequately meet the needs of the pensioner predecessors - as the scheme intended.

But in the health service, legions of staff have been privatised, with new joiners outside the pension scheme; cleaners, porters, laundry staff, even some senior managers, now contracted out in tax-avoiding private companies. In total, while the NHS still has many thousands of staff, the proportion allowed to enter the pension scheme has markedly reduced, leaving a far smaller number to pay the pensions of those who retired before their jobs disappeared.The current staff contributions cannot possibly bear that load; a load created by the government and forced on the NHS, against consistent - if unsuccessful - union arguments.

Why should the workers be forced to pay this bill, a bill created wholly by the government? If the DoH did their sums, they would almost certainly find that those occupational groups within the pension scheme were self-funding; it's the pensions of those groups no longer paying in that is crippling the system.

Few would argue, in isolation, against a delayed retirement age; but as staff can only ever reach 50% of their final salary, once that point was reached, they would no longer be profiting from the employer contribution anyway. And there's the rub; the government has been happy to confuse their dual roles - employer and government. The previous government had already made one raid on pubic sector pensions, with the result that all new employees already have 65, not 60 as their retirement age. If the government had stolen private sector pensions (rather than simply encouraging employers to), there would have been riots in the city, as well as private sector strikes. So why is it OK to steal public sector pensions, just because it's the only perk they have left?

Hackgate: What's Wrong With Jemima Khan?

2011-09-23T18:44:00.005+01:00

When Hugh Grant - coincidentally a close friend of Jemima Khan - was getting over his 'I'm not gay' publicity stunt with Devine Brown, he courageously appeared on Jay Leno's Tonight Show (NBC).

The applause had hardly stopped before Jay leaned forward, touched his arm and said "What were you thinking of?" to laughter and quite warm applause. Hugh Grant trotted out his tale of woe, and the rest is history.

But Jemima Khan fluffed her opportunity entirely when faced with the somewhat less daunting Sienna Miller.

Jemima Khan, apparently seeking inspiration

We can tell from the flatulent hagiography that ensued that this interview was a buddy-buddy set up to allow JK to confirm her credentials as Hackgate's Leading Investigative Journo, while giving the fragrant Sienna Miller the chance to gloat about her victories over the evil press and confirm her credentials as a crusader for privacy rights; far from being a well thought out article on privacy, this was 'pull the ladder up girls, we're winning'.

My point is (finally!) that the one question she should have asked - and being such a close friend, could have asked was "If you really care about privacy - not just your own privacy - why did you take the Murdoch shilling?"

Because it was obvious from the start that News Corp was on the ropes, it was obvious that the money offered was hush money, as executives were (figuratively speaking) dropping past every 20th floor window. And the ferruginous Sienna - certainly one of the first to make a fuss - must surely have had a great chance of winning a bundle, while using her day in court to expose the tactics of the (apparently) hated paparazzi. And yet she didn't.

And while JK used the interview to tell us what a brave woman Sienna is, despite being "tiny in a leather armchair, all golden and smiley and the personification of pretty", and yet never asked the one question that would have rescued said actress from a future of being "the one who caved in first"; the one who took the money and ran.

I make no judgement on Miss Miller; I'm sure she had her reasons, and they could very well have been good ones. But I seriously doubt the abilities of JK, who would have us believe she is a great fighter for freedom of information (she supports Julian Assange's attempts to get people killed all over the world) and simultaneously a great fighter for privacy.

But then, Assange's actions only threaten soldiers, diplomats and secret service, not her and her chums - and maybe it's privacy for herself and her chums that she seeks - so long as the press pay her turn up when it suits her, and so long as she gets to write more news-lite articles for the Indie, the Guardian, the Spectator ...

Freedom of information needs real friends, not publicity seekers fighting to avoid extradition to Sweden, and privacy need reviewing for all, not just publicity-obsessed folk who simply want a 'pause button' when it suits them.

So the question I'd like to ask all these editors who pay JK for this drivel is, "What Were You Thinking Of?

See also #Twitter: Hackgate

Consortium Outbid Google To Win Nortel Patents

2011-07-03T17:27:00.000+01:00

Much is being made of the Nortel Networks' wireless patents auction, with symbologists making much of Google's first bid $1,902,160,540 (Brun's constant), the second bid $2,614,972,128 (Meissel-Mertens constant), and the final bid of $3.14159 billion (Pi). Particularly as Google eventually lost out to a $4.5 billion bid from a consortium of Apple, Microsoft, RIM, EMC, Ericsson and Sony.

In this context, there's three or four kinds of patents in the package;
1. patents that have been superceded by better technology
2. patents that are active and earning
3. patents that - theoretically at least - have some future use and value
4. possibly also patents that never had and never will have any value.

Don't forget that many patents can be ignored and alternative routes taken.

In the fast moving world of communications, within 5 years, most will be type 1 or type 4. It is possible, but extremely unlikely, that there's even one key patent that will have any lasting value: with that single exceptional possibility, they grossly overpaid, and Google is (probably) the real winner.

UK Rail

2011-01-31T23:51:00.000Z

We're told today, that Rail travel in the UK is at the highest peacetime level since 1928.

That sounds weird, but it's actually quite an achievement, considering the network has shrunk considerably since then, and car use has grown almost exponentially.

It's also needing much more subsidy too, not just in total (even adjusted for inflation), but also per passenger kilometre. An alarming statistic, when many trains are filled to bursting point, way above the government's own recommended levels.

Part of this is the awful deals the government made with the franchisees; they can happily make a loss, assured of free cash to bridge the gap and provide them with healthy profits.

Another issue is the sheer inefficiency of the infrastructure company, paying twice the European going rate for signalling, new track and other multi-million pound items.

The railways are so inefficient, that many lines provide a service that is slower now than it was in 1928 - despite electrification, electronic signalling systems and state-of-the-art (and very expensive) trains.

For example, it takes almost twice as long to get from Canterbury to London as it does from Brighton to London. And it costs more. And the distance is much the same.
With a bit of efficiency, Canterbury trains could make two trips in the same time, sparing one whole train to be use elsewhere or (if pigs should learn to fly), providing more room and comfort for passengers who have had fare rises of about 20% over the last two years.

Interesting Factoid

"rail killed 65% more passengers per passenger mile than did buses on rural roads over the 18-year period ending 1999" - so what were these killer trains doing on rural roads?

UK Defense Review - Are They For Real?

2010-09-16T21:42:00.001+01:00

I've been around for a few years now, and I've seen more defense reviews than I could shake a stick at.

Worryingly, all have been portrayed by a gullible media as "getting our armed forces ready to face an uncertain future", with an occasional "value for money" thrown in.

In reality, all have been cutting exercises; aiming to cut whatever they can get away with. Which means few cuts that might affect marginal constituencies (either army units or manufacturing bases), greater cuts where there's no clear local interest. Few cuts have ever made military sense, and the most expensive items - missiles, carriers, submarines - usually get excluded from the review. How stupid is that?

Meanwhile, the 'defense procurement' industry has grown to cost more than the Royal Navy, while never actually achieving value for money.

So where did it all go wrong?

First, the Ministry of Defense, and the procurement industry are very closely linked, the latter staffed by large numbers of retired civil servants and ex-officers.

Second, procurement doesn't actually seek value for money; it seeks to spread defense money around British industry in whatever way the politicians want - again, a focus on marginal constituencies as ever.

Don't get me wrong; I have no problem with supporting industry, but I have great objection to this being done with meagre defense funds, ending with crap helicopters, crap tanks, crap rifles etc., etc., all bought at inflated prices, all undermining the very defense forces the huge procurement industry is there to serve.

Time to scrap procurement, and start seeking value for money; time to stop back door subsidies to a dying industry. Time to separate two problems and stop the lies and hypocrisy.

Who Wants to be a Millionaire?

2010-01-13T23:31:00.002Z

Well, me for a start, and you too, I'd hazard a guess.

I've just watched Slumdog Millionaire on television, and it's as good now as it was on the Big Screen in 2008.

What amazes me is that when the movie was released, there was a huge outcry from India - mostly from Mumbai - because the film dared to show the slums in that city that is known worldwide as the business capital of India.

The depiction of slum life was accurate; the truth, if anything, is worse than shown. But so what? Every city has a dirty underbelly, even the richest cities of the west. Hollywood delights in humiliating all the major cities of the US, the UK and many other countries.

If slums hurt that much, then rather than take it out on a movie, why not do something about it?

What made me laugh out loud was that not a word was said against the equally accurate depiction of police brutality. Not a word, so far as I heard.

Funny old world ...

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

2009-05-07T17:17:00.005+01:00

I've never read the X-Men comics, so I'm not qualified to judge the character himself, or the quality of the Hollywoodisation.

But I'm perfectly qualified to say it is a mediocre movie, worth watching only for the special effects - and even they are none too exciting.

What X-Men Origins: Wolverine is notable for is purely as a template for filming graphic novels (comics, to you and me).

1. The key characters in the movie are distinguished by a total lack of personality; the Good Guy is Good, the Bad Guys are Bad. But at one point in the movie, the Good Guy just might go bad (but doesn't), and the Bad Guys just might be good after all (but aren't) .

2. The supporting characters are also distinguished by a total lack of personality.

The Intermediate Good Guys / Gals are Good, but betray the Good Guy and then show their True Goodness before dying or being forgotten about.
The Intermediate Bad Guys / Gals are Bad, but do assist the Good Guy just once before Resuming Their Badness, before dying or being forgotten about.
Hangers-On may be junior Good Guys or Junior Bad Guys. Either way, they generally have no personality other than supporting their leader and maybe getting killed.
Hangers-On who are killed are either killed accidently, or are in the wrong place at the wrong time, or are otherwise unlucky - they have too little personality for anyone to bother with consciously bumping them off.

3. The plot is breathtakingly, almost nauseatingly simple, and involves a simple reversal of the Paper-Scissors-Rock game. it goes like this:

There's only one Good Guy; though he may have hangers-on, and one or two Intermediate Good Guys. The Bad Guys, however are infinitely more complex. That is, the movie perms any two out of the following three:

Pure evil, with no redeeming points.
Pure evil, but with a sad past which makes that OK-ish.
Evil, Confused.

(I told you it was complex!!)

Now, if we think of the Good Team as Rock, then the Evil Teams must be Paper and Scissors The blurb may tell you there's only one Baddie, but we discerning Cinema Goers can spot the rivalry between strands of Baddie!

As no one team can beat both the others, this gives scope for sad, brief, almost unbelievable alliances between Rock and Scissors against Paper, Rock and Paper against Scissors, and when the baddies combine, Scissors and Paper against Rock.

This messy and disjointed bunch of inequalities means that the central issue of the movie (whatever that is) is never really resolved - even the Good Guy cannot win - requiring a sequel to reach closure.

4. Whatever superpowers or tricks are available to Our Hero and his foes, come the day, the finale is satisfied by no more and no less than a good old fashioned brawl.

5. The inevitable sequel will miss the point of the first film, failing to resolve the key outstanding issue, leading to a plethora of futile sub-plot dead ends.

What a waste of $130 million, not to mention my cinema ticket!

Pandemic or Pandemonium?

2009-05-04T11:47:00.006+01:00

Yes, I'm as concerned as anybody about the risk of catching swine flu; probably more than most, in that I'm one of those who actually believes that it's only a matter of time.

We keep animals in industrial plants where disease is rife, antibiotics overused, and natural immunity quashed. We keep people in similar ways, and cram them into appallingly ventilated aircraft to ensure that whatever diseases anyone has at the start of the flight are shared out before the end of the flight.

So it really is just a matter of time; possibly this outbreak (unlikely), but maybe the next, or the one after that. It'll happen, and no amount of quick identification, clever tracking the virus across continents, or blaming the Mexicans, will stop it.

But my quarrel is not with swine flu, or even the media, who - as ever - panicked (that didn't worry me, or anyone I've spoke to - it's taken as a given that the media will overreact. Who cares?). My quarrel is with the terminology.

This is an outbreak of a particular strain of flu. No capital letter, no red codes or flashing lights, not even a number. It's an outbreak.

Now, bearing in mind that flu kills some 26,000 people each year in the USA alone, it seems to me that 226 cases, even spread over 30 states - with no deaths - can hardly be called an epidemic. And let's take it wider; yes there have been deaths from swine flu this time around, but, so far, all have been in Mexico, or people who caught the flu in Mexico and then travelled. None of the 'second hand' contacts have died. Indeed, it appears that the form of flu is milder than many 'normal' flu viruses. This is nothing against Mexico; it happened to start there, and no-one was expecting it, so early cases were not recognised until very ill. Now we know.

Worldwide, as I write what could be my last words (you'll be lucky), there have been fewer than 1000 cases, and about 100 deaths. And yet "The Authorities" everywhere call it an epidemic, and this epidemic scores five out of six on the way to a Pandemic.

So, 100 deaths = Score One through Score Five, leaving Score Six to cover anytghing from 101 deaths to 6 billion deaths. As straight line scales go, I don't think so. Logarithmic scale? doesn't cut it. Exponential? not even close.

If the mathematics of fear brings us this close to a pandemic after 1000 cases, 100 deaths in 25 countries and secondary infection of ten people in five countries, then we're going to need a new lexicon for 'levels of pandemic'.

So, here's the Heenan Scale of Flu Pandemics:

#1 - 1000 cases, 100 deaths, 10 countries:

Code Drebin

With Drebin from Police Squad, there's really no danger - unless there's some almighty comibination of ineptitude, crass stupidity and and incompetence. Laugh while you can.

#2 - 10,000 cases, 1000 deaths, 100 countries:

Code Columbo

Things are serious, but there's a good chance of getting it under control ... but there's always 'just one more thing' that could lead to disaster. Still some humour, But This Just Might Be Serious.

#3 - 100,000 cases, 10000 deaths, almost Worldwide

Code Kojak

It's awful out there, and not a lot that anybody can do except wait. This is where Kojak comes in; he's pretty useless as a detective, solving his cases by dumb luck ('word on the street' in 98.6% of episodes), but he always has a reassuring word. Just what we'll need.

#4 - 1,000,000 cases, 100,000 deaths, Worldwide

Code Bourne

It's dire; there's nothing anyone can do. News editors have run out of hyperbole and invective, there's nothing left to do but shoot up a few government departments. Won't help, but I guess people might feel better.

#5 - 10,000,000 cases 1,000,000 deaths

Code Dirty Harry

Up yours, pal - it's every man for himself.

OK, as scales go, this is no Beaufort or Richter - but it's a start, and we're going to need one. Maybe soon. Meanwhile, you can do the single thing that may reduce the spread of this disease -no, not wear a silly and useless facemask - simply wash your hands after visiting the toilet. Every time.

Oh, and think twice before flying, until someone notices that the ventilation sucks. And then blows the same air round and round and round, with a very high risk (almost 100%) of spreading airborne infection. That's been known, understood and ignored for fifty years.

Undercover Nurse Struck Off

2009-04-18T23:36:00.002+01:00

A nurse who secretly filmed for the BBC to reveal the neglect of elderly patients at a hospital has been struck off for misconduct, reports the BBC news web site.

This has been widely interpreted as an attack on whistle blowers - and I'm sure that was part of the thinking at the Nursing & Midwifery Council’s Conduct and Competence Committee. But the cited reason - a breach in the rules of confidentiality - seems to be enough.

While Margaret Haywood's supporters point out that her actions were a response to thousands of complaints, and would doubtless have lead to improvements in the service, the NMC noted that "The panel believed that the [undercover filming] was unlikely to benefit the patients that were on the ward at the time of filming".

And that's the key. Undercover filming is, as Ms Haywood admitted, a high-risk form of journalism. In her case, she was being paid as a nurse, either as well as, or instead of, her work as a journalist - and her behaviour had to reflect that reality.

It is perfectly possible to use undercover filming while on duty as a nurse, without letting down the patients the journalist is being paid to care for - and it's certainly possible to gather evidence without - ever - compromising confidentiality.

I believe Ms Haywood was poorly advised before accpting the challnge, and the filming was edited with no thought for her future career. She should have been able to establish from the start that she - and she alone - had ultimate control over what was filmed, and what was used. previous films have had nurse approval of the final version, nurse involvement in every production meeting. And an on-off switch that could be used at any time.

This case should not be seen as threatening the future of undercover filming, even by nurses. But it will doubtless make future efforts even more risky.

Multitasking - Are Women Really the Bees' Knees?

2009-01-31T10:39:00.003Z

Several research studies (by women) have concluded that women's brains are much better than men's at multitasking. This research has never been successfully challenged, and has become accepted, to the point that various writers (women) have taken it forward to argue that men have either lost it, or never had it in the first place. One such stellar document generously tells us Why Men Never Remember and Women Never Forget.

While I am sure that there is a grain of truth in the findings - few men would dispute that women do seem to remember birthdays better than men, for example - most of it is pure over-generalized tosh, and three simple experiments can knock the whole lot into perspective.

Not only that, these three experiments can be replicated easily at minimal expense and effort.

I commend them to you.

1. At The Supemarket Checkout

Men:

Place 'next customer' bar after previous shopper's items.
Move own items from basket to moving belt, placing heavy and bulky items first, small, fragile or valuable items last; spaces items knowing that the moving belt will bring them safely to the cashier..
Place 'next customer' bar after his items.
Locate bank card and reusable bags.
Greets cashier with a smile and a polite greeting.
Packs items neatly in bags, efficiently placing bulky items first and carefully arranging fragile items on top.
Pays and thanks cashier.

Women:

Place 'next customer' bar after previous shopper's items.
Stacks own items from basket to moving belt, in no particular order, and creating high, unstable pile as if only allowed to use a small part of the belt.
Does not place 'next customer' bar after her items.
Think aloud about the length of the queue, the inefficiency of the cashier and imply that the previous customer is wasting time with loud 'tuts'.
Ignores cashier's greeting.
Realises she only got one of 'buy one get one free' - goes off to search.
Returns with item - decides she doesn't need either, and asks cashier to remove them from list.
Piles items any old how into bags.
Repacks items into some vague semblance of order.
Looks for purse (optional: unpack bags as purse is under newly packed shopping)
Tips out handbag to locate cardholder.
Finds card, pays for shopping.
Replaces card, replaces card holder, stops to read a note she thought she'd lost three months ago
Grunts in response to cashier's 'Thank you - have a nice day'

2. At the Bus Stop

Men

Arrives at stop, surveys those already there.
If in doubt, check timetable / route guide
Check that season ticket or cash fare is to hand.
Considers whether to bet on Tottenham being in the top four (no), or Arsenal in the top three (yes), while keeping an eye out for the bus.
Considers whether Rupert Murdoch (Sky, Fox, The Sun) really is the anti-Christ (no) or simply a right-wing businessman with exceptional ability to plumb the lowest common denominator of the public's taste (yes), while keeping an eye out for a delayed bus.
Considers how far away the sun really is, and what implications that has for the likelhood of life on other planets (none), and whether the next Star Trek movie will be worth the wait (unlikely), while keeping an eye out for a much delayed bus.
As the bus arrives, check clearly displayed destination information.
Signal in good time for the driver to see and stop.
As the bus slows, calculate where it will come to a halt, and move (or be ready to move) as necessary, allowing people who were there first to move first, but taking advantage of unoccupied space without pushing or shoving.
Step onto the bus while reaching for ticket / cash.
Pay fare / show ticket
Move into the bus, finding a seat if possible, avoid blocking gangways so far as possible.

Women

Arrive at bus stop and stand as near as possible, even though knowing the bus usually stops at road marking three metres away.
Ignore available information, even if this is unfamiliar territory
Considers whether to wear the little black dress with the new shoes (duh!), while waiting for the bus.
Considers whether to wear the little black dress with the new shoes (duh!), while waiting for a delayed bus.
Considers whether to wear the little black dress with the new shoes (duh!), while waiting for a much delayed bus.
As the bus approaches, be sure to ignore clearly displayed destination information.
Signal much to soon, while the driver is negotiating traffic, AND / OR much too late, as it passes.
Considers whether to wear the little black dress with the new shoes (duh!), while waiting for the next bus.
Repeat signalling performance, as another person (male) successfully hails the bus.
DO NOT MOVE until the bus has stopped, then start picking up shopping and storm through the crowd to board
Drop shopping at driver's window, spilling at least one bag, blocking the gangway, while searching for ticket / money.
Ask driver if he's going your way (he isn't).
Swear at driver, pick up shopping and disembark
Repeat #2 - #11 (at least once)
Pay fare / show ticket.
Make little or no attempt to move down the bus or keep gangway clear, delaying other passengers (and self) as they struggle to get past to oasis of space beyond.
Grumble at how slow and useless the service is.

3. At the Drive-through ATM Machines

Men:

Drive up to the cash machine.
Put down your car window.
Insert card into machine and enter PIN.
Enter amount of cash required and withdraw.
Retrieve card, cash and receipt.
Put window up.
Drive off.

Women:

Drive up to cash machine.
Reverse and back up the required amount to align car window with the machine.
Set parking brake, put the window down.
Find handbag, remove all contents on to passenger seat to locate card.
Tell person on cell phone you will call them back and hang up.
Attempt to insert card into machine.
Open car door to allow easier access to machine due to its excessive distance from the car.
Insert card.
Re-insert card the right way.
Dig through handbag to find diary with your PIN written on the inside back page.
Enter PIN.
Press cancel and re-enter correct PIN.
Enter amount of cash required.
Check makeup in rear view mirror.
Retrieve cash and receipt.
Empty handbag again to locate wallet and place cash inside.
Write debit amount in check register and place receipt in back of checkbook.
Re-check makeup.
Drive forward 2 feet.
Reverse back to cash machine.
Retrieve card.
Re-empty hand bag, locate card holder, and place card into the slot provided!
Give dirty look to irate male driver waiting behind you.
Restart stalled engine and pull off.
Redial person on cell phone
Drive for 2 to 3 miles.
Release Parking Brake.

As I say, these experiments can be (and are!) replicated on a daily basis around the world.

Multitasking? No - simply overcomplicating simple tasks.

[Thanks to Janine (female) for the ATM example]

New Technology - The March of the Media

2009-01-19T14:24:00.004Z

It's always risky to write anything about progress, especially when you can remember when 'new technology' meant an electric typewriter and a fax machine, two dinosaurs of the late twentieth century.

But with the music industry turned on its head, the movie industry living an fear, and newspapers closing all over, it's an issue that won't go away.

It's pretty much accepted that music will cease to exist on plastic discs, tape or anything else except memory sticks and MP3 players, and I'm amazed that Hi-Fi salesmen are still selling huge machines to fill rooms with sound. You can, of course, still buy vinyl - but that's a completely obsolete fad that has revisited as an overpriced trendy toy, that probably won't survive the latest recession. For those that doubt music's 'no return' trip, just look at the closure of music stores - and the desperation to reinvent themselves as 'games shops' and even diversifying into live music (what will they think of next?).

With movies, it's clear that a similar course will be followed; TV is migrating to the web at an accelerating rate and DVD sales are on the skids. Will movies follow as quickly, downloadable by the mother of all broadband, or will it take another step in technology before discs disappear? Too soon to know - but even flat-screen TVs do not seem to have done the trick for blu-ray, and the studios' insistence on regionalization of discs will inevitably damage their profits, while incentivizing bootleggers (go figure!).

Newspapers are a sad tale of self-inflicted pain.

Many people of a certain age are happy with newspapers - "I love newspapers and books and am quite happy to get my news in paper format with my breakfast. I'd be a happy camper if that doesn't change." That's an often expressed view when the topic comes up in forums.

But newspaper sales throughout the western world suggest it is no longer a representative view; sales are sliding all the time, at all levels of newspaper publishing (broadsheet, tabloid, local).

Printed journalism is in terminal decline - and that cannot be fixed, because times are so hard that it's all about paring down to the fiscal bone. So it feeds into a spiral of declining sales / declining quality.

Hence advertising is allowed to influence editorial; no proofreading, little sub-editing, weak editors, 'news' replaced by hastily re-written press releases and celeb gossip.

But the spiral of decline simply cannot be reversed, as in amongst it all, the Internet is breeding a generation for whom buying a newspaper is simply "huh?", as well as recruiting all those older disillusioned readers. Like me.

Sure there's some good print journalism, but not much, and it's shrinking and quality print journos are aging. Most political and financial scandals are revealed - and followed up - on the web, some from TV. Very little investigative journalism arises from print these days. And if you think my views exaggerate the situation, ask yourself three questions about the financial press - theoretically the pinnacle of the print:

Did they see the merchant banking crisis coming?
Did they spot the biggest Ponzi scam in history?
Did they seriously challenge the status quo in any way?

Answers, upside down, of course: oN oN oN

Whatever you do, you'll not ever recruit young readers; I suppose you could pull back a few older readers.

And what about books? there's the same loyalty to books - among older people. But books have only been around, for most of the population, for 100 years; before that, they were for churches, business and the rich. Mass market paperbacks can only claim about 75 years; easy come, easy go. Again, a generation is already growing up without that 'respect' for books.

How long before technology replaces them?

There's already a plethora of electronic books, and ebook readers. In fact, a multitude of incompatible technologies. The Kindle is probably the most advanced, even though they have the cheek to charge people to download blogs! But suffice it to say that Kindle won't pass the "Heenan Test" - First proposed in 1998, it goes like this - "No device will replace the paperback book until such device is not only easily updateable and rechargeable, but is also capable of being read in the bath." - therefore that revolution is still to come.

And don't start me on mobile phones ...

Short Selling or Greedy Gambling?

2008-09-20T17:16:00.004+01:00

Short selling or "shorting" is the practice of selling things the seller does not own, (often financial instruments), in the hope of repurchasing them later at a lower price. Often the sold item is 'borrowed' or 'rented' for the period of sale and re-purchase.
- from Wikipedia

Short selling has been restricted, for the moment (in the UK), to 'non-financial stocks, but the practice of short selling has been defended as contributing to 'market liquidity'.

In the US, there are also restrictions, also temporary, and a ban on 'naked short selling', which is the same practice, but without bothering to borrow to pay for the shares, or ensuring such shares will be available on the due day. Naked short selling has long been banned in certain 'key stocks'

It widely accepted that naked short selling is rife, and the practice is poorly policed.

It is pretty obvious that short selling is no more and no less than placing bets that a stock will fall - and it's equally obvious that market regulators are well aware of that, hence the past minor restrictions, and the current more powerful ones.

But it is not only gambling that a stock will fall - Short selling is making a bet while simultaneously influencing the outcome in the better's favour.

No wonder it is so rife; no wonder they make billions out of it.

And no wonder the regulators have failed to regulate it, or admit the obvious damage it is doing to more honest investors. As these gamblers got rich, their money didn't come from each other, or from thin air - it came from outflanking pension funds and other legitimate investors who really keep the market alive - not just 'liquid'.

Whenever a stock - or the whole market - is in decline, gamblers can accelerate that decline as they laugh all the way to the bank. Short selling should be banned; the gamblers should pay for their shares as everyone else has to, not sell before they even own them - and naked short selling should be prosecuted with heavy financial penalties.

Bendy Buses Banned in London

2008-08-08T23:31:00.004+01:00

Boris Johnson is now mayor of London, and one of his campaign promises was to get rid of the 'Bendy Buses' - some 400 Mercedes Benz Citaro articulated buses.

When he made the promise, Boris had little serious expectation of ever winning the election, and making stupid promises was no great challenge, even for him.

The campaign to get rid of the bendy bus was launched by London's Evening Standard, a gutter-press tabloid that had waged a campaign against Mayor Livingstone for the whole of his 8-year tenure; this wasn't just a Tory versus labour thing, though that was part of it. It was a deeply personal feud.

As well as being happy to join any Anti-Ken bandwagon, Boris is a cyclist, and so had an affinity with cycling organisations who were party to the campaign.

By now, you'll have gathered that I don't agree with Boris. Why not?

Doing the job

Bendies are large, roomy, well built, and have three doors. On/off at bus stops is easy and quick, with little risk of being too far from a door for easy egress, and no long waits for 50 people upstairs to squeeze down a narrow staircase.

They are designed for busy routes in busy streets, have worked successfully for 50 years in many countries, and beat the Routemaster in any comparsion you wish to make, except nostalgia.

All of London's articulated buses are German, which takes nothing away from their quality - but may encourage the hysterical right wing.

Cost

Bendy buses don't come cheap, and Boris has had the sense to say that existing contracts will be honoured, meaning that the last bendies (on Route 453) will retire in five to seven years time (contracts are flexible!).

So he doesn't have the cost of replacement - merely the higher cost of the next contract.

And it will be considerably higher. Not only has Boris promised double deckers, but he also plans on reintroducing conductors on those routes, with a cost he thought would be £2 million, but is actually nearer £110 million. Small discrepancy there, Boris!

Even straight replacement would have been expensive; you'd need about three double deckers to replace two bendies. Bendies don't come cheap - but then, neither do double deckers. Boris's bold plan to have a specially designed bus with an open back platform is anything but cheap, if indeed it happens at all.

Congestion

Congestion in London's central area is a whole issue on its own, but two bendies occupy much the same space as three double deckers, and, with their three exits, spend less 'dwell time' at bus stops, arguably contributing less to the problem.

Free Buses

There's no doubt that TfL need to tighten up on fare control. If you have a season ticket, you are not obliged to 'touch in' as you board the bus, while pre-pay users should.

This means that if you see someone fail to touch in, you don't know if he's (a) a forgetful prepay user, (b) a cheat or (c) a season ticket holder.

This is stupid, as there is no 'pressure' on the cheat. If everyone had to touch in, then anyone who failed to do so would attract stares at best, violence at worst. While not a complete solution, this pressure would put off the lily-livered cheat, who currently prospers as much as the vicious-looking guy with the tattoes, who will never be challenged! (Even though he's probably the most gentle man on the bus!).

It is also worth bearing in mind that the routemaster, which had conductors and was the predecessor of the bendy, was just as much a 'free bus' - as conductors only rarely ventured onto the upper deck during the rush hour (and some conductors rarely ever).

Bendy Buses and Cyclists

Articulated buses run in most major cities in Europe and South America, and do not have a reputation as being the Cyclists' Nemesis. But then, cyclists in most countries do not own the road, as they seem to think they do in the UK. It seems quite reasonable to me that a cyclist who ignores traffic lights and road signs, then tries to overtake a bendy on the inside, is asking for trouble.

Bendies and Pedestrians

You can cut accident statistics in so many ways that it's hard to be 100% confident of anything. But there's little doubt that bendies are no more dangerous than double-deckers when the comparison is made between central area routes; a pan-London comparison, when bendies are rare in the leafy suburbs, is unfair.

Bendies and Passenger safety

Bendy buses are much, much safer than Routemasters, with their open platforms and high access.

So What's It All About?

The anti-bendy campaign was born as an Evening Standard weapon to taunt Ken; it was taken up by a weird alliance of Routemaster fanciers, Aspirant Tories and Environmentally-friendly cyclists.

Amd because 'New Labour' took a nasty turn at the election, Boris beat Ken - despite a lower than national swing, and now Londoners will foot the bill and be squashed into double deckers for the duration.

Shame!

How Stupid Are Ebay?

2008-07-08T18:54:00.005+01:00

Ebay, and their joined-at-the-hip friend, Paypal, make much of how they protect the consumer; how they are a safe way to shop.

All rubbish, of course. I had a recent dispute, when a seller failed to deliver my paid-for goods. Because the seller had proof of posting, Paypal's dispute resolution set up found in the sellers favour; this despite the sellers promise to post by recorded delivery, and a promise that all goods were insured against loss.

I spent hours being fobbed off and sent around in circles until it was clear that all they wanted was the quiet life. Not one reply to numerous emails and forms, that suggested my words had even been read; no dialogue: "This mailbox is not monitored and you will not receive a response.".

So I went to Google and found Consumer Direct. Within minutes, a helpful human being explained my rights, advised possible next steps, and sent me pro forma letters to adapt for my needs.

Now that's what I call customer service ... how stupid are Ebay?

(For those with similar issues, more details here)

Inner Peace Through Seeing Things As They Really Are.

2008-07-06T15:29:00.003+01:00

I've always been fascinated by the success of Public Relations, and the ability of politicians and other inveterate liars to get away with it.

We all know that journalism is dead, replaced by tittle-tattle and the Copying of the Press Release, but I suspect other forces are at work, too.

This blog will explore some of the more obvious examples ...