Telarepto

Online European Dusting champions of the future rejoice!

2004-05-11T15:38:00.000Z

It’s a relief when a long held vision comes to pass.

As a sports graduate I have made my way round many a gym in my time, and one common factor is the inherent boredom associated with cardio vascular work (ie the stuff that makes you lose weight).

Ignoring the soul-destroying monotony of running or cycling without moving, I think there is a subconscious psychological demotivation of knowing that you aren’t going anywhere. Regardless, the 21st Century finally appears to have caught up with an improvement on some pioneering work by Cateye who offer a Playstation2 conversion kit for your indoor cycle. Great idea, but most games are unsurprisingly not configured for a wheezy thirty-something desperately trying not to blackout whilst controlling a game. But in the Boston Globe finally, a games developer is putting together slightly simpler, suitable games that will are specifically designed for exercise. At last, exercising at home will be something to relish. Throw out the training sheets, goals, progress charts and all those other incentives that you use to bolster your lack of interest -they are a thing of the past. There are even plans to offer online capabilities. Video Exercise Olympics anyone?

This is just the start in the war against mundane yet essential activities. Imagine using Virtual Reality technology whilst vacuuming where you might see yourself as a 50 ft tall Godzilla-style beast crushing innocent cities, vacuuming up cars and trucks etc. Perhaps the washing up could be turned into washing something a bit more “x-rated”. You wouldn’t be able to keep blokes away from the sink if they were actually soaping the current Miss World for instance.

2004-04-23T15:26:00.000Z

Busy work week means slack posting - Sorry to all the multitudes of readers out there!

When will we just accept the war on Privacy is lost?

2004-04-23T15:15:00.000Z

The latest news that Bluetooth enabled phones can be hijacked through a practice know as Bluesnarfing is one more slip down the privacy ladder. Basically anything in your phone – address books, photos etc can be stolen without your knowledge by a Bluetooth equipped phone/laptop combo. As we all know, our Desktop and Laptops when connected to the web are notoriously vulnerable, aided of course by both the voluntary posting of personal diaries, photos, weblogs etc, and the involuntary - from well meaning proud parents and their baby sites . But why do we care about this?

Jungian psychology describes privacy with the concept of public and private masks. One is the respectable face that is shown to others, and then there is the dark, perverted, disturbing “evil twin” comprising all your human weaknesses and failings. As society increased in complexity and social standing became more than strength and brawn, humans have been trying to gain advantage by masking their true self for fear of rejection or demotion in the hierarchy. From the earliest times there has been a constant standoff – any new development in privacy and its protection would quickly be countered and penetrated by “curious” individuals and more recently companies. In hunter/gatherer days our earliest society (at that time essentially "the tribe"), knew almost everything about everyone due to the close proximity of the living conditions. The only way to escape such familiarity would be to sneak off from the tribe for some “private time”. However, if you were so inclined, you could always hide and follow to uncover your neighbour’s dark and exciting secrets. As tribes discovered the benefits of agriculture and farming, migration and the need for constant food sourcing declined and for the first time people had spare time to create their own little sanctuaries, fracturing into individual homesteads and settled communities, (villages). For the first time, privacy was something attainable from a society, but again, were you so motivated, some judicious peeking and prying through cave entrances/windows would reveal all.

Where once lovers coupled in full view of the tribe at the back of the cave, now outcries ensue from people that strangers have made off with their personal photo albums. Obviously there are perverts out there that get enjoyment from the voyeuristic aspects of finding these photos on the Web, but they would still have been there covertly watching in the cave, spying with a telescope, or through a peep hole in a communal wall as you go about your daily business. You can always rely on human ingenuity to overcome a personal obstacle (to being nosey).

Skipping forward through to the current information age, we in the West seem to have expanded our personal physical and cerebral privacy expectations. We revel in the accumulation of personal data generated by commerce that is pretty much irrelevant for 90% of the world’s population, shrouding ourselves with the blankets of technology. For example your Internet history if published, could mean the revelation of some personally embarrassing sites right through to the prospect of several years languishing in a cell, depending on what was found. These are not the privacy concerns of the average third world farmer. We seem to feel that privacy is a right that comes hand in hand with civilisation regardless of the benefits new technology confers. The old colonial superciliousness in terms of the personal standards of the early European explorers towards the natives encountered due to their lack of clothes still prevails at some subconscious level. The thinking is that as We have clothes and other technologies We must be superior and civilised. The fact that these indigenous people didn’t need the warmth, sun protection or carrying capacity that clothes offered meant that it never occurred to them that they were being offensively open.

Is privacy such a rare fruit that once tasted it will only be relinquished by prising it out of our cold, dead hands? Is it because it reminds us of how far from those tribal interdependent days we have come or are we just still scared of rejection? Our concept of “society” has expanded from tribes – villages – towns – countries through to the current megatribes (The West, Europe, The Middle East, or Africa etc) aided by communication, the Internet, international languages and media propagated cultures. At the same time our level of personal information has increased, with more and more choices that we want to make in everyday life but could show us in a bad light. It seems the more we keep private, the more we want to keep to ourselves which, in turn, generates a whole industry dedicated to finding this information out.

The very act of repressing something normally creates a demand; the number of “houses of ill repute” in Victorian society was a backlash to the sexual repression of that era. Nowadays we can point to the (unfortunate) popularity of reality shows. Is it something in us all that likes to see behind the scenes and reveal the inner truth? Is the attraction the thrill of breaking the relatively modern privacy taboo, or is it a subconscious yearning back to the tribal days of social bonding thorugh knowing your neighbour’s inner feelings and motivations?

We don’t really talk about how much we earn, how much debt we have or where we have been on the Internet, even to our closest friends, or in some cases, our spouses. We access information via the Web etc or make other such choices that validate our private mask, perhaps confident of not being discovered due to the complexity and volume of such access channels. Our masks have expanded to not only include our innermost thoughts but also our actions. When it is revealed that these channels are not secure and trails of our failings exist and are open to scrutiny we react in horror.

An interesting book covering the “ultimate” in invasion of privacy by two very famous authors is The Light of Other Days by Stephen Baxter and Arthur C Clarke . To summarise, wormholes allow tiny, undetectable cameras to travel back through time from the future and view any period, any event or person in history. Every second of someone’s life can be revealed (if you can be bothered to watch it all) including yours! This, the ultimate in technology reduces us back to our most open and primitive – exposed for all to see with all our human failings on display.

We may resent the intrusion but underneath the technological skin it seems there is still the scared little ape desperate for approval from its peers, and scared to show its true face.

Rise of the Uber Athlete

2004-04-15T15:35:00.000Z

G. Pascal Zachary in Wired makes an interesting point and one that I have supported for years following a degree in Sports Science. Athletes should be allowed to take performance enhancing drugs. (PEDs) (shock horror)

As Zachary opines
Fans and sports authorities may protest, even governments may object - recall President Bush's State of the Union swipe at steroids - but the sporting world must ultimately accept that the distinctions between doping and nutritional supplements, illegal enhancements and scientific training, no longer exist.
Elite sports are already thoroughly enmeshed in a laboratory world of pharmaceuticals, medicine, and high tech nutrition. Any athlete who wants a banned drug can get it. And as we've seen repeatedly, designer drugs coevolve with tests, staying one step ahead of authorities and allowing savvy athletes to juice unnoticed.

During my degree, which was at the top UK Sports University and had an impressive alumni of World/Olympic champion athletes, we inevitablycovered this aspect of sports. The ultimate conclusions I reached were in sharp contrast to a lot of my peers for a number of (personal) reasons. I have deliberately steered clear of the health issues because in my experience, with the rewards on offer to successful sports stars nowadays, most athletes will take any and all advantages they can. Once it was determined that steroids and other drugs had been used with no guarantee of side effects (as in some people got away with it), then human nature being what it is, athletes started to ask “why not me?”

Innovation should not be punished, PED's in the way they appeared were every bit as legitimate as better training. Emil Zatopek was the first modern athlete to “invent” training – he immediately dominated athletics due to the performance enhancements it conferred. But – once explained even the Beckhams of this world understood how it all worked – unlike doping. There are negative health implications to top level training, shin splints for runners, hip wear for walkers, knee injuries for Soccer players. Sport itself can be dangerous - even more so when repeated regularly.

Traditional arguments for doping control.
Cost equality barrier
An argument much hyped, is that by banning drugs, athletes from less privileged backgrounds and countries that could not afford the development costs or purchase of the drugs would be disadvantaged. Well, the Iron Curtain era athletes (from poor backgrounds etc) were more than eager to take the risks from dangerously developed enhancements due to the potentially greater payoff to their lifestyle. Expanding this argument – surely Africans are disadvantaged in the Winter sports due to their location and weather (lack of winter!)

Artificial versus Natural
How do you actually determine a legitimate performance enhancement? For example, there are certain drugs that boost haemoglobin levels in the blood, thus increasing oxygen carrying capacity for an unfair advantage. Fair enough you might think that’s definitely not allowed, but you get exactly the same effect if you live at high altitude, where the body naturally develops the same response to maximise the little oxygen there is. The end result is identical..

The Selfish approach (from the athletes)
The idea of taking Performance Enhancing Drugs is obviously to gain a competitive edge, and if everyone else can take them – you’re back to a level playing field. Not that I am suggesting any of my classmates and peers were taking anything but some were very successful.

Arguments for letting them do what they like
Performance Limits
As sport science in all its facets has developed, top “natural” athletes are now approaching the limits of human physical potential, hence the slightest edge will be noticeable.

One major development has been exterior technology, from tennis players moving from woods to composites, and more recently Michael Jordan’s shoes or skin suits for swimmers. These performance enhancers are allowed and encouraged but are just as “unfair” as designer drug cocktails.

There is also training methods to consider. The latest in sports science technology allows considerable performance and technique analysis along with nutritional improvements and medical treatment for injuries. All of these make a significant difference to performance – should we limit them? How do you differentiate a vitamin versus a performance supplement? Supposing a naturally occurring plant was discovered that mimicked anabolic steroids – if it were banned then the reasoning and standards all become subjective and thus open to their own performance discriminations. The farce surrounding Greg Rusedski drinking fluids placed out for the tennis players that contained microscopic traces of a banned substance compounds this. Are athletes of the future going to miss out on medical advances because they may have a performance effect? Most cold remedies are banned for this reason as one example.

Due to these slender athletic advantages, the power of the mind is now one of the single biggest factors in athletic performance – particularly with the enormous external pressures of modern media on top athletes etc. Meditation and Positive Mental Attitude are both shown to help considerably in positioning the brain at the optimum level of stimulation for peak performance.

In the future
Zachary quire rightly concludes that the human race idolises the Uber-man, how else do we progress as a species if we do not press the boundaries of what is achievable? I think the idea of natural and enhanced sports is a valid one – bodybuilding has it in some forms at this time after all. But what is the next step beyond the optimisation of our current form?
It’s entirely possible that drugs and/or technology (some sort of alpha wave generator?) could improve mental performance and thus gain advantages. The Zen trances of the Shaolin monks is a good example of what can be achieved in these states, imagine being able to get into that zone at the flick of a switch.
Where will the line be drawn for replacement limbs (think bionic men), or even completely gene-engineered mutants? 6 armed soccer goalkeeper anyone? (I’m sure Grant Naylor, Red Dwarf writer and author expanded on this in one of the books spun off from the TV show)
Independent from us messing with ourselves – if we colonise Mars or the Moon, physiological changes could occur over a couple of generations that will necessitate a completely different approach to a level playing field!
Now that biological enhancement is understood by governing bodies, the health risks in some way measurable, perhaps it should be down to the athletes. In the middle of a race, the will to win at all odds is feted, why cannot that be the case outside of the performance that we see in front of us?

Accidental Heroes of the Future?

2004-04-13T14:48:00.000Z

As technology advances inexorably without signs of abatement, government bodies are finding things are a little harder than in times past – particularly in terms of defence.

In the old days, the keys to superiority were Technology, Resources and the numbers of Soldiers willing to be mown down. Right up until the end of the Cold War, conflicts involving the Western military model followed a fairly typical Chess style of conflict – two opposing sides on a selected battleground. Admittedly during the course of the 20th Century the battleground has moved from being certain fields in certain countries, to most of Europe (particularly Belgium), to the rest of the World, but still two opponents squaring off. But now, the recent conflicts have changed “The Rules” and all of the traditional keys to success are meaningless. Without defined “sides”, the availability of destructive technology to the individual has devalued sheer might and power.

The overwhelming superiority of the Allied Forces when invading Iraq using a traditional conflict model was obvious, but the “success” of the invasion is overshadowed by the current failure of the occupation as Iraqi’s basically changed tactics. Their successes against the Allied Forces will shape future conflicts and inevitably change the global balance of power. No country in the world has wanted to take on the West in a traditional war, but many are probably now watching the Iraqi efforts with great interest. The West is shackled by a necessitously humane approach, and more ruthless leaders will probably revel in the seemingly invincible Allied military humbled by a few individuals.

The key issue for the future is of course cost. The USA spends more on its military than any other country in the world and with the massive emphasis on safety – any technological developments are taking 20 – 30 years to get from the drawing board to delivery. Not a problem in the old days when “he who had the biggest….” wins, but that is no longer the case. Witness the cancellation of the Comanche helicopter after $30bn+ and 20 years development illustrates this perfectly.

For a change though, I think us Brits have been rather clever, probably more through accident than design, as an article in Space Today highlights. After years of borrowing our buddy’s equipment (US satellite imagery, GPS etc) we have quietly been cultivating our own. A joint venture with the Russians here, (our own space-based imaging system) and a joint venture with the Europeans there (Skynet 5 Military communications defence satellite manufacture) and although on paper we do not have a space program – actually we are not that far behind. In the meantime we have managed to avoid the astronomical sums spent by other space faring nations. Particularly interesting is that a private company (SSTL) is one of the world leaders in micro satellite manufacture, and we have our own nascent rocket industry with the privately funded Starchaser X-prize contender, we have accidentally landed (no pun intended) ourselves in a relative forefront position.

The partnering with private industry has allowed the UK to spend minimal money yet keep in the race. In other words we are the first country to have a privatised space capacity – and I bet the politicians barely know about it.

The best thing for the future is that in another 15 years we need to replace our aging Tornado Strike aircraft, we will need “…a capability to strike with precision and in a timely and controlled manner at fixed, relocatable, and mobile hardened and soft targets, by day and by night, and in all weather conditions.” This sounds similar to the requirements for some concepts that have been floating around the US Air Force Space Command involving rapid global strike from Space. We have a chance to leapfrog an entire technology cycle and leap from 1960’s military equipment right into the 21st Century. This could well propel Britain to the forefront of global powerplays, keeping our ability to punch above our weight class in world politics.

British Space fans, have enviously eyed the other countries venturing into space, bemoaning our lack of vision, but quietly behind the scenes through private initiative, luck and sheer true Brit bloody mindedness we are still in the running. Its up to the politicians to make the next move, lets hope it’s the right one.

Bigger, Faster, Better?

2004-04-01T15:22:00.000Z

On the BBC News site, there is a very interesting discussion on the future of travel, with some technological front-runners examined and explained. The article is very interesting but falls short of examining their social impact. A classic example of how the greatest of ideas can fall short in practice is the Segway. Although undeniably a brilliant idea, it falls between two posts – its too fast for pavements and too slow for roads and just too darned expensive. In all probability a cycle or scooter, especially electric versions which are a fraction of the cost of a Segway, or even rollerblades achieve the same objective. So what could the future hold for us in the real world?

Scramjets
Nasa scientists say their experimental X-43A jet has the potential to make the world a much smaller place. It has already led to predictions that passenger planes will one day fly from the UK to Australia in two hours.

Great idea in principle and assuming all the technical barriers can be hurdled, howzabout the real world? First of all these planes would not be able to fly over land (one of the major issues Concorde faced) due to sonic booms noise, which restricts potential travel routes. Time will tell whether this noise will be tolerable at extremely high altitudes due to lower air resistance for greater speed, but there will be less oxygen. I should imagine there will be an optimum height to fly at which may or may not be acceptable. Secondly the airports to service them would, for the same reasons have to be away from cities near coastlines. Anyone who has flown in this security-minded age will know that the time spent in airports can be longer than the flights. If you have to journey a considerable distance to the airport the actual total door-to-door journey time may not be significantly better than conventional flights. Ultimately there may only be one or two routes around the world which would be economic to run – which would be a great shame. (Also can you imagine the jet lag if in 2 hours of travel you are on a different day and your bodyclock is 12 hours out!)

Flying cars
Developments in microlight technology will make it possible for everyone to own what are, in effect, flying cars. They will have closed cabins, heating, stereos and room for two people.
You will take off from a field or runway near your home and fly to towns and cities across the UK, or mainland Europe
This would undoubtedly be fantastic but once we crack the car/plane integration issues how would it work in if it replaces the ground based car in popularity? The difficulty of obtaining a private pilots licence is probably beyond the reach of most normal people (from a cost, time and ability basis) so to maintain safety, computers would be the natural way to control the mechanics of flying and leave people just to point it in the right direction. This would add considerably to the price and complexity, which brings us back to affordability. There is also the fairly obvious issue of safety as mentioned in the article. Allowing that they make them safe to crash land in, the cost of implementing an infrastructure to support people dropping into the North Sea, or in the middle of a remote field would make most businesses wince. Its one thing making these car/planes impact survivable but can you imagine the AA premiums?

Jet packs
The idea of personal flight is indescribably cool and something I am sure we have all dreamt about. As the article mentions, the downsides of setting fire to yourself and the control of the pack itself probably rules jets out. But there are those perennial adverts in the back of magazines for a turbofan arrangement that has been under development for some time. Vectorsite has some interesting variations on the idea. The BBC article asks if we need them, well why wouldn’t we? Cuts congestion and allows individual freedom of point-to-point movement with no infrastructure costs – a politicians dream transport solution. The idea of commuting across London in 20 minutes to wherever you choose and gracefully alighting in the street or a park sounds great. But then again, watching the number of collisions on busy pavements in the rush hour as people bustle along stopping and starting, you begin to wonder at the devastation when half-asleep commuters have to deal with three dimensions rather than two, and the associated blind spots and collision angles that develop exponentially. There is also the privacy issue, flying over gardens or hovering up to bedroom windows (assuming a Blue Thunder “whisper” mode or a telephoto lens can be deployed) could reveal a lot more than people wish to. Don’t give the paparazzi any more ways of boring us with “celebrity revelations”.

Driverless cabs
This is a great idea if a bit boring compared to the other suggestions. Taking the best aspects of buses and trains combined with the flexibility of taxis. Ignoring the ever-present computer failure scenario, the only downside (apart from the lack of political advice on running the country from taxi drivers- where will they go and how will the country survive without their guidance?) I can see, which the article also mentions, would be the sprawl of the infrastructure to accommodate everyone’s destination whims. If (and it’s a pretty big if) the controlling computer could talk to Network Rail's computers, an idea could be to make the wheelbase extendable for them to roll on to the existing rail lines. Individual cars could slot between trains and ultimately replace them as more are used. Can’t see the railway companies liking that here in the UK– but it should work fine in other countries with their state run systems.

Environmentally friendly cars
Assuming the commitment is real from car companies et al, and the oil industry doesn’t sabotage its introduction, there is no real reason why hydrogen powered cars will not be commonplace in the future; which at an individual environmental level is great news. However, the big picture view is slightly different. The environmental cost of producing the required amounts of hydrogen is not mentioned in the article and the only affordable way (both economically and environmentally) to manufacture enough hydrogen is through nuclear power . Now I think that nuclear power with proper safety and modern technology will be a good thing, but the very environmentalists calling for hydrogen’s rapid adoption may not be so enthusiastic.

Maglev
The article is fairly pessimistic due to the cost/complexity vs. benefits compared to normal trains, which I have to agree with. Where it could work though is in vacuum tunnels to attain speeds even jets would envy (apart from the cost of building and maintaining them of course). The other option is to use them to catapult scramjets up to speed. Scram jets just do not work at “normal” jet velocities so getting them to their optimum speed which may be Mach 5+ is going to be difficult without expensive rockets, as a compressor jet engine wont go that fast and even if it did, would be torn off at the higher speeds.

Now don’t get me wrong I am a committed petrolhead and love technological innovation but some social questions need to be asked before we spend millions developing something we don’t need, or can’t actually implement

Apocalypse Now!

2004-03-29T17:27:00.000Z

An article on Wired:
For 1,500 years, Jews, Christians, and Muslims have fought for control of this 35-acre plateau in the heart of Jerusalem. The dispute remains one of the main obstacles to peace in the Middle East. Jewish teachings say that a temple must be built here - many say on the exact spot where the Dome now stands - in order to induce the arrival of the Messiah and the coming of peace on Earth. Fundamentalist Christians interpret this to mean the Second Coming of Christ and actively encourage Jewish building efforts. Muslims categorically oppose any encroachment on their holy site, from which they believe Mohammed ascended to heaven to receive the Koran.
That struggle began at the end of the Six-Day War in 1967, when Israel wrested control of eastern Jerusalem from Jordan. For the first time in nearly 2,000 years, the Temple Mount was in Jewish hands. For many Jews and Christians, this was an electrifying moment. The Israeli government finally had the chance to raze the Dome of the Rock and build the prophesied temple. But in a decision that pains fundamentalists to this day, then-defence minister Moshe Dayan returned day-to-day control of the Mount to the Islamic Trust.
All sides acknowledge that tensions on the hill have the potential to start a war, but Yitzhaq Hayutman believes he has found a way to resolve the intractable conflict. "What most people see is that if the Muslims are here, surely there is no temple," Hayutman says. "They do not understand that technology has given us the tools to realize the prophecy right now."
He has two big ideas, two ways to engineer the apocalypse. The first: a hovering holographic temple. Hayutman wants to set up an array of high-powered, water-cooled lasers and fire them into a transparent cube suspended beneath a blimp. The ephemeral, flickering image, he says, would fulfill an ancient, widely revered Jewish prophecy that the temple will descend from the heavens as a manifestation of light
You have to hand it to this chap as surely the most “out of the box” solution for solving this eternal conflict. The fact that many evangelical Christians and Jews would still happily obliterate the Muslim temple is understandably a powder keg waiting to happen. The irony is that the current crop of Muslim terrorists are using the very weapons and delivery systems that jeopardise their own holy centre. Back in the early 1980’s 27 well-educated, politically connected young Israeli men who decided to instigate the rebuilding of the temple by blowing up the Dome. They loaded a jeep full of stolen explosives from the Israeli army, manufactured their own bombs, and drew up a scheme to strap 28 charges to the Dome's pillars. They planned meticulously, estimating the amount of time it would take to scale the walls of the Temple Mount and predicting the direction of the mosque's collapse.

Luckily the plot was foiled by the Israeli “FBI”, the enormous repercussions consigned to a narrowly averted nightmare. The author asks How will World War III begin?" Google answers with a Web site that details the struggle over the Temple Mount. Before coming here, I'd read that the Mount was a "powder keg" and "ground zero for the apocalypse." The reality is that the fuse is already burning. Every day, Jewish zealots are praying for the destruction of the Dome of the Rock, and there are legions of Muslims ready to give their lives to avenge its desecration.

The problem with war is that it escalates the atrocities on both sides in an endless tit-for-tat. Is this where we are headed? I know that the vast majority of Church of England members (i.e. man in the street in England who would list only the obligatory weddings and funerals as their church going activities) would be up in arms if a Muslim extremist blew up St Paul’s Cathedral. Hayutman’s solution is elegant and inspired, even if some question the actual application…"Do you bring a lamb hologram into the sky as well?". "And how do you throw lamb blood on a holographic altar that is floating in the sky? It gets complicated." Most hopeful and promising is that the senior Muslim clerics are not totally opposed… asking Husseini if he's familiar with Hayutman's idea of projecting a holographic temple over the Dome of the Rock. "We have heard of this man's projections of light," he responds, speaking slowly and cautiously. "And we will allow it to happen here - when there is a peace settlement."

One last "serious" point - if people believe that this virtual temple will work, (and if you believe in religion to the extent these people do then by extention why wouldn't they) will this allow the Christian/Jewish pantheon to hold the Muslims to ransom?

The idea of painting over our troubles with technology is fascinating, who is to say whether this idea will bring about the apocalypse or not, but back in day-to- day life perhaps there will be some interesting possibilities. As technology improves, would Sir like his suburban 3 bed home manifesting as an actual Englishman’s castle?. Perhaps different images of Company Headquarter’s buildings to represent how the stock price is doing? A Saturn five rocket when your thrusting, company is reaching for the sky and the Hindenburg when the receivers are called in! Trivial and amusing maybe (and probably hideous to behold if everyone could be indulged), but we could take a leaf out of Jasper Maskelyne’s book and move potential terrorist targets. The news that the House of Commons will be surrounded by a 15’ high concrete wall, would perhaps be more palatable if we couldn’t see it. If a hologram temple is good enough for God then maybe we should allow these illusions to redefine our view of the world.

Nannies Nannies everywhere and ne’er a risk to take

2004-03-26T16:29:00.000Z

Following my post the other day, more safety worries...

This article is from AJPlus - the Architects journal (registration required)
‘Compensation culture is killing our parks’ warns CABE
The public is being prevented from enjoying imaginative local parks and open spaces by the increasing culture of compensation, CABE has claimed.
The design watchdog has warned that a fear of litigation among local authorities is turning ‘much of Britain’s urban space into soul-less space’.
Julia Thrift, the head of CABE Space, warned that many of the aspects of parks and open spaces that are held most dear are in danger of dying out because of the £117 million bill faced by local authorities.
She said that the ancient trees, boating lakes, adventure playgrounds, festivals, markets and water features are under threat because they are deemed ‘too risky’.
For example, last month Suffolk County Council outlawed hanging baskets from some lamp posts in Bury St Edmonds because of concerns that one might fall on someone’s head.

'Nuff said really.

Lines in the sand

2004-03-25T13:49:00.000Z

So Mr Blair is aiming to add to his frequent flier points with a terrorist round trip from Spain, Northern Ireland and lastly, and most notably, Libya? Startlingly, the usually calm, considered, measured response of the Red Top tabloids has been absent with a seeming crusade to remind everyone of the undoubted horror of Libya’s past terrorist acts.

The Conservatives said the timing of the visit was "highly questionable", coming a day after he attended a memorial service for this month's Madrid rail bombing victims -- Europe's biggest terror attack since Lockerbie.

I would venture that this is exactly the time to make this trip and whilst not a card-carrying fan of Blair, this bold gesture is a shrewd tactical move to offer Libya a way out.

The hoary old cliché of “a trapped rat always fights” is right on the money in this instance. Countries are run by people, and the kind of people that have the drive and determination to be the leader of a country (particularly one as undemocratic as Libya), do not get to that position by backing down over anything they feel is important to them. If countries are committed to a certain path and are allowed no way out from this policy direction, then these things come down to pride. Conflicts tend to drag on, with neither side willing to back down until things escalate to point determined by outside factors – ie running out of money or outside intervention. In the last few years this has been usually the UN,USA, EU etc. and realistically how successful has this been with Bosnia, Ethiopia, Sudan and of course Northern Ireland, Israel etc? If the war intimately involves these august bodies, and on a much larger world stage, who can then be turned to as arbitrator? These conflicts take enormous amounts of lives, time, commitment and money – the conflicts mentioned above have been decades in their resolution and are not measurably nearer any sort of completed settlement.

Only a fool performs the same actions and expects a different outcome and yet this has been the way of the world until now. Bush roped in his friends and has tried the direct approach; time will tell how successful this will be but has undoubtedly caused as many problems as it may have cured. Blair is trying the olive branch and it seems that the very liberals castigating him for the war on Iraq are now attacking the way of forgiveness.

"Let us offer to states that want to renounce terrorism and the development of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons our hand in partnership to achieve it as Libya has rightly and courageously decided to do," Blair told a news conference.

What should we do? Invade Libya to redress the wrongs committed by a small group of fanatics years ago a la Iraq? I am particularly impressed with Jim Swire of the UK Families Flight 103 campaign group, who said the visit would "greatly diminish the chances of a backsliding of support for terrorism". This must have been one of the most terrible things to come to terms with, that a peaceful approach may fare better than “an eye for an eye”.

The outcry regarding our future investment and military backing has predictably upset middle England but how better to keep an eye on things? Gaddafi has shown that in the past he cannot be trusted, hopefully the leopard has changed his spots but until we give him a chance how will we know? Answer: keep an eye on him. If we train their guys, build their infrastructure etc we have a better chance of ensuring that things move forward and promises are kept. Resorting to clichés once more – keep your friends close and your enemies even closer! Forget not the Libyan people – years of sanctions and deprivation in a country with 2,000 kilometres of undeveloped coastline and some of the finest ancient Roman remains in the Mediterranean, the country offers enormous opportunities for tourism investors and the locals! I am sure they would rather be invaded by people carrying beach towels rather than rifles.

In a world where anyone with access to the internet and basic chemistry can create bombs of devastating effects, and the terrorist bar has been raised ever higher with Madrid, alienating people is only an option if you are prepared to handle the decades long aftermath. Perhaps the world is finally learning that letting everyone join your gang is better than letting them create their own.

The nation of nannies

2004-03-22T17:04:00.000Z

One has to wonder at the over-protective culture insinuating into our lives, sponsored it seems, by the British legal system. Long have us Brits knowingly (and some would say condescendingly) looked over our shoulders at our American cousins, sneering at their tidal waves of lawyers gushing forth from law school, sweeping across the streets, rushing after every ambulance and “accident” in a frothing foam of writs and lawsuits. This wave of litigation unfortunately appears to have finally washed to our shores, as those who may have watched more than 2 minutes of non-terrestrial TV will testify due to the incessant implorations for injured people to ring in after their trip or fall. As any sane person would agree there has to be some recourse for those who are critically injured particularly through negligence or deliberation but for schools to be banning football and swimming pools to ban backstroke due to the danger? Whatever happened to accidents? Surely there must be some assumption of responsibility on behalf of the individual, particularly with regard to the levels of payouts that seem to be awarded. In many instances I am sure that people have been critically injured, but lets be honest here (a first possibly in a lot of legal instances) there are some people that may not have been injured quite as much as they would have you believe, and the cost of all this is passed on to you and I. The corollary is that institutions are becoming incredibly risk averse and restricting activities for fear of lawsuits.

Protecting our young is obviously an over riding urge but what kind of society is it going to be in 10 years time when these kids become adult and not used to taking a few knocks and scrapes? Is a generation of "bubble kids", going to cut it in the big bad world out there? A risk averse society becomes cautious and “safe”, a cultural malaise that leads to stagnation and introversion. Could the death of empires which has occurred time and again throughout history be linked to the safety within its boundaries? Inside the bountiful orchard the fruit grows fatter and richer but less resistance to disease and outside predators. From outside the orchard walls, looking from a harsher more barren landscape our western complacency is an easily plucked ripe fruit. It may not be a physical threat but posture and pyschology are just as effective as weapons on the battlefields of trade and capitalism.

Ancient Inuit Goddess of the Sea Ahoy!

2004-03-17T16:50:00.000Z

Yet again it seems the boundaries of our solar system have taken a leap outwards with the discovery of Sedna out in the icy wastes between the Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud Translation – bloody miles away, over twice as far as Pluto at its closest and over 15 times further at its furthest. (thanks to Space.com)

Distances that are unimaginable to us on Earth now define our local galactic neighbourhood and as the technology of telescopes increases, one can only assume that more will be discovered as its orbit of 10,000 years means that the Egyptians hadn’t even got their act together last time it was making house calls nearby!

The interesting thing is that this actually could impact our Basic Solar System, as poor old Pluto is likely to be demoted. (Where this leaves Mickey and Donald, nobody is saying.) Basically the thinking goes “When is a planet not actually a planet, but a humongously big chunk of ice that is nearly the size of a planet?” Theoretically unless the New Horizon probes prove otherwise, all the indications are that Pluto is closer to comet than a planet – just damn big. If you do include it as a planet then you have to include the latest newcomers Quaoar, Ixion, Varuna and of course Sedna – bringing our count to at least 12.

Look out for punch ups over the Trivial Pursuit boards in years to come!

Whoops, the Christians are coming!

2004-03-11T11:28:00.000Z

As a largely secular country here in the UK it is with some macabre fascination to observe our religious cousins across the pond starting to rattle their sabres. As a country that still has Creationism Science taught in a significant number of schools and a large swathe of the hinterlands proudly marked on the map as "The Bible Belt" it is an issue that we in good ol'blighty have not had to deal with. Although the last few incumbents of the White House have not made religion an election issue, George Bush (Clinton to some extent, and Carter, in perhaps less globally religion-sensitive times) have actively propagated their image as good Christians in an effort to canvas more votes. But this tactic could be the cause of many of the problems afflicting America at the moment as the politically correct administration comes into conflict with the rather more unPc personal Christian beliefs that make up the majority of the population and have been fuelled in the effort to win more votes.

Nothing wrong with that you may think its their problem, until you consider the rest of the world's view of the US of A. Although everyone knows that Americans are historically and predominantly Christian, for the first time their leader has emphasised this fact. To some countries, used to a reality where religion splits and divides as its most significant social effects, this could be construed as a religious drawing of lines in the sand. The unfortunate events on September the 11th may be seen by those countries as a perfectly reasonable response to that declaration - after all, that’s the way its always been done at a local level (Northern Ireland, Israel, etc) and if the richest country in the world declares sides then they should expect the consequences. (Obviously many more factors but for reason of brevity go with me in general terms).

In reaction to the events in the last couple of years, the American Bible Belt is fighting back with hugely unPC rhetoric regarding Muslims, their values and their standards. This is further fuelling the gulf between the religions rather than seeking to mend it. The anonymity of the Internet creates forums where zealous views can be exchanged, fuelling the fires of discord, bigotry and misunderstanding. As Bush and Co. have continue to paint themselves into a corner, other side issues also come out (of the closet) to play to exacerbate the problems, with help from Mel Gibson’s new film!

To a certain extent, perhaps this religious hot potato is the wake up call to the rest of the World that America has needed since the demise of Russia as a political counterweight. Their success as cultural influencers has positive and negative impacts on the audience that is now, the rest of the world. Non-Christian vitriol confined to local bible bashing communities is now accessible to view across the globe, and what they find seems to concern the more aggressive non-Christians. Which perhaps may make their position more extreme.

In Britain our claustrophobic geography would appear to put people with different ethnic and religious backgrounds closer together and hopefully lead to greater understanding. But with our position behind Blair as the faithful American lapdog in Europe, is their religious debate going to polarise things over here?

Seemingly forgotten for a number of years, religion, through a series of statements followed by face-saving manoeuvres, is back on the agenda. Aided by the simmering undercurrents of ignorance, wrapped in a confused layer of racism and general mistrust towards the different could religion accidentally be the next weapon in the political battlegrounds over here?

2004-03-09T16:28:00.000Z

An interesting story on yahoo news that is no surprise, but in its own right demonstrates Mankind's inbuilt suicidal streak.

The continuing epidemic of obesity in America could wipe out many of the recent improvements in health within the next 20 years, according to a new U.S. analysis.

If Americans continue to get fatter at current rates, by 2020 about one in five health-care dollars spent on people aged 50 to 69 could be due to obesity -- 50 percent more than now, the Rand Corporation study found on Tuesday.

In 2000, 14 percent of money spent on health care for U.S. men aged 50 to 69 went to obesity-related complications including diabetes and heart disease. In 2020, that could rise to 21 percent, the researchers said.

The thought that the self-styled "most advanced and civilised country in the world" is going backward in its health, behind supposedly less advanced countries is certainly ironic. Winning the war against many diseases and afflictions seems to be leading to a complacency regarding health. One can only specualte that this problem will increase at a compounding rate unless some culture shift occurs, as it becomes less and less of a stigma to be overweight and more culturally acceptable.

The simple fact is we eat far too much for our activity levels, we all know this. Many, many publications are continually espousing diets of every sort, many of which have health implications in their own right. There are multitudes of people who are constantly on a diet, yet still gain weight. Everyone knows they should exercise more but can't afford the gym fees - or the time.

What I am suggesting is trying to shift our values and expectations regarding exercise and work. Can anyone else see the irony in paying hundreds of pounds/dollars for labour saving equipment or house cleaners - and then hundreds of pounds/dollars in gym fees and plastic surgery. Sure, those tasks are boring and unfulfilling but then isn't running on a treadmill?

Obviously Consumer goods manufacturers brainwash us into thinking that we need these labour saving devices to enhance our lifestyle, but perhaps at a social level we should try and move towards a culture that doing things manually or physically is acceptable (approved of, even) rather than being "looked down" on. Why is working a weight training machine more acceptable than scrubbing a floor?

At a personal level it seems to come down to the attitude that we have when tackling these tasks or jobs. Perhaps we should try and view activities that requires any sort of physical input as exercise rather than as chores. A lot of the time we appraoch these jobs with trepidation, when maybe we should pysche ourselves up and set the same sort of goals as we would in the gym for a given task. (Eg: can I scrub that floor quicker than last time) For goodness sake, we even drive our cars to the local gym to go running, which when you think about it doesn't really make a lot of sense.

Cyborgs of the future? Is it worth it?

2004-03-08T16:09:00.000Z

An interesting article on Space.com regarding the Berkeley Lower Extremity Exoskeleton or BLEEX for short. For years we have been promised machine augmentation. Ever since Sigourney Weaver (Ripley) strapped on a machine to kick alien butt the thought of integrating with machines is a tantalising one. Is this the first example?

The 100-pound (45-kilogram) BLEEX consists of mechanical metal leg braces that are connected rigidly to the wearer at the feet, but is an easy fit elsewhere to avoid abrasion on the human body. The device includes a power unit and a backpack-like frame used to carry a large load.

More than 40 sensors and hydraulic actuators form a local area network (LAN) for the exoskeleton and function much like a human nervous system. When it is turned on, the exoskeleton is constantly calculating what it needs to do to distribute the weight so little to no load is imposed on the wearer.

Ever since the first machines were invented (eg the wheel), mankind has been injuring and killing himselves with them. (From an outsiders perspective you could argue the machines have slowly been killing humans off since they came into being!) What are the wider implications for this technology?

The question is whether or not it makes sense to boost a human to machine strength or boost machines to have more human intelligence and have them nominally under human guidance?

Imagine a construction site and the dangers that it represents to us poor fragile squidgy pink things compared to the monstrous and dangerous machine that surround us there. Workmen are continually injured through machinery accidents, often compunded by lack of training, poor maintenance and general negligence. With the "alien" model we would be surrounded by an exoskeleton of enormous strength and capability but not invulnerability. An current-technology example in the workplace is the forklift truck. A human operator uses a machine to boost their lifting capacity and goes along with the ride. 99% of the time this works well, with the skilled driver balancing loads and negotiating sites. But many accidents do occur, and when they tip over or drop their loads back on themselves it tends to get messy. I cannot think this would change - and for all the good roll cages etc do, there is a cost/safety issue that will inevitably compromise these intentions.

The other option that is being pursued is the boosting of machine intelligence to be able to perfom independently in a variety of situations and environments. This has happened in state-of-the-art warehouses or production lines with automated forklift trucks and assembly robots etc - it is not a great leap to imagine that this could extend to more complex and free roaming machines. The dream is that you tell 3 or 4 machines to "go build me a house" and off they go with little or no monitoring required. The US military have cottoned onto this fact and are sponsoring autonomous robots with a cash prize for the team that can create an independent machine that can traverse a 210 mile off road course. couple this with the Common Robotic Mobility Platform (RMP): and you basically have your own private mobile load carrying worker.

Now the interesting bit - the human condition. How will we relate to this? Would the average person be happy with a semi autonomous robot trundling along with 3 tons of material that at any moment could catch the robotic version of the Netsky virus causing it to think its a seed scattering machine? Conversely would you trust "the weird kid" growing up and strapping into some huge cyborg suit and running amok? We have all seen the video evidence of man's capacity to multiply his destructive capacity by any means possible. (LA Police chasing a runaway tank was one particular vision you wouldn't want to take part in)

The last thought though is the cool factor. Ordering around a robot porter, crane or truck is fine and dandy but like driving powerful sportscars I bet humans will want to be in physical control of these future machines 'cos it will be cool to pick up 8 tons of something and throw it around.

But which is more dangerous?

Men, Women, Mars, Venus etc

2004-03-01T17:58:00.000Z

I was chatting to a friend of mine who has her own website, and she commented that my embryonic blog although amazingly interesting and life changing of course, (artistic licence, sorry Pip) didn’t reveal much about me. Well, I answered, the fact that world leaders and the movers and shakers across the globe will obviously be seeking my counsel in the future – I must remain anonymous to remain impartial. (see Starship Troopers review for example – Hollywood trembles at my feet!) In truth, self-aggrandisement aside, I think we hit on an interesting point. Much like in conversation where women predominantly seem to discuss situations in regard to how they feel and their reactions and emotions to events, good ol’ simple minded blokes just discuss facts and information. This seems to be the case with blogs.

Do blokes feel a part of a community of sharing, or is it just a wider circle of information gatherers partner with and extend their hunter/gatherer skills in this knowledge-based jungle. Do women feel a kinship with this sharing of heartfelt emotion – Bridget Jones Diary for example (although old fashioned in that it is on PAPER!) seemed to empathise with a generation of women. Blokes have really only got the past politicians (Alan Clarke, Robin Cook Jeffrey Archer et al) and Adrian Mole diaries as our texts to relate to. (It’s not quite the same somehow)

Some blogs are obviously diaries, for women an extension of what many have done from childhood. But how many men own up to writing a diary from childhood? Traditional masculine upbringing frowns on sharing feelings, even with yourself. But does the fact that this process is now “on-line” legitimise it for men? The non-masculine aspects of keeping a diary balanced by the maleness of technology?

Do women keep diaries in an attempt to reflect back and better understand themselves? It seems the types of men who keep diaries (or at least let the rest of the world know about them) believe that their thoughts must not be lost from the world as they are so pivotal to humanity. And here I am writing down my thoughts….

I begin to flex my power...

2004-03-01T17:24:00.000Z

Aaaah, another weekend ambles past into our memory banks replete with life enhancing experiences – or not as the case may be. Quite disgruntled that part of mine will forever be polluted with Starship Troopers film scenes. This surprised me, its got everything I would look for in a film – SciFi, Bugs, guns and Denise Richards but I really had trouble suspending my disbelief for this. It’s been a while since I caught a review and I went in expecting a “serious” film. I was informed this morning that it was more of a cult spoof but the fact that I missed that surely meant it failed (with me) in its objectives. Some of the characters were hamming it up big stylee but I just didn’t believe that poor old Denise was – I got the impression she was actually acting….I have seen her in things since and seem to remember that she is improving but in this instance I have to give it a big thumbs down. (Like that’s going to worry anyone in the film industry)

Alternate Views of Reality

2004-02-27T13:16:00.000Z

Welcome to the first of potentially (but by no means guaranteed) comments on "stuff" - a term I do not use loosely!

Browsing through the ether, dodging smiley emoticon offers and the like, this little gem surfaced.
This site offers competitions to manipulate reality with photoshop with some pretty incredible results. I particularly like the miniature cities contest where you can make an image that shows what it would be like if life was very, very small.
http://www.worth1000.com/cache/contest/contestcache.asp?contest_id=1164&start=1&end=20&display=photoshop (sorry for such a long link- still wrestling with all this techno stuff)

The images are curiously compelling, juxtasposing everyday images into different configurations, offering slightly twisted views of life in its many iterations. I will be keeping a watch for more interesting ones in the future. These are particularly interesting to me at the moment due to the reading of a book by Stephen Baxter: Flux (http://www.cix.co.uk/~sjbradshaw/baxterium/bax_links.html) a race of microscopic beings, who were genetically engineered to survive on the turbulent mantle of a neutron star and who vividly remember their superbeing creators, prepare for the biggest family reunion in history. All this makes you wonder at the vagaries of chance and evolution that have led us to be the size and shape that we are.
Hopefully not to heavy for a Friday but then how do I know anyone is even listening? Ah well, time will tell

2004-02-26T16:37:00.000Z

I suppose a "shout-out to the masses" is in order. As an avid devourer of various web sites in a vain attempt to bring interest and excitment to the mundanity of my job. I thought that this may be a place to explore some of the ideas and thoughts that occasionally occur. (there is only so much you can discuss in the office before my colleagues may rumble the fact I am not really working flat out).
I work in sales and marketing and tend to bump into some interesting people in some interesting situations through necessity. Penting up all of your natural reactions in the face of some people's ignorance can be rather frustrating so I may rename this Catharsis or something...

2004-02-26T15:32:00.000Z

Hmmm, five minutes into my "conduit to the world's" creation and my life hasn't suddenly changed for the better (or worse). So much potential power to sway and influence the world and I feel the same as the last office birthday card author. The card for someone you vaguely knew filled with the ususal inanities and cliches, with a small space left for your supposed witticism. Pen seized, lips pursed in abject concentration, receptionist eagerly looking on for your side-splitting birthday greeting..... And like Mrs Hubbard (of cupboard fame) nothing. The next 5 minutes are spent waiting for someone to come through reception so you can anonymously scrawl something in the corner that has been repeated ten times already and avoid the humiliation of unoriginality.

2004-02-26T15:24:00.000Z

Is this it then? the conduit to the world, the eruption of freespeech through the all pervasive web. Or just some bloke that thought a blog would be fun?