My childhood friend I've known well for her whole life recently presented a BBC programme about Indian history.
Sorry, but the Taj Mahal. It's rubbish. This is not a cheap joke about the local curry house. Yes I do mean the "real" one, the supposedly wonderful marble building in Agra.Some people say that pictures of it do not do it justice. That you need to see it for yourself. I have.
It's dull. It basically just looks pretty much like a big mosque. Not really ugly. But not really "better" in any significant way than the big mosques or other examples of Islamic architecture in Delhi, in Cairo, in Istanbul, in countless other places. And not half as impressive in my view as Renaissance art or even ancient Greek stonework.
I'm primarily referring to the architectural design and build here. Of course there is a famous back story to its conception and construction. It's a true tale of obsession and megalomania. Yes that is fascinating. But that only means the mausoleum is a valuable historical "listed building" to be protected and maintained. Of course it should be. But that doesn't make it "better" than any other ancient constructions, even within within a few miles I recall both Fatepur Sikri and Jantar Mantar being far more "beautiful" and inspiring. If touristing is your thing then those two are far more worth seeing.
The Taj Mahal. Boring. Expensive. Overrated.
Showing posts with label travel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label travel. Show all posts
Saturday, February 27, 2016
Friday, January 16, 2009
Air Bust
I said it would get personal, and it will get there gradually. First, I've mentioned regularly that I have a degree of competence in marketing technology, and once that I have a degree of competence in jet engine technology.
Consequently, topically, I was reassured to hear comparatively little bleating about the supposed "miracle" on Hudson river, and instead more emphasis on the skill and experience of the pilot and the strength of modern aircraft design, though perhaps we should also wonder who decided to develop a major airport in the middle of a densely populated urban area. But that was New York. I'm not even qualified to be a bus driver in London, though we shouldn't extrapolate from one moron to the rest of the public transport operation.
And on that note, proving that I really have left the world of serious work behind me for a while, the Carnival of the Godless is coming to these shores next week. Submit entries here.
Consequently, topically, I was reassured to hear comparatively little bleating about the supposed "miracle" on Hudson river, and instead more emphasis on the skill and experience of the pilot and the strength of modern aircraft design, though perhaps we should also wonder who decided to develop a major airport in the middle of a densely populated urban area. But that was New York. I'm not even qualified to be a bus driver in London, though we shouldn't extrapolate from one moron to the rest of the public transport operation.
And on that note, proving that I really have left the world of serious work behind me for a while, the Carnival of the Godless is coming to these shores next week. Submit entries here.
Friday, November 07, 2008
Burying Bridges
There were once-in-a-generation news headlines this week. The presidential election (RB wins). The drastic cut in interest rates (RB loses). These massive stories are a chance for political cowards to bury bad news.
That's what Boris Johnson and his gang seems to have done. For all the pre-mayoral-election talk of needing to regenerate and improve London's infrastructure, yesterday there was a little announcement that ten major capital projects have been scrapped.
Now some cuts I could understand. But one particular cancellation is just wrong. I have been driving around London for much of the last twenty years. Travel is often difficult bordering on impossible. But (in my opinion) the single worst bottleneck in the entire city is the Blackwall Tunnel.
The western stretch of the Thames has bridges every few hundred yards. Yet between the central Tower Bridge and the Essex-Kent QEII bridge, covering at least ten miles of river with high population density on both sides, there is nothing else. Well almost nothing, another ancient tunnel that has only one narrow winding lane each way, and a single unreliable ferry. But this is obviously not enough, as each of these crossings is still at full capacity. Even the costly Dartford crossing. And that approach should solve the cost conundrum. There is so much pent-up demand that any new bridge would surely pay for itself, as much as any new road anywhere in the world possibly could. It is just madness to go ahead with the massive Thames Gateway housebuilding project unless there is a corresponding Thames Gateway infrastructure project.
Three disclaimers: I cross the river frequently; I accept marginal traffic charges; and did I mention that I like bridges?
That's what Boris Johnson and his gang seems to have done. For all the pre-mayoral-election talk of needing to regenerate and improve London's infrastructure, yesterday there was a little announcement that ten major capital projects have been scrapped.
Now some cuts I could understand. But one particular cancellation is just wrong. I have been driving around London for much of the last twenty years. Travel is often difficult bordering on impossible. But (in my opinion) the single worst bottleneck in the entire city is the Blackwall Tunnel.
The western stretch of the Thames has bridges every few hundred yards. Yet between the central Tower Bridge and the Essex-Kent QEII bridge, covering at least ten miles of river with high population density on both sides, there is nothing else. Well almost nothing, another ancient tunnel that has only one narrow winding lane each way, and a single unreliable ferry. But this is obviously not enough, as each of these crossings is still at full capacity. Even the costly Dartford crossing. And that approach should solve the cost conundrum. There is so much pent-up demand that any new bridge would surely pay for itself, as much as any new road anywhere in the world possibly could. It is just madness to go ahead with the massive Thames Gateway housebuilding project unless there is a corresponding Thames Gateway infrastructure project.
Three disclaimers: I cross the river frequently; I accept marginal traffic charges; and did I mention that I like bridges?
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Wacky Taxes
Where I completely agreed with the economic adviser to George W Bush. Five quotes from Greg Mankiw:
1. voters are worse than ignorant about basic economic principles of good policy. Ignorance, at least, would have the virtue of being random and so perhaps would average out to zero in a large population. Instead of being merely ignorant, voters hold onto systematically mistaken beliefs.
2. To many economists [and to me], the basic argument for increased use of Pigovian taxes is so straightforward as to be obvious. But as George Orwell once put it, "We have now sunk to a depth where the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men."
3. A carbon tax would provide incentives for people to use less fuel in a multitude of ways. By contrast, merely having more efficient cars encourages more driving.
4. even if God came down today and told us that global warming was a complete hoax, the case for a much higher Pigovian tax on gasoline would survive, for the simple reason that every time you get in your car and drive, you inconvenience other drivers with increased road congestion and you put them at increased risk of being in a traffic accident.
5. dispel a common fear about higher Pigovian taxes, such as taxes on carbon or gasoline--that they will fall disproportionately on the poor.
Exactly what I said.
I should point out that although "I completely agreed with the economic adviser to George W Bush" in this particular case, George W Bush did not agree at all. Obviously. Because although I too get criticism for the same views, the economic advice was perfectly sensible.
1. voters are worse than ignorant about basic economic principles of good policy. Ignorance, at least, would have the virtue of being random and so perhaps would average out to zero in a large population. Instead of being merely ignorant, voters hold onto systematically mistaken beliefs.
2. To many economists [and to me], the basic argument for increased use of Pigovian taxes is so straightforward as to be obvious. But as George Orwell once put it, "We have now sunk to a depth where the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men."
3. A carbon tax would provide incentives for people to use less fuel in a multitude of ways. By contrast, merely having more efficient cars encourages more driving.
4. even if God came down today and told us that global warming was a complete hoax, the case for a much higher Pigovian tax on gasoline would survive, for the simple reason that every time you get in your car and drive, you inconvenience other drivers with increased road congestion and you put them at increased risk of being in a traffic accident.
5. dispel a common fear about higher Pigovian taxes, such as taxes on carbon or gasoline--that they will fall disproportionately on the poor.
Exactly what I said.
I should point out that although "I completely agreed with the economic adviser to George W Bush" in this particular case, George W Bush did not agree at all. Obviously. Because although I too get criticism for the same views, the economic advice was perfectly sensible.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Third World Economics
in 200 words.
Five things that are not significantly cheaper in the developing world, for example in the city of my birth compared to the city of my work:
1. Computers. Despite the image of India as a cheap IT supplier, the hardware is expensive.
2. Appliances and gadgets. The things that litter your home.
3. Fuel. Most of it is imported, and OPEC controls the price.
4. Clothes and food. This might surprise, but especially true of branded products.
5. Land. Obviously.
Five things that are much cheaper in the developing world, for example in the city of my birth compared to the city of my work:
1. A haircut. Fifteen pence is standard in a salon, obviously it's much less on the streets.
2. Public transport. Still less than ten pence a ride.
3. Nursing care. A couple of pounds per day.
4. Plumbers. A pound, for a job taking many hours.
5. Taxi fares. An hour's journey can cost a pound, who knows how the driver covers fuel out of that.
It's obvious really, the cheap things are services, the expensive things are products.
Equally obvious then, the people who provide the services cannot afford the products.
Five things that are not significantly cheaper in the developing world, for example in the city of my birth compared to the city of my work:
1. Computers. Despite the image of India as a cheap IT supplier, the hardware is expensive.
2. Appliances and gadgets. The things that litter your home.
3. Fuel. Most of it is imported, and OPEC controls the price.
4. Clothes and food. This might surprise, but especially true of branded products.
5. Land. Obviously.
Five things that are much cheaper in the developing world, for example in the city of my birth compared to the city of my work:
1. A haircut. Fifteen pence is standard in a salon, obviously it's much less on the streets.
2. Public transport. Still less than ten pence a ride.
3. Nursing care. A couple of pounds per day.
4. Plumbers. A pound, for a job taking many hours.
5. Taxi fares. An hour's journey can cost a pound, who knows how the driver covers fuel out of that.
It's obvious really, the cheap things are services, the expensive things are products.
Equally obvious then, the people who provide the services cannot afford the products.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Weekend Abroad
Which of these reasons could you use to justify (if only to yourself) a weekend away that is very far away?
1. if the journey at each side is very easy. At this end if you live close to a tube station and can hop on the train to Heathrow. At that end if your destination is only 15 minutes from the airport.
2. if the flight itself is direct. Things can get stressful if there are interchanges and waiting around and potential missed connections. But if you can just settle down in your seat, flick through a magazine, have something to eat, watch a movie, catch a few hours sleep then wake up the next morning in the place you want to be, that's hardly more difficult than being at home.
3. if you have no luggage. As you are only going for a couple of days, you only need a few extra clothes.
4. if it's not really a "vacation", which would generally involve a holiday destination, but instead just visiting relatives. Related to the previous point, staying at home rather than hotel, you possibly have plenty of spare clothes there anyway.
5. if it is very very cheap. It would help if you had a close relative who worked for the airline.
1. if the journey at each side is very easy. At this end if you live close to a tube station and can hop on the train to Heathrow. At that end if your destination is only 15 minutes from the airport.
2. if the flight itself is direct. Things can get stressful if there are interchanges and waiting around and potential missed connections. But if you can just settle down in your seat, flick through a magazine, have something to eat, watch a movie, catch a few hours sleep then wake up the next morning in the place you want to be, that's hardly more difficult than being at home.
3. if you have no luggage. As you are only going for a couple of days, you only need a few extra clothes.
4. if it's not really a "vacation", which would generally involve a holiday destination, but instead just visiting relatives. Related to the previous point, staying at home rather than hotel, you possibly have plenty of spare clothes there anyway.
5. if it is very very cheap. It would help if you had a close relative who worked for the airline.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
The Holiday Coast
No recent posts. Went on holiday to the coast for the English long weekend. Well, when I say "the coast" it's fairly loose terminology.
Imagine we live in mid New Jersey and rarely travel north. And I suggest to the holiday rep to book a place in Long Island, that's the place we want to be. But it's peak season, so unsurprisingly I get called back with the message that there were no vacancies at the obvious places there. So I say "ok then, at least get somewhere in New York".
We got a place in Albany.
Of course counties in England tend to be a lot smaller than states in America so the distances involved weren't quite so bad, but the basic relational geography stands. Sometimes we need to be clearer with our directions.
Imagine we live in mid New Jersey and rarely travel north. And I suggest to the holiday rep to book a place in Long Island, that's the place we want to be. But it's peak season, so unsurprisingly I get called back with the message that there were no vacancies at the obvious places there. So I say "ok then, at least get somewhere in New York".
We got a place in Albany.
Of course counties in England tend to be a lot smaller than states in America so the distances involved weren't quite so bad, but the basic relational geography stands. Sometimes we need to be clearer with our directions.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
One Year Old Today
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
The One to One map
I like maps. Wherever I go, I always like to get hold of a local map to see where things are in relation to each other, something that's not always easy to visualise when you're just looking round a strange country.
The scale used is obviously important, but some things on a map are not to scale - the width of roads on a national atlas is the obvious example. Even looking at local area ones, that same measure can be misleading. On a UK road atlas, you see a road marked as an A road and a newcomer might assume that it's a major route, multi-lane, high speed, free of traffic lights, etc. Then you actually travel on the road and realise it could be a road through London where average speed is 10 mph. In contrast, you could see a single thin line leading out from the thick green line of the US Interstate, then find yourself on another six lane dual carriageway ... driving up and down the highway looking for an exit ... you can see your destination, but just can't get to it. Sorry, I digress.
But an ideal scale would surely be one to one. When I was about seven years old, I remember reading of such a map in a fictional story, at that age I was probably reading Norman Hunter rather than Luis Borges; anyway the map could never be unwrapped because it would cover the entire country. So clearly an impossible dream.
However, today, combine GoogleMaps with SatNav, we're just about there.
The scale used is obviously important, but some things on a map are not to scale - the width of roads on a national atlas is the obvious example. Even looking at local area ones, that same measure can be misleading. On a UK road atlas, you see a road marked as an A road and a newcomer might assume that it's a major route, multi-lane, high speed, free of traffic lights, etc. Then you actually travel on the road and realise it could be a road through London where average speed is 10 mph. In contrast, you could see a single thin line leading out from the thick green line of the US Interstate, then find yourself on another six lane dual carriageway ... driving up and down the highway looking for an exit ... you can see your destination, but just can't get to it. Sorry, I digress.
But an ideal scale would surely be one to one. When I was about seven years old, I remember reading of such a map in a fictional story, at that age I was probably reading Norman Hunter rather than Luis Borges; anyway the map could never be unwrapped because it would cover the entire country. So clearly an impossible dream.
However, today, combine GoogleMaps with SatNav, we're just about there.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Big Car Small Car
There are still a lot of big cars in America. A colleague in charge of certain North American automotive metrics today pointed me to a recent study from Duke University's Fuqua School of Business that proved the regularly quoted mpg figures are often misleading.
Simple numerical facts. As usual here, considering my own example instead of copying that from the study:
First car is a typical one, one that does 30 mpg. Could increase by 10 mpg to give 40 mpg.
Second vehicle is a large SUV. It does 15 mpg. Could increase by 10 mpg to give 25 mpg.
Where is the bigger benefit? Both increase by 10 mpg so benefit is the same, right? Wrong.
First increases mpg by 33%, second increases by 67%, so the second gives twice as much benefit, right? Wrong.
Say the SUV increases only by 33% like the first case, 15 up to 20 (corresponding to 30 up to 40). The benefit is the same, right? Wrong.
If the SUV increases only from 15 to 18 mpg, it still saves more fuel than increasing the car's mpg from 30 to 40. I've said it before: However far the journey.
The Europeans have been using litres per 100 km for years. It just makes more sense.
Simple numerical facts. As usual here, considering my own example instead of copying that from the study:
First car is a typical one, one that does 30 mpg. Could increase by 10 mpg to give 40 mpg.
Second vehicle is a large SUV. It does 15 mpg. Could increase by 10 mpg to give 25 mpg.
Where is the bigger benefit? Both increase by 10 mpg so benefit is the same, right? Wrong.
First increases mpg by 33%, second increases by 67%, so the second gives twice as much benefit, right? Wrong.
Say the SUV increases only by 33% like the first case, 15 up to 20 (corresponding to 30 up to 40). The benefit is the same, right? Wrong.
If the SUV increases only from 15 to 18 mpg, it still saves more fuel than increasing the car's mpg from 30 to 40. I've said it before: However far the journey.
The Europeans have been using litres per 100 km for years. It just makes more sense.
Traveblog
When you are on a trip, work or holiday, it is traditional to write an initial post saying that blog updates will be infrequent and unreliable for a while.
However, while you are on a trip, there is a regular stream of new and unusual experience - if everything were the same then there would be no point travelling - and this provides good (at least original) material for the blog.
But I'm not sure that I want this to become a travelogue. I suppose that's what Twitter and suchlike are for. While I ponder, this constitutes filler for the day.
However, while you are on a trip, there is a regular stream of new and unusual experience - if everything were the same then there would be no point travelling - and this provides good (at least original) material for the blog.
But I'm not sure that I want this to become a travelogue. I suppose that's what Twitter and suchlike are for. While I ponder, this constitutes filler for the day.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Fuely Truckers
Sorry for the spoonerism. But clearly I don't go with the flow here.
As the tanker strike wound on yesterday, the enterprising owner of a fuel station changed forecourt price to align demand with the change in supply. It was exactly the same procedure that he had been doing for the other 364 days of the year. Exactly the same procedure that every other fuel station manager also does all the time. Exactly what every businessman needs to do to survive.
But fuel price watchdog petrolprices.com put out the nonsensical statement: "Putting the price up so much at a time when drivers in the South West are being hit worst by strikes is inexcusable."
The tabloids deliberately stoked up the hysteria, then did everything possible to prevent sensible mitigation of its consequences.
The undercover economist got it right. The nation got it wrong.
As the tanker strike wound on yesterday, the enterprising owner of a fuel station changed forecourt price to align demand with the change in supply. It was exactly the same procedure that he had been doing for the other 364 days of the year. Exactly the same procedure that every other fuel station manager also does all the time. Exactly what every businessman needs to do to survive.
But fuel price watchdog petrolprices.com put out the nonsensical statement: "Putting the price up so much at a time when drivers in the South West are being hit worst by strikes is inexcusable."
The tabloids deliberately stoked up the hysteria, then did everything possible to prevent sensible mitigation of its consequences.
The undercover economist got it right. The nation got it wrong.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Running Home
The last post was a personal indulgence. But on the same subject, time for a practical suggestion.
I spent a while living in America, but although I think I understand the game, their version of football never interested me. But for some reason baseball instantly appealed. I went to see both the Yankees and the Mets during my time there, and more than that, I loved the fact that there always seemed to be a first class game on TV, even though a hundred other channels were spewing rubbish.
Why do I like baseball? Despite what you may think, it's not about the stats. It may be the pace of the game. About 120 pitches per side spread over about 3 hours ... sorry, that's 20:20 cricket again.
But what I don't particularly like, funnily enough, are home runs. To me they spoil the flow of the game. Batting bowling and fielding should all be part of it. What I like are the balls smacked to far left field, the cheeky singles, the fly balls parried and caught. It's about "runs batted in", not "runs walked in".
Which brings me to my suggestion for cricket. The general lament from the traditionalists is that the new game favours the batsman. It's not easy to legislate on batting technology or to control the pitch. But at the very least keep the ground as big as possible, stop bringing the boundaries in.
I spent a while living in America, but although I think I understand the game, their version of football never interested me. But for some reason baseball instantly appealed. I went to see both the Yankees and the Mets during my time there, and more than that, I loved the fact that there always seemed to be a first class game on TV, even though a hundred other channels were spewing rubbish.
Why do I like baseball? Despite what you may think, it's not about the stats. It may be the pace of the game. About 120 pitches per side spread over about 3 hours ... sorry, that's 20:20 cricket again.
But what I don't particularly like, funnily enough, are home runs. To me they spoil the flow of the game. Batting bowling and fielding should all be part of it. What I like are the balls smacked to far left field, the cheeky singles, the fly balls parried and caught. It's about "runs batted in", not "runs walked in".
Which brings me to my suggestion for cricket. The general lament from the traditionalists is that the new game favours the batsman. It's not easy to legislate on batting technology or to control the pitch. But at the very least keep the ground as big as possible, stop bringing the boundaries in.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Ford Fiesta smashes Porsche 911
Not the result of any particular road test, but something I saw at the Pharyngula site.
According to the BBC story :
I will not comment here upon the obvious dementia of thinking that his prayer made any difference whatsoever to the world outside his brain. But seeing the main protagonists in this incident - the doddery old man, the ancient old Fiesta and the two flash Porsches - I obviously thought of the old old joke:
The old guy in his ancient battered little Ford Fiesta breaks down and pulls to the side of the road. Fairly soon a yuppy in his new Porshe 911 sees him by the side of the road and offers to help. The old man doesn't want to leave his car. So the dude offers to tow it. The old guy is a bit nervous, he doesn't like going fast. But the guy reassures him "don't worry, I'll stick to 50. And if you want me to slow down then just flash your lights, if you want me to stop then just honk the horn".
So slightly nervously in the case of the old man, they set off. At first the Porsche owner tootles along at 50 as promised. Then he is overtaken by another Porshe owner doing 70. The yuppy does not like this and catches up. The other driver doesn't like this and speeds to 90. The first driver retaliates and accelerates to 90 too. Pretty soon they are neck and neck roaring down the highway at 150 miles per hour.
They flash past an unmarked police car. The cop radios in to base: "You'll never guess what I saw, two brand new Porsches racing side by side at 150 miles per hour..." The dispatch interrupts "that's no surprise, we see that sort of thing all the time". "That wasn't the strange thing" says the cop "right on their tail was an old geezer in a battered old Ford Fiesta. He's flashing his lights, he's tooting his horn, but they still won't let him past!"
According to the BBC story :
Jack Higgs, 93, was uninjured when his Ford Fiesta hit a Carrera II then flipped over onto a Porsche 911 outside a showroom in Penarth, near Cardiff.
Mr Higgs said he could not explain how he managed to lose control of his 13-year-old car and smash into the Porsches.
"It was a miracle I got out alive and I put it down to the power of prayer and God looking after me."
"But that's it - the end of my driving career, I'm never driving again."
I will not comment here upon the obvious dementia of thinking that his prayer made any difference whatsoever to the world outside his brain. But seeing the main protagonists in this incident - the doddery old man, the ancient old Fiesta and the two flash Porsches - I obviously thought of the old old joke:
The old guy in his ancient battered little Ford Fiesta breaks down and pulls to the side of the road. Fairly soon a yuppy in his new Porshe 911 sees him by the side of the road and offers to help. The old man doesn't want to leave his car. So the dude offers to tow it. The old guy is a bit nervous, he doesn't like going fast. But the guy reassures him "don't worry, I'll stick to 50. And if you want me to slow down then just flash your lights, if you want me to stop then just honk the horn".
So slightly nervously in the case of the old man, they set off. At first the Porsche owner tootles along at 50 as promised. Then he is overtaken by another Porshe owner doing 70. The yuppy does not like this and catches up. The other driver doesn't like this and speeds to 90. The first driver retaliates and accelerates to 90 too. Pretty soon they are neck and neck roaring down the highway at 150 miles per hour.
They flash past an unmarked police car. The cop radios in to base: "You'll never guess what I saw, two brand new Porsches racing side by side at 150 miles per hour..." The dispatch interrupts "that's no surprise, we see that sort of thing all the time". "That wasn't the strange thing" says the cop "right on their tail was an old geezer in a battered old Ford Fiesta. He's flashing his lights, he's tooting his horn, but they still won't let him past!"
Monday, April 14, 2008
Can we fix it?
A bad workman always blames his tools.
I changed a tyre on my car today. Just started driving down the road, almost immediately noticed the telltale shudder and drift.
It would have been easy to call the AA to fix it, but it would also have been borderline dishonesty. I don't have their "home start" service. I could have crept an extra few yards to get far enough away to claim roadside assistance. I could have used a card based at a distant address. But I did not.
It was bloody hard work though: Taking all the junk out of the boot to remove the surprisingly heavy "space saver" wheel and jack. Reading four pages of car manual that was warning of apocalypse unless I removed all the skirting, checked the road was level, made the wheel perfectly straight and placed the jack to the correct millimetre. Marvelling at how such a tiny piece of steel could hold up a ton. Fighting with the wheel nuts that seemed to have been tightened by titans. Fighting even more to release the wheel from the hub, eventually resorting to smacking it around with a hammer - that was actually a bit dangerous when the whole car was supported by aforementioned tiny jack on a road that was anything but level.
Eventually managed it. The tyre was clearly beyond repair. So I stopped at Kwik-fit on the way to work for a new tyre. Hydraulic jacks and electric wrenches, job done in seconds.
Monday, March 31, 2008
US UK Europe
In Thursday's post I listed some fairly lightweight trivial differences between the US and the UK. But at the end of Friday's post I hinted at a far more important difference.
Today Neil Perkins pointed us in the direction of a recent survey in the Economist that tried to substantiate these differences. Nothing there was very surprising, there have been plenty of other discussions but it is often worthwhile to update with the current state of opinion.
The article clearly highlights one fundamental difference, the religious majority in America compared with the secular majority in Europe. I may return to that subject another day.
But in answer to the more directly relevant question, "should UK social and economic policy be closer to an American or to a common European model?" there is a very simple answer. We need to look at the history and the geography.
The United States developed the wide open resources of the Native Americans, many settlers believed that they had a God-given right to fence off their own territories and do there as they pleased. The cities and infrastructure were largely built within the last two centuries.
By contrast, many major European cities have been in existence for thousands of years, and we cannot easily change them. The narrow winding streets and crowded "historic" neighbourhoods mean that US-type policies on car ownership and public services simply do not apply here.
If the gulf stream stops or changes, then we are hit in the same way. Many British are taught to fear or mock the French and Germans, but fundamentally our problems and opportunities are exactly the same. We are inescapably European.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Transatlantic Differences for the 21st Century
There is a lot of discussion in the big webworld about the increased use of applications and widgets and whether this will fundamentally change the nature of the internet. For example, anyone who reads a trusted site through a feeder (for example, through an RSS reader) is not hitting the site directly and therefore not feeding the advertising there. But I won't discuss the economics here, I'll only use web widgets to show up the difference between the UK and the US.
Stats taken from Wunderman on 26 March 2008:
Current top 10 Google Widgets (08.02.08) - google.com
1. Official You Tube gadget
2. Movies
3. Google News
4. NewYorktimes.com
5. dictonary.com [sic] word of the day
6. Joke of the day
7. Google Map Search
8. Daily Horoscopes
9. ESPN
10. Current Moon phase
Current top 10 Google Widgets (08.02.08) - google.co.uk
1. Horoscopes
2. To do list
3. Google News
4. Google Maps Search
5. BBC Sport | Football | UK Edition
6. Word of the day
7. Dictionary.com - Word of the day
8. Joke of the day
9. Currency Converter
10. Pac Mac v.2.6
So here in the UK we rely on our horoscopes while the Americans watch videos?
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Work Locations
A very simple question, how do you judge how long somebody spends in the office? That question is not being asked in a negative sense, the professional working environment is typically one of salaried management who all work more than their contractual hours anyway, and there is no question of anyone getting a penalty. But purely for practical positive need, for example to objectively assess who most warrants limited office facilities, it might be useful to judge who spends most time using the base office versus time in other offices and other sites.
The obvious measure might be to record daily hours. But as stated above, salaried professional managers tend to work far more than official hours and they do not track their time on an hourly basis anyway. So we can look for other proxy measures of base office time.
The starting point could be a holiday and sickness report from the HR/Personnel department. That would have the basic number of days worked per year, though it would not say the working location.
One way to get that location might be to look at calendars. In a networked Office environment, it should be fairly clear who spends time in the home location, in meetings or in conference calls. But the calendar is only a plan of activity, it does not reflect the locations where working time is actually spent.
And if we simply ask people individually, apart from the subjective bias thus introduced, we should consider the responders' motivations and incentives. If there is a benefit to claiming more base office time, for example to justify better placed locations, then there will be a tendency for people to over-estimate that time. Most measures such as those I mentioned above are either incentive-neutral or equally prone to over-representation. Perhaps we need a measure that has the opposite intrinsic incentive.
Maybe look at travel expenses. Those who claim regular trips away from the base office probably have less need for base office facilities than those who do not.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Circumcycle
Some great news. According to a front page story on the BBC today, a British man has smashed the record for cycling round the world.
I used to ride daily in my college days, so I can trivialise a couple of the supposedly noteworthy highlights. He was knocked off his bike in the American state of Louisiana by an elderly motorist who drove through a red light. Well I was knocked off my bike by a red bus that cut a corner. And Mr Beaumont, who is originally from Bridge of Cally in Perthshire but now lives in Newburgh, also had his wallet and camera stolen from a motel. Across so many motels in so many third world countries, Pakistan, Malaysia, America, that isn't too surprising.
Seriously, it is a very impressive achievement. But I am still skeptical of one thing. Because look at the map. Obviously he didn't cycle all the way around the world. I would more impressed if somebody did, swapping between racing bike and mountain bike and pedalo depending on terrain. But it seems fair game to take a boat across the oceans in these events. Even then, he didn't always take the minimal route across the ocean, that would have involved the Bering Strait.
So he didn't really cycle around the earth. He cycled across twenty countries. Still damn impressive.
I used to ride daily in my college days, so I can trivialise a couple of the supposedly noteworthy highlights. He was knocked off his bike in the American state of Louisiana by an elderly motorist who drove through a red light. Well I was knocked off my bike by a red bus that cut a corner. And Mr Beaumont, who is originally from Bridge of Cally in Perthshire but now lives in Newburgh, also had his wallet and camera stolen from a motel. Across so many motels in so many third world countries, Pakistan, Malaysia, America, that isn't too surprising.
Seriously, it is a very impressive achievement. But I am still skeptical of one thing. Because look at the map. Obviously he didn't cycle all the way around the world. I would more impressed if somebody did, swapping between racing bike and mountain bike and pedalo depending on terrain. But it seems fair game to take a boat across the oceans in these events. Even then, he didn't always take the minimal route across the ocean, that would have involved the Bering Strait.
So he didn't really cycle around the earth. He cycled across twenty countries. Still damn impressive.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Hippo Suits
A couple of days ago I mentioned the hippo in a metaphorical sense. Today I talk about the real thing, the species of animal that kills more people in Africa than any other. And time to go back to Zambia…
The Times yesterday had a feature on a man who traveled out there to get really close to the animals in order to collect samples of sweat for scientific analysis. The article links through to a video of him. It is quite preposterous.
The guy sounds like a Jackass. I don't actually mean that pejoratively, I mean he sounds like one of those guys from the TV show who deliberately put themselves into the most uncomfortable, painful, dangerous and scatological positions simply because they enjoy it. Absolutely fair enough, entertainment for the rest of us, no problem with that at all.
But this guy justified the need to get his expensive kicks for scientific research. That justification is hippodung. It is worth going to the Luangwa valley to study wild animal behaviour. But it is not worth investing the resources of the Smithsonian Institute and countless airmiles to collect some hipposweat - get that at your local zoo.
After all his cost and effort, the "researcher" did get his African adventure holiday and his tailormade armoured suit. But he did not get his sample. I'm not surprised, he wants to go back for more.
The Times yesterday had a feature on a man who traveled out there to get really close to the animals in order to collect samples of sweat for scientific analysis. The article links through to a video of him. It is quite preposterous.
The guy sounds like a Jackass. I don't actually mean that pejoratively, I mean he sounds like one of those guys from the TV show who deliberately put themselves into the most uncomfortable, painful, dangerous and scatological positions simply because they enjoy it. Absolutely fair enough, entertainment for the rest of us, no problem with that at all.
But this guy justified the need to get his expensive kicks for scientific research. That justification is hippodung. It is worth going to the Luangwa valley to study wild animal behaviour. But it is not worth investing the resources of the Smithsonian Institute and countless airmiles to collect some hipposweat - get that at your local zoo.
After all his cost and effort, the "researcher" did get his African adventure holiday and his tailormade armoured suit. But he did not get his sample. I'm not surprised, he wants to go back for more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
