Climate Change Debate?

The problem with the climate change debate is exactly that – it has become a debate, not a scientific investigation. The political concerns have co-opted the facts so much that it is actually very difficult to work out what the scientific opinion really is. If the scientific community appear to have closed ranks about the issue, it is only because they are under siege by people who do not wish to accept the current conclusions.
The scientific process does not lend itself to definitive answers. There are always arguments for and against every theory. But, as more and more evidence becomes available the most likely answer becomes more and more apparent. Boing Boing recently had a very good summary of this concept. This is what has been happening over the last few decades and there is now general consensus amongst the experts is for anthropogenic climate change. Of course there are counter arguments and experiments that show otherwise, but they are in the minority and the supporting evidence is being eaten away.
If 50% of economists - who almost always get predictions wrong - claim that there will be another financial crisis, the world scrambles to take action. If 95% of scientists - who commonly get things right - claim there is anthrogenic global warming, everyone wants to ask the last 5% about the alternatives.
However, the media love an argument, the politicians don’t want to make unpopular decisions and people don’t like to accept blame. So the question is made to appear to still be open when, in reality, the only remaining points are the finer details rather than the fact of it.
As Feynman said “Reality trumps public opinion every time”. Science is NOT democratic. We can't have a vote to say the world is round or that evolution exists. Human belief on the matter is irrelevant. And the most people commenting are simply not qualified to have an opinion in any case. You need to have spent many years and a great deal of thought to earn the right to have a say.

On the other hand, the question of what to do about it IS a matter of public debate. It should be discussed at all levels and appropriate responses considered by everyone since everyone is involved. But don't attack the science just because you don't want it to be true.

I'm not

In the film "Life of Brian" there is a scene where Brian is standing at a windows talking to his followers.
"You don't need to follow me", he says. "You don't need to follow anyone. You are all individuals".
"Yes, yes," they all say in unison. "Yes, we are all individuals."
From the back of the crowd there is a single voice which calls out, "I'm not."

I'm that voice. I'm not an individual and I am not sure I want to be. I like to be part of a team, to add my effort to a group that is doing something meaningful. To be a single contributor to a greater whole. And I am quite comfortable working on my own to achieve that. I have read a lot of marketing and sales articles/books/blogs which talk about how to make yourself stand out, to set up your own business and to succeed in business with a lot of trying.
I don't want to. I prefer to be part of a larger whole and don't feel that I need to be the one controlling everything. Indeed, given the way many things are working on the internet - social networking and so forth - I am not entirely sure that many endevours really NEED someone to control every aspect.
The trouble is that I don't seem to actually fit in neatly into larger enterprise. My preferred mode of work is to sit and think about a problem, maybe write a few notes on paper and stare out the window working through it all. Meanwhile I see everyone else in our open plan office buzzing around, typing furiously all day and generally looking busy.
It has been this way since university. Other people would talk about the hours of study and going through endless problems trying to retain enough to pass the exam. I generally find it hard to concentrate on a single topic for more than an hour (although I am getting better). Instead I found that reading through my notes a couple of times and thinking about the basic principles, the connections between them and the implications was sufficient to achieve good enough marks.
All in all, there seems to be a lot of wasted effort in the way most people do things. I used to wonder what was wrong with me that I wasn't able to put in that concentrated work, but now I just sit at my desk and pretend. The most productive time of day is lunch when I can get out and go for a walk while I really *think* about things without distraction.
All of which means that I'm not an individual but I seem to be the only one who isn't.

Calories? So what?

I keep seeing things about calorie content of foods in articles about healthy eating. I recently found a new breakfaast cereal -designed by CSIRO - which is supposed to be particularly good for morning nutrition. My wife's comment was - "not exactly low-calorie".
So what? Calories are not the only important factor; something that Weight Watchers seems to have taken into account with their latest alterations to the 'points system'.
But more than that, I am having a hard time understanding exactly how calories matter at all.
I am willing to accept that they do. Very many intelligent people have done very many studies about weight loss over many years. While the details keep changing (as of course they do in any real science) the general acceptance that energy content is an important factor is overwhelming.
The trouble is that the science has been simplified to the extent that the link is not clear.
If I knew less about science itself I could probably accept that 'energy' is 'burnt' is doing exercise and hence their is weight loss. Or that energy in food is stored as fat and hence less calories means less adipose tissue.
But energy can't be burnt! It is not a substance, it is not material (Einstein notwithstanding). And even if it could be, conservation of mass means that the residue - the 'ash' if you will - MUST weigh the same as the original material. The important point, which keeps getting lost in the reduction from scientific to popular language, is how the different materials are handled by the body. Chemicals (such as carbohydrates) which contain usable energy are stored by the body. Chemicals that cannot be readily used as fuel (or building blocks) are evacuated from the body. This may be as gas, through breath, as liquid, through urine or sweat, or as solid, as faeces.
This I can understand.
But it changes the way you think about foods and weight management. The equation is NOT 'body weight' = 'calories in' - 'calories out'. Despite being the message passed on by a hundred different weight management experts, that equation is absurd from a physics point of view.
Correctly it should be 'body weight' = 'mass in' - 'mass out'. However this carries the rider that the physiological response is different depending on the content of that mass. Which means that the amount of 'mass out' depends on the detailed composition of the 'mass in'.
The simplification is that the major factor is the calorific content of the food. But this ignores a great many other factors which are at play. The health of the body under discussion will affect its metabolism and reaction to food. The health is, in turn, impacted by the lesser contents of the food and by other elements such as muscular activity (exercise).
We can also see that aspects such as sweating can have a significant impact on immediate body weight; water is quite heavy. However, the major component of sweat is water which will be replaced very quickly and hence it is not significant factor is long term or durable weight changes. And, of course, water is enormously important in the correct operation of a body's metabolism so the short term loss can lead to long term difficulties in weight control. [In other words - always stay properly hydrated].
Of course the physiological reaction to food is SO complex and so involved that it is very difficult to explain. Especially to those who do not have experience in that type of thinking. Hence we have two or three pieces of advice relating to weight control: "Calories in - Calories out", the need for an exercise program for a health, what constitutes a healthy diet etc. And there has been natural confusion and misinterpretation because of they are not truly separate pieces of advice.
All these are different aspects of the same approach to healthy living. Doing one without the others leads to an unbalanced and therefore unsustainable lifestyle. [I am not advocating that you cannot *start* a life change with only one factor, only that all related aspects need to be considered if you want a healthy end result].
For instance, there are a great many messages about how many calories are burnt per minute of various exercises. Again - so what. Apart from the fact that it depends on so many individual variations (such as the existing fitness of the exerciser), the loss of calories *during* exercise is a minor factor. More important is the physiological and metabolic changes that the muscular action causes in the body. Your body is operating a higher level for hours (or even days depending on the type and intensity of the exercise) after you finish. An exercised body stores more energy in the form of intra-muscular glucose rather than as glyerides and cholesterol in fat cells. It is preparing for the next bout of exercise and will hold this state for some time.
The energy content of food is itself only one aspect. The other nutrients are very necessary to the smooth operation of the body and without them, the carbohydrates and fats are not processed efficiently. Hence a nutrious diet, even if high in calories, will lead to less problems with weight than eating only low nutrient foods.
In short, the energy content of the fuel is only one aspect in determining milage. How the vehicle is handled, how well it is maintained and the terrain it travels over are at least as important.

And that doesn't even consider the psychological aspects.

Retirement??

A couple of financial institutions have contacted me recently. They wanted me to take part in a "survey" - a thinly disguised attempt to sell superannuation funds. Both surveys were (in theory) gathering people's understanding about retirement and how much money is required to maintain your lifestyle afterward.
But I found that I could not answer the questions honestly since they made an implicit assumption which is simply not true. That assumption is that one day I will finish working and will suddenly be 'retired'. I very doubt that the transition will be that sudden. I have no plans to ever actually retire. I imagine that I will continue with income producing activities as long as I am capable; probably tapering off as I get older and as my expenses reduce.
In other words, I never expect my superannuation (or the pension) to be my sole means of support. My understanding of the way the workforce is changing suggests that this approach is becoming more and more common with GenX and GenY (although it is difficult to say what will happen as they age). So all the survey is indicating to me is that the financial institutes in question are way out of touch with reality - so what else is new.
In fact, even my parents - mainstream baby-boomers both - have been doing some paid work despite being formally retired for years. Most of this work is gained through their network of friends and old collegues who know their skills and interests. Most of it is things that they would volunteer for even if there was no pay involved.
I only hope that I can say the same in 20-30 years time when I am supposedly "retired".

Finger stylus

I've been watching my kids using their DS consoles. One of the main things that I notice is the styluses constantly being left lying around, getting lost, chewed or otherwise broken.
It is certainly much easier to use a finger; with the added benefit that, in general, people are more accurate in using their built-in equipment rather than external tools. The trouble is, of course, that fingers are usually much too big for the resolution required by modern touch devices.
Essentially a stylus is a miniature finger, except that they tend to be wielded in a manner more like a pencil. The implement lies along the finger and extends past the tip to provide a finer contact point than possible with a finger. This has restrictions for the necessary length and thickness of the tool to make it possible to hold comfortably. For instance, nearly all styluses I have seen are too short and thin to be easily handled - a restriction applied by the form factor of the device being used and how easily the tool can be stored.
The thought occurs that the more natural movement would be using the finger itself. The issue then becomes the wide area of a finger tip. Filing a long finger-nail into a point would be one solution but is something that would inconvenient when not in use.
An artificial fingernail then, that can be slipped on and off. A 'thimble' with a soft point on the tip. This form factor would provide a more natural mechanism for using smaller touch screens.

Now I realise that this would be a gimmick only. There are obvious issues with how to store on or in the device for easy access. Also the variation in finger size and the complications imposed by multi-touch. Still a flexible, elastic fingertip with a small point on the end would be an interesting variation on a theme.
This post is just vague rambling. If anyone is reading this and finds the idea intriguing, feel free to use it. I can't imagine that I would bother doing so my self.

Operating System Personalities

My mother-in-law is looking for a new computer. Her ancient machine - with CRT and running WinXP (no service pack) is finally going to be retired.
I find it interesting the advice she has been given from the rest of the family and what it says about the source.
Her daughter has recommended an Apple, preferably an Air or even an iPad. That says something about her.
Her son has recommended getting a shop to put something together from parts and make sure you install Linux. That says something about him.

To introduce an analogy - Apple are the cool kids in the school-yard. Everyone admires them and wants to be part of the group. They are where the party is AT. To be accepted you have to do things the acceptable way - which means the Apple way. You should sneer at everyone else. Also you need to update your entire wardrobe every six months to stay in fashion. Apple products ARE cool and desirable - but they are not designed to last.
And yes, my sister-in-law is very stylish and popular.

Linux is the nerdy kids and the outcasts. It is very robust and built to all the best specs. It is technically the best. It is eminently Extensible, Flexible and so forth. It is *very* robust and can be adapted to be exactly right for any purpose. There are multiple versions with fine distinctions that only the geeks really care about - but which you have to know in order to set it up properly. Basically there is a whole lot of context that you need to be aware of before you can join.
And yes, my brother-in-law is a geek.

To continue the analogy, Windows is the mainstream. They are inclusive and let anybody join. By default you are part of this group whatever your inclination. They go out of their way to make sure that they are open to all comers. Of course, this is also the downside. They are also open to all the undesirables (whatever that may mean to you). The bad kids (malware) and the clueless (useless applications) are there as well and you have to share the playground with them.

To answer the obvious question - my mother-in-law eventually bought an iMac. Not stylish anymore but it suits her use and, more than anything else, it just works. Which is fine by me since I know nothing about Macs and so I won't have to try to fix it for her :-)

Corporate Goals

I was recently reading a blog post (an interesting read, if somewhat long and technically focussed).
The point that stuck was in the first few paragraphs where it talks about the ideal state in a corporation. Where everything is aligned with the company strategy. Where the approach taken at each branch of the corporate tree contributes to the goals of the level above.
It occurred to me that I have no idea what my organisation's goals *are* at the company, unit or account level - nor what the strategies are in place to achieve them. This makes it quite difficult for me to tell if what I am doing is aligned or not; whether I am helping or hindering the strategies.

I have had several useful discussions at the account level which clarified how specific projects fit within the (implied) strategies. But I did not learn what those strategies were - only how my manager thought they applied to the immediate situation.
There are exceptions; the CEO of our local branch recently shared her intent to drive the company toward a more socially responsible role - and was asking for suggested strategies to achieve that. The CEO of our parent company has mentioned, as an aside in a corporate-wide message, that he sees the global company heading toward a more product-centric future. Both of these *appear* to be aligned with the published corporate vision, but it is very difficult to tell since it will be critically dependent on how the goals are implemented. And that will depend on the strategies adopted.
Obviously not all strategies can be advertised widely for business reasons, and certainly they will adapt over time to changing circumstances. But it should also be true that there are directions that the corporation would like to head, and decisions made about the means to achieve this, which can be shared with all employees.
The majority of these intents may not be directly relevant to my day to day work, it helps me put context on what we are doing. And it provides an approach to take when talking to clients or other team members. Apart from anything else, understanding the reasoning behind decisions made by the governing team, at each level in the organisation, provides more relevance to the work and therefore a greater sense of engagement.

So, given the advantages, how does it come about that we know nothing about the direction the company is intending to go? The trouble is that there are very many managers who like to play things very close to their chests. Letting people know what you are doing leaves the door open for them to comment on how you do it; or, even worse, discover that you are NOT aligned and are working on your own behalf, not the company's.
I have had one account manager (i.e. a sales person) ask us to put together a web-site where his team could enter in the current prospects, how much they were worth, the likelihood of conversion etc. One of the requirements was that it NOT be able directly upload to the corporate dashboard. He wanted to make sure he had the chance to 'adjust' the figures before they became visible to his bosses.
In addition, I have found our company to be almost paranoid about what "leaks" out to the media and how they might spin the information. I am not sure whether this is a consequence of the size of the company, the culture (internally or externally) or the pre-delictions of the governance team. I do find it is very difficult to get any information about the reasons behind are policies and what they are intended to achieve.

Corporate Governance

There are a large number of people in my company who are called 'managers'. There are project managers and portfolio managers and engagement managers and account managers and delivery managers and, and, and...
The question arises - why is it necessary to have so much management? I think a large part of it is just terminology.
A minor part is because the company is basically Indian. Despite having sites around the world the internal culture is very much sub-continental. As an non-Indian, one of the things that is clear is that everyone wants to be a manager. I have been told that this is cultural. Status arises from the number of people/activities that you influence rather than the work you do yourself (as it is in my home culture).
However, there are a number of roles in any company which are referred to as 'manager' but which I would suggest are more governal (is that a real word?). These are the "senior management" roles. The CxO level jobs are not trully management, or they shouldn't be. These are governance roles in the same way that national government is not the same as management. The Bureacracy is in charge of management. The ministers and congressmen and corporate leaders are in charge of setting direction and creating policy.
To have policy set by junior staff in the IT department means that the overall goals of the business can be short-circuited by someone with no view outside their office. (Of course the junior staff member in IT may have a wider vision than the CIO but we are talking about abstract roles and responsibilities here, not real people).
Hence the 'senior management' would be better referred to as 'corporate governors'. The change in title would hopefully give a different focus to the roles.
Of course, a good policy maker takes into account all the consequences of the policy and will canvas feedback and suggestions from all stakeholders. (Again we are back to ministerial roles rather than management.) Just as it is the duty of every member of the organisation to bring details (and ideas) to the attention of the governance team. Implementation of the ideas and management of the process is not however, the responsibility of the governance team.

This has drifted far from what I wanted to say - about the nature of government in most organisations - but I think it is a necessary prelude to define the approach.

What do I talk about?

It is interesting to find how difficult it is to articulate an idea enough to write it down in a coherent form. One of my intents with creating this blog was to get used to writing things down. Instead of ideas whirling around in my head as I re-tread old ground over and over again, if it is put on "paper" then, in theory, I should be able to view it from a different angle.
The trouble with this theory is that it is often very hard to formulate the various aspects of an idea in a linear form that makes any sort of sense. The gestalt of an idea contains so many side tracks and associated concepts that it is very difficult to follow just one. It is particularly annoying when I drift off into another path and never get back to the point I was trying to make!
More to the point for writing it down is where to start when showing only one side of an idea seems purile and pointless. Things that seem deep and meaningful in my head, with many interesting connotations and facets, get flattened into something that is simply not particularly insightful and which seems to have been said multiple times before.
Still, since this blog is not being read by anyone (according to the stats), it is just for me to say whatever and it really doesn't matter. So be it.
Perhaps I can broaden the scope somewhat. I was keeping this mostly impersonal and non-technical. But it started writing down some concepts related to heavy-weight vs light-weight applications and it occurred to me that this is probably a good place to go over what I want to say while I try to find the common thread that I am looking for.

Fragmentation and Consolidation

Recently I attended a talk about the National Broadband Network (NBN) being rolled out in Australia. In part it considered possible impacts of higher bandwidth and faster internet connections.
I am amazed at how poorly this is understood by some sectors - especially many politicians. It may only be rhetoric when they refer to 'being about to download movies faster' but really - is that all they see the internet as being? The world wide web *can* (and does) provide content faster and better than any other mechanism, but it is hardly just another broadcast medium. There are very many, very intelligent people who have been talking for years - starting, I think, with the Cluetrain Manifesto - about all the other capabilities which will be made available with good connectivity.
One good example given in the talk was the Sydney Harbour Bridge. Built at a time when there were very few cars on the road and almost no-one driving, the bridge was designed with four road lanes in each direction and two rail lanes. Way more than anyone at the time could possibly forsee being used. As we now know, the Bridge is now supplemented with another deck for trains and the Harbour Tunnel - and both are only barely supporting the demand. That it is anywhere close is argument enough for building for the future - most other roads in the country are full almost as soon as they are finished.

But that was not the original point that I was going to make. Another point that was brought up in the talk was the possibility of dynamic selection by consumers of utility provider. Most utilities in the country are supplied by one company - as wholesaler - and billed through another - as retailer. I am sure that there is some good business reason for this but I can only see the extra middle-man as being an extra cost on the consumer.
Be that as it may, it leaves the door open for households to change provider, for example for electricity, if some other retailer drops the price. (The providers of course counter this by only offering term contracts). By switching is a lengthy process and not something done yearly let alone daily.
Good internet access and online price lists mean that, in theory, users could switch two or three times a day to take advantage of the minute by minute benefit in prices. The best off-peak price from this retailer and the best on-peak price from that, etc.
Now I really don't think this sort of thing will ever happen. To start with the retailers are too canny to allow their customers to move about that easily. As with phone providers, the utilities are already starting to introduce a 'confusopoly' (Scott Adams term) so that prices simply can't be compared in the first place.
However, the concept introduces the idea of fragmentation of supply. If you were to get your power (or any other service) from multiple providers, would you necessarily recieve a bill from each? This could be very inconvenient, even if setting up direct debits (which tie you closely to your bank - hard to move 20 direct debits to another institution).
So the fragmentation in supply opens an opportunity for consolidation in another area. If all your bills were sent to one service, which provided you with a single invoice - all of which is managed electronically, that would make it enormously simpler for the average consumer. Indeed, it seems that almost all bills in Australia are created and sent from about half a dozen providers which have arrangements with any company large enough to send regular bills. This could be a value-add for them or for any other group that would like to insert themselves as consumer agent. Brokerage groups - who allow you to navigate the confusopolies now - would be another prime candidate for this service.

Thinking back over the above, I think it is only one aspect of a much larger conceptual framework of fragmentation and consolidation discussion. The internet allows consumers to have more control over where they source things - hence fragmentation. But at the same time, they need some method of consolidating those fragments to provide a managable point of view - hopefully more focused on their own requirements rather than the needs of the provider.
Perhaps the discussion above is simply a single concrete example of how this might work in practice?