Best of the Best:
Dan Snow’s simple explanation (2m54s):
‘Dan Snow’s Alternative‘ (YouTube v=TtW3QkX8Xa0)
More detailed (4m27s):
‘The Alternative Vote Explained‘ (YouTube v=3Y3jE3B8HsE)
Debunking the myths:
http://avlies.com/
Printable A4 PDF version:
avlies.com.pdf
Printable A5 PDF booklet version:
avlies.pdf
Some quotes from The Now Show (2010-12-04) regarding COP16
It’s about as relevant to most western governments and news organizations as brown people dying in a country with no oil.
— Steve Punt (The Now Show)
53% of all Republicans don’t believe climate change is happening at all. — (The Now Show)
On the subject of climate change Congressman John Shimkus (who sits on the US Congress Energy Committee) quoted Genesis 8 vs.21&22 from the Bible. — (The Now Show)
As one harsh winter follows another it becomes ever harder to believe in the great climate scam.
— Conservative MEP Roger Helmer
The weather where you live is not the global climate! If you’re hard of thinking, get a pen and write it down… [your comments are] erroneous, irresponsible and thick
— Steve Punt (The Now Show)
People like this treat scientific data like a pick and mix where they can just leave out the bits they don’t like: Yuk temperature toffee yukky; ooh, yummy, half a fact.
— Steve Punt (The Now Show)
The recent protests by students over tuition fees is an example of how the public are always too late to complain.
When football clubs floated on the stock market, fans jumped for joy at the prospect of more money for the club. Now they complain about foreign owners and over-paid players.
When the banks were deregulated (overturning the lessons of history) and banks couldn’t give credit fast enough, the few lone voices counseling caution were ignored. Then the boom turned to bust and the people found everyone to blame except themselves.
When Cadbury’s went PLC, it didn’t even make the news. But when it got sold to a foreign confectioner — the obvious result — then people complained.
In the face of popular greed, the US President gave the go-ahead for off-shore oil drilling. Did the people blame themselves, the root cause, when the well burst? No, they blamed the oil company.
Now there are mass demonstrations and near riots over the rise in tuition fees. But, without Labour’s University of Bums on Seats (the 50% graduate target) and the consequent tuition fees, this issue wouldn’t exist.*
When you hear the train’s whistle, that’s the time to get off the tracks. Don’t wait till it hits you before you complain.
[*If today's students wish to punish someone, they should go and slap those amongst their parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles who elected and re-electing (twice!) a party that sold out every one of their principles in exchange for a free vote on fox hunting.]
The attitude of the Labour party to the rise in tuition fees is arrogant duplicity of the first order: it was Labour that introduced the University of Bums on Seats and the consequent tuition fees. And they ruined the economy (2010 debt interest will be £43bn). Students should be attacking Labour, not the Lib Dems.
Extracts from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-up_fees
Between 1998 and 2006 most British students (except Scottish students studying in Scotland) paid a contribution towards their tuition fees.
Legislation to enable the introduction of top-up fees was proposed by the Labour Party Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Charles Clarke and became law in the Higher Education Act 2004. The law came into effect for the 2006-2007 academic year.
This became law despite the Labour manifesto 2001 promise reading: “We have no plans to introduce University top-up fees, and have legislated to prevent their introduction.”
All since Labour came to power in 1997.
Extract from http://www.newstatesman.com/2010/11/prime-minister-deputy-fees
Clegg also criticised Harman in turn for, what he called, her “attempt to reposition the party as champion of students”, stating that the Labour Party had campaigned against tuition fees and top-up fees, and introduced them both.
Email received today (2010-10-12)
Dear signatory of the OOXML petition,
last week a U.S. rightsholder lobby group Business Software Alliance (BSA) got hold of confidential EU pre-release drafts of the European Interoperability Framework (EIF) 2.0. They put pressure on several EU-Commissioners in an attempt to stifle once again “open standards” policies. The European Interoperability Framework is expected to be presented this week together with a communication to the European Parliament and the Council.
We are sick and tired of these undue interventions from US lobbyists in the internal affairs of our states. We are embarrassed that they are able to obtain pre-release documents while the European public is denied access. Neither have our democratic representatives, the Members of the European Parliament considered the proposals from the EU-Commission while BSA-lobbyist Francisco Mingorance talks to the press about yellow perils inside the European Interoperability Framework 2.0 [1].
The 2004 European Interoperability Framework (EIF) 1.0 got under heavy rightsholder attack because it defined the term “Open Standards” as it is used by digital professionals. “Open standards” do not require licensing and can be implemented freely, by proprietary and GPL software.
The FFII calls on European policy makers to consider the Hague Declaration principles [2] and preserve a true definition of open standards for their egovernment services. It is our genuine right to communicate as citizens with our administration, and to do so without technological discrimination and without patent toll gates. Let us defend the openness of Europe!
Kind regards
Alberto Barrionuevo
FFII Open Standards working group[1] http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/eu-push-patent-free-egovernment-news-498694
[2] http://www.digistan.org/hague-declaration====================================================================
How to support the FFII
====================================================================The FFII is organised in working groups and we welcome new participants. Our open standards working group documented at
http://action.ffii.org/openstandardsIf you consider our work important and essential but you are not able to help actively, you can become a passive sustaining member of the FFII e.V., starting at 36,00 EUR per year.
We also appreciate your donations which help us to sustain our mission:
http://www.ffii.org/Donations====================================================================
How to contact us
====================================================================FFII e.V. Office Berlin
Malmöer Str. 6 10439 Berlin Germany
Tel: +49 30 417 22 597 Fax service: +49 721 509663769
eMail: office@ffii.org IRC: #ffii @ irc.freenode.net
http://www.ffii.orgIBAN: DE78701500000031112097 BIC: SSKM DE MM
Registered association in Munich, Amtsgericht München VR 16460
Tax ID: 143/214/80285 at the German tax authority in Munich.
Board: Benjamin Henrion, Rene Mages, Stephan Uhlmann, André Rebentisch,
Alex MacfieThe FFII is a not-for-profit association registered in twenty European countries, dedicated to the development of information goods for the public benefit, based on copyright, free competition, open standards. More than 1000 members, 3,500 companies and 100,000 supporters have entrusted the FFII to act as their voice in public policy questions concerning exclusion rights (intellectual property) in data processing.
====================================================================
If you do not want to receive any more exceptional alerts about crucial digital developments sent a short email message to support@ffii.org
Yesterday (2010-07-14) David Cameron said It is absolutely clear that Raoul Moat was a callous murderer, full stop, end of story.
We may have seen the end of Raoul Moat’s story but, unless we learn and think, the story will repeat itself.
Imagine a warehouse that is not only full of valuable goods but which also contains several randomly distributed piles of scrap paper. Every now and again, one of the piles bursts into flames. The staff rush to put out the fire and then everyone, company directors included, stands around mourning the damage and loss.
Doubtless you would suggest to them that they might like to put all the scrap paper in a metal bin outside for disposal, which would end the problem.
So why is it that we condemn the consequences of social problems but rarely bother to try to prevent them in the first place?
If you believe in original sin then you may as well stop reading now. For everyone else, people who commit crimes in this society are a product of this society. When we tackle the social problems we will simultaneously tackle crime. It is clear that Raoul Moat was mentally ill. It is also apparent that he had been the victim of much injustice. It is very likely that the latter caused, or greatly exacerbated, the former. It is also apparent that many mistakes were made in dealing with him both before and after his shooting spree.
Waiting until people commit crimes and then simply locking them up is like putting endless people into isolation wards but not trying to cure the disease. Indeed, the fact that our prisons are overflowing is testament to exactly that kind of approach.
Moat’s crimes were terrible and certainly worthy of condemnation. But the correct response is to discover what happened to make him the way he turned out, and then to take action to try to stop it happening to others.
Or, like our new PM, we could just say “full stop”, wait until it happens again, and then revel in another little popularist condemning session.
…And again this evening (2010-07-15) on Question Time there was another valueless condemn-fest, which was greeted with much applause.
People clap and people think. Rarely do they do both together.
See also: Raoul Moat – Neither heroic nor callous
“…we’re putting amateurs into really important positions and people are getting killed as a result…” Lieutenant-General Sir Frederick Viggers. BBC News – Army chief lambasts ‘amateurs’ in post-invasion Iraq
The most important fact for elected politicians to accept is their own ignorance. Almost all of them got elected by standing for the right party in the right place at the right time. And that is all.
Lt Gen Viggers’ statement is a truth about all democracy.
When politicians ride rough-shod over the advice of experts, either because they have conceitedly convinced themselves that they know best, or because they are sucking up to misguided public opinion, that is when things go wrong, sometimes very wrong.
People often use the derogatory expression “these so-called experts” when the advice is counter-intuitive, but good advice often is, that’s why we need it. If all problems could be solved through intuition and gut reaction, none of us would need experts at all; we wouldn’t need doctors to help us when we are ill, we wouldn’t need engineers to design bridges that don’t fall down, and politicians wouldn’t need expert advice on just about everything, but we do and so do they.
An essay is only complete when there is nothing left to delete
If you had a formal education in the UK during the past few decades, you will doubtless have been assigned essays with a stipulated minimum number of words. And you may well have been marked down for using bullet points, or for starting a sentence with ‘And’. Yet this still-favoured approach encourages quantity over quality, and style over substance.
We have all seen legal case documents wheeled into the Court on goods trolleys. Were so many words really necessary? Could the judge possibly find and read all that was relevant to the case? If not, did justice prevail?
How many documents about safety procedures go unread because they are too long? How many important tasks go unfulfilled because the relevant reports, written in formal sentences and paragraphs, lack structure and clarity?
If you are a teacher or lecturer, and you have any say in the matter, introduce your students to the concept of brevity and then put an upper-bound on their essays. Future generations will thank you for it, and you may be pleasantly surprised by the short-term results as well.
For problems to be solved, minutes and lives saved, and justice served, say what you mean, make it clear, and keep it brief
Two possibilities:
1) The US government uses easy-to-hack decoy computers as a first line of defence.
2) Gary McKinnon really did break into Pentagon, NASA and US Navy computers, altering and deleting files, immobilising sensitive systems and causing $800,000 worth of damage. In which case the other NATO member nations should sue the US Government for running such insecure systems and putting us all at risk.
On the specific issue of extradition, the purpose of such a treaty is that nations which do not necessarily trust each other have a way of exchanging individuals suspected of a serious crime. There should be no need for such an agreement between the US and the UK. We all know that the much vaunted ‘special relationship’ is rather one sided, but there should be sufficient confidence between our nations for the US to have faith in UK courts and vice versa.
See also: http://thebigotbasher.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/gary-mckinnon-a-plea-for-common-sense/
[...] The tsunami that devastated South Eastern Asian countries and the north-eastern parts of Africa, is perhaps the most graphic, albeit unfortunate, demonstration of the need for global collaboration, and open ICT standards. The incalculable loss of life and damage to property was exacerbated by the fact that responding agencies and non-governmental groups were unable to share information vital to the rescue effort. Each was using different data and document formats. Relief was slowed, and coordination complicated. [...]
Mosibudi Mangena, Opening address of SATNAC 2005
Standards are important. Among other things they allow for interoperability — when you buy a new washing machine or a new TV you don’t have to have a new power socket installed, it just fits the old one. Sadly, in ICT, if you have such expectations you will soon be disappointed — all too often, if you change your software, your old files become unreadable.
Over the years there have been many successful attempts to create open, standard file formats. But producers of proprietary software don’t like this as it prevents them locking you in to their products. A couple of years ago, Microsoft found a way to break the standardization process: introduce a non-standard standard and then ‘persuade’ the ISO to ratify it.
Being unable to rely upon the impartiality of the World standards organization is of great concern.
Latest news on Microsoft, OOXML and the ISO
The noooxml.org petition lists the principal objections.
See also:
The Digital Standards Organization
The Hague Declaration — Human Rights aspect of Open Standards
Open Parliament — Petition for the European Parliament to adopt Open Standards
Petition for fair patents within the European Union — relevant to this article when one considers the threat posed by Software Patents
In general, the response by the British public to the MPs’ expenses affair is a chronic over-reaction in contrast to their attitude to, say, the Iraq war.
It’s like a Doctor focusing on the splinter in the patient’s finger and largely ignoring the bullet in the patient’s chest.
†eg governments awarding contracts to large corporates that have demonstrated their ineptitude many times before.
This principle excuses people from thinking, which leads to bad government, bad decisions, and ruined lives. Unsupported opinions and beliefs are accepted by the majority when they are won-over by a good orator, or by someone who has previously gained their respect. Every time a politician (professional or amateur) expresses a view, someone should say “What is your reasoning?” and, if none is forthcoming or the reasoning is logically flawed, we should listen to someone else.
Who should apologise for the economic mess?
Democracy is not just a right, it is also a responsibility; your right to vote entails your responsibility to understand what you are voting for. The voters who have elected profligate governments owe an apology to this generation’s children and grandchildren for the debt and diminished opportunity that they will inherit. No other apology should be demanded of anyone by anyone.
Politics is perhaps the only profession for which no preparation is thought necessary.
Robert Louis Stevenson
Democracy is necessary for a well-functioning society, but it is not sufficient. Would you elect your surgeon or a structural engineer from a bunch of untrained, inexperienced candidates?
The second chamber could (and often does) provide what the first chamber does not, that is people with years of relevant experience, knowledge and understanding. Indeed, if the second chamber was exclusively meritocratic, it might make sense for some debates to begin there.
During the Thatcher years the Lords provided much needed, and effective, opposition.
One chamber is not enough: when it goes wrong there’s nothing to stop it. With a first-past-the-post commons, a meritocratic second chamber provides opposition to a landslide ruling party; with proportional representation, the second chamber could rescue parliament from the occasional deadlock.
An elected second chamber of independent Senators might provide these benefits IF a mechanism could be found for meritocratic shortlisting. The last thing we need is more party politics and the barriers that brings to sensible decision making.
The case against is very well argued by David Steel:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/feb/05/comment.lords
[Originally posted here: http://www.nickclegg.com/2009/02/elected-parliament-campaign/#comment-3990 -- this whole page supporting an elected second chamber (not just the comments) has since been deleted -- perhaps good reasoning is winning?]
The fundamental principle of both science and engineering is logical reasoning. These disciplines advance faster and more reliably than other areas of human endeavour. Indeed, when errors are made it is always because the reasoning was flawed. Consequently all important decision making, including politics, should employ this principle above all.
See Why is logic relevant to everyday life?
House of Lords Reform Digg Reddit uksenate timeline rq4c timeline RQ4C on Twitter
