David Hamilton

Photo

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 11:51:18 +0000

Neven Mrgan's tumbl: Murder stats

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 11:11:36 +0000

In 2005, the homicide rate in the US was 5.6.

In 2011, it was 4.8. It has been steadily declining since 1991.

In 2010, the international homicide rate was 6.9. For Europe, 3.5.

That figure for the murder rate in Europe is misleading, as it is skewed by the terrible murder rate of 15 for Russia.

The number for the UK is 1.17, making the US over four times more dangerous. Even safer are Spain (0.87), Germany (0.86), Norway (0.60) & Iceland (0.31)

In fact, the Western European state with the murder rate closest to the US is the tiny Principality of Liechtenstein, with 2.8 for its 35,000 people - still only just over half the average for the entire USA

Planning your Business Startup

Fri, 02 Dec 2011 10:09:08 +0000

Stumbled across this post, detailing the process of how the author creates (and filters) startup ideas. Which is pretty interesting, but not of direct relevance to me as I have one startup idea, and just want to make that work, not create more!

However of even greater interest was the planning worksheet that he uses. Fortunately. a commenter pointed me to the Business Model Generation website, which created the worksheet.

Their resources include a hosted shared worksheet, a free PDF download (available here), and an iPad app. The iPad app is a bit steep (£20), but i eventually bit the bullet and bought it, and I’ll let you know how I get on.

Does NYC Really Want To Store 80,000 Gallons Of Diesel Fuel Atop a Critical Internet Hub?

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 09:31:37 +0000

Does NYC Really Want To Store 80,000 Gallons Of Diesel Fuel Atop a Critical Internet Hub?:

Jon Stokes points out a critical infrastructure flaw in NYC that looks to be a gift to terrorists.

TV sport: Bud & FB hint at the future

Fri, 19 Aug 2011 13:18:04 +0100

lookatluca:

Some time ago I posted about what I considered was the untapped relationship-marketing potential of Formula 1, steeped as it continued to be in the world of free-to-air television and its somewhat retro business model.

So… Free-to-web is going to replace Free-to-air. And that’s ‘progress’?

In that case give me ‘retro’ any day.

Why Android, not iOS, killed WebOS

Fri, 19 Aug 2011 13:06:00 +0100

Yesterday HP announced that it was killing of its WebOS-based phone and tablet products. It has also said that it will keep WebOS alive (in other areas), but, since HP doesn’t licence WebOS to any other mobile hardware manufacturers, if is clear that WebOS is dead as far as the mobile space is concerned.

Some bloggers have tried to hand the credit (if one can call it so, as I think this leaves the mobile space considerably poorer) to Apple, and the difficulty in matching the iPad and iPhone. And certainly Apple’s cost-effectiveness in production is a problem for its rivals to overcome in the short term, but I don’t think a company the size of HP would regard it as insuperable.

No, I believe that Android, not the iPad or iPhone, killed WebOS.

My reason is that Google is clearly determined to pour billions into Android (another $12.5 billion this week alone), without trying to make any money out of it, or indeed having any direct revenue. Their strategy widely believed to be one of building a ring of defences around Google’s multi-billion advertising business (see The Freight Train That Is Android), by giving away Android for free and making no money out of it. How can anyone compete with that?

HP took the long view and realised that, unless you have a lot of mobile software patents (Microsoft makes more money from Android than Windows Phone 7), there is no point of even bothering to try to compete in the mobile OS market.

This provides a great example of how Google (contrary to its recent protestations) is actually stifling competition and innovation (and free isn’t always good).

The Great Disconnect: Why Riots were Inevitable

Tue, 09 Aug 2011 09:30:00 +0100

We have a society where almost half the eligible population feel that there is no point in voting - that the mechanisms that run our country have nothing to do with them. For certain age groups, such as the young, that proportion becomes the majority. So why do most young people feel that there is no point in voting, that there is no point in expressing their point of view about how the world around them works?

The answer is simply that our political parties do not reflect what the young think or believe. And that comes about because the voting system allows our political parties to ignore huge chunks of the electorate. One of the points that I made during the AV campaign was that our current voting system shuts out sections of our society - minorities, but large minorities nonetheless.

Once you have a large group of disaffected, energetic people, conflict becomes inevitable. All it needs is a trigger. Of course, if you were to ask the rioters about the underlying cause of the trouble they would be highly unlikely to identify the political system. Which is because these people have stopped thinking of the political system as being even vaguely relevant to them (assuming they ever did, which is highly unlikely).

Voting reform was voted down by the 28.5% of the population who had a vested interest in keeping a system that works (very) well for them. The political parties (one in particular) wheeled out the block vote of their core supporters to protect the interests of the parties themselves (which, intriguingly, involved their supporters voting against their own interests as voters). With our political systems remaining locked down by a self-interested minority, that many, many people feel shut out and excluded is inevitable.

Someone who has a vested interested in society doesn’t attack it. Those who are rioting are disconnected from the rest of us, disconnected from the results of their actions, disconnected from their neighbours. Disconnection isn’t a new thing - there have always been disaffected groups in any society, and teens inherently disconnect - however unrest of the scale that we’ve seen this week, especially following last year’s student riots, is a clear indicator of a deeper problem.

It doesn’t justify what they’re doing - such violence and destruction is completely and utterly wrong. However that doesn’t make it any less inevitable.

Gross, but very funny

Thu, 30 Jun 2011 06:38:55 +0100

Gross, but very funny

If computers...

Mon, 13 Jun 2011 18:44:45 +0100

peanutweeter:

via @MikeDrucker

Windows 7: Windows 8's hideous fat friend

Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:49:11 +0100

Windows 7: Windows 8's hideous fat friend:

diogenex:

Windows 8 does look good. But I’d be lying if I said that the sight of legacy Windows wasn’t as jarring as being approached by someone hot, only to be asked if you might be interested in their hideous, fat friend.

12 Reasons to Vote For AV

Mon, 02 May 2011 16:12:37 +0100

I’ve not seen anyone actually list the reasons why you should vote for AV, so here they are:

Removes wasted votes. Under AV you can ensure that your vote is kept alive after your first (or even second or third) choice candidate is eliminated, so your vote is only wasted if you choose to keep your list of alternate candidates short.
Eliminates tactical voting. You may not actually be aware that you are voting tactically, but choosing how to vote in First Past The Post (FPTP) elections is pretty simple: you vote for the main candidate or their closest rival. Any other vote is wasted, so you don’t seriously consider it. Hence you are voting tactically - to support the main candidate or get them out - rather than trying to select the candidate that appeals to you most. Most voters mentally rule out all of the fringe options, however attractive, as they know that the FPTP system will never allow it.
Choice. As pointed out in (2), FPTP realistically gives you a choice of only two options - for the main candidate or against them. AV finally gives you the freedom to choose the candidate you want, knowing that your selection will still be used even if your first choice is eliminated. Of course giving voters choice gives them power (including the power to remove unpopular MPs regardless of their party) which seems to be the reason that many politicians are against it.
Majority rule. Under FPTP the winner is elected by the largest minority. Under AV the winner needs the support of the majority of the voters. This is crucial, as it means that to win a candidate has to reach out beyond their core support and win substantial approval across the board. In 2005, Tony Blair’s government was re-elected with just 21.6% of the votes of the total electorate.
Thwarts extremists. Because the winner needs 50% support, AV makes it pretty much impossible for those with extreme and divisive policies to get elected. FPTP can actually help them. The French Presidential Election of 2002 provides a great example. Under FPTP (i.e. using the first vote results only), the National Front would have been just 3% away from winning, but the second vote showed that they would have been 32% away from winning under AV as their total support never exceeded 18%. If we don’t select AV, there is a significant chance that the FPTP system will deliver a BNP MP in the next few years.
Reduces disaffection with politics. Many, many people say that it’s not worth voting because there is no point to it: their vote has no effect. This is very worrying as a large ‘disaffected class’ can be destabilising to society, resulting in problems such outbreaks of rioting (as we’ve recently seen in London and Bristol). Since AV removes the wasted votes, those people are much more likely to vote, be involved with the democratic process, and channel their energies through that.
Makes MPs work harder for our votes. Because there is more choice and they need 50% approval, MPs in many seats can no longer take for granted that wearing the right rosette will guarantee their election. Thus they will have to listen harder to the wishes of their constituents and pay more attention when the government is doing something unpopular with the majority of the people. Consider whether the expenses scandal would have happened if MPs had to be more mindful of the opinion of their electorate.
Encourages positive campaigning. Because the voter currently has a choice from only two options, the candidates have an incentive to indulge in dirty tricks and smear campaigns - anything that discourages people from voting for an opponent can be of benefit. Under AV bad-mouthing another is less likely to directly benefit a candidate since the choice is more sophisticated, and it may well result in both those candidates involved losing out to third-parties. This hasn’t happened in Australia for one good reason: the voters have kept the two party system at federal level, and wherever voters only have two real options, there will be a tendency to campaign negatively.
Consistency. AV keeps everything else about our democracy the same - the geographical constituencies, one MP who is directly responsible to you because he/she needs your vote, etc. The only parts that change are the way we mark the voting card and how those votes are counted.
Simple as 1,2,3. In exactly the same way as you would say to someone going to the shops “Get me shallots, or failing that onions”, you list the candidates you like in your order of preference. Your vote is given to your first choice candidate, and remains with them - unless they are eliminated through lack of support. In that case then your vote is moved to your second choice, and so on through the rest of your choices in subsequent recounts. You only have one vote - but it respects your preferred alternatives if your favoured candidate is eliminated.
Backwardly compatible. If you wish, you can use the AV system exactly the same as FPTP: you just put ‘1’ against the candidate that you want to vote for and leave the rest blank. Your vote will be treated exactly the same as it would have been under FPTP and will just be thrown in the bin if your candidate is eliminated. In Australia, enough people vote like this that that there is actually a term for it - ‘Voting above the line’.
Voters decide whether to have a two-party or multiparty system. Unlike FPTP, which effectively forces a two-party system on the voters, or Proportional Representation which ensures multi-party coalition government, AV can result in either, depending on the public. Australia has a two-party system federally, but other parts of their government are multi-party coalitions. The choice is made by the voters which, after all, is what democracy is supposed to be about.

Tories video against AV

Sun, 01 May 2011 12:47:28 +0100

Tories video against AV:

Wow - I was expecting some intelligent comparison of voting systems. Instead, we get a (literally) childish promo.

Mr Cameron: You always talk about CHOICE. Choice in the NHS, choice in schools, etc, etc.

Yet when it comes to giving the voters REAL CHOICE - not having to worry about wasted votes, not needing to vote tactically - you’re against that.

You’re afraid of giving voters CHOICE, because you know that you benefit from limiting the options available to them.

Hypocrite.

Our voting system: A cancer at the heart of politics

Mon, 25 Apr 2011 12:25:00 +0100

It seems extraordinary that people are not more excited about being given the chance to change our voting system, especially as it comes just 2 years after the expenses scandal, which proved undeniably the degree to which MPs take our votes for granted. And the reason they take our votes for granted is because our current voting system allows them to do so. The 5th May represents a fantastic opportunity to change our entire system of politics, to make our MPs more accountable and to give ourselves choice.

It is ironic that while we continually value choice in our everyday lives - the choice of cheeses at the supermarket or of gas supplier for example - we seem unconcerned that, when it comes to choosing our government, we have almost no choice. It inevitably comes down one of three options: vote for the incumbent candidate, vote against them by selecting their nearest rival, or have a wasted vote. In fact, the reality is worse than that, because we end up voting tactically in order to keep out candidates we dislike. So we end up voting, not for candidates, but against them - all due to the inadequacies of our current voting system.

With everyone voting negatively to keep out candidates, the candidates themselves end up campaigning negatively, seeking to gain votes by destroying the reputation of the other candidates. Thus we end up with negative, bitchy campaigns which systematically avoid discussing how to improve life for the voters - again, purely because of the voting system.

AV fixes that by getting rid of the need for tactical voting. You purely put the candidates in the order that you prefer them, and the system takes care of the rest. It is that simple - literally as simple as 1,2,3 - allowing voters the full choice of candidates and finally giving us the kind of choice that we’ve taken for granted in supermarkets for years.

Not surprisingly, given that lack of choice benefits them, the main political parties have been putting about a number of lies about AV. The main one is that it brings about weak, coalition governments. The best answer to that is to look at Australia, where types of AV have been in use since 1918, and yet the last hung parliament (before the current one) was 1940! The other lie is that full Proportional Representation is a more democratic system, which is fine in theory. In practice it turns out that, because it uses list systems controlled by the parties, full PR results in power moving to the political parties themselves, rather than the voters. Italy has found, to its cost, that no matter who they vote for, the same political clique keep power.

The truth is that AV is actually the best system available, bringing choice and power to voters while delivering stable governments. It also has the key strength of having one MP who, dependent on our votes, actually has to listen to us.

Our current electoral system is a cancer at the heart of our politics - sucking away choice and ideas and replacing them with negativity and vitriol. The only conceivable reason to vote ‘No’ on the 5th May is if you work for one of the main political parties. If you’re a voter, the choice is obvious - to vote ‘Yes’ and do away with a terrible system that has given rise to bad politics and MPs that take us for granted. It is, quite literally, a once in a lifetime opportunity: Vote Wisely.

AV explained as buying crisps

Mon, 25 Apr 2011 11:52:00 +0100

AV explained as buying crisps:

This article in The Independent contains the best real-world analogy that I’ve seen for how AV works from the voter’s point-of-view:

Scenario one: You hand over £1 for a bag of crisps and tell your friend you want a packet of salt and vinegar. But when he gets to the shops, it turns out there are none in stock. So your friend asks the shopkeeper what’s popular, he comes back with prawn crackers and you end up with someone else’s choice.

Scenario two: You hand over £1 for a bag of crisps and tell your friend you want salt and vinegar. If not, your second preference would be cheese and onion; failing that, ready salted. Your friend/butler toddles off to the shops and returns with cheese and onion. You have paid the same money but got something closer to your ideal outcome.

Scenario 1 is how the current voting system treats our votes, and scenario 2 is how AV treats our votes.

Marco.org: The Mac App Store isn't for today's Mac developers

Sat, 30 Oct 2010 12:15:45 +0100

Marco.org: The Mac App Store isn't for today's Mac developers:

marco:

Apple’s recently announced App Store for the Mac is a Really Big Deal™, for reasons I’ll get to in a moment. But a lot of existing Mac developers have pointed out major issues or unknowns that need to be addressed:

Provides an interesting insight into the likely role of the OS X App Store. One area that he doesn’t really discuss is how the OS X App Store is going to fit into corporate IT, which almost always wants to exercise an extraordinary level of control over the make-up of users’ machines.

New MobileMe Calendar - Fixing Disappearing Calendars

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 09:35:21 +0100

Today, Apple released an upgrade to the MobileMe Calendar. The upgrade went fine and afterwards I could see all of my data when browsing to the MobileMe website directly. However it had all (apart from Birthdays!) disappeared from the iCal app on my Macs and from my iPhone calendar. This was despite having up-to-date software on all devices.

Investigating further, I found that the new version expects you to have a server account set up in iCal in order to pick up all of the rest of the data. So went to iCal Preferences, selected the Accounts Tab, and added a new account using my MobileMe account details.

All of my calendars then magically reappeared on that computer, and subsequently automatically appeared on other devices, including my phone, once they had sync’ed up. It seems that the calendars are now server-based, but the upgrade doesn’t always auto-create the server reference in the iCal settings.

Are You The Unreasonable Man?

Wed, 14 Jul 2010 14:43:01 +0100

Are You The Unreasonable Man?:

Boris from The Next Web has posted a thought provoking article asking about the role of unreasonable behaviour in business.

It was still in the back of my mind while at Tai Chi class last night. Our instructor reminded us of the central role of Yin and Yang and the balance of opposites in Chinese martial arts and philosophy in general.

I was struck by the stark contrast with the Western approach (both in fighting and life in general): that imbalance (or unreasonableness) is pretty much key to our approach.

I was tempted to view the success of the West, both economically and culturally, as being a result of being downright unreasonable most of the time (unless forced to compromise).

That success may, however, only be temporary. I regard Western economics (based as they are on the unsustainable idea of perpetual growth) as a teenage phase of our development as a society: at some point we are going to grow up and have to learn to be more reasonable.

How much worse is “failed catastrophically” than...

Thu, 14 May 2009 10:51:02 +0100

How much worse is “failed catastrophically” than “failed”, or even “unrecoverable failure”?

Via adobegripes:

Quality of Life Plotted against Log Income

Thu, 16 Apr 2009 10:14:00 +0100

Quality of Life Plotted against Log Income

The Future - What Went Wrong?

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 09:12:34 +0100

The Future - What Went Wrong?