So this is the first time I have ever used OneDrive,
having previously used DropBox, Box and Git and the syncing is rubbish
because of the way exclusion works. Anyone who has written a sync tool knows that you do not want to synchronize everything but when you first enable OneDrive, it has created a Documents folder, which has been pinned to your Quick Launch. From now on, every time you think you are saving to your documents, you are actually saving to OneDrive and NOT your documents.
Microsoft, seriously? For those of us who have used Windows for years, this is deception and just causes confusion. Why would you call the folder the same name, give it the same icon and put it where my normal documents folder is so that if I were to accidentally delete some OneDrive documents from another machine, I would accidentally come home to find I don't have any documents any more!
So eventually, I realise this after managing to delete a vendor folder that had taken the previous 10 minutes to download! So I moved my stuff back into "My Documents" and deleted OneDrive's "Documents". Now I am wondering how to sync some folders.
The instructions online are out of date, there is no option to "Choose
OneDrive folders to sync" context menu item. Secondly, trying to
right-click the folder in OneDrive brings up the context menu for about a
second after which it disappears. I finally found out how to access the
options via the system tray icon.
Vendor,
node_modules and others are basically cached packages that take up way
too much space and change too frequently to need syncing, they can
easily be re-downloaded if needed and to avoid eating up bandwidth, I
wanted to exclude a folder in my web project but otherwise sync (i.e. backup) the code part of the project.
Due to reasons that are hard to understand, however, the OneDrive documents is
some kind of symlink to the real documents so if I include a folder and then exclude a sub folder
from OneDrive, it deletes it from my local computer even though it was
created locally in the first place! Basically, this is trash and makes
OneDrive completely unusable for me.
I
don't want to be a moaner but honestly, there is no way that anyone
serious could have tested and accepted this product before it was
released because all other products I have used have already worked this
out. Ignore means ignore, not delete!
It is also super slow. Bye bye OneDrive, I will continue to use DropBox, which is to be honest, pretty poor in some ways but is still yards better than OneDrive.
Friday, 6 July 2018
Thursday, 5 July 2018
The NHS at 70
I thought I would write some armchair opinion about the NHS, a much beloved and seemingly struggling Institution that turns 70 today and is under more pressure than ever. I don't have much first-hand experience, although I have worked in a few temporary admin roles in a hospital, have a mum who worked in the NHS for the last 25 years as a Ward Manager and have a number of close GP friends, so my opinions are not expert but they are not "tabloid" either!
Statements like "the Tories hate it" or "the government want to kill it off" are disingenuous and miss the real problems that are occuring and most importantly, why. It is ultimately a question of money and efficiency - i.e. value for money but this too is too simple an approach. To measure the problem purely in terms of money assumes that firstly the NHS is fit for our modern world and secondly that it is largely a case of efficiency combined with extra government contribution that will fix it.
Hopefully most people will understand that it is not as simple as that!
An ambulance in 2018 might cost £250,000 or more each! That is a lot of money, especially since most of the people using it will not need most of the kit, but for the odd few people who do, it is necessary to have it on most or all emergency ambulances. Compare that to 1948 when the price for a basic van might have been the equivalent of £10,000 to £20,000 in todays money, over 10 times less!
The population has changed massively, in 1948, it was 50M, and is now 60M, which in itself, with no other changes would be an increase in cost of 20% but now also includes a much higher percentage of the elderly who will cost more per-head to care for than younger people.
Certain treatments were not available in 1948 and are today and they are expensive! Cancer treatment varies between some low-level chemotherapy or basic surgery right through to modern cutting-edge drugs that might improve life-expectency by a few percent but at an enormous price. People might not like the idea that they are not worth the money but the organisation NICE has exactly the job of providing a value on human life for the NHS and deciding what is worth spending and what isn't.
Prescription drugs were very limited in 1948 but now, people get all kinds of things via the NHS. There is a fixed charge for some people but for many, they are free at point of use and these alone cost the UK was a staggering £10B in 2017. I don't have figures for 1948 but it would have been significantly less!
The culture of society has changed. With any "free" service, there is a danger that the privilege becomes expected and it is not only more common for people to visit hospital (why not when you meet a super qualified doctor who will examine your cut knee!) but even for some to get verbally agreesive if the "service" they receive is not as expected. I heard recently of someone getting physically agressive in a doctor surgery because they were unhappy that the government are stopping prescribing (i.e. paying for) medicines that are available over the counter. This puts obvious financial pressure on hospitals but also the fear of mistakes and litigation makes some Trusts either avoid providing a service at all, or they have to spend more time and money making sure they didn't miss something. Of course, that doesn't always work, people do make mistakes so the additional money might not be adding much value!
There is another idea that somehow "I paid my tax", which means that it all goes into a pot and pays for my care. That is, of course, also not true. Your tax paid for the government spending the day after you paid it, it is not in a pot and it is not "owed" to you. With inflation, the total amount of money you paid in tax would cover nowhere near what you cost to the NHS, especially since it wasn't gaining interest in an account somewhere! The simple fact is that the NHS today is paid for by what people pay in tax today. As prices inflate, either wages (and tax) would need to increase consistently, spending has to be cut or the government has to borrow and hope that somewhere in the future we will do some kind of magic economy thing to be able to pay the money back.
The NHS is NOT free! It is free "at point-of-use" but unsurprisingly it is very expensive. Approx £111B per year. Roughly 18% of all government spending.
So this brings us nicely to the common accusation that "The NHS is really inefficient", it has "loads of middle managers" etc. and that simply some more efficiency would change everything. This unfortunately is a mantra for people who do not understand most corporate environments. Of course there will be inefficiencies and we will find areas where money can be saved today but these things don't sit still, you might save £10M today by buying power but then another contract you just signed will cost you another £10M next year, especially with so much contracting that is required for Trusts to meeting targets and quotas set by Politicians.
The Corporate world i.e. any organisation with more than 500 people and 4 levels of management (my definition) is rife with inefficiencies. There are jobs that we might not think are needed but you have to have 3 people producing graphs if you are required by law to prove that you are meeting targets. Could 2 people do the same job? Sure but good luck finding all these amazing people to staff an organisation that employs 1.5M people! There is a reality that some people are rubbish, some are amazing and most are average. If you only employ 5 people, you have the luxury of choosing those amazing people, more than 10 empoyees, it largely becomes impossible.
Could people work smarter etc. Again, yes in theory but is a nurse going to be allowed to use their intuition to make something better or are they made to tow the process line to make sure things don't go wrong? This is healthcare, there isn't much appetite for risk taking!
The simple maths is that the demand and expectation for health services is too high for the money that the government are willing to/able to provide.
Taxation comes from various places, the main three are Income Tax, National Insurance and V.A.T. there are others like beer and fuel duty and inheritance taxes but over 90% comes from these three. The controversy is about who pays them and how much they could be put up.
National insurance is supposed to pay for the NHS but not everyone pays it. Of course, theoretically everyone pays it. In fact, when I was unemployed, I missed payments because I didn's sign on! The reality is that any state payments like pension and unemployment are basically higher so that the individual can pay their tax straight back to the government so in reality, only people earning are paying it (and their businesses), which leads to a difficulty. Should I pay more NI just because the elderly and possibly people who don't work and have even more chance of health problems and free prescriptions are costing a large part of the NHS cost? It's a matter of degree, of course, but that is the problem.
Likewise, income tax is paid by people who are working. The socialist ideal is, of course, that those who are productive take care of those who aren't but that assumes that those who are not working are still giving to the community in some way and that pensioners are not simply travelling around sightseeing and the unemployed are not at home watching Sky TV! Of course, these are not all the people but there are enough of them to make it a touchy subject for tax payers.
VAT is an intersting concept because it is based on the idea that those who can afford luxuries can afford to pay for stuff. Ignoring the few really random places where VAT is paid but shouldn't be (and vice-versa) it works OK except, again, it is like punishing the people who have done well in life to pay for those who cannot look after themselves. If we loaded VAT even more, we could raise money but VAT actually affects pretty much everybody because plenty of things we consider normal, like cake, are treated as luxuries for the purposes of VAT.
So raising money by raising taxes is a tool but it would be unpopular, not just generally but because of the idea that I pay more because I am doing better in life, not because I need more from the state.
So the flip side of making something work is to reduce the cost of the NHS. As previously mentioned, there would be scope for making some savings and various governments have already done some of this but keeping on top of it requires employing some more "middle managers" and things change as soon as a new drug or piece of equipment becomes available or something else comes out of patent and is made cheaper. The NHS have done well convincing Pharmacies to dispense generic drugs in place of named brands of the same thing.
The only big way to reduce the cost is to reduce the demand! This, again, is contraversial for the simple reason that not everybody needs the same thing. If you, for example, said that you could only visit the doctors a certain number of times before needing to pay, would that be fair to someone with a chronic illness? Would we be able to do it in a way that allows people with known genuine problems to visit multiple times and others to have a limit? You could charge people, again very unpopular because, "I pay my taxes" but the useful part here is that a) you could charge people who miss appointments i.e. they lose their payment and b) It provides a mechanism that makes people think, is my cut knee really worth £5 to see the doctor? Again, it creates problems for those with long term conditions and the elderly are potentially very vulnerable if they are living extremely frugally and are less likely to pay money to see a doctor. If you start exempting people then you fall back to the problem that only people who earn have to pay - which is unfair and doesn't solve the issue of reducing demand.
You could, in addition, reduce what treatments are available "for free" and have a system like many dentists and some hospitals. You get basic treatment for free but pay a bit more and you get more time and a private room or something like that. Of course, many people don't like, "two tier systems" "one for the rich and one for the poor" or "one for the 1% and one for everyone else" but unfortunately, there aren't many easy ways to distinguish people other than money or quota and since the main problem is lack of money, why not offer nicer food/services/beds/whatever for those who are willing to pay a bit more money. People could even get free upgrades!
The other difficulty is there will always be people who will lose more than others. In fact, the Labour Party frequently use the hackneyed expression, "The poor will be hit the hardest" which in most cases will always be true! If the country benefits but a small percentage loses out in some way (small percentage might still mean 100,000 people!) is it still worth it? Of course, the answer is always "yes and no". Yes financially and no, it will be a real problem for some people. Even with planning and time, changes will never be embraced with open arms and the population has to understand that we cannot afford the NHS in its current form (as well as many other services!).
The NHS, to their credit, have tried to encourage people to use services correctly - go to the pharmacy instead of your GP, go to your GP instead of A&E but there are no sanctions for people who ignore it. If I go to A&E anyway, I'm not going to be turned away (although I know in some more extreme cases you might) and the problem doesn't go away. If they could actually dictate what will and won't be looked at in A&E, that might help, also if they let more nurses carry out lower level diagnosis and treatment (again, I know this does sometimes happen) then we might reduce the need for a doctor looking at a cut hand.
Could we use technology more? I would personally be more than happy for a nurse in A&E to look something up on the computer to find out whether a wound needs referring/X-ray etc. or whether to simply bandage up and send me away.
Ultimately, only the people who work there can say what will work internally. Of course, more money and less people would help but that is not something a GP or hospital worker has much control over. There are plenty of well-meaning and able healthcare staff who could tell you in 5 minutes what the major problems are. Perhaps then you could list them all, estimate cost-benefit and knock a few over. If we scrap healthcare targets and gain £10M a year, is it worth it while at the same time losing some visibility over how different hospitals work etc.?
We all love it
I think some people need to understand that everyone loves the concept of the NHS. I love the fact that with generally minimum fuss, I can get a range of benefits like free ambulance transit in emergency with paramedics, free acute care in Accident and Emergency (or whatever they might call it now) as well as a range of in and out-patient facilities, which are free at point-of-use. In reality, we get thousands of pounds worth of treatment, which for many people is way more than they have paid indirectly in taxes.Statements like "the Tories hate it" or "the government want to kill it off" are disingenuous and miss the real problems that are occuring and most importantly, why. It is ultimately a question of money and efficiency - i.e. value for money but this too is too simple an approach. To measure the problem purely in terms of money assumes that firstly the NHS is fit for our modern world and secondly that it is largely a case of efficiency combined with extra government contribution that will fix it.
Hopefully most people will understand that it is not as simple as that!
Things have changed
Firstly, the NHS itself has changed massively in the past 70 years, partly because the world has changed and partly because the remit of hospitals 70 years ago was much smaller than it is now. 70 years ago, we didn't have MRIs and Cat Scans, we had more rudimentary X-Ray machines. Ambulances were basically vans with a gurney and a driver and for the most part, there would have been little need to visit A&E for small issues like cuts since their treatments would have been fairly close to what you would do at home: wash it and cover it.An ambulance in 2018 might cost £250,000 or more each! That is a lot of money, especially since most of the people using it will not need most of the kit, but for the odd few people who do, it is necessary to have it on most or all emergency ambulances. Compare that to 1948 when the price for a basic van might have been the equivalent of £10,000 to £20,000 in todays money, over 10 times less!
The population has changed massively, in 1948, it was 50M, and is now 60M, which in itself, with no other changes would be an increase in cost of 20% but now also includes a much higher percentage of the elderly who will cost more per-head to care for than younger people.
Certain treatments were not available in 1948 and are today and they are expensive! Cancer treatment varies between some low-level chemotherapy or basic surgery right through to modern cutting-edge drugs that might improve life-expectency by a few percent but at an enormous price. People might not like the idea that they are not worth the money but the organisation NICE has exactly the job of providing a value on human life for the NHS and deciding what is worth spending and what isn't.
Prescription drugs were very limited in 1948 but now, people get all kinds of things via the NHS. There is a fixed charge for some people but for many, they are free at point of use and these alone cost the UK was a staggering £10B in 2017. I don't have figures for 1948 but it would have been significantly less!
The culture of society has changed. With any "free" service, there is a danger that the privilege becomes expected and it is not only more common for people to visit hospital (why not when you meet a super qualified doctor who will examine your cut knee!) but even for some to get verbally agreesive if the "service" they receive is not as expected. I heard recently of someone getting physically agressive in a doctor surgery because they were unhappy that the government are stopping prescribing (i.e. paying for) medicines that are available over the counter. This puts obvious financial pressure on hospitals but also the fear of mistakes and litigation makes some Trusts either avoid providing a service at all, or they have to spend more time and money making sure they didn't miss something. Of course, that doesn't always work, people do make mistakes so the additional money might not be adding much value!
It's about money
All of these things wouldn't be a problem unless it was about money. Of course it is, there is no bottomless pit of cash to pay for things that people want, whether libraries or old people's homes. There are still people who think that either the government print whatever money they need and therefore under-investment means that they don't care, or otherwise that they have some massive bank account with a few trillion in that they should spend on the NHS to fix it.There is another idea that somehow "I paid my tax", which means that it all goes into a pot and pays for my care. That is, of course, also not true. Your tax paid for the government spending the day after you paid it, it is not in a pot and it is not "owed" to you. With inflation, the total amount of money you paid in tax would cover nowhere near what you cost to the NHS, especially since it wasn't gaining interest in an account somewhere! The simple fact is that the NHS today is paid for by what people pay in tax today. As prices inflate, either wages (and tax) would need to increase consistently, spending has to be cut or the government has to borrow and hope that somewhere in the future we will do some kind of magic economy thing to be able to pay the money back.
The NHS is NOT free! It is free "at point-of-use" but unsurprisingly it is very expensive. Approx £111B per year. Roughly 18% of all government spending.
So this brings us nicely to the common accusation that "The NHS is really inefficient", it has "loads of middle managers" etc. and that simply some more efficiency would change everything. This unfortunately is a mantra for people who do not understand most corporate environments. Of course there will be inefficiencies and we will find areas where money can be saved today but these things don't sit still, you might save £10M today by buying power but then another contract you just signed will cost you another £10M next year, especially with so much contracting that is required for Trusts to meeting targets and quotas set by Politicians.
The Corporate world i.e. any organisation with more than 500 people and 4 levels of management (my definition) is rife with inefficiencies. There are jobs that we might not think are needed but you have to have 3 people producing graphs if you are required by law to prove that you are meeting targets. Could 2 people do the same job? Sure but good luck finding all these amazing people to staff an organisation that employs 1.5M people! There is a reality that some people are rubbish, some are amazing and most are average. If you only employ 5 people, you have the luxury of choosing those amazing people, more than 10 empoyees, it largely becomes impossible.
Could people work smarter etc. Again, yes in theory but is a nurse going to be allowed to use their intuition to make something better or are they made to tow the process line to make sure things don't go wrong? This is healthcare, there isn't much appetite for risk taking!
The simple maths is that the demand and expectation for health services is too high for the money that the government are willing to/able to provide.
What can we do?
There are a number of measures that the NHS can and does already take to help with the crisis of a bulging NHS problem but another simple truth that is lost on many critics is that there is no simple answer, otherwise it would have been done. Labour's answer seems to concentrate on more money but of course this can't really come from anywhere except taxes and most people are not prepared to pay more.Taxation comes from various places, the main three are Income Tax, National Insurance and V.A.T. there are others like beer and fuel duty and inheritance taxes but over 90% comes from these three. The controversy is about who pays them and how much they could be put up.
National insurance is supposed to pay for the NHS but not everyone pays it. Of course, theoretically everyone pays it. In fact, when I was unemployed, I missed payments because I didn's sign on! The reality is that any state payments like pension and unemployment are basically higher so that the individual can pay their tax straight back to the government so in reality, only people earning are paying it (and their businesses), which leads to a difficulty. Should I pay more NI just because the elderly and possibly people who don't work and have even more chance of health problems and free prescriptions are costing a large part of the NHS cost? It's a matter of degree, of course, but that is the problem.
Likewise, income tax is paid by people who are working. The socialist ideal is, of course, that those who are productive take care of those who aren't but that assumes that those who are not working are still giving to the community in some way and that pensioners are not simply travelling around sightseeing and the unemployed are not at home watching Sky TV! Of course, these are not all the people but there are enough of them to make it a touchy subject for tax payers.
VAT is an intersting concept because it is based on the idea that those who can afford luxuries can afford to pay for stuff. Ignoring the few really random places where VAT is paid but shouldn't be (and vice-versa) it works OK except, again, it is like punishing the people who have done well in life to pay for those who cannot look after themselves. If we loaded VAT even more, we could raise money but VAT actually affects pretty much everybody because plenty of things we consider normal, like cake, are treated as luxuries for the purposes of VAT.
So raising money by raising taxes is a tool but it would be unpopular, not just generally but because of the idea that I pay more because I am doing better in life, not because I need more from the state.
So the flip side of making something work is to reduce the cost of the NHS. As previously mentioned, there would be scope for making some savings and various governments have already done some of this but keeping on top of it requires employing some more "middle managers" and things change as soon as a new drug or piece of equipment becomes available or something else comes out of patent and is made cheaper. The NHS have done well convincing Pharmacies to dispense generic drugs in place of named brands of the same thing.
The only big way to reduce the cost is to reduce the demand! This, again, is contraversial for the simple reason that not everybody needs the same thing. If you, for example, said that you could only visit the doctors a certain number of times before needing to pay, would that be fair to someone with a chronic illness? Would we be able to do it in a way that allows people with known genuine problems to visit multiple times and others to have a limit? You could charge people, again very unpopular because, "I pay my taxes" but the useful part here is that a) you could charge people who miss appointments i.e. they lose their payment and b) It provides a mechanism that makes people think, is my cut knee really worth £5 to see the doctor? Again, it creates problems for those with long term conditions and the elderly are potentially very vulnerable if they are living extremely frugally and are less likely to pay money to see a doctor. If you start exempting people then you fall back to the problem that only people who earn have to pay - which is unfair and doesn't solve the issue of reducing demand.
You could, in addition, reduce what treatments are available "for free" and have a system like many dentists and some hospitals. You get basic treatment for free but pay a bit more and you get more time and a private room or something like that. Of course, many people don't like, "two tier systems" "one for the rich and one for the poor" or "one for the 1% and one for everyone else" but unfortunately, there aren't many easy ways to distinguish people other than money or quota and since the main problem is lack of money, why not offer nicer food/services/beds/whatever for those who are willing to pay a bit more money. People could even get free upgrades!
Conclusion
None of this is easy. Once an idea or service has become the norm, changing it in any way is hard and causes a backlash. Some backlash is expected, some is unreasonable but most people will probably agree that some changes need to be made.The other difficulty is there will always be people who will lose more than others. In fact, the Labour Party frequently use the hackneyed expression, "The poor will be hit the hardest" which in most cases will always be true! If the country benefits but a small percentage loses out in some way (small percentage might still mean 100,000 people!) is it still worth it? Of course, the answer is always "yes and no". Yes financially and no, it will be a real problem for some people. Even with planning and time, changes will never be embraced with open arms and the population has to understand that we cannot afford the NHS in its current form (as well as many other services!).
The NHS, to their credit, have tried to encourage people to use services correctly - go to the pharmacy instead of your GP, go to your GP instead of A&E but there are no sanctions for people who ignore it. If I go to A&E anyway, I'm not going to be turned away (although I know in some more extreme cases you might) and the problem doesn't go away. If they could actually dictate what will and won't be looked at in A&E, that might help, also if they let more nurses carry out lower level diagnosis and treatment (again, I know this does sometimes happen) then we might reduce the need for a doctor looking at a cut hand.
Could we use technology more? I would personally be more than happy for a nurse in A&E to look something up on the computer to find out whether a wound needs referring/X-ray etc. or whether to simply bandage up and send me away.
Ultimately, only the people who work there can say what will work internally. Of course, more money and less people would help but that is not something a GP or hospital worker has much control over. There are plenty of well-meaning and able healthcare staff who could tell you in 5 minutes what the major problems are. Perhaps then you could list them all, estimate cost-benefit and knock a few over. If we scrap healthcare targets and gain £10M a year, is it worth it while at the same time losing some visibility over how different hospitals work etc.?
Monday, 30 April 2018
Is GDPR really that bad?
Introduction
Sorry for the delay (I'm sure you were all upset!) but I feel I should be blogging more now that I have deleted my Facebook account and perhaps make some more useful comment and observations. I was prompted today by the news that streetlend.com was shutting down due to new GDPR regulations that are coming into effect in the EU at the end of May.These have been a long time coming and basically formulate, more specifically, how personal data must be treated by any entity that is based in the EU or has any data from EU citizens in their system. The regulations were announced in 2012, first drafts coming in 2014/2015 and the final draft brought into law in January 2016, with just over 2 years for organisations to become compliant, after which, individual member states Data Protection Authorities can enforce action against individuals or companies who do not conform.
This is quite a long period of time but even large organisations like ICANN who are not based in the EU but process data from EU citizens have recently appeared on the radar for the simple reason that they have ignored the introduction of the regulations, have accepted more recently that they do need to do something and have then come up with the completely unprecedented idea that they can have a further year to sort things out! As far as anyone can see, you cannot have a moratorium on existing regulations (they have been law for 2 years now) and they are in the cross hairs for some large fines!
Streetlend Shutting Down
Anyway, I was reading comments about streetlend.com and why they shut down. Basically, the arguments on their site are that the regulations creates "uncertainty and risk that I can't justify taking". They also complain that GDPR creates the possibility of enormous fines, way above what most small companies could ever afford, that the requirements are ambiguous and that there are legal firms who are waiting to prey on small companies who might make a simple mistake and to end up causing a Court case that would be largely unaffordable for small companies and which therefore favours large companies who can effectively eat up the competition. The front page states that these regulations "add complexity and unintended side-effects for businesses within the EU".Whether these views are genuine or whether they are hyperbole from someone who wants to make a point (anti-EU, anti-regulation, whatever) we will assume for the time being that they are genuine fears, but as the discussion shows, the arguments start becoming conflated and confusing because the reactions are about several different things. I want to look at these separately because, of course, any regulations have positives and negatives, for many companies, the obvious negative is "change" which usually comes at a cost, but ironically for this regulation, not necessarily!
Where did GDPR come from
Firstly, the background of the GDPR is a fleshing out of many existing data protection regulations that exist at national level. In fact, the EU version is based heavily on the existing UK Data Protection Act (DPA) and although it adds some more clauses, if you are already strongly in the spirit of the DPA, you might have very little additional work to perform to be compliant with GDPR. The most likely issue here is that the Data Protection Act, like many laws, appeared serious on paper but was rarely taken that seriously (at least in terms of enforcement), either by organisations or by the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) in the UK (the office who processes complaints about the DPA) and therefore, many companies didn't necessarily really understand or apply the spirit of the DPA, which is largely the same as the GDPR - What are you doing with data, why, how etc.Now, this is very different from the USA, where many online companies are based and where privacy is based on a very fragmented and ad-hoc set of federal and state laws, which provide a very low bar in terms of privacy and data usage. For these organisations, they now need to apply GDPR level controls to their systems - some for the first time - and for smaller companies this is obviously a burden. What we have to remember here, is that the way that GDPR respects personal data is something that should have been happening anyway and if it was, then probably some additional wording on a privacy policy would have been enough, but for the grey companies who illicitly sell your data in a way that you probably wouldn't agree to, they should (rightly imho) have to become transparent. Recruiters, particularly, are very bad at keeping data for too long and 'accidentally' not removing you from lists when you ask for that!
Beware of the fines
People are very nervous about the new maximum fines which are 4% of turnover or 20 million Euros, whichever is greater. This certainly sounds scary but in the DPA, the maximum fine is only about £500K and the largest ever levied was actually £400K for Talk Talk. The reason for the larger maximum is simply that a company like Talk Talk can easily afford a few hundred thousand for a fine (The Chief Executive was paid £550K for 2 months work when she stepped down!). As the ICO have pointed out, the maximum fine is exactly that, a maximum. There is little point and no appetite for making an example out of small companies by bankrupting them with a large fine, unless their crime was deliberate, negligent, has a disproportional effect etc. In other words, the same as any other fine that is levied against a company. The fear that an innocent mistake would cause some large arm of the law to wipe you out is not only paranoia, it is hardly borne out in history. Clearly, if the company is already struggling, it is vulnerable anyway.
On the other hand, we should know that there is a large stick the ICO can use to beat companies with and there are many who have played fast and loose for too long. The likely outcome is that many of these will still evade action rather than the "good guys" all going out of business.
These favour the large companies
Almost without exception, new regulations are always easier to process by large companies because they already have legal teams. This is a reality of the capitalist system and nothing to do with the regulations. It is the same as saying that they "hit the poor the hardest". To balance this view though, larger companies also have much higher overheads, which means they have to either have very high income streams or they have to make higher profit margins on their sales to pay for these overheads. There are plenty of very large companies who have failed and either restructured (with lay offs) or have gone completely bankrupt so let us not fall into the habit of seeing the blessings of large companies without the curses!
A related note is this idea that somehow all large companies are looking to kill off the small companies so they can keep their market share. Of course, to an extent, it is likely that any company would rather not have competition, which makes their job easier, but for most large companies it is much easier to buy out a competitor than try and destroy them. Also, the GDPR doesn't add very much more than already existed to allow it to be used as a corporate weapon. You should be adhering to it regardless of whether someone has their crosshairs set on you.
Complexity
I liked one comment I read on Hacker News, which said that like a lot of Engineers, they had a natural dislike of regulations. We love the idea of the Victorian era where you built a bridge and it might collapse or it might not! We do not live there anymore: the danger we can present by abusing the trust that people put in us means we need to take this seriously and, like the DPA, the GDPR is not really complex at all! Read the principles here: principles and tell me that these principles are complicated?
"But the wording is vague!". Yes, that's always the case in regulations. If you over-prescribe the wording, then it doesn't fit into all the hundreds of thousands of companies that are trying to apply it. "What does lawfully mean?" You should know that for your business already, otherwise what are you doing?
In fact, despite all of the extra guidance, most of us could probably make a good stab at being compliant with these principles just from here.
"Collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes" This sounds easy enough, tell them what you are doing and why!
The rest of the principles and these are explained (right to access, right to object etc.) are all fairly easy to understand, their reason is mostly pretty obvious and although some of them might be a pain (you cannot charge for access requests), they are not hard. In fact, they are much harder for larger companies who are likely to have a large number of systems processing data, perhaps many legacy systems that are not easily updated. So we can't really complain about the complexity.
Sticky Bits
There are some additional requirements which are more onerous, but they are still reasonable from the legal point-of-view even if they are a pain.
I sign up to a healthcare provider that takes all my medical data from hospitals and doctors and uses it to provide the service. I then decide that another company offers a better package but the first service has all my data and under the older regulations, that was tough luck! The new regulation is quite heavy on the idea that the first service must allow export in a "reasonable format" (presumably for certain industries this might already exist).
The idea is that it is your data so the service provider should not be allowed to silo it for their own use. Fair idea, understandable, but possibly a real pain for some organisations!
Another principle is that Data Processors are also legally liable for data handling, whereas previously, only the Data Controller is. For example, a company uses another company for storing Backups. The Backup company loses the data, which 'belongs' to the Data Controller, therefore, they are in the firing line. In the new regulations, the Processor (the Backup company) are liable for their own failings. Again, this is reasonable. I assume the Contractors I use are professional and following all the relevant regulations, how can I know if they are doing something dodgy?
Conclusion
Although the GDPR will create work for people who have not previously worked under a Data Protection Act, as regulations go, it is written in clear language that most professionals would understand without specific legal advice.
The idea that there is any risk that is disproportional to other new regulations is also groundless since the ICO have clearly said the higher end of the fines is for persistent and deliberate offenders. The workload for the ICO will be so large in the UK, that it is virtually a given that a small mistake in your system would warrant nothing more than a warning letter (if that).
There are weaknesses in the legal process and it does make legal experts and lawyers lots of money and that is a different problem to solve. If we needed an example to prove these problems in the legal world, however, the GDPR would not be one of them!
Wednesday, 27 January 2016
Rubbish at romance? It might not be because you are an introvert, but because you crave affirmation
When we look at the world of romance, we see some people can just have boyfriends and girlfriends without much effort and others of us struggle.
If we struggle, we look at ourselves and either think that we are defective in some way that we might or might not see or otherwise conclude that romance is so strange and mysterious that we have no chance of "finding love".
We might also conclude that the reason we are rubbish in romance is because we are introverts. Extroverts are people persons, of course they can handle other people, us introverts however, we are not people persons so relationships are just hard.
Except I think that is tosh.
I am an introvert - which I believe means that I process things internally and I get recharged by being away from people - but I am very much a people person. I love people, I love hanging out, I love the fact that we are a kaleidoscope of weirdness!
But I had another problem and I think that was my handicap. My main love language is affirmation. People who know me might think that it would be "acts of service" since I do loads of stuff but actually, I think that is an indirect symptom of wanting to be liked - to be affirmed. Don't get me wrong, i was taught well by my parents that serving is good but where does serving end and hunger for people to say, "thanks for that" start?
Not everyone has affirmation as their main love language and I think the others make for less poisoned relationships. If you are a "physical touch" person, sure you could be physically clingy and that might not appeal to some others but in the first instance, it is unlikely to be a problem. If you love "quality time" then you can spend that with people fairly easily, even if the romance is undecided by the other person. "Gifts" might be OK, you do not necessarily expect others to give you gifts, even if you love it when they do. "Acts of service" might be more subtle in a relationship but unless the other person is a complete slob, you also won't have the up-front nervousness of whether the other person likes you.
Affirmation is a different beast and I can only talk about my own experience. I shouldn't be looking for affirmation from a girlfriend to tell me that its OK. My earthly and heavenly fathers should be/have been the source of that affirmation and although a girlfriend/wife should learn to affirm me if that's my love language, if I lack that, even early on in the relationship, it makes me feel all kinds of wrong.
I'll feel that she isn't interested and won't know when to push for more response and when to walk away or wait. I might try and over-compensate by doing or buying things to try and earn enough affirmation. If the girl is not immediately interested in me, it feels awkward. If she doesn't affirm me, I feel unloved and if there is no love, this is never going to work out!
So how do you fix it? What I had to do was to sort out my affirmation channels! For many of us, our experience of dad was probably good in some ways and bad in others. Dads are good at physical touch and acts of service, sometimes at gifts but usually less so with quality time and affirmation. This might be for a genuine reason - they might work away from home etc. - or for a bad reason - they might be reliving their own upbringing - but it is a problem already.
As a Christian, I had a place to go to God and hear what He says about my value and affirmation. Ultimately he is the perfect version of what my dad should be so where my dad might struggle with compliments (and he is better now than before), then I can remind myself of what God thinks of me. This process, using a ministry called Bethel Sozo that we practice at our church was incredibly freeing for me and has completely changed the way I feel towards girls.
If you don't believe in God, maybe you could pray to Him anyway. If He does exist, you benefit massively, if not, you lose nothing. Otherwise, I don't know how to help you except to tell you that you do have value and purpose and a place and that your value is not tied to how many people notice and compliment you but in your identity, your unique personality and your potential.
When I meet girls now, I have no presumption that they should like me. If they do, great, if not, it doesn't matter. If I start hanging out with a girl and she isn't progressing the relationship, that is fine - I don't give my whole heart over and expect it to be affirmed, I can give things space and see what is going on. I don't feel so hurt if something doesn't work out so well or as expected because I am now more solid in my own value and identity.
Rubbish at romance? It might not be because you are an introvert, but because you crave affirmation
If we struggle, we look at ourselves and either think that we are defective in some way that we might or might not see or otherwise conclude that romance is so strange and mysterious that we have no chance of "finding love".
We might also conclude that the reason we are rubbish in romance is because we are introverts. Extroverts are people persons, of course they can handle other people, us introverts however, we are not people persons so relationships are just hard.
Except I think that is tosh.
I am an introvert - which I believe means that I process things internally and I get recharged by being away from people - but I am very much a people person. I love people, I love hanging out, I love the fact that we are a kaleidoscope of weirdness!
But I had another problem and I think that was my handicap. My main love language is affirmation. People who know me might think that it would be "acts of service" since I do loads of stuff but actually, I think that is an indirect symptom of wanting to be liked - to be affirmed. Don't get me wrong, i was taught well by my parents that serving is good but where does serving end and hunger for people to say, "thanks for that" start?
Not everyone has affirmation as their main love language and I think the others make for less poisoned relationships. If you are a "physical touch" person, sure you could be physically clingy and that might not appeal to some others but in the first instance, it is unlikely to be a problem. If you love "quality time" then you can spend that with people fairly easily, even if the romance is undecided by the other person. "Gifts" might be OK, you do not necessarily expect others to give you gifts, even if you love it when they do. "Acts of service" might be more subtle in a relationship but unless the other person is a complete slob, you also won't have the up-front nervousness of whether the other person likes you.
Affirmation is a different beast and I can only talk about my own experience. I shouldn't be looking for affirmation from a girlfriend to tell me that its OK. My earthly and heavenly fathers should be/have been the source of that affirmation and although a girlfriend/wife should learn to affirm me if that's my love language, if I lack that, even early on in the relationship, it makes me feel all kinds of wrong.
I'll feel that she isn't interested and won't know when to push for more response and when to walk away or wait. I might try and over-compensate by doing or buying things to try and earn enough affirmation. If the girl is not immediately interested in me, it feels awkward. If she doesn't affirm me, I feel unloved and if there is no love, this is never going to work out!
So how do you fix it? What I had to do was to sort out my affirmation channels! For many of us, our experience of dad was probably good in some ways and bad in others. Dads are good at physical touch and acts of service, sometimes at gifts but usually less so with quality time and affirmation. This might be for a genuine reason - they might work away from home etc. - or for a bad reason - they might be reliving their own upbringing - but it is a problem already.
As a Christian, I had a place to go to God and hear what He says about my value and affirmation. Ultimately he is the perfect version of what my dad should be so where my dad might struggle with compliments (and he is better now than before), then I can remind myself of what God thinks of me. This process, using a ministry called Bethel Sozo that we practice at our church was incredibly freeing for me and has completely changed the way I feel towards girls.
If you don't believe in God, maybe you could pray to Him anyway. If He does exist, you benefit massively, if not, you lose nothing. Otherwise, I don't know how to help you except to tell you that you do have value and purpose and a place and that your value is not tied to how many people notice and compliment you but in your identity, your unique personality and your potential.
When I meet girls now, I have no presumption that they should like me. If they do, great, if not, it doesn't matter. If I start hanging out with a girl and she isn't progressing the relationship, that is fine - I don't give my whole heart over and expect it to be affirmed, I can give things space and see what is going on. I don't feel so hurt if something doesn't work out so well or as expected because I am now more solid in my own value and identity.
Rubbish at romance? It might not be because you are an introvert, but because you crave affirmation
Monday, 14 December 2015
Why don't we all just get along?
It's been sooooo long but I wanted to react to something I have seen a lot in the news and on Social Media recently, especially as the world faces a new wave of "extremist" activity, sometimes on a small scale. There are also often stories about the conflict between human laws and people's beliefs or faith whether it relates to homosexuality, gender or abortion perhaps being the 3 most common friction points.
Among this 'noise' are so many people that ask the question "why don't we all just get along"? It surprises me that people don't get it. The media sometimes gets it but sometimes doesn't and their politics perhaps alter the stories more than what they actually believe. Politicians might get it but they are never allowed to say because of the throne of diplomacy and 'political correctness'.
There is a simple reason why we can't all get along and that is because we do not agree on the ground rules. Most of us would say that murder is wrong but for some people, it is not always murder if you kill people for some ideal, whether religious or not. Most of us like the idea of live and let live but there are plenty of people who would say that society is bigger than the individual and sometimes dictates where the boundaries are. You might think it is fun to get drunk and violent but society doesn't agree and might prosecute you for such behaviour. It gets even more complicated across borders. Borders are useful because they allow people to have marked differences in opinions and live accordingly. The Israelis and the Palestinians have a big difference on political and religious levels but by having a border, they can execute those differences, if people prefer one way to the other, they can probably immigrate and live accordingly. What happens though when people start crossing borders?
It is the cry of many a humanist that borders are man-made and are divisive to the human population and in an ideal sense, that is true. However, because of the differences that exist, they are also a protection mechanism but some people don't believe that borders can keep them in. It has happened many times in history with the Babylonians, Persians, Mongols, Greeks, Romans and more recently the "Islamic State". These people had a belief that borders didn't apply to them, they were crossed, people were killed or subjugated to the 'greater good' and life continued.
It doesn't matter how much you think people should just get on, if we have different world views, if our perspective on borders and boundaries is different, if some people think it is their business to stop you doing things they consider immoral, even though you think you see right and wrong in your head, the others think it just as clearly - there is no solution to this.....
Unless, there is a way to provide a common basis, a way of defining what is and isn't correct. What is and isn't punishable. The place of authority and obedience to those authorities. There is only one way for this to happen and that is with God. Only someone higher than humans can decide what is ultimately right and wrong. If you haven't realised, you better realise quickly that humans do not agree on things and it is not because of the patronising view that people like IS are "stupid", "pure evil", "terrorists" or "extremists", because most of them wouldn't see themselves that way, they are labels that betray a difference of world view and a position of judgment. 'I wouldn't do that so therefore those people are evil/supid/etc.'
Bringing God into it will sound to some of you like throwing petrol onto a fire, after all, aren't the causes of these problems religion in the first place? As a Christian, I would say, "No". My world view, if you would entertain me, is that it is sin that causes people to exert power, control and death over other people. People commit sin in the name of religion but then people also commit sin in the name of a number of other non-religious or political frameworks - they are convenient excuses for sin because they help us justify what we are doing. People can also be deluded and think that what they are doing is right due to some kind of indoctrination. Of course, this can and does happen in the Christian church too but a few rotten eggs doesn't ruin the whole batch and just because there are people who get it wrong, doesn't mean that God isn't right.
Politicians can try and provide solutions using the very much tried and very badly failed idea of "why don't we just sit down and talk". Those politicians quickly learn that there is a difference of opinion and although we all basically want to live life in peace and to proper, for some people that doesn't come at the cost of live-and-let live. To some people, other people groups are not permitted to exist, sin is not allowed to go unpunished.
If you are not religious, I would ask you to have humility with the way some of you quickly criticize religion as if you have never done anything wrong. That you would be careful with the assumption that everyone who disagrees with your world view is wrong. That religious people are the cause of the world's trouble. I ask that you would be very careful from your very protected, very peaceful countries that are largely like they are because of the input of Christians or other faith groups over several hundred years, that you don't conclude that because you are a humanist or atheist or whatever other label is fair and that your life is OK, that clearly it is the model to live by and everyone should just get on.
If you are a Christian, please stop criticising government plans to deal with IS, refugees and anything else. You should believe that Jesus is the only answer to sin and the government aren't going to be preaching Jesus any time soon. Their plans are always flawed because they are based on a lower level of understanding about the world, even if some of them are Christians. They are based on human mechanisms like punishment, politics and procrastination. If you care, and I'm sure you do, ask God what YOU can do to help the situation.
Don't curse the darkness, light a candle!
Among this 'noise' are so many people that ask the question "why don't we all just get along"? It surprises me that people don't get it. The media sometimes gets it but sometimes doesn't and their politics perhaps alter the stories more than what they actually believe. Politicians might get it but they are never allowed to say because of the throne of diplomacy and 'political correctness'.
There is a simple reason why we can't all get along and that is because we do not agree on the ground rules. Most of us would say that murder is wrong but for some people, it is not always murder if you kill people for some ideal, whether religious or not. Most of us like the idea of live and let live but there are plenty of people who would say that society is bigger than the individual and sometimes dictates where the boundaries are. You might think it is fun to get drunk and violent but society doesn't agree and might prosecute you for such behaviour. It gets even more complicated across borders. Borders are useful because they allow people to have marked differences in opinions and live accordingly. The Israelis and the Palestinians have a big difference on political and religious levels but by having a border, they can execute those differences, if people prefer one way to the other, they can probably immigrate and live accordingly. What happens though when people start crossing borders?
It is the cry of many a humanist that borders are man-made and are divisive to the human population and in an ideal sense, that is true. However, because of the differences that exist, they are also a protection mechanism but some people don't believe that borders can keep them in. It has happened many times in history with the Babylonians, Persians, Mongols, Greeks, Romans and more recently the "Islamic State". These people had a belief that borders didn't apply to them, they were crossed, people were killed or subjugated to the 'greater good' and life continued.
It doesn't matter how much you think people should just get on, if we have different world views, if our perspective on borders and boundaries is different, if some people think it is their business to stop you doing things they consider immoral, even though you think you see right and wrong in your head, the others think it just as clearly - there is no solution to this.....
Unless, there is a way to provide a common basis, a way of defining what is and isn't correct. What is and isn't punishable. The place of authority and obedience to those authorities. There is only one way for this to happen and that is with God. Only someone higher than humans can decide what is ultimately right and wrong. If you haven't realised, you better realise quickly that humans do not agree on things and it is not because of the patronising view that people like IS are "stupid", "pure evil", "terrorists" or "extremists", because most of them wouldn't see themselves that way, they are labels that betray a difference of world view and a position of judgment. 'I wouldn't do that so therefore those people are evil/supid/etc.'
Bringing God into it will sound to some of you like throwing petrol onto a fire, after all, aren't the causes of these problems religion in the first place? As a Christian, I would say, "No". My world view, if you would entertain me, is that it is sin that causes people to exert power, control and death over other people. People commit sin in the name of religion but then people also commit sin in the name of a number of other non-religious or political frameworks - they are convenient excuses for sin because they help us justify what we are doing. People can also be deluded and think that what they are doing is right due to some kind of indoctrination. Of course, this can and does happen in the Christian church too but a few rotten eggs doesn't ruin the whole batch and just because there are people who get it wrong, doesn't mean that God isn't right.
Politicians can try and provide solutions using the very much tried and very badly failed idea of "why don't we just sit down and talk". Those politicians quickly learn that there is a difference of opinion and although we all basically want to live life in peace and to proper, for some people that doesn't come at the cost of live-and-let live. To some people, other people groups are not permitted to exist, sin is not allowed to go unpunished.
If you are not religious, I would ask you to have humility with the way some of you quickly criticize religion as if you have never done anything wrong. That you would be careful with the assumption that everyone who disagrees with your world view is wrong. That religious people are the cause of the world's trouble. I ask that you would be very careful from your very protected, very peaceful countries that are largely like they are because of the input of Christians or other faith groups over several hundred years, that you don't conclude that because you are a humanist or atheist or whatever other label is fair and that your life is OK, that clearly it is the model to live by and everyone should just get on.
If you are a Christian, please stop criticising government plans to deal with IS, refugees and anything else. You should believe that Jesus is the only answer to sin and the government aren't going to be preaching Jesus any time soon. Their plans are always flawed because they are based on a lower level of understanding about the world, even if some of them are Christians. They are based on human mechanisms like punishment, politics and procrastination. If you care, and I'm sure you do, ask God what YOU can do to help the situation.
Don't curse the darkness, light a candle!
Friday, 20 September 2013
Why technology usually over-promises and under-delivers
We have had railways moving people around for over 150 years in the
UK. From humble beginnings, we now have over 5000 miles of track serving
to within perhaps 50 miles of virtually everywhere in Great Britain.
In these early days, railways were a difficult and inefficient system, mainly restricted by the available technology. For instance, steam trains could not travel very far without re-filling the water, something that was available at most stations and could take a noticeable amount of time, some larger engines were equipped with scoops to collect water from track-borne troughs but these had their own maintenance costs, especially if someone broke them by failing to retract the scoop!
Coaling was an issue and although diesel locomotives also require fueling, coaling was extremely variable from the largest semi-automatic filling machines at larger depots to literally a coal bunker and a spade at others, this was another potentially very time-consuming exercise.
Most larger steam locomotives usde a tender to carry coal and water and had to be turned so they were running locomotive first. Although the turning itself was not massively slow, in almost all cases, a loco would have to be released from a platform, driven to somewhere that was not necessarily very close, amid all the other services, and then turned before it could be brought back and used. In some cases, this could be performed around a triangle junction but this could take 20 minutes, even if there were no delays or stops.
Starting a locomotive from cold was a very slow process, taking anything up to 8 hours from cold to having enough steam for service. Naturally, this could not be started until all maintenance was completed which is why we used to see long lines of locos on depot departure roads, just waiting to raise steam.
Let us also consider the signalling system. All signals were originally mechanical and had to be maintained/lubricated and almost all signals as well as points were mechanically linked to a signal box. All of these linkages also had to be manually inspected and maintained as well as repaired. For purely mechanical reasons, these boxes would generally have to be within about 1000 yards of the points or signals they were controlling meaning that boxes were placed at very quiet locations, that happened to have a level crossing or a siding and these would require at least 1 person per day to staff. Many other boxes were staffed 24 hours per day, sometimes by as many as 6 people. The total number of signalmen in the 50s must have been massive.
So, as with most systems, the railways have improved, thanks to "technology". In the UK most trains are now electric, none of them need turning, very few still use locomotives anyway. Watering is only for toilets. Fueling is handled by pumps and hoses and is much easier and cleaner than coaling. Most trains spend their working day literally running end to end with no breaks for maintenance, turning, coaling, fire-lighting or anything else. An electric train can be started from cold and pulling a train within about 10 minutes. These improvements also mean we don't need a driver and a fireman, we can just have a driver, that has halved the salary budget already! Maintenance is far easier on electric trains than steam locomotives, most of which was purely mechanical and required welding and boiler-smith repairs.
Then we can look at signalling. Virtually all signals are now electrical and almost all mechanical signals that remain are electrically operated remotely. These are all controlled from power boxes requiring a tiny fraction of the people that used to be employed - perhaps 3 people covering 100 miles of railway.
And yet, the railways are not so much cheaper that tickets are half the price they used to be! How is this possible? How can we be saving what must be over 50% of the wage bill and enormous amounts on maintenance and dead time while we move locomotives around? How can we require far fewer locomotives since we don't lost time waiting for steam to be raised and coaling and watering to be carried out but still trains are considered a luxury by many people.
It's because technology over-promises and under-delivers. What actually happens is that when we are sold new technology, we are told that it can save us a packet, so it is charged out at a packet. Mechanical signals are a pain, but once they are installed, it is just maintenance costs - a bit of grease, some bits of metal and bolts to repair. What about a colour-light signal? I imagine they probably cost a few thousand each, more for the elaborate ones and then the installation is horrifically expensive. Specialist railway contractors are required due to Health and Safety jobs-worths who use the railway as a giant cash cow (either maliciously or perhaps well-meaning but naive). These contractors then have to pay money to get a line possession and perhaps some other specialist equipment like track trolleys - obviously people couldn't just carry things from their vans any more. Once they are installed, they work fine for a while, but what happens when they go wrong? No bits of metal and bolts here! Just another call to some specialist contractor who has to have specialist knowledge in safe systems of work, probably costing you £1000 per day (when they get paid £25K per year!) just to be able to go and buzz some wires and work out that a fuse blew or a bulb went out.
Look at all these other areas and there is something, some new technology that sells itself too well and which people buy into but without the knowledge to know whether the investment will ever repay itself. I used to work on locomotives that had a fairly basic microprocessor which logged faults. Guess what? Training was expensive, changes were basically out of the question and for most problems, we had to go straight to manufacturer to get help which was either slow or expensive or both.
Very sad really. I think many people still do not understand how technology is supposed to make things better/easier/cheaper and not provide license for someone to make a packet off the back of a well meaning company.
In these early days, railways were a difficult and inefficient system, mainly restricted by the available technology. For instance, steam trains could not travel very far without re-filling the water, something that was available at most stations and could take a noticeable amount of time, some larger engines were equipped with scoops to collect water from track-borne troughs but these had their own maintenance costs, especially if someone broke them by failing to retract the scoop!
Coaling was an issue and although diesel locomotives also require fueling, coaling was extremely variable from the largest semi-automatic filling machines at larger depots to literally a coal bunker and a spade at others, this was another potentially very time-consuming exercise.
Most larger steam locomotives usde a tender to carry coal and water and had to be turned so they were running locomotive first. Although the turning itself was not massively slow, in almost all cases, a loco would have to be released from a platform, driven to somewhere that was not necessarily very close, amid all the other services, and then turned before it could be brought back and used. In some cases, this could be performed around a triangle junction but this could take 20 minutes, even if there were no delays or stops.
Starting a locomotive from cold was a very slow process, taking anything up to 8 hours from cold to having enough steam for service. Naturally, this could not be started until all maintenance was completed which is why we used to see long lines of locos on depot departure roads, just waiting to raise steam.
Let us also consider the signalling system. All signals were originally mechanical and had to be maintained/lubricated and almost all signals as well as points were mechanically linked to a signal box. All of these linkages also had to be manually inspected and maintained as well as repaired. For purely mechanical reasons, these boxes would generally have to be within about 1000 yards of the points or signals they were controlling meaning that boxes were placed at very quiet locations, that happened to have a level crossing or a siding and these would require at least 1 person per day to staff. Many other boxes were staffed 24 hours per day, sometimes by as many as 6 people. The total number of signalmen in the 50s must have been massive.
So, as with most systems, the railways have improved, thanks to "technology". In the UK most trains are now electric, none of them need turning, very few still use locomotives anyway. Watering is only for toilets. Fueling is handled by pumps and hoses and is much easier and cleaner than coaling. Most trains spend their working day literally running end to end with no breaks for maintenance, turning, coaling, fire-lighting or anything else. An electric train can be started from cold and pulling a train within about 10 minutes. These improvements also mean we don't need a driver and a fireman, we can just have a driver, that has halved the salary budget already! Maintenance is far easier on electric trains than steam locomotives, most of which was purely mechanical and required welding and boiler-smith repairs.
Then we can look at signalling. Virtually all signals are now electrical and almost all mechanical signals that remain are electrically operated remotely. These are all controlled from power boxes requiring a tiny fraction of the people that used to be employed - perhaps 3 people covering 100 miles of railway.
And yet, the railways are not so much cheaper that tickets are half the price they used to be! How is this possible? How can we be saving what must be over 50% of the wage bill and enormous amounts on maintenance and dead time while we move locomotives around? How can we require far fewer locomotives since we don't lost time waiting for steam to be raised and coaling and watering to be carried out but still trains are considered a luxury by many people.
It's because technology over-promises and under-delivers. What actually happens is that when we are sold new technology, we are told that it can save us a packet, so it is charged out at a packet. Mechanical signals are a pain, but once they are installed, it is just maintenance costs - a bit of grease, some bits of metal and bolts to repair. What about a colour-light signal? I imagine they probably cost a few thousand each, more for the elaborate ones and then the installation is horrifically expensive. Specialist railway contractors are required due to Health and Safety jobs-worths who use the railway as a giant cash cow (either maliciously or perhaps well-meaning but naive). These contractors then have to pay money to get a line possession and perhaps some other specialist equipment like track trolleys - obviously people couldn't just carry things from their vans any more. Once they are installed, they work fine for a while, but what happens when they go wrong? No bits of metal and bolts here! Just another call to some specialist contractor who has to have specialist knowledge in safe systems of work, probably costing you £1000 per day (when they get paid £25K per year!) just to be able to go and buzz some wires and work out that a fuse blew or a bulb went out.
Look at all these other areas and there is something, some new technology that sells itself too well and which people buy into but without the knowledge to know whether the investment will ever repay itself. I used to work on locomotives that had a fairly basic microprocessor which logged faults. Guess what? Training was expensive, changes were basically out of the question and for most problems, we had to go straight to manufacturer to get help which was either slow or expensive or both.
Very sad really. I think many people still do not understand how technology is supposed to make things better/easier/cheaper and not provide license for someone to make a packet off the back of a well meaning company.
Tuesday, 7 May 2013
The long "road" to better roads
If you look at most roads around the country - excepting motorways, the condition is pretty sub-standard. Cycling on many local roads can be unerving when you spend more time watching the fractured edges of broken surfacing or trying to avoid 2 inch potholes than watching the other traffic.
There have been plenty of complaints in the papers about councils bemoaning the lack of funds to fix "potholes" but there is a obvious lack of leadership from the Department for Transport who are in a position to set the tone and legislation required to get the roads back to the correct standard.
In Japan, the roads in Osaka were immaculate. Even narrow side-roads looked brand new and despite cycling mostly on pavements, if you did need to go on the roads, it was never something to be dreaded. Japan can do it, why can't we?
There are a couple of issues at play here. There is the obvious concern about tight budgets. Despite what the media would have us believe, Central Government funding has been drying up in the UK for over a decade and since roads cost big money to resurface, it is easier to pay for things like Education and Welfare and hope that we will get another few years from the roads. One bad winter and Bang! the whole lot are instantly destroyed and there is still little money for repairs.
This however covers up an issue that seems much more sinister and destructive and something which the government can do and should do something about - the Utility Companies.
What do you think happens when someone like Virgin media move into an area to lay cables? Roads and pavements are dug up, cables are laid and then 'repairs' are made. Same for gas, electricity, water and everything else. These repairs, even when carried out correctly, drastically reduce the lifespan of the road surface. I can't find a reference but I read that it can be as drastic as reducing from > 60 years to 10 years since the joins between the repair and the good surface are never perfect enough to prevent ingress of water during the winter, which often expands, cracks and then defrosts. Anyone who has ever seen the people who make these repairs can understand that it is not exactly treated like surgery!
This leads to the classic Great British stand-off. The utility companies will insist on making repairs/upgrades/new installations and can pretty much do these at will to a road that might have been re-surfaced 3 months previously (it happened near Stroud despite the council asking in advance whether any works were due). The councils will bemoan the size of the problem and the fact that utility companies are making repairs that will effectively quadruple the cost of road repairs - excluding temporary repairs to potholes. Most repairs are not going to warrant a complete re-surface and even if they did, how much road would need re-surfacing for, e.g. a 50cmx50cm repair? The whole road for 100 metres either way?
There are a couple of solutions that councils could implement (but don't hold your breath). The first shorter term solution should charge utility companies either a retainer for, say, 5 years, where any subsequent damage/potholes are taken out of the retainer by the council or otherwise charging a surcharge for any works that are invasive (require road surface changes) at a high enough rate to make utility companies make more use of things like moles which can tunnel under a road.
The second and longer-term solution is to consider what the end-goal should be (something governments are not often keen to do) and then to start working on it. For instance, and I don't suggest this is necessarily viable, you could decide all services must be installed below pavements, which are much easier to repair with slabs - or at least the tarmac repairs are not subjected to heavy traffic and therefore all new roads must follow this in some way, perhaps with pre-installed ducts and draw-pits where there are houses so pavements do not always have to be re-dug. At the moment, someone digs it all up then fills it in, someone else digs it up and fills it in etc.. This would involve up-front money but not a great deal since most new services will be installed in ducts anyway so the extra cost of some more PP ducts paid for by the contractors or council would be much lower than the road repairs.
Anyway, whatever the government could decide, it is another problem that has been allowed to continue unbated for years and years - and this is unacceptable.
There have been plenty of complaints in the papers about councils bemoaning the lack of funds to fix "potholes" but there is a obvious lack of leadership from the Department for Transport who are in a position to set the tone and legislation required to get the roads back to the correct standard.
In Japan, the roads in Osaka were immaculate. Even narrow side-roads looked brand new and despite cycling mostly on pavements, if you did need to go on the roads, it was never something to be dreaded. Japan can do it, why can't we?
There are a couple of issues at play here. There is the obvious concern about tight budgets. Despite what the media would have us believe, Central Government funding has been drying up in the UK for over a decade and since roads cost big money to resurface, it is easier to pay for things like Education and Welfare and hope that we will get another few years from the roads. One bad winter and Bang! the whole lot are instantly destroyed and there is still little money for repairs.
This however covers up an issue that seems much more sinister and destructive and something which the government can do and should do something about - the Utility Companies.
What do you think happens when someone like Virgin media move into an area to lay cables? Roads and pavements are dug up, cables are laid and then 'repairs' are made. Same for gas, electricity, water and everything else. These repairs, even when carried out correctly, drastically reduce the lifespan of the road surface. I can't find a reference but I read that it can be as drastic as reducing from > 60 years to 10 years since the joins between the repair and the good surface are never perfect enough to prevent ingress of water during the winter, which often expands, cracks and then defrosts. Anyone who has ever seen the people who make these repairs can understand that it is not exactly treated like surgery!
This leads to the classic Great British stand-off. The utility companies will insist on making repairs/upgrades/new installations and can pretty much do these at will to a road that might have been re-surfaced 3 months previously (it happened near Stroud despite the council asking in advance whether any works were due). The councils will bemoan the size of the problem and the fact that utility companies are making repairs that will effectively quadruple the cost of road repairs - excluding temporary repairs to potholes. Most repairs are not going to warrant a complete re-surface and even if they did, how much road would need re-surfacing for, e.g. a 50cmx50cm repair? The whole road for 100 metres either way?
There are a couple of solutions that councils could implement (but don't hold your breath). The first shorter term solution should charge utility companies either a retainer for, say, 5 years, where any subsequent damage/potholes are taken out of the retainer by the council or otherwise charging a surcharge for any works that are invasive (require road surface changes) at a high enough rate to make utility companies make more use of things like moles which can tunnel under a road.
The second and longer-term solution is to consider what the end-goal should be (something governments are not often keen to do) and then to start working on it. For instance, and I don't suggest this is necessarily viable, you could decide all services must be installed below pavements, which are much easier to repair with slabs - or at least the tarmac repairs are not subjected to heavy traffic and therefore all new roads must follow this in some way, perhaps with pre-installed ducts and draw-pits where there are houses so pavements do not always have to be re-dug. At the moment, someone digs it all up then fills it in, someone else digs it up and fills it in etc.. This would involve up-front money but not a great deal since most new services will be installed in ducts anyway so the extra cost of some more PP ducts paid for by the contractors or council would be much lower than the road repairs.
Anyway, whatever the government could decide, it is another problem that has been allowed to continue unbated for years and years - and this is unacceptable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)