Posted on

DVLA tax disc renewal problems

Like most New-Labour government computer systems, the DVLA is broken. I don’t just mean it’s propensity for making mistakes – I mean it’s systemically flawed.

It goes something like this…

You buy a car in March and keep it for, say, four years (i.e. until it requires an MOT). The Tax Disc will expire at the end of February, as does the MOT and insurance. You’re expected to buy a new tax disc in advance – it should let you buy one from the 5th day of the month it’s due to expire. But it won’t – it says your MOT and insurance are about to expire (which is true, they’re bound to). So you get your MOT a couple of weeks early (wasting a couple of weeks of MOT time) and persuade your insurance company to insure you for eleven months instead of one year, or some such fiddle, to get the renewal dates out of alignment.

Why should you be forced into this performance? Life’s too short to argue, but any fool can see the system is flawed.

Couple this with the fact that they can’t organise a computer system properly and you have big problems – as I do now. The DVLA computer reckons my car isn’t insured. My insurer (of fifteen years) says it was renewed as usual at the start of the month, and can’t understand why the DVLA is having problems registering it.

You can call Swansea on 0300-7906802 if you actually need to speak to a person, although they’re not keen on giving this out, preferring the premium rate automated system numbers. I did this and was advised that I couldn’t drive my car now that the tax had expired, and that the government computer system responsible for the error wasn’t their responsibility. I could, if I wished, drive to the nearest post office issuing manual tax discs and they might be able to help – apparently they can now take faxed documentation but I bet they don’t know that! Anyway, how am I supposed to drive to the nearest Post Office if I don’t have a car.

To cap it all, they said they wouldn’t actually fine me for not renewing or declaring the vehicle off-road for 14 days. That’s big of them!

I asked about who to appeal to concerning DVLA problems and got the email address for their customer services department. I don’t I’ll get much satisfaction. My MP shall be hearing about this, although he’s not morally responsible for New Labour computer systems.

I think it’s time something was done about the DVLA, and would be interested in hearing about people having similar problems.

Posted on

NHS Direct is unwell

NHS Direct has the skids well and truly under it. Vandalism! Cutbacks! Distruction of the People’s NHS cries Labour.

But what was it all about? If you were ill, you were supposed to call NHS Direct and they’d tell you what to do about it – generally “Get the down to A+E or your GP service to check it out.” If you, or your child are ill, this is what you’re going to do anyway.

Having an telephone helpline for discussion of medical matters is a good thing, especially for anyone without any books on the subject or access to the Internet. Apparently this is just what we’re getting instead – it’ll be cheaper than having medically qualified on the end asking the questions and then suggesting a personal visit anyway. “Civilians” cand do that, as long as they’re briefed not to overstep their remit.

GPs came out against NHS Direct yet again in June, so presumably we’ll be hearing they’re pleased with the result. No one I know has every had much joy in calling them, although the “worried well” may have had some comfort – or had their hypochondria fueled. It’s just New Labour, upset that the new government has stopped paying for their gimmick. As to the staff that’ll be made redundent, apart from the management consultants they’re generally qualified nurses answering the ‘phone. Don’t we need more nurses actually nursing to the extent we’re importing them from the third world? I don’t see a problem with them being redeployed.

Posted on

India’s $10 laptop joke

There was a time when “Made in Hong Kong” was a byword for a cheap and nasty knock-off of the real thing, that didn’t really work. This was in the early 1970’s, and was pretty much true. In the late 1970’s I was horrified to discover that I’d bought a piece of electronic equipment “Made in Hong Kong”, but as it turned out, it was of really good quality and still works flawlessly today.

Hong Kong has now been assimilated by mainland China, and it seems that everything is made there – and is often none the worse for that. India has taken over Hong Kong’s mantel, although in this time of political correctness you don’t hear comedians joking about it.

But why is this? India seems to be a country desperate to be taken seriously – it has a space programme for no other reason than this. But artefacts manufactured in India tend to be either rough and ready, or inferior and semi-functional knock-offs of something made better elsewhere.

While still musing on the above I was sent this:

Apparently this thing, which looks like an iPad and runs Linux, would soon be produced for as little as $10. This in incredible. (Not credible). India’s Education Minister knows nothing about electronics or computing, and has announced this in spectacular style to the world. Apparently it was designed by the Indian Institute of Technology, and the Indian Institute of Science. Apparently they’re “elite” and “prestigious”. Their spokeswoman, Mamta Varma, said the device was feasible because of falling hardware costs. What they actually are, if this is anything to go by, is a laughing stock.

Of course, most people don’t know much about computing devices, but generally they have the good sense not to pretend they do. For the benefit of this majority: There is no way you can put a processor, colour touch-screen display and enough memory into a box for $10. It’d cost that for the battery and power supply.

Apparently this marvel has the facilities for video conferencing (i.e. a fast processor and a camera) and can run on solar power. Hmm. You’d need more than $10 worth of solar cells, for a start.

However, this won’t be “Made in India” – Sibal stated they were in discussions with a Taiwanese company about manufacturer. For $10? I don’t think so!

If India doesn’t want to be treated as a joke it needs to start by muzzling its ministers.

Posted on

No Justice for Ian Tomlinson

The CPS isn’t going to prosecute anyone over the death of Mr Tomlinson at the G20 protests following an unprovoked attack by a police officer (Simon Harwood). They say that he was definitely assaulted, but they can’t prove the link between the assault and his subsequent death. “There is no reasonable chance of a conviction” because of this. Two pathologists though he was killed because the injuries lead to a heart attack, one thought it was a heart attack that might have been from natural causes.

Actual Bodily Harm was also ruled out because, apparently, there’s dispute as to whether the internal injuries caused by fall lead to his death, and the appropriate charge would then be manslaughter – and you can’t have both.

Common assault (from the baton attack), which caused a less serious injury, can’t be pursued because the six month time limit has expired.

The Director of Public Prosecutions (Kier Starmer QC), Steven O’Doherty and Tim Owen QC are responsible for this decision. Kier Starmer (named after Keir Hardie) is, of course, closely associated with the Labour party and the previous government (appointed in 2008) .

This is a disgrace. There’s nothing more to say.

Posted on

Raoul Moat was a dangerous killer

Am I missing something here? Raoul Moat, a established life-long violent criminal, went on a rampage with some guns and shot three people, killing one of them. The police finally corner him, and at great risk to themselves, try to talk him into surrendering. When he finally gets around to shooting himself, the next thing we hear is that the Police Complaints Commission is going to investigate, and BBC journalists are wringing their hands and talking to his friends and relatives, who are moaning and wailing about their tragic loss. What about the relatives of the people he murdered or seriously injured?

Good riddance! The only reason I can think of for the police not to have shot him on sight (once identify had been established and he hadn’t relinquished his weapons) was so that he could hang later – but that’s wishful thinking.

I wouldn’t normally approve of the police shooting criminals, but in this case the facts appear so clear cut – no misidentification, and clearly armed and dangerous. Whoever got close enough to fire a Taser at him deserves a medal for bravery. I can only hope it hurt like hell.

Posted on

Andrew Lansley and Jamie Oliver

Health Secretary Andrew Lansley and media personality Jamie Oliver are on a collision course, if you read the headlines. But they’re both right.

Jamie Oliver headed a campaign a couple of years ago, the thrust of which was that we shouldn’t be feeding children junk, and school dinners were a prime example of junk. Andrew Lansley said it wasn’t the business of the establishment to go lecturing people, and to do so was counterproductive. This isn’t the same as saying Oliver’s point was wrong.

Statistics are now being bandied about, the latest being that the uptake of school dinners has risen slightly. Very slightly. Yesterday’s statistics were used to suggest that less children were eating school dinners than before the campaign.

This is missing the point – it’d still have been a success if the numbers had halved. Apparently about 40% of pupils have school dinners. This means that over the last couple of years, 40% of pupils have stopped eating junk and are now eating something decent. Result!

Lansley is also right – there’s no point in lecturing idiots. Intelligent people can, and will, review the evidence and make a good choice. You don’t need to lecture them. We will always have idiots, too, and they’ll always fly in the face of the facts – more so if you keep mentioning them. Whatever the solution to the junk food problem is, lecturing idiots is not the answer.

Speaking of statistics, I’ve recently heard the one about life expectancy being much reduced for lower social classes being trotted out, especially by New Labour types. It’s true. Someone living in an inner-city dump in Scotland lives on average 10 years less (in rough terms) than someone classed as “affluent” and living in London. However, if you look at these figures alongside the smoking and alcohol consumption rates in the same areas you’ll see it has nothing to do with disposable income or educational level. More people die young in Glasgow because more of them smoke. This is nothing new, but it’s not mentioned by “social” politicians trying to get a bigger handout for their part of the country. Attenuate these statistics with diet too, and I suspect the death rate disparity will disappear altogether.

Posted on

Low Energy Lightbulbs are not that bright

Have you replaced a 60W traditional tungsten bulb with a 60W-equivalent low energy compact fluorescent and thought it’s not as bright as it was. You’re not imagining it. I’ve been doing some tests of my own, and they’re not equivalent.

Comparing light sources is a bit of art as well as science, and lacking other equipment, I decided to use a simple photographic exposure to give me some idea of the real-world performance. I pointed the meter at a wall, floor and table top. I didn’t point it at the light itself – that’s not what users of light bulbs care about.

The results were fairly consistent: Low energy light bulbs produce the same amount of light as a standard bulb of three to four times the rating. The older the fluorescent, the dimmer it was, reaching output of a third at a thousand hours use. Given that the lamps are rated at two to eight thousand hours, it’s reasonable to take the lower output figure as typical as this is how it will spend the majority of its working life.
This gives a more realistic equivalence table as:

CFL
Wattage		 Quoted GLS
equivalent		 Realistic GLS
equivalent
8W 40W 25-30W
11W 60W 35-45W
14W 75W 40-55W
18W 100W 55-70W

Table showing true equivalence of Compact Fluorescent (CFL) vs. conventional light bulbs (GLS)

So what’s going on here? Is there a conspiracy amongst light-bulb manufacturers to tell fibs about their performance? Well, yes. It turns out that the figures they use are worked out by the Institute of Lighting Engineers, in a lab. They measured the light output of a frosted lamp and compared that to a CFL. The problem is that the frosting on frosted lamps blocks out quite a bit of light, which is why people generally use clear glass bulbs. But if you’re trying to make your product look good it pays to compare your best case with the completion’s worst case. So they have.

But all good conspiracies involve the government somewhere, and in this case the manufactures can justify their methods with support from the EU. The regulations allow the manufactures to do some pretty wild things. If you want to look at the basis, it can be found starting here:

For example, after a compact fluorescent has been turned on it only has to reach an unimpressive 60% of its output after a staggering one minute! I’ve got some lamps that are good starters, others are terrible – and the EU permits them to be sold without warning or differentiation. One good thing the EU is doing, however, is insisting that CFL manufacturers state the light output in lumens in the future, and more prominently than the power consumption in Watts. This takes effect in 2010. Apparently. Hmm. Not on the packages I can see; some don’t even mention it in the small print (notably Philips).

However, fluorescent lamps do save energy, even if it’s only 65% instead of the claimed 80%. All other things being equal, they’re worth it. Unfortunately the other things are not equal, because you have the lifetime of the unit to consider.

A standard fluorescent tube (around since the 1930’s) is pretty efficient, especially with modern electronics driving it (ballast and starter). When the tube fails the electronics are retained, as they’re built in to the fitting. The Compact Florescent Lamps (CFL) that replace conventional bulbs have the electronics built in to the base so they can be used in existing fittings where a conventional bulb is expected. This means the electronics are discarded when the tube fails. The disposable electronics are made as cheaply as possible, so it may fail before the tube.

Proponents of CFLs says that it is still worth it, because the CFLs last so much longer than standard bulbs. I’m not convinced. A conventional bulb is made of glass, steel, cooper and tungsten and should be easy enough to recycle – unlike complex electronics.

The story gets worse when you consider what goes in to the fluorescent tubes – mercury vapour, antinomy, rare-earth elements and all sorts of nasty looking stuff in the various phosphor coatings. It’s true that the amount of mercury in a single tube is relatively small, and doesn’t create much of a risk in a domestic environment even if the tube cracks, but what about a large pile of broken tubes in a recycling centre?

So, CFLs are under-specified and polluting and wasteful to manufacture, but they do save energy. It’d be better to change light fittings to use proper fluorescent tubes, however. They work better than CFLs, with less waste. I don’t see it happening though. At the moment descrete tubes actually cost more because they fit relatively few fittings. People are very protective of their fittings. The snag is that with CFLs you need at least 50% more bulb sockets to get enough light out of them.

Standard bulbs produce less light than they could because a lot of the energy is turned into heat (more so than with a CFL). However, this heat could be useful – if your light bulbs aren’t heating the room you’d need something else. This is particularly true of passageways and so on, where there may be no other heating and a little warmth is needed to keep the damp away. The CFL camp rubbishes this idea, pointing out that in summer you don’t need heat. Actually, in summer, you don’t need much artificial light either, so they’d be off anyway. Take a look at document “BNXS05 The Heat Replacement Effect” found starting here for an interesting study into the matter – it’s from the government’s own researchers.
But still, CFLs save energy.

Personally, however, I look forward to the day when they’re all replaced by LED technology. These should last ten times longer (100,000 hours), be more efficient still, and contains no mercury anyway , nor even any glass to break.  The snag is that they run on a low voltage and the world is wired up for mains-voltage light fittings. I envisage whole light fittings, possibly with built-in transformers, pre-wired with fixed LEDs which will last for 50 years – after which you’d probably change the whole fitting anyway.

Ah yes, I hear the moaners starting, but I want to keep my existing light fitting. Okay, sit it the gloom under your compact fluorescents then.

 

Posted on

Barack Obama uses BP as excuse to invade Iran

Could Barack Obama be using the Deepwater Horizon accident as an excuse to invade Iran?

I always had my suspicions about him, but to be fair I’d suspect anyone wily enough to convince the Americans to elect them president. Just look at who they’ve voted for in the past. Incidentally a lot of the British voted for Blair/Brown so it’s not a purely an American issue.

Democratic politics is all about image, not substance, and saying the right things in public is everything if you want to get votes. Many of my thinking American friends wanted “anyone but Bush” and would have probably voted for Kermit the Frog if the Democrats selected him as their candidate. And even that would have been the least-worst choice. But Obama rose to the top.

The last few days have seen Obama and the American news media jumping up and down about “British Petroleum” and how foreigners are responsible for polluting their Gulf of Mexico. I see little concern for the American oil workers killed in the explosion – just a rush to blame whatever foreigners are available at the time. Same old story. Time for a reality check:

  1. BP (not “British Petroleum”) is an international company, a large part of which is owned and based in American.
  2. The Deepwater Horizon rig (the one that blew up) was owned and operated by another international company (Transocean) – originally American and the division operating it was was based in Houston, Texas, USA.
  3. The engineering company responsible for lining the well (which I believe was the cause of the accident) was Halliburton – based in… Houston, Texas, USA.
  4. The crew of the rig were American.
  5. The regulator responsible for the safe operation of the rig was the American Government.

So why is Obama jumping up and down blaming a “foreign” company he’s decided to call “British Petroleum” for this, and demanding they pay for everything? He’s either pig-ignorant or he’s lying through his teeth for political reasons. Given that he’s a politician, it’s almost certainly the latter.

As he’s inherited a wrecked economy, getting a large amount of money from an international company is going to be a good thing as far as his short-term political career is concerned. It’s also important to deflect attention from the fact that his government licensed, regulated and derived a huge amount of income from this operation – even if it was set up before his time in office.

I’m no fan of oil companies, but why should BP foot the bill? This is an accident, with BP being one link in a chain of responsibility running from Halliburton to the US Government. The only commercial reason to blame BP is that it’s the link with the most money. Why are companies operating in America paying the government all this money? For sound regulation and the provision of services. It’s probably a fact that only BP has the knowledge needed to deal with this disaster anyway, but the US government is just as complicit as anyone else. They take the money and the oil, but have a big problem when it comes to taking responsibility. Nothing new there. America is, of course, the biggest consumer of oil in the world.

But what’s really worrying is that this new-age reforming “black” liberal politician is using the American people’s xenophobia for political ends – plain and simple. Anyone But Bush?

To recap: We have another American President playing to the gallery and blaming all the USA’s problems on foreigners to distract attention from his administration’s shortcomings. The Americans seem to be lapping this up, and the rest of the world is back to looking at American rhetoric in disbelief and bewilderment.

So where’s this going to lead? Is Obama looking for an excuse to invade St James’s Square (the location of BP’s rather small global HQ)? I think that’s taking it a bit far.

But wait – BP used to be called the “Anglo-Iranian Oil Company”. The Iranians still remember this, even if most of us have forgotten. It was associated with previous Iranian regimes, some of which are somewhat unpopular. From this point you’re free to make up your own conspiracy theories.

Personally I’ll stick to Occam’s Razer  – the simple answer is that Obama is just another stain on the office of US President, albeit nothing like as scary as the alternatives. So far.

Posted on

I was wrong about the airlines

At the weekend I said it’d be two weeks before they decided that the risk from the volcano wasn’t that substantial when weighed against profits, and that political pressure would lift the flight ban before the cloud had lifted in about two weeks. It’s actually taken them less than one.

Engines stop and show signs of wear from time to time, but this time it’s going to be reported and a load of concerned hacks who know nothing about aviation will get very excited.

So queue the flying scares – engines stopping, or nearly stopping and one almighty row.

Posted on

Safety is paramount

So the Icelandic volcano makes it impossible to fly in UK airspace. Hmm. The idea is that the volcanic ash, containing silica, turns to glass in jet engines and causes them to stop spinning.

Well I wonder how this one’s going to play out? Let’s see…

I’m sceptical that the ash is that much of a threat – jet engines do fly through dusty and sandy air. This dust seems to be fairly well dispersed (i.e. you can’t see it and radar, apparently, can’t see it). But even it does increase the risk, the “safety is paramount” argument just doesn’t hold water. If it really was the primary concern they’d stay on the ground instead of flying. Flying is more of a risk than staying on the ground, whatever the weather. They’re taking a risk by taking off.

So just how much risk is acceptable? Well when balanced against airline profits I’d say quite a lot. The volcano, by all accounts, shows no sign of slowing down and the weather system we have at this time of year aren’t likely to disperse the ash any time soon. Anyone who knows anything about weather isn’t going to put money on it, I assure you.

I’d give it two weeks – I doubt the cloud will disperse but by then the airlines will have put so much political pressure on NATS and the government (before an election) that they’ll decide that safety really isn’t paramount and start flying again regardless.

There’ll also probably be a big row.

There’ll also probably be a big scare as soon as someone finds a jet engine with glass in it, followed by an even bigger row.