Topalov 2 v Kramnik 3

Chess players are nothing if not temperamental.   The story so far – at least as I could be bothered learning about it is that:

  1. Topalov’s camp protested about the frequency with which Kramnik was going to the toilet(!)
  2. The officials seem to have required Kramnik and Topalov to use the same toilet.
  3. They locked Kramnik’s private dunny.
  4. Kramnik wasn’t happy about that and refused to play until they’d unlocked it.
  5. After his clock had run down by an hour he forfeited the game. With the white pieces too!   So there you go.

Who knows what will happen when the next game is scheduled tomorrow.

I wouldn’t fancy any of the players in the Australian weekend finals chances if they refused to play until their private toilet was unlocked.

NRL 2006: The Decider!

It all started on the 10th of March with the Dragons and Tigers and will end about 8:45 Sunday night with either the Broncos or the Storm being the 2006 NRL Premiers. It has been an interesting season but the post mortem will come later. The immediate concern is who will win Sunday’s game.

But before I do that let’s get one thing clear. I am tired of the wailing from the sackcloth and ashes crowd, both in the NRL and AFL, bemoaning no local sides in the deciders. Get over it. There are 13 clubs in the NRL and 14 in the AFL who failed to make the grand final. You don’t hear their fans crying about the state of the game because their club didn’t make it. It should be all about the best two clubs at the end of the season. Both codes have expanded and this narrow-minded state based parochialism concerned with the “rights” of Sydney or Melbourne based clubs to be in the respective grand final is to be consigned to the dustbin of history.

Except for State of Origin of course.

Now, let me tell you who is going to win… Continue reading

Weekend reflections

Two weeks ago Ken wondered aloud on ‘weekend reflections’ that it might not work all that well on Troppo.   It had only attracted between four and ten comments in the past.   Anyway, the very thread he wrote this on attracted some interesting comments.   Last week’s weekend reflections is still going – 81 comments and counting.

So who’s going to start it off this weekend?

Commoditising High Cost Technology

In 1963 the Australian Government ordered the F111 at the then astronomical cost of $112 million with the final cost a decade later being 324 million. It has been the best bang for the buck purchase Australian has made in defence. Like all good deterrents it will be retired without being used in anger.

The JSF will replace the F18/F111 in Australia’s armoury and is facing potential cost increases from about $47 million USD per unit to $60 million. We will face a capability gap with the early retirement of the F111, which has led some to promote the F22 over the JSF. We are not the only ones in this position, the USMC is running up airframe hours on their aircraft in Iraq and have no replacement until the JSF comes on-line.

Then there are those, like the Cato Institute, who advocate the JSF being the last manned aircraft and instead focusing on cheaper alternatives like Unmanned Aerial Vehicles [UAVs]. But the American experience with UAVs is that they are more expensive than manned ones to operate. They carry the same infrastructure and maintenance costs – but with added labor costs.

Where a pilot comes back from a mission, rolls the manned-aircraft into a hanger, eats dinner and goes to bed; with a UAV the operators run in three shifts to keep the UAV in the air longer. Labor and maintenance costs make up a large chunk of the defence budget anyway and a UAV adds to that.

Big money, big tech … it is going to be an expensive exercise no matter what.
Continue reading

The Stoush in the South

There is nothing, I’m sure you’d agree, more fascinating, more delightful to observe, or more satisfying to the soul, than to see two grown men poke their tongues out at each other, fully extend to the other, the middle digit of both hands and for good measure unbuckle the belt, lower the trousers, and let loose with the most farshtinkener of commentaries about the other’s general history in business and public life.
 
Such has been the antics on radio, in print and naturallement on the blogs of Melbourne identities Stephen Mayne and Andrew Landeryou.
 
It’s been an incredible week.   A week of hawking up the biggest mucus laden gorbies and projecting them with a lack of subtlety that must have Tim Blair green with envy.  It’s been a week that the people of Melbourne have simply loved.
 
For those unfamiliar with the back story, it’s all about the forthcoming State election.   Mr. Mayne, of Crikey fame is involved in a fledgling political party known as People Power, and the boys got rowdy when one of People Power’s main candidates quit, and Mr. Landeryou claimed credit for the scalp.
 
Ever since then it’s been the best entertainment going in Melbourne this week, and even I have made a surprise appearance in my deliberately mistaken identity cameo role,   but hey, that’s OK.   It’s all part of the fun.
 
I’m not sure how much more entertainment the boys will be able to squeeze out of this story, but Melbourne awaits with spine tingling anticipation to see if the gauntlet will truly be thrown down and if these middle aged gentlemen will do the honourable thing and have it out in a mud wrestling ring in the nuddy, live on TV.
 
It is inspirational stuff, and it inspires the social philosopher in me, and so I leave you with this observation.   Although Sydney might have its glistening harbour, and Brisbane the weather, Perth the money, Adelaide the hills, Hobart the quaintness and Darwin the possibility.   There’s no question about it.   Melbourne has the culture.

Ian Jarvie on Popper’s “social turn”

It is generally accepted that Popper did not give a thorough account of the way that science actually works, and that is supposed to indicate that by the 1960s he was a bit out of things. Perhaps he did some interesting work back in the 1930s that challenged the logical positivists, but that was such a long time ago, of course things have moved on from there. Now we have the penetrating insights of Thomas Kuhn with The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1961). And then along came Imre Lakatos, the strong program in the sociology of science, and fieldwork like the major project carried out in the Walter and Eliza Hall by Charlesworth and associates.

Ian C Jarvie has launched a strong challenge to that view of Popper. He is a Canadian member of the Popperian Mafia with a special line of interest in sociology, including the sociology of the modern cienema. In 2001 be published a book called The Republic of Science: The Emergence of Popper’s Social View of Science 1935-1945. The dust jacket announces:

This book offers a careful re-reading of Popper’s classic falsificationist demarcation of science, stressing its institutional aspects. Popper’s social thinking about science, individuals, institutions, and rationality is tracked through The Poverty of Historicism and The Open Society and its Enemies as he criticises and improves his earlier work. New links are established between the works of the 1935-1945 period, revealing them as a source for criticism of the institutions and governance of science.

Jarvie argues strenuously that Popper’s first major work in early 1930s can be interpreted to anticipate the “social turn” in the philosophy of science. This may be called the “strong version” of his thesis, by analogy with the strong program in the sociology of science. A weaker version of Jarvie’s thesis, which is equally fruitful but possibly less controversial, is that Popper should be regarded as a conventionalist in scientific methodology (not to be confused with conventionalism as a theory of truth). Jarvie has argued convincingly that the decisive achievement of Logik der Forschung was to show the indispensable function of methodological conventions as “rules of the game” in science. This mirrors Popper’s approach to political philosophy; as the function of the philosophy of science is to formulate and criticize the “rules of the game” of science, so the function of moral and political philosophy is to do the same for the “rules of the game” of social and political life. These rules may be unwritten conventions, mores and folkways, traditions, laws of the land and institutions of all kinds.

Continue reading

Globalisation – what happens next and what will it mean?

I’ve been doing some (fairly idle) thinking but not much reading about globalisation and the extent to which large amounts of ‘offshoring’ of labour will be good and who it will be good for. I can’t say I’ve got far but was interested to read this post which was pointed to by the indefatigable uber-blogger Brad DeLong.

Here’s an edited extract of some central points.

Due to radical reductions in international communication and coordination costs, EU firms can offshore many tasks that were previously considered non-traded.

This means that international competition — which used to be primarily between firms and sectors in different nations — now occurs between individual workers performing similar tasks in different nations. The really new feature is that deeper new-paradigm globalisation will seem quite unpredictable from the perspective of firms and sectors. Since individual tasks can be offshored, globalisation may help some workers in a given firm while harming others.

Moreover, old-globalisation’s correlation between skill groups and winners and losers breaks down. Certain highly skilled tasks may turn out to be offshore-able, while other highly skilled tasks are not. Increased offshoring will therefore not systematically help or hurt skilled workers in the EU. In particular, many “Information Society” jobs are prone to offshoring so EU policies aimed at moving workers into Information Society jobs may be wasted since those jobs are only “good jobs” because they do not yet face direct international competition.

The paper['s] . . . underlying theme is that the increased unpredictability should make EU leaders more cautious about moving workers or skills in a particular direction. Flexibility is, as always, the key to allowing Europe to seize the opportunities of globalisation while minimizing the adjustment costs.

So what skills will go offshore? Continue reading