All signs suggest England will win the current Ashes series. Australia failed to win a very one sided game in Cardiff and the momentum swung firmly England's way. Andrew Flintoff then destroyed he Aussies with the ball at Lords, leading the Poms to a win at the home of cricket in an Ashes game since 1934.
The odds of Australia staging a fighting comeback to draw the series are now fading with every run scored at Edgbaston by the English tail enders. The English batsmen have shown how to make runs in the conditions, aided by an Australian attack that seems to be baffled by how to bowl on a proper English pudding of a pitch. Unlike 2005 when Shane Warne and Brett Lee had enough skill between them, with bat and ball, to keep Australia in the hunt, the current attack lack the necessary experience and leadership to turn around their performance.
While rain tomorrow will mean that the current game is drawn, this time it will be the Australians taking comfort from the luck of nature. As the next test is up norf and more rain will fall, it's likely the players will return to London for the final test at the Oval with Australia needing to win to retain the Ashes. Normally England do well at this venue, though most of their tests are dead rubbers that they seem to shine in and prove they're capable of beating a team mentally preparing to board the plane home.
This puts the Australian captain Ricky Ponting in a fairly tight spot, and he's already shown that he doesn't enjoy being close to the fire. His pre-match response to England captain Andrew Strauss's baiting showed that poor little Ricky's sense of humour has escaped. When Strauss suggested that Australia had lost their aura, Ricky slugged back by pointing at the test match ranking and suggesting England never had an aura. Oh dear, descending to my dad is definitely bigger than yours and he'll come round and sort you out is how it sounded, standard school boy bully stuff, really just highlights that the aura is gone and that the captain doesn't like it up 'im.
Predecessors like Border, Taylor or Waugh might have suggested that given the current situation the observation has merit but that we'll see what happens on the field. They knew how to handle the mind games of the opposition with better grace.
Back on the field, as the Australian bowlers try to come to grips with another English pudding, their captain stands at first slip watching the pies being chucked down. His chewing gum is taking a pounding as his body language shifts between glares of disgust and folded arms of despair. He's not happy with the performances of those around him, yet helpless to understand how to change it. After all, he's the one player in the team who doesn't fall back on others for help, his batting performances since taking over show he's leading from the front and tryin t bring the others with him.
As England towards a lead of one hundred runs, Ricky needs to grab the reins and wheedle and cajole his players to perform at their best. He needs to have one hand on a young shoulder, letting people know what's expected of them and showing them his support. But this is not in his nature and the captaincy may not be his much longer.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Sunday, February 22, 2009
We're doomed, well a bit anyway
Northern Rock is the Government's surrogate for lending money to revive the economy. They're going to up their lending by up to £14 billion or so in the next couple of years. The BBC report says that the new money will be a mix of new deposits, repaid loans AND GOVERNMENT MONEY.
Although the last part is, of course, my capitalisation (sic), it's a clear indication that the Brown administration is going to waste more money. Only a government would want to increase a mortgage portfolio at this time.
Ok, it's only a fraction of the £127.3 billion the UK Treasury will borrow this year but it's a bad signal for the market. At least we know it won't be the 100% loans, as dear old Gordon's decided this is a really bad things. But just how bad will it be when the Bank of England starts printing money & the government of Her Majesty of the United Kingdom chip in from the sidelines with a few more bob.
I say that HM Queen Elizabeth II should step in and appoint a caretaker government right now as the current lot have proven themselves to be utterly useless.
Although the last part is, of course, my capitalisation (sic), it's a clear indication that the Brown administration is going to waste more money. Only a government would want to increase a mortgage portfolio at this time.
Ok, it's only a fraction of the £127.3 billion the UK Treasury will borrow this year but it's a bad signal for the market. At least we know it won't be the 100% loans, as dear old Gordon's decided this is a really bad things. But just how bad will it be when the Bank of England starts printing money & the government of Her Majesty of the United Kingdom chip in from the sidelines with a few more bob.
I say that HM Queen Elizabeth II should step in and appoint a caretaker government right now as the current lot have proven themselves to be utterly useless.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
The UK Needs more Public Holidays
Yesterday's dump of snow brought an impromptu day off to many in the South of England. Most of us enjoyed stomping around in 15 to 30 centimetres of soft, fresh snow, making the most of the unexpected day off. In the parks, people built snowmen, tobogganed down any available incline and marveled at the drifts of snow hanging on the tree branches.
Today as I trudged into work, albeit on an emptier than usual London Underground, the thought slid into my brain that here in the UK we could do with a couple more sanctioned days off. The English and Welsh get two days for Easter, the first and last Monday in May, another day in August, two more for Christmas and Boxing Day and one to celebrate Janus. A grand total of 8. Going back in time, at least on Wikipedia, we used to get 37 days (a mixed bag of religious observations), but I guess that back then we didn't have employment rights guaranteeing us time off.
In the other nations of the Union, Scotland get nine days while Northern Ireland get ten. Even the old USofA get ten days of public holidays. A quick troll through No. 10's website (note how prettily the party apartchiks use the BETA term to indicate this isn't really a live site, only it is because it's in the public domain and therefore "live" to everyone!) reveals how many petitions are out there for these extra days. Even two years ago, the BBC was in on the act.
To date, Government spin has suggested that additional days off celebrating national identities, like St George's day or St David's day, make it difficult to create an agenda that meets everyone's liking. I'd like to suggest that the Government has "done nothing" (a familiar phrase trotted out these last few months) to put forward one or two more days off for the "hard working families" in this country.
I guess that leaves us still in the "hard working" category with no additional benefits in sight. I wonder if el Gord will use his remaining days in power to gift us extra days off to enjoy his recession?
Oh dear.
Today as I trudged into work, albeit on an emptier than usual London Underground, the thought slid into my brain that here in the UK we could do with a couple more sanctioned days off. The English and Welsh get two days for Easter, the first and last Monday in May, another day in August, two more for Christmas and Boxing Day and one to celebrate Janus. A grand total of 8. Going back in time, at least on Wikipedia, we used to get 37 days (a mixed bag of religious observations), but I guess that back then we didn't have employment rights guaranteeing us time off.
In the other nations of the Union, Scotland get nine days while Northern Ireland get ten. Even the old USofA get ten days of public holidays. A quick troll through No. 10's website (note how prettily the party apartchiks use the BETA term to indicate this isn't really a live site, only it is because it's in the public domain and therefore "live" to everyone!) reveals how many petitions are out there for these extra days. Even two years ago, the BBC was in on the act.
To date, Government spin has suggested that additional days off celebrating national identities, like St George's day or St David's day, make it difficult to create an agenda that meets everyone's liking. I'd like to suggest that the Government has "done nothing" (a familiar phrase trotted out these last few months) to put forward one or two more days off for the "hard working families" in this country.
I guess that leaves us still in the "hard working" category with no additional benefits in sight. I wonder if el Gord will use his remaining days in power to gift us extra days off to enjoy his recession?
Oh dear.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Snow Time
As an unusual wintery weather pattern rolls across south east England it's reassuring to see the country grind to a halt once more. That's right, it's snowing again in London and it's considered to be the "worst" flurry since 1991, when I remember being in the office pretty much on my own as the permanent staff living in the commuter belt couldn't get to the office.
Today, I couldn't get into the office; according to our fabulous Mayor Boris we've had the right snow, just too much of it! It's a great economic conundrum for this country. After all, the number of days lost to "extreme" weather in the south is, on average, one or two days a year. So businesses and the government don't invest in costly infrastructure using the assumption that disruptive days don't come round very often. This seems the pragmatic option, the stoic British stiff upper lip and carry on regardless.
Mind you, the people of the south are also ill-prepared for such weather. When we were out for a walk today we wore hiking boots, ski-gloves, winter water-proof jackets, scarves and hats. Many of our neighbours were wandering around in sneakers or fashionable shoes not designed for the icy sludge on the footpaths. Quite a few of them stumbled and slid at the merest hint of an ice patch.
It's unlikely there'll be more snow tonight, such a shame. I've enjoyed the day at home throwing snow balls at my kids, taking photos of our yard covered in snow and popping to the supermarket to secure our food supplies for the day.
I consider this to be the best type of day; tomorrow we'll be back at work.
Today, I couldn't get into the office; according to our fabulous Mayor Boris we've had the right snow, just too much of it! It's a great economic conundrum for this country. After all, the number of days lost to "extreme" weather in the south is, on average, one or two days a year. So businesses and the government don't invest in costly infrastructure using the assumption that disruptive days don't come round very often. This seems the pragmatic option, the stoic British stiff upper lip and carry on regardless.
Mind you, the people of the south are also ill-prepared for such weather. When we were out for a walk today we wore hiking boots, ski-gloves, winter water-proof jackets, scarves and hats. Many of our neighbours were wandering around in sneakers or fashionable shoes not designed for the icy sludge on the footpaths. Quite a few of them stumbled and slid at the merest hint of an ice patch.
It's unlikely there'll be more snow tonight, such a shame. I've enjoyed the day at home throwing snow balls at my kids, taking photos of our yard covered in snow and popping to the supermarket to secure our food supplies for the day.
I consider this to be the best type of day; tomorrow we'll be back at work.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
IT Development & the Tory Proposal
Today's announcement by the Tory party on the capping of expenditure for IT projects and reviewing the way they are run is good news for some, including those consultants who've made a living out of plugging the ISO 9000 standards for systems documentation.
I'm all for this proposal by the Opposition, for the sake of future generations we're going to need some Agile thinking to reduce the burden of debt left by the incumbent spendthrifts.
Government projects are great at delivering 2,000 page documents that describe, in somewhat eye-watering detail, what the system is supposed to deliver. Apart from creating a physical hazard for those designated to carry these tomes around, or those unlucky enough to trip over 4 inches of high quality paper left lying in a corridor, this type of document does little to deliver a quality system. Studies claim that delivering this type of traditional requirements only 25% of the specified features are used frequently, and the rest of the system is used either infrequently or not at all.
The basic problem is that it's very difficult to write down in unambiguous detail how someone is going to interact with a system. You often find that words don't work well and even the best pictures only tell part of the story. Developing software is a creative process, more like creating a piece of art or writing a novel or poetry. There's a great deal of skill and craft involved in asking the right questions, capturing the, sometimes non-obvious, interactions between the people in their various roles and their use of the system.
An example of this interaction is the beloved ATM, as told by a friend of mine who's done this before. Ever noticed that when you go to the machine and take out cash, you get your card back first? Think about what would happen if the cash came out first? What are the chances you would take the cash and leave the card behind in the machine? Pretty high right? Think about how many times you've left a receipt behind when you asked for one to be printed.
Think of building software in the same way that a director takes a great book and turns it into a movie, or perhaps a long running TV drama. The written word does not translate well to the visual. You can't always reflect the nuances of a character, nor can you burden the viewer with the drudgery of a narrative discussing how tortured the hero of our story is. A good director is sympathetic to the original text but savvy enough to make it work in the visual world. There needs to be compromises made along the way that allow those who've read the book to feel that the story is a fulfilling realisation of the story. Compare the film Pride and Prejudice with the book; a reasonably good rendition of a great book. On the other side, think about Frank Herbert's Dune. A great book scared by David Lynch's bizarre and poor interpretation.
A big issue that faces software development is that managers believe you can take engineering project management disciplines and apply them to developing software. This is the traditional "deliver it by this date" approach. Sponsors want detailed estimates that go out for months and years in advance. They want certainty that your plan will deliver what you said, when you said and then they flog you when it all goes wrong at delivery. Time and time again the waterfall approach of extended analysis, design, development and testing fails to deliver the goods.
The reason for this is that building software is completely unlike building a house or office block, yet we in the projects industry still try and pretend that we can apply the same rules.
Firstly, people have built houses for about 10,000 years so there's an agreed set of steps that you need to take. To build a decent sized house, you need a foundation, or it falls down. You need properly supported walls, or it falls down. You need a good roof or you get wet in the winter, and then it falls down. And so the list goes on.
For tall buildings, it's a little more complicated and cost overruns occur because the wrong things happen at the wrong time. For example, you want the electricians to cable up a floor and this needs to be done before the dry rising is installed. If someone decides to install the dry-rising first, then the management contractor will then need to sort out who did what in the wrong sequence and deal with it. The upside is that without the electrics, you can't use the building. The contrast with software is that we try to pretend that delivery 0.1 that doesn't have any electricity is useful. At this point the battle's lost.
One of the big differences with buildings is that until the entire house or floor is fitted out it's difficult to use it. With software, you should deliver working components along the way that are ready for use; this also allows both the developers and business users to ensure that what's delivered meets the specification. If not, and you should discover this long before you reach the test driven UAT (User Acceptance Testing) stage, then you need to decide if you're going to fix it in the current cycle or defer it to the next one if it's too much work.
This might sound easy but it's not. Developers always underestimate how much they will deliver and business users also overestimate what they're going to get. A smart and agile project manager will ensure that both sides expectations are met.
I'm all for this proposal by the Opposition, for the sake of future generations we're going to need some Agile thinking to reduce the burden of debt left by the incumbent spendthrifts.
Government projects are great at delivering 2,000 page documents that describe, in somewhat eye-watering detail, what the system is supposed to deliver. Apart from creating a physical hazard for those designated to carry these tomes around, or those unlucky enough to trip over 4 inches of high quality paper left lying in a corridor, this type of document does little to deliver a quality system. Studies claim that delivering this type of traditional requirements only 25% of the specified features are used frequently, and the rest of the system is used either infrequently or not at all.
The basic problem is that it's very difficult to write down in unambiguous detail how someone is going to interact with a system. You often find that words don't work well and even the best pictures only tell part of the story. Developing software is a creative process, more like creating a piece of art or writing a novel or poetry. There's a great deal of skill and craft involved in asking the right questions, capturing the, sometimes non-obvious, interactions between the people in their various roles and their use of the system.
An example of this interaction is the beloved ATM, as told by a friend of mine who's done this before. Ever noticed that when you go to the machine and take out cash, you get your card back first? Think about what would happen if the cash came out first? What are the chances you would take the cash and leave the card behind in the machine? Pretty high right? Think about how many times you've left a receipt behind when you asked for one to be printed.
Think of building software in the same way that a director takes a great book and turns it into a movie, or perhaps a long running TV drama. The written word does not translate well to the visual. You can't always reflect the nuances of a character, nor can you burden the viewer with the drudgery of a narrative discussing how tortured the hero of our story is. A good director is sympathetic to the original text but savvy enough to make it work in the visual world. There needs to be compromises made along the way that allow those who've read the book to feel that the story is a fulfilling realisation of the story. Compare the film Pride and Prejudice with the book; a reasonably good rendition of a great book. On the other side, think about Frank Herbert's Dune. A great book scared by David Lynch's bizarre and poor interpretation.
A big issue that faces software development is that managers believe you can take engineering project management disciplines and apply them to developing software. This is the traditional "deliver it by this date" approach. Sponsors want detailed estimates that go out for months and years in advance. They want certainty that your plan will deliver what you said, when you said and then they flog you when it all goes wrong at delivery. Time and time again the waterfall approach of extended analysis, design, development and testing fails to deliver the goods.
The reason for this is that building software is completely unlike building a house or office block, yet we in the projects industry still try and pretend that we can apply the same rules.
Firstly, people have built houses for about 10,000 years so there's an agreed set of steps that you need to take. To build a decent sized house, you need a foundation, or it falls down. You need properly supported walls, or it falls down. You need a good roof or you get wet in the winter, and then it falls down. And so the list goes on.
For tall buildings, it's a little more complicated and cost overruns occur because the wrong things happen at the wrong time. For example, you want the electricians to cable up a floor and this needs to be done before the dry rising is installed. If someone decides to install the dry-rising first, then the management contractor will then need to sort out who did what in the wrong sequence and deal with it. The upside is that without the electrics, you can't use the building. The contrast with software is that we try to pretend that delivery 0.1 that doesn't have any electricity is useful. At this point the battle's lost.
One of the big differences with buildings is that until the entire house or floor is fitted out it's difficult to use it. With software, you should deliver working components along the way that are ready for use; this also allows both the developers and business users to ensure that what's delivered meets the specification. If not, and you should discover this long before you reach the test driven UAT (User Acceptance Testing) stage, then you need to decide if you're going to fix it in the current cycle or defer it to the next one if it's too much work.
This might sound easy but it's not. Developers always underestimate how much they will deliver and business users also overestimate what they're going to get. A smart and agile project manager will ensure that both sides expectations are met.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Hubris
Gordon Brown's amazing ability to not answer questions is starting to look like he's hiding something. If you've the stomach for it, spend a half hour wading through the latest version from last week at PM Questions
At about 4 minutes in, he's promising jobs for people who lose them. Let's put this in context.
Say I've brought home a box with six cakes inside. I've not made them myself, they're extracted from my hard earned salary. Now that I've eaten a cake from a box it's gone; putting back the empty wrapper doesn't replace it, nor does it make it look like there are still six cakes in the box. In order to replace the cake, I'm going to need to make another. Without the basic ingredients, such as a manufacturing base that's run by the private sector and generating more cakes, I'm not going to be able to do so. The biggest problem is that it's not just me who wants more cakes, there are at least 50 other people looking for them. As the country loses the ability to make cakes there are fewer available and still more people looking for them. That will be around 3.5 million people looking for new cakes this time next year. Not something that this country will want to see.
On the extension of lending; Gordon's very confused on what he's asking our banks to do. He's saying "keep up the 2007 levels" but wants them to fill the 1/3rd gap left behind without specifying how we, the tax payer, are going to cover this. He also acknowledges that those Johnny Foreigner's who lent too much and now left the country are gone. So what's it going to be Gordon? Are our banks lending at 2007 levels? Probably. Can they plug the gaps of the others? No. Are there any details in the plans to solve the problems? According to Gordon, it requires additional consultation with the banks involved. In summary then, Gordon, you don't have a clue, do you?
In one fell swoop, Gordon's scared the pants off the market by stating that he has a solution to the problem without knowing what exactly is the problem. No wonder the UK stock market is crashing around our ears.
Finally, the Rt Hon. D Skinner's Tory Fat Cats jibe is priceless. Remind me, who is Sir Fred Goodwin again? That's right, he's Scottish banker who knows the current PM as well being on chummy terms with both the former PM and Chancellor and was knighted by Labour for "services to banking".
Hubris indeed.
At about 4 minutes in, he's promising jobs for people who lose them. Let's put this in context.
Say I've brought home a box with six cakes inside. I've not made them myself, they're extracted from my hard earned salary. Now that I've eaten a cake from a box it's gone; putting back the empty wrapper doesn't replace it, nor does it make it look like there are still six cakes in the box. In order to replace the cake, I'm going to need to make another. Without the basic ingredients, such as a manufacturing base that's run by the private sector and generating more cakes, I'm not going to be able to do so. The biggest problem is that it's not just me who wants more cakes, there are at least 50 other people looking for them. As the country loses the ability to make cakes there are fewer available and still more people looking for them. That will be around 3.5 million people looking for new cakes this time next year. Not something that this country will want to see.
On the extension of lending; Gordon's very confused on what he's asking our banks to do. He's saying "keep up the 2007 levels" but wants them to fill the 1/3rd gap left behind without specifying how we, the tax payer, are going to cover this. He also acknowledges that those Johnny Foreigner's who lent too much and now left the country are gone. So what's it going to be Gordon? Are our banks lending at 2007 levels? Probably. Can they plug the gaps of the others? No. Are there any details in the plans to solve the problems? According to Gordon, it requires additional consultation with the banks involved. In summary then, Gordon, you don't have a clue, do you?
In one fell swoop, Gordon's scared the pants off the market by stating that he has a solution to the problem without knowing what exactly is the problem. No wonder the UK stock market is crashing around our ears.
Finally, the Rt Hon. D Skinner's Tory Fat Cats jibe is priceless. Remind me, who is Sir Fred Goodwin again? That's right, he's Scottish banker who knows the current PM as well being on chummy terms with both the former PM and Chancellor and was knighted by Labour for "services to banking".
Hubris indeed.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Where are our Liberties?
Imagine living in a country where your civil rights are restricted by the people running the country. One where political opponents get arrested for asking questions. One where obeisance to the party is the primary rule and speaking out against it will cost you your job. One where the ruling party continually reprint their latest version of the truth.
Yes, that's right you're living in the United Kingdom.
Mind you, 33 years ago in Australia the Governor General, being the representative of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, sacked the incumbent Prime Minister, one Gough Whitlam.
I remember watching on TV as Gough Whitlam (Labour) stood on the steps of the Australian Parliament House in Canberra uttering the words "We may well say 'God save the Queen', because nothing will save the Governor General". The ABC article below highlights the problem; here was a Prime Minister who had lost the trust of his nation; the coffers were rapidly emptying because the Liberal/Conservative dominated Senate refused to approve the spending of money following a scandalous attempt to borrow USD 4 billion (quite a lot in 1975). In steps Her Majesty's representative, John Kerr, who Whitlam asked to dissolve half the Senate to resolve the problem. Instead, Whitlam ended up sacked and delivered his famous quote (YouTube clip below).
In the current crisis, where we have a Labour leader who, formerly as Chancellor and now as PM, is leading this country into Banana Republic territory and denying that any of it is his fault. He criticises those who point out that the economy is bad, looking to blame the nay-sayers as the news worsens every day. He simply fails to realise that when the IMF is mentioned that that organisation is THE lender of last resort and that he will need to speak to them when other countries and investors are unable or unwilling to buy the debt his government needs to issue to fund this countries problems.
I grew up believing that the Governor General had more power than the Queen, mostly based on hearsay. Until now. I've done a little bit of exploring and discovered that most of the Magna Carta is now repealed but unearthed this concept of the "Royal Prerogative".
So, starter for 10, can the Queen Elizabeth II choose to sack a Prime Minister and his government?
The ABC covered the story here.
as a result of a Loan Scandal
In the UK the Queen seems to have the power to do the same.
Yes, that's right you're living in the United Kingdom.
Mind you, 33 years ago in Australia the Governor General, being the representative of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, sacked the incumbent Prime Minister, one Gough Whitlam.
I remember watching on TV as Gough Whitlam (Labour) stood on the steps of the Australian Parliament House in Canberra uttering the words "We may well say 'God save the Queen', because nothing will save the Governor General". The ABC article below highlights the problem; here was a Prime Minister who had lost the trust of his nation; the coffers were rapidly emptying because the Liberal/Conservative dominated Senate refused to approve the spending of money following a scandalous attempt to borrow USD 4 billion (quite a lot in 1975). In steps Her Majesty's representative, John Kerr, who Whitlam asked to dissolve half the Senate to resolve the problem. Instead, Whitlam ended up sacked and delivered his famous quote (YouTube clip below).
In the current crisis, where we have a Labour leader who, formerly as Chancellor and now as PM, is leading this country into Banana Republic territory and denying that any of it is his fault. He criticises those who point out that the economy is bad, looking to blame the nay-sayers as the news worsens every day. He simply fails to realise that when the IMF is mentioned that that organisation is THE lender of last resort and that he will need to speak to them when other countries and investors are unable or unwilling to buy the debt his government needs to issue to fund this countries problems.
I grew up believing that the Governor General had more power than the Queen, mostly based on hearsay. Until now. I've done a little bit of exploring and discovered that most of the Magna Carta is now repealed but unearthed this concept of the "Royal Prerogative".
So, starter for 10, can the Queen Elizabeth II choose to sack a Prime Minister and his government?
The ABC covered the story here.
as a result of a Loan Scandal
In the UK the Queen seems to have the power to do the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)