The Bewilderness

Nanobot

An interesting development from the US, as miniaturisation really hits robotics.

The robot created by researchers at Dartmouth College, New Hampshire county, crawls like an inchworm caterpillar across a grid at the speed of 200 microns per second. Its goal: to fix really little things.

The robot is so small that 200 of them could fit on the tip of a finger and swarms of such devices could one day repair circuitry in computer chips, the online edition of Popular Science reported.

[Bruce] Donald uses a computer to adjust electrical charges on the grid, thereby controlling its direction and speed.

When he increases the charge, an actuator on the machine's tail becomes oppositely charged and is thus attracted to the plate, causing the tail to flex and make contact with the grid's surface.

This pushes the shorter front leg 10 nanometers forward. At its fastest, the robot can take 20,000 steps a second. The next challenge is to assemble teams of robots to perform far more complex tasks, such as fixing a PC.

Polly's Poison Pill

Polly opines on the abolition of jury trial for fraud and argues that the authority of the government is tainted by Iraq. Genuine civil liberties are no, doubt a worthy cause, but this has extended to "any apparent curtailment of freedom". For complex fraud trials are not just an exercise in justice, they are an "easy-law-for-the-rich system", a way to bring "white collar fraudsters" and "mega-thieves" to book.

There are failings with the current system of dealing with fraud, and many trials have collapsed in the past. But the columnist is concerned with prosecuting this ill-defined group of defrauding marauders and does not mention the words 'miscarriage of justice' or 'innocent until proven guilty' in her text. Indeed, such issues are absent.

And then, she says this like it is a bad thing:

If this key piece of non-ideological legislation fails to reach the statute books and swelling ranks of mega-fraudsters escape due sentence, it will be another sign of slippage in the authority every prime minister needs for everyday governing.

The Urge To Move

There is nothing wonderful about sitting down to relax on a Sunday morning, drop last night's curry, and pore through the supplements. Occasionally, when the journalists need some extra fodder for the housing section, they alight upon the economically stranded: that section of the population who still live with their mums and haven't screwed up the courage to slaughter their disposable income before the altar of debt.

A house can be daunting - a tug of war between contentment and self-respect. Maybe there are even some who haven't amassed enough money to set down a deposit. When it comes to weighing up your needs, the urge to move becomes a nagging itch in the small of the back. The not unreasonable parental expectations about chores are resented, the lack of space to accommodate all of those books and comics becomes pressing, and those missed  opportunities on the dance floor become an ever-lengthening list of what-ifs as you had no place of your own.

There are plenty of reasons to buy a place: self-respect, get your foot on the property ladder, stand on one's independent pins, but the realisation hits in the early hours of a weekend when another slips away. It is like going on holiday and sharing your hotel room with a mate.

So I have to move.

The Presidency of Failure

The UK Presidency of the European Union has encouraged the stench of failure, as politicians play the traditional game of scapegoating for failing to agree a budget. The European countries have been unable to agree on a budget as the Common Agricultural Policy is considered untouchable and Britain is unwilling to give up its rebate. Blair has come under increasing criticism from Europe for not seeking consensus on the budget.

The in-house European journal, the FT, has stated that the latest draft will leave CAP alone and reduce structural funds, especially to the 'Enlargement 10'. Blair will shuttle across Europe selling his proposal as an alternative to the compromise crafted by Luxembourg. Needless to say he has come under criticism from many quarters.  Jean-Claude Juncker, the Luxembourg Prime  Minister, stated that the EU was in "deep crisis" and that the only way forward was to reduce the UK's rebate.   

Ireland, lining up with France to avoid reform of CAP, has supported the Luxembourg proposal and set out a timeline for reform: renegotiate the CAP from 2010 for implementation from 2013 when the rebate would also be phased out. Ahern accused the British government of "intransigence" for not supporting the right of Irish farmers to be subsidised.

Even the Commission is publicly exasperated and has accused Britain of "creative accounting". Given the past record of the Blair administration, there would be some ballast to their complaint, if they didn't have a poor record to defend themselves.

For 20 years, Britain had accepted the principle that customs receipts were part of the EU's direct revenues and did not count as national payments to Brussels.

"Now, the British Treasury integrates that and inflates its payments in an extraordinary way," Grybauskaite said.

Similarly, Britain displayed "statistical creativity" by using the figures for budget commitments, not all of which are spent in any given year, rather than actual payments to make its net contribution appear bigger than it really was.

A British spokesman acknowledged differences between the figures which the government reports to parliament and those published officially by the executive European Commission, but he said that was nothing new.

"The UK has not suddenly come up with a new method of calculation. We have been using the same accounting method to report to parliament ever since we have been a member," he said.

"I am surprised by these remarks because we can simply work with the two sets of figures if we work in good faith together."

The lower the chances of agreement, the greater the probability that the EU will return to annual budgets with all the gridlock that entails.

Trusting Soul

Is it possible to trust that Pakistan will provide the information Britain requires to prevent further terrorist attacks? Tony Blair met Shaukat Aziz at the Commonwealth Conference in Malta to discuss counter-terrorism. The Prime Minister noted that ties are far closer after the July bombings and that both countries had tightened co-operation.

Given the alleged ties between Pakistan and Islamic fundamentalists, will we see this co-operation treated with scepticism, when necessary?

National Health Scam

Michael Cross in the Guardian writes about the failures of the drive to computerise health records in the NHS. Comparisons with the United States show that the same issues concerning records transfer and privacy arise as the medical profession attempt to grapple with a computerised system. Cross states that the government has attempted to 're-scope' the focus of the project, in order to promote their marketisation reforms. However, they have demonstrated that computer records are not supported unless the medical professionals have accepted the new systems.

Trying to do this with computers has added serious complications to what was already the world's most ambitious IT programme. First, it restricts progress to the rate at which the national architecture, the care records "spine", goes live. If it is late (and it is), everyone's credibility suffers. Second, making health records available across the country, whatever the safeguards, is a red rag to those who believe that the electronic accumulation of medical data is a threat.

Finally - and this is the "derail" point - it gives politicians ideas. In a classic case of function creep, central government in 2003 landed the IT programme with responsibility for enabling patients to choose where they could go for hospital appointments.

As a result, the IT bods found themselves landed with a host of out-of-scope activities, such as creating the first NHS electronic directory of services. "Like counting animals into the fucking ark," one senior executive said. Worse, the programme has become the fall-guy in a profound and impassioned argument about the NHS's future.

Having toyed with the idea that IT could provide a fillip to health productivity, and prolong the life of the NHS, this article undermines such speculation. My thought was based upon US Health maintenance organisations, which are structured on a comparable basis to the NHS. However, the ambitions and complexities of the NHS project will undermine the potential benefits that IT coudl have wrought.

Al-Qaeda in Ulster

A curious twist in the 'war on terror'. An unknown Algerian, called Abbas Boutrab (one of a number of aliases) has been convicted of downloading information from the internet that was likely to be used in an act of terrorism.  This information, recorded in computer disks, was seized during a raid by the immigration authorities, on his home in Belfast. Was he acting as part of a franchise group or was he a lone gunman? Was he even guilty, since downloading information is not proof of intent? Especially as he used a public facility, the Belfast Central Library, to commit his act. There was also some evidence of preparatory work, but if it had been based on downloading information alone, this would have set a dangerous precedent.

The twist is the court  that convicted Boutrab: a Diplock non-jury court established to try terrorists in Northern Ireland. Shouldn't they have been abolished with the peace process? Is that what Blair would like to establish over here?

Political Deficits

Another crisis looming for the government is the budgetary negotiations for the European Union, in order to set a budget for the years 2007-2013. Britain, as President, is blamed for the budgetary impasse, as the government is unwilling to cut the rebate without reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. The latter is unlikely as this reverses a deal that postponed a review of the CAP until 2013. France remains a key supporter of this deal and refuses to renegotiate.

The difficulties for the government stem from the un-European defence of 'national interest' - the rebate. If a budget package is not passed, the enlargement countries will not receive dollops of European aid and may actually have to curb their headlong rush towards dependency. Naturally, this is unpopular amongst the political classes.

The crunch will come at the December summit and, like the Doha trade round, it is unlikely a success will be fudged. If Blair does blink and sacrifice the rebate for token gestures of reconciliation like the good European he is,  there is the possibility that he may face another revolt:

Any chance of agreement at the December 15-16 summit hinges on Prime Minister Tony Blair's willingness to give up part of the rebate, worth 5.1 billion euros (3.5 billion pounds) last year, but some diplomats question whether he has enough domestic support.

British Europe Minister Douglas Alexander lectured other ministers on the "enduring British realities" about the rebate, noting that any change in EU funding arrangements would have to be acceptable to parliament, where there was a broad consensus that the Luxembourg proposal was unacceptable.

The aftermath of this dispute will be an infation adjusted budget and:

The nightmare scenario gaining ground in Brussels is that there could be no long-term budget at all, sending the EU back to the pre-1992 system of annual budgets agonisingly negotiated in last-minute battles with the European Parliament.

Without an agreement, the existing budget would be rolled over, adjusted for inflation. The British would keep their rebate, the French their farm subsidies

Oh what fun!

Blair's on Civil Liberties: "Trust Me"

Blair appeared before the Liaison Committee of the House of Commons and set out his proposals for countering the terrorist threat. However, he stated, clearly, that the terrorist bill and related Acts of Parliament had not reduced civil liberties:

Anti-terrorism legislation is not having a "fundamentally detrimental" effect on civil liberties in Britain, Tony Blair insisted today.

The prime minister said the impact new police powers and new terrorism offences would have on people's freedoms was sometimes "exaggerated", given the parliamentary and judicial checks that existed.

In the remainder of his session, Blair reiterated the strategy of his government: permanent powers to counter this problem; and deporting those accused of supporting terrorist acts to third countries, if these states recognise the precepts of the  Human Rights Act.

These strategies  prevent the public or Parliament  from  undertaking a proper assessment of the  actions necessary to prevent another Al-Qaeda atrocity. 'Trust me' is not an answer.

Limping

The government has finally conceded defeat: the ninety day detention period will not form part of the Terrorism Bill. The twenty eight  day detention period will remain  in place, a move welcomed by the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats.  Tony Blair criticised the defeat as a threat to national security and Lady Scotland, piloting the bill through the second chamber, stated that this contravened the "clear professional advice" of the police.

The terrorist threat has changed with the advent of Al-Qaeda. Suicide bombers, with the nihilistic aim of killing as many civilians as possible, require a strategic change of direction from investigation and prosecution towards prevention. The proposed extension of the detention period must be understood in this context.

Yet, the government did not encourage a debate on counter-terrorism or explain why this detention period was necessary. Instead, they invoked the professional reputation of the police as a reason for this proposal and, when this proved insufficient for quelling a rebellion, turned the challenge into a political attack on the government. By politicising their counter-terrorist strategy and antagonising the opposition parties, the government wants to tar his opponents as 'appeasers' and clothe himself in the robe of national security, obscuring the tatty raiment of Iraq. However, the defeat has shown that the government placed politics above security, and that we have not yet had a necessary and public debate on the requirements of counter-terrorism or the balance that needs to be struck between liberty and security.