I run an Apple iBook and an iMac,. Recently I have been linking sites in Gmail but they arrive as links to Microsoft's Corporate site????
Any ideas as to what is going on?
I was reminded last week of the best article that I have read so far on development and PEI.
"Escaping the Celtic Mafia: Rethinking the Causes of the Atlantic Canadian Diaspora" by S G Irving. Snip -
"What Atlantic Canada needs is not to nostalgize but instead to embrace the present and provide cultural as well as economic incentives for continued growth and investment in the region. There are three fundamental ways this can be achieved. First and foremost, I would argue that the political elites and Atlantic Canadians as a whole need to embrace cosmopolitanism in a way that they have not yet done. Some would argue that human civilization will invariably return to a city-state orientation, a reality that Canada has embraced more readily and eagerly than any other country in the world. As it stands, only Halifax has so much as a claim to being a nationally recognized centre of power and influence. Cities like Charlottetown, Moncton, Fredericton, Saint John, Sydney and St, John’s are, at best, provincial. More needs to be done to build the status of these communities, not just nationally but internationally as well.
In “The Rise of the Creative Class: How it’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life,” Richard Florida argues that business is now drawn to communities with the human capital and labour pools available to enable that business to grow. If you accept this position, then only Halifax has any future potential for sustained growth. The logic that businesses will be attracted to rural locales with cheap labour costs is flawed. If a business seeks cheap labour then it will outsource its production to India, not Summerside. Florida argues that businesses in the information era are drawn to communities with population bases containing high levels of people in the “Creative Class” capable of working in the creative economy. This includes embracing vibrant artistic, multicultural and gay and lesbian communities.
Secondly, I would argue that more needs to be done to attract immigration. Citing the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (2002), Culpeper, Emelifeonwu and de Masellis state that “immigration is a tool for Canadian economic development… The emphasis is put on attracting professional, highly skilled, specialized and flexible workers who would fill an internal supply gap.” While one should be careful of federal government rhetoric, based on my experience I would agree with this policy direction and the view that immigration can reinvigorate communities with new blood, energy and ideas. Not only does immigration contribute to a communities overall wealth in these ways, it also encourages cosmopolitanism through an acceptance of diversity and internationalism necessary in today’s interconnected world.
Finally, subsidies to dying industries such as fishing and farming ought to be abandoned. These monies should be reinvested into the development of new industries that are sustainable and lucrative. For example, Prince Edward Island currently has the most aggressive commitment to wind energy of any province in Canada and intends to have 15% of the province’s electricity produced by provincially-owned wind turbines by 2010. Still, more needs to be done, not only in expanding these capacities, but in the larger sphere of research and development.
Here is a short history of Stansted - could this be us?
Stansted is the UK's third largest airport for international scheduled passengers and one of the fastest growing major airports in the world. Stansted Airport Started its life as a war-time base for the United States Army Air Force in 1942. Their legacy was one of the UK's longest runways which opened the way to civil development. (Summerside!!!???)
The fledgling airport expanded modestly until its future was re-shaped by a government decision. It was earmarked as London's third airport. The Government subsequently had to retreat and find other alternatives when it met with so many protests and opposition. Stansted seemed to be heading for obscurity.
Number of terminals: 1
Number of passengers : 16 million
Number of airlines : 26
Number of destinations :105
Number of runways : 1
However in the 1970's when a world oil crisis and hard economic times deemed the alternative site too expensive. The British Airports Authority, anticipating better times ahead, revived the idea of major growth at Stansted and in 1979 it was, once again, designated London's third airport.
It was to take a further six years and a long public enquiry before the go-ahead finally came in 1985, with it was the initial approval for Stansted to handle up to 8 million passengers a year.
In 1991 a new and widely acclaimed terminal was opened but because of the increasing demands made on the fastest growing London airport that came under pressure. A £60 million extension to the terminal building was carried out and opened in April 2002. Stansted Airport is set to grow to serve 25 million passengers per annum by 2010.
Stansted Airport is situated 38 miles north of London, a long taxi ride.
Stansted Airport is London's fastest growing airport, most of the explosive growth coming from low cost budget airlines.
Stansted flights are almost exclusively European and domestic UK, dominated by the low cost budget airlines easyJet and Ryanair.
It is the low cost budget airlines which dominate flights out of Stansted.
The big idea - use PEI as the discount trans-Atlantic hub.
Why? Because the current gateways are in the thrall of the the majors who make their money on the route. This is how Iceland Air got pushed out of Halifax.
Why? Because the current gateways are no longer safe!!!!
This from the New York Times today:
Scary Runways, Scary Skies
For those of us who travel, reports of near collisions on the runway send a jolt up the spine. Such incidents are admittedly rare. But there is no such thing as rare enough when you're strapped into your seat and waiting for takeoff.
A Times article on Thursday by Matthew L. Wald reported that two weeks ago, a fully fueled wide-body Israir jet carrying an undetermined number of passengers wandered onto the wrong runway at Kennedy International Airport, smack into the path of a cargo plane accelerating for takeoff. Spotting the looming disaster, the pilot of the cargo plane got airborne early, skimming over the top of the passenger jet by less than 100 feet - the barest whisker by aviation standards.
This was an avoidable crisis, and it should never have happened at all. Yet on June 9, the co-pilot of a US Airways Boeing 737 had to delay takeoff and keep the plane's nose down to avoid crashing into an Aer Lingus Airbus A330 taking off on an intersecting runway at Logan Airport in Boston.
On Aug. 19 last year, a Boeing 747 flown by Asiana was cleared to land on a runway at Los Angeles International Airport at the same time that a Southwest Boeing 737 was cleared to take off. Disaster was averted when the Asiana pilot spotted the Southwest plane as it swung into position for takeoff and turned the Asiana plane away at literally the last minute - with two seconds to spare.
The Federal Aviation Administration has improved pilot training and equipment at some airports, but the National Transportation Safety Board still characterizes the F.A.A.'s actions on this issue as "unacceptable." Life is dangerous enough these days without adding avoidable accidents to the mix. It's past time to push everyone - including air traffic controllers, pilots and technicians - toward making these near-collisions a thing of the past.
I have waited a few days to speak out since the public announcement of Air Canada's decision to drop its direct flight to Toronto in the fall and to keep its flights to Halifax to two a day. But now I have my thoughts collected.
Dear Premier (Pat)
First of all - good for you. I can see that you can see how important that air travel is for PEI. Your intentions were good - maybe you did not understand what a mean and tough organization Air Canada is. Their reaction and their negotiating position is typical of how they "compete".
So long as Mr Milton is there, you will be dealing with this type of bullying and we have no power being so small a market for him. The leopard will not change his spots. So what next?
Convenient (defined as frequent, inexpensive and to key destinations) air travel is maybe more important than the bridge.
Why? Our economic future will depend less on moving potatoes around than ideas and the container for ideas - the people who have them. We will make our money in the future by scientists, tech developers etc finding home and work here but also by their being connected to the wider world. They need a number of things - internet, a nice place to live, low crime, good schools ( work to do here) but the most important is access by air.
Air access is more than a help for tourism it is a key channel to the knowledge economy
In Europe cheap air travel was accelerated by small airports seeing the opportunity to generate traffic at the expense of the major centres that had all the embedded costs, Small airports set out to make themselves attractive in their pricing and built the backbone of the travel revolution in Europe.
In designing themselves as travel magnets, they also are changing how people live and this is a major factor in PEI's potential immigration.
People who are not tied to a place for work, began by having a vacation say near Barcelona (100 pounds return cheaper than a return first class rail fare from London to Oxford). They saw that they could buy a farm for the price of a one bedroom flat in london. They bought it as their vacation home. But as a year went by they realized that with the internet and the cheap air fare, they could make Spain their primary residence and go to London only occasionally. They want a better life style and we can offer this.
This class of people exist in Toronto and they will make this kind of decision if we can offer the same deal. More and more creative people are choosing places like PEI as an alternative to the hot, crime filled and messy cities. UPEI for instance is having no problems in recruiting great people who want to make this lifestyle choice.
Airports are not businesses and airlines are not social institutions.
We have been confused about these relationships. We have decided to make our airport into a business and we expect airlines to be social institutions. We have to flip this idea. Airports serve the entire community not just the traveller. They are a "social good" just like a school or a road. We need to see our airport as an engine of the new economy that is essential for tourism and for the new economy. We have to invest socially in the airport and see it as an engine of development and growth. Conversely, we have to accept that there is hardly a business more competitive than air travel today. Mr Milton represents the type of executive that is becoming more common. But he has an under belly. There are airlines who want to take on the major player.
Rob's recommendations -
Imagine what fun such a strategy would be? Imagine the politics - David vs Goliath. Pat the people will get behind you on this. Please give it a whirl - what have we to lose? What is the opportunity?
My fear of what is on the table is that the new system will make the power of the party even greater. Here is what I said: -
I share Gordon's concern that we must have a PR system that reduces the power of party and increases the power of the individual MLA to serve her district. As I see it - the problem is "Party". Parties represent not the voter but the party. The interests of the party can often be opposed to what the community really needs.
The deep problem with politics, as I see it, on PEI is the link between Jobs and Party on the Island. An ever larger group of people hang their hats on a seasonal job and hence have become dependent on the party of their choice. This in turn creates two pressures - when push comes to shove you support the party who employs you and the party has to support the jobs for our gang no matter what this means in terms of doing the right thing.
The bottom line is that it is all but impossible for Islanders to get good government.
Nothing matters other than keeping this co-dependent relationship going. Until recently, this alliance was confined to seasonal workers who could rely on being layed off with a change of government and who reminded their MLA that he too owed them his job. Seasonal workers became the policy dictators in our society as a result.
Now we are seeing evidence of all jobs in government are being linked to party support. Competence is less important than loyalty. I say this not to blame anyone - it is an inevitable consequence of the government's dominance as an employer. It is not aTory issue either in that I believe this to be a systemic issue - may MLA's I have talked too wish that this was not so but cannot escape it. Under the current system if a party has the votes of all those that work for it and their friends and family, it will remain in power.
Power is what parties work for not the future of PEI. The consequence is that it matters not what governments do so long as they keep their bargain with the government workers - the result is that we will never have ploicy that really gets at the needs of the Island as a whole.
As we develop the new PR system, we need to think and act on the issue of the power of the party. Parties represent only their own interests which are confined to gaining and retaining office. Independent MLA's represent the Interests of their district. They will have to be wooed with policy that meest the broader needs of voters.
If we have 10 seats that are not linked to party, the system of linking jobs to votes naturally breaks down and we have a chance of getting much better government.
Bloat is what has added cost to may things in the world today.
One of my best memories was driving up to Annabels and have the parking guy park it. You could carry sheep or your girl friend in it. 70 miles an hour with the wind behind you. It had a starting handle and windows that folded and a gear shift that pulled in and out of the dash. About 60 miles to the gallon and you could take all the seats out. It went on forever and I wish I still had mine.
Now Renault have made the new People's car the Logan. Renault's latest car comes without power steering, antilock brakes or electric windows. There's no air conditioning either, and if you want music while you drive you'll probably have to sing it yourself.
But with prices starting at $6,100, the French car maker hopes its new "Logan," unveiled Wednesday, will take pole position in emerging markets where the car sector is growing fastest.
Southwest Airlines - the Logan. A trend I think for value and the end of bloat.
Thanks to Jason Kottke
Here is an article from the Times of India.
Outsource your job to get a new one! This is the new mantra doing the rounds in the US IT sector.
Programmers are outsourcing their software modules to cheap and efficient labour in India. This way they get the best of both worlds- more money and more time. They earn doubly - one from the outsourced job, other from the new job they undertake.
According to this concept the techie is able to give himself a promotion outsourcing the specific modules to one or more Indian techies . While he takes the charge as a overall project manager.
You can utilise the time in updating yourself to new technologies as well as learning a different domain thereby enhancing your market value considerably .
Says a programmer on Slashdot.org who outsourced his job: "About a year ago I hired a developer in India to do my job. I pay him $12,000 out of the $67,000 I get. He's happy to have the work. I'm happy that I have to work only 90 minutes a day just supervising the code. My employer thinks I'm telecommuting. Now I'm considering getting a second job and doing the same thing."
I've let my Marxism studies lapse ever since the breakup of the USSR killed all the good job opportunities for career communists, but somewhere someone talks about the dangerous period when the old guard becomes even more old-guard-ish as the forces of reform become well nigh undeniable. And that's where we are in various fronts of the digital revolution.
You can see the same basic movement in three areas: corporate Net use, the media and education.
It's easiest to see in education, especially if you have kids in school. The connectedness of the Net has clearly changed the way our kids learn. The default for many of them is to do their homework with whoever else is on their buddy list. Collaborating on assignments just seems natural. What doesn't feel natural to them is memorizing stuff. Committing to memory the state capitals or the order of the presidents makes as much sense to them as memorizing your address book does to you.
This isn't simply a change in the list of Things to Memorize. It actually is part of a larger change away from the "container" view of knowledge that says that just as we judge a book by the richness of its content, so too we should judge people as knowers by how much knowledge they contain. In the age of connectedness, though, Web pages are judged by how many other good pages they point to, and children who can retain lots of content ought to be lauded for their memories but ought not be confused with ideal learners.
Yet, how does our educational system react? Our governments--national and state--impose more and stricter standardized exams that test our children's retention of standardized content. Weeks of class time are given over to this testing, and, worse, the entire educational system is bent to a very old idea of what constitutes intelligence. We are teaching our children an idea of learning and knowledge that not only grinds their curiosity into the floorboards as if it were a cockroach, but that also ill prepares them for the work world they'll be entering.
In short: As connectedness transforms knowledge, our education system is swinging--running--in the other direction.
In Neal Stephenson's world of Snow Crash, the US has had to give up all all value in the economy - all the drive and value has been taken up in what was the developing world.
Imagine millions of well educated Indians and Chinese will graduate every year. They come from cultures where working hard, and being well educated are important. If we think that bumbling along will save us - we are stupid.
Thomas Friedman warns us of this in his new book The World is Flat
John Robb links to this -
The Knowledge Worker Gap
Fortune has an interesting article on the competition between the US and China. This, in particular, caught my attention:
China will produce about 3.3 million college graduates this year, India 3.1 million (all of them English-speaking), the U.S. just 1.3 million.
Which leads them to conclude that a large percentage of the 76% of US service jobs can be outsourced. This is followed by a citation of a new McKinsey study:
A massive new study from the McKinsey Global Institute predicts that some industries could be changed beyond recognition. In packaged software worldwide, 49% of jobs could in theory be outsourced to low-wage countries; in infotech services, 44%. In other industries the potential job shifts are smaller but still so large they’d create major dislocations: Some 25% of worldwide banking jobs could be sent offshore, 19% of insurance jobs, 13% of pharmaceutical jobs. Looking at occupations rather than industries, some fields will never be the same. McKinsey figures that 52% of engineering jobs are amenable to offshoring, as are 31% of accounting jobs. Adding up all the numbers, McKinsey calculates that some 9.6 million U.S. service jobs could theoretically be sent offshore today.
They imply that even if a small number of this potential moves offshore, its effects will ripple through the economy in the form of lower wages/salaries. Some even expect that US salaries will remain at zero growth for some time to come.