Friday, June 02, 2006

Robert De Niro's waiting

Hanno sperato tratteggiato al pavimento come i sogni teenage frantumati. Il portello seguente vivente dei ragazzi non è mai che cosa sembrano. Una camminata nel parco può transformarsi in in un sogno difettoso La gente è staring e seguente lo. Ciò è la mia soltanto fuga da esso tutta: Guardare una pellicola o una faccia sulla parete. Attesa del Robert de Niro italiano di comunicazione. I've been trying to learn Italian for the last few months - mostly when I've been out on long runs - and one of the first things I learned is that the present tense is often used instead of the future. So "I'm going out" could mean I'm going out now or it could mean I'm going out tomorrow, i.e. I will go out. Michel Thomas explains it better. Too many people in the business world are talking in the present tense about what they're planning to do. As I've said before, having a policy is not the same as delivering it just like having a plan is not the same as making it happen. Folks I work with and around seem to be doing the same. They'll say "we've saved a £1 million" but they mean that they plan to. They'll say "we've piloted and rolled out this programme" but they mean they're thinking about the rollout. They're talking Italian. You might have recognised the lyrics above as machine translated from a Bananarama song: Hope's dashed to the floor like shattered teenage dreams. Boys living next door are never what they seem. A walk in the park can become a bad dream People are staring and following me. This is my only escape from it all: Watching a film or a face on the wall. Robert de Niro's waiting talking italian. As Henry Ford said, "you can't build a reputation on what you plan to do".

New York Marathon November 2006

I've got a place in the NY Marathon so, all being well, I'll be out there for a week in early November. It's billed as the biggest marathon in the world with around 50,000 runners - about the same as the Great North Run (which is a 1/2 marathon). There's a really weird "simulation" of the course on the marathon web site. When I tried it, matching with people in my age group, I was still at mile 16 when the others were done already. I'm going to have to get faster. Lots of people were very generous and gave donations to Macmillan for the London race helping me raise over £7,300. This time I'm going to change the approach and try and get as many people as possible to donate just £10 to Macmillan, so I'll be canvassing far and wide to get pretty much everyone I've ever met and anyone who's met them to donate. I'll set up a page to do that soon - a sort of milliondollardonation page.

I want my phone to ...

... know who is calling me. I always reject calls where the number is with-held or where a number appears but I don't have it in my contacts list. It's the phone equivalent of a junk filter - you look at messages later because you didn't recognise the address it was coming from. So I'd like my phone whenever I call someone to send a little packet of information containing my name and my affiliation (could be company name or job title or even a zippy one line quote). The phone receiving the call would check the contacts list they had and if the number wasn't there, would display the information I'd sent. Whoever I'm calling then has a little extra data to use to decide whether to take the call. There'd be a one touch button to add this information to my contacts database for the next time the person called - if I wanted to. Or maybe even a one touch button to say "don't accept calls from this person and divert them to a voice mail box that doesn't take messages". I can't imagine that this would be hard to build into phones. Plainly there'd have to be a standard but we managed GSM, we can send texts and even pictures between phones on different networks (I know we couldn't at the beginning).

Taxing weight, not emissions

In the last bhttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifudget, the Chancellor announced a change in car tax for all those folks who are lucky enough to drive big SUVs - or cars that are less than fuel efficient. This was the announcement, ripped from direct.gov Fuel duties will rise by 1.25p a litre from September 1, 2006. A new range of graduated Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) rates become effective from midnight on 22 March 2006, ranging from zero up to £215 depending on carbon dioxide emmissions. The effect will be that the duty paid on 50 per cent of cars will be frozen or reduced from midnight. Friends of the Earth, of course, believe that the rate should be higher still (and say so loudly, in between wanting to kill Jeremy Clarkson, that "bigoted petrol-head") I wondered, idly, if the next campaign topic is to tax obese people - or, specifically, those who put a greater burden on the nation's infrastructure through being less "fuel efficient" or through consuming greater amounts of services than others. It's generally accepted that increasing obesity will result in a far greater bill for taking care of people as they age and with greater numbers of children obese now, the shift in costs could be dramatic. But we also know that not all obese kids grow to obese adult, that is, it's a reversible condition (perhaps unlike climate change). The earlier we start, the sooner the change occurs and the better the opportunity to reduce the future burden. We tax cigarettes heavily (and increasingly), recovering most of the burden that they place on the nation's care infrastructure (it's even possible that the government gets more in tax than is spent in dealing with the consequences of smoking). Overall rates of smoking are decreasing. In the last 30 years the overall rate of smoking has dropped from 45% to 26%. It's unclear (to me) whether that's driven by increasing awareness of the health risks or the increasing tax - although the page I link to says that 9 in 10 smokers who want to give up cite a health-related reason (and it's an ONS survey) - but it is likely to be a combination. So why wouldn't we tax clothes - size 10 is taxed at current rates and size 16 is taxed at double current rates? Maybe size 8 attracts a positive return - i.e. the price is lower (government pays you to be thin?). We could move to tiered tax rates in McDonald's too - a BigMac is taxed at 40%, a salad is untaxed. The increase in tax revenues would go on campaigns to encourage healthier eating and on bolstering care in the NHS. The fitter you are, the smaller you are, the more you exercise, the less tax you pay. If the tax rates were optimised, you could be encouraged to get fitter and pay less than you pay now - a new lower tax rate for fit people. After all, life insurance companies charge you less if you don't smoke and some, I've heard, reduce rates further if you're a regular gym visitor. I can see the crys of alarm now. Obesity, like smoking, is prevalent in the lower end of the socio-economic scale. Taxing people more at this end would be unfair and politically impossible. But not long ago we thought it was impossible to raise the age of retirement or to close pension schemes leaving people with no money. Not long ago we thought that we could get away without reducing energy consumption and without trying to be carbon neutral as corporates. Could be a real zinger for David Cameron to talk about when he next wants to cover General Well Being.