FROM THE DRIVER'S SEAT

Seen on the road

"If we both keep right one of us is bound to get through"

A self-explanatory road sign

He's training to be a truck driver

Don't look down - or up

Snow doubt about it - he should get a parking infringement

INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT BUT NO FLIGHTS

Hamilton, New Zealand to lose
international air services

By Nikki Preston

5:30 AM Wednesday Aug 15, 2012

Hamilton, New Zealand could be without an international air service
when Virgin Australia pulls out in October

An urgent search is being made for a new international carrier to fly from Hamilton Airport to stop it losing its international status after a fourth airline pulled out.

Virgin Australia, which formerly operated in New Zealand as Pacific Blue, is cancelling its Hamilton to Brisbane service from October 27.

Virgin Australia New Zealand executive general manager Mark Pitt said demand for the service had decreased, and it was losing money.

Analysis by the airline showed improved road access to Auckland and the downturn in the local economy contributed to the poor performance of the route, he said.

But Hamilton City Council politicians - whose council has a 50 per cent stake in the airport - are calling on the airport to look for a new airline.

Councilor Ewan Wilson, founder of the airport's first international carrier, Kiwi Air, said the airport could lose its international status for good if a new carrier was not found before Virgin Australia left.

Kiwi Air, founded by Ewan Wilson in 1994,
operated this Boeing 737 on trans-Tasman services

The airport was embroiled in a legal battle in 2009 to get Customs and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry's services reinstated when Air New Zealand scrapped its international service. Virgin Australia did not start flying the route until five months later.

A Customs Service representative said the service learned of the airline's decision only yesterday afternoon and wanted to understand the implications for the service and staff before commenting.

Hamilton deputy mayor and former airport board member Gordon Chesterman said having no international carrier would affect revenue from car parking as well as the duty-free business.

"With Virgin pulling out this will send a signal to other carriers that Hamilton is a highly risky business.

"Yet the truth is that 20 per cent of all people flying out of the Waikato and Bay of Plenty have flown to Australia from Hamilton and that 80 per cent continue to fly from Auckland."

House of Travel commercial director Brent Thomas said the biggest barrier for Hamilton Airport was frequency of flights and cost . . . .

Full story in New Zealand Herald

Peter’s Comment

Hamilton is New Zealand’s fourth largest city and the center for the country’s highest density farming and tourism region. There is no logical reason why the city and surrounds cannot support international air services.

Public awareness may be a major factor. Indeed I have flown Auckland to Brisbane unaware that there was a direct flight from Hamilton. My next trip to Brisbane was from Hamilton (about the same distance from where I live) and I found it more convenient for parking as well as proceeding through departure and arrival formalities. The airfare was comparable to flying from Auckland.

I’m puzzled as to why Virgin chose only to operate to Brisbane when Australia’s two largest cities are closer. Virgin may have put themselves out on a limb by not operating services from Hamilton to Sydney and Melbourne also. Three regular services and marketing to suit would have struck a chord with travelers that would have been hard to resist.

Hamilton will need to beat out a path to the door of Air New Zealand, Qantas, Tiger and Jetstar, or an entirely new player to fill the gap left by Virgin. 

BILL GATES

Inventing a Toilet for
the 21st Century

August 14, 2012 | By Bill Gates   Posted on the gates notes

Bill Gates. The geek who changed the world
and wants to change it again

I announced the winners today of the foundation’s Reinvent the Toilet Challenge—a competition designed to encourage breakthroughs in clean, affordable sanitation.

Today I attended what has to be one of the oddest summer fairs ever. A year ago, the foundation launched an initiative to tackle the problem of sanitation in the developing world. We called it there invent the Toilet Challenge. This week in Seattle, the foundation is holding a Reinvent the Toilet Fair, where we have brought together about 200 grantees, partners, and others who are passionate about creating safe, effective, and inexpensive sanitation services for people without access to flush toilets.

The fair brought together people from a wide range of disciplines—inventors, designers, investors, advocates, academics, and government officials—all thinking about innovative ways to solve this long-standing problem. While at the fair, I awarded prizes to three universities we challenged a year ago to come up with solutions for capturing and processing human waste and transforming it into useful resources. The winners included: first place to California Institute of Technology in the United States for designing a solar-powered toilet that generates hydrogen and electricity, second place to Loughborough University in the United Kingdom for a toilet that produces biological charcoal, minerals, and clean water, and third place to University of Toronto in Canada for a toilet that sanitizes feces and urine and recovers resources and clean water. A special recognition was awarded to Eawag (Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology) and EOOS for their outstanding design of a toilet user-interface.

Toilets are extremely important for public health, and – when you think of it – even human dignity. For most of us living in the developed world, we often don’t give them much thought.

In 2009, during a trip to South Africa I met with a health expert working to improve access to sanitation for the poor people of Durban. Most of the poor people in Durban (and elsewhere) are denied the convenience and health benefits of flush toilets because they don’t have access to water.

The flush toilets we use in the wealthy world are irrelevant, impractical and impossible for 40 percent of the global population, because they often don’t have access to water, and sewers, electricity, and sewage treatment systems. Worldwide, there are 2.5 billion people without access to safe sanitation—including 1 billion people who still defecate out in the open and more than 1 billion others who must use pit latrines.

Beyond a question of human dignity, this lack of access also endangers people’s lives, creates an economic and a health burden for poor communities, and hurts the environment.

Food and water tainted with fecal matter causes diarrheal diseases that kill 1.5 million children every year - more than the annual deaths from AIDS and malaria combined . . . .

Full story on the gates notes: http://www.thegatesnotes.com

Peter’s Comment

What a marvel Bill Gates has been for the world.

He has certainly had his critics over the years, but I really wonder about that. It has even been said that he has only turned to charity to ease his conscience about the way he has conducted his business affairs.

I prefer to think that here was a young man who had a vision and a plan to do some good in parts of the world that were almost beyond help, and that Microsoft was simply a means to that end.

Whatever the plan, there is certainly good work waiting to be done in many parts of the world.

In 1994 while traveling overland from the Pacific to the Indian Ocean via China and Pakistan I saw public toilets in remote areas that one located by searching the horizon for the largest swarm of blowflies. In Pakistan we ate in a restaurant high in the Karakoram Range where a stream flowed through the restaurant carrying everything imaginable from higher up in the village.

You’re on to it, Bill.

REVIEWS AND COMMENTS

Should You Trust Online Reviews?

Yes and no.  http://www.slate.com

By Ray Fisman|Posted Tuesday, Aug. 14, 2012,

Are they genuine hotel guests, staff, or actors?  Photo by Creatas/Thinkstock.

The Internet has fundamentally changed the way that buyers and sellers meet and interact in the marketplace. Online retailers make it cheap and easy to browse, comparison shop, and make purchases with the click of a mouse. The Web can also, in theory, make for better-informed purchases—both online and off—thanks to sites that offer crowd sourced reviews of everything from dog walkers to dentists.

In a Web-enabled world, it should be harder for careless or unscrupulous businesses to exploit consumers. Yet recent studies suggest that online reviewing is hardly a perfect consumer defense system. Researchers at Yale, Dartmouth, and USC have found evidence that hotel owners post fake reviews to boost their ratings on the site—and might even be posting negative reviews of nearby competitors.

The preponderance of online reviews speaks to their basic weakness: Because it’s essentially free to post a review, it’s all too easy to dash off thoughtless praise or criticism, or, worse, to construct deliberately misleading reviews without facing any consequences. It’s what economists (and others) refer to as the cheap-talk problem. The obvious solution is to make it more costly to post a review, but that eliminates one of the main virtues of crowdsourcing: There is much more wisdom in a crowd of millions than in select opinions of a few dozen.

Of course, that wisdom depends on reviewers giving honest feedback. A few well-publicized incidents suggest that’s not always the case. For example, when Amazon’s Canadian site accidentally revealed the identitiesof anonymous book reviewers in 2004, it became apparent that many reviews came from publishers and from the authors themselves.

Technological idealists, perhaps not surprisingly, see a solution to this problem in cutting-edge computer science. One widely reported study last year showed that a text-analysis algorithm proved remarkably adept at detecting made-up reviews. The researchers instructed freelance writers to put themselves in the role of a hotel marketer who has been tasked by his boss with writing a fake customer review that is flattering to the hotel. They also compiled a set of comparison TripAdvisor reviews that the study’s authors felt were likely to be genuine. Human judges could not distinguish between the real ones and the fakes. But the algorithm correctly identified the reviews as real or phony with 90 percent accuracy by picking up on subtle differences, like whether the review described specific aspects of the hotel room layout (the real ones do) or mentioned matters that were unrelated to the hotel itself, like whether the reviewer was there on vacation or business (a marker of fakes). Great, but in the cat-and-mouse game of fraud vs. fraud detection, phony reviewers can now design feedback that won’t set off any alarm bells.

Just how prevalent are fake reviews? A trio of business school professors, Yale’s Judith Chevalier, Yaniv Dover of Dartmouth, and USC’s Dina Mayzlin, have taken a clever approach to inferring an answer by comparing the reviews on two travel sites, TripAdvisor and Expedia . . . .

Full article on Slate.com: http://www.slate.com

Peter’s Comment

Fake reviews of products and services may be much more common than many people think.

Think about it this way: You shop at the same supermarket regularly and sometimes you tell the staff or your friends that you like the service or the prices. But how often would you go to the supermarket website and post a favorable comment? Probably never.

However, on some websites reviews, always favorable, take up most of the space and are the main focus – apart from getting your money. I regard those sites with suspicion. Most notable are the website that promise $10,000 a month working from home, part time, with no experience needed.  One such site has ‘feedback’ from a lady with the same name, previously unemployed and commenting from Auckland, Melbourne and a dozen of cities around the world. She is a fake and so is the company behind the website.

Book reviews by professional book reviewers I regard as genuine, but also purely a matter of opinion. A good book to one person may be trash to another reader. It depends on personal taste. It should also be remembered that professional book reviewers only review books from traditional publishers as a general rule. But we live in a world where self-publishing, also known as indie-publishing, is fast becoming the norm and many books now go to market without reviews.

My first book, published in 1966 by a traditional publisher, received a favorable review in several newspapers and at least one magazine. By contrast my next six books, all indie-published, have not been reviewed by any major newspaper and published comments from readers have been rare.

But that does not mean that these books have not been selling or that readers didn’t enjoy them.  The comments come person to person, always favorable and usually with a request for the next book, or all the remaining books. A large number of my current readers have a complete set, not including the first book which sold out forty years ago.

Readers of this blog appear to fall into a different category with a small number of readers leaving nice comments which I greatly appreciate. It makes it all worthwhile. I always publish comments exactly as they are written. I don’t edit them. The only comments not published are those that blatantly seek free advertising for a commercial business and those that are written so poorly that even Albert Einstein would have declared their meaning beyond discovery. Fortunately there are very few of those.

My books are available in print or electronic versions. The e-book versions are available at prices that are only a fraction of the print price. Each has a free sample that can be downloaded to an e-reader device or PC and one book, Nathaniel’s Bloodline, can be downloaded in its entirety completely free.

Print books: http://www.gypsybooks.co.nz
Books for e-readers: https://www.smashwords.com/books/search

A PERMANENT OLYMPIC CITY

Boris Johnson: The London Mayor is the Biggest Winner of the Olympics

By CATHERINE MAYER | @catherine_mayer | August 13, 2012 | +TIME

inShare

BEN STANSALL / AFP / GETTY IMAGES

From left: London Mayor Boris Johnson holds the Olympic flag next to IOC president Jacques Rogge and Mayor of Rio de Janeiro Eduardo Paes during the handover at the closing ceremony of the London 2012 Olympic Games in the Olympic Stadium in east London, Aug. 12, 2012.

When a rocket launcher trundled into the Olympic Stadium during the closing ceremony for the Games, my neighbor in the stands thought he had guessed the identity of the human cannonball who would shortly be propelled from its barrel. “It’s Boris,” he said. Wrong. The white-clad figure did indeed prove to be a blonde comedian, but it was Eric Idle, a founding member of Monty Python’s Flying Circus. Just days before, Boris—or to list the sackful of names London‘s mayor has shouldered since birth, Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson—had been left dangling after a failed attempt to ride a zip wire at an Olympic event. On this occasion, the greatest upstager in modern politics chose a more conventional route to the podium for his final Olympic duty, the handover of the flag to Rio, the 2016 host city. His appearance drew cheers of a volume equaled only by those that greeted the Spice Girls, all five of them, Baby, Ginger, Scary, Sporty and Posh . . . .

Read more: http://olympics.time.com/2012/08/13/boris-johnson-the-london-mayor-is-the-biggest-winner-of-the-olympics/#ixzz23V8YX6uR

Peter’s Comment

Well done, Boris something-or-other Johnson, you did well. You did particularly well considering the ghastly setback that Londoners suffered right after the announcement that the 2012 Games would be held in your city. We won’t dwell on the left dangling episode at the opening.

But Boris, don’t you think that it’s time for a permanent Olympic City in international territory and preferably in a place suitable for both summer and winter Olympics?

London and Los Angeles put on well run events. Atlanta and Athens were less successful. All lost huge money on the event. Some businesses in Olympic cities do well from the Games, but we hear very little about other businesses that suffer losses because of the Games.

A permanent Olympic City (capital C) could close the gap between Games by hosting the event every two or three years and it could be available as an international center for training, conventions, entertainment and tourism at other times.

The Games could operate at a profit enabling poorer or remote nations to be given assistance with training and travel. 

What do readers think of this proposal?

RARE CAR FOR AUCTION

Nash Metropolitan: Motoring
history goes up for sale

5:35 AM Sunday Aug 12, 2012 New Zealand Herald

The Nash Metropolitan is one of the few right-hand drive
models made, and is ready to drive away

An American classic with a New Zealand connection and a famous motorbike are two of the highlights of an upcoming auction in Australia.

The Shannons Melbourne Spring auction on Monday, August 27 will feature a striking 1956 Nash Metropolitan coupe finished in burgundy over white.

The eccentrically-styled, 3.8m long sub-compact Metropolitan coupe had a shorter wheelbase than a VW Beetle and was the first American car to be marketed specifically to women as the second vehicle in a two-car family.

The car is powered by a four-cylinder Austin A40 engine and built at Austin's Longbridge factory in Britain.

Just over 100,000 were built between 1953 and 1962, and most were delivered to North American customers, making right hand drive examples very rare.

The factory right-hand drive 1.5-litre-engined Metropolitan being auctioned is believed to have been delivered new to New Zealand.

Cosmetically restored in the 1970s, it was placed in long-term storage from the late 1980s until this year, but was recently recommissioned with reconditioned brakes and new whitewall tyres.

Sold with its owner's manual, this quirky Nash can be driven as is, or restored to bring it back to top-line condition, as its Austin parts are cheap and reasonably easy to find.

The Metropolitan is being offered with no reserve and for its collectible and curiosity value alone is expected to sell in the A$8000-$12,000 range.

Also up for auction at the event is a rare Melbourne-built 1914 Mostyn motorcycle in original condition after a sheltered life.

Expected to sell in the A$24,000-$32,000 range, the bike was assembled in a frame made by A.G.Healing of Little Bourke St in Melbourne, then badged and sold by William "Mostyn" Tanner of 200 Canterbury Rd in the Melbourne suburb of Canterbury.

After being uncrated in 1953 - still unused - the Mostyn spent time in the front window of a motorcycle shop in the central-Melbourne Elizabeth St in the 1970s and in later years went on display in the Maffra Motor Museum.

It has been meticulously cared for all its life and remains in pristine, original condition and is fully operational.

Email: peterblakeborough@gmail.com

THE POLITICS OF GUN LAWS

Breaking Down Gun Violence: No 'Simple Formula'

by NPR STAFF  August 12, 2012

In 1990, 78 percent of Americans supported tougher restrictions on gun sales, according to aGallup poll. A decade later, that number fell to 44 percent.

Part of the reason has to do with how the debate has been framed: one between those who want to ban all guns and those who want to protect the right to own them.

The reality is far more complex. Private gun ownership is a fact of life in the U.S. The country tops the charts worldwide in terms of civilian gun ownership. A 2007 study from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime [PDF] reported there were 270 million private firearms in the U.S.

The question is how to keep them away from people who perpetrate crimes like the recent shootings in Aurora, Colo., and in Oak Creek, Wis. That's the tricky part — partially because getting a gun in the U.S. can be fairly easy.

Purchasing Guns

At the Blue Ridge Arsenal in Virginia, sales rep Mark Warner says the process can take only about 25 minutes. You pick any gun, fill out a form and wait for approval.

"If you're a law-abiding citizen and you don't have a criminal record and the computer likes you in Richmond, you're done in 15-25 minutes," he says.

And that's if you buy it in a shop.

Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, says 40 percent of legally sold guns are sold without a background check. That 40 percent includes the guns sold at gun shows or through classified ads, where legal loopholes don't require background checks.

"Every day in our nation, 32 Americans are killed by guns," Gross says.

He argues that a few simple changes — tighter background checks, a ban on certain types of weapons — could all make the difference.

The NRA's Lock On The Gun Control Debate

It's been done before. In the early 1990s, the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act, or the "Brady Bill," introduced background checks. Then-President Clinton signed it into law in 1993. From 1994 to 2004, the sale of assault weapons was banned.

How To Tackle Crime Rates

But is there a link between gun restrictions and fewer murders?

Paul Barrett, author of a book on the history of the famous Glock handgun, says the answer is no.

"Criminologists have studied it, and the consensus is that those laws simply did not have a statistically meaningful effect on crime rates," he tells Guy Raz, weekends on All Things Considered.

Barrett says making slight changes to existing laws won't bring down the homicide rate. The equation of "more guns equal more crime" just doesn't add up, he says.

"There's a relationship between the presence of guns and the lethality of crime, but there is not a cause-and-effect, simple formula that will solve crime problems by simply regulating, in slightly different ways, how easily you can acquire a gun," he says.

Gun-control advocates point to the shootings in Colorado and Milwaukee as justification for stricter laws. But Barrett argues that's not the nation's biggest gun issue.

Print books: http://www.gypsybooks.co.nz
Books for e-readers: https://www.smashwords.com/books/search

"We fixate, understandably, on the aberrational mass-shooting events, but they're actually not our main social problem," he says. "Our main social problem is the overall gun homicide rate."

The Political Calculus

Still, neither the overall homicide rate nor the recent atrocities have spurred real political action. Barrett says President Obama is probably just taking history into account and deciding that "it is not worth the political punishment to tinker with gun laws."

The first lesson would be the presidential election in 2000. Then-candidate Al Gore was targeted by the National Rifle Association in key sates because he had been vice president when Clinton signed the assault-weapons ban.

The result? Gore lost in states he should have won: his home state of Tennessee, Clinton's home state of Arkansas and West Virginia. Barrett says Gore's losses were due "in large part" because of the gun-rights activism.

Another example of political backlash is the 1994 turnover in the House. The Republican sweep in that election followed the enactment of the assault-weapons ban. Barrett says Clinton himself attributed the election at least in large part to the gun laws.

Barrett breaks down the political calculation for like this: "a huge downside risk, a marginal upside potential to please people who are going to vote for you anyway."

"There is just not a lot of popular demand for stricter gun control," he says. "The public opinion polls tell you that, and I think Barack Obama and his advisers can read those polls."

Peter’s Comment

The above is probably a fair assessment of why Barack Obama is unlikely to change the gun laws during this term. He could wait until near the end of his final term and do it then. But that would make for an interesting 2016 presidential campaign before the effect of any change could be accurately gauged.

Other countries get along nicely without easy access to guns and enjoy low murder rates.

Meanwhile, in America the political stalemate continues and the National Rifle Association has what many would call a murderous grip on the electorate.

It is an absolute misnomer that any man or woman could be safer by carrying a gun.

The greatest advance in American social history was the abolition of slavery. The next great step forward could be the abolition of guns for personal protection.

Email Peter Blakeborough's Blog: peterblakeborough@gmail.com