ESRTW

HEQCO entirely missing the point of universities

The Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO), an agency of the Government, released a report in October on the question of how Ontario universities can remain "sustainable" and still ensure high quality education.  It's crap.

First of all, no one has demonstrated unequivocally that Ontario universities are sustainable now, or that the quality of the education they offer is high.  Flawed assumptions make for nonsense arguments.

Secondly, the recommendation of the report - that "universities should set measureable goals based on their strengths, and the provincial government should base new funding on whether those goals are met" - is just plain wrong.

Consider: if the economy were firing on all cylinders, if the government had a good surplus, if we were flush wish cash - no one would be worried about the universities; they'd have all the funding they needed.  The only reason that this foolish report is getting any traction is that (a) we're in rough shape economically at the moment, and (b) the politicians in charge of this crap are only interested in stroking the voting public rather than doing what's right for education.

What this recommendation is trying to do is make universities more efficient.  But making a system more efficient necessarily makes it more brittle too.  We saw this in the American banking system: it was wildly efficient at generating money, but one mistake and KABOOM!  The whole thing fell apart. To make something efficient necessarily means tuning it to only certain circumstances.  The more that the circumstances change, the less likely it is that the system can adapt.  Push too hard and it'll break like glass - brittle.

Following this recommendation will make the Ontario universities more brittle.  That means that eventually, the whole system will collapse.  Therefore, the HEQCO recommendation blows, big time.

Here's another problem: the recommendation requires universities to be able to predict the future. To "set targets" means understanding what a future situation will be, well enough to decide how you want your organization to fit into that situation.  That's called predicting the future.  And we suck at that.  We can't even predict the weather more than a few days out.  How are we supposed to predict how each university will do years in the future?  The recommendation cannot be successfully implemented, therefore the recommendation sucks most spectacularly.

And here's yet another problem: the whole targets thing sets up a competitive environment between universities, which is both counter-productive and just plain wrong.  Implementing the report's recommendation will just continue to drive a wedge between the universities.  This will lead to less cooperation and collaboration.  And that runs counter to the very spirit of university.

So, the HEQCO's report is basically a big steaming pile of fetid horse shit.

If we want to revise how things are done, let's do it right.  It's easy.

The key is to recognize that the only entity to which a university should be compared is itself.

First step: determine for each university a "cost factor" that takes into account local costs (e.g. land costs more in downtown Toronto than up in Sudbury, through no fault of universities located in/near these cities - the cost factor would account for all these differences).  All information on this cost factor and how it is calculated for each university must be made freely and publicly available.

Second, let each university develop its own rubric by which it will assess its own performance and track its own progress.  The rubric and all data collected in implementing the rubric must be made freely and publicly available.

Third, examine how each university performed with respect to its own historical performance. Develop a relative weight for each university that takes into account how well it performed with respect to its own history, and in context of the performance increases (or decreases) at all the other universities.  There are a number of methods for doing this.  Any of them will do.  This will result in another factor - let's call it a performance factor.  All this information must also be made freely and publicly available.

Finally, divide up the total university education budget among the universities, using the cost factor and the performance factor to determine proportional increases or decreases to each university's budget.  And, yes, all the math to do this must be made freely and publicly available.

Problem solved.

Politicians might not like this method - cuz it's open, transparent, and fair.  I really couldn't care less what they think.  I'm not even sure they do think.

Canada must keep the long-gun registry

On 22 September, the Canadian parliament narrowly voted to keep the long-gun registry, a tool intended to help track gun ownership and, therefore, help stop gun-based crime.  Across the country, rational people breathed a sigh of relief.  Now we need to do more.

Guns are for killing - it's that simple. No matter what some people may think guns are for, their fundamental purpose is to extinguish life.  Every man-made thing serves some essential purpose, some basic function that defines what it is: a car is for driving, a pencil is for writing, a blender is for making food.  And a gun is for killing.

Guns aren't deterents; they're threats.  And I will never understand why anyone could condone them for any other purpose, because no other function of a gun overrides its purpose.  Anything that can be done to limit the use and availability of guns is just fine by me.

Of course, as a product of a political process, the registry isn't perfect.  There's two things wrong with it, neither of which are fixed by eliminating it.  First, it doesn't go far enough.  Second, its one-size-fits-all approach is total bullshit.

Some fools think that we already have sufficient protection in the licensing of gun owners.  That's crap.  Think of the analogy with cars: we license the drivers and register the cars.  Licensing gun owners is half the matter; but we also need to register the weapons, because the owner and the gun are two entirely different things. Cars at least serve some useful purpose.

The only legitimate solution is a ban on all guns, long or otherwise, with only a few exceptions.  This can be easily done by revoking all gun licenses except for those special cases that I describe below.

In urban centres, there must be a total ban on all guns, except for those used by law enforcement officers and the military.  Police, obviously, should be allowed to carry firearms. Being a cop basically means painting a big fat target on your chest. No matter what else one might say about the police, they've got some massive steel balls to put themselves in harm's way as they do.  They need to protect themselves.  Ditto for the military.  This exemption would only apply when they're on duty.

People who choose to live in relatively wild or rural areas of the country need guns for hunting and defense against wild animals.  It's an easy matter to spot these areas: check the records of cases where wildlife has endangered people and compare it to the rates of gun-crime and gun-related accidents. It's easy to tell where the risk of death or injury as a result of animal attack outweighs the danger of gun-crime and accidents.  Of course, those statistics would have to be updated fairly regularly, and the risks would have to be reassessed when the stats change.

But even in those regions, certain restrictions must apply.  You don't need an Uzi to kill a bear.  You don't need a concealed automatic pistol to kill a rabid fox. Thankfully, we already have pretty good descriptions in Canada of what does and doesn't constitute a reasonable firearm.  We just have to keep them in place.

"Sport hunting" has to go too.  I'm not talking about hunting for necessity or because of cultural history. I'm talking about the hulking brainless wonders who live in cities and think it's manly to shoot deer and other animals - even if they do eat the meat.  It's barbaric and uncivilized.  And I'm ashamed to be part of a society that thinks it's acceptable behaviour to kill for "sport."

The boundaries between the regions where guns are and aren't allowed are a bit of a problem, because they're not crisp boundaries.  There exist places where the risks are pretty much balanced.  In those places, one can develop a particular class of public servant, something like sheriff's deputies, members of which can carry guns for the sake of ensuring public safety.  The idea is to provide enough protection in a controlled manner without increasing the risk of crime and accident unnecessarily.

The boundaries also move over time, as the population redistributes itself and as technologies change.  So the boundaries need to be revisited regularly, perhaps every five years or so.

We also need tougher penalties for those who would break a more comprehensive ban on guns, because there will always be some dickless wonders who think they're entitled to do whatever they want.  Illegal guns must be confiscated and destroyed as soon as they are found.  One thing that could be done is develop a device that is powerful enough to break a firing pin.  When a gun is confiscated, its firing pin is broken on the spot.  This is probably enough punishment for most people who just own them: guns aren't cheap. Crimes committed with guns, however, require an extremely firm hand.  I would suggest that any crime's penalty be doubled automatically if a gun is involved.

There would have to be a lot of education before enacting the law.  We especially need to teach children that guns are entirely unacceptable.  There would also need to be a lot of media coverage of the law, before it's enactment, and some kind of grace period to ensure that everyone has time to get rid of any guns they might have, in regions where they are to be banned.

Anyone with a functioning brain and even a modest education can see that this is a straightforward process, and can be executed quickly and at relatively little cost, compared to the lives it will save and the general peace it will instill in the population. The cost of the current registry is just an artifact of vacuous politics and is no indication of the actual cost of doing the right thing.

So what's needed is a regional solution, where specific circumstances can be accommodated, that maintains a global principled stance: guns are bad, and a necessary evil, and must be strictly limited.

And the NRA, Charleton Heston, and any of the assholes who voted in Ottawa to get rid of the registry, can (posthumously in Heston's case) all go fuck themselves.

And now for something completely different

This blog is changing direction.  When Vox announced they were shutting down, its users were offered a free, albeit limited, blog on TypePad.  Cool.

So I've got a "new" blog.  What to do with it?  Not a hard question.  I've got other blogs of pensive and measured writing.  That's not what this one's for.  This one is for expressing myself directly.  Bluntly.  Even rudely. 

So let's be clear from the outset: I'm writing this for my own benefit.  If it's good for you too, so much the better, but that isn't my goal.

Here's the thing: I'm sick and tired of all of the crap I see around me, because it's screwing up my life.  And if it's screwing me up, then it's likely screwing with other people too. (That's why I'm not just keeping this in a private journal.)

How stupid must we be, that we keep treating each other so badly?  How lazy must we be, that we keep dropping the ball whenever something important needs to be done?  How selfish must we be, that we can so regularly act towards others in ways we ourselves wouldn't tolerate?

What is all this bullshit?!?

I'm no pessimist.  In fact, pessimists really piss me off.  If I were a pessimist, I wouldn't care.  But I do care, because I truly, madly, deeply believe we can do so much better than we have.

I'm nearly 49 years old now, and I've always tried to do the right thing.  I hold doors open for people who seem to need it.  I can't remember the last time I lied.  When I'm proved wrong about something, I admit my mistake and try to change my ways to do better next time.  I always give people I don't know the benefit of the doubt.  I actively fight the natural tendency to rely on stereotypes.  Sure, I screw up -- everyone does.  But I try to learn from my mistakes; and when I do, I feel good.  I can't begin to imagine how dull and depressing my life would be if I kept making the same stupid mistakes over and over.

Why can't other people do this too?

Why can't politicians just answer questions put to them instead of spewing meaningless streams of sound-bite-sized shit?

Why do I buy a roll of duct tape at a big box store and get a receipt well over a foot long printed over with a stunning assortment of utterly useless information?

Why do people drive like maniacs?

Why do people walk four abreast on the sidewalk, forcing others to make way for them?

Why is NIMBY such a widespread phenomenon?

Why do parents who own a Mercedes-Benz SUV seem to lack the money to buy their kids laptops for school?

Why don't we trust each other anymore?

Why are CEOs only responsible for "increasing shareholder value?"

Why do people care about money more than value?

Why do so few people know which fork is the salad fork?

Why does the stock market exist?

Why do people think that economic growth can continue forever?

Why is the definition of "normal behaviour" becoming narrower every year?

Why do people think they're entitled to anything?

Why is everything so fucked up?

I think there are pretty simple explanations for most of these things.  And pretty simple solutions. The real problem is that humanity is too stupid, too lazy, and too self-absorbed to get off their junk-food-filled, couch-shaped asses and just do the right thing.  (And yeah, I'm still not a pessimist.)

Nothing will get done if we only keep wishing real hard and hoping for a miracle.  We've got to get smart, get educated, get some balls, and get things done.  Incompetence must not be tolerated, ever. We need to say what we mean, and mean what we say.  No more weasel-words.  No more self-actualizing post-modern narratives of socio-intellectual disenfranchisement and all that crap.

Work the problem.  Find a solution.  And then move on, cuz life's too short.

That's what this blog is about.

Blogging about my "web presence"

I'm blogging about my on-going journey to establish my web presence at my other blog.  The 2 posts that pertain, in particular are:

• What's a web presence?
• What's my problem?

There will be more posts.

I'm moving on... Maybe.

I've become conflicted about maintaining my blog here at Vox.

No offence to the Vox staff; this is certainly one of the best blogging services I'm aware of.  But there's something about blogger that appeals to me.

I'm test driving it, at http://filsalustri.blogspot.com.  I like the greater flexibility to change the look & feel of the blog (I think look & feel is really, really important), and I like the way they handle the use of widgets.

On the other hand, I really like the Vox editor, and the fine-grained control you can exert over who sees your blog.  I also like the notion of Vox groups and neighbourhoods.

Of course, the real solution to my dilemma is to design a solution.  I don't mean creating my own blogging software (although I'm working on that too); I mean making an informed choice by considering why I feel so conflicted.

And if I had the time to sit down and run the process - something that I know how to do very well - I'm sure I'd resolve my conflict.  But real life gets in the way, and I just don't have the time to do it.

So I will keep the matter in my hind-brain (actually, in my white matter), on a low simmer, and wait for inspiration to strike.

Sequestering and reusing carbon in cars

Georgia Tech has a cool idea: they want to capture carbon emissions in a car, and recycle it into new fuel not based on petroleum.  Existent sequestration techniques don't address physically small sources of carbon emissions - but these sources apparently account for two-thirds of global carbon emissions.

In the first stage of the project, carbon will be captured on-board from conventional fuels.  When you refuel, you drop off the accumulated carbon gunge.  That is then shipped to a processing station to be turned into a new fuel.  Eventually, when the system ramps up, there'll be enough synthetic fuel that fossil fuels won't be needed.

What I like about this is the systems view.  It's also interesting that they put the sequestration machinery at the source - the car.  I also like their two-stage approach, which will help adoption.  I think one of the publications pertaining to this is here.  The original article I read is here.

Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air

There's a book soon to be published by David J.C. MacKay, a Cambridge University professor, called Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air.  There's a draft available for free at http://withouthotair.com/.  The site has a number of other interesting documents, including a 4-page summary of the book, and a fascinating experiment with mobile phone chargers.  There's even a link to a list of all the URLs in his book - very convenient and thoughtful.

I had the pleasure of meeting Prof. MacKay whilst on sabbatical in summer 2007.  What struck me most about him (besides the wry British wit which, I'm told, is due to something in the water) was how level-headed he was.  This, I think, comes through in his book.

Using hot asphalt to heat buildings

The Chicago Tribune (2 Jan 2008) reported that the Dutch engineering firm Ooms Avenhorn Holding BV is working on a way to extract heat from street asphalt via pipes embedded in the road. Heat is gathered in water passed under the asphalt and stored in natural aquifers, from which it is pumped when needed for keeping the roads ice-free. The system can also be used to pump cool water from underground to keep buildings cool in the summer.  And it could cut back on the need for salting and sanding of roads.

The company found that their pilot project was also generating excess energy, so they started routing the heated water into buildings to augment other sources of heat in cold weather. While the installation currently costs about twice as much as conventional gas heating systems, it results in lower operating costs and up to 50% savings in carbon emissions.

Chocolate for fuel

Believe it or not, Ecotec is apparently going to run a truck that runs on processed chocolate through parts of Africa.  Three tons of wasted chocolate were used to make 396 gallons of biofuel.  Apparently, burning that biofuel does less damage than landfilling the chocolate, which would then generate methane.  Which makes the undertaking appear carbon-negative (so they say).  I'd like to see the math on that.  Apparently, a single British chocolate company generates 5,000 tons of waste chocolate a year.  That's enough to make 660,000 gallons of biofuel per year - from just one company's waste.

What do sustainable designers need?

What do designers need to design sustainable products?

There are many analytic tools out there.  SDTC's STAR process and Okala are just two.  It's been made evident to me that engineers take to these tools easily enough.  I would wager that generic designers could do the same - assuming they can use excel and look numbers up in a table.

The problem with analytic tools is that they're after the (design) fact - you use them to figure out what you did wrong.  Our goal ought to be to figure out how to do it right the first time.  In a perfect world, Okala wouldn't be needed cuz you'd know it was as good as it was going to get.

While I think Okala is especially interesting and worth 'pushing' in some way, the main question is: how does one define 'design activities' such that there's some guarantee of sustainability from the outset.

I also think that it's not that big a problem methodologically, but it is a big problem politically & psychologically.  Designing is a kind of problem solving where you balance a bunch of different factors that conflict (e.g. cost v quality).  None of the design methods that I'm aware of make specific commitments to a defined set of factors.  This means that all we have to do is add 'sustainability' as a factor.  In the case of some methods, it's literally that simple.

Assume we could do that, and have a design process that embeds sustainability.  The real problem is convincing people that its a good/valid process.  Using it would be a 'risk.'  To knock that down, we actually have to apply the process to the design of things and then analyzing the designs (with Okala or other things) to demonstrate it.

If we can demonstrate that the process works, then people will be more likely to accept it.

So I see the following research program:

1. Establish a design process with sustainability built in.
2. Publish it broadly.
3. Find industries willing to let a 'third party' (e.g. a school like Ryerson, or a consortium of schools) help them design things using the process as pilot projects.  Also run workshops and courses where the process is applied to real problems.

There is one problem in developing the process: decision making on matters of sustainability is context-dependent, and the context-sensitive information needed for such decisions isn't quite there yet.  For instance, decisions about how to treat rainwater will depend whether you're in Arizona or Athabasca...or anywhere else for that matter.

Ideally what we'd want in this case is a method that evaluates a design with respect to a certain context.  From a computer-y or mathematical point of view, the method would be like a procedure that takes the design as an argument, along with other key parameters that describe the context, and produce an evaluative result - like an impact factor.  You could use the same method to then describe the same design used in different settings.

If this is a worthwhile goal, the question is: How do we understand what goes into that procedure?  I think the answer will come little by little, and by doing examples: perform manually an analysis of the same design in two different settings/contexts.  Look for similarities and differences.  Come up with a heuristic that applies.  Now do it again, for another product or design.  Look for more heuristics.  As you collect more heuristics, you can start to study the heuristics themselves, and find (hopefully) universal principles.  This will allow the overall algorithm to start to get integrated.

...just some late night thoughts.