Estimating your Etape du Tour time

The 2010 Etape du Tour is from Pau to the summit of the Tourmalet.

I’ve produced a spreadsheet that allows you to estimate your time. I’ve ridden the Etape three times myself (2003, 2004, and 2006) and used a similar spreadsheet to estimate my time. It has proven accurate to within about 10 minutes. In 2003 and 2004 I placed just outside the top 1000 riders, and was about 20 minutes short of gold standard time.

To estimate your time you need to provide 6 pieces of information:

1. Weight (rider + equipment). This is the total weight of everything, including clothes, shoes, food, water, tools etc. The easiest way to measure it is to set up the bike as you will ride it (including full waterbottles, tools, pump, food etc), put on the gear you will wear when riding the etape (including shoes and any spare clothing or food in pockets), pick up your laden bicycle and weigh yourself on the bathroom scales.
2. Power (when climbing). This the power output you can sustain over a long climb of about an hour. I’ll give you a way of estimating this later.
3. Slight incline speed (km/h). This is the speed you can sustain on a slight incline (1%-3%)
4. Flat speed (km/h). This is the speed you can sustain on the flat in a group of riders.
5. Slight descent speed (km/h). This is your speed on a slight downhill. (1%-5%)
6. Descent speed (km/h). This is your speed on a steepish (more than 5%) downhill. Note that it is not your maximum speed, it is your average speed and takes into account the corners.

The spreadsheet

The spreadsheet is at: Etape 2010 spreadsheet. You’ll need to download the spreadsheet to use it.

As well as allowing you to estimate your time, it allows you to ask What if? questions about how you ride the course.

• What if I reduce my weight by 1kg? Depending on your power output, your time will improve by about 2 to 3 minutes for each kilogram of weight saved.
• What if I go 10km/h faster on the steep downhills? Surprisingly this only shaves about 3 minutes from your time.
• What if I go 5km/h faster on the flats? This improves your time by about 10 minutes.

Why does the spreadsheet work?

The spreadsheet works because, for the Etape, the climbs dominate the stage. Differences in speed on the flats and on the descents make relatively little difference to your overall time, so you don’t to estimate these speeds very accurately. The climbs are steep enough that wind resistance does not really come into play, so your speed is determined pretty well by your overall weight and your sustainable power output – if you know these two things, you can make a pretty good estimate of your overall time.

How do I estimate my climbing power output?

You can estimate your time either using an ergometer (say at a gym) or by doing a timed climb. For either method you need to warm up and then start riding at a heart rate that you can sustain comfortably for several hours – if you know what your lactate threshold rate is, it will be slightly below this rate. On an ergometer read off the power rating for this heartrate – make sure you have been riding long enough for the heartrate and power to settle. If you use a timed climb (ideally this should have a steady gradient) then ride the climb at this heartrate. Enter the total weight of you and your equipment, the length of the climb, and the altitude gained into the spreadsheet and it will give you an estimate for your power output.

The route profile

I obtained the route profile from http://www.letour.fr/ augmented with climb profiles from http://www.climbbybike.com/

Col de Marie Blanque steep climb with over 3km at or near 11% gradient

Col du Soulor steady climb, mostly at at around 8%

Col du Tourmalet mostly at around 8% with last kilometer at 10%

Advice on riding the Etape

Below are some words of advice. They are mainly intended for riders not experienced in riding long mountainous courses. If you know what works for you, then use that.

What gears should I use?

The choice of gears is determined by the steepest parts of the course. You need a gear low enough to allow you to ride at a comfortable cadence on the steepest parts of the course. This year the Etape has some steep sections, so you’ll need low gears.

There is a section on the spreadsheet that calculates your cadence on the steepest part of the course. If you want to keep your cadence above 50rpm on the steepest sections, then you can see you’ll need low gears. I advise the largest possible sprocket, normally 27 or 28 teeth. This means something like an 11-28 or a 12-27 rear cassette. To go with this you’ll need either a triple chainring with a 30-tooth inner chainring or a compact chainring with a 34 tooth inner chainring. A standard chainring (with an inner chainring of 37 or 38 teeth) just won’t cut it. (For the record, I’ve always used a triple chainring when I’ve ridden the Etape, even though I hate triple chainrings.) A 30×28 gear is not overkill for this course. Every year that I did the Etape I saw riders who got off their bikes and walked. They did not have a low enough gear.

But the pros don’t use such low gears, I hear you say. That’s true, but they are pros. A top professional might way 65kg and have a power output of 400W while climbing. Add 10kg for bike and equipment and put the figures in the spreadsheet. You’ll see that a top pro can maintain a good cadence riding a 37×21 or a 37×23 gear.

How should I ride the course?

Assuming you have trained well, you need to do four things to get a good time:

Climb well. This means keeping a good pace on the climbs. It also means riding on your own: unless you are experienced it’s easy to either get behind a rider who is going a bit too slow or a bit too fast. My strategy is to climb by heartrate and cadence, for me this means something like: “keep the heartrate at 145bpm and the cadence at 85rpm”. You’ll need to find the figures that work for you. The heartrate needs to be a rate that you can sustain for several hours, it will be below your lactate threshold rate. The cadence is what is comfortable for you for long climbs.

Eat and drink well. Make sure you don’t dehydrate or bonk. Talk to other riders and get experience of how much to eat and drink on long rides.

Descend well. First and foremost this means don’t crash. Don’t take risks on the descent. From the spreadsheet you can see that even going 10km/h faster on the descents won’t make much difference to your time. It also means don’t brake too much. Too much braking tires you out – you need to be reasonably relaxed on the descents. If you’ve never done long descents you need to get some practice in before the Etape.

Get into a group on the flats. On the flat parts of the course try and ride with a group. Save your energy for the climbs.

Good luck!

The BBC Today programme – reporting the news before it happens

Today is BBC Radio 4’s most popular programme, with 6.6 million listeners. It is generally considered to be the most influential news programme in Britain.

However it is succumbing to a bane that is increasingly affection all news media in Britain – the reporting of news before it actually happens. This preemptive reporting by Today is not just occasional – often the most significant headline stories are about events that have not yet occurred.

At the end of this post I set out the main headlines taken from Today’s website for the period Thursday, 5th November to Wednesday, 11th November. In three of those six programmes the main headline is about something that has not occurred. And in two of the remaining three days one of the other headline items has been about something that has not occurred.

Here are the main preemptive headlines.

Monday 9th, November: “The government is to announce measures that will see a new generation of nuclear power stations sped through the planning process.”

Tuesday 10th, November: “Conservative leader David Cameron is to reveal his proposals for tackling poverty and reforming the welfare system.”

Wednesday 11th, November: “The Home Office is set to propose that DNA profiles of innocent people arrested in England and Wales should be kept for a maximum of six years.”

Most of these stories take the form “A politician will announce something today”. This kind of reporting is problematic in a number of ways:

It allows the politicians to set the agenda. If a politician says they will announce something, then presumably they want that reported. The announcement may even be designed to draw attention away from something unfavourable.

It changes the subject. Take, for example, Friday’s news item: “Gordon Brown will use a speech to try to bolster support for Britain’s military mission in Afghanistan”. The subject of the news becomes the fact that Gordon Brown is making a speech, not the contents of that speech and the reaction to that speech.

It prevents proper debate. Since nothing has actually been said, there is nothing to analyse, no facts to check, no opposing point of view and it’s impossible to hold the politician to account. Here’s a snippet from the Wednesday discussion on unemployment figures:

BBC: “How bad will the figures be?”
Mandelson: “Well I don’t know because I haven’t seen them”

It replaces reporting with speculation. Since the announcement has not yet been made, reporters can only speculate on what might be announced. Here’s a snippet from Thursday’s discussion on the Bank of England monetary policy:

Sarah Montague: “So Stefanie, what does that mean for what the bank is going to say today?”
Stefanie Flanders, economics editor: “We don’t know what it is going to say or what it is going to decide, but I think…”

It preempts the news. Once you’ve had a discussion about what a politician might say, the actual speech or announcement becomes less newsworthy. The analysis and discussion of what was actually said becomes a secondary news item.

Here are the Today’smain headlines and other preemptive headlines for the period 5th November 2009 – 11th November 2009

Today: Thursday 5th November

The United Nations is moving half of its international staff in Afghanistan out of its offices to “safer locations”. And a French government minister has described the Conservatives’ policy on Europe as ‘pathetic’.

0709
The Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee is meeting to review the future of its quantitative easing policy, which has pumped £175 billion into the economy.

Sarah Montague: “So Stefanie, what does that mean for what the bank is going to say today?”
Stefanie Flanders, economics editor: “We don’t know what it is going to say or what it is going to decide, but I think…”

Today: Friday 6th November

A US army major is being held on suspicion of carrying out a mass shooting at America’s largest military base. And Gordon Brown will use a speech to try to bolster support for Britain’s military mission in Afghanistan, after another week of heavy casualties.

0752
Prime Minister Gordon Brown is to make a speech laying out why Britain must remain committed to Afghanistan.

Today: Saturday 7th November

Proposed reforms of MPs’ expenses are in doubt after the head of the body charged with rewriting the rules said he might not implement them all. And US President Barack Obama has said the “entire nation” is grieving after killed 13 people were shot dead at a Texas army base.

Today: Monday 9th November

The approval process for nuclear power stations is to be made faster. Celebrations are being held in Berlin to mark the 20th anniversary of the collapse of the wall that once divided the city. And we report from Latvia on David Cameron’s new colleagues – the Fatherland and Freedom Party.

0730
The government is to announce measures that will see a new generation of nuclear power stations sped through the planning process. Shadow energy secretary Greg Clark discusses whether the Conservatives will support the proposals.
BBC: “Today the energy secretary will tell parliament…”

0830
Plans for fast-tracking a new generation of nuclear power stations are to be announced by the government. Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband will unveil statements of policy including a list of sites judged suitable for nuclear developments. Mr Miliband discusses the announcement.

BBC: “I know you want to give the details to MPs first”
Miliband: “As I say, well as you say, we will give the details later on…”

Today: Tuesday 10th November

Conservative leader David Cameron is to reveal his proposals for tackling poverty and reforming the welfare system, and has been accused by Labour of planning a return to Thatcherite policies. And the mother of a soldier killed in Afghanistan has used a telephone conversation with Gordon Brown to complain about a lack of military equipment.

0714
Conservative leader David Cameron will deliver a speech setting out the Tories’ plans to abolish child poverty by the end of the decade. He will criticise the government’s welfare system, accusing Labour of “a moral failure”. Fraser Nelson, editor of the Spectator, examines the history of the party’s policy on poverty.

0810
David Cameron has long accused Labour, and what he describes as “big government”, of failing the poor. Today he will set out his party’s policies to combat poverty and reform the welfare system. Mr Cameron will say the government is guilty of a moral failure, creating a welfare system that tells young girls having children before finding work and a loving relationship means a home and cash. Shadow secretary for work and pension Theresa May, and Work and Pensions Secretary Yvette Cooper debate their party’s poverty policies. Political editor Nick Robinson comments on the changes to the Conservative’s welfare plans.

BBC: Nick, how distinct do you thing David Cameron will be…
Nick: Oh, I think he really will be distinct…

Today: Wednesday 11th November

The Home Office is set to propose that DNA profiles of innocent people arrested in England and Wales should be kept for a maximum of six years. And nine former Labour ministers have warned Gordon Brown he will lose key votes at the general election if he scraps childcare vouchers for parents.

0751
The number of unemployed youths could exceed one million, with thousands of unemployed graduates joining the growing number of 16 to 24 year-olds who are not in employment, education or training (Neets). The government will today set out its plans to tackle the problem in its white paper, Skills for Growth. Skills Secretary Lord Mandelson discusses the proposals.

BBC: “How bad will the figures be?”
Mandelson “Well I don’t know because I haven’t seen them”

0810
The DNA profiles of innocent people arrested in England and Wales will be kept for six years and not indefinitely under new government proposals. The changes will be put before the European Court of Human Rights, which had ruled the current policy unlawful. Police have defended the system, which it says has led to the solving of crimes, but human rights groups are unhappy with the compromise. Julie Bindel from the campaign group Justice for Women and the shadow home secretary Chris Grayling debate the DNA policy.

Illicit File Sharing Early Day Motion

I’m pleased to see that Tom Watson, MP has tabled a Parliamentary Early Day Motion

…to ensure that any citizen accused of illicit file-sharing is given the right to legal redress in a court of law before sanctions are imposed.

This directly addresses the point I made in my post Illicit P2P File-Sharing and the law and in my response to the government’s Consultation on Legislation to Address Illicit P2P File-Sharing.

The Open Rights Group has blogged about this, as has the Pirate Party.

The Nobel Prize and the Test of Time

This year’s Nobel Prize for Physics was awarded to Charles Kao for his 1960s work on optical fibers and to Willard Boyle and George Smith for the 1969 invention of the CCD sensor. The Chemistry Prize was shared by Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Thomas Steitz and Ada Yonath for working out the structure of the ribosome, work that began in the 1980s and was completed in 2000. The Physiology or Medicine prize was shared by Elizabeth Blackburn, Carol Greider and Jack Szostak for the 1978 discovery of telomeres and the 1985 discovery of telomerase. The Literature prize was won by Herta Müller for her depictions in poetry and prose of the landscape of the dispossessed – a body of work that spans over 25 years. The Peace Prize was awared to Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.

Let’s look at some of the more famous Nobel Prize Laureates:

Marie Curie won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1911 for her 1898 discoveries of radium and polonium.

Albert Einstein won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1921 for his 1905 explanation of the photoelectric effect.

Alexander Fleming, Ernst Chain and Howard Florey shared the 1945 prize for Physiology or Medicine for the 1928 discovery of penicillin.

Francis Crick, James Watson and Maurice Wilkins shared the 1962 prize for Physiology or Medicine for the 1953 discovery of the structure of DNA.

In 1979 Mother Teresa won the Nobel Peace Prize for her work leading the Missionaries of Charity, work that she had begun in 1950.

Nelson Mandela won the 1993 Nobel Peace Prize for his work in ending apartheid in South Africa, work he pursued for many years, including 27 years spent in prison.

Great works and achievements do not need to be immediately recognised with awards. Indeed, they should be allowed time to speak for themselves

Trident is the Eurofighter of nuclear deterrence

In Britain we are debating if we should replace Trident, our fleet of four aging SLBM equiped nuclear submarines. The argument against replacing Trident is that it would be too costly, or that the money would be better spent on conventional forces, or that given the UN Security Council resolution calling for nuclear disarmament we should not be pursuing rearmament at all.

I want to talk about something else: the pertinent question is not “Shall we replace Trident?” or even “Should we have a nuclear deterrent?”, it is “How should we best spend our defence budget to ensure the security of our nation?” Answering that question requires us to analyse the threats we face and requires us to work out the best ways to defend against those threats. It means we need to weigh the benefit of additional conventional forces and equipment against the benefit of a nuclear deterrent. It means, even if we decide we need a nuclear deterrent, we need to decide what form that deterrent should take, given the technology currently available and the threats we are likely to face in the future. It does not mean blindly re-adopting a technology that was appropriate in the 1980s.

For the purposes of the rest of this blog post I’ll assume that we have decided that Britain needs a nuclear deterrent.

During the cold war the our nuclear deterrence was based on the strategy of Mutually Assured Destruction: any one who attacked us with nuclear weapons would face an immediate retaliatory strike resulting in their own destruction. Our ability to retaliate depended on our second strike capability: the ability of our nuclear arsenal to survive a preemptive first strike. In this situation submarines with nuclear armed ballistic missiles are an effective means of providing a second strike capability. Their long range, high survivability and ability to carry many medium- and long-range nuclear missiles, makes submarines a credible and effective means of delivering full-scale retaliation even after a massive first strike.

During the cold war Trident may have been an excellent nuclear deterrent for Britain.

But the cold war is over. Weapons that were effective during the cold war are not necessarily effective now. Witness Eurofighter. The threats are different and the technology available has improved.

We longer face the threat of a massive preemptive first strike by a large cold war adversary. Instead we face the threat of a small scale strike by a rogue state or terrorist group. Our ability to retaliate is no longer determined by our ability to survive a first strike.

We could blindly readopt a costly cold war solution that will be expensive and won’t work. Like we did with the Eurofighter. Or we could look at a modern more cost effective solution. And we could spend the savings on conventional forces.

Improvement suggestions for Sony ebook readers

I’ve been using a Sony PRS-505 ebook reader for several months now and, as I said in my post Pleasantly surprised by Sony ebook reader, its ergonomics are unexpectedly good. There are some things that I’d like to see improved, and I discuss these in this post. The PRS-505 has been superceded by the PRS-300 (pocket sized ereader) and the PRS-600 (ereader with touchscreen). Most of my suggestions for improvement apply to these devices as well (judging from a quick browse of the manuals); the exceptions being bookmark comments and search, which have been implemented on the PRS-600 but not the PRS-300.

My suggestions can be divided into software improvements (which hopefully could be provided by an upgrade sometime in the future), hardware improvements and new accessories. These are listed below and explained in more detail in the following text.

Software:

1. Add option for half-page ‘turn’.
2. Allow user to mark books as read, and to give books a rating.
3. Improve ‘book lists’.
4. Allow the user to add comments to bookmarks (text input on PRS-300 to be via numeric keys, as on phones).
5. Add search facility (text input again via numeric keys). Users need to search within a given book or across all books.
6. Add text to speech, so users can listen to books (no restrictions are required for public domain books).
7. Improve display of PDF documents, especially improve the reflow algorithm.

Hardware:

1. Add a solar cell to improve battery life
2. Make ereader smaller and lighter (implemented on PRS-300)
3. Retain audio output (lost on PRS-300, retained on PRS-600)
4. Retain SD card slot (lost on PRS-300, retained on PRS-600)

Accessories:

1. Produce a cover that contains a notepad and penholder, so the user can make notes while reading.

Software Improvements

1) The most frustrating thing about the Sony ereader is the amount of time that it takes to ‘turn’ a page: almost two seconds. This is sufficient to interrupt the flow of reading and is a constant minor irritant. The problem is not unique to Sony, it is inherent in the electronic paper technology used in the majority of ereaders. There is a solution though: add an option for half-page ‘turn’. That way when you get half way through a page you can press the page-turn button, the top half of the page ‘turns’ and you and continue reading the bottom half of the page. Once you get to the end of the page, the top half of the next page is ready and waiting for you. At this point you press the page-turn button again so when you get halfway through the page the second half of the page is ready for you.

2) An ereader is not only a book reader, it also has some of the functions of a library. A user needs to be able to browse the books in the ereader to decide what they might want to read next. They need to be able to keep books and documents they have read for reference, but don’t want these read books to get in the way of the day to day use of the device. These needs would, to some extent, be serviced by the ability to mark books as read and to give books a star rating (zero to five stars).

3) The ‘book lists’ are reasonably functional, but they can be poorly formatted and they could display more information. Here’s an example of a part of the Books by Author book list:

1. The page title is incorrectly capitalized and prematurely truncated. It reads A – Arthur con instead of A – Arthur Conan Do
2. The book titles are displayed in different sized fonts: this looks sloppy. Instead if a reduced size font is require for any title, then all the titles on that page should be displayed in the same reduced size font.
3. Book titles are unnecessarily truncated: An Inquiry into the Nature and Ca… Instead this title should be wrapped into the next line, where there is ample room.
4. The number of pages in a book should be displayed. This is very useful when browsing the list of titles.
5. If the ereader supported ratings, then the star rating of the book should be displayed.

4) The PRS-600 already allows the user to add comments to bookmarks, so Sony have implemented the functionality. I think the only reason it was not added to the PRS-505 or the PRS-300 was that Sony overlooked the possibility of using the numeric keys for text input.

5) The PRS-600 already implements search. Again I think Sony overlooked the possibility of using the numeric keys to enter search text on the PRS-505 and the PRS-300.

6) Sometimes it’s preferable to listen to a book rather than read it. The light may be failing. The reader’s eyes may be tired, or they may have forgotten their glasses. The reader may be blind or have very poor eyesight. Text to speech would be a valuable addition to the PRS-300 and the PRS-600. I realise there are some issues with copyright works, but there is no problem implementing text to speech for works in the public domain.

7) Ereaders are useful for reading published documents as well as books. White papers, scientific papers, documents, manuals and so on. Most of these works are published in PDF format and A4 or letter size. They need to be resized to be read on a ereader, but unfortunately this resizing normally does a poor job of reflowing the text. The text reflow algorithm needs to be improved.

Hardware Improvements

1) A quick Fermi calculation shows that a solar cell would be a worthwhile addition the PRS-505. According to solarbotics a small solar cell can produce about 0.12mW/mm². There’s space on the front of the PRS-505 for a 20mm by 40mm solar cell, this should have an output of about 96mW. I don’t know what kind of battery is in a PRS-505, but let’s assume it’s similar to a camera battery, about 1000mAh at 3.5V. That contains 12600 joules and it will power 7000 page turns, so that’s 1.8 joules per page turn. So the solar cell will take 1.8/0.096, say 20 seconds to generate energy to turn a page. How beneficial this is depends on how fast you read: if it takes you more than 20 seconds to read a page, then you’ll never need to charge your ereader. If you read at 10 seconds per page then the battery life is extended to 13,500 page turns. What’s more you can charge your ereader just by leaving it on the table.

2) Smaller and lighter. This is implemented on the PRS-300. Unfortunately in the process Sony have removed the SD card slot which seriously restricts the number of books you can take with you. The loss of audio output on the PRS-300 is also regrettable.

3) Retain audio output. This is necessary for text to speech.

4) Retain SD card slot (or at the very least add some serious memory capacity: 8GB or more). Although the 512MB and 350 book capacity of the PRS-300 may seem a lot, it’s not. There is a fundamental difference between being able to keep all of your ebooks on your ereader and being only to keep some of them. As soon as your ebook collection exceeds the capacity of your ereader you incur the overhead of having to manage your collection. You need to transfer books on and off the ereader. When you go on a trip you have the worry “do I have all the books/documents I need/want?”. You need to waste time checking what books are on the ereader. You run the risk of accidentally deleting books.

Accessories

Ereaders are not just about reading books for leisure. They are for reading documents and textbooks. They may be used when doing serious study. It’s essential to be able to make notes while reading an ebook. A cover that can include a notepad and pen is essential for some users. The cover needs to come in two variants: notepad on the right for right-handed users and notepad on the left for left-handed users.

Public domain

I’m placing all these ideas in the public domain: I’d be more than happy if any ebook manufacturer adopts them – indeed that’s the whole point of stating the ideas.

Justification for troops in Afghanistan

Gordon Brown has repeatedly said that the reason British troops are in Afghanistan is to make Britain and the rest of the world safe.

In his 4th September 2009 speech to International Institute for Strategic Studies Afghanistan – National Security and Regional Stability, Gordon brown said:

“Each time I have to ask myself if we are doing the right thing by being in Afghanistan. Each time I have to ask myself if we can justify sending our young men and women to fight for this cause…And my answer has always been yes.

For when the security of our country is at stake we can not walk away. When the stability of this volatile region, spanning the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, has such a profound impact on the security of Britain and the rest of the international community we cannot just do nothing and leave the peoples of Pakistan and Afghanistan to struggle with these global problems on their own.”

In the Times article of  August 17, 2009 Rising Afghanistan death toll ‘will only stiffen resolve of soldiers’ Gordan Brown is quoted as saying:

“In these moments of sorrow and sadness, we must never forget why we are in Afghanistan and why people are making the sacrifice that they are making,” the Prime Minister said. “Three quarters of the terrorist plots that hit Britain derive from the mountain areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan and it is to make Britain safe and the rest of the world safe that we must make sure we honour our commitment to maintain a stable Afghanistan.”

In other words, Gordon Brown is saying it is justified to invade and occupy another country just because it harbours a threat. Not because the country itself has attacked us, or because the country has threatened to attack us, but because there are people who live in that country who threaten us and have attacked us.

This goes beyond acceptance of the doctrine of preemtive war. It is also acceptance of the Bush Doctrine that, as policy, it would not distinguish between terrorist organisations and nations or governments that harbour them.

Is the war just?

Before I address question of whether the war is justified, I’ll look at a related question: “Is the war just?” Far greater thinkers than I have debated the concept of a just war, and the conclusions are fairly similar. The Catholic Church’s stance is representative. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraph 2309, lists four strict conditions for “legitimate defense by military force”:

1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
3. there must be serious prospects of success;
4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

Let’s look at each of these in term.

the damage inflicted by the aggressor … must be lasting, grave, and certain. The preparations most important to the September 11, 2001, attacks took place not in training camps in Afghanistan but, rather, in apartments in Germany, hotel rooms in Spain and flight schools in the United States. The aggressor is not Afghanistan and the aggressor is no longer in Afghanistan.

all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective In her speech Countering Terrorism in a Democracy the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said

During this period, we and other countries have prevented most terrorist plots from succeeding – thanks to our police, security and intelligence agencies, thanks to intelligence sharing and cooperation, and thanks to knowing what tools and skills are necessary to meet this threat. Counter-terrorism has saved many, many lives.

In April 2008 Sir Ian Blair, the then Metropolitan Police Commissioner, said Police have foiled 15 terror plots in Britain since the 2000

So it seems other means of preventing terrorism have actually been effective

there must be serious prospects of success. Almost 8 years of war without success indicate otherwise (the Afghan war started on October 7, 2001).

the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated At the time of writing there have been more than 1400 coalition deaths in Afghanistan. Estimates vary between about 11,000 and 31,000 direct and indirect civilian casualties of war in Afghanistan.

But National Security is at stake

In the world of realpolitik we sometimes need to take actions that are immoral or unethical for the sake of the national interest. Well, I actually disagree with the philosophy of realpolitik, but for the sake of argument, let’s assume that we are willing to fight an unjust war for the sake of national security.

We’re still left with the two assumptions:

• terrorists need a safe haven such as Afghanistan from which they can operate
• the presence of NATO troops denies them that haven

Both these assumptions are questionable. As I said earlier, the most important preparations for the 9/11 terrorist attacks did not take place in Afghanistan. The top al-Qaeda leadership is not even in Afghanistan, having decamped to Pakistan years ago. Terrorists intent on establishing a haven can choose among several unstable countries besides Afghanistan. NATO troops cannot even prevent terrorist attacks within Afghanistan, so how can anyone expect them to prevent terrorism being exported.

So even under the tenets of realpolitik the war in Afghanistan is not justified.

Security is a trade-off

As security expert Bruce Schneier often says security is a trade-off. We don’t protect air traffic from terrorist attacks by grounding all aircraft. That would be stupid. But actually we do sometimes: directly after the 9/11 attacks, grounding all aircraft was a sensible precaution. We don’t require motorists to wear crash helmets, but we do require motorcyclists to do so. We don’t spend 50% of our national budget on public order and safety, nor 1%, we’ve decided that about 5% is the right compromise. Security costs money, but it also costs in time, convenience, capabilities, liberties, and so on.  We need to understand the trade-offs between the risks we take and the security we need and strike a sensible balance.

Schneier says: It makes no sense to just look at security in terms of effectiveness. “Is this effective against the threat?” is the wrong question to ask. You need to ask: “Is it a good trade-off?”

In the context of the Afghan war, the question is not: “Is the war effective in ensuring our safety?”, it is “Could the money, equipment and people be used in a way that more effectively ensures our safety?”

Estimates of the annual cost of the Afghan war range form £2.5 billion to £3.5 billion (Revealed: £12bn hidden costs of Afghan war and Cost of war in Afghanistan soars to £2.5bn). Over 200 British soldiers have died in Afghanistan since 2001. The cost in world opinion is considerable. Did we get the most security we could for those lives, that money, that cost to our reputation?

The answer is no. We could have spent that money better on intelligence gathering, more police officers and better emergency services. Things that genuinely help prevent terrorist attacks. Things that are useful even if no attack occurs.

War is not the most effective way of ensuring our security.

The public don’t support the war

In July, a poll conducted for The Independent found that a majority of the public think British troops should be pulled out immediately

Summary

In summary:

• The war is not just.
• The war is not justified, even under the tenets of realpolitik.
• The war is not the most effective way of ensuring our security.
• The majority of the public want our troops out of Afghanistan.

So what shall we do? Surely we cannot just leave. Well, actually I think we can, and I’ll explain why in a subsequent blog post.

Update, November 3rd, 2009

In an article in The Guardian It’s time to pull out of Afghanistan and take the fight to Bin Laden in Britain Labour MP, former Foreign Office minister, and chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, Ken Howells argues that “we must accept that we have a duty to question the wisdom of prioritising, in terms of government spending on counter-terrorism, the deployment of our forces to Afghanistan”. He argues that it we should bring the majority of our troops home and use the money saved to fund other counter-terrorism activities.

I don’t agree with all of Ken Howells’s suggestions on how we should spend the money saved, but at least someone in parliament is asking the question: “Could the money, equipment and people be used in a way that more effectively ensures our safety?”

A Fair(y) use tale – Disney explains copyright

Eric Faden asserts fair use to cleverly and humourously explain copyright. He mashes up clips from Disney in his film A Fair(y) Use Tale:

Cargo cult democracy in Afghanistan

Just after World War II a number of cargo cults started in the South Seas. During the war they had seen airplanes arrive with cargo to equip the troops. Once the war ended the troops left and the cargo stopped arriving. Seeking to remedy the situation they created airstrips. They carved headphones from wood and wore them while sitting in bamboo control towers. They waved the landing signals while standing on the runways. They lit signal fires and torches to light up runways. But it didn’t work. No airplanes landed. These cargo cults followed all the apparent precepts and forms of aviation, but they missed something essential, because the planes didn’t land.

A similar thing is happening in Afghanistan. There is a cult that has created ballot boxes and ballot papers. They’ve created polling stations and electoral registers. They’ve even created an electoral commission. And they think democracy will magically come to Afghanistan. But it’s not working. They’ve missed something essential.

Will Mickey Mouse ever go out of copyright?

At the State of the Net West event on the 5th of August, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren led the discussion about Antitrust in the Internet Era.

She made some brief comments at the end of her remarks, where she took on copyright, noting that it is a government granted monopoly that deserves antitrust scrutiny. She said, “Let’s face it, copyright extension these days is ‘limited’ to the life of Mickey Mouse.” And yes, there was sarcasm in her voice over the word “limited.” The guy from Disney shuffled uncomfortably at these remarks. Lofgren went on to say that copyright is being used to put up barriers to competition and innovation and is an issue that antitrust regulators really should be scrutinizing.

Tom Bell took this up on his blog and produced an amusing graph showing the astounding extensions of copyright in the United States and the way in which they track potential expiration dates of the Mickey Mouse cartoon, Steamboat Willie.

I’ve reproduced the graph here:

Tom Bell’s graph of copyright term extensions

Mickey had a couple of close shaves in 1976 and 1998. But never fear, with Disney’s takeover of Marvel, Mickey has enlisted the help of the likes of Captain America, Spiderman and the Fantastic Four to help him defeat the evil pirates who want to expand the public domain and free our culture. Mickey even has Jack Sparrow, who I assume must be some sort of pirate double agent, on his side.