Raising kids in the 21st century

Raising kids is not easy they say. According to the french adagium it is: "donner des racines et des ailes", to give roots and wings to children. Roots to make them aware where they come from and wings to make them willing to go somewhere else. I sometimes refer to education as: "shooting at a moving target", because of the speed of my kids' growth process.

On television and elsewhere, I discover a lot of uncertainty with parents concerning the best way to raise kids. There are two major causes. One cause is the deep social gap between those who raise their kids in the best possible way and those who basically... don't. At school, these kids are mixed and this creates obviously a lot of problems.

Another cause is the paradigm shift with respect to previous generations. Education is no longer based on authority and obedience but on persuasion and interaction. Most people, even the older generations, see this as a positive evolution. And most agree that this is more demanding on the parents' side. Perhaps it is also more demanding on the children in the sense that they have to make choices and decisions much earlier, sometimes too early, in life.

In comparison to earlier generations, parents tend to be less demanding in terms of attitude. What strikes me, is how demanding they have become in terms of performance... Children are expected to be perfect in about everything nowadays, from ordinary school to dancing classes, horse riding, music school, school theatre and whatever you like. Of course, there is a positive aspect on all that. But if I look at the agenda of some kids, it looks like all these activities serve yet another purpose: prepare the kids for the toughest of all rat races and in the mean time: let dad/mum do their own thing. Anyway, this child rat race is not nice for the less talented and it will not lead us to paradise.

Picture: Ambrosius Francken, Christ blesses the children, Bonnefantenmuseum Maastricht

Satellite navigation and communication

The European Commission supports through R&D programmes, the development of applications and services based on GNSS, the global navigation satellite system, a system that will be completed with Galileo in some years time (2013).

Potential applications and services exist in many areas ranging from road traffic to air traffic and from people finding to commercial location based publicity. An example is the Liveline project. A problem that is often neglected is the fact that these applications often require, next to a good position determination, a wireless communication path that connects a mobile unit to an application server. This wireless communication path is supposed to exist. For short range data communication, one can use a WLAN communication system. For long range data communication, the mobile telecommunication operators are supposed to deliver the solution.

But is this really true? There are still many issues. First, in the countryside, you still have ordinary 2nd generation GPRS communication. Basically, the best communication speed you can achieve is 56 kbit/s, the speed of a classical telephone line. The new generation data communication systems take much more time than anticipated 10 years ago. Secondly, data communication abroad still costs a fortune. The roaming charges for data communication are still too high for many applications to be economically viable. I also refer to a previous blog about internet access.

To summarise, the GNSS applications and services require a more holistic approach. Moreover, the mobile telecommunication operators need to become more involved with the Space - GNSS community of service providers. Today, they are either not interested in this emerging market, or they go their own way. S-band hybrid terrestrial - satellite communication could offer an alternative solution in some years time, but not tomorrow.

Sclerosis in the space sector?

I'm now 45 years old. Considering that my career started around 25 years and expecting that it could end at 65 years, if life permits, I should be half-way. Remarkable is that when it comes to project work, I'm often the oldest one in the team. On the other hand, in high-level conferences and networking events, I'm often among the youngest.

There is a specific problem with the space sector. The space sector lived its 'boom' in the later eighties, early nineties, before I started. In the bigger space companies, a hierarchical pyramid was built up, a large base of design and development people, a number of project managers and middle managers and a narrow top of company managers. Roughly 20 years later, this entire pyramid has grown older. At the base, new designers and developers have been recruited, but not proportional to the pyramid that was already there, the base is relatively too weak to support the heavy top. The top of the pyramid counts too much people and costs too much money. Many have to leave the larger companies and do something else, perhaps start their own company.

This is not so bad in itself. Experienced people from the space sector should be able to start space downstream service companies or they could cross-fertilise other sectors of economy. Their knowledge and skills should be fruitful in many sectors of economic life. In the current state of the economy however, many of these people are forced to stay in space business. The public hand somehow protects them, as it still spends a lot of money on space, but only few companies can really make a sound living from it. In space companies, revenues stagnate and salary costs increase continuously. As a result, the space sector suffers from decreasing profit margins. I am generalising a little bit, and I admit that the findings above are applicable to other sectors of economy as well, but a certain sclerosis of the space sector can't be denied.

Heat (Hitte)

Science related to climate change is not easy. The scientific findings often depend on who ordered the study. I can't judge who is wrong or who is right. Perhaps temperature and gas composition will get out of control in a few years and we're gone. Perhaps, on the contrary, our great grandchildren will consider climate change as the madness of the century, just like we laugh now with the witch executions in the 16th-17th century.

George Monbiot, the author of 'Heat', may be considered as a typical 'enfant terrible' by political and industrial leaders but his concern for the climate change is genuine and authentic. He describes how we don't seem to be able to change our daily behaviour.

In case of scientific uncertainty, the principle of precaution should prevail. Compare with the eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano in Iceland. We knew a plane could crash from the ash clouds, we were not sure about it but we decided to stop flying as a precaution, although we desperately need to fly. Obviously and fortunately, the measure was temporary.

Suppose you ignore the principle of precaution. In the case of the ash clouds, one could then have to sacrifice a few planes and passengers, but humanity would fly and still survive (I'm cynical). In the case we continue ignoring the precaution principle in climate change, we could face an uncontrollable destabilisation of the temperature and gas composition on earth. Then don't forget: we don't have an emergency exit here. Nobody escapes. Nothing can save us, no Swiss bunkers, no Biosphere II, no undersea glass domes, no moon base, nor Star Trek space ships to protect us. But perhaps it is a chance for another species to take over the management of the Earth.

Internet access as utility?

Internet access is something you need more and more, everywhere, anytime. You need it in the office, in internal and external meetings, on business trip, at home and even on holiday. Being cut off from internet and e-mail is being cut off from society. It had become just as bad as not having a telephone. Internet is becoming a utility like water, electricity, gas or telephone.

One would think that after so many years of mobile phone networks, ADSL and WLAN that internet access is easy. One has to admit it has become easier than a few years ago. But easy?

First let us take an average hotel or guest house. Look at all the problems. The signal may be too weak in your room. You may need a WEP or WPA key and your computer may not recognise it. Then you usually need a username and a password. Either the hotel is expensive and the internet access will be extremely expensive (at least 10 Euro per hour on your VISAcard). Or the hotel is cheap and the landlord doesn't know anymore how to generate you a password. You spend ages at the reception desk until the sole person who can help you appears or doesn't appear. The hotel leaflet contains all information you need, except the way to get access to the internet. If you were lucky to get internet access, your webmail or any other application may suffer from an overprotective firewall installed at the hotel's premises.

Now that should not be a problem if you have a mobile phone network data card? Just try it. First, you will go bankrupt if you use it abroad. They charge you 'only' 3.63 Euro/Mbyte, but they will charge you a new Megabyte as seen as you have requested the first bit of that Megabyte. Secondly, you will buy a 3G-4G card and be unfortunately just out of range of the 3G network. As a result, you can download at GPRS speed of 56 kbits/s, something like a good old telephone line speed. Good luck if you happen to have received a few Mbytes in your e-mail box or if you would have liked to watch television on your mobile.

And yet, it seems easy...Why not equip every building with easily accessible Wifi or WIMAX? If internet access is just like water and electricity, every hotel room should offer it, even without submitting a form or asking for your VISA card? Suppose the hotel manager would have to generate you a password if you needed to use electricity for your shaver or your hairdryer? Indeed, you could use the electricity for malicious purposes, so why not register first? It shows how paranoid our society has become.

The paradox of public R&D subsidising

Public R&D subsidies are generally considered as blessings for innovative industries. Especially for young dynamic start-up companies and growing Small and Middle size Enterprises (SME's) they are supposed to help bridge the gap between idea and product. Every nation and region is helping its start-up companies in one or the other way and that is fine.

But there is a paradox in the R&D policies as they are implemented today. They tend to have a negative side effect.

A typical start-up SME needs perform 3 to 5 years development work with a small team to come to a product prototype. Then it needs 3 to 5 years work in an extended team or network to come to full production. Only then, the product revenues start coming in, fulfilling the dream of the entrepreneur. Essential for a start-up SME is therefore the focused effort to reach this goal. Where does the money come from to make this come true? This money is supposed to come from venture capital or from a business angel who believes in the idea. A sound business plan is supposed to exist.

The public R&D money is only supporting this process. Public decision makers usually need to satisfy as many people as possible and tend to cut their budgets in small pieces. Therefore public tenders usually cover only tiny portions of the complete product development cycle.

When money gets scarce (we don't even need a blessful time like ours), the private investors and entrepreneurs will encourage / force the start-up SME employees to submit many tenders in reponse to the public programme calls. But because the budgets are small, the SME's need to differentiate the subjects of the tenders and participate in many programmes. This is often contrary to their initial core mission. They lose focus and may never come to a product in the end. After each project, they have to come up with a completely different project to qualify for a new subsidy programme.

But also at the public side, there is a problem. First, evidently, the R&D money needs to come from somewhere and often charges, through taxes, the same industry that needs the support. Secondly, the political need to satisfy all stakeholders leads to a fragmentation of the budgets so that in the end, none of the subsidised organisations receive enough money to reach the critical level that is needed in a mondial competition.

The only way to overcome the problem is to develop a regional vision. Political and economic actors need to develop a common R&D subvention vision and decide on what they want to be good at and what NOT. Very often, this vision brings one large and several small companies together around a common technology. A good example is the car telematics 'valley' developed in Sweden around Volvo. Or the creation of SES Astra in Luxembourg. Small countries like Sweden and Luxembourg have the advantage that the political and economic actors easily cooperate on such a joint vision. They have the courage to make a choice. In such a context, worldwide excellence in one specific area becomes possible.

Galileo Application Days

Some souvenirs of the Galileo Application Days, which were held in Brussels, March 3-5, 2010. The event attracted close to 900 participants and was a major success.

We demonstrated the Liveline project in the application village and presented the project in the Charlemagne building, next to the Berlaymont building.

http://www.gsa.europa.eu/

http://www.application-days.eu/

See also previous blog.