Adding it up

This year's Leaving Cert results are out and the post mortem has brought out all sorts of moaning about the state of mathematics in Ireland. The government reacted with the decisiveness that is to be expected of all politicians; launching an review conveniently handled by a subordinate so the Minister doesn't actually have to deal with the crisis du jour. While there is a high failure rate at Ordinary level, the rates of honours grades on the Honours papers is up presenting the mutually exclusive problems of a huge gulf in education standards or grade inflation.

There have been various causes and solutions proposed. The lack of qualified teachers is certainly a problem. The debate over the value of the Project Maths syllabus continues. The Minister is using the results to emphasise the importance of rolling out the new syllabus (despite results only being "marginally better"), but detractors say that reducing the course content is papering over the cracks and will make things worse in the long term.

I feel some actual analysis backed up with numbers has been missing from the discussion. First of all; let me start with there is no grade inflation. The percentage of students getting over 75 CAO points from mathematics has actually decreased over the past five years from 9% in 2006 to 7.5% this year. Overall the past ten years, the percentage of students getting over 75 points has ranged from 7.2% to 9%, so there isn't exactly a huge amount of difference there.

What is causing the appearance of grade inflation is that the numbers taking honours mathematics is falling. It dipped under 16% for the first time this year. This is down nearly 3% over the past 6 years. It will be very interesting to see how the bonus points for honours maths affect this next year and into the future. I'll go into why I don't think this is the correct solution in a later post. I don't know how it's affected applications for university courses; that data I don't have to hand. The mean amount of CAO points from mathematics is the lowest of the three compulsory subjects at 34.5, compared to 55.1 in English and 41.9 in Irish.

From the the Leaving Cert data it is clear that the rate of failure in mathematics is startling. However, any notion that this is increasing is unfounded, but that doesn't mean it's not an issue. Over the past ten years, an average of 15.88% of all students sitting leaving cert mathematics across all levels receieved a grade that netted them 0 CAO points. I count CAO points as a more meaningful metric as that's what matters for university applications and I didn't want to count pass grades in foundation. There is a weak downward trend over the last ten years, but this year's results left 15.48% without any CAO points from maths.

Interestingly enough, the failure rates, mean CAO points etc. in Irish are quite similar to mathematics. The only big difference is the much higher rate of students taking honours, but it is the statistics for Irish are bolstered by the growing number of students not taking this "compulsory" subject. 14.6% of students sitting the leaving cert didn't sit Irish, up 6% from ten years ago. From the coverage I've read the dire situation Irish finds itself in has been glossed over. In fact the press release from the Dept. of Education praises the increased proportion getting honours in Irish, ignoring the growing problem of students not taking the subject or its effects on the rate of success they're so happy to talk about.

So what does this all mean for mathematics in Ireland. This post is getting a little long, so I'll leave that for later. We need to ask ourselves some hard questions about what outcomes we want for those at the top, middle and bottom of the spectrum and does the current courses cater for all those needs. 

PREVIEW: I think major change is needed. I really mean major. So drastic that I know there is zero chance of either a risk averse government with zero cash to spend or the teaching unions would go for it. 

Patently Stupid

One of the most contentious issue in technology today surrounds patents. We've all heard plenty about how patents are causing problems in the pharmaceutical industry, but thankfully, the tech patent problem is a decidedly Western problem that shouldn't cost any lives. It's still a big problem; costing companies large and small many headaches and filling my RSS feed with new crap daily.

The problems are two-fold; patent trolls and patent wars between the major players. All of these things surround software patents. There are issues with software patents being granted for overly generic concepts in several cases where prior art exists. This has lead to a bevy of problems, with companies getting sued once they become big enough to be a target for violating a patent they didn't know existed. Essentially the root of the problem is with US law allowing such patents to be granted in the first place. That still leaves us with problems to be fixed though.

Patent wars is the easier one to talk about as it's less contentious. Essentially, the big tech companies have built up loads of patents over the years and have now decided to unleash the dogs of war i.e. the lawyers on each other. In some cases this is a defensive act, counter-suing in response to being sued. The result is chaos. Companies settle for licencing fees rather than pay for long and expensive court cases. Those that do go to court get dragged out, with appeal after appeal, and are often perused in several jurisdictions simultaneously (e.g. Apple's actions against Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 in most of the EU and Australia). You end up in a world where Microsoft make more money of a free, open source mobile OS (Android) than they do off their own, proprietary, licensed OS (Windows Phone 7). This is through suing HTC and extracting a licence fee from them for every Android phone shipped. Now they're going after Samsung too.

This is for patents referring to smartphones ONLY. It was produced in December 2010 so is a little out of date.

Is this a problem? Like, big companies fight all the time; in marketing, in product development, in hiring etc. Does this limit the innovation within these big companies? Probably not. What it does do is create a culture of fear; encouraging companies to build up large patent libraries as a defence. This translates into the company patenting any idea that gets thrown out there, just in case, thus inhibiting other companies who may be seriously developing something in that line. It also means obscenely highly priced auctions, and some rather convenient alliances forming (see the Nortel patent licence auction and the anti-Google alliance). These sort of manoeuvres may not be anti-innovation, but they almost certainly are anti-competitive.

How to solve it? The short answer is you can't. These companies would fight each other if all they had at their disposal were plastic spoons and half-rotten cabbages. We should tighten up patent issuing though, which will hopefully result in these companies only being issued with relevant patents and leave room for competitors to create something similar but different.

The other issue is much more serious. Patent trolls just sit on patents, do nothing with them and then sue the pants of anyone who encroaches on them. This has also led to the Eastern District of Texas becoming the Cayman Islands of patent litigation with several of these companies sharing their registered address in tiny offices here so that they can file in what is seen as a court favourable to patent holders.

They target anyone big enough to pay. App developers have been sued. Spotify got sued a mere week after launching in the US. They're simply parasites, sucking the lifeblood out of companies while claiming to protect innovation. This is what really annoys me. I've learned over the past year that having a good idea or having a good product is by no means a guarantee on success. It all comes down to work, marketing and more work. Without that, your product is going nowhere. Innovation without production is not worthy of protection. The only reason we issue patents in the first place is to protect companies, particularly small companies, from having their ideas copied by larger rivals. Patent trolls don't add anything of value to society. They don't ever do the work getting to the innovation in the first place either. Patents are usually purchased rather than investing in original research.

This has an easy solution though. Make patents dependant on commercial use. A straight forward "use it or lose it" rule. Give the licensee two years, and after that if they haven't done anything with it, void the patent. There's no commercial interest to protect, so all that patent is doing is stifling other innovation. I think it would work. I'm not a law-talking-guy though so I may be wrong.

Note: This post was prompted by an excellent post from Michael Mace on his blog Mobile Opportunity. Read it.

Note 2: As if to underscore my point, Google just spent $12.5bn buying Motorola Mobillity, mainly for their patent portfolio.

A new look

I've moved into a new place, and so it seemed like an opportune time to change things up a bit; give the ol' blog a bit of a refresh and start out again ahead of the new NFL and Premiership seasons and of course the Rugby World Cup. I will admit that the riots over here in London recently have kicked my from my laziness a bit as well, and so I want to start writing again. I don't think I'll be changing society, but I like having my soapbox.

An Open Letter to the ICC

Dear douchebags


That's probably not the best way to get your attention. Allow me to start again.

Dear ICC,

I must express my dismay at your recent decision to restrict the "World Cup" to the ten full members of the ICC. This is not just because I'm an Irishman, but as a fan of sport and egalitarianism in general. I thoroughly enjoyed the recent World Cup amid all the talk of the death of one-day cricket. However, I do feel that the lack of meaningful competition for the next 6 years or so for several countries (not just the Associate nations but Zimbabwe also) will only diminish the 50 over game further.

Not only that but the bridge for associate member and Zimbabwe to climb to get to test status becomes harder as many associations will now be forced to focus on T20 rather than ODI, as their sponsors will not provide (or only provide limited) support for teams with no World Cup TV exposure. With the emphasis squarely on T20, I think you'll find these Associate Nations will actually be weaker in 2019 than they are now. That will in turn lead to further calls to alienate the associate nations from ODIs, which will undoubtedly hamper the development of the game in these countries at all levels. If you look at the meteoric rise of Afghanistan in the past few years it is not an impossibility that they will be rank in the top eight in the World (with Ireland nine, naturally). Please explain how the World Cup deserves the name when these top ranked teams get excluded?

Oh, but games were one sided at the World Cup? So the answer to one-sided games is to cut out the weak side rather than develop them? Would Sri Lanka ever have reached where they are now if that attitude was taken in the 80s? Yeah, some matches will be dead-rubber, but you have those ALL major sporting events. It's part and parcel of what makes a World Cup; the underdog. The underdog story is always the best one in sport. It captures the imagination of everyone; not just their supporters. You claim that this resolution will provide financial security for the game; but I'm not sure how much extra money is added to the pot by having Zimbabwe involved.

Let's also of course mention that the people losing most out of all of this are the players. Many players, the ambassadors of the game in their countries, will be robbed of the chance to represent their country at the highest level. Whatever you say about T20, the snobbery surrounding cricket will mean that these players will never be taken seriously unless they can demonstrate their skills in the longer forms of the games. You are forcing people to choose between representing their country and pursuing their career to the highest level they can go.

The bleeding of players to full members that has hurt Ireland in particular will become much more seriously. I can't see George Dockrell hanging Dublin around playing T20 for eight years before the next World Cup. That is of course if that player would even get picked by a full member. Trent Johnson has already said that your decision effectively made his decision to retire after the T20 World Cup next year. Many others will also now be wondering what the point of all their work is if they cannot get the recognition for it.

This brings me to probably the most worrying aspect of this decision. The ICC clearly has no intention of granting full member status to Ireland at any point before 2015. That's at least six years since Ireland applied. With only a T20 World Cup in the interim, Ireland will find it difficult to get enough ODI matches to get the recognition needed for full membership. It then becomes again a vicious cycle with no clear path for associate nations to progress to full membership.

But you say, full membership is about more than international performance; it's about the local game, ensuring the game has support etc. Fine. Please explain how cutting teams out of the World Cup will help increase public exposure and support? The only times I have heard of Irish cricket on local TV is at the World Cups. Cricket was headline news for probably the first time ever when we beat England a few short years ago. Now, cricket was back in the headlines, but for all the wrong reasons. A wave of negativity has swept coverage of the sport. The elitism you showed in your decision entrenches the idea of the elitism of the game, that's it's not a game for everyone, only for the West Brits. The PR benefits of Ireland's performances in the World Cup are being wiped out in a matter of moments. Again, the game suffers.

So for all these reasons, I can only deduce that your decision lacks logic, foresight and the sportsmanship that your organisation is trying to promote in the youth of the game. Shame on you.

Yours,

Daniel Gleeson

The Price of the Exodus

This government has been a long time dying. Now that we finally are getting the general election that the country needs, I find myself unable to participate in that process. I don't know if I would have stayed in Ireland even if things had stayed all rosey, but the economic implosion that has happened over the last over the last couple years really pushed me out. Nonetheless, I find myself part of with will be a large unrepresented minority; the youth that were pushed out by the mistakes out our elders. 

So this all begs the question; should us ex-pats be allowed to vote. Oddly, enough I'm coming down on the side of the status quo and not having the vote for myself. There are a few very clear reasons for this:

1. Ireland has 3 million citizens living abroad compared to 4.5 million living in the State. This poses obvious problems.
2. The case has been made that as ex-pats vote in very small amounts, it's not such a big deal. However, it is a big deal when due to our arcane electoral system the final seats in many five seaters are decided by a mere handful of votes. This means that those few people voting from abroad can have an effect.
3. This has knock-on effects on the rest of things. As postal votes will be slow to come in, this will deplay the formation of any governments and could leave us government-less for much longer than usual.
4. There's the tired old arguement of "no taxation without representation" or more succinctly the reverse i.e. not able to pay taxes = no votes. That doesn't stand up to any logical scrutiny. 16 year olds can work and pay taxes yet not be able to vote. That's of course without even getting into the political minefield that would be unemployed people currently not paying taxes. There is a valid point underneath this though. Those without a stake in the country shouldn't be able to vote. The extent of the stake of emigrants is variable, but there is a clear line in the sand here. Not only do emigrants not contribute but we don't personally benefit from the welfare systems or other state services more than any other tourists would. This line has to be drawn somewhere and I'm fine with it being drawn here.

There's plenty of reasons to try to get people involved who are abroad, but in the end this can only end in controversy. Ireland's extremely high rates of emigration over the past 200 years of our history practically eliminates the idea. 

There are plenty of alternatives though. Michael Martin's proposal for single seat constituencies would help reduce some of my concerns, but a better option might be to either have the votes of ex-pats count in any list part of a reformed electoral system. (I know that's not what Martin proposed but it's an idea!) Alternatively, there could be seat(s) for the emigrant community in a reformed Seanad (similar to the University seats currently employed). One thing that I do feel should be allowed is emigrant voting in the Presidential election due to the nature of the position as the symbolic head of the Irish people. 

That's my two cents anyway. There'll be more of my musing on the first vote I'll miss as I try to vent my displeasure over the internet. Stay tuned. 

The Guilt of an Expat

The events of the last couple weeks in Ireland are nothing less than shocking. So much so that it's knocked me out of the blogging ennui that I found myself in recently. There's so much to say about the mess we've gotten ourselves into that I don't really know where to start. However start I must.

The one thing that has struck me is how negative everything is. Amid all this talk of bailouts, cuts and austerity measures; there has been nothing positive. No talk of spurring on the economy. No talk of rejuvenation. No talk of how to bring the economy out of its death throws and return it to prosperity. I understand that if there was any talk of such lofty ideals it would almost certainly have been drowned out by the cacophony of negativity coming from the media, analysts and commentators in the last few days. However there just seems to be a lack of anything positive to say.

All of this is having a particular effect on myself. Every time I read something about the state of Ireland's finances, there's this little pang of guilt inside me. So given that it's been on the front page of every (real) newspaper, it would be accurate to say that I've been feeling quite bad about abandoning the sinking ship when I did. I try to console myself and tell myself that logically, I saved the state money by moving as I was in receipt of Job Seeker's Allowance. I still feel though that I should be doing something.

What can we do? I have this idea. Unfortunately, I have no idea of how to make it happen or even if I did, I don't think I'd be the person with the most suitable skill set. So with that set of caveats out of the way I can get into the meat of it.

What does Ireland need? Ireland needs money, jobs, good news. In short Ireland needs entrepreneurs. Irish people creating our own jobs, our own success stories would do quite a bit to life the morale of people. The idea is to collect Irish expats together to form essentially a venture capital company aimed solely at sponsoring new Irish companies. In the current climate it should be easy to get the venture registered as a charity in various countries and then those charities are part owners of the company in Ireland.

Its an easy story to sell to people, to try to get people involved in; Irish people pulling together to dig ourselves out of this hole. Ex-pats doing something for the ol' sod and all that. More importantly, I feel that we've become a little too reliant on foreign direct investment. Not just to invest, but to make the jobs. I don't know many people whose response to unemployment is to take the bull by the horns and try to make something happen for themselves. We need to change that culture. Not only that but it's another way of channelling that much desired FDI through takeovers. Believe me, in the tech business; all you need is a good a idea and to know the right people to get the word out there; and Google (or Apple or some of the other big players) will probably buy you up.

I just wish I could make it happen.

Surreality

Cork won the All-Ireland.

For only the sixth time ever, Cork are the All-Ireland Senior Football Champions. No one can question that this victory was deserved. Cork were looking ragged and unimaginative after a dramatic opening few minutes. However a late burst in the first half set the stage for a more expansive second half. Cork's victory was assured due some spectacular points in the second half; Donnacha O'Connor's stands out but Kerrigan's left footed effort was nothing short of heroic. An impressive cameo from Nicholas Murphy helped secure the middle for Cork.

None of that would have mattered if it wasn't for mister consistency; Daniel Goulding. Nine points in total, seven from placed balls which kept Cork in touch when they were desperately needed. The goal in front of Hill 16 was clearly much more slippery than the Canal End. Down struggled to make any production at that end, while it the combination of Down's indiscipline and Goulding's accuracy made the difference in the end.

Goulding was rightly awarded man of the match for his efforts, winning my brother €50 in the process. This tops off what is always the surreal experience of watching Goulding play on the TV. A guy that I played GAA with for around 14 years just won an All-Ireland and was Man of the Match to boot. Growing up it was always obvious that Dan was a talent. I remember watching him play in an under 12 final where he scored all bar a couple points of Éire Óg's tally that day (with the very capable John Gleeson in a starring role at corner back too). Playing full forward with Dan in the corner was a dream; he was almost always available for the breaking ball or making intelligent runs Even though he was always the best player on the field, it's still a little weird to think that he is THAT good. Like, it's Dan; I've gotten the better of him a few times in training (few being the important word there).

In an added layer of hilarity; the Examiner did a pre-final special supplement which included a focus on Éire Óg as we had Dan and Ciarán Sheehan on the Senior team and Kevin Hallissey on the minors. It was written by Fintan O'Toole (not THAT Fintan O'Toole) who played with Goulding and myself on that same Éire Óg underage team!

NFL Week 1: Ever Seen a Zebra Screw a Lion?

To say that Week 1 of the NFL was full of surprises is an understatement. I'm going skip talking about most it though to talk about the main talking point from the weekend. I should also find some synonyms for talk. I will though add that my fantasy team brought me in a healthy 110 points putting me in 633rd position overall. Compare this to my current ranking of 1,514,494th in the Premiership Fantasy Football. I think I know which game I'm better at predicting.

For next week; I'm betting on Michael Vick coming up big against the unlucky Lions and I've decided to take a cheap gamble on Arian Foster repeating his heroics. I was very tempted to go with Aaron Rogers this week, but the Bills have a pretty good secondary (well relative to the rest of the Bills team). Plus Vick is a LOT cheaper.This has left me money to splash on receivers; Ochocinco, Austin and Dallas Clark get onto the team. I'm going with the Viking's defence to capitalise on their dome's noise to score some serious points against the Dolphins.

Now onto the burning issue of the day; watch this and write down if you think this is a perfectly acceptable catch.

Maddeningly, the zebra impersonators known as the referees didn't see this as a perfectly fine catch against all logic and intuition. This call cost the Detroit Lions their first victory since about 100BC (hence the post title and not some weird porn). The issue of course being "a lack of control of the ball through the process of catching". It's very tough. There is a logic to the rule; you can't have people juggling the ball around in the hands and call it a catch. However, surely having complete control is not completely necessary. It capped off a really crappy day for Detroit with QB Stafford getting injured and likely to miss a couple games. Dose. Talk about a kick in the teeth. 

Fantastic Football! (Now with added steroids!)

It’s that time of year again people. That’s right; the NFL season kicks off this Thursday night with the mouth watering clash of the defending champions Saints against the Vikings. I’m not going to talk about this week’s games though. I’m going to focus on the fantasy game being run by NFL UK. It’s very easy to use and really adds to the games as you start roaring on particular players or teams. Anyway I thought I’d give a bit of a rundown of how to pick your first fantasy team.


There are eight slots to fill: 1 quarterback, 2 running backs (RB), 2 wide receivers (WR), 1 tight end (TE), 1 kicker and 1 defence. There is an $18m salary cap, and players range from $4m to $1m. The good part is that in true NFL style you are not restricted to any number of changes next week. That means you can focus week to week on exploiting the bad match ups to get some cheap points. The scoring system is quite straight forward. Any RB, WR or TE get 1 point for every 10 yards they earn for their team and 6 points if they get a touchdown. The QB gets a point for every 30 yards of passing and three points per thrown TD. He’ll also be scored in the same way as the other offensive guys for any scrambles or runs he goes on. The kicker simple enough gets 1 point for every point he earns for the team. The defence get 3 points per sack or recovered fumble or interception, 2 points for a safety, and a bonus 6 if they return an interception for a TD. Yards returned for by any special teams’ players don’t get points but they get the points for a TD as per usual if they manage to get all the way to the end zone. That’s easy enough right?

When it comes to picking your players you have got to be looking for value for money in that week, so keeping an eye out for mismatches is a must. Generally anyone playing Oakland, Detroit, or St. Louis can be expected to do well. As the season progresses the main NFL website will keep detailed statistics of every player’s performances which will make it easier to spot not so obvious beneficial match ups. When it comes to the individuals, you need to ask yourself how often a player is going to get the ball in that game and how likely is he to score big when he does. Receivers (both WRs and TEs) can have some good yards per catch statistics, but the good teams usually have 3 or 4 receivers to spread the ball to so even the number one guy might only get a few catches a game. Any teams main RB is guaranteed plenty of chances to run with the ball as well picking up the occasional pass too. Therefore it makes more sense to spend money on RBs than receivers. Generally QBs don’t have great points per dollar payback either as they need a big game to bring in a decent haul of points. My generally priority order goes like this: running back, running back, receiver, receiver, quarterback, defence, receiver, and kicker.

Some notes on that. Don’t ignore defences. They can be cheap, but can also put up some big points as the Eagles defence did last year. Ignore kickers. It’s next to impossible to predict which teams will kick a pile of field goals in a week. Just get a cheap guy from a team that are able to get into kicking range most of the time and you should be fine. Even though the QB is relatively low on the priority list, you will also inevitably end up having to spend money to get a good one. It’s not worth it to spend $2m on a QB who’s just going to be handing the ball to his RB for the whole game. You should budget $3m for your QB in general. With all that in mind I’ll talk through how I picked my team for Week 1.

First Choice: RB Chris Johnson - $4m. He’s expensive, but last year he showed me that he was worth every penny, over and over again. He racked up over 2,000 yards of rushing, some decent receiving yards and a heap of TDs last year. What’s more; the Titans’ offence is built around him. He is guaranteed to get his hands on the ball many, many times in a game. He’s almost a no-brainer at the worst of times and this week Tennessee host the generally terrible Oakland Raiders. I’m expecting an explosive start to year from Johnson.

Second Choice: WR Chad Ochocinco - $3m. I know I broke my own rule of thumb but it needs to be done if you see a combination you like and you want to get it. Even thought the Bengals start with a seemingly tough assignment against the Patriots, Tom Brady’s forces are not the team they were. Even at that, it’s their offence that keeps them going rather than their defence. The Bengals are an up and coming team and with the addition of T.O. to their receiving core this should give QB Carson Palmer more targets and also create more room for Ochocinco.

Third Choice: QB Carson Palmer - $3m. He wasn’t really my third choice; he didn’t make my first draft of the team, but I had to switch QBs to free up some cash for elsewhere. Taking him means that I have a lot riding on the Bengals-Patriots game, but sometime you have to roll the dice. The same analysis as above applies. I think the Bengals could be a much stronger force this year and Palmer definitely has the skills to break into the group of elite QBs in the league. I will admit it’s a big gamble though.

Fourth Choice: RB Tim Hightower - $2m. My first few picks cost me quite a lot so I had to start saving. Hightower at $2m is a good match up choice I think for two reasons. Firstly, Arizona are playing the St. Louis Rams who were the worst team in the NFL last year. Secondly, with Warner retiring and Leinhart being left go, leaving new boy Anderson as the QB I would expect Arizona to run the ball a heck of a lot more in the opening couple games at least. Anderson doesn’t exactly come with a great record, so when they get near the goal line I’m hoping the Cardinals go to Hightower to punch through to the end zone.

Fifth Choice: TE Vernon Davis - $2m. In reality, Davis was probably the first name down in my head. One simple reason; when the 49ers get near the goal line, it is Davis who gets the short receptions for TDs. He puts up decent points as a result at half the cost of Dallas Clark or Jason Witten. San Fran open against the Seahawks who have been turned on their head by new coach Pete Carroll. This could mean a productive day for Smith, Gore, Crabtree and Davis.

Sixth Choice: K Matt Prater - $1m. I chose my kicker next to get that out of the way. Denver’s Matt Prater looked like a solid choice from the $1m ones available. I refuse to believe that spending more on a kicker is worth it; simply because it’s so hard to predict who will score big in a given week.

Seventh Choice: D Arizona - $1m. I took Arizona’s defence based entirely on their match up. The St. Louis offence couldn’t fight its way out of a wet paper bag last year and they’ve announced that rookie QB Sam Bradford will be leading their team out on Sunday. I’m seeing at least 2 sacks and 2 interceptions in this for the Cardinals’ defence.

Eighth Choice: WR Devin Hester - $2m. I left this till last as it was the one causing me most problems. Do you go for the number two receiver on a throwing team and hope he has a big game or do you go for the number one guy on a lesser team? It’s a tough choice and I nearly rolled the dice with the Cowboys’ rookie receiver Dez Bryant. Instead I decided to go for a solid choice with a good matchup. Hester is the main man in Chicago. While the Bears won’t be in the Superbowl, they should get past the Detroit Lions who were marginally less terrible than the Rams last year. They bolstered their defensive line with the number two draft pick this year, which should mean more quick passes to the speedy Hester who will be expected to do the heavy lifting on his own.

So that’s my team. Any feedback is appreciated. If you sign up for the NFL UK fantasy football, let me know what your team name is so that I can gloat when I beat you week in week out. My team is the DG Dragons just so you know that it actually is me when they show the leader board on Sky Sports.

Net Neutrality and Why You Should Care About It

If you’ve been tuned into the gadget world, the phrase net neutrality will have been thrown about a lot recently thanks to Google and Verizon (who are an American telecom if you didn‘t know). The two giant corporations came out with draft legislation for net neutrality, the first of its kind but it has come under a hail of abuse and has placed the two companies in the centre of massive debate in the telecom industry.


In a nutshell, net neutrality is the idea that all bytes are created equal and should be treated as such. Internet service providers (ISPs) shouldn’t be able to discriminate and prioritise certain traffic over others. Sounds good in principle yeah? Like all fluffy ideas, there are issues. Enforcing complete net neutrality would prevent ISPs from filtering spam, not displaying child pornography and provide the necessary network management at peak times. As much as we’d like to think it; access to the internet is not unlimited and when everyone tries to get on at once the ISP has to do something to try to ensure everyone gets some piece of the action. A bit like the rolling blackouts they do in LA when it gets hot to reduce demand on the power so that the whole city doesn’t go dark at once (that may seem a little obscure but I was watching a Criminal Minds episode in which that featured last night. I can only assume it’s true…)


There are concerns though at the moment that ISPs will start managing their traffic a little too much, effectively stopping peer-to-peer file sharing, charging certain websites (like Google/Youtube) to ensure a quality connection for its customers who visit that site or even blocking off competitor’s websites altogether.
Like all corporate disputes however the key issue is money. Google and many other internet based companies make huge profits off the back of the infrastructure the ISPs provide. The ISPs in comparison work with very tight margins and huge capital expenditure cost. Basically, the ISPs are fighting net neutrality as it gives them power over the internet companies. Internet companies obviously don’t want to have to pay and a more subtle annoyance will be having to pick and choose their markets rather than just being open to the world once you’re on the web.


So far the ISPs haven’t been going down this road because bandwidth has been plentiful for the most part. However, there is a crunch coming. The crunch is coming in the mobile area due to spiralling data usage from smartphones. While cabled service can provide huge speeds and carry massive amounts of data, wireless is severely limited in comparison. This is specifically why Google and Verizon made an exemption from net neutrality in their legislation and is the main talking point on the interwebs.


I would like to dispel the notion that I’m turning into a corporate whore since moving to London, but the fluffy principles of net neutrality just don’t stand up to reality and not just for mobile networks. If we want ISPs to continue upgrading our networks then someone has to pay for it. Internet companies can provide that money without hurting the consumer too much. Not only that but I don’t think it’s fair that Google (through YouTube in the main) can take up such a massive proportion of the strain on the networks and not be expected to pay for the service. As long as sensible laws are enacted to protect consumers privacy and against anti-competitive behaviour, then I’ve no problem the net not being neutral.


Why I think you should care about this though is that for the internet generation that we are; free and open access to everything on the internet has been take as a given. The internet was the modern wild west; no laws, no regulations, no barriers to entrepreneurs. While it will never be fully tamed, the internet is coming more and more under control. There are more barriers now to setting up an internet start up, most of them non-financial. Illegal file sharing is being clamped down on. Governments are quickly catching up with legislation to govern the net e.g. legislation to tax online betting is in the works in Ireland. The debate over net neutrality is about what is the core philosophy of the internet, and as much as many people will hate it; it will be money that decides which way the legislation falls.

The T.O. Show Comes to Town

It's that time of year again. Sports of various codes are swinging back into action. The Premier League starts in under two weeks, but I'll leave my take on that till a closer date. The NFL doesn't kick off for another three weeks after that but the NFL has provided one of the most interesting signings of the summer. Screw the LeBron James primetime hour, the T.O. show rolls into Cincinnati this week and it's looks like a match made in heaven.

T.O. finally saw sense and took a large pay cut (he's down to $2m for the year) in order to play for a team that are real contenders. Not only that, but Chad Ochocinco (neé Johnson) and QB Carson Palmer have been vocal in trying to get T.O. to come. Ochocinco and T.O. are actually good friends which should help the bruising to T.O's ego which will come from him having to play second fiddle to Ochocinco. Hopefully, this shows that T.O. is ready to put his history behind him and focus on the serious business of winning that coveted superbowl ring. The Bengals now have Benson (a quality running back), Palmer (A Heismann Trophy winning, Pro-Bowl, first overall pick in the draft, so yeah quality) and two excellent wide receivers and had the fourth best defence in the league last year's regular season. This makes the Bengals serious contenders for the coming year.

I still think it's the Cowboy's year though. Or the Vikings.

The Raoul Moat Saga

Ever since the tragic events of the 3rd and 10th of July, newspapers, politicians and all entities that one could ascribe the "establishment" label to in any regard have been scathing in their vilification of Raoul Moat. In fairness, as far as anyone can be called a villian; he can. However, the lack of sympathy being shown and the lack of understanding of those who show sympathy is appalling.

To quote the most establishment figure one can find, the Rt. Hon. David Cameron

“I cannot understand any wave, however small, of public sympathy for this man. There should be sympathy for his victims and the havoc he wreaked in that community.” 

So, David, let me try to enlighten you why some people feel sympathy for a killer. There are a few reasons why people do this.

First of all, we must remember that Moat's life story covered miles of news pages and the story had twenty four hour coverage on television. It pervaded the everyday lives of people. Once people saw his background, his breakdown and his kids it became a whole lot easier to humanise him. The word "monster" is used too often by the media to label people, and people readily latch onto it for paedophiles. It's easy to call up images of trolls or other hideous beasts and put paedophiles in the same category as them. In fact it's easy to put any group of people in that category as long as you don't know them. That's basically where racism comes from. Knowing people doesn't necessarily lead to complete understanding, but it does lead to a little understanding and a little sympathy.

Secondly, people are conditioned to root for the underdog. Whether in sports or in life; when someone is facing nigh impossible odds, ninety-nice times out of a hundred the neutral spectator wants the underdog to win for it to be dramatic. Such conditioning has been achieved through years of Hollywood movies where the hero overcomes the forces of the entire universe to rescue the treasure and/or girl. There's a plethora of glorified convicts on the the run from the law in our collective psyche; Ned Kelly, Butch Cassidy, even Robin Hood for crying out loud. Regardless of his crimes, when the faceless state brings all of its draconian powers to bear on one individual, the natural inclination of people is to cheer for the little guy.

Thirdly, the manner of his death. It was a tragedy. Any death is. Worse than that, it was a tragedy which many see as have being preventable. The police had Moat surrounded for over five hours before he shot himself. I'm going to bet I'm not the only one thinking that some form of tranquillizer or something could have been used to bring him in peacefully. I'm sure the police officers did the best they could, but the feeling still remains.

Lastly, someone died. It is perfectly natural to feel sympathy when someone dies, regardless of whether you know the person or not. People should be celebrating the fact that we are able to feel sympathy for killers. Empathising and sympathising with other people is what gels society. A lack of empathy and sympathy is what makes it possible for people to commit violent crime. We feel sympathy, thus we have not turned into the animal during the hunt.

So rather than condemning the sympathy, we should try to understand it and focus it on the positives. The messages being sent out by the Prime Minister and the rest of the establishment only serves to divide the state further from people and hardly serves the purpose of building Mr. Cameron's "Big Society".

You Know What? We're Pretty Awesome

So there I was, hurtling along in the sky at about 500km per hour, around five km above the ground in long rather heavy metal cylinder. The thought struck me; how is it that such an incredible feat of human engineering and genius that is powered flight does not inspire awe in all who see it let alone use it.

It seems rather incredulous, but we've become normalised to the thought of air travel. It has become common to the point of boredom as evidenced the fact that the time spent on safety instructions by the cabin crew is usually spent by the passengers sleeping or reading or listening to an ipod or some combination thereof. I have flown approximately 66,510km in my life, and I would not consider myself a prolific traveller. My elder sister puts her mileage in the 100,000km area. At least.

It's the same with other engineering marvels. We have had images from all over the world beamed into our homes for decades now. We can converse instantaneously with friends on the other side of the world. We use a series of giant explosions to land an object accurately on a planet over 50 MILLION kilometres away, AND then we able to land that object carefully enough that it's able to drive over the alien landscape AND collect samples and data AND transmit that data back to us. When you sit back and think about how a little while, the breath and depth of human advancements are simply mind boggling. We adapt to using new technology astoundingly quickly and integrate it into our lives. Can you imagine now a world without mobile phones, without the internet? We now have robotic limbs for paraplegics; the only limit on what's next is our imagination (and the laws of physics I suppose).

Despite this ability to adapt, I do worry at times how we'd cope with disaster, and I mean society ending disaster. I've just finished reading The Road by Cormac McCarthy which is a masterpiece showing man's struggle in a post-apocalyptic state. It also shows how woefully under prepared the world is for that sort of disaster. Think about how long you could survive on the food in your house right now. I'm guessing a week at most. Without a shop to buy your food from, what would you do? Could people adapt quickly enough to that? It's a fascinating question. All I know is having done scouts as a kid would suddenly become useful at last.

So the next time a telemarketer phones you, take some time to remember how amazing it is that they are able to harass you like that. Take the time to enlighten them to the majesty of technology. Not only would it educate them, you'd be guaranteed not to get any more calls from that company again.

Gamesmanship or Cheating?

Last week, Ghana were knocked out of the World Cup owing chiefly to Luis Suárez handling the ball on the line preventing a last minute Ghananian(?) goal. The aftermath featured much gnashing of teeth, much lamenting the lack of some sort of penalty goal system and of course, much vilification of FIFA and Sepp Blater. Suarez himself seems to have gotten off lightly much to the chagrin of the internet (or at least the small part of the internet I observe).
Professional fouls such as that one have been around forever and permeate all levels of every sport. I remember being coached at age twelve to "take out" any players that were one-on-one with me when I was playing in goal. I have a particularly clear memory of tripping a player through on goal in a Cork County Under 16 Hurling Quarter Final, and I mean I just swung my hurley at the guys heels. I got away with that one, but even had I been sent off, it would have been an acceptable loss. In any sport, what counts is winning. In team sports, it's the team's results that count. Players are always taught to play selflessly; to pass to the player in a better position, to take the hits in the tackle, to run yourself into the ground in the name of the jersey. Add to this conditioning, the pride involved in playing for your country on the biggest stage in the world. Given these combination of factors, is it any surprise that Suarez did what he did?

There is a huge difference here between what happened here and Henry's handball and Maradonna's Hand of God. This is very evident in the popular psyche. Henry was vilified in his own national media following the game. The Hand of God follows Maradonna around to this day, and has firmly embedded itself in English football folklore. Suarez was treated like a hero; a modern day knight who sacrificed himself for the good of the country. In my view, rightly so. The guy didn't try to hide what he did. He shamelessly took the bullet for the team. It was the last minute of the game, there was literally nothing left to lose. Even if there was a penalty goal rule like that in rugby, I can guarantee you that he would have still done it. It was an instinctive reaction, borne out of those years of indoctrination into a team playing psyche. In those micro seconds all a player cares about is stopping a ball going into the goal.

The mental process involved with the Hand of God or the Hand of Frog is different. Those were calculated efforts to direct the ball in a specific direction. This may sound like something I'm asserting, and essentially it is. It's borne from personal experience. It just makes more sense. Unfortunately I can't seem to ba bale to explain it in any more precise fashion.

Despite this and all the other controversies that have dodged this World Cup, I can guarantee that there will be no goal-line technology, no video referees and no penalty goal rule. Why? Not just because Sepp Blater is as stubborn as a particularly bitter mule, but I get this feeling that FIFA want the controversy. They look at the way these injustices are manipulated by the national media in the affected nations, and notice how these are used as fuel to fire interest when those two sides next meet. This means huge interest in the sport, and in turn huge advertising revenues for the national FAs and FIFA. If you doubt me, just imagine what would have happened if France and Ireland were in the same group for the forthcoming European Championships Qualifying campaign; the tabloids would be frothing at the mouth, the Joe Duffy public would be baying for blood and the viewing audience would be HUGE.

Also, screw it. In sport, like in life, shit happens.

Damn Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys

This is not an anti-French rant. It is a lament. The events of that fateful meeting in Paris many months ago are not forgotten, but they are accepted. At the least, I accept them. In sport, as in life, shit happens. Shit happens at all possible levels. The standard of refereeing at the World Cup shows that in spades. Like many other Irish, I wanted to see the French get beaten in the same sort of way that we like to see the English get beaten. It's not that we hate them or that we're bitter; just that we latch onto any reason to support one side over another. That and we love a good complain. Particularly in the summer, when the weather isn't as terrible as it usually is, we need something to complain about. So, France are suffering our ire at the moment.

While I was rooting for Mexico against France, the French team's woeful display left me infuriated. The complete lack of effort, the lack of desire, the lack of any sort of passion or pride in the jersey seemed so out of place at the World Cup. Fair enough their team is managed by an incompetent astrologist, but what ever happened to individual pride, individual leadership and more importantly, national pride? Each player can only ever play in three World Cups barring a few extraordinary exceptions. This is the competition that every kid grows up dreaming about. At the very least you'd expect them to give it a lash. Much like the Irish did in 2002 when after losing by far our best player to a dispute, the team rallied, gave it a lash, and lo and behold made it to the last 16 and were a heartbeat away from the quarter finals. Without any doubt, even again lacking our world class player, Shay Given, the Irish lads would have been giving it socks and not giving up at all.

I'm reminded here of a West Wong quote:

Leo: You know, it was a screw-up. But I gotta say, I love the way he did it full speed, bam. Like there's a Sam Seaborn-shaped hole in the wall.

That's the attitude I expect from ALL teams at the World Cup. That was the attitude the Irish team showed that night in Paris. Playing away from home, against a team ranked over thirty places higher than them, facing a one goal deficit; the odds were heavily stacked against them. No one thought it could happen. They gave it a lash and it produced a highly entertaining and competitive match. Surely that's the kind of team you want at the World Cup?

When FIFA "clarified" the rules on the draw for the play-off matches, I have no doubt that a desire to see the big money teams of France, Portugal, Russia at the World Cup played a factor. This strategy has spectacularly back fired with the impotent performances of France and (so far) Portugal. Will a lesson be learned? You gotta be kidding me.

Gold in Moscow; Gold in London?

Sandwiched in the middle of the unending World Cup coverage and the GAA championship, I hope I am not alone in feeling that accomplishments of the Irish boxing team in Moscow are not getting the coverage they deserve. The Irish team are coming home tonight with FIVE medals; one gold, one silver and three bronze. This meant that the Irish team grabbed second place on the medals table behind Russia with their seven golds, aided presumably by the sort of home field scoring that was seen at the Beijing Olympics. Particularly considering that there was only seven fighters on the Irish team, this is a phenomenal level of success.

Omens look particularly good for the 23 year old Paddy Barnes. Already an Olympic medallist at the tender age of 21, he should be coming into his prime come the London games in two years. Watching his final on RTE last night, the control and discipline he displayed in the biggest fight of his life so far tells me that this guy has that winning mentality, has the toughness and the tactical awareness to go all the way in London.

Darren O'Sullivan, a primary school teacher by day, found himself on the wrong end of a 16-7 defeat in his final. This score is a little unfair on O'Sullivan though. He was level with his opponent right up to the end of round 2, where a late flurry left him a little behind. He had to chase it in the third round, which left him vulnerable to his taller opponent; who used every extra inch of his reach to his benefit.

Team captain Kenneth Egan brought home a bronze. After his controversial silver in Beijing, I thought that his decision to remain amateur to fight in London was a mistake. After this showing, I am more convinced than ever. For Egan, anything that is not the gold medal in two years time will be a disappointment. He will be 30 when he fights in London which brings with it questions over his physical fitness. The guy is an absolute hero, and I hope to be in the crowd cheering him on to gold. I just hope this doesn't backfire horribly on him.

Of course, in London, women will be competing in the boxing arena for the first time. This means Katie Taylor gets to kick some ass. All in all, London should prove to be a happy hunting ground for the Irish boxing team.

The Pleasure, The Pain, The Pageantry, and The Punditry: World Cup 2010

After four years of waiting, after no less than eight hundred and fifty three qualifying games, two thousand, three hundred and forty four goals, and a bucket load of controversies, the 2010 FIFA World Cup is finally upon us.

Regardless of how much fun I derive from the next month or so of over indulgence in sport, FIFA have come out of this World Cup campaign very tarnished in my eyes. I don't think Ireland should have gotten a replay of the infamous match in Paris as they were tied by the rules on that occasion. However, the staggering level of resistance to the introduction to video technology to aid the referee baffles me. I just don't understand why FIFA cannot implement some sort of workable system when practically every other major sport on the planet has. Not only that but the ruthlessness which FIFA approaches the World Cup as a marketing opportunity means that little or no benefit will be seen to most South Africans due to prohibitive sponsorship deals and it's ruthless defence of trademark. It has most certainly left a sour taste in my mouth anyway, but I'm sure I'll forget about it quickly enough like the unprincipled market slave that we are really are.

Anyway, onto the actual football. I have some shocking predictions that may shock and disturb you. You may want to sit down or guard them from any elderly relatives.

1. France will not get out of the group stage.
2. Argentina will not get past the quarter-finals.
3. The US will make the semis.
4. Brazil will win.

Just remember to tell them I told you so...

Damn you, Capitalism!

Last week, those very smart people over in MIT unveiled a design for a plane which could reduce aviation fuel consumption by up to 70 per cent, make about as much noise as a really tiny kitten and as the picture shows is quite pleasing on the eye too.

Using a blended wing body as opposed to the usual narrow body design, this is the latest in a long line of design development that aims to radically increase the efficiency of aircraft. As anyone who's worked out their own one out, regular flying leads to a crater like carbon footprint. So, this should make a massive dent in the carbon emissions of the western world, yeah?

If only it were that simple. That most dastardly of things, capitalism, comes in and ruins everything. These sort of designs have been knocking around for a while, but market forces hold them back from any sort of commercial roll out. Look closely at that picture; there are limited passenger windows. Earlier designs such as what has know become the Boeing X-48 didn't have any passenger windows and that provoked such a negative reaction in focus groups that they were dropped as commercial prospects and now exist entirely as military or NASA projects.

It's not just consumers that would be holding these designs back. The narrow body design is universal, which means that it's what all airports, ground crew and all the other various pieces of machinery that interact with a plane are built to work with. In particular, refueling in this type of aircraft takes more time and for that reason alone the low-cost airlines would ignore them.

Concorde showed that while there can be a niche for non-standard design, it also shows how difficult it is to change and how unenthusiastic many airlines and airports are for change. True, Concorde was obscenely loud and inefficient, but it had it's selling point and made a profit on its (two) routes. These planes have a selling point, and its appeal is much more broad based than high flying executives needing to be in NY in 2 hours for a meeting. There's hope that these designs will one day be the staple of our air travel experience, but without significant US and EU subsidies, that could be a long wait.

Invigilating: A View From the Other Side

In the course of my education, I sat many an exam. 99% of the time when you sit an exam, you are oblivious to the goings on around you. The room next door could be on fire, but unless I remember the precise statement of that ridiculously named theorem I spent most of last night trying to understand, I'll happily ignore all alarms going off around me. However, for the last couple weeks, I have been on the other side of the fence: invigilating. I've supervised a wide range of subjects and students, and I have a few observations to share.

1. Class and society hoodies all have TERRIBLE puns on them. Universally terrible. I think the History one "We get all the dates" and the Philosphy one "We think about doing it a lot" are the worse offenders. Please, someone, be original!

2. Some people have either no dress sense or must be going straight from the exam to a night club. Hmm... that's actually quite possible, but I refuse to believe that it's universally true. Seriously though, some people need to realise there's a time from tonnes of make-up and fancy clothes. 9am exams are not them.

3. Arts departments need to get better at naming their modules if they want me to take them seriously. I've found two types of annoying module title: ones that have absurdly general titles (HI2001 - Ireland, Europe and the Wider World for example) or titles that are just absurd in themselves (GG3001 - The Nature of Geography).


4. On the other hand, many sciency subjects are so specific that I doubt they'd ever be used again e.g. ZY4012 - Population Dynamics of Birds. I really wonder what makes the dynamics of bird populations so particularly interesting.

5. Does wearing a WWJD? bracelet in a religion exam count as cheating?

6. When did it come into vogue to wear ear plugs during an exam? I seem to have missed that boat.

7. It's a lot of fun to read all the various papers and imagine how you approach to answer questions that you know little to nothing about. This is much more fun in the humanities as they use words the lay person can understand in their questions. My favourite one was from the AP2002 (The Social Psychology of Organising) paper. Question one was "Explain the relationship between money and happiness." I immediately knew that the answer lay in differential equations and the Lotka-Volterra predator-prey interaction model.

8. Why, oh why, did those engineers insist on doing precise drawings on the normal scripts when graph paper was available? GAH! The inaccuracy of it all hurt me inside.

9. People have some odd exam rituals. One (very) mature student brought their teddy bear into the exam with them.

10. Despite the availability of perfectly safe cheating mechanisms (the ol' writing on the leg and going to the loo routine is actually impervious) some people are still idiots and try smuggling written notes into the exam. You'd be surprised how quickly an invigilator adjusts to noticing when people aren't looking at their script or are fidgeting at all. Just so you know, materials has been confiscated from at least two people in exams I was invigilating.

11. I have no sympathy for people who forget to bring a spare pen while managing to remember to bring a pen in the first place. Like, you're doing many exams and presumably writing a lot! What did you think was going to happen! Also people who use a pencil but don't bring a topper or an eraser.

12. You'd think that after several exams, people would remember that they have to write their seat number down on their scripts too even though there's no box for it. Also, people who leave it until you're hovering over them waiting to collect their script to begin filling out their details on their five exam books are the single most annoying people in the world and every time I'm tempted to "accidentally" drop a couple of them in the bin.

13. When checking someone's student id and details, I'm mostly just checking if they're hot and if so making a mental note of the address on their timetable.

That's Just Not Cricket

Earlier today, an England team won the Twenty20 Cricket World Cup. The English squad included one Irishman, one Pakistani, and more South Africans than you can shake a stick at. Despite their reliance on their foreign born players (none of their top three scoring batsmen were born in England), without a doubt this victory will be the source of an infinitely large number of boasts by drunken English yobs for the next while. I am very much looking forward to England getting beaten in the soccer World Cup now.

It does raise the issue of player eligibility though. While Pietersen and Kieswetter never played for South Africa, Morgan did play for Ireland. According to the ICC's rules for player eligibility a player is only eligible if "he has not played Representative Cricket for any other Member Country during the 4 immediately preceding years". This would seem to suggest that Eoin Morgan is very ineligible to play for England, having played with Ireland up to 2007. However there is a catch: 

Cricketers qualified to play for Associate and Affiliate Members can continue to represent that country without negating their eligibility or interrupting their qualification period for a Full Member Country up until the stage that the cricketer has played for the Full Member Country at Under 19 level or above.

So, in other words, if you're from one of the "lesser" cricketing nations, you're fair game to any of the full members (providing of course you've fulfilled the residency requirement).  This to me seems like a ridiculous double standard.

When you add in the non-existent rules about an associate member becoming a full member, this all becomes very haphazard. There is no clear timeline on when Ireland, arguably consistently the best Associate member over the last ten years and definitely the second best at the moment (behind Afghanistan), will ascend to elite status of Full Member. As a result, our best players defect to England for a chance to play test cricket which is denied to them with Ireland. This leaves Ireland with a team which is unable to compete with the test nations (as all the players who are at that level have been poached), which provides the ICC with a convenient excuse to not upgrade Ireland to Full Member.

The hilarious thing is that the ODI and Twenty20 World Cups have shown that so called inferior nations are capable of holding their own against the big boys. I'm sure everyone remembers Ireland's remarkable victory over Pakistan in the 2007 World Cup. That was not an isolated incident. In that same tournament, Ireland drew with Zimbabwe and beat Bangladesh; both full members. Ireland beat Bangladesh again in the Twenty20 World Cup last year and in that same tournament the Netherlands beat England. While this year's World Cup didn't provide the upsets of previous years, the facts remain that Ireland have reached the Super Eights of two World Cups, outdoing many Full Members in the process and are yet no nearer to reaching Full Member status than they were before.

Ireland applied for Full Membership status last year, but the process of that application could take several years to be worked through. The criteria for Full Membership seem quite arbitrary. Improvement in the cricket structure is necessary but a "flexible approach is to be taken and not one based on win rate". The criteria also asks for a strong financial setting, but given that Ireland can't get consistent games against top nations without Full Membership, we can't get the revenue that those tours would bring. Also mentioned is the incredibly vague need for a "cricket culture".

However, even if Ireland do achieve Full Membership and eventual test status, Morgan would need to have not played with England for four full years before he can put on the green again. After the ease of his defection to England, how does this seem fair? Surely, the ICC should include an exemption for players returning to their original Associate Member nations, particularly if they have just gained full membership status. The presence of that experience in the Irish squad would improve the standard of the entire team no end.