confused between percentages and actual numbers

I think Straits Times reporters need to go for an intensive mathematical crash course.

Last week, or was it a fortnight ago, I saw the news as "Public Transport Ridership Down". Or something along that lines. I saw the news broadcast, and on the papers as well, that the ridership went up, but the proportion went down. Technically speaking, the ridership went UP.

Today, I saw an article on the main section of the newspaper, that Singapore is top destination for would-be immigrants. My first thought: this cannot be true. Indeed, it wasn't. Singapore is only the top destination only because that study took the potential total net immigration, and expressed it as a proportion of our current population. Look, if Singapore is the top destination, we would have the most potential net immigrants, NOT some numbers ending with a "%" sign.

Please. I'm not being fastidious over here, but it's a silly and misleading mistake.

i don't know

I don't know... I don't know...

zzz. Looks like that I going to be busy until... I pass my driving test. Which I have not even started on it yet.

Until April I hope. Then I shall be free.

Yay!

combat effectiveness and combat comfort

If you had a choice, would you choose between being comfortable... or being protected?

Why not both?

Anyone whose favourite pair of footwear is the SAF issued boots, hands up. Don't you think that we should have boots like this, the Gore-tex Striker™ II GTX® Side-Zip NMT All-Leather Boot, instead of the current one?

By being protected, I am referring to methods to increase combat effectiveness, such as adding springs to boots to "assist" us in clearing the low wall effortlessly. We can, and should, add new innovations onto a good and comfortable platform, and not simply increase combat effectiveness at the expense (or ignorance) of comfort. Comfort is a great motivation in training, and being in the shade after a section movement is almost priceless (maybe just next to ORD). But combat effectiveness is something that makes or breaks your battle and your life, so I am rating it slightly higher.

Am I arguing on both sides?

If training is essential, then I say that comfort during training boosts effectiveness and morale, leading to better training. More sweat, less blood? How about Same sweat, less blood? For the same effort, we are able to achieve more during training if the trainees are happy.

So, training effectiveness is related to training morale, which combat comfort plays a large part. We should not neglect this issue. People think it is less important than combat effectiveness simply because they have yet to see the secondary or tertiary effects of comfort in the field.

It's normal!

OH my. Blogger is normal now.

I don't actually spend much, contrary to certain beliefs. I don't spend on small products virtually...except sweets. I'd only decide to buy something I really like when my bank account hits a certain undisclosed limit. That's "wise-spending" to me.

I admit...that I do not buy a product sometimes due to its popular usage, but due to a particular feature. Like my Creative T20 II speakers...I got them because I have no space for a subwoofer, yet I would like to have some bass.

Generally I don't buy things on impulse. Heh.

Anyway, now that some of my closest friends are gone, I've a smaller pool of friends to go out with/take part in activities. This is tragic. Come back soon!

To kenghoe: Thanks for the postcard. :)

no more green

how about sky blue.

It might be luck, it might be intentional. Actually, SAF could send me for cross training in every vocation it offers. That'd be good in the future, and I could possibly understand more. But seriously, it is very tiring, and you end up being a jack of all trade but master of none.

Let's see... I've experienced life as a rudimentary rifleman, seen combat engineers in training, been through what a platoon medic needs to know. And soon, I'd learn about aviation medicine, which is a radical change from my infantry platoon medic training.

There are some people who ask me about my decision to work in MINDEF. Not for money or for fame, definitely. Defence science is interesting and cutting edge, and it's the least I could do for my fellow countrymen. Have you not felt the sense of pride, the sense of achievement to be given the chance to contribute to national security?

Furthermore, if you feel that there is a problem, the noble thing is to stay back and to fix it, and not to exit the arena at all costs. Of course some may say that I'm just banging my head on the wall, but there's this little flame burning inside me that tells me that what I am going to do is right.

It's almost a similar response if you were to ask an SAFOS holder how he feels about signing on the SAF. It may be that we're going on different paths, but we have the same visions and goals. I remember during a SAFOS tea session, one SAFOS holder told me that the NS experience and the "regular" experience cannot be more different. I'm not going to be a regular, but still under the MINDEF umbrella nevertheless.

Gut feeling. You might be right. (I was thinking of a pun, but I think I'd let it go)

i'm not happy.

Seriously, do you listen to who is right, or you listen to who is higher ranked?

I do not think that a higher ranked person means he has better integrity, better loyalty. Is that tested during your command school training?

If your command school focuses on military training, and not on integrity and loyalty, and someone who qualifies for command school but doesn't go for it, doesn't this put both the commander and the guy who, by choice, didn't make it, on equal grounds (as integrity)?

There is no reason to distrust a lower ranked personnel just because he is lower ranked.

happy teachers day

It's the time of the year whereby we express our gratitude to our mentors, be it mentors of our education, or of values.

There are a few teachers that have seriously made an impact on my life. And of course, when we're young, almost all of us wanted to be teachers. Some parts of my life are molded by them, and I may become a teacher myself.

They gave me inspiration, they gave me determination, and they gave me hope.

My pathway into science might be shaped by a few of them. My professors at NUS/NTU, my doctors over at RIs, my high school teachers, my primary school teachers. I may be considered lucky to have supportive mentors, such that they pushed me along this path. There are a few sad cases that I've came across whereby teachers damped their passion in a certain subject...

Once again, thank you.

On marketing strategies

Sometimes I just don't understand.

Canon used to have the lead in the digital sensor technology. Remember the 20D?

Then Sony caught up and Nikon came up with D300, D700 and D3x. I dare say that Canon was overwhelmed, and effectively pwned by the combo by Nikon and Sony.

And from the impending release of the 7D, I don't think they are going to recapture the lost market share from Nikon. Why can't they be more flexible and create something that is more attractive...even during the rumor stages?

A 1.3x crop on the 7D? No?

And you dare to squeeze 18MP onto one 1.6x APS-C sensor?

Seeing the 50D sales figures, I think it doesn't take the brain of even a monkey to see that Canon is going down the wrong way. And the 50D, with the 5D2, is essentially what Canon produced with the Nikon trio. Admittedly, the 5D2 itself is a good camera, as a cheaper 1Ds3, why is it that we don't see a mini 1D3?

Oh yes I forgot. The upcoming 7D is that mini 1D3.

Canon's advantage has always been on the sensor. If everything in the 7D is meant to be a mini 1D3, except the sensor, then what's the point?

zzz. looks like I've to wait again.

my reflections

Well, blogger is still... screwed up. On my firefox, anyway.

I've heard some things about my current organisation... and I don't think it's all good. Of course, all armed forces in the world suffer some deficits in some form or another, but I am concerned about such issues.

On a totally separated note, intentional cover-ups to cover your back (or base) is wrong. It is institutionally wrong, morally corrupted... and a total wuss. Just face the music lo. What is the use of having any armed force, when they dare to kill but not to admit wrong-doings? Is that a successful organisation, and a modern one at that?

If the organisation does have such leadership, the people out in the field (literally) would not respect the command. They might think... if my superiors are so concerned about their backs, so much more than us, why should we risk (or pia) our lives for them? Loyalty and trust are not bred that way.

A successful organisation is based on trust, and not on fear.

Foreign talent is vital

I've just read today's newspaper.

We apparently need foreign residents to fill our population gap. A verbatim quote from the article: "Immigrants make up for the children Singaporeans are not having, he said."

I acknowledge the fact that the common mindset in the streets of Singapore has changed, to one that goes along with a "small family size". That sort of explains why we have a dwindling local birth rate.

But what led to this radical mindset change, other than urbanisation, would be the somewhat shock therapy of "Two-child policy". I believe that once this restrictive policy is implemented, time reversal symmetry is broken, i.e. a policy to push along with the mindset shift cannot be easily reversed. This policy was wildly effective, and soon enough most families are indeed having two or less. This policy was lifted, albeit too late, and another policy, the "As many as you can", was introduced.

Could the reversal of the policy be too late? Could it be that our socio-demographic projections weren't well and accurate enough? Or could it be simply due to the lack of extrapolation (i.e. foresight)?

And since there is seeming no way to boost our local birth rate once again, we are resorting to importing babies? There is some logical deadlock around here. It can never be wise governance to implement an unpopular policy to correct a failed (and miscalculated) policy.

Regardless of how good it is for us, to boost the economy and to enhance our employability, as long as it is perceived as unpopular, it is. It's the same trap as the declining birth rate... if we're determined to have 1.28 birth per family, that's it.

We're now in a dilemma. To choose an ineffective policy, or to go ahead with an unpopular policy?

But this predicament should not exist in the first place if we are able to dove-tail our policy with the actual birth rates in the past.