New technology and you

Yes, I would love to help.

Input and discussion from a diverse range of communicative, passionate and supportive people are key to fully represent current and future demographics.

There's so much opportunity and potential to enhance the experience of Londoners alongside the UK and discussion coupled with individual action helps to support the journey of tech firms, London and the UK.

We have had several conversations about some of the childcare aspects raised in the Strategy, in particular with the London CDO, EY London Ventures, Andrew Collinge and Helen Stonelake from the GLA, and others. I'm keen to address the lesser-discussed issue of better childcare information delivery to families through local government, with the emphasis on 'flexible childcare', for which there is still no sustainable cross-border solution (despite parents stating in a DfE report less than 2 years ago that they want a better marketplace that provides cost comparison, among other things).

We've been working on this for a considerable time and would love the opportunity to discuss the potential value, social impact and cost-savings that can and will be realised. We will submit our input to the survey, in the meantime please contact [email protected] or via Twitter: @Sonitude.

As a professional working with technology, a private user, a citizen in my neighbourhood and a father, I see a growing need for an education in aware use of technology. It's very hard to know what cookies exactly steer on our PCs or how YouTube and Facebook videos are pushed to us. Most times only those with a deep know-how of these issues can make informed decisions and adjust appropriately settings on devices. Teenagers use social media massively and are possibly barely aware of the ramification and threats to their own privacy and freedom of thought.

The kind of changes which my view of technology application is applied to are associated to land ownership registration and its use. Too many sites are not being properly used or not being used at all. This is due to the site's owner wanting to speculate in its value and so without making an investment for its development and use and without allowing someone else to do so, expects to sell the site for much more than he/she paid for it. Holding a site unused also make the sites that are in use more difficult to find and the resulting competition raises their cost to buy or to hire.

It all depends on what is meant by "new". There are still several less new techniques which have yet to be tried and which are likely to be beneficial to many people and harmful to the few who are creating trouble and expense for the rest. The degree of opportunity is controlled by those who make it too costly for entrepreneurs to become more active and to offer jobs to unemployed or poor people who cannot otherwise find work. This is because to obtain access rights to an unused site of land is too costly and houses are also too expensive for many more to be built, even thought such properties would otherwise be in great demand.

To lower the cost of access to and ownership of land, there should be a change in the collection of revenue which is payable on useful sites, whether built up or vacant. In many cases today, this is called "the rates" and they apply to both the value of the undeveloped site and of its buildings. Such a rate on buildings discourages the desire to improve them and such a rate on land encourages the better use of what is currently being partly used or is vacant because in these latter two cases the land owner is hoping to speculate in the increasing land value. The tax payers investment (through the government) in the infrastructure raises the usefulness and value of the site in question. Without doing anything but sit still a land owner can gain from this activity and this situati9on is unjust and harmful to those who need cheaper living conditions, namely the poorer classes, many of which have become homeless due to lack of work and high cost of accommodation.

A system of two-part rates should be introduced where the the sums payable for land should greatly increase as the corresponding amount for the buildings is reduced. This would have the joint effect of reducing production and residential costs because it would make more land available, and correspondingly less competition for it, whilst the jobs available for its development rise.

This debate topic seems like a wide statement and perhaps worded incorrectly?

Why not open up a debate on what specific problems we want technology solutions to solve i.e. as a Londoner, I want technology firms to solve ... knife crimes, violence, street safety, better logistics, more transparency of costs to Londoners, etc. More focus required, otherwise, you are using technology for technology sake... which means unrealistic scope and expensive solutions (over promise and under deliver)!

We specialize in developing Machine Learning and AI solutions to solve business problems, with focus on SMEs. Most London businesses are SMEs and have limited to no access to these emerging technologies due to high cost. This is why I think there is a lot we can do to help (being small company ourselves).

yes i would contribute to development
please remember the over 40s you should include us as well