Lyrical Wax 3000

ABS warns of Census internet slowdown

2011-07-28T21:05:00.000+10:00

ABS warns of Census internet slowdown: "Network operators on notice."

OMG! The fact that the ABS think that Census night will kill the Internet really shows how much of clue they don't have. Some text based online forms are nothing compared to online gaming, uploading pictures, videos, sending email with attachments etc etc etc

UniWA consolidates to private cloud

2011-07-25T19:17:00.000+10:00

UniWA consolidates to private cloud: "Amcom picks up $9 million agreement."

Private cloud! How is that cloud? I am sorry but they've missed the point entirely.

Private cloud means taking your existing stack and moving it to a different postcode. Maybe in the process you will virtualise (although to make the move easier, likely you would have done this already). So really what are the savings? Other then the fact that the Amcom staff are slightly better trained then your staff, what you will still have to do is: operatings systems, patches, integration, databases, web servers, networking, security, upgrades, installations, security, test environments, development environments, UAT environments, security, migrate, back and restore data, security, implemente changes to applications based on changing business needs and then test the results only to find out that one component will have to be changed to all it to work, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Even without knowing the applications required by UniWA, $9m would be able to supply a HUGE amount of TRUE cloud applications.

Fission future

2011-03-22T17:24:00.000+11:00

There is no doubt in my mind that nuclear fission will be the base load power generating technology for the next hundred years. That is except if carbon becomes a non-issue (possible) or renewable sources manage to provide base load needs (highly unlikely).

Technology such as ESBWR, PBR and TWR can provide enourmous amounts of carbon free energy in an extremely safe manner. Here are some choice quotes from the wiki articles above.

In the case of an accident, the ESBWR can remain stabilized for 72 hours without any operator action. Below the vessel, there is a piping structure which allows for cooling of the core during a very severe accident. These pipes divide the molten core and cool it with water flowing through the piping.

The PBR core generates less power as its temperature rises, and therefore cannot have a criticality excursion when the machinery fails, it is power-limited or inherently self controlling due to Doppler broadening. At such low power densities, the reactor can be designed to lose more heat through its walls than it would generate. In order to generate much more power it has to be cooled, and then the energy is extracted from the coolant.

TWRs consume substantially less uranium than a LWR per unit of electricity generated due to TWRs higher fuel burnup, higher thermal efficiency and higher fuel density. A TWR also accomplishes reprocessing on the fly, without the need for chemical separation that is typical of other kinds of breeder reactors. These features greatly reduce fuel and waste volumes while enhancing proliferation resistance.

scientists have also estimated that wide deployment of TWRs could enable projected global stockpiles of depleted uranium to sustain 80% of the world’s population at U.S. per capita energy usages for over a millennium

TWR reactors could theoretically run, self-sustained, for 50 to 100 years without refueling or removing any used fuel from the reactor.

If only governments had kept up development of nuclear technology instead of shying away after TMI and Chernobyl we wouldn't be in the situation where coal is now powering 50% of our electricity needs globally. Coal is not only a huge source of carbon but is in fact a large source of radioactive matter that has been trapped in the coal and is released when we burn it (although 1st world stations clean this now).

So far ALL nuclear accidents are from reactors built pre-1980. If you had a car accident in the rain because an unexpected object jumped in front of your car and you hit it with your pre-1980 car no one would question the premise that if you were driving something from the last couple of years you would:

Likely have avoided the accident (thanks ABS, modern tyres and suspension)
And if you did hit it you would have a very high chance of survival and low chance of injury (thanks air bags, seat belts, crumple zones)

Some interesting facts

2011-03-18T13:16:00.000+11:00

Reading up on nuclear power and radiation I found some interesting tidbits. Anyone who says there isn't enough info on Fukushima just needs to read more http://goo.gl/PTlro plenty of info, nothing to freak out about.

Fukushima info without the hype http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/
Lay reading of INES http://goo.gl/InP7P tells me with current info it is level 4 although really it is only applied long after the accident
Perspective - A 250 mSv dose is estimated to increase one's lifetime risk of developing fatal cancer from about 20% to about 21%
Current radiation at Fukushima Daiichi = 646 μSv/hour (0.646 mSv/hr) at 11:10 on 17 March. So if you stood at Fukushima Daiichi you would need to stand there for 16 DAYS to get 250mSv (assuming no change to levels of course)
Amount of radioactivity released by Chernobyl was 1/100 to 1/1000 the radioactivity of ALL above ground nuclear tests http://goo.gl/sY8Qp
I really wish the media would use numbers when describing levels of radiation. At least compare it to a banana equiv dose http://goo.gl/sxeF
Tour of Chernobyl anyone? http://goo.gl/HZf4e
They ran the other 3 reactors at Chernobyl for around another 10 years (actually one for 7, another for 10 and the last one for 13 years) after #4 went kaput http://goo.gl/6FmAZ

Brilliantly written Slashdot comment

2011-03-18T13:07:00.000+11:00

Reproduced without permission (author feel free to ask me to take it down if you want). It is reference to all the rubbish that is spouted about nuclear energy on the back of the Fukushima Daiichi problems.

Do you want another example of confirmation bias and astroturfing? Have you ever heard of Banqiao? It was a Chinese nuclear plant which in 1975 suffered a severe accident. The Chinese covered it up for 30 years and quietly admitted it to the world in 2005. So quietly that most people still haven't heard of it. The toll compared to Chernobyl is just staggering:

26,000 immediate deaths (57 for Chernobyl)
145,000 long-term deaths (4000 estimated cancer deaths for Chernobyl)
11 million people relocated (336,000 people relocated for Chernobyl)
Nearly 6 million homes and buildings made uninhabitable
768 km^2 rendered uninhabitable (489 km^2 exclusion zone for Chernobyl)

Horrific, isn't it? Worse than the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. Clearly proof that nuclear power is too dangerous to use, right?

I'm sorry. I lied. Banqiao wasn't a nuclear plant. It was a hydroelectric dam [wikipedia.org]. Everything else I said is true though. In 1975, during a typhoon and torrential rainfall, it filled to over capacity. After several attempts to lower its water level by opening sluice gates, the dam above it burst. The swell of water overwhelmed the Banqiao dam, and it too burst. 700 million tons of water were released, and it precipitated a cascade failure of dams beneath it. In all, 62 dams burst or were deliberately destroyed in attempts to divert water into flood plains, with a total of 15.7 billion tons of water released.

26,000 people lost their lives in the flooding. Over 1 million people were left stranded by the waters, cut off from disaster relief, and had to have food and water airlifted to them for weeks. An estimated 145,000 of them (Chinese govt figures) died of the famine and disease caused by the disaster. Nearly 6 million buildings were destroyed, and 11 million people had to be relocated. When the dam was rebuilt, 768 km^2 was flooded to form the flood catchbasin.

Horrific, isn't it? Worse than the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. Clearly proof that hydroelectric power is too dangerous to use, right?

No? Why not? It's the exact same evidence. When it was presented against nuclear, you were probably in full agreement. But when told the truth and you find out that it's really evidence against hydro, your mind rejects it. Hydroelectric is more dangerous than nuclear? Can't be! Why not? Confirmation bias against nuclear power. You hear all those terrible things that happened, and when nuclear power is to blame, you accept it. But then you find out that hydro power is to blame, and your mind rejects it. You have an anti-nuclear bias. A double standard created by astroturfing propaganda from anti-nuclear activists.

Let me address all the objections you're probably going to bring up. The same ones you dismissed when the pro-nuclear side brought them up with Chernobyl.

But Banqiao was a clay dam. Western dams are typically concrete.
Chernobyl was a dangerous and unstable reactor design never used in the West.

It was Chinese. They had shoddy building and operating standards. (My apologies to the Chinese)
Chernobyl was built and run by the Soviets with substandard construction and operating standards.

Banqiao was one incident, in fact the only hydroelectric dam failure in history with a large number of deaths up to today.
Chernobyl was one incident, in fact the only nuclear accident in history with a large number of deaths up to today.

It was built in 1951. It was 25 year-old technology when it failed. They didn't know better when building it.
Fukushima Daiichi was built in 1971. It was 40 year-old technology when it failed. Are you going to accept that as an excuse for any deaths it causes?

It wasn't really the dam's fault. It was hit by a typhoon and once-in-2000-years flood.
The Fukushima Daiichi plant was hit by the biggest earthquake and tsunami in Japan's history. Are you going to excuse nuclear power from the current accident for that reason?

The land Chernobyl contaminated is too dangerous to enter.
I'm pretty sure if you try to visit the land flooded by the new Banqiao dam's catchment basin, you won't live more than a few minutes. How long can you hold your breath? Danger is a funny thing. Under the right circumstances, even the most innocuous things can be dangerous.

I fear invisible atomic rays. I'm comfortable with water - I handle and drink it every day.
I don't think the people killed in both disasters really cared whether they died from invisible rays or by water. Either way, they're still dead.

The Banqiao and related hydroelectric dams generated 18 GW of power. That's a lot more than Chernobyl (4 GW) or Fukushima Daiichi (4.9 GW).
Ah, now we're getting somewhere. So you agree that the number of deaths should be compared to the amount of power generated in order to make it a fair comparison? Something like... deaths per TWh generated?

That's what I've been saying all along. And if you compare the power technologies that way [nextbigfuture.com], no bias, no subjective measures, just objective data making a best effort to tally all deaths caused vs. power generated, you come to the following conclusion: Nuclear power is the safest power generation technology man has invented.

I'm not going to kid anyone. What's going on at Fukushima Daiichi right now is a very, very serious nuclear accident. There are almost certainly going to be deaths from it when all is said and done. But it would have to kill something like 10,000 people in order to mar nuclear's historical safety record to where it becomes as dangerous as wind power (the second safest). And it would have to kill tens of millions of people in order for it to become as a dangerous as our most common power source - coal.

The next frontier

2010-12-14T17:00:00.000+11:00

Five hundred years ago some Europeans began the first difficult, bloody steps to unknowingly creating the most successful nation the world has seen - the United States of America. In fact it is hard to see how it could have gone any other way, blessed with the opportunity to change the basis of rule from divine to democratic appointment. Couple that with a massive area for multiple ideas to spawn, grow and battle for supremacy, America has been the most forward and most backward country all at once in part due to its states and the constitution that binds them. For the last 50 years undoubtedly the most influential nation since the Romans and arguably much more important for world history then the Romans ever were. Think atomic bomb, moon landing, Silicon Valley to name a few and also probably the most important gift - the Internet.

The world will not be able to support the growth of another nation like America. There is no physical space for one to grow and nations need space. In fact without borders nations start to become fairly toothless and pointless. Borders define rights to tax and defend, however today the market can easily cross borders to meet its supply and demand requirements. Goods and services can almost universally be bought and sold in a global market place thanks to efficient and cheap shipping (there are some exceptions but increasingly they are disappearing) and the ease that computers and networks bring to doing business.

Now people are asking (not usually directly) what is the purpose of the nation? It is found in questions like:

Why do I have to pay (so much) tax?
Why do I need my media censored?
Why does our government routinely get it wrong for me?
Who is benefited the most by our governments intervention, the ruling class (corporates, officials etc) or the common man?
Why can I not live anywhere in the world as easily as I can holiday anywhere in the world?
Why has almost every attempt to help a 3rd world nation (famine, civil war, evil dictator) by my government failed?

In the first half of the 20th century I think it would have been hard to imagine a world without nations and their governments. Now however the Internet has allowed our democratic principles to be handed back to the people. Governments have been strong because they needed to control a massive populace, but now the people are better educated and expect to be treated as equals and they know it is possible because the Internet has broken the barriers of information control. No more media gate keepers.

Wikileaks as a brand might die at the hand nations struggling to maintain their relevance. However the idea it has so successfully brought to us, that the Internet is so powerful that even its master and creator is powerless to stop its use against itself, will be a lesson that defines the next 500 years. There will be many hurdles, detours and pauses but just as tens of thousands of years of human culture has brought us to a point where we are the most free we have ever been, the inevitable transfer of power from the few to the many more will continue.

I just hope that the many are up to the job.

The (not so) Great Conroy Filter - where will it lead?

2010-06-01T22:16:00.001+10:00

If you have been living under an Interweb rock you need to read up on the KRudd/Conroy plan (to attempt) to filter the Internet in Oz. Google it.

Basically the plan is filter ALL Internet connections in Australia. But what will be filtered? Child porn sure - that's a good idea. But surely it would be better to search out people who destroy a child's life (read rape, molest etc) and not just the people who post stuff on the Internet - ie police and prosecute. Read this for more info on the business of child porn.

However unlike most first world filtering plans (which are only concerned with child porn and mostly voluntary) Conroy's plan will cover refused classification (RC) content. So what is RC? From the Wikipedia article, it is material that:

Depict, express or otherwise deals with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that they should not be classified.
Depict in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult a minor who is, or who appears to be, under 16 (whether or not engaged in sexual activity).
Promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence.

Now that first one is interesting because that covers pretty much all modern/new media on the Internet (not old media published to the Internet). The problem with this rule is that it is in the eye of the observer (OFLC) to decide what will "offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults". So now you have a couple of adults (classifiers) deciding what all the other adults (you and me) would find "generally accepted".

I take issue with this especially in the context of the Internet where you have to specifically search out material. This is completely different to TV, movies and print where it is generally seen as a public exhibition, because access is easy and broad (TVs in public spaces, news stands, book stores).

If a book or movie or TV show is set as RC then we usually hear about it:

Lady Chatterley's Lover
Censorship of live theatre
Introduction of the OFLC
Gradual relaxation of guidelines.
Graham Kennedy crowcall incident.
Relatively relaxed attitudes of Australian network television relative to the United States but stricter than continental Western Europe

And then there can be open and public debate about it and hopefully any "problems" corrected. On the Internet however there is a huge amount of stuff available. Remember it just isn't Australian content, or American or British content, or even just English language content (although I could see people arguing that the rules don't apply to minority languages in Australia because then it wouldn't be "generally" anything). It must cover ALL CONTENT, every language on the Internet must then be reviewed and filtered. I guess I have just come across the way around this (at least for text and audio) just learn another language, one that the OFLC wouldn't be able to review.

The problem with this is that:

It is impossible to review all Internet content and therefore it is unfair (and therefore unAustralian ;-)
And it is therefore doubly impossible to review any mis-classifications

This is the problem for the future society. We can't apply old ways and expect them to work the way they once did. The Internet has the power to destroy the old media industry as we once new it, so how a government can expect that it can control something so powerful is ridiculous and the fact is, if you are Gen Anything, you don't even want government intervention or in fact even need it.

Instead we have a hundred other options to ensure our future is safe for all and at the same time free for all. I just can not see any government at this point being able to legislate anything to help. We need generational change in politics and I do not mean age, I mean people who understand the now and have a vision for the future. Labor's technology "wiz kid" or "go to girl" is Senator Kate Lundy. I had the pleasure to meet her and her knowledge of technology stems from the fact that she learnt to touch type. If that's the best they (Labor, or and major party) can do (and please don't take this as a kick into Kate - she seems genuine and open) then god help us.

So in summary:

It won't work - any 'puter literate person can easily circumvent it
It is unfair - see above, we will create an online society of have's (can circumvent) and have not's (all the other mugs)

Don't allow Labor to make you a mug

alturnal.com: Economic Models (Tongue in Cheek)

2010-03-08T18:28:00.001+11:00

alturnal.com: Economic Models (Tongue in Cheek)

Economic Models Explained

SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbour.

COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk.

FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk.

NAZISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and shoots you.

BUREAUCRATISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the milk
away.

TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows.
You sell them and retire on the income.

SURREALISM
You have two giraffes.
The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows.
Later, you hire a consultant to analyse why the cow has dropped dead.

ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND VENTURE CAPITALISM You have two cows.
You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of
credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute debt/equity
swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back,
with a tax exemption for five cows.
The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a
Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells
the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company.
The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one
more. You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States, leaving
you with nine cows.
No balance sheet provided with the release. The public then buys your bull.

A FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike, organise a riot, and block the roads, because you want
three cows.

A JAPANESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and
produce twenty times the milk.
You then create a clever cow cartoon image called ?Cowkimon? and market it
world-wide.

A GERMAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You reengineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk
themselves.

AN ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows, but you don't know where they are.
You decide to have lunch.

A RUSSIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You count them and learn you have five cows.
You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and
learn you have 2 cows.
You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.

A SWISS CORPORATION
You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you.
You charge the owners for storing them.

A CHINESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You have 300 people milking them.
You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity.
You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.

AN INDIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows. You worship them.

A BRITISH CORPORATION
You have two cows. Both are mad.

AN IRAQI CORPORATION
Everyone thinks you have lots of cows.
You tell them that you have none.
No-one believes you, so they bomb the crap out of you and invade your
country.
You still have no cows, but at least you are now a Democracy.

AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Business seems pretty good.
You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.

A NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION
You have two cows.
The one on the left looks very attractive.

Go on, forward this, you know you want to.

Climate change insurance?

2010-02-02T20:21:00.002+11:00

Instead of cap and trade, ETS, carbon tax (which are all pointless anyway because humans only produce a small amount of carbon. Methane is 20 times more potent as a green house gas so basically if all human carbon was stopped tomorrow you are looking at only a 1% change in total green house gas potency).

Anyway - instead of a tax why not offer insurance. Countries could buy insurance from say the World Bank or IMF for the effects of climate change. Of course these bodies are underwritten by the first world so that would work well.

Just a thought.

Climate body 'embarrassed' over forest claim

2010-02-01T20:54:00.000+11:00

Climate body 'embarrassed' over forest claim: "The credibility of the world's climate change authority has taken another hit, with accusations that it based a claim about disappearing forests on a report by environmental activists."

This is the problem when scientists become believers and not skeptics. The whole basis of scientific study is to prove or disprove a theory via evidence. All climate change is full of 5% chance of this and something could possibly happen if we all don't become cavemen. The climate change believers better believe this; people aren't going to change until you can without a doubt prove that our hard earned money and lifestyle are actually in danger, not possibly in danger in the next 50 years.

New technology to turn patients into doctors

2010-02-01T19:29:00.000+11:00

New technology to turn patients into doctors: "A US doctor is predicting members of the public will soon be able to use technologies like smart phones to monitor and even treat their own health conditions."

Well let's hope so - if we still need to go to see a person for simple drugs like antibiotics in 5 or 10 years then we really haven't made good use of this interweb thingy save for porn (although Conroy is going to destroy that) and videos of people hurting themselves on YouTube.

The Trike has landed! Nominate your favourite Aussie location for a Google Street View Trike visit

2010-01-25T19:41:00.000+11:00

The Trike has landed! Nominate your favourite Aussie location for a Google Street View Trike visit: "Our Street View Trike made its first outing in Australia today, taking a spin around Sydney's beautiful Taronga Zoo. We're really excited to have the Trike in Australia for the first time, because it will let us collect imagery of some of Australia's most spectacular natural and man-made places that are off the beaten track - or, at least, set back from the public roads along which our Street View cars normally travel.

The Street View Trike is a 110kg modified bicycle that can access many places a car cannot (such as bike trails, national parks and beaches) and includes a mounted Street View camera and specially-decorated unit and GPS system.

To give you an idea of the imagery which the trike can capture, check out some of the imagery uploaded to Google Maps most recently on the Google Lat Long blog here.

Google is asking Australians to nominate, via an online poll, their favourite off-the-beaten-track destinations for the Street View Trike to visit. We've developed four categories for people to submit their suggestions:

* City Life
* Cultural Areas
* Natural Wonders
* Hidden Gems

You can submit your ideas at www.google.com.au/trike from today. Entries close on Monday 8 February, 2010.

We'll select a shortlist of the most original ideas in each category, before inviting Australians to cast their vote for the most popular locations for the Aussie fleet of Street View Trikes to visit.

The winning locations will be announced on Thursday 25 February. Keep an eye on google.com.au/trike for further updates and don't forget to wave hello to the Google Trike team if they visit your area!

Posted by Andrew Foster, Google product manager

Once again someone has been reading my blog...

2009-10-24T19:10:00.005+11:00

I once mentioned some steps we must take in Sydney to support the growth of the population. Today Sydney is a collection of urban centres with a useless State Government failing to forge a coherent plan to link them together on topics such as transport and urban planning.

It seems others agree. These others are ginger beers (engineers for the rhyming slang deficient). You can always trust them because they are so boring they never have an agenda other then being efficient. I once studied 1st year Electrical Engineering, but then I found out I couldn't go any further because I had an agenda. Which in this case is a good thing because we can trust them.

The only thing I disagree with them on is taxing car use. You can only start doing that once you have a working and under capacity public transport system which we certainly don't have and won't have for some time.

Twit

2009-10-17T16:48:00.003+11:00

Twitter (and Google Reader's new commenting system) has given me a chance to release the rage in smaller but more frequent chunks. Hence less of need to add entries onto this blog.

Here is a thought, what would it be like if communication (personal, business, government, law, international relations, education) was restricted to 140 characters.

Hawking copies my idea! ;-)

2009-07-04T20:43:00.004+10:00

Well blow me down, Stephen talks about evolution as a function of information transfer, firstly by DNA (internal) then by speech, books etc (external). Very similar idea to my previous post 'Information'.

End government advertising waste

2009-05-13T20:04:00.003+10:00

Here's an idea. Stop governments wasting tax payer money on ads to tell us about stuff they have done. Also stop companies paying contributions to political parties. Then suggest that companies make and air ads to promote government policies, legislation etc. Indirect contributions in this manner would be a nice way to publicise who is making contributions.

Germans agree with me

2009-05-07T10:59:00.003+10:00

Looks like a German court agrees that combining last names is a stupid idea that needs to stop before it gets out of control.

Who would have thought that the Germans would be the ones to put a stop to it? Their word for "speed limit" is "hoechsgeschwindigkeitsbegrenzung" for god's sake.

War Games

2009-05-04T21:22:00.002+10:00

In rebuttal to Kim's article:

Kim tells us that our previous policy of focusing on man power force development (ie troops on the ground, read "Army focus") was a complete and utter waste of time. How easily he forgets recent history; Timor, Afghanistan, Iraq, PNG not to mention other problem areas we soon might have to address; Fiji springs to mind.

All of these deployments have had at their centre ground force requirements. JSFs and submarines are useless in the mountains of Afghanistan. And unsurprisingly guess what Obama's new defence spending plan is? Dump expensive and underutilised equipment heavy spending and focus on what matters - people and stuff that helps them.

You have to ask yourself who would bother attacking us? Let's war game some scenarios:

1. China (or other large GDP and miliary country/alliance maybe Indo+Mala, India, Russia)
Why - they want our resources
How - they would deploy their huge standing Army (over 2 million) any and every way they could
Reaction - we would try to stop them and fail because they just have too many reserves (10 million men reach military age every year - and that's with a one child policy).
Result - if China want us, we ain't stopping them (by ourselves)
Help - remember Singapore? If the conflict is that big we are on our own
Reality - it would be cheaper, faster and easier to buy us (Chinalco anyone?)

2. Everyone else (New Zealand - looking at you ;-)
Why - they want our cricket team
How - bet between PMs based on a rugby game - winner takes the country
Reaction - rematch
Result - based on trinations results, we are in trouble
Help - South Africa might be able to inflict some injuries
Reality - yes this was a joke

3. Biggest threat ADF needs to respond to? regional instability which leads to growing conflict. The ADF need to ensure that everyone gets along, we don't want China or anyone else to have the ability to say "look we'll take over PNG because of the problems they are having". We need to sort that shit out ourselves. And guess what? Subs and jets ain't going to help one bit.

Just look at the history, we haven't deployed front line air force and navy elements in any great quantity or for active engagement since Vietnam. But the Army has been working non-stop. And not the high tech Army elements (tanks and artillery are like jets and subs) but infantry (disclaimer: ex RAInf ;-).

So should we spend shit loads of money on equipment that we will never use? Or should we make sure our troops get good equipment and training so that they don't die when we have to send them into harms way?

They pulled Kim out to sell this because there is no one in Rudd's empire who really understands defence, Rudd is from DFAT. Defence to him is just leverage for diplomacy, a thing you need so you can say you have it.

Why Australia shouldn't spend $43b on broadband

2009-04-28T21:01:00.006+10:00

There seem to be two schools on NBN - amazing national infrastructure plan or complete and utter waste of money. I am most certainly in group B and for a couple of really compelling reasons.

1. Australia is a really big island - this means not only are we spread out from here to eternity but we are also from here to eternity from anywhere else. This has a huge impact on how our internet providers have to pay for a connection to the internet. This is because most of the internet is overseas. Almost all providers have to charge by data sent and/or received, so while the NBN might be a thousand times faster then what you have today, all it will mean is that you burn through your data allowance a thousand times faster. Unless of course that money was spent on international deep sea fiber to connect us to more internet backbones overseas. Remember most of the good stuff is not here.

2. Fiber is good, wireless is better. I want to access my data on the move, for work and play. If you haven't been watching the iPhone and netbook revolution, the wireless network is just as, if not more, important. While almost all Telstra services suck the big one, NextG is one they got right. Watch the Japanese, Europeans and Yanks play catch up. If you are cheap and using Optus/VHA today and you have an 850Mhz phone (eg iPhone) then give it a try, you'll be amazed.

3. Triple play - really what Rudd wants to do is destroy Telstra's monopoly on the local loop. This is a stupid idea because while I agree it shouldn't be that way (it should have been privatised as retailer and wholesaler separately) the fact is it is that way and we can't change that now (without spending a stupid amount of money). The flip side of this is that the Future Fund holds an awful lot of Telstra stock which means: Telstra good, Australia Fund good; Telstra bad, Australia Fund bad. The reality is we need to make Telstra work, and Telstra work for us.

So what is my plan? (I like to offer suggestions for things I try and shoot down).

Simple - make the private sector work. In areas where broadband is falling behind, buy/legislate the local loop away from Telstra. Then sell/auction it to the highest bidder or if no one wants to buy it at a reasonable price, create a government owned enterprise to do it with the plan to sell it.

So what speed should we aim for? Focusing on speed is like reading the power output of a car and using that as the only measure of the cars abilities. You can build all the roads you want, but you need a lot more to make good use of them. Service stations, mechanics, car manufacturers, mapping services, insurance - you see, building roads is only a small part of the problem.

Newspapers vs the Internets

2009-04-09T21:32:00.007+10:00

There is a lot of press about newspapers dying because of falling advertising revenues, due to falling readerships, due to the Internet.

What I don't get is the cry's of "won't somebody think of the journalists" and "if it wasn't for journalists how would we know about #insert conspiracy or corruption case here#".

Well let me tell you that most news (which is different to most news you might read, eg I tend to only read real news) is WOEFUL. Tabloids, prime time news and current affairs, womens magazines - I won't miss you.

But what about the serious journalism, the journalism that improves our way of life by exposing the crooked and evil? Wikileaks, Wikipedia, blogs, Twitter and the general ability of the Internet to record and keep information in a way that can be quickly searched removes the need for someone to put that information together using sources (deep sources even), research and time.

This is why we need to protect the nature of the Internet, not only protect but enhance it by forcing all our governments to publish all but the most secretive data online to be searchable by all. They call government a public entity, now the Internet can allow it to be publicly open, always, all day and automatically.

Just like the effect of TV on the Vietnam war, the Internet can help change the behavior of our elected officials and public servants to better serve our interests by making their interests and actions known.

Small Businesses

2009-03-21T12:35:00.003+11:00

So the government have just defined a small business for the purposes of unfair dismissal. 15 employees.

Now watch as businesses create groups of companies, each with no more than 15 employees. I would, best way to reduce your risk.

Fuck you Communications Legislation Amendment (Content Services) Act 2007

2009-03-19T20:02:00.004+11:00

Rudd and Conroy (or should we call them Stalin and Hitler).

Eat this fuckers

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Australian_government_secret_ACMA_internet_censorship_blacklist,_6_Aug_2008

Can't access it? Try this

http://proxy.org/

Information

2009-03-15T21:57:00.007+11:00

I tried to come up with a better title to this however my memory and a long weekend conspired against me. I know the gist of what I want to say but can't put rubber to road. I know this because I have read something written by someone else that is similar to what I want to say but not even Google can help me.

So what is this post all about? The relationship between us and information. In the early days, before we were even human (think billions of years ago) information would have been passed generation to generation, species to species by DNA. This biological memory allowed traits and therefore behaviors to be passed (via reproduction) and modified (via mutation) so that once the "simple" tasks of breathing, walking and the like were "figured out" it was a simple task of, well doing nothing that allowed off spring to benefit from these lessons.

We will call this Information Level 0 - the transference of information without conscience awareness that it is occurring. At this level only basic functions/behaviors are possible to pass on. When a number of these functions are added together you can in fact get some interesting outcomes (see animal and plant kingdoms).

Next comes Level 1 - the ability to transfer information at a conscience level, but verbally. This means that information must be passed in a close proximity (temporally and geographically) and the information will decay in clarity over time due to this (aka "Chinese whispers"). To get to this level it takes many improvements of the information in level 0 - that means that the first living organism didn't have the ability to speak and understand the speech. In fact it took billions of years for this to occur. But with it came the ability for us to teach and learn, "don't touch that red snake, it will hurt you" where as at level 0 many generations would have to die for this "knowledge" to be passed on.

The third level (or level 2) is based on written communication. This level improves on verbal by allowing information to live over distance and time. It requires a lot more skills than level 1 because now you need to have motor skills to write, bigger brains to process the writing, good eyes suited to reading the writing. Now that we can store information for long periods and send information over great distances we can even further increase the rate of learning and improvement. We can use experience gained over great time and distance to help us make decisions with better outcomes.

This is where we are today, as you read this you prove this point. We have slowly improved this level via paper and ink, printing press and Internet and today we have fast, simple and easy access to vast amounts of information. Is this the final level or are there more?

I propose the next level, level 3, as neural networked communication where knowledge is accessible directly by your brain from a network of information. The network might be made up of other people, animals or computers. Kids - welcome to a childhood without school as we know it.

More flawed research

2009-03-01T15:34:00.003+11:00

Doctors aren't economists as is proved by this article about reduction in alcopop consumption.

No surprise that price changes people's behaviour but no proof that this reduces alcohol consumption in young drinkers (which is the point of the tax).

There really is no need to worry - the body has it covered. You drink too much, you vomit.

Also the study doesn't mention changes in sales of other drugs (because they are illegal). Again this is a case of government trying to make a simple law (in this case a tax) to change people's behaviour. Like a water bed, pushing down in one place will simply push up water everywhere else.

By the way - I drink beer and wine. No RTD for me, but the tax is still stupid.

Apparently they really are that stupid

2009-02-24T18:06:00.005+11:00

When I gave the government a serve over NBN and not allowing Telstra to participate further it wasn't a surprise to find out that in fact Telstra probably will be involved after all. Or if they are not then NBN is likely to fail. Either way...

Thanks Kevin - $0.75 drop in share price. That's only $8b off the company value because Telstra didn't fill out a form. A form that is designed (like all tenders) to ensure that government doesn't get a good deal. Telstra was doing them (which it turns out in a democracy, is in fact, us) a favor.

Super fund down? You can bet this affected you directly. Got crappy broadband (eg < 2Mbps/256Kbps Down/Up)? You can bet this will affect you too, as in you still will have crappy broadband.