The days of waiting until the movie was over to refill our drink or go to the toilet are long gone. Remote controls allow movie scenes to be paused in seconds.

The ten most paused movie scenes have been listed. Let’s just say that some of you need to clean your heads.

What happens between you, your remote control and the TV is alone.

Let’s take a look at the list.

Star Wars: A New Hope (1977)

Any Star Wars fan worth his salt will know about the famous scene from the first film where a Storm Trooper whacks his own head off the door of a spaceship. The moment is so fleeting that it’s not surprising that many viewers are using the remote control to pause it.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that these guys are all klutzes. Have you seen them shoot a gun before?

Deadpool 2 (2018)

Brad Pitt’s surprise appearance in this superhero film caught viewers off guard. Pitt is the Vanisher. He spends the majority of the film invisible until the final scene.

The audience paused to confirm that the Ms. Smith actor had indeed appeared.

The Godfather (1972)

The Mafia knows how to get their revenge. Everyone remembers that infamous scene from this classic film where a horse’s head is found in someone’s bed.

It’s not the best way to start your morning.

The viewers likely hit pause to determine if the head was a real stallion. (Spoiler: it was real.)

Fast Times At Ridgemont High (1982).

Now we’re entering the sensual section.

In this 1980s coming-of-age comedy, Phoebe Cates is seen emerging from the water.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (1988)

Another entry from the 80s, this film was chosen by viewers who liked the animated ladies.

This Disney film was ranked high because of the scene where Jessica Rabbit makes her first appearance. You can imagine why viewers were so excited to see the red-haired cartoon.

American Pie (1998)

Viewers may have hit pause when Nadia undressed herself in Jim’s bedroom, but they weren’t alone in their enjoyment.

Jim’s friends watched Nadia with a video camera. The video led to Nadia being expelled from her school. You can make your own moral judgment on this one.

Wild Things (1998)

The kissing scene between Denise Richards & Neve Campbell made viewers feel a bit hot. I’m certain the filmmakers were not aware that this scene would be so popular.

If you didn’t know, this line is sarcastic.

Basic Instinct (1992)

Sharon Stone’s scene in which she crossed her legs sensually may have been a cult classic with the audience, but it was a major problem in her private life.

Stone lost custody of son in 2004 due to racy scenes. While fighting for custody with her ex-husband, a court asked her son “Do you know that your mother makes sex films?”

Yikes.

Titanic (1997)

All of us knew it was coming. Leonardo DiCaprio’s scene in which he sketched Kate Winslet nude has been etched into movie history.

Kate and Leo may still be in love, but that wasn’t good enough to get them the number one spot for the most paused film moment.

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)

Margot Robbie wins the award for the most paused moment in a movie. It’s the scene in which she teases Leonardo DiCaprio by opening her legs.

This movie is at the top because the viewer tries to see what Leo sees.

In conclusion, people are perverts

Under the previous Government close to $170 million was ripped out of university funding resulting in the decline and in some instances complete closure of vital health, counselling, employment, child care, and welfare support services.

As promised at the last election, the Australian Government has developed a balanced, practical solution to rebuild important student support services and amenities.

For the first time universities will be required to meet national benchmarks relating to access to student support services and fulfil new representation and advocacy protocols.

The new national access to services benchmarks and representation protocols will be a requirement of Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding from 2010.

The Government will consult with students and the university sector on the development of these benchmarks and protocols to ensure basic services and representation on campus are secured for the long term.

From 1 July 2009, universities will also be allowed to set a compulsory fee, capped at a maximum of $250 with indexation each year, to help rebuild student amenities and studentservices over and above those required by the benchmarks.

To help students manage the fee the Australian Government will provide access to a HECS style loan under the Higher Education Loan Program (HELP). SA HELP will allow eligible students to defer the payment of the fee if they choose.

Minister Ellis conducted extensive consultations across the country that revealed that services have been hit hard by the previous Government – and it’s students who are paying the price.

Driven by ideological obsession, the previous Liberal government went too far and students have been paying the price ever since the implementation of VSU in 2006.

Minister Ellis stressed that this was not a return to compulsory student unionism and the provision which prohibits a university from requiring a student to be a member of a student organisation will remain.

This is about taking national leadership by setting a new national benchmark for access to student support services and setting new national protocols for independent representation and advocacy in Universities.

The Government is committed to world class universities as they play a crucial role in Australia’s education future.

The Rudd Government will continue to work in partnership with universities and students and is taking responsible action to ensure quality and sustainable student services and representation into the future.

A summary of submissions is available.

Labor is building an evidence-based early education policy, focusing on how we can best support Australian children’s development and Australian parents, and invest most successfully for a prosperous future.

Over the next four years, Australia will invest $35 billion in our early education system. By engaging with parents, experts and the early education sector, Labor is working on reforms to better leverage this investment and to give our children the best start in life.

“Labor has always led reform in early education and we will do it again,” Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education and Development Kate Ellis said.

“We have made clear that we believe parents, children and the child care sector require more than governments just tinkering around the edges. Malcolm Turnbull’s recent changes to early education simply do not address the systemic issues.”

“We should look at bold initiatives to address our broken system. Labor wants to ensure Australia’s early education sector is well placed to meet the needs of Australian children and families.”

A brief discussion paper is available HERE. Submissions close Friday 16 June 2017.

But that’s not what has brought me here.

And as much as I’d like to, I don’t have time today to go through Labor’s proud history of early education reform.

In fact, what has brought me here today is that I think it is overdue that we have a much different, bigger conversation away from party politics.

The Government has spent the last three years debating technicalities.

What we haven’t been discussing is the big picture. What we haven’t been discussing is how we best support Australian children’s development, Australian parents, or invest most successfully in our economic future.

Today I‘m here to argue that there are two stark facts we must accept.

The first is that we have an early childhood education and care system that is broken beyond immediate repair. In its current form, it is incapable of meeting the needs of Australian parents, our economy, government, the workforce that keeps it going, or most importantly, the children for whom it exists.

It is my view that there is a pressing need for us to discuss radical reform, a bold vision for the future and not just how we might tinker with the edges of the payment system.

The second fact I have come to outline today is that the evidence is now overwhelming that three year old children need access to preschool and it’s time the Government looked at the barriers to addressing this.

I’m conscious that it may sound rather extreme to essentially declare a whole sector in need of a re-do, so I might take a few moments to lay out the evidence on which I base this assertion.

Let’s first look at it from a public policy point of view.

Over the next four years, the Australian Government will spend $40 billion on early education and care.

$40 billion.

It’s more than we spend on government schools, subsidies for university places, or roads.

Despite this, there is a structural problem with the sector which means that Government cannot deliver on the main asks of them from parents when it comes to their child care needs – for access to quality early childhood services which are both affordable, and don’t require them to languish for years on waiting lists.

Government can’t deliver on affordability, as there is no mechanism to cap parents out of pocket costs.

And Government can’t deliver on accessibility, when there is no mechanism to make sure places are available in areas of undersupply –

And there is nothing in the Government’s proposed changes that will fundamentally alter these problems.

In our fee and subsidy system, the Government doesn’t actually have control over the levers that can deliver for children and parents.

That’s despite Government contributing about two thirds of the total cost.

Increasingly, decisions about early education services in Australia are being made in corporate interests – based on the highest price the market can bear – not community need.

Services are established where they are profitable – not necessarily where vulnerable children need access to quality early education, or where they will be most affordable and convenient for working parents on lower wages.

Child care providers make around $1 billion in profit annually – that’s around 10 per cent of government child care expenditure.

And centres in well-off areas are being bought and sold for millions of dollars.

They are discussed in the financial press as a property investment class alongside fast food and petrol stations.

“And there’s no doubt that childcare centres are viewed as a strong asset class – as strong as service stations or fast food outlets as far as investors are concerned.

“We’re getting a lot of interest from investors, not only regionally and nationally, but also from overseas.”

This sector is certainly working well for some – but I’d argue it is not achieving the public policy objectives of Government – who foots most of the bills and ultimately gets the blame for the market failure.

But Government is not at the top of the list when it comes to those suffering frustration as a result of the current system. That’s a mantle that is held by Australian parents.

In the current debate we are not hearing much about the needs or views of parents.

I want to tell you what I hear from parents when it comes to child care in Australia.

More than anything I hear the phrase: “It’s just too hard”.

I also hear, “Why can’t it be more like school?”, and how many can’t wait for their child to turn five – because all of a sudden, it then gets so much easier for them.

I hear how parents are frustrated by political debates which don’t seem to acknowledge their central and heartfelt view about the system – it’s broken and just not working for them.

It’s too complicated, too hard to navigate, too inconvenient, and too expensive.

And this is even after a lot of big improvements.

For instance, it’s hard to believe that before Labor changed the rules, parents had to wait until the end of the year to get a tax refund on child care expenses.

And to these parents I say today, we hear you.

The truth is there are also consequences for all taxpayers in this. In statistics, we see this clearly reflected in women’s workforce participation rates – which are lagging behind comparable countries like New Zealand, Canada and Sweden.

Last week, I spoke to a parent who put her name down at her local child care centre when she was 12 weeks pregnant with twins.

Her children are one year old now, and she is about to return to work.

After being on the waiting list for 18 months, there are no places at her local centre – or at any other local centres.

And it’s not as though she has a particularly difficult ask.

She’s looking for two days care a week, and is lucky enough to have an employer who is flexible with the days she works.

She told me that:

With the majority of women returning to work these days, our system needs to change to reflect that it isn’t a luxury to access quality child care, it’s a right.

She went on to ask the same question I have heard too many times to count:

            Why is it so hard? Why can’t it be more like the school system?

Child care is not a reward for working – it’s a pre-requisite.

And when the child care system doesn’t work for parents, parents simply aren’t working.

Most importantly, the system isn’t delivering the best outcomes for Australian children – who you would think it goes without saying should be the central priority of our early childhood system.

The current debate has been about the Government’s proposed amendments – which they titled their “Jobs for Families” package. That title in itself is a pretty clear indication that children and their best interests and development are in no way central to these reform efforts.

Our children will be left to lag behind their peers in other countries unless we also move to a system that puts their developmental needs first.

There is no doubt that we have made some progress.

People have worked long and hard to move the sector from one viewed as a mass babysitting service to one which is focussed on quality, professionalism and early childhood development.

I know first-hand how some needed to be dragged kicking and screaming to the National Quality Framework.

But is that it? Is the substantial investment we make in early childhood services now doing everything possible to focus on children’s wellbeing and development? I don’t think so.

Let’s consider a few facts.

Children from more vulnerable or disadvantaged groups are underrepresented in our early learning system – despite clear and now long-standing evidence that they have the most to gain.

And, according to the Australian Early Development Census (AEDC), one in five children is classified as developmentally vulnerable when they reach school.

We focus a lot on PISA results when debating reforms to our schools, as we should – it is important to monitor where we stand in international comparisons.

But there is one factor that never gets attention in these debates – and that is: how far behind are Australian children before they start school?

In fact the number of children vulnerable on physical health and wellbeing, and social competence is increasing.

We are lucky in Australia to have precise information about where vulnerable children are, in the form of the AEDC.

We were the first country in the world to have this level of information about children’s early development. But seven years on, I strongly argue that it’s time we started using it effectively – to direct our investment in early education and take a needs-based and co-ordinated policy response to reach those children most at risk.

Children, each and every day are being let down by the fact that government isn’t using this information to support their welfare and development in the most practical way.

Crucially, our system isn’t working for the glue that holds everything together – the dedicated educators who do an incredibly important job.

It is well established that there is a crisis in our early childhood workforce with under valuing and low salaries leading to a mass exodus by educators.

The workforce is currently pursuing an equal pay case, and my side of politics have made clear that we think appropriate pay is both warranted and overdue.

It isn’t the only challenge that the workforce is facing though.

The Turnbull Government’s childcare changes have already cut all early education professional development programs. They are gone already, and there is no longer any workforce plan or strategy for this crucial sector.

This is the same government that repeatedly argues teachers are the most important factor in school education – yet doesn’t seem to have a concern in the world about who is entrusted with our youngest minds.

This needs to change.

And I know first-hand that parents are desperate to end the staff churn, so that they can leave their child in the mornings in the care of someone they know and trust, and not with a different person each week or month.

Given we know so clearly what is not working in our current system, and given the current changes put forward by the Government will not fundamentally change any of these facts.

We need to look at the bigger picture.

What would a 10-year long vision look like? And which bold ideas at least deserve, discussion, analysis and consideration?

It’s easy to dismiss big reform as too hard – or even impossible.

I myself have contemplated how hard it is to unscramble an egg, how complicated our system is with its mixed market, division of responsibility between state and federal Governments and differing character in different parts of the nation.

And I’m certainly not suggesting that an overhaul would be simple.

But Australia is not the first place to look at re-shaping its early education and care system.

In fact, among other OECD nations, we are one of the last.

Things are done very differently around the world.

In France, early education has been free and part of the school system for decades.

In Denmark, Norway and parts of Canada, there are caps on the out-of-pocket costs parents pay.

New Zealand provides 20 hours early education free – with heavy subsidies for an extra 10 hours for lower income working families.

In Germany, Finland and Sweden every child has a legal right to a place.

In the Netherlands, employers that don’t offer childcare have to pay a levy, and in Canada employers that do offer child care get a tax credit.

In the UK, children can access up to 30 hours free a week.

And I am proud that Labor has delivered big reforms in Australia too.

Universal Access preschool for four year olds, and the National Quality Framework are two particularly proud reforms of recent years.

Bold reform can be done – and I believe now that it must be done again.

If you were to design Australia’s system from scratch – you would not create what we have now.

There were many who were energised by the current Government’s announcement of a so called root and branch review of the entire early childhood system by the Productivity Commission – but in effect, narrow terms of reference meant that all it was capable of being was a look at how we might be able to continue doing the same thing a little bit simpler.

Rather than blindly continue investing in a fee and subsidy system, as the Government is proposing, we need to consider changes in the way government delivers early education.

But we need to start by first establishing the end goal. Surely we need to first agree on the long-term vision so we can ensure any steps we are taking are steps towards our destination.

I am happy to outline my long term vision for the early childhood sector in Australia.

It has at its centre children’s development, their best interests and most effective support during the critical first five years, when 90% of their brain development occurs.

It will be a system that is simple, affordable and effective for Australian parents to use. With a place down the road – like our school system.

The quality early learning delivered in it will have improved our school results and be regarded as a vital part of our social and economic infrastructure.

Social mobility will be improved.

Guaranteed places will see a significant increase in workforce participation.

It will be needs based – utilising the information we already have access to, to properly target additional programs to where they are needed.

Educators will be fairly paid, the profession will be valued and turnover will be low.

We will see early childhood education as just as crucial to the future as our schools.

Now I need to be clear.

I am not proposing we overturn our current system today, tomorrow or next year.

But we do need to have a serious look at options for reform and debate options of improved service delivery – to get us towards our vision.

To do this will ultimately require detailed modelling, and research – to back in a long term plan.

There are many possible models we could adopt and today I argue now is the time for their consideration.

I don’t welcome the fact that the current Government have been talking about making childcare changes for three years and we are yet to have a parliamentary debate.

I certainly don’t welcome the fact that they have now delayed implementation of any changes, so even if and when they eventually pass the Parliament they will not come into effect until mid-2018.

But I do think the void they have created gives us an opportunity. We have the time and space to properly examine other future possibilities.

For example, we could consider what it would look like if government directly purchased places.

Government could see how many places are required and in what area and tender for delivery.

Done correctly, this should put downward pressure on costs, by introducing competitive tendering for service delivery, and could cap the out of pocket costs of parents.

It would incentivise new places being created where required.

Government could focus more holistically on child development needs by making sure services were matched to the local community – and use information like the AEDC to target programs for vulnerable and disadvantaged children.

Ultimately we would work toward ensuring children could get a guaranteed place in a local centre – like school.

Imagine how much easier it would be for parents to get back into the workforce and increase their hours if they knew they could get a local place, and that the price was capped and affordable.

And of course that is just one model.

Similar countries, with a mix of different providers – like New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Ireland – operate schemes with set payment rates to providers.

Significant work would be needed to make this work in an Australian context, but this could operate in a similar way to the Medical Benefits Schedule – government provides funding, but in return, out of pocket costs are limited.

We believe it is time we lifted our eyes, broadened the debate and examined wider options. And that is exactly what we intend to do.

Labor can’t sit by while the Government fails to do its job planning for Australia’s future.

We took to the election a process for establishing long-term reform.

So today, I can announce we will undertake a national consultation with parents, with child development experts, with academics, educators and providers on what our early education system should look like in the future – on detailed options for serious reform and on modelling.

The Government may be busy with inward-looking, administrative negotiations behind closed doors with vested interests, but we will be out in the community holding consultations directly with Australian parents – in every state and territory – to show that we hear them when they tell us it is just too hard.

And hear how they think the sector could be re-shaped to make their lives easier.

This will follow on from the work Jenny Macklin has done in setting Labor’s Growing Together social policy framework.

When it comes to this sector, tinkering is not the solution. It is past the time to play it safe.

Bill Shorten has shown that under him, Labor is up for bold policy debates – he showed that with negative gearing, with school funding and with superannuation reform.

Today we commit to a proper, broad, thorough investigation of the options for serious reform. To the policy work required to ensure that we can set Australians and Australia up for the future.

But I can also say today that there is also one part of the system where I think the answer is blindingly clear – and that’s the need to examine the barriers to three year old preschool.

Labor’s policy of universal access to preschool for four year olds is now reaching maturity – and it’s a success.

We now see over 95 per cent of children attending preschool in the year before school.

85 per cent are enrolled for at least 15 hours a week – up from just 23 per cent before Labor introduced these reforms in 2009.

An Australian study published this year shows that universal access to preschool really does make a difference – and attendance reduces vulnerability across the socio-economic gradient.

A separate study by the University of Melbourne shows that Australian children that attended preschool did better in Year Three NAPLAN tests.

Internationally, PISA results show that 15 year olds that attended preschool were on average a year ahead of those that did not.

To get the most out of our preschool investment, the evidence is now clear – we need to start earlier.

This age is a crucially important point in brain development – it’s when different channels of development are all active and receptive.

And it’s the most effective and efficient time to invest in children and improve outcomes.

As Nobel Prize winning economist James Heckmann says –

“Like it or not, the most important mental and behavioural patterns, once established, are difficult to change once children enter school.”

UK Government analysis shows two years of preschool greatly improves school readiness, compared to attendance for one year.

Children who access two years of high quality preschool are eight months ahead when they start school – compared to a child that has stayed at home.

And they are three months ahead of a child who accessed quality preschool for one year.

For vulnerable children, one year’s preschool often just isn’t enough to catch up.

Australia is increasingly looking backward and isolated on this question.

Across the ditch, New Zealand introduced three year old preschool in 2007.

There is a Europe-wide standard that 90 per cent of children between three years old and school age should be in early education.

Almost all of Western Europe has established a legal entitlement to early education or preschool, and in Eastern Europe, attendance is often compulsory.

Ireland introduced universal access for four year olds about the same time as Australia – and this year they are extending it to all three year olds.

In 2004 the Labour Government in the UK introduced 15 hours preschool for all three year olds.

And the benefits have been so clear that the Conservative Government recently extended access to the most disadvantaged 40 per cent of two year olds.

Countries in our region that are doing well on school education indexes in our region – like Shanghai, Hong Kong, and Korea are preparing for universal preschool for three year olds.

And the Chinese national Government is working towards universal access for three year olds by 2020.

It’s about play-based learning, and an evidence-based early education framework to support that.

It’s not at all impossible.

Seven years ago we did it for four years olds – of course it can be done again for three year olds.

That’s why Labor took to the election a commitment to review the barriers and capacity constraints that would need to be overcome to see universal preschool for three year olds become a reality.

Today I call upon the Government to follow the evidence and outline their next steps towards three year old preschool now.

Early childhood services are not babysitting.

They are an essential part of our education system.

And if we want the next generation to be productive, skilled and successful – we need to start viewing early education alongside, school, TAFE and university.

They are an essential part of our economic infrastructure.

And if we want to boost our human capital and reap the long-term benefits of a more educated workforce, and the short term benefits of greater participation, we must get early education right. 

And they are an essential part of our child welfare system.

Because the research shows there is no better time to invest in improving peoples life chances.

They are also the most important lever that the federal government has to get children’s early development right.

And they should be valued and prioritised as such.

What we can’t do is try and retro-fit an existing system established decades ago, and for a very different purpose, to achieve these goals.

We have taken that approach as far as it can go.

We need a custom-made and cohesive early childhood sector.

One that will effectively give Australian children the best start.

And one that will better leverage Australia’s $40 billion investment.

It’s an awful lot of work, but it’s worthy of the effort.

Just as Labor has always led reform in early childhood – it’s Labor that will do it again.

And today we are saying that the work starts now.

Amazon Wind Farm Texas includes more than 100 turbines – each over 300 feet tall with a rotor diameter more than twice the wingspan of a Boeing 787. Amazon Wind Farm Texas is built, owned, and operated by Lincoln Clean Energy (LCE), an I Squared Capital portfolio company and a leading developer of wind and solar projects across the U.S. Amazon, LCE, and local officials and residents celebrated the grand opening of the wind farm with a BBQ event onsite. To thank and support the local community, Amazon is donating $50,000 to the Snyder Education Foundation to provide students and teachers with STEM learning opportunities.

“Investing in renewable energy is a win-win-win-win – it’s right for our customers, our communities, our business, and our planet,” said Kara Hurst, Amazon’s Worldwide Director of Sustainability. “We now have 18 wind and solar projects across the U.S. with more than 35 projects to come. These are important steps toward reaching our long-term goal to power our global infrastructure using 100% renewable energy. We’d like to thank the leaders at LCE, the Scurry County community, and our partners across the country who are helping us continue to bring new renewable energy online.”

“I applaud Amazon’s leadership in supporting renewable power. Corporations like Amazon have become a major force in the transition to renewable power, and with their involvement, we look forward to producing power in Scurry County for years to come,” said Declan Flanagan, founder and CEO of LCE.

“Scurry County has long been a hub for the energy industry and we’re excited to expand our commitment to wind power generation with Amazon and LCE. The wind industry has boosted the Texas economy with jobs, revenue to area landowners, and property taxes that support our schools,” said Scurry County Judge Ricky Fritz.

In addition to its investment in renewable energy, Amazon’s commitment to sustainability includes innovations like Frustration-Free Packaging programs, which eliminated more than 55,000 tons of packaging last year, the District Energy system at its HQ in Seattle that heats more than 3 million square feet of office space using recycled heat from a nearby non-Amazon data center, and more. You can learn about Amazon’s sustainability and environmental work at www.amazon.com/sustainability.

In what must be a hard time to strategize in the face of the new giant on the block their Black Friday offerings so far have been a mixed bag of daily deal offers with a few loss leaders.

Still Kogans buying power, existing logistical expertise and Australian market experience put them in a strong position to capitalize on sales for this year at least. As of writing Amazon Australias site still showed a confusing splattering of Books for sale.

Any sane marketing team would have put a counter on the site but Amazon is still mired in their on again off again opening date secret. Its marketing bungles like this that will give local retailers some breathing space while Amazon discovers new things about the Australian marketplace such as Australia Posts ambivalence regarding delivery times and an Employment rights environment that is a little stricter than that of the United States where some Amazon workers have felt forced to live in their cars outside the Amazon centers.

Kogans Black Friday deals can be found at this link… https://www.kogan.com/au/c/black-friday/  As for Amazon .. try back later.

“A decade ago we set out to invent packaging that is easy for customers to open, eliminates waste, and ensures products arrive undamaged on our customers’ doorsteps,” said Kim Houchens, Director of Customer Packaging Experience at Amazon. “Our certified packaging programs, including Frustration-Free Packaging, have delighted tens of millions of customers around the globe – and we’re adding new products to these programs every day.”

One of the biggest challenges in e-commerce packaging is designing it to be as compact as possible while ensuring that products arrive fully intact. Amazon works with manufacturers worldwide, helping them re-think and re-build their packaging, reducing waste throughout the supply chain while ensuring products are delivered to the customer undamaged. By thoroughly testing products in the Amazon Packaging Lab located in Seattle and also in fulfillment centers across the globe, Amazon identifies specific steps that manufacturers can take to improve their packaging. Manufacturers can even work alongside packaging engineers in Amazon’s Lab to create new packaging for a specific product and test the packaging the same day. Only products that successfully pass this rigorous testing program are certified as part of Amazon’s Frustration-Free Packaging Program.

Every year, Amazon receives millions of comments from customers delighted with the company’s innovations in packaging. Here are just two examples:

“The old frustration-full packaging took scissors and blood and sweat to open. The new way is perfect! Pull cardboard tab, open envelope, memory card in hand.”

“I am a huge fan of Amazon Frustration Free Packaging … Thank you for offering packaging that allows me to access my purchases without endangering myself.”

“For years, Hasbro has been hard at work to make our toy and game packaging more sustainable,” said Kathrin Belliveau, Senior Vice President, Global Government, Regulatory Affairs and Corporate Social Responsibility, Hasbro, Inc. “We love how Frustration-Free Packaging allows us to deepen our commitment to sustainability, enables our consumers to enjoy their toys and games the minute they unwrap the box, and reduces waste – good for the environment, good for consumers, and good for business.”

“Sustainable growth for Colgate Palmolive means a focus on minimizing our environmental impact while continuing to expand our global business. Working with Amazon on packaging innovations has enabled us to do just that,” said Mike Corbo, Chief Supply Chain Officer, Colgate Palmolive. “Packaging waste is costly – for the business and for the planet – so we’re excited to be working with Amazon to drive sustainability improvements.”

The bot was designed from scratch to take part in 2017’s Amazon Robotics Challenge and used a radically different design to past winners.

Instead of building a robotic arm, the victors used a sliding mechanism that picked up products from above.

The four-day event was held in Japan.

The winning Australian Centre for Robotic Vision (ACRV) squad were engineers from Queensland University of Technology, the University of Adelaide and the Australian National University.

They walked away with the $80,000 cash prize. Cartman was able to pick and stow more items than its rivals in the allotted time

“The parts for the robot were cheap by the standards of typical industrial robots and it could be built for under 30,000 Australian dollars $23,935 including its sensors,” Prof Jonathan Roberts, robotics lab leader at Queensland University of Technology told the BBC.

“But there were many thousands of hours of team effort that went into the design, testing and programming.”

Amazon already uses robots to move goods about its warehouses, but relies on humans to pick up and pack them.

It began hosting the competition in 2015 as a means to “promote shared and open solutions” to automating the tasks.

A total of 16 teams from 10 countries took part in the latest challenge in the city of Nagoya.

Unseen products

There were three stages to 2017’s time-limited contest:

• the robot contestants had to pick up specified products from a mix of items and place them in the kind of boxes that might be used for deliveries
• the robots had to take target items out of a container and place them into storage
• a combination of the first two tasks, where all the items first had to be put into storage and then a selection lifted and put into boxes

Amazon provided the teams with details of about half the products they would face in advance, but gave the roboticists just 30 minutes to photograph and practise with the others.

Points were awarded for correctly placing the items, with bonuses given for any remaining time on the clock.

But penalties were imposed for mistakes, dropping items from too great a height, and causing damage to the products and boxes.

Sliding parts

Cartman only placed fifth after the first two parts of the trials, but managed to leapfrog its rivals in the final stage.

The winning team believes its “Cartesian co-ordinate robot” design was better suited to the task than the arm-like designs of others.

The description refers to a robot that uses a frame to move in straight lines across three axes that are at right-angles to each other – ie vertically, horizontally and forward/back – in a similar fashion to the way container port cranes work.

In this case, the mechanism was used to support a rotating gripper that used suction cups and a two-fingered claw to grasp and manipulate the products.

“It works a lot like a 3D-printer mechanism, where the robot manipulator is moved backwards and forwards and up and down,” explained Prof Jonathan Roberts.

“This made for a more accurate and simple system.”

The result was a big improvement on the same team’s sixth-place ranking in 2016, when it programmed a Baxter robot to take part.
The Australian Centre for Robotic Vision used a commercial robot to take part in 2016

“We learnt from our experience last year when we used an off-the-shelf robot,” commented team leader Dr Juxi Leitner.

“[This year] I think we had the lowest cost robot at the event.”

Amazon’s Jeff Bezos’s 2016 statements to Shareholders reaffirmed his 1997 shareholders letter where he spoke of his core strategy to “obsess over customers” now described by Jeff as “True Customer Obsession”, what has Gordon Cairns got in store for us at the end of 2017? You guessed it, Customer Obsession! “We want to be obsessive about our customers” said Gordon. The similarities between Jeff’s statements and Gordon’s parroting were such that new reports appeared to day with headlines like “Woolworths channels Amazon philosophy” Also alluding to Gordon’s fresh ideas.
.
That’s not all a panicked Woolworths has in store to defend against Amazon, Plan B is to threaten their suppliers with a brand new “them or us strategy” is sure to go down well with consumers and producers alike.

Suddenly resorting to graphically violent language and with a killer look in his eyes a visibly disturbed Cairns took on a darker tone. Warning retailers who are planning to sell on Amazon that “They can end up cutting their own throat. Before they step into the breach, they should perhaps consider what the long-term ramifications are”

Reminding us just how nimble Woolworths is that also spoke of the aptly named Dark Stores Strategy, obviously pushing the boundaries of a rapid response to Amazon, Woolies announced that “up to” 5 of these “dark stores” (shipping warehouses) will be open for business at the end of 2018.

Shareholders can also feel relieved Gordon’s bandwagon plans extend to … well Gordon said it best “Finally we want to achieve Gold Tier employee status in the Australian Workplace Equality Index for LGBTI inclusion.”