In the long history of newspapers the relationship between owning a title and owning a press have existed under different models.
The classic model of the original "gazette" was of one person who wrote the stories, typeset them himself and then printed the paper. Ownership of a press was very important. But as presses grew to being large capital investments and had capacity beyond the requirement of just the titles of the owner, capacity on those presses have been sold to others.
For example, Fairfax pays others to print the AFR in states other than Vic and NSW.
Often this is for bespoke rather than competitive titles, and more usually through smaller presses. But declining circulation and shrinking classified volumes means that the large presses of the majors have increasing spare capacity.
It is no surprise, therefore, that News and Fairfax are reported to be close to a deal to share printing presses in Sydney and Melbourne.
While this should be welcomed on technical efficiency grounds it creates a risk of what is known as hold-up. If the deal results in Fairfax being a client of News it creates the possibility that sometime in the future News increases the price it charges Fairfax (unreasonably).
There are solutions to this, either by specifying all future prices in the contract or by empowering an arbiter of future pricing (the latter being exactly what an access regime is). Fairfax should have some protection as the News presses will become a monopoly.
The deal would technically meet the acquisition rules of s50 of the Competition and Consumer Act. As just noted the new business is a monopoly. To gain approval for the deal the Fairfax group could seek to produce a new national title that would increase competition in some markets.
It will be interesting to see how the ACCC eventually responds to any proposal that emerges.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Monday, May 16, 2011
A crazy suggestion for the Gillard Government
Phillip Corey in the SMH this morning reckons "If this government had a duck, it would drown."
He was commenting on yet more bad poll numbers for the Government and how even a good budget has been harshly treated (and hoe the Tele can on one day accuse the budget of not being tough enough and on the next day criticise the modest restraint of "middle-class welfare".)
But he really nails the Government's malaise when he writes;
The government's inability to sell its policies and defend itself, combined with muddling its messages, especially over asylum seekers, is compounding its woes. So is its infatuation with Abbott and his inconsistencies. Yes, Labor needs to put the acid on him more than a government usually would for an opposition leader because it is just a heartbeat from a byelection and a change of government - but there is a limit.
It is rare, if not non-existent, now for the Prime Minister or a minister to give an interview or a press conference and, without prompting, to start talking about Abbott. They appear intimidated. It is little wonder that Abbott feels he has only to reinforce the negatives.
Here is a suggestion for the ALP, much of which is straight out of the spin book they should understand.
Stop referring to coalition spokespersons by name. at most use their titles. Mr Abbott is never Mr Abbott, he is the leader of the opposition, Joe Hockey is just the shadow treasurer. Using their titles will show up the absence of substance.
Also as far as possible try to refer to them as "the alternative government" or simply "coalition" rather than opposition or liberals. Don't feed their brand.
And above all just don't mention them if you can avoid it. When asked about the carbon tax explain it without trying to talk about other points of view. Talking about the coalition means ascribing to them a policy credibility that they don't have on their own.
And on the way through find a really good media coach for Wayne Swan. he is having too many "John Kerin" moments. Ministers should accept that the public accepts they don't know everything. So when asked "when was the last time the ALP brought in a budget surplus" either say "I'm not focussed on the past, but on the present and the future. The Government took the budget into deficit to provide stimulus to the economy. As a consequence we have only 4.5% unemployment, not nearly 10% like the US and many other developed countries. The task now is to return to surplus and this budget outlines how we will achieve that."
There is almost no question a journalist can come up with that you can't have a response to. But the responses need to be a bit better than just parrotting the official "phrase of the day".
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
He was commenting on yet more bad poll numbers for the Government and how even a good budget has been harshly treated (and hoe the Tele can on one day accuse the budget of not being tough enough and on the next day criticise the modest restraint of "middle-class welfare".)
But he really nails the Government's malaise when he writes;
The government's inability to sell its policies and defend itself, combined with muddling its messages, especially over asylum seekers, is compounding its woes. So is its infatuation with Abbott and his inconsistencies. Yes, Labor needs to put the acid on him more than a government usually would for an opposition leader because it is just a heartbeat from a byelection and a change of government - but there is a limit.
It is rare, if not non-existent, now for the Prime Minister or a minister to give an interview or a press conference and, without prompting, to start talking about Abbott. They appear intimidated. It is little wonder that Abbott feels he has only to reinforce the negatives.
Here is a suggestion for the ALP, much of which is straight out of the spin book they should understand.
Stop referring to coalition spokespersons by name. at most use their titles. Mr Abbott is never Mr Abbott, he is the leader of the opposition, Joe Hockey is just the shadow treasurer. Using their titles will show up the absence of substance.
Also as far as possible try to refer to them as "the alternative government" or simply "coalition" rather than opposition or liberals. Don't feed their brand.
And above all just don't mention them if you can avoid it. When asked about the carbon tax explain it without trying to talk about other points of view. Talking about the coalition means ascribing to them a policy credibility that they don't have on their own.
And on the way through find a really good media coach for Wayne Swan. he is having too many "John Kerin" moments. Ministers should accept that the public accepts they don't know everything. So when asked "when was the last time the ALP brought in a budget surplus" either say "I'm not focussed on the past, but on the present and the future. The Government took the budget into deficit to provide stimulus to the economy. As a consequence we have only 4.5% unemployment, not nearly 10% like the US and many other developed countries. The task now is to return to surplus and this budget outlines how we will achieve that."
There is almost no question a journalist can come up with that you can't have a response to. But the responses need to be a bit better than just parrotting the official "phrase of the day".
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Why we shouldn't worry about the set-top box program
The Government's budget announcement of over $300M to fund in home assistance for pensioners to install digital set-top boxes has drawn plenty of criticism, mostly of this kind that repeats the assertions that this will be like the home insulation and BER programs.
The problem with this is that there really are a lot of myths about these two programs.
The Australian National Audit Office found that the BER program worked and worked well.
The issue of course was that to work as a stimulus it had to be a rushed program, and that as a consequence not all the controls as good as they might have otherwise been. The program also didn't fix smelly toilet blocks because it was designed to be new expenditure and not to simply displace State expenditure with Federal expenditure.
This week analysis of the CSIRO data on the home insulation program revealed that the instance of house fire due to insulation installation was LOWER during the program than it had been before!
So we really should be quite relaxed about the set-top box program - the Federal Government's record is actually good, not bad!
Two other facts are that fully 11% of the project expenditure ($42M) goes to Human Services to ascertain whether a household is eligible for the program. The second is that DBCDE programs are traditionally under-spent. This is likely to be the same. No longer is it just a matter of getting digital signal. TV - especially sport and news - is being shot and given sur- and sub- titles on the assumption of a 16:9 aspect ratio. Most consumers will move to new TVs for these reasons, and not access the set-top box route.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
The problem with this is that there really are a lot of myths about these two programs.
The Australian National Audit Office found that the BER program worked and worked well.
The issue of course was that to work as a stimulus it had to be a rushed program, and that as a consequence not all the controls as good as they might have otherwise been. The program also didn't fix smelly toilet blocks because it was designed to be new expenditure and not to simply displace State expenditure with Federal expenditure.
This week analysis of the CSIRO data on the home insulation program revealed that the instance of house fire due to insulation installation was LOWER during the program than it had been before!
So we really should be quite relaxed about the set-top box program - the Federal Government's record is actually good, not bad!
Two other facts are that fully 11% of the project expenditure ($42M) goes to Human Services to ascertain whether a household is eligible for the program. The second is that DBCDE programs are traditionally under-spent. This is likely to be the same. No longer is it just a matter of getting digital signal. TV - especially sport and news - is being shot and given sur- and sub- titles on the assumption of a 16:9 aspect ratio. Most consumers will move to new TVs for these reasons, and not access the set-top box route.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Chaplains
The Federal Government has announced in the budget the extension of the school chaplain program first introduced by John Howard.
Predictably a leading education journalist bemoans the expenditure going to chaplains rather than other school resources. It was conveniently lined up against cuts to the BER program.
More reasoned commentary asks why chaplains need to be religious and whether they are the right skills for "counsellors" instead of trained psychologists. (Though it still ends with the cute tag line "If “Chaplains in Schools” is a success, the ALP may revisit the “Teachers in Schools” and “Students in Schools” programs.")
The back story though is how to respond to a major societal change. The decline of active participation in organised religion has taken away three of the good things that can come from an active involvement in religion and a spiritual life.
These three are simply (1) engaging in an active conversation about morality, what is right and wrong (2) taking time out to be contemplative and (3) the ability to talk to someone not directly involved about the "big stuff" in life.
Religion gets a bum rap because so much of its public image has been moralist preachers going on about gays or drugs, while inside some churches there have been massive cover-ups of wildly immoral behaviour. But in the bulk of cases that isn't how religions discuss morality. They take the time to use some time honoured expressions of moral standards (do unto others, though shalt not kill) and then try to use these to assess modern moral issues. It might have taken a long time, but it was Christians who - despite religious texts that accepts slaves as a fact of life - led the campaigns against slavery within European empires and the USA.
It is remarkable how taking a couple of minutes in reflection - called prayer or meditation - can help get a greater understanding of ones relationships with others. In the process of praying for either divine intervention or in thanksgiving, the way an individual approaches the world and their fellow humans is changed.
The final one is the kicker. Without a "chaplain" program, where exactly do we expect kids to go with a problem - especially if that problem directly relates to a parent or a teacher, or where the resort to parent or teacher has been ineffective. Chaplains can be great at using a version of the "serenity prayer" - which is a simple invocation to have the serenity to accept the things one cannot change, the courage to change the things you can, and the wisdom to know the difference. Your average psychologist tends to fail here because they try to change everything.
The radical atheists and other variants of those who aren't actively engaged in a religion could productively turn their minds to the issues the chaplaincy program tries to address, rather than merely criticise the program.
(Note: Personally I don't like the program, nor do i believe that religious instruction in schools as currently conducted makes sense. But I haven't worked out something better yet - and the NSW ethics classes don't look like it to me).
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Predictably a leading education journalist bemoans the expenditure going to chaplains rather than other school resources. It was conveniently lined up against cuts to the BER program.
More reasoned commentary asks why chaplains need to be religious and whether they are the right skills for "counsellors" instead of trained psychologists. (Though it still ends with the cute tag line "If “Chaplains in Schools” is a success, the ALP may revisit the “Teachers in Schools” and “Students in Schools” programs.")
The back story though is how to respond to a major societal change. The decline of active participation in organised religion has taken away three of the good things that can come from an active involvement in religion and a spiritual life.
These three are simply (1) engaging in an active conversation about morality, what is right and wrong (2) taking time out to be contemplative and (3) the ability to talk to someone not directly involved about the "big stuff" in life.
Religion gets a bum rap because so much of its public image has been moralist preachers going on about gays or drugs, while inside some churches there have been massive cover-ups of wildly immoral behaviour. But in the bulk of cases that isn't how religions discuss morality. They take the time to use some time honoured expressions of moral standards (do unto others, though shalt not kill) and then try to use these to assess modern moral issues. It might have taken a long time, but it was Christians who - despite religious texts that accepts slaves as a fact of life - led the campaigns against slavery within European empires and the USA.
It is remarkable how taking a couple of minutes in reflection - called prayer or meditation - can help get a greater understanding of ones relationships with others. In the process of praying for either divine intervention or in thanksgiving, the way an individual approaches the world and their fellow humans is changed.
The final one is the kicker. Without a "chaplain" program, where exactly do we expect kids to go with a problem - especially if that problem directly relates to a parent or a teacher, or where the resort to parent or teacher has been ineffective. Chaplains can be great at using a version of the "serenity prayer" - which is a simple invocation to have the serenity to accept the things one cannot change, the courage to change the things you can, and the wisdom to know the difference. Your average psychologist tends to fail here because they try to change everything.
The radical atheists and other variants of those who aren't actively engaged in a religion could productively turn their minds to the issues the chaplaincy program tries to address, rather than merely criticise the program.
(Note: Personally I don't like the program, nor do i believe that religious instruction in schools as currently conducted makes sense. But I haven't worked out something better yet - and the NSW ethics classes don't look like it to me).
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Budget Lock-up
Yesterday was my first experience of the ritual that is the "budget lock-up". This was well described by Jessica Irvine in the SMH on the weekend, but there is an additional flavour when you work for a smaller outfit like itNews.
As the scrum of what felt like 200 jourrnalists and commentators pushes its way through the doors to the suite of committee rooms in Parliament House that have been commandeered for the event you queue at a table to receive a Budget sample bag containing the four Budget Papers, Overview and Treasurer's speech. On top of this you obtain a number of papers trumpeting specific aspects, be it a mental health strategy or a jobs stsrategy.
As you make your way to your allotted room you pass yet another table decked out with folders of press releases from individual Ministers. Finally at your seat, laptop open, you confront the task of how to approach this mountain of paper and generate enough interesting words to justify your presence.
Here where the big and small differ. The big guys have already been in and set up mini-networks for their team to use, they have pursued Adam Smith's dictum about the division of labour. After a couple of hours between them they have digested the lot and can have a news conference.
Between the two of us from itNews we'd scoured Budget Paper Number 2 for details of any ICT related activity. We generated two ICT news stories, one about the biggest item being over half a bill in Human Services and a catalogue of other projects. We had one about Internet filtering. I then turned my mind to an opinion piece trying to establish the overall flavour of the budget.
It is while you are researching your story that you go to the Treasury officials with questions, and then discover a whole room of officials from different Departments who can explain parts of the budget. You also then discover the room where they have piled the individual portfolio budget statements. In the midst of all that we couldn't figure out where the $349M to be spent on cyber security in 2011-12 outlined in the budget overview is actually spent, other than to be assured it is just ongoing projects without new initiatives.
I want to use the luxury of my blog to expand on my opinion piece on how disappointing it was that a Budget positioned to talk about transitioning from a mining boom was so thin on detail about transitioning to a Digital Economy.
The Budget Strategy and Outlook (Budget Paper No 1) dedicates a section to “Opportunities and Challenges of an Economy in Transition”. It notes;
While mining and agriculture continue to play a valuable role, Australia has become more than just a commodity economy. Over time, a wide variety of forces has seen Australia convert its natural advantages into a knowledge-based, diversified and service-oriented economy, and this transition has continued throughout the mining boom. ...
Australia’s economic development has seen the benefits of a rich natural resource endowment being transformed into a diverse economy that is service-oriented yet maintains a core of technologically advanced sectors engaged in agricultural, mining and other industrial production.
The outlook then reflects on Australia’s sagging productivity performance. Given that Senator Conroy’s other title is Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity, this is the point where you expect at least flowery words about how our economy will transition.
Instead we learn that the Australian Government has a “broad ranging and extensive productivity agenda that is built around three broad aims”, and then lists achieving continued macroeconomic stability, providing flexibility, and investing in capability. Only then do we read “another priority is ensuring the timely and efficient implementation of existing initiatives such as the National Broadband Network.”
This lack of priority and focus is reflected in the budget initiatives detailed in my opinion piece (and I note that I didn't include the $60M for smart transport).
As an example Finance is to spend $3.6M researching ways the public might interact with Government online. To give a sense of the size of these initiatives, the Attorney-General is planning to achieve an additional $5.2M in revenue over four years from “more accurate recoupment of costs incurred by ASIO” for security assessments of applicants for Maritime and Airport Security Identification Cards.
So the best we can say is the Government is still committed to the NBN but hasn‘t really developed any strategies for Digital Productivity.
At least their strategy includes “investing in capability”, and a centrepiece of the budget is “Building Australia’s Future Workforce”.
This will also disappoint Digital Economy enthusiasts. A lot of the focus is on “vocational education and training” but almost every image used in the glossy brochure to promote the policy is of people engaged in industrial trades. This is media release by hard hat – again. Yes there is one picture of a test tube and one of a chef – but this doesn’t look or read like the VET vision of a “knowledge-based, diversified and service-oriented economy.”
The biggest saving in Education was the saving of $78.4M through the cancellation of the ill-conceived plan for a Vocational Education Broadband Network that was modelled on AARNet. This is a significant win for Conroy gsince the initial network was secured when the Prime Minister was in charge of Education and was widely regarded at the time as an error.
At least there is $21M over 3 years for the “Science for Australia’s Future” program to support the implementation of Inspiring Australia, a national strategy for science engagement that aims to enhance the level of societal understanding and engagement with science, as well as to encourage young Australians to study science and pursue science-related careers.
No doubt when Senator Conroy delivers his Digital Economy strategy there will be more details of the Government’s plans that don’t require expenditure, but overall there is a sense of unfulfilled expectation about the initiatives expected in this budget.
If the ICT industry and ICT professionals are disappointed in this, there is no point in blaming the Government.
Democratic Government’s reflect what their constituents expect, and demand. When it comes to the transition to a Digital Economy industry and the professions do a lot of “the Government ought to” and very little organising of their own.
In 2009 Senator Conroy facilitated one large conference on Broadband and the Digital Economy. In Canada, under the label Canada 3.0 these are annual events touted as “where industry, government and academia get together to spark creativity, foster innovation and drive productivity". But Canada 3.0 is a joint effort of the Canadian Digital Media Network (CDMN) and the University of Waterloo Stratford Campus, not government.
Finally the other difference between the big media and small is that the catering is provided by your employer, not Treasury.
I think I want to do it again!
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
As the scrum of what felt like 200 jourrnalists and commentators pushes its way through the doors to the suite of committee rooms in Parliament House that have been commandeered for the event you queue at a table to receive a Budget sample bag containing the four Budget Papers, Overview and Treasurer's speech. On top of this you obtain a number of papers trumpeting specific aspects, be it a mental health strategy or a jobs stsrategy.
As you make your way to your allotted room you pass yet another table decked out with folders of press releases from individual Ministers. Finally at your seat, laptop open, you confront the task of how to approach this mountain of paper and generate enough interesting words to justify your presence.
Here where the big and small differ. The big guys have already been in and set up mini-networks for their team to use, they have pursued Adam Smith's dictum about the division of labour. After a couple of hours between them they have digested the lot and can have a news conference.
Between the two of us from itNews we'd scoured Budget Paper Number 2 for details of any ICT related activity. We generated two ICT news stories, one about the biggest item being over half a bill in Human Services and a catalogue of other projects. We had one about Internet filtering. I then turned my mind to an opinion piece trying to establish the overall flavour of the budget.
It is while you are researching your story that you go to the Treasury officials with questions, and then discover a whole room of officials from different Departments who can explain parts of the budget. You also then discover the room where they have piled the individual portfolio budget statements. In the midst of all that we couldn't figure out where the $349M to be spent on cyber security in 2011-12 outlined in the budget overview is actually spent, other than to be assured it is just ongoing projects without new initiatives.
I want to use the luxury of my blog to expand on my opinion piece on how disappointing it was that a Budget positioned to talk about transitioning from a mining boom was so thin on detail about transitioning to a Digital Economy.
The Budget Strategy and Outlook (Budget Paper No 1) dedicates a section to “Opportunities and Challenges of an Economy in Transition”. It notes;
While mining and agriculture continue to play a valuable role, Australia has become more than just a commodity economy. Over time, a wide variety of forces has seen Australia convert its natural advantages into a knowledge-based, diversified and service-oriented economy, and this transition has continued throughout the mining boom. ...
Australia’s economic development has seen the benefits of a rich natural resource endowment being transformed into a diverse economy that is service-oriented yet maintains a core of technologically advanced sectors engaged in agricultural, mining and other industrial production.
The outlook then reflects on Australia’s sagging productivity performance. Given that Senator Conroy’s other title is Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity, this is the point where you expect at least flowery words about how our economy will transition.
Instead we learn that the Australian Government has a “broad ranging and extensive productivity agenda that is built around three broad aims”, and then lists achieving continued macroeconomic stability, providing flexibility, and investing in capability. Only then do we read “another priority is ensuring the timely and efficient implementation of existing initiatives such as the National Broadband Network.”
This lack of priority and focus is reflected in the budget initiatives detailed in my opinion piece (and I note that I didn't include the $60M for smart transport).
As an example Finance is to spend $3.6M researching ways the public might interact with Government online. To give a sense of the size of these initiatives, the Attorney-General is planning to achieve an additional $5.2M in revenue over four years from “more accurate recoupment of costs incurred by ASIO” for security assessments of applicants for Maritime and Airport Security Identification Cards.
So the best we can say is the Government is still committed to the NBN but hasn‘t really developed any strategies for Digital Productivity.
At least their strategy includes “investing in capability”, and a centrepiece of the budget is “Building Australia’s Future Workforce”.
This will also disappoint Digital Economy enthusiasts. A lot of the focus is on “vocational education and training” but almost every image used in the glossy brochure to promote the policy is of people engaged in industrial trades. This is media release by hard hat – again. Yes there is one picture of a test tube and one of a chef – but this doesn’t look or read like the VET vision of a “knowledge-based, diversified and service-oriented economy.”
The biggest saving in Education was the saving of $78.4M through the cancellation of the ill-conceived plan for a Vocational Education Broadband Network that was modelled on AARNet. This is a significant win for Conroy gsince the initial network was secured when the Prime Minister was in charge of Education and was widely regarded at the time as an error.
At least there is $21M over 3 years for the “Science for Australia’s Future” program to support the implementation of Inspiring Australia, a national strategy for science engagement that aims to enhance the level of societal understanding and engagement with science, as well as to encourage young Australians to study science and pursue science-related careers.
No doubt when Senator Conroy delivers his Digital Economy strategy there will be more details of the Government’s plans that don’t require expenditure, but overall there is a sense of unfulfilled expectation about the initiatives expected in this budget.
If the ICT industry and ICT professionals are disappointed in this, there is no point in blaming the Government.
Democratic Government’s reflect what their constituents expect, and demand. When it comes to the transition to a Digital Economy industry and the professions do a lot of “the Government ought to” and very little organising of their own.
In 2009 Senator Conroy facilitated one large conference on Broadband and the Digital Economy. In Canada, under the label Canada 3.0 these are annual events touted as “where industry, government and academia get together to spark creativity, foster innovation and drive productivity". But Canada 3.0 is a joint effort of the Canadian Digital Media Network (CDMN) and the University of Waterloo Stratford Campus, not government.
Finally the other difference between the big media and small is that the catering is provided by your employer, not Treasury.
I think I want to do it again!
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Monday, May 09, 2011
Digital Economy and P2P
To recap, my central thesis about the Digital Economy is that there is not a single technologically determined outcome, but that the outcome will depend upon choices made by the various "actors". To put it another way, people matter.
Stilgherrian in his Patch Monday podcast today interviews Michael Bauwens who is described on Wikipedia as a "Belgian peer-to-peer theorist".
One of his on-line contributions The Political Economy of Peer Production gives a good insight into what his theories are and what the policy "issues" are.
Against this mindset I would position the view of traditional telcos who see their role in life as to mediate the comms necessary. The other position remains that of firms that still believe in integration models.
The policy frontiers to maximise the value of 'peer production" include recognising the importance of IPv6 and why large telcos think it isn't a problem, and competition policy where we need to revise our view of the size of firms and number of participants in markets (smaller firms, bigger number of players) and write aggressive law to match.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Stilgherrian in his Patch Monday podcast today interviews Michael Bauwens who is described on Wikipedia as a "Belgian peer-to-peer theorist".
One of his on-line contributions The Political Economy of Peer Production gives a good insight into what his theories are and what the policy "issues" are.
Against this mindset I would position the view of traditional telcos who see their role in life as to mediate the comms necessary. The other position remains that of firms that still believe in integration models.
The policy frontiers to maximise the value of 'peer production" include recognising the importance of IPv6 and why large telcos think it isn't a problem, and competition policy where we need to revise our view of the size of firms and number of participants in markets (smaller firms, bigger number of players) and write aggressive law to match.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Remembering John Howard
Nice of Laurie Oakes to remind us of John Howard's infamous line;
Al-Qaida would be praying that Barack Obama became US president
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Al-Qaida would be praying that Barack Obama became US president
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Friday, May 06, 2011
3D Souvenirs
I talked about 3D printers in a post the other day.
Courtesy of Crikey check out this video. It shows but a recent installation in Barcelona where passersby used light scanners and a 3D printer to turn them into their own souvenirs.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Courtesy of Crikey check out this video. It shows but a recent installation in Barcelona where passersby used light scanners and a 3D printer to turn them into their own souvenirs.
Be Your Own Souvenir! from blablabLAB on Vimeo.
.Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Former commies
Gerard Henderson does a good line in questioning the bona fides of former communists. One of his favourite targets is Greens Senator elect Lee Rhiannon.
Today the Oz runs a piece in which Mark Aarons takes a similar shot.
I have no dispute with the many former Communists who erred in their judgement leading up to WWII supporting the Soviet pact with Germany, nor those who looked to Russia and saw nirvana not the gulag. None of us has perfect knowledge.
I do share the concerns of Henderson though about those who won't acknowledge their error.
The ideal of communism is fantastic, the historical analysis of Marx is great (as I've said Bobbitt's is similar) and his economics actually has some valid critiques of what eventually became the orthodoxy. But the practical implementation by terror - starting with Lenin - and its internal inconsistencies are worthy of damnation.
But by the same token, the practice of capitalism in the USA, the harm it inflicts on its poor, the number of its young black male citizens it imprisons, the number of people it executes or cannot keep safe from murder, the absurd rewards paid to people who run the scam known as the financial system and the corruption of its outsourced military means that is a state also worthy of damnation.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Today the Oz runs a piece in which Mark Aarons takes a similar shot.
I have no dispute with the many former Communists who erred in their judgement leading up to WWII supporting the Soviet pact with Germany, nor those who looked to Russia and saw nirvana not the gulag. None of us has perfect knowledge.
I do share the concerns of Henderson though about those who won't acknowledge their error.
The ideal of communism is fantastic, the historical analysis of Marx is great (as I've said Bobbitt's is similar) and his economics actually has some valid critiques of what eventually became the orthodoxy. But the practical implementation by terror - starting with Lenin - and its internal inconsistencies are worthy of damnation.
But by the same token, the practice of capitalism in the USA, the harm it inflicts on its poor, the number of its young black male citizens it imprisons, the number of people it executes or cannot keep safe from murder, the absurd rewards paid to people who run the scam known as the financial system and the corruption of its outsourced military means that is a state also worthy of damnation.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
The Liberals
The confidence with which Dennis Shanahan assert in this morning's Oz that the coalition will stick with its current front bench team almost guarantees a spill in October.
More importantly, aren't we all heartily sick of "journalism" that reports politics as if it is about the politicians and not the policies? Do journalists have no responsibility for the fact that Abbott got to do his "mini campaign tour" while the PM was out of the country but still managed to say nothing?
In response to questions spilling from Joe Hockey's absurd claims about being able to balance the budget earlier than the ALP, Abbott again got away with the old - "there isn't an election in the offing so we don't have to tell you details" line.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
More importantly, aren't we all heartily sick of "journalism" that reports politics as if it is about the politicians and not the policies? Do journalists have no responsibility for the fact that Abbott got to do his "mini campaign tour" while the PM was out of the country but still managed to say nothing?
In response to questions spilling from Joe Hockey's absurd claims about being able to balance the budget earlier than the ALP, Abbott again got away with the old - "there isn't an election in the offing so we don't have to tell you details" line.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Thursday, May 05, 2011
Two takes on Canada
James Allan writing in the Oz claims the ALP needs to pay attention to Canada as the result there shows the historic centre-left party (the Liberal Party) being overtaken by a new further left party (the New Democratic Party).
Allan claims;
Now it's no great stretch to compare the NDP with the Greens here in Australia. Both have the same other-worldly grasp of economics, the same dislike of free trade, the same strands in their parties who dislike Israel and the same proclivity to deal in moral and political abstractions rather than specific facts.
Which is interesting but fails to note that the NDP is celebrating its fiftieth anniversary. It is far more like what the Australian Democrats would look like today if they hadn't self-immolated and their vote hadn't drifted to the Greens and the Liberals. Neither the Liberals nor NDP can really claim to be a social democratic party of the standard of the ALP.
Charles Richardson writing in Crikey (behind a paywall) suggests the real message from Canada is for the UK and their forthcoming referendum on the AV (see earlier comments).
Canada's Conservative Party was a minority government for the past two terms They finally won a majority in Monday's general election -- 167 seats out of 308 -- courtesy of the electoral system, not the voters. The Tories won with only 39.6% of the votes. Against them, the three centre-left parties of New Democrats (30.6%, 102 seats), Liberals (18.9%, 34 seats) and Greens (3.9%, one seat) had a clear majority between them.
The ALP has much to fear - The Greens are not one of those things.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Allan claims;
Now it's no great stretch to compare the NDP with the Greens here in Australia. Both have the same other-worldly grasp of economics, the same dislike of free trade, the same strands in their parties who dislike Israel and the same proclivity to deal in moral and political abstractions rather than specific facts.
Which is interesting but fails to note that the NDP is celebrating its fiftieth anniversary. It is far more like what the Australian Democrats would look like today if they hadn't self-immolated and their vote hadn't drifted to the Greens and the Liberals. Neither the Liberals nor NDP can really claim to be a social democratic party of the standard of the ALP.
Charles Richardson writing in Crikey (behind a paywall) suggests the real message from Canada is for the UK and their forthcoming referendum on the AV (see earlier comments).
Canada's Conservative Party was a minority government for the past two terms They finally won a majority in Monday's general election -- 167 seats out of 308 -- courtesy of the electoral system, not the voters. The Tories won with only 39.6% of the votes. Against them, the three centre-left parties of New Democrats (30.6%, 102 seats), Liberals (18.9%, 34 seats) and Greens (3.9%, one seat) had a clear majority between them.
The ALP has much to fear - The Greens are not one of those things.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Confusing consequences with goals
The world's "great" religions need to be understood in the context in which they developed. It is useful to understand why they developed and survived - basically because they "worked". That is for another post.
But it is important to understand them to be able to engage in a useful discussion with them. All religions suffer from a problem that, while they all have evolved in many ways, at any point in time they are perceived to be wholly true. Even the Koran shows a progression in the sayings of the prophet as he progressed from little known seer to ruler. It is just harder to see because of the ordering of the sura by length.
Such an appreciation is not evident in the heading given to Paul Sheehan's column in the SMH today; Repressing women is sharia's raison d'etre. In fairness to Sheehan this heading is probably an editor's work - but it confuses the outcome "repression of women", as the cause.
But Sheehan himself comes close to that heading writing;
Because when you scrape away the layers of rhetoric of such jihadists, or those who rationalise their actions, it is evident their primary concern in seeking to impose strict sharia is to control and constrain women's freedom. This is the core cultural impact of sharia.
In this context, the whole concept of Islamic holy war has been in part an expression of sexual repression and sexual oppression.
Let's briefly consider polygamy and its one-sided nature. The Arab tribes that Mohammed coalesced were constantly engaged in war. The consequence of war is that there are lots of deaths. Men can breed many warriors, women only one at a time. It makes sense to send men to war and not women because men are expendable. Once you do so you will have a population imbalance and the process of breeding more warriors will more readily occur by having asymmetric polygamy.
But the law goes much further than this. Indeed one of the bases for the success of Islam was that it treated women better than the other social orders around it at the time. Families have responsibilities to the wives of their brothers and sons. No woman is left uncared for.
Sheehan is right, however, to note that in a modern society with greater life expectancy and not dominated by tribal war-fare that these practices are wrong. To do so requires an engagement with Islam that says "we respect your beliefs and your right to those beliefs, as we ask you to accept our beliefs. We have modified our cultural values as the world has developed around us and we encourage you to do the same."
We have plenty of evidence for how we have changed - the God of a twenty-first century Christian is not the God of Joshua who told him to exterminate all other people.
But equally we have parts of the twentieth century church that are equally repressive of women, as evidenced by the Papal view of contraception and the place of women in the Church.
Sheehan needs to be a little less shrill about Islam and more reflective about belief and culture.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
But it is important to understand them to be able to engage in a useful discussion with them. All religions suffer from a problem that, while they all have evolved in many ways, at any point in time they are perceived to be wholly true. Even the Koran shows a progression in the sayings of the prophet as he progressed from little known seer to ruler. It is just harder to see because of the ordering of the sura by length.
Such an appreciation is not evident in the heading given to Paul Sheehan's column in the SMH today; Repressing women is sharia's raison d'etre. In fairness to Sheehan this heading is probably an editor's work - but it confuses the outcome "repression of women", as the cause.
But Sheehan himself comes close to that heading writing;
Because when you scrape away the layers of rhetoric of such jihadists, or those who rationalise their actions, it is evident their primary concern in seeking to impose strict sharia is to control and constrain women's freedom. This is the core cultural impact of sharia.
In this context, the whole concept of Islamic holy war has been in part an expression of sexual repression and sexual oppression.
Let's briefly consider polygamy and its one-sided nature. The Arab tribes that Mohammed coalesced were constantly engaged in war. The consequence of war is that there are lots of deaths. Men can breed many warriors, women only one at a time. It makes sense to send men to war and not women because men are expendable. Once you do so you will have a population imbalance and the process of breeding more warriors will more readily occur by having asymmetric polygamy.
But the law goes much further than this. Indeed one of the bases for the success of Islam was that it treated women better than the other social orders around it at the time. Families have responsibilities to the wives of their brothers and sons. No woman is left uncared for.
Sheehan is right, however, to note that in a modern society with greater life expectancy and not dominated by tribal war-fare that these practices are wrong. To do so requires an engagement with Islam that says "we respect your beliefs and your right to those beliefs, as we ask you to accept our beliefs. We have modified our cultural values as the world has developed around us and we encourage you to do the same."
We have plenty of evidence for how we have changed - the God of a twenty-first century Christian is not the God of Joshua who told him to exterminate all other people.
But equally we have parts of the twentieth century church that are equally repressive of women, as evidenced by the Papal view of contraception and the place of women in the Church.
Sheehan needs to be a little less shrill about Islam and more reflective about belief and culture.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Spectrum Policy
The ACMA has launched a consultation on spectrum requirements for mobile broadband to 2020. I'll admit to not having read the documents yet, but think there is a lot to be said for keeping the availability constrained to spur innovation.
Meanwhile over in the US the ITIF is about to hold a seminar that seems to be on the topic; Waves of Innovation: Spectrum Allocation in the Age of the Mobile Internet
Event (details below). If anyone wants to engage a researcher to attend on their behalf ... I am available.
I spend a lot of my life dealing with "false dichotomy", and spectrum policy is one such area. The dichotomy is between having government ownership and direct regulation of spectrum or of allocating the rights to a market. This is the traditional approach to considering solutions to the so-called "tragedy of the commons". While the initial concept was about over-grazing of cattle in common fields, the same is true of "unregulated" spectrum.
In his book Governing the Commons
Elinor Ostrom notes that management of the commons by either government or a market implies omniscience by either bureaucrats or firms. He notes that there are many real-world examples where "common pooled resources" are managed by systems more dynamic than either of the two standards.
In general markets work better than central control because they work to communicate information between participants. But much of the theory of "auctions" as efficient allocation mechanisms assumes that the bidding firms are omniscient about both the market demand characteristics and the technology evolution for the entire life of the spectrum licence.
A further interesting twist is added by a very brief analysis of the history of mobile phones. In the first generation (analog) the USA had effectively a mandated standard (AMPS) while Europe had a proliferation of standards. The USA developed faster and stronger.
With the advent of 2nd generation (digital) Europe mandated a standard (GSM) while the US pursued the first spectrum auctions. This resulted in a fragmented market between GSM and D-AMPS (or TDMA). In this phase the Europeans (and Asian economies that followed) rapidly outpaced the US.
The advent of 3G has seen a more unified technology approach on UMTS with a number of variants. Differences are apparent in some spectrum choices. The only other candidate was TD-CDMA from China.
LTE (4th generation) seems to be settling on one standard in two variants - FD and TD. Devices will probably work on both, and TD-LTE will supplant the Mobile WiMax base. But the fact remains that service adoption has been better in markets with active regulatory involvement rather than those that don't.
*****************************************************************
Waves of Innovation: Spectrum Allocation in the Age of the Mobile Internet
Event
For many of us the term "spectrum policy" has to do with allocating relatively small parts of the radio frequency space to specific applications such as AM and FM radio, television, and public safety. It is a notion more apt for a time when we watched TV over the air and made phone calls over a wireline network. Today these patterns of usage are reversed, and we live in a world where mobile broadband has emerged as a general-purpose technology that can support a wide range of applications. We need a general-purpose spectrum and a spectrum policy that is ready for this and future technological advances. Join ITIF for an exploration of lessons learned in wireless networking that impact spectrum assignment policies and contemporary issues in spectrum policy, such as the development of 3G and 4G networks, the rise of Wi-Fi and other unlicensed technologies, the role of microwave, the impact of dynamic spectrum allocation, the utility of spectrum auctions, secondary uses, and secondary markets.
Date/Time:
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
12:00 PM-1:30 PM (add to calendar)
Location:
2168 Rayburn House Office Building
45 Independence Ave SW
Washington, DC 20515 (map)
Moderator:
Richard Bennett
Senior Research Fellow, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
Steven J. Crowley
Consulting Engineer, Steven J. Crowley P.E.
Thomas W. Hazlett
Professor of Law and Economics, George Mason University
Matthew Hussey
Legislative Assistant, Office of Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
Charles Jackson
Adjunct Professor of Electrical Engineering, George Washington University
Register for the event.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Meanwhile over in the US the ITIF is about to hold a seminar that seems to be on the topic; Waves of Innovation: Spectrum Allocation in the Age of the Mobile Internet
Event (details below). If anyone wants to engage a researcher to attend on their behalf ... I am available.
I spend a lot of my life dealing with "false dichotomy", and spectrum policy is one such area. The dichotomy is between having government ownership and direct regulation of spectrum or of allocating the rights to a market. This is the traditional approach to considering solutions to the so-called "tragedy of the commons". While the initial concept was about over-grazing of cattle in common fields, the same is true of "unregulated" spectrum.
In his book Governing the Commons
Elinor Ostrom notes that management of the commons by either government or a market implies omniscience by either bureaucrats or firms. He notes that there are many real-world examples where "common pooled resources" are managed by systems more dynamic than either of the two standards. In general markets work better than central control because they work to communicate information between participants. But much of the theory of "auctions" as efficient allocation mechanisms assumes that the bidding firms are omniscient about both the market demand characteristics and the technology evolution for the entire life of the spectrum licence.
A further interesting twist is added by a very brief analysis of the history of mobile phones. In the first generation (analog) the USA had effectively a mandated standard (AMPS) while Europe had a proliferation of standards. The USA developed faster and stronger.
With the advent of 2nd generation (digital) Europe mandated a standard (GSM) while the US pursued the first spectrum auctions. This resulted in a fragmented market between GSM and D-AMPS (or TDMA). In this phase the Europeans (and Asian economies that followed) rapidly outpaced the US.
The advent of 3G has seen a more unified technology approach on UMTS with a number of variants. Differences are apparent in some spectrum choices. The only other candidate was TD-CDMA from China.
LTE (4th generation) seems to be settling on one standard in two variants - FD and TD. Devices will probably work on both, and TD-LTE will supplant the Mobile WiMax base. But the fact remains that service adoption has been better in markets with active regulatory involvement rather than those that don't.
*****************************************************************
Waves of Innovation: Spectrum Allocation in the Age of the Mobile Internet
Event
For many of us the term "spectrum policy" has to do with allocating relatively small parts of the radio frequency space to specific applications such as AM and FM radio, television, and public safety. It is a notion more apt for a time when we watched TV over the air and made phone calls over a wireline network. Today these patterns of usage are reversed, and we live in a world where mobile broadband has emerged as a general-purpose technology that can support a wide range of applications. We need a general-purpose spectrum and a spectrum policy that is ready for this and future technological advances. Join ITIF for an exploration of lessons learned in wireless networking that impact spectrum assignment policies and contemporary issues in spectrum policy, such as the development of 3G and 4G networks, the rise of Wi-Fi and other unlicensed technologies, the role of microwave, the impact of dynamic spectrum allocation, the utility of spectrum auctions, secondary uses, and secondary markets.
Date/Time:
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
12:00 PM-1:30 PM (add to calendar)
Location:
2168 Rayburn House Office Building
45 Independence Ave SW
Washington, DC 20515 (map)
Moderator:
Richard Bennett
Senior Research Fellow, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
Steven J. Crowley
Consulting Engineer, Steven J. Crowley P.E.
Thomas W. Hazlett
Professor of Law and Economics, George Mason University
Matthew Hussey
Legislative Assistant, Office of Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
Charles Jackson
Adjunct Professor of Electrical Engineering, George Washington University
Register for the event.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Wednesday, May 04, 2011
Fairfax
In today's Crikey Margaret Simons writes about the decision made at Fairfax to outsource some sub-editing.
In describing the task facing Fairfax's senior execs she writes;
The whole thing is bloody and awful, and while it is part of my job to criticise what Hywood and Matthews do, I also recognise that, despite their fat salaries, their jobs are far from enviable. God knows why people scrap so hard to be in these positions. One assumes it is because they believe they can pull gold out of the shit. I wish I shared their belief.
There are no easy answers to trying to save dying media business models, and they are right to do what their predecessors have failed to do -- admit the depth of the problem and try to do something about it.
She goes on to note that the new CEO has fronted-up to the idea that the classifieds business - the old "Rivers of Gold" - is basically dead.
There are a few observations to make. The first is that Fairfax had plenty of opportunity to act about on-line much earlier. In about 1994 when I was the Account Director for the media portfolio at Telstra the Fairfax CIO Frank McMahon asked us to talk to him about online services. (For the record Frank was responsible for the initial computerisation of the production process at Fairfax - no slouch).
He was particulary interested in what was called "On Australia" which was a Microsoft/Telstra JV. At that stage it was about Microsoft's non-internet based MSN - in the days when AOL and other dial-up subscription services were booming.
To the credit of the guys from telstra Multimedia who met Frank, they told him all about On Australia, but really recommended he have a look at a thing called Mosaic - which was the first web-browser.
In the end Fairfax took a decision to go with a "corporate" style on line service buying something that had a large base in libraries. This route was partly chosen because it could be achieved by acquisition.
The second is that the media are not alone in fronting what Clayton Chritensem dubbed The Innovator's Dilemma
. This is the fact that to expolit the new business as it develops means sacrificing some of your revenues and profits from the old business. The example he used is the manufacture of hard disc drives.
Whenever in business you hear a CEO or exec team reject a strategy because it will "cannibalise our existing business" then you know you need to get out. Quite simply, if the existing business can be cannibalised then it will be cannibalised by someone else if not by you. It is closely related to a problem in business case development of what is the base case - the do nothing case - against which a strategy should be implemented. Too often it is a flat line or worse an extrapolation of historic growth when the reality is that the base case is declining revenue. As an example, AAPT was unable to develop a strategy for VoIP in conjunction with broadband because of how healthy the voice resale margins were.
The important thing to remember though is that CEOs are ultimately paid the big bucks to make the hard decisions. they should all sign-up to JFKs invocation "We choose to go to the moon, not because it is easy, but because it is hard".
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
In describing the task facing Fairfax's senior execs she writes;
The whole thing is bloody and awful, and while it is part of my job to criticise what Hywood and Matthews do, I also recognise that, despite their fat salaries, their jobs are far from enviable. God knows why people scrap so hard to be in these positions. One assumes it is because they believe they can pull gold out of the shit. I wish I shared their belief.
There are no easy answers to trying to save dying media business models, and they are right to do what their predecessors have failed to do -- admit the depth of the problem and try to do something about it.
She goes on to note that the new CEO has fronted-up to the idea that the classifieds business - the old "Rivers of Gold" - is basically dead.
There are a few observations to make. The first is that Fairfax had plenty of opportunity to act about on-line much earlier. In about 1994 when I was the Account Director for the media portfolio at Telstra the Fairfax CIO Frank McMahon asked us to talk to him about online services. (For the record Frank was responsible for the initial computerisation of the production process at Fairfax - no slouch).
He was particulary interested in what was called "On Australia" which was a Microsoft/Telstra JV. At that stage it was about Microsoft's non-internet based MSN - in the days when AOL and other dial-up subscription services were booming.
To the credit of the guys from telstra Multimedia who met Frank, they told him all about On Australia, but really recommended he have a look at a thing called Mosaic - which was the first web-browser.
In the end Fairfax took a decision to go with a "corporate" style on line service buying something that had a large base in libraries. This route was partly chosen because it could be achieved by acquisition.
The second is that the media are not alone in fronting what Clayton Chritensem dubbed The Innovator's Dilemma
. This is the fact that to expolit the new business as it develops means sacrificing some of your revenues and profits from the old business. The example he used is the manufacture of hard disc drives.Whenever in business you hear a CEO or exec team reject a strategy because it will "cannibalise our existing business" then you know you need to get out. Quite simply, if the existing business can be cannibalised then it will be cannibalised by someone else if not by you. It is closely related to a problem in business case development of what is the base case - the do nothing case - against which a strategy should be implemented. Too often it is a flat line or worse an extrapolation of historic growth when the reality is that the base case is declining revenue. As an example, AAPT was unable to develop a strategy for VoIP in conjunction with broadband because of how healthy the voice resale margins were.
The important thing to remember though is that CEOs are ultimately paid the big bucks to make the hard decisions. they should all sign-up to JFKs invocation "We choose to go to the moon, not because it is easy, but because it is hard".
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Birthers, Truthers now Deathers
Nice piece from Foreign Policy that predicts that birthers (believe that Obama was not born in the US), truthers (believe that 9/11 was not the act of terrorists in planes, there were explosives too, and no plane hit the pentagon) will be joined by deathers who will believe that Osama bin Laden was not killed in Pakistan.
These kinds of theorists make for an interesting breed. Their genuine scepticism should not be derided - there are plenty of real cases where Governments have lied.
But their stock in trade is based on a number of rhetorical techniques;
1. Work on a pre-existing distrust of Government ("They would say that wouldn't they")
2. Find inconsistencies between two accounts, and then always claim that the inconsistency is the consequence of fabrication and that the version that suits their own purposes must be the "truth"
3. Lots of use of "pseudo-science" and other forms of weak reasoning
4. Reliance on the "wisdom of crowds" by citing the number of online comments that support their view, without noticing that these are usually simply recycling the same narrow fact base
If Osama bin Laden is NOT dead, one would expect him to do one of his broadcast messages soon. Of course, the deathers will argue that he won't do such a video, because to do so would be to play into the Americans hands.
The theory will go that the reason for the Americans faking his death was to get bin Laden to reveal himself so they can locate him to really get him. We'll be told that bin Laden is too clever for such a ploy and hence has decided not to reveal himself. Soon after the story will go that bin Laden now can't reveal himself because he died of natural causes and there was no public funeral because the US would have attacked it.
Meanwhile, riddle me this batman, if you were going to fake his death, why would you chose a location so close to Islamabad? The deathers theory will be about putting pressure on the Pakistani government, as an attempt to embarrass them into further submission to the US.
Folks. Obama was born in the US, terrorists flying planes attacked the WTC and Pentagon, Osama bin Laden was killed by the US yesterday, man landed on the moon. As for JFK? Well, you know, it was either Lee Harvey Oswald or Frank Sinatra.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
These kinds of theorists make for an interesting breed. Their genuine scepticism should not be derided - there are plenty of real cases where Governments have lied.
But their stock in trade is based on a number of rhetorical techniques;
1. Work on a pre-existing distrust of Government ("They would say that wouldn't they")
2. Find inconsistencies between two accounts, and then always claim that the inconsistency is the consequence of fabrication and that the version that suits their own purposes must be the "truth"
3. Lots of use of "pseudo-science" and other forms of weak reasoning
4. Reliance on the "wisdom of crowds" by citing the number of online comments that support their view, without noticing that these are usually simply recycling the same narrow fact base
If Osama bin Laden is NOT dead, one would expect him to do one of his broadcast messages soon. Of course, the deathers will argue that he won't do such a video, because to do so would be to play into the Americans hands.
The theory will go that the reason for the Americans faking his death was to get bin Laden to reveal himself so they can locate him to really get him. We'll be told that bin Laden is too clever for such a ploy and hence has decided not to reveal himself. Soon after the story will go that bin Laden now can't reveal himself because he died of natural causes and there was no public funeral because the US would have attacked it.
Meanwhile, riddle me this batman, if you were going to fake his death, why would you chose a location so close to Islamabad? The deathers theory will be about putting pressure on the Pakistani government, as an attempt to embarrass them into further submission to the US.
Folks. Obama was born in the US, terrorists flying planes attacked the WTC and Pentagon, Osama bin Laden was killed by the US yesterday, man landed on the moon. As for JFK? Well, you know, it was either Lee Harvey Oswald or Frank Sinatra.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
Question
Just checked out the new library at Macquarie Uni - so far just study spaces. But first observation is very little natural light (just one wall). Heard on the weekend a complaint about lack of natural light in the lecture rooms of the new Law School at USyd.
I believe there is no truth to the rumour that they have been designed this way to facilitate their conversion to casinos as the Universities last desperate measure to generate income!
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
I believe there is no truth to the rumour that they have been designed this way to facilitate their conversion to casinos as the Universities last desperate measure to generate income!
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Monday, May 02, 2011
Voting
Democracy and the idea of government by all expressed by a vote has been around since antiquity, but it has formed the backbone of anglophone government since the late 17th century, being mostly refined first in the US and then other countries so that through most of the twentieth century the issue seemed "settled:.
The reality is somewhat different. There has remained a tension between the concepts of representative and direct democracy, the original distinction between the American party labels of Republican and Democrat (respectively).
At the same time electoral systems have been reviewed and reconsidered. The major dimensions for electoral systems are;
1. Whether the executive and legislature are directly elected separately (the US) or whether the latter determines the former (Westminster).
2. Unicameral versus bicameral legislatures, and the nature of selecting the "second" house - e.g. US and Oz have Senates, Australian States only recently moved to election rather than appointment, UK has a hereditary/appointed house, and NZ and Qld have none)
3. The voting system. First past the post, alternative vote (preferrential) or proportional representation. If the latter Hare-Clark or MMP i.e. a party balance "top-up").
4. Compulsion. Whether voting should be compulsory or voluntary.
5. The franchise. The issues of universal adult suffrage have been long resolved, but the definition of "adult" continues to be open for debate - with some in Australia suggesting 16. But there have been others thinking in terms of tightening the franchise (I saw something I now can't find that was proposing an educational qualification). The related issue is electoral district size and how they are drawn.
In the last week three different pieces have popped up on these issues. The Economist last week had a story on the perils of the direct democracy experiments in California. This outlines the problem of allowing individuals to vote directly on issues where they don't have to reconcile the consequences. Direct votes will lower taxes and increase services. Yet this week in diagnosing "what's wrong with America's economy" they note the inability of the representative federal government to reconcile the revenue with the expenditure.
The second issue has been the referendum in the UK over the Alternative Vote. I was bemused to see The Economist discussion which suggested the AV could increase the vote for extreme parties and indeed that PR could be more "stable".
The same article notes that part of the balancing of votes received versus seats includes the redrawing of electoral boundaries that some are concerned about breaking "local" ties. I have noted that very issue in Australia since the reforms that limited the variability in seat sizes to first 20% then later to 10%. With boundaries redrawn every second election and often quite big changes flowing there is a breakdown in the relationship between member and electorate, with more votes being based on party affiliation.
There is an alternative. That is to let seats vary in size but allow an MPs parliamentary vote reflect the size of their electorate. Voting could be done electronically rather than by physical division (fingerprint swipe - press yes or no) and the vote tallied. The system of pairs would need to be replaced by a formalised system of appointment of proxies.
Finally we come to the question of compulsory voting. Lindsay Tanner in his new book Sideshow, has suggested abolishing compulsory voting "thereby reducing the voting base to people who are sufficiently engaged to be less susceptible to cynical marketing strategies and entertaining forms of manipulation."
This sounds fine in principle, except that the voting base is not actually thus reduced. While citizens have the choice to vote, the self same "less engaged" become the target of the campaign to "turn out the vote". politics in the US and UK is no less a sideshow than it is in Australia.
(In fairnes to Tanner he quotes Richard Speed on this point, but Speed's analysis is wrong. By contrasting Obama's election with Gillard's he is not making a reasoned comparison. Secondly, the need for a party in compulsory voting to "look after its base" is just as real - just look at the NSW ALP and Federal Labor and how they bled to the Greens).
If there is indeed a problem here requiring a solution - rather than a mere transitory phase that will self-correct - it is unlikely that it is only to be found by fossicking through the existing collection of democratic forms. It probably requires a deeper conversation about the intention of democracy and what it requires.
I have previously thrown ideas into the mix, including (1)more frequent rather than less frequent elections (2) formalising the idea that one house of parliament exists to create the executive and the other the legislative review body, the latter to be built on national PR so each party's list is the people they will make Ministers.
The latter idea could have some tweaks. These would include some restrictions on candidacy - you must be at least thirty, you need to have already "done something" which can include having been elected to a representational legislature, held an executive position in a corporation or in an association or GO, or achieved a certain "professional" status....
It could include a process whereby all the parties contesting pre-commit to how they will vote in that house on who should form government.
There are lots of possibilities rather than simply recycling the choices considered over the last one hundred years.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
The reality is somewhat different. There has remained a tension between the concepts of representative and direct democracy, the original distinction between the American party labels of Republican and Democrat (respectively).
At the same time electoral systems have been reviewed and reconsidered. The major dimensions for electoral systems are;
1. Whether the executive and legislature are directly elected separately (the US) or whether the latter determines the former (Westminster).
2. Unicameral versus bicameral legislatures, and the nature of selecting the "second" house - e.g. US and Oz have Senates, Australian States only recently moved to election rather than appointment, UK has a hereditary/appointed house, and NZ and Qld have none)
3. The voting system. First past the post, alternative vote (preferrential) or proportional representation. If the latter Hare-Clark or MMP i.e. a party balance "top-up").
4. Compulsion. Whether voting should be compulsory or voluntary.
5. The franchise. The issues of universal adult suffrage have been long resolved, but the definition of "adult" continues to be open for debate - with some in Australia suggesting 16. But there have been others thinking in terms of tightening the franchise (I saw something I now can't find that was proposing an educational qualification). The related issue is electoral district size and how they are drawn.
In the last week three different pieces have popped up on these issues. The Economist last week had a story on the perils of the direct democracy experiments in California. This outlines the problem of allowing individuals to vote directly on issues where they don't have to reconcile the consequences. Direct votes will lower taxes and increase services. Yet this week in diagnosing "what's wrong with America's economy" they note the inability of the representative federal government to reconcile the revenue with the expenditure.
The second issue has been the referendum in the UK over the Alternative Vote. I was bemused to see The Economist discussion which suggested the AV could increase the vote for extreme parties and indeed that PR could be more "stable".
The same article notes that part of the balancing of votes received versus seats includes the redrawing of electoral boundaries that some are concerned about breaking "local" ties. I have noted that very issue in Australia since the reforms that limited the variability in seat sizes to first 20% then later to 10%. With boundaries redrawn every second election and often quite big changes flowing there is a breakdown in the relationship between member and electorate, with more votes being based on party affiliation.
There is an alternative. That is to let seats vary in size but allow an MPs parliamentary vote reflect the size of their electorate. Voting could be done electronically rather than by physical division (fingerprint swipe - press yes or no) and the vote tallied. The system of pairs would need to be replaced by a formalised system of appointment of proxies.
Finally we come to the question of compulsory voting. Lindsay Tanner in his new book Sideshow, has suggested abolishing compulsory voting "thereby reducing the voting base to people who are sufficiently engaged to be less susceptible to cynical marketing strategies and entertaining forms of manipulation."
This sounds fine in principle, except that the voting base is not actually thus reduced. While citizens have the choice to vote, the self same "less engaged" become the target of the campaign to "turn out the vote". politics in the US and UK is no less a sideshow than it is in Australia.
(In fairnes to Tanner he quotes Richard Speed on this point, but Speed's analysis is wrong. By contrasting Obama's election with Gillard's he is not making a reasoned comparison. Secondly, the need for a party in compulsory voting to "look after its base" is just as real - just look at the NSW ALP and Federal Labor and how they bled to the Greens).
If there is indeed a problem here requiring a solution - rather than a mere transitory phase that will self-correct - it is unlikely that it is only to be found by fossicking through the existing collection of democratic forms. It probably requires a deeper conversation about the intention of democracy and what it requires.
I have previously thrown ideas into the mix, including (1)more frequent rather than less frequent elections (2) formalising the idea that one house of parliament exists to create the executive and the other the legislative review body, the latter to be built on national PR so each party's list is the people they will make Ministers.
The latter idea could have some tweaks. These would include some restrictions on candidacy - you must be at least thirty, you need to have already "done something" which can include having been elected to a representational legislature, held an executive position in a corporation or in an association or GO, or achieved a certain "professional" status....
It could include a process whereby all the parties contesting pre-commit to how they will vote in that house on who should form government.
There are lots of possibilities rather than simply recycling the choices considered over the last one hundred years.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Nick Greiner - Infrastructure Tsar - What the f*?#.
The Tele today calls Nick Greiner NSW "Mr Fix-It".
I however join those who have commented on that story in wanting an explanation as to how Greiner's record in Government is meant to give us faith in him as the man to fix transport.
As one comment rightly noted it was a Greiner contract for the M2 that put a guarantee in place there would be no NW rail line till 2014. If you want to know why one hasn't been built, don't ask Labor ask the Liberals!!!!
Greiner is the worst of the pure "private sector" believers, and deespite resigning his directorships of construction companies he is, and always has been, close to the construction firms than Labor ever was to the developers. Just think of the finger wharf at Woolloomooloo.
This appointment is treating the people of NSW with the same contempt that BOF displayed in trying to create a "financial blackhole" and finger the ALP for "cooking the books".
BOF is THE SAME AS THE NSW Right of the ALP. He is all spin, no substance.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
I however join those who have commented on that story in wanting an explanation as to how Greiner's record in Government is meant to give us faith in him as the man to fix transport.
As one comment rightly noted it was a Greiner contract for the M2 that put a guarantee in place there would be no NW rail line till 2014. If you want to know why one hasn't been built, don't ask Labor ask the Liberals!!!!
Greiner is the worst of the pure "private sector" believers, and deespite resigning his directorships of construction companies he is, and always has been, close to the construction firms than Labor ever was to the developers. Just think of the finger wharf at Woolloomooloo.
This appointment is treating the people of NSW with the same contempt that BOF displayed in trying to create a "financial blackhole" and finger the ALP for "cooking the books".
BOF is THE SAME AS THE NSW Right of the ALP. He is all spin, no substance.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Digital Economy and Architecture
I had the chance on Saturday night to have a chat with a young architect (finished undergrad and working and teaching, but yet to do postgrad).
Architects have always thought in 3-dimensions, but the limitations of communicating in paper has been that designs are always rendered as two-dimensional "elevations" and plans. The earliest applications of computers to the task with CAD were about rendering these two-dimensional plans.
The next stage was the development of 3D modelling, but still with the "goal" of passing on a 2D image for the next stage.
These days that happens less. A builder or a fabricator might well just get the 3D image and that is then used to create the relevant component. The analogy was car manufacturing - the body shop just gets a 3D image file to fabricate the body parts.
The concept of direct connection between 3D design and fabrication is growing rapidly. The Economist recently had a feature on 3D printing. This has been around for about ten years for prototyping but is starting to be used for actual manufacture.
If you combine these techniques with the production processes of "just in time" the world of "mass customisation" has come another step closer.
This is the kind of thing that becomes important in Digital Economy discussions. It is not just about productivity improvements from doing the same things faster, but by doing things differently.
"The industrial revolution made the blacksmith redundant, the information revolution makes the draftsman redundant" Discuss.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Architects have always thought in 3-dimensions, but the limitations of communicating in paper has been that designs are always rendered as two-dimensional "elevations" and plans. The earliest applications of computers to the task with CAD were about rendering these two-dimensional plans.
The next stage was the development of 3D modelling, but still with the "goal" of passing on a 2D image for the next stage.
These days that happens less. A builder or a fabricator might well just get the 3D image and that is then used to create the relevant component. The analogy was car manufacturing - the body shop just gets a 3D image file to fabricate the body parts.
The concept of direct connection between 3D design and fabrication is growing rapidly. The Economist recently had a feature on 3D printing. This has been around for about ten years for prototyping but is starting to be used for actual manufacture.
If you combine these techniques with the production processes of "just in time" the world of "mass customisation" has come another step closer.
This is the kind of thing that becomes important in Digital Economy discussions. It is not just about productivity improvements from doing the same things faster, but by doing things differently.
"The industrial revolution made the blacksmith redundant, the information revolution makes the draftsman redundant" Discuss.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)