The Rant-O-Matic

Science isn’t perfect.  The very nature of experimentation leads to mistakes, possible misunderstanding and, as technology progresses, opportunity to revisit and re-evaluate a position as more accurate methods are created to test a hypothesis.  However, just because you can find fault in the logic of one argument, it doesn’t mean that you then have the right to then call into question every scientific principle that came before it.

This column, written by Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins is nothing more than complete fear mongering.  Posing the question that: if they’re wrong about climate change, what else could they be wrong about?

Well, sir, that is the nature of the beast.

Science is not infallible.  Much like the Pope, really.  It is not 100% correct and any decent scientist wouldn’t hesitate before admitting that a mistake has been made.  However, the complete paranoia and lack of knowledge regarding climate change and global warming has led to there being a lot of conflicting views and information being out there regarding this.  Of course some people are going to have different degrees of passion and discipline in putting your argument forward from both sides.

However, taking this situation and then applying it to all of science over all of history is just awful.

Here’s the thing with science: You prove your hypothesis by either experimentation or observation.  The thing about climate change is that you can’t experiment with nature on the scale the size of a planet.  So that leaves with having to draw a conclusion based off observation.  Now, until we figure out time travel, we’re going to have to wait and see what happens over the next 10, 20, 50 odd years.  We’re going to have to observe what happens in terms of average temperatures, rainfall and ice melting and creation at the South Pole.  We don’t know what’s going to happen.  A lot of what’s been put forward is based off evidence that, frankly, isn’t all that conclusive and taking it to extreme points of view, in both cases is utterly appalling.

Looking back into the past for the events that ended the last ice age, or caused the last global raise in temperatures only provide a small part of the story; because the human influence on the environment is either exceptionally small, or we weren’t there at all.  Not to mention, the climate really hasn’t changed all that much during the small period of time between the industrial revolution (where any noticeable effect on the environment would have started) and now.  To say with undying certainly that we, humans, have altered the environment through greenhouse gas emissions is just stupid.  Not only have we been pumping numerous other noxious chemicals into the atmosphere, we also spent large parts of the 19^th and 20^th centuries callously destroying large sections of forest so we could house our exponentially expanding population.  Don’t think that might have also had something do it with it?  Possibly more so than putting out chemicals, most of which are already there naturally?

Extending this uncertainty then to all branches of science is just ridiculous.  All Mr Jenkins is going here is fear mongering.  People are already uncertain of the science around climate change (look at the popularity of the scary, bug-eyed Lord Monckton) and making them question science generally is only going to lead to fear, uncertainty and doubt about other things.  Planting that seed of doubt is going to drive us backwards as a species.  The voodoo and religious zealots will be able to regain their foothold as the key influencers of the people.  This simply cannot be.  Questioning aspects of science is good thing.  Scepticism is part of the process and only enhances the strength of the arguments that have been questioned.  But to call all of science into question, based off your opinions of an admittedly questionable topic, is sheer lunacy.  It’s pathetic, it’s fear mongering and you, sir, are a moron.

Common sense has reigned supreme in the Federal Court earlier today.  In what can only be called the right decision, it was found that ISP iinet cannot be held responsible for what its subscribers use their internet connection for.  Although the decision has left the AFACT (lobbying body representing a large number of Hollywood movie studios) organisation fuming it can only be said that this decision is the right one and has helped to avert what could have been a very, very black day for the future of the Internet in this country.

The problem with charges that AFACT brought against iinet weren’t just about copyright infringement, problems that proved to be their downfall.  The decision rests on the fact that an ISP, in similar manner to a phone company, isn’t responsible for what a user does on their network.  That is to say: you wouldn’t sue Telstra for someone organising a crime over the phone.

This decision is a validation of the long held belief that, in the 21^st century, an Internet connection is considered a utility rather than a service.  My connection to the online world is nothing more than a pipe, my ISP merely a connection point.  This means that my ISP is not responsible for what I do on my Internet connection, I am.  That’s the way it should be.

What AFACT was asking the court to do, was to have an ISP act as a private police force.  AFACT wanted an ISP to act to disconnect a user on based on the mere suggestion that they had illegally downloaded copyright material.  There would be no prosecution, no judicial oversight.  Just a statement from AFACT that they “believed” copyright infringement had occurred.  Clearly this idea just proves that the movie industry consider themselves well and truly above the law.  A group like that should never be allowed an inch in which to move in a matter such as this.

But how would AFACT get data on what users are doing on their internet connections? Oh, that’s simple: They’d get the ISPs to spy on their users.  The level of deep-packet inspection required to monitor everything that’s going on over a user’s connection is nothing short of a gross invasion of privacy.  Without judicial oversight, the prospect of an organisation like that collecting personal information willy-nilly is one that really sends a shiver down my spine.  They could, foreseeably, gather anything that I did online and store that information before using it for whatever they saw fit. Not. Good.  All of that in name of protecting an industry who seems to think that earing hundreds of billions of dollars year after year is slowing sending them broke.

Here’s what I don’t understand: Why aren’t these movie industry types looking at ways of profiting off what’s clearly a content delivery medium that has a healthy demand?  Surely it’d be better for everyone if the studios were looking at ways to deliver movies over the internet to customers legitimately.  Surely they can’t be ignoring that area for the sake of saving the dead horse that is the local video shop?

What’s also worrying were comments made by our dear, beloved Minister for Communications, Broadband and the Digital Economy Senator Stephen Cuntroy.  In March last year (many, many months before this case came to trail) Mr Cuntroy declared of iinet’s defence:

“I thought a defence in terms of ‘we had no idea’ … belongs in a Yes Minister episode.”

Holy fuck.  This is man is in charge of developing our $43billion National Broadband Network (which he isn’t, but that’s another rant) and he doesn’t understand how the ISP is nothing more than a node to which people connect.  They don’t control people, the Internet certainly doesn’t exist for the sole purposes of pirating movies and the fact that he seems susceptible to believing the utter shit that flows from the mouths of AFACT members should be something that’s very concerning to us, the population.  This man is supposed to be putting the best interests of our country forward.  He’s supposed to be fixing everything that’s wrong with telecommunications in this country.  He’s not supposed to be pandering to industry lobby groups who are clutching desperately to old and broken business models because they’re scared of the future.

So while we may well be celebrating what was a momentous occasion for the campaign to keep the internet free and open, remember, there are still those with power who can clutch it from our grasp.

Hopefully though, now that sensibility has won on this front it can also win on Cuntoy’s other great mistake: the national internet filter.  Because that could turn out to be just as bad, if not worse, for us then if the iinet decision had gone the other way.

So, I was born and raised a Catholic.  I attended catholic schools and, in my formative years, church. The latter was a weekly occurrence during the earlier stages of my childhood.  Hell, I still go to mass on Christmas Eve, more out of habit than actual devotion to the faith.  While I questioned my religion a long time ago and have essentially come to give up on pretty much all aspects of the Catholic Church, there are some aspects to Bible that I believe aren’t the fiction that the devout atheists would have you believe.

For example; I’m not about to state categorically that Jesus didn’t exist.  I’m pretty sure he didn’t do half the stuff they say he did and that his birthday isn’t December 25.  But, I do believe there was a man around about that time who had some fairly funky ideas about how people should treat each other.  I’m pretty certain that his school of thought clashed with the beliefs of the Roman occupiers.  I’m pretty sure that executed him for it.  After that, things get a little funny.

Well, prior to that, the night before if the stories are to be believed, there was strange things afoot.  You know, for an organisation that scorns all things supernatural you can’t help but notice there’s quite a lot of it in their religion.

Firstly, at the last supper, Jesus commands his disciples to eat his body and drink his blood. Now, that’s cannibalism (frowned upon by most of us, religion aside) and vampirism.  Then there’s the resurrection – this is clearly when Jesus became a zombie.

Although, if I may digress for moment, Jesus wasn’t the first zombie going around; he was the second.  So perhaps this is why Catholics are OK with it. Lazarus was the first zombie – although Jesus did have a hand in making it all happen – and this happened before Jesus was himself zombified.

Finally, in his grand “holy fuck yeah I’m the son of God” move, Jesus took off, achieve escape velocity and disappear into space, or heaven if you prefer, never to be seen again.  Now, while Jesus doesn’t do this mounted on a broom, it’s pretty obvious that he’s either A) JK’s inspiration for Harry Potter or B) the world’s first witch.  Again, not really keeping with good Christian values, is it?

Then we have the dates of certain Catholic events.  Again, there’s an air of the Pagans around it.  Look at Easter.  There’s nothing about how the date of Easter is determined that isn’t pagan.  I would have thought that the events of Easter would have occurred on a particular day.  Not a day that shifts depending on what phase of the moon it is.

The other problem with religion comes not from the church itself, but from those that follow it.  It seems that because you are religious you seem to think that you have some sort of moral superiority over those that don’t.  Just because you don’t believe in sex before marriage (Tony Abbott; I’m looking at you), doesn’t mean you should impose that belief on others.  Just because you happen to think that the society needs to change in order to protect your children from things you don’t want them to see, doesn’t mean it should.

But, this isn’t to mean that I’m against religion.  If you want to hold those beliefs close then you’re free to do so.  Just remember they’re your beliefs.  Not everyone elses.

See what I did there? Clever, eh?

Truth time: Apple missed the mark.  They’ve made a mistake.  They fucked up.  They’re fallible after all.  The iPad is not, in anyway, under any circumstances a good product.  It has no purpose, it has nothing new.  It is not the future of computing, or media consumption or anything.  It’s pointless and dumb.  It’s a big iPod Touch.

For starters, it runs a prettied up version of the iPhone OS, as opposed to a stripped down version of their full OS, OSX.  This means that you’re immediately limited to what the iPhone is capable of doing.  This means no running multiple applications (like a web browser and a Twitter client), no flash support (so until HTML5 becomes the web standard, you can forget about watching streaming video), no installing application outside of Apple’s App Store walled garden.  Now, while this is all OK when you’re talking about a phone, it’s utterly pathetic to place those sort of restrictions on a computer.  And that’s what the iPad is.  It’s a computer.

But here’s the problem.  It’s a unnecessary computer.  The limitations of the iPhone OS basically rule it out for anyone that actually wants to use it for serious computing.  This means that you’re going to have to stick to your laptop.  But if you’re carrying a laptop around (and probably a smart phone), what do you need the iPad for? Answer: you don’t.  It’s needless.  If I want to work, I’ll use the laptop.  If I want to listen to music/watch a video I’ll use my smart phone.  There’s absolutely no conceivable reason why I’d want to carry around a third device, whose entire portfolio of functions are already performed as good, if not better, by the two devices I already have.

“But it’s not a computer!” I hear you saying, “It’s a multimedia device.” Well, no.  If it was a multimedia device I’d be able to play all my videos on it.  Videos that are not in iPod friendly format, videos I didn’t buy off iTunes and videos that I don’t want to spent days converting.  The point of a multimedia device is that it plays my multimedia files.  This simply won’t “just work” at doing that.  Everything is going to have to be brought into iTunes, and I don’t think anyone with a decent video collection is going to be bothered doing that.

“You can use it around the house”, is another argument.  But for video I have a TV, for music I have a stereo, for the internet I have a computer.  It’s just crap.

Apple has designed a device around having something “pretty” – which the iPad is no argument there.  But just because something is pretty, and the marketing message is slick and you’re so willing to fellate Steve Jobs it doesn’t mean it’s good.  It doesn’t mean it’s “revolutionising digital everything” or “assassinating laptops” or some of the other sheer self-indulgent wankery that’s being spouted about this things.  It’s shit.  Admit it.

This isn’t even mentioning that our wireless carriers are going to also rape you for a decent 3G data plan, or that Apple won’t charge the direct currency conversion rate for it when pricing is finally announced for the international markets.

I used to think that Australia Day was a day where we celebrated all the good things about this country.  The fact that we’re a diverse, tolerant society who have been lucky enough to not have had to fight for the lifestyle that we take for granted.

Sadly however, it seems that “Aussie Pride” and an arrogant, alcohol-fueled younger generation are out to change that.  Australia Day has become almost a festival of racism and binge drinking.  It’s become the face of what I consider to be a decent in the quality of the people that live here.  I used to be proud to be an Australian, now days, it’s becoming shameful.

Then there’s the “use” of the Australian flag.  It is not a piece of clothing.

For example; here’s some of the things that are likely to be in abundance tomorrow:

Blegh.

It’s sad that what should be a celebration of what makes this country great has become the example of everything that’s wrong with it.

The glut of e-book readers that came out of the Consumer Electronics Show last weekend has brought back into the spotlight (well, as far as I’m concerned at least) the problems that are still happening with regards to digital distribution and accessibility of material across multiple platforms and countries.

In this day and age, there’s really no reason why digital products should be region restricted.  The Internet doesn’t care where I am in the world.  There certainly isn’t any cost difference if you send an MP3 to Australia instead of the United States.  So, why don’t we have a free, global market place?

I did read some comments, claiming to come from someone inside the television industry (here), on why it’s so hard to put TV shows openly on the Internet for anyone to watch.  While these comments relate specifically to television, there’s a few things that can be parsed out and applied to other media as well.

In short, the crux of their argument is based around the way everything you see in a production is licensed.  Now, while it is hard to go back and change how songs, venues, performances, etc are licensed for existing programming, what I don’t understand is why the industry hasn’t moved forward and changed things for new programming.  Surely, making it easier to get as many eyeballs watching your show would make everyone a winner.

The same applies to e-books.  Although the Amazon Kindle is now available to purchase in Australia, there are books available in the store that you cannot purchase outside the United States.  The reason for this, in my view, is abundantly clear – and goes back to my previous statements about licensing.  Currently, there is no Australian Amazon book store.  Every purchase is made through the American one (with the added benefit of our currently elevated exchange rate to boot).  So, when you buy a book through this store, the royalties for the purchase are going back to the American publisher, rather than the Australian one (if there is one).  You can imagine that this doesn’t sit well here as local publishers are (thinking that they’re) missing out on a sale.  So, they arrange to block the sale of electronic copies of those books outside the market where they’re sold.

Now, instead of trying to force their old business models on a changing world (like what the music industry tried to do for years), how about they go away, create a local e-book store and start selling localised copies of these e-books here, thus making everyone happy.

Now, the same theory can also be applied to movies, music and television.  Take iTunes for instance (easily the largest online movie/television/movie store in the world).  They do exactly the same thing as Amazon.  Different content is restricted for sale in different countries.  Why?  Because local broadcasters don’t want shows available for purchase before they’ve aired on television here.

Same applies to online services like Hulu (only available in the US), Spotify (music streaming, only available in Europe) and BBC iPlayer (live and on-demand TV – UK only).

The online media revolution has been a couple of years in the making.  The shift from having many regional markets to a single, global market is almost complete.  It’s time for content producers and distributors to realise that the old ways aren’t going to work any more.  They need to change how things are made and sold – then everyone will win.  Consumers will be able to watch, listen to or read anything they want while every producer and distributor gets their cut of the revenue.

Given that we currently have a state government that’s completely paralysed and unable to act in a sufficient manner to anything, I find it no surprise that suggestions for legislation are coming from everywhere other than state cabinet.  In recent days, the NSW Police Force has put forward ideas to tackle both the rising road toll and people’s inabilities to be responsible when consuming alcohol.

This raises an interesting point about the separation between those that make the law and those that enforce it.  While I firmly believe that if the bodies that created and enforced laws were the same is something that would be frighteningly Orwellian as there is no accountability and that, I can assure you, is a bad thing.

However, as with most things, it’s not as black and white as you’d think.

I fully support their plan to introduce tougher penalties for people who engage in dangerous behaviour on our roads by forcing police to engage in high-speed pursuits.  This is a brilliant idea.  I firmly believe that those who have no understanding of a drivers license being a privilege, rather than a right, being constantly slapped on the wrists is pathetic.  These people don’t deserve to be on the roads and the idea that the police are taking this matter into there own hands and providing a solution to one part of the problem is nothing short of admirable.  This is the positive sort of action that I applaud.  This targets those that are breaking the law and seeks to punish them accordingly.

That said, I do not – at all, under any circumstances – support their call to limit sales of alcohol on Australia Day.  This is entirely wrong and a definite over-step of their boundaries.  Unlike their other idea, this one does not punish those that have broken the law, it punishes everyone.  That is not something that I can condone.  While the problems with drunken behaviour (specifically amongst the younger generations) is something that needs to be addressed, the plans to counter it should not affect the rest of the population that’s capable of going out, having a few drinks and behaving in a responsible manner.

The police exist to stop those that break the law and protect those that do not.  But while there needs to be a line between law creation and law enforcement, there is a case when the legislators do not act that there is cause for enforcement to step up, within reason.

All these reports of the Nexus One only costing a pittance for Google to manufacture, yet for which they charge a premium to purchase are really great at ignoring large areas of cost that go into the creation of such a device.  They did the same with the Apple iPhone, as well.

I won’t even bother expanding on the point that a a company can charge what ever the fuck it wants for a product, regardless of what it costs to produce.

This article, in today’s Sydney Morning Herald, is a prime example of the complete BS that passes for journalism and news analysis these days.  The piece if rife with omissions and lies.

I’ll start with possibly the most hilarious bit; a quote from an analyst (BTW, I’ve always ‘analyst’ was a synonymous with ‘unemployed business major’).

“You can’t base margins off of costs alone,” said Canaccord Adams analyst Peter Misek, noting that a variety of expenses are not reflected in so-called teardown reports, which dissect an electronics device and take inventory of the various parts.

Erm…Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t expenses – things you spend money on – incurred during the development of a product, also able to be called..I don’t know…costs? So, I would assume that you think margins are calculated by…magic? A dartboard? Last weeks Lotto numbers?

Secondly, all these articles ever refer to is the cost of the components in the device itself.  They seem to have forgotten about R&D, testing, manufacturing, marketing, regulatory approval.  You know, all those other things that help put things on the shelves for you to buy.

Thirdly, who cares? I don’t care that Apple only spent two pieces of gum and an old Biro to create my iPhone, I’m happy with the prices I’m paying for it, I believe that I’m getting my money’s worth, so I bought it.  If you don’t want to spend $600-$800 on a phone THEN DON’T.  You’re not under any obligation to pay that if you don’t want to.  If the company has tried to be too greedy with their pricing, then people (as a whole) won’t purchase it and the price will come down.  It’s called a free-market.

This post follows on directing from When I Come to Power (Part 1) published on November 27, 2009.

Also on the hit list of things that could be done better is the state governments.  Specifically, we don’t need them.  State government serves not practical purpose.  From what I can see, they exist to collect GST revenue and Stamp Duty then spend it on mis-guided transport plans and their own, self-serving needs.  I believe that the state governments could be removed, and the money saved put towards much better causes.  There’s no reason why we should keep the state governments.  NSW has pretty much lead the way in showing just how pathetically useless these people are.

We’ve seen our impotent state government leap from Premier to Premier with little direction, little ability to govern the state and a strong desire to increase their pay packets on the back of some of the lowest opinion polls I’ve ever seen.  Only last week were they at each others throats.  We’ve got a new Premier now (Princess KiKi, as I’ve come to call her), a “new” cabinet and other hollow promise to fix things.  Get fucked.  We don’t need this.

They’re so wanting to hold onto power that they won’t call a much needed early election.  Instead deciding to install yet another Premier that doesn’t have the full support of the party.

Even without all their infighting and self-absorption there’s plenty of reasons why they don’t need to exist.

To cut a long story short; I don’t know why we need 8 different healthcare systems, 8 different police forces, 8 different education systems, 8 different traffic authorities and 8 different transport systems.  These could all be managed by federal bodies.

The state governments could very easily be replaced.  At the very least, the money saved by removing such pointless entities could be put to better use.

Finally, there’s the question of who should be our head of state.  Currently, it’s Queen Elizabeth II, who you might recognise as someone who isn’t an Australian.  Given that we have been our own country for over 100 years, I believe that it’s time that we finally cut that last tie back to the mother-country and amended the constitution to create and Australian head of state.

Of course, this debate last came to a head in 1999 when a referendum was held proposing just this idea.  Sadly it was defeated, mainly due to the wording of the question, and the proposed method for selecting our new head of state.   The method put forward was to have a President elected by a two-thirds majority of the House of Representatives.  This proved to be something of a sticking point with the Australian people who felt that, after finally gaining complete autonomy, they should be able to elect their own head of state.

I propose that, firstly, we amend the constitution to replace the Governor-General with a President.  This position would retain essentially the same powers as it currently have, except for the ability to dissolve parliament.

While I don’t believe that our head of state should be appointed by parliament – too open to abuse – they should also be not elected solely by the people – as they’d likely put…that popular celebrity tart who’s famous for no reason…in there.

Possible candidates shall be put forward from a bi-partisan committee, the voted on as part of the usual general election (usually).  Their elected term will be two ordinary federal elections, or ten years.  Which ever comes first.

So, there you have it.  That’s how I’ll run the country…when I come to power.

You know, I think Hollywood has finally jumped the shark.  They’re searching for gimmicks to keep people coming into the cinemas because I firmly believe that they have now completely run out of ideas.

Take Avatar.  Billed as one of the greatest movies ever to grace the silver screen.  What’s so special about it? It’s in 3D.  That’s it.  Whoop-dee-fucking-do.  I remember seeing a 3D film at Sea World over a decade ago.

And they’re pushing the 3D angle so hard because if you look at the story, you realise that it’s just derivative dribble.  I find it hard to believe that James Cameron has spend over 10 years working on this film and still could only come up with a basic “person working for The Man starts to question his work and eventually turns against them” plot that has been overplayed in a million Disney movies over the years.

It’s just crap.  It’s not worth getting excited over.  Sod it.