qed’s blog

We are participating in a revolution, whether or not you want to. Its a revolution that will impact on our future with almost the same magnitude as running out of oil and global warming. Actually that’s a bit of an overstatement, global warming could completely fuck us all, to paraphrase a green expression there is no ANYTHING without an environment.

Back to IT. A couple of ongoing developments have me wondering. A number of years ago when the web was still in nappies and getting a 56k modem was the pinnacle of nerdsville, the public network infrastructure was chaotic. A lot of it was piggy backing on research backbones or using spare capacity that owners couldn’t otherwise give a toss about. Volunteer organisations ran access sites, garages gave birth to empires. Advocates for the web were crying out for commercial investment in high speed links, rightly pointing out how much the market would grow when capacity started to catch up to the technology in other areas. At that time, I recall a few expressions of concern regarding the threats to freedom of information and ideas that an invasion of big money might entail, but most of these worries initially failed to materialise.

This is not unlike smoking. Big tobacco companies have profited hugely from the death and disease their product causes. Billions of dollars winding their way into the pockets of a few rich people, meanwhile millions of people dead, dying and addicted. But at its core is a little illusion, smoking one cigarette wont kill you. It makes you sick for sure, but the initial reaction passes. Afterwards you feel pretty much the same so on a personal experience level, it is a little hard to imagine how smoking could be as evil as some people make out, especially when you consider how many cool and successful people are seen to be smoking. The problem of course is our capacity for self delusion and the extremely addictive nature of nicotine. The personal rationalisation becomes one of “it won’t hurt me that much and it satisfies the monkey on my back” meanwhile billions of dollars are being made, percolating their way through governments addicted to the revenue and retailers dependent on the turnover into the hands of a few huge multinational corporations.

Ok, IT won’t kill you or make you sick. Its a good thing in that regard. But it is increasingly controlled by some powerful vested interests who ultimately don’t care about you the user other than your capacity to pay. Now these interests are starting to flex some of their muscle and it isn’t just in setting a price. One of the hallmarks of Big Tobacco (like Big Oil) is how it has corrupted governments and misled the public. I mean, how does any government really justify allowing nicotine products on the market given the weight of medical evidence against it? Not only do they continue to allow tobacco companies to peddle their drug, they collect huge tax windfalls which is surely nothing less than protection money. As for the smokescreen of lies and misinformation, the tobacco companies wrote the book. Unfortunately almost all of this isn’t in the public interest, but our societies are addicted to problem.

Look now at the some of the ways vested interests and governments are interacting to control IT - Information Technology. First out of the blocks is of course our old friend Microsoft, the company guilty of monopoly behaviour in the US and Europe. A naive punter might be willing to accept that Bush’s victory in the US has nothing to do with the collapse of action against Gates and co, but it defies common sense. Bush is well known for his sympathies for big business, so when the new government dropped proceeding against Microsoft it was really no surprise. The 2001 decision was really an affront for big business who had already succeeded with their aspirational DMCA laws. These laws in effect legalised the bullying behaviour of the RIAA as they acted to protect their assets from the evils of the internet. These laws pretty much turn most net citizen into criminals and not just for the heinous act of sharing music. Not to be deterred by a little bad press, the momentum for more legal control over the internet is gathering force with a more draconian set of DMCA like laws proposed for Canada.

Meanwhile Microsoft’s domination of the desktop market is continuing to pay dividends as it moves into other businesses. As traditional TV companies scramble to defend their platform from the threat of another medium stealing their audience, it is hardly surprising to see broadcasters hop into bed with someone who promises them the world, even when it fails miserably to provide a fair and reasonable service to the public. There is plenty of criticism of the BBC move here and there are reports that adoption rates are pretty ordinary as well.

Both of these developments suggest a possible trend where governments and business act in concert to protect each others interests at the expense of things like freedom of expression. Individually each little act seems harmless, collectively they may well lead us to a situation where dissent is stymied and society controlled, ultimately in the interests of the rich elite.

When people worried about the erosion of civil liberties at the dawn of the internet, many of us placed our faith in the pace of change and the diversity of ideas to protect our freedoms. Its a bit like smoking a cigarette when you are 2o because you are young and indestructable and suddenly waking up at 50 with terminal lung cancer. As the saying goes, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

There has been a few attempts at an eBook in recent times, Sony’s Reader is perhaps the best known example, and now Amazon have sold out the first release of Kindle.

No, I didn’t buy either one nor do I think I am likely to. I am comfortably wedded to paper books even though I admit the web has displaced almost all of my magazine and newspaper reading. The experience of reading a book is for me, still something I prefer to some plastic electronic replacement. I am willing to bet a large number of people agree with me.

In fact the whole culture of books is something which enriches my life and the lives of many people in the world. I buy books, everywhere, in bookshops, online, at garage sales and in transit lounges. People give me books, I give other people books, I can go to a library and borrow books, I can share something about a book with someone else and we can argue about books. Books have been with mankind for a long time.

As we know, the modern book became accessible to the average punter with the arrival of the  Gutenberg press which was later hitched up to the machines of the early industrial revolution. There are some interesting parallels with the development of the world wide web but that’s another issue. The impact of books on human society is immense. If writing was a concept that sparked modern civilisation, then books helped to transform it into what we have today.

The history of books is in many ways inseparable from the history of humanity. Today the world is awash with books, books for entertainment, books for ideas, books for knowledge. The world wide web could stop tomorrow and I can still read a book. And that is the problem for me, with the eBook.

The book thing is utterly pervasive, books are everywhere. Even modern paperbacks last for a long time. They are easy to store and move around, they don’t require anything more than an ability to read and sufficient light to read by. Duplicating what is in a book electronically is convenient in a well connected world, but replacing it with only electronic versions has some serious drawbacks with regard to freedom of information and distribution of ideas.

So things like Kindle worry me a little especially when reviewers gush over the whiz bang technology and the convenience factors because these are the very things that consumerism is built on. Such enthusiasm reveals the profit agenda behind such inventions and unfortunately the larger the profit motive becomes, the more likely these things are to succeed (at least as far as making money). The potential larger ramifications get ignored or marginalised by the juggernaut of commercial success. Perhaps it will work out ok, who knows?

But until I see a hard drive that doesn’t die after some random event, or a cdrom that doesn’t mysteriously stop reading data somewhere or in fact any information storage device that doesn’t require anything more than light and an ability to read to unlock its contents, until that time I will stick to books, thanks all the same.

 I thought it needed a bit more umph…so gave it a quick hack in gimp.

The original is here.

James Lovelock isn’t very optimistic. The problem is he might be right, simply because in any situation where you are faced with unknowns, your best course of action is to assume the worst, anything less leaves you wide open to nasty surprises.

Now if he is right and 100 years isn’t that long in terms of history, what are the implications? Well peace isn’t really on the cards is it? Other niceties such as personal freedom and democracy will probably be casualties as well. The current threats to those institutions are on display pretty much everywhere with big money married to the IT and armament industries. So for the masses, we better hope that a few of the owners of all the wealth in the world have some altruistic intentions.

So why pyramids? They have survived for thousands of years. They were made from common materials and build by human hands. The structure of pyramids is obviously immensely stable and their symbolism in relation to other man made creations is striking, in particular the evolution of wealth and kingdoms. Did the good people of Egypt all those thousands of years ago guess that their monuments to humanity would survive for so long? Will they survive the next hundred years?

John Howard is gone. His neo-conservative government has been utterly rejected by the Oz public and little johnny himself has been dumped from his own electorate. I am over-joyed but there is a small residual problem. John Winston and his right wing politics have dominated the political agenda for over 10 years. Now he is gone and its a bit like the local fish wife has suddenly lost her voice. You know, you hated the sound of her, she kept popping up even in bad weather and the stinking fish she had on offer were notoriously poor quality, but she was a fixture. Then one day she was gone and there was a hole in your daily existence.

Not that I will miss him for long, there are more important issues at hand. Bloody Kev better get his arse moving. And how the hell the Greens didn’t get the balance of power is completely beyond me.

Today’s news in Oz is the political victory by Labor and their golden boy, Kev. In terms of Oz democracy, Labor has indeed secured a historic victory with a record percentage (53.8%) of the popular vote. Interestingly, the right’s vote has held up in areas that could safely be described as their heartland, electorates such Warringah and Higgins where Abbott and Costello reign, and in WA where the right managed to pick up a seat. With WA in the grip of mining boom, the gung ho mentality of right-wingers was no doubt quite appealing to the locals. Taken to its natural conclusion, Howard’s neo-conservative politics favours opportunistic capitalist wanting to get richer regardless of the impact on anyone else, economic darwinism where only the rich will survive. Fittingly, Little Johnny looks like getting kicked out of his own seat which would have to be the absolute icing on the cake.

The so called two party system is far from perfect, in many ways. At its essence the choice is just that, between two parties, in this election one was right wing and moving more to the right, the other was slightly left or more likely centre left. That’s it. If you want anything else, tough. A case in point is the result for the Greens. They polled 7.8% of the popular vote, far more than the farmer’s National party, yet they end up with nobody in the lower house and the farmers get 10 seats. Our so-called democratic system fails to deliver one vote one value. Some might argue that the National party is just a branch of the Liberal party anyway, but their “party” status affords them significant concessions in parliament which in turn helps to sustain their political survival. On the other hand, the Greens must largely fend for themselves which greatly handicaps their chances of success, yet still they succeed and today they may finally get a position of power in the upper house which would be a fair reflection of voter sentiment.

All in all it looks like the people of Oz voted for change. Its a brave act, it embodies a popular choice for hope for the future and compassion for your fellow humans as opposed to the fear and division espoused by the right. After 11 years, enough people have said let’s turn the lights back on and get on with getting on with each other.

Content-Type: text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1

On the day of the poll, the ABC finally chooses to run a story about some of what is on the horizon for Labor should they manage to win. Its significant for a couple of reasons, firstly it states what is bleedingly obvious despite the assertions of the so-called liberals, and that is the Oz economy is now more than ever at the mercy of outside influences. If you were a cynic you might even wonder if the Libs with their recent lack of discipline really want to win, but I digress. The second observation in the story worth noting is that a souring economy will be blamed on Labor mismanagement, something the right side of politics enthusiastically endorse.

My thoughts are that Stephen Long’s article understates the problems. If the US economy sneezes, we will catch a cold (as the expression goes). If as expected, the US actually goes into recession we will be in for a torrid time. Compounding the problem will be the issues of rising oil prices and global warming, both of which will have a significant impact on this country and its economy. If Labor wins, Kevin and his crew need to act quickly. Dalliance of the sort that Costello and Little Johnny have engaged in will land them in a heap of trouble, and the rest of Australia with them. Wanting to be a politician is one thing, wanting to lead a country with what is looming on our horizon suggests either a stout heart and bravery or conceit and ignorance. Let’s hope its the former.

David Howe

No it doesn,t involve weapons of mass destruction, only a complete idiot would trust Micro$oft with a mission critical operating system, but this short interview does confirm a some rather obvious intentions as Billy Gates’ empire moves beyond the office. Towards the end, Allard reportedly makes some general observations about how they will offer media companies such as ESPN a platform solution. They have already had some success with the BBC iPlayer despite plenty of well founded criticism, so I think its a fair bet that the borg might be on to something. Will “Our ABC” be another feather in the Micro$oft cap? Internally there are plenty who think the sun shines out of the Bill’s arse and the ABC is up to its neck in terms of MS systems, so its distinctly possible that despite any valid objections or alternatives, management is likely to be seduced by skinheads like Allard.

It probably shouldn’t matter, except for a couple of things. One is the question of locking the viewing public into a proprietary system (with the issue of equity in mind), and the other is the threat posed to an organisation’s independence. If a media organisation adopts a specific locked up platform such as the iPlayer, regardless of the technical merit of the solution, they do several things. First and foremost they exclude a potential chunk of their audience which has couple of reactions, people go elsewhere and or people adopt the new system, discarding their old. In the case of iPlayer, linking the BBC brand with Micro$oft is a great public relations coup for Ballmer and Co. A few more such successes will rob competing platform solutions of air, and makes it easier for one system to dominate in much the same way that Micro$oft dominated computer operating systems. Without competition, media outlets could find themselves hostages to the platform in the future. The only insurance against such a scenario is to foster self sufficiency and encourage open standards based solutions, or buy a lot of shares in the company that will end up having you by the balls in years to come.

David Howe
http://www.qednet.biz

Oh what an bloody obvious headline. I mean how gullible do the so-
called liberal party think we are? Blind freddy on a galloping horse
can see what the real agenda with AWA’s and so-called work choices is
all about, that is, paying people less than you might otherwise have
to and being able to sack people when profits are starting to suffer.
I means its allright to employ people when things are rosy and money
is there to be made, but lets face facts, businesses don’t see people
as assets on their balance sheets (unless they are models or pop
stars), rather employees are a cost, a price business pays for making
money. Business is all about making money for the owners of the
business, its the rule. When it comes to employing people, well
that’s a secondary consideration to rule number 1.

The Liberals and their supporters want to undermine the ability of
workers to organise, they want an end to unions and they are hoping
to create a society where there is no compact or agreement between
workers and business and government. If AWA’s moderate wage rises,
then there is more money left over for profits, some of which might
lead to more jobs (under an AWA of course) but most likely will see
shareholders get more returns (see rule number 1). In fact Little Johnny was quite candid in his campaign speech “I want to be Prime Minister again…… I want to complete the transition of this nation from a welfare state to an opportunity society.” He went on to add “Today is a very different Australia than the one we inherited when we came to Government 11 and a half years ago….”

Making laws now (while things are good) is a backdoor way to protect the future
interests of business. It has a good friend in the laws about
terrorism which have undermined our civil liberties. While we live in
good times these laws aren’t particularly odious (other than in
principle) but it doesn’t take much imagination to see how such laws
might be employed should times turn a lot tougher.

And tougher times are definitely coming. The easy ride powered by
cheap oil and a world of plenty is drawing to a close. There is
global warming, the armies of the world are getting bigger, oil is
running out and fanaticism is everywhere. That isn’t a warm inner
glow you feel, rather its the turmoil between knowing we could do
something positive and wanting the next new thing. Squandering our new found wealth on election give-aways is hardly the act of any party interested in our medium to long term future.