This post was actually a response to a discussion raised on the IF Project Facebook page. The IF Project is an endeavour by journalist Jane Lee to, in a 100 day timeframe, “launch a new magazine to shed light on the SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL and HUMANITARIAN challenges of the world.”
Bullying, or any form or violent or otherwise destructive aggression toward peers for that matter, is (and rightly so) considered unacceptable behaviour.
Yet I can’t think of a constructive approach to bullying prevention that takes into account what we know about communication and emotion. We know the links between (infrequency of) speech and aggression exist. This makes sense, given that speech itself can be considered an ‘aggressive’ act. (Perhaps we evolved the ability to communicate through language simply so we didn’t eat each other) Yet we have our kids in classes, told to ‘be quiet’ while they learn, in a one-to-many environment that cannot possibly accommodate the stimulus needs of your average child, let alone 30 of them. I read once upon a time a study of a group of people watching a play – over time, their heart rates synchronised. How likely is it that a young learner, who’s developing brain is desperate for stimulus, would tune in to and become affected by the ‘vibe’ of each of the other 29 (also bored, frustrated and under-stimulated) students around them?
Ask any substitute teacher – I’m sure they can give you a very good account of exactly what happens when you introduce new stimulus into such a tense environment.
It’s great that bullying is being addressed in general, and there are some great tools out there for post-event reporting. (See http://bullyproof.frontlinesms.com/ for example) Tools like frontline, if widely adopted, could be of great advantage, in particular in cases of Emotional bullying as Geoff has mentioned above.
But aren’t we treating the symptom, rather than the cause? We hear more and more about ‘kids these days’ – but isn’t that repeating the woeful cries of the ‘Adult’ Generations of the 60′s? The 40′s? Ancient Greece? Hell, the very first creation myth known to humankind (Enuma Elish – 7 Babylonian clay tablets, copies of which have been dated at 16th or 14th centure BCE, and is comparable to the creation myth in the Hebrew and Christian Genesis ) contains the idea – Apsu (the ‘Granddaddy’ God) wants to kill all his children because they’re too rambunctious.
Kids are energetic. Loud. Irrepressibly active, physically and mentally. In many ways, inevitable, in accordance with the laws of physics. And yet we insist they sit still and quiet for the better part of five days out of every week (under threat of punishment of even MORE stillness & quietness by ‘Detention’), and expect them not to exhibit behavior we KNOW occurs under such conditions.
There are opinions, studies and research that tell us that kids can’t empathize anymore because of facebook, they are too distracted and have shorter attention spans (if, in fact such a thing exists) or they’re otherwise becoming more and more ‘socially inconvenient’. Where are the studies then, that examine how kids behave in a different learning environment? With available stimulus appropriate to their age and interests?
I’m no expert, but I’d wager that such studies would offer more valuable, new and productive results than any of the same recycled gripes from the older, ‘wiser’ generations for literallythe entirety of recorded human history.
How do you describe ‘red’ to someone who’s never seen it?
I can’t imagine you could, like Japanese natives not being able to pronounce the sound of ‘R’, or the girl imprisoned for the formative years of her childhood unable to comprehend a distance further than that defined by her gaol (there’s pygmies somewhere that have the same short sightedness because they never leave their dense jungle environment) the actual neural connections required for the ‘common’ perception don’t exist. So what are the options?
Form the connections: Get some Whirlpool regulars, a handful of XDA Developers and a neurobiologist or two in a bar together, and see how long it takes them to convert a bake a Speedtouch modem into some kind of neural pulse diverter that can bridge the gap and serve as a connection (I’m calling copyright on IP if that’s actually do-able by the way) and huzzah! Red is a go.
Empathize: Get inside their head, figure out how they perceive what we perceive as red, and describe it within their frame of reference.
Acceptance: Get over it, and avoid graphical descriptions of horror flicks and Ronald McDonald’s polyester hair.
Of course, these presume the poor redless soul wants to see, understand or remain ignorant of red, and the experience of the world it affords. Autumn leaves, Sunrise and Sunset, blood, and the magic of ‘red-eye’ while flipping through family photos would all lack something without the red we ‘normal’ people hold so dear.
It is of course possible (and I’m sure some would even argue likely) that the redless might wish to stay that way. And surely any society that considered itself to be civilised, rational, fair and an advocate of free will would have to concede that our redless compatriots are within their rights to make that choice, right?
Now, replace ” Red ” with ” a morally and socially acceptable attitude and behavioural response to naked children or images thereof ”
Before I jump into this, a few quick points, and a disclaimer or two.
(Edit) 0: The title of this post is (deliberately, I’ll admit) misleading. I do not, by any stretch of the imagination ‘oppose’ atheism – but rather the attitude that (in my experience) is held by many who claim that (or any other) view, which I see as disruptive to inclusive, unbiased and reasonable debate.
1: My original point (which got a little lost in the ruckus this post is actually about) was very simple. Following an interesting episode of the SBS program Insight addressing religious education – scrap that – theological indoctrination in the public school system, and a number of trialled, suggested and in one case rejected alternatives, I concluded the following.
If we are going to include Religious Education in the public school system, for God’s sake (pun fully intended – and it is a pun, just so you’re clear on that) can we actually educate our kids about, you know – religion? Not the Christian or Catholic or Hindu or Islamic faith, but RELIGION. After all -
..The history of religion is the history of human endeavour to understand a universe greater than ourselves. Regardless of your personal beliefs, religion has been pivotal in global politics, law, science and cultural change (or lack of) so why wouldn’t we want our kids to learn about the significance and impact of (all) religion on our societies?
Yeah, quoted myself. So ner.
2: If I’m wrong here, let me know. Not in the “No, you infidel – God is real!” or “There is no god you ignorant twit” sense, but if I am at all mistaken in my observations – I’m more than happy to stand corrected.
3: This is one of those really fun topics that you either don’t give a crap about (in which case I suggest you leave now – this get’s a little long and ranty) or if you do, you feel quite strongly about (usually in one particular direction). I encourage and welcome comments – you may have noticed there aren’t many on the site, so it’d be a novelty, if nothing else – but typically these kinds of discussions degenerate into a perfect example of one of the bigger issues I see with this kind of thing (there’s a post in that I’m sure) and I’d much prefer a reasoned debate than an outright flame war. (Most of the time)
Bottom line though, is that (frustrating as it may sometimes be) ignorance can stand corrected – intolerance, more rarely so. Needless to say, intolerance trumps ignorance on Collin’s ‘wanker-meter’, so if you really feel the need to be an arse – do it elswhere.
Cool, now I’ve quoted myself and referred to myself in the third person. How conceited is that!
4: I’m not an expert on anything that I’ll (eventually, I swear) be looking at in this post. My opinions on these topics are essentially just that – opinion, based on casual observation for the most part, and backed by a preoccupation with finding out the ‘why’ of things.
5: Despite the apparent assumptions of some commentors on the ramblings that kicked this off, I’m not a ‘believer’ when it comes to the ‘One God’.. thing. If you were reading around April Fools day it should be pretty clear I’m an equal opportunity fun pokerer. But then, I’m not a believer in the ‘No god’ thing either.
What? Huh? What on earth can this mean?!
It’s pretty simple. Three words, in fact. If you think you can manage, you can say them with me. Ready?
I don’t know.
And I’m OK with that. Because when it comes to contending views on the ‘truthiness’ of a given thing, to ’round out’ to the most likely, or most evidenced version is essentially a cop out. A by product of our biological compulsion to rationalize perhaps. Or maybe just a big flip of the bird to the party unable to prove their claim. (Either way, ‘liklihoodiness’ sounds nowhere near as good as ‘truthiness’)
And while most of the ‘scientifically minded’ folk are happy with the way the ‘burden of proof‘ works, I am not – it’s never really made sense to me. Lack of proof of the existence of a thing (in this case, a deity) does not, in any way, validate the counter-argument attesting to that thing’s non-existence. Something either exists, or it does not. It is either true, or it is not. The burden of proof shouldn’t fall on either party – determining the actual truth should be the goal of both. And if that truth cannot be determined, the only remaining option to to admit ignorance.
In the simplest possible way I can think to put it:
x = their view
y = your view
n = the ‘truth’ of the matter
n will never be either x or y – it will always be n.
x or y might accurately describe n, however if x or y cannot be infallibly found to do so there is no basis on which to claim that either x or y has anything to do with n at all. For all you know, a better description would be q. Or 784. Or Batman.
After you die-hard philosophers out there get over your apoplexy, I’ll ask you to consider this:
Should the answer to any question posed regarding the nature of a thing be biased toward the conventionalism, and the likeliness of one presented answer according to common opinion and the ideology of the time?
Once you’ve answered that (I’m sure it won’t take long) perhaps reflect on what Socrates might have thought.
I can’t tell you if god exists, but I can tell you something of what I do believe – that throughout our history, human beings seem compelled to envision an entity or power greater than themselves to whom (when anthropomorphized) they will submit their will, and while our nature leans toward an abuse of the power such compelling beliefs hold over our fellow mortals, these same beliefs have spawned such institutionalised concepts as law, morality, consequence and in a (granted, very) broad sense, are in fact a form of scientific endeavour.
While such beliefs may be inconsequential in the view of some, I myself cannot dismiss them as easily, given the impact they’ve had (and still have) on our culture, and by virtue of my own (irritating, I’m sure) tendency to leave every matter ‘open to discussion’ unless completely, unequivocally resolved.
Cool, I got the current round of Facebook spam on my wall. It’s cool, because now I get to show you folk the one simple thing you can do that will protect you from phishing attacks more than any anti-virus software you’ll ever get.
It uses legacy technology known as ‘eyeballs’ and really isn’t that complicated.
But first – the current scam. Most facebook users are aware by now of the details. Basically, an infected users account will post something like this to your wall.
With the following msg :
(Your name), this is hilarious! lol :P :P :P
But we all know about that now so we won’t click on the bikini clad bum, will we?
(Personally, I wouldn’t click on anything with that many :P’s – even if they are a real friend, they probably shouldn’t be.)
But what about the next time? How do you best guard your PC, your facebook account and all the other juicy bits dirty, rotten, evil & nasty malware is designed to capture?
The answer is simple. Pay Attention!
No, seriously – check out the pic below. Notice the URL (site name) at the bottom left? You’ll see that in every (non-mobile) browser for every link you ever hover over. If you check this before clicking a link and notice something that’s ‘not quite right’ – you’re already as step ahead.
The second thing to pay attention to, (when it comes to facebook and some other social networking sites in any case) is this (just underneath the bum)
So, clearly not from Youtube. If you hover over the Avi Video link, you’ll see the following:
You can click this safely – it’s just an application (Name: Avi Video, ID: 123901010971252) Where, you’ll also find this:
That’s not to say, 100% that the app is ‘responsible’ for creating the malware. Just that it’s being used to distribute it.
So - all the information you need to know something is crap, evil and spammy is there. You just need to know where to look, and what for. Now you do – and I expect no more spam from you on my wall.
If you see something you’re not sure of - let me know.
You can safely copy any link address by right-clicking on the link and selecting ‘copy link address‘ (Google Chrome) ‘copy link location‘ (Firefox) or ‘copy shortcut‘ (Internet Explorer)
Throw the link, and the address of the site you got it from on a contact form along with your email address and I’ll suss it out for you.
I had to push a photo taken on my HTC Desire to my Laptop today, and got a little stuck. After connecting, it wasn’t immediately apparent which folder contained the photos.
A quick Google search sorted it out (not to mention the Pacman awesomosity) but I think this is something HTC could have done a whole lot better.
And clearly, I’m not alone – although Mark Pesce‘s beef takes a broader view here.
Here be instructions, and screenshots (via DDMS, for those who’d like to do the same)
Connect the Desire via USB to your computer and when prompted, select ‘Disk Drive’ as the connection method and hit Done.
If you don’t get the prompt requesting your preferred selection method, you can pull down the notification bar from the top of the screen and tap the current USB Connection type (shown as ‘Charge only’ below) listed to change it.
Once you’re set up, jump in to the new Removable Disk drive via Windows Explorer and jump in to the DCIM folder to get your pics.
If you happen to get the auto-play options dialogue (Windows Vista shown below) you want to select the ‘Open folder to view files with Windows Explorer’ option. Well, unless you don’t. (See below)
For the nerdy types – yes, I tried picking up images with Nokia LifeBlog, and yes it worked. On all 887 images, thumbnails, app caches and crash dump logs. (I’m sure there’s more, but don’t have time to check) Not sure if this is a *sigh* moment, or an interesting way of keeping track of EVERYTHING. Will let you know. One day. Probably.
There are certain things that evoke my distant memories of childhood glee. Pocket knives, the smell of burning ant carapace underneath one’s magnifying glass and throwing rocks at stuff come to mind. Oh, and Pacman.
Which happens to be celebrating it’s 30th anniversary today. And Google has gone and created a Doodle to celebrate, as they often do. BUT YOU CAN PLAY THIS ONE. TWO PLAYER. (Hit ‘Insert Coin’ after the game has started and Mrs. Pacman joins the Ghost eating fun)
So go now, be free and play. But be warned – apparently there are 255 levels. And the Kill Screen on the 256th. Oh, and Mrs. Pacman sound much more annoying than her husband.
Nothing special here, just a quick little .vbs script that makes it easy for your users to hook up to a shared printer using Windows.
To create a .vbs script, you simply need a text editor (such as notepad or the much cooler notepad++ and when you save the file, replace the (usually default) .txt file extension with .vbs
On Error resume next
Dim objNet, strPrinter
Set objNet = CreateObject("WScript.Network")
strPrinter = InputBox("Please enter the name of the Printer you'd like to add", "Add Printer", "eg. printer name")
objNet.AddWindowsPrinterConnection "\\server\" & strPrinter
If err.number = 0 Then
Wscript.Echo strPrinter & " added!"
Else
Wscript.Echo "Oh oh - there seems to be a problem! Error Code : " & err.number & " Error Description: " & err.description
End If
Breaking it down:
On Error resume next: This tells the program if there’s an error, ignore it and move on. The potential for error is covered a little later in the script, so it won’t break the universe. Promise.
Dim objNet, strPrinter: This declares the variables. Code Nazis and Ninjas will rail me for not explicitly declaring them, but it’s a simple script that I needed to put out quickly, so ner.
Set objNet = CreateObject ("WScript.Network") : Does pretty much what it sounds like it does, creates an object (Wscript.Network) using the variable objNet. This allows us to access the Network and use the AddWindowsPrinterConnection that follows shortly
strPrinter = InputBox (etc etc..) – rather than pin the script down to connecting to a single printer, this gives users the option to setup any printer on your predefined server (which you’d add in place of server). The printer name added by the user is captured as the variable ‘strPrinter’. Of course, you could give them to option to add the server also, but if you don’t really need to, why add the potential for error?
objNet.AddWindowsPrinterConnection "\\server\" & strPrinter: Again, it’s pretty self explanatory. If you can’t figure it out and need to, let me know and I’ll explain it to you in detail.
If err.number = 0 Then
Wscript.Echo strPrinter & " added!" : This part of the script essentially means – If there’s no problems, throw out a popup (that’s the Wscript.Echo bit) that tells the user the printer has been added.
Else
Wscript.Echo "Oh oh - there seems to be a problem! Error Code : " & err.number & " Error Description: " & err.description
End If: This is our error handling section. The ‘Else’ is in regard to the previous ‘If’ statement. So, IF err.number = 0 (there is no error) everything is cool. Otherwise (‘Else’) throw the out the Error number and description, so that the user can;
a) based on the error start again so that it works (in the case of incorrect Printer name or similar user error)
b) find someone who knows what it means to fix it.
A simple script, for a simple task, but a hell of a time saver if (you or your) your users have trouble with navigating the Windows GUI to connect a printer.
Want to learn more? Check out these links on a couple of the scripting basics used above:
“The internet industry and copyright holders had been in detailed discussions for a number of years, before AFACT and its Executive Director, Ms Pecotic, called off negotiations in August 2007 to commence their unsuccessful legal proceedings against iiNet in the Federal Court.”
Naturally, the ‘Gamers, Porn and BitTorrent Society’ .. sorry, the Pirate Party Australia – had their own view on the AFACTs cry for a 3 strike disconnection system similar to those recently introduced in such countries as Britain, France, South Korea, Taiwan and New Zealand;
“Pirate Party Australia completely rejects the implementation of any system that disconnects account holders from the Internet, increasingly the most important platform for communication and political discourse today, upon allegation of infringement, without full judicial oversight and due process. Mechanisms like this will see entire households disconnected, upon an allegation from an industry association.”
It sounds very official, but really, who’s going to take them seriously? They also had some advise for AFACT and the good people of Australia on exactly how the Internet should be thought of:
“The provision of an Internet service should be considered akin to the postal service, in that packets of data are sent and received, and this communication should be considered private—no person or organisation should be opening and reading the content of these packets.”
First and foremost, I want to point out the ridiculous nature of that particular argument. If you are going to equate the provisioning of internet connectivity to the postal service, you land it (more) squarely in the lap of the Dept of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, and expose ISPs to further regulation by the same.
I’ve previously stated my view on making ISPs ‘defacto cops’ of the Internet (to use a PP-coined phrase), and in the main, that opinion stands. ISPs provide a very specific core service. That service is to provide us, the consumer of that service, the means for us to connect to the internet.
To me, the concept of the provider of that service being held accountable for my use of it is nothing short of insane.
It’s like asking the blokey fellows contracted to conduct roadworks (ISP) who make the roads I drive my car (computer) on should pay my speeding fines ( the $4000 worth of stolen music on my computer) out of some sort of crazed notion of perceived obligation.
(Authors Note: $4k of stolen music exists as hypothetical example only. I’m pretty confident I’m the only IT guy in history who’s never burned a music CD)
The law has been tried and tested and in this case, common sense would seem to have prevailed. To quote Cowdroy, the Judge whom presided over the hotly debated and soon to go to appeal AFACT vs iiNet case:
“..mere provision of access to the internet is not the ‘means’ of infringement.” (Summary, Sect. 12)
Sorry AFACT, but no. I know the law, and if I break it, I know that there is a risk that I will be punished for doing so. There’s no need to take that out on my internet connection, is there?
Disclosure: The author is an employee of Telstra, a Telco and ISP in Australia. Posts on this blog and commentary elsewhere on the interwebs is my own opinion, and not that of my employer.
A little while ago, after a day buried in work stuff, and a night pondering how to make this site ‘fit’ with the online world (when it evolves from being a chaotic dumping ground of sporadically interesting plugins, features, styles, naked code and other such silliness into something more elegant, stylish and with any luck – profitable) I had a thought.
How cool it would be, postulated my (incessantly disruptive) internal narrator, if someone smarter than me were to design a web app that could take a keyword or phrase and display search results in a timeline against sites returning the same keywords – highlighting where your own site fell into the mix time-wise, and in terms of content.
Content comparison would be made by way of a ‘Similarimeter’ – comparing text of each indexed source and rating how similar your site was to others featuring your search term.
Linking could even be displayed (that’s the weird polygon thing in the pic) showing which of the returned sites links to which.
Knowing the way the web works, it’s quite likely such a beast exists already – and Google have been displaying timelines with News site references for a while now – but clearly my idea is better. That doesn’t mean, however, that Google are resting on their laurels when it comes to tracking what’s going on in the land of the interwebs.
In theory, that’s because I’m in Australia – we seem to be waiting for a lot of features from our pals in the other hemisphere. So having established it was broken, I thought I’d go about finding a way to fix it.
Here’s the results of my (failed) search
And the results as per an example from Google’s Blog (with search term changed)
Now, Google did mention (further on in the post than I got to before I started playing) that
The replay feature is rolling out now and will be available globally in English within the next couple days (if you want to try it now, try out this special link). For our initial release, you can explore tweets going back to February 11, 2010, and soon you’ll be able to go back as far as the very first tweet on March 21, 2006.
What I found interesting was that the example links they provided earlier in the post seemed much more complicated than the ‘special’ link they provided. So I broke that apart to. When time allows, I’ll be returning and providing descriptions for each of these ‘portions’ of a Google search URL.
I found something really cool today. When that happens, I like you share it with you people, because as you all should know, I’m a caring, sharing kinda guy.
As some of you may also know, I don’t take myself, or this site too seriously (yet) So when it comes to the nitty gritty fine print type stuff, I can get a little .. well, slack. (See the Disclaimer for an example.)
So when I came across a Privacy Statement Generator from the OECD (Organization for Economic and Co-Operative Development), my personal failings in that particular area became redundant. Which is nearly as cool as finding $50 in your pocket you didn’t know was there.
So, check it out, complete the questionnaire, and get your gluteus maximus covered somewhat more comprehensively than you may have been previously, with the added pleasure of happily remaining seated on it.
All up, the process is pretty simple, although I’d suggest you brush up on your local privacy laws and regulations before you tackle the generators questionnaire – it’ll prevent a bit of head scratching and ensure the most accurate possible return document.
It may make your life a little easier, but unfortunately it won’t fix your personal failings. After completing, I may have a semi-valid privacy policy, but I still do not take myself or this site all that seriously.
Pope Benedict has made two announcements today that potentially hold earth shattering consequences for the future of the Catholic Church, and indeed the Papacy itself.
“We feel it’s time to update the image of the Church,” said the Pontiff in an official statement, “and feel that now is indeed the time to do so.”
His Holiness went on to describe plans for this revolutionary vision;
“The first thing we’re doing is renaming the Bible. It’s a big move, but we think it’s for the best.”
Once the uproar at this lead in had subsided, and Richard Dawkins recovered from his mild stroke, Benedictus XVI continued;
“After much discussion amongst myself and our new PR representatives, we have decided on ‘The Anthology’. Not only does it more accurately describe the content of the Good Book, but it worked for the Beatles, and they were after all bigger than.. well, you know who.”
“Before we take questions, I’d like to make my second announcement, which I’m rather excited about, actually.” continued the pointy hatted one.
“With the astounding success of my first album released by Geffen Records, I’ve decided to release a second – this time in partnership with madeyalook Records, and to coincide with the drastic changes in our marketing of the Bible – forgive me, ‘The Anthology’ – It’ll be a rap album.”
“Furthermore, the album will be released under my own new name. I have decided that the title: ‘His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman province, Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God’ is just too much of a mouthful – particularly with a German accent.
“So, as of today, I shall be known simply as ‘P-Biddy’”
The Pizzle fo Shizzle
The announcement came to an abrupt and unfortunate close, due to some strange, albeit interesting weather phenomena – dark thunder clouds rolled in faster than meteorologists thought possible, toads started falling out of them, and everybody’s complimentary gatorade turned into blood.
Fortunately, Prometheus Ink was able to speak with His Holiness – sorry – ‘P-Biddy’, after the event, and can confirm a few details:
The Album will be titled: ‘Words of God from the mouth of B-Dawg’.
The Pontiff explained this was the first consideration for his name change, but he wasn’t quite sure if the emphasis should be on the ‘d’ or the ‘w’ in ‘dawg’, so instead he opted to set it in stone as Album name (and Title track, or so the rumour mill has churned)
It was co-produced, written and will be promoted by legend – Rick Astley, and being pressed by 732 enslaved victims of possession.
We even manage to get hold of some lyrics (though the Pope remained extremely secretive about the tune)
I’m da P to da O to da P to da E
Representin’ my homie – know Him? G.O.D
He’s da Lord, He’s da bomb
He’s a real rad dude
Gave his son to everyone
JC the zombie Jew
‘physical possession of an object as a requirement for an acquisition is no longer necessary’
and that curators have been set free
‘..to tag the world and acknowledge things that “cannot be had”’
Although here are several theories as to the origin of the humble @, some going as far back as the sixth or seventh century it was American programmer Ray Tomlinson that used the symbol (which had appeared on the American Underwood Typewriter as the “commercial ‘a’” in 1885) to seperate user from server when he sent the first email between users on different hosts connected to ARPANET, the predecessor of today’s Internet.
Obviously, the ‘@’ symbol is not ‘owned’ as such, so MoMA’s aquisition of it is free. Come to think of it, I might aquire it myself. Nah, scrap that, ‘&’ is so much cooler.
So is ‘@’ Art?
On their blog post, MoMA state that the ‘@’ symbol is in the collection of the Museum of Modern Art because
Tomlinson performed a powerful act of design that not only forever changed the @ sign’s significance and function, but which also has become an important part of our identity in relationship and communication with others. His (unintended) role as a designer must be acknowledged and celebrated…
So I’m just going to say “Sure!” and walk away from the crazy art people. What do you think? Art, or f@rce?
You may have seen it. The stunning, (slightly creepy) culinary mad science that is the Steve Jobs Cheese Head. I get the feeling that The Cooks Den site probably got a spike in page visits today, Jobs bless ‘em.
Essentially, they’ve provided us with what some Apple fans have no doubt already got set up on a special altar somewhere in their ‘secret’ places – a well crafted effigy of his noggin. And it’s MADE OF CHEESE.
Now, I don’t dislike Steve Jobs, and I am a HUGE fan of cheese, as a rule. But really, this screams ‘MOCK ME’ to me. I don’t often stand on the shoulders of giants. But in this case, I think a good coat-tail riding is in order, at the very least.
Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to tickle my funny bits (get your mind outta the gutter) with the best artwork, caption or hashtag for the seriously strange Steve Jobs head o’ cheese. By best, I mean that which I (by virtue of my unqualified opinion) deem to be the ultimate SteveJobsCheeseHeadism, (or #SJCH for short)
So, Stephen Conroy’s Australian Mandatory ISP Internet Filter was featured in a Yahoo! news article today, but the comments are limited to 1000 characters. If you’ve been paying attention it’d be pretty clear theres no way that’ll be sufficient for my ramblings, so here’s the full response below:
(Note: if you’d like to leave a comment on the Yahoo article yourself – what with Yahoo being the closest thing to mainstream publication the Filter is likely to get until it’s voted on, click the link above and get your two cents in. Except you smarmy types with your attitude and <daddymode>yucky attitutudes</daddymode> )
For those who have no idea what just happened, it’s geek/Dad humour. Don’t worry, neither group will likely think it funny either, given the crossover.
I’ve commented on this previously (Advance Australia Censored) but I hate repeating myself, so here’s a couple of excerpts, starting with a statement that hopefully establishes I’m not a complete tool, as are some of those folk arguing against the filter:
” It’s not that I mistrust our Government, nor do I expect them to abuse the filter. For one, they won’t be controlling the list of filtered sites, the ACMA (http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/HOMEPAGE/PC=HOME) are.”
” .. while opening the censorship door theoretically allows any future government to take this process back and abuse the ability to filter net content, I don’t really think any Western Democracy could get away with it (for too long), in this era of Global Accountability.”
” Spending large amounts of taxpayer money.. can be effectively acheived with Google SafeSearch (http://www.google.com/support/websearch/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=510) on (which it is by default) and the most basic of parental control options of any number of free or commercial Security Suites..”
” ..It’s time we opened our eyes and recognized our own responsibilities in both the creation and perpetuation of a public mindset that allows child abuse to occur without confronting it directly, and in not stepping up as individuals to protect our children from our own ignorance.. “
” .. civilized folk should be aware of infringements of civil liberties, here or abroad, and it seems to me that censoring examples of such infringements (even the nasty RC stuff Conroy wants to) is the societal equivalent of sticking our fingers in our ears and yelling “La La La!” at the top of our lungs. “
In hindsight, I’ll mention this. I am not opposed to stopping inappropriate material being published on the internet. I am, however, opposed to putting in place a system that makes it easier for us to ignore that there is a problem in the first place. If you do happen to come across such material on the web, report it:
Report (International) child exploitation to : Virtual Global Taskforce - law enforcement agencies from around the world working together to fight child abuse online
Ignorance is not the path to progress. And it’s not just the weirdo’s on the fringe of (to paraphrase Kevin Rudd) ‘civil liberty extremism‘
List of organizations who have publicly announces their opposition to the filter:
(Feel free to contact me if you have someone to add to the list, or a direct link to statements issued by those listed below)
If you want to actually learn something about what the Filter is, what it means, and why it matters, check out the further info below – it should give you some idea of what’s going on:
with a (pretty dismissive, in hindsight) comment opining that our brains are pretty good at managing information, so all thing being equal, “No biggie”. Actually, I started the reply with “Bah Humbug”, but you get the point.
He came back with the (valid) point that despite our information consumption patterns having dramatically changed in recent years, no-one seems to be questioning our willingness to dive head first into said new technology, without first taking into account the potential impact said techno-driven changes may have.
My reply got a little lengthy, so I thought I’d post it here instead.
That’s the beautiful Catch 22 of evolution – and questions about where we’ve been and where we’re going happen to be my bread ‘n’ butter. Well, as they make me no money, more like my iSnack 2.0, but that’s beside the point. So here’s some postulation to chew on:
I’d argue our current state of ‘ubervoluminous’ consumption of information is, if anything, more aligned with the way we process information and as a result, more efficient.
In media, reading an entire newspaper for 20 minutes is in fact a waste of my time - realistically there are only ever going to be a small number of articles that are relevant to me or perk my interest. In (non-fiction) literature, information is fallible in that it is presented by one person, or a small group of collaborators. Human nature being what it is, and taking into consideration the impact of ‘groupmind’ or ‘social interaction‘, the accuracy and objectivity of such material is inevitably compromised.
Of course, that’s only one of Mr. Packers concerns. There are a few more.
The advent of the online conversation precipitating the death of our attention span
To me, this is ludicrous. I’m rarely bored these days – because I know I can direct my attention to something that will capture it.
A faltering of our collective reading comprehension
My reading comprehension is fine, and to be brutally honest, this is an area that falls into the ‘where are the parents?’ category for me. Although I agree that ‘txtspk’ is perhaps one of the greatest evils of our time, there is no doubt a burden of responsibility on both educational systems and parents in regard to this issue. On the other hand – maybe not. In any case, language in all its forms is in a state of constant flux, and the failure of such a (as so conceitedly pointed out) well read fellow as George would not acknowledge (if not appreciate) this fact.
A degradation of our experience of the immediately surrounding world
I agree checking your emails while walking/driving/riding/skitching (What? Kids still skitch right?) in peak hour traffic is not the most intelligent choice. But the ability to focus our attention on socially and politically critical events in real time, and to share that information to benefit society is surely worth the odd half-wit being hit by a truck isn’t it? Chances are they weren’t really going to contribute anything weighty to that flow in any case, natural selection being what it is and all.
Finally – what I believe to be the heart of the matter for George, and many of the critics of such recent forms of communication as Facebook, Twitter and other fruits of the Web 2.0 loins, the ‘new media’ is just plain scary, and there’s ‘Too much information’ (or, TMI for the txtspk luzrs) so clearly, if we try and pay attention to it all, our brains will explode. (You’re right. There was no need for that link. But to be honest, the Cracked guys are a shite load funnier than I will ever be, so go on – you deserve it.)
So, a little ramble on information, communication, and the wonderful human brain.
Our brains filter out information deemed ‘unecessary’ – as demonstrated by the old ‘first and last letter’ thing: bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe. (I have a theory on this, but that’s a whole other post)
We can also filter unfamiliar terms, objects and events, based on our preconceptions, expectations and current focus of attention. Fact of the matter is, our brain is built in such a way that it culls information that may lead to any kind of ‘overload’, so I don’t see any particular danger in increasing the volume of that input.
Where I do see a clear and distinct advantage however, is in the ability such technology provides in terms of communication – in particular the increased reach, scope and impact a particular expression can now have, backed by such technology, in much the same way that the development of a common writing system no doubt changed the lives of our earliest cultures.
Change in society and human behaviour have often taken a negative turn is when access to, and the benefits of (insert innovation here) have been restricted or manipulated by those with the influence and power to do so. It is these same leaps in communicative method that drive innovation, ingenuity and common knowledge.
The easiest example I have for this: With the advent of the ‘online conversation’, rather than sit through hours of mind numbing television when I have nothing to read, and no inclination to write, I troll the web – The people I follow, or ‘friend’ (or stalk) typically converse about topics that I know will interest me. As a result, my innate human curiosity is satiated, and I get to bug all those that follow/friend/stalk me, and so on, and so forth. Ultimately, our collective knowledgebase improves for those reciprocal contributions. (Until you get Rickroll’d)
In my assorted academic and literary wanderings, I’ve rarely come across instances of increased (transparent) communication being anything but of benefit to society. If nothing else, it’s a shame we don’t do it more often. If we could do it more often. (This is the part where it gets all ‘What if the world could be…’ so if you’re so inclined, feel free to tune out now)
In my experience, thought typically precludes communication. (Except, perhaps, in the case of this twerp)
Thoughts, ideas and ponderings are the very foundation of our behaviour, motivations and subsequent actions as concious, cognizant human beings, so the communication of these ideas is a driving factor in impacting change across a crowd, community or culture is what drives change on a social level.
Prior to the advent of online publishing, we relied on ‘traditional’ forms of media to communicate these ideas – problem is, these have much the same fallacies as do the publishing methods I mentioned earlier.
Online forms of communication, in my perspective are in fact more efficient, and far more valuable than traditional or ‘mainstream’ media communications, which are limited, filtered and reserved by default by regulation, classification and reach of publication. Benefits are increased exponentially when you take into consideration the potential of the continuity an online discussion can maintain, over the finality of a printed piece.
The true problem lies in one single word – mainstream. Online communication remains at this point in our culture ‘on the fringe’, the domain of a sub-culture that is not easily understood by those who remain inside the comfort zone of familiarity.
Perhaps the greatest irony, is that it will only be with the inclusion of the ‘mainstreamers’ that the online community and by proxy the rest of society can truly benefit – if you exclude any group from change, that group will either be destroyed in the creation of the new ideal, or present themselves in opposition to it, as they have no investment in the ‘new world’ to claim.
Alright, that’s it for now. Before that last paragraph I just spent a great deal of time sniffing out a nasty trojan on my PC., and I am very tired, so I’ll close (finally) on this:
Nah, on second thought, I got nothin’.
Stay tuned – over the course of the weekend I’ll be writing up my deliberations on the same topic as discussed at the first event held by Digital Citizens You can get the gist via the #digicitz hashtag, but a warning for non-Twitter friendly folk – don’t bother. Wait for the video instead, or follow eCitizens on Twitter so you know when the summary has been written up.
An initiative of the Bendigo and Adelaide Bank, PlanBig is a place for you to get your ‘Big Idea’ started. It’s kind of a crowdsourcing slash community outreach mashup – a concept growing in popularity on today’s social web.
This is something I think Australia has needed for a little while (assuming something similar doesn’t already exist that’s slipped past my lazy eye) and has a fair bit of potential. So what’s your big idea? Keep tabs on this one, it could get interesting…
Over on the Social Graph API pages there’s all sorts of info for developers, the curious enquirer, scriptkiddies (and spam kings) to get their hands on. Check out the Social Graph API FAQ page for more info
So, back on topic.
You’ll need to add a backlink to your Google Profile, and define the ‘me’ relationship. The clearest explanation and example I’ve found for using this relationship can be found on the microformats rel-me page. (For more info on XFN relationships, click here)
The code, goes thusly:
<a href=”http://google.com/profiles/your.username” rel=”me”>My Google Profile</a>
Once you’ve done that, make sure the site is listed in your Google Profile, and you’ve checked the ‘This is a profile page about me’ box.
Once you’ve added your site, hit The Recrawl Tool and watch the crawler magic pick up both directly and indirectly ‘me’ referenced sites. Presumably, that’s how Google Buzz has been picking up old sites for some ‘Buzzers’ (Or the more popular ‘Buzzards’ judging by Mashable’s poll)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=03eda64a-1509-48e1-9247-685779d80cea)
Me vs Atheism
Before I jump into this, a few quick points, and a disclaimer or two.
(Edit) 0: The title of this post is (deliberately, I’ll admit) misleading. I do not, by any stretch of the imagination ‘oppose’ atheism – but rather the attitude that (in my experience) is held by many who claim that (or any other) view, which I see as disruptive to inclusive, unbiased and reasonable debate.
1: My original point (which got a little lost in the ruckus this post is actually about) was very simple. Following an interesting episode of the SBS program Insight addressing religious education – scrap that – theological indoctrination in the public school system, and a number of trialled, suggested and in one case rejected alternatives, I concluded the following.
If we are going to include Religious Education in the public school system, for God’s sake (pun fully intended – and it is a pun, just so you’re clear on that) can we actually educate our kids about, you know – religion? Not the Christian or Catholic or Hindu or Islamic faith, but RELIGION. After all -
Yeah, quoted myself. So ner.
2: If I’m wrong here, let me know. Not in the “No, you infidel – God is real!” or “There is no god you ignorant twit” sense, but if I am at all mistaken in my observations – I’m more than happy to stand corrected.
3: This is one of those really fun topics that you either don’t give a crap about (in which case I suggest you leave now – this get’s a little long and ranty) or if you do, you feel quite strongly about (usually in one particular direction). I encourage and welcome comments – you may have noticed there aren’t many on the site, so it’d be a novelty, if nothing else – but typically these kinds of discussions degenerate into a perfect example of one of the bigger issues I see with this kind of thing (there’s a post in that I’m sure) and I’d much prefer a reasoned debate than an outright flame war. (Most of the time)
Bottom line though, is that (frustrating as it may sometimes be) ignorance can stand corrected – intolerance, more rarely so. Needless to say, intolerance trumps ignorance on Collin’s ‘wanker-meter’, so if you really feel the need to be an arse – do it elswhere.
Cool, now I’ve quoted myself and referred to myself in the third person. How conceited is that!
4: I’m not an expert on anything that I’ll (eventually, I swear) be looking at in this post. My opinions on these topics are essentially just that – opinion, based on casual observation for the most part, and backed by a preoccupation with finding out the ‘why’ of things.
5: Despite the apparent assumptions of some commentors on the ramblings that kicked this off, I’m not a ‘believer’ when it comes to the ‘One God’.. thing. If you were reading around April Fools day it should be pretty clear I’m an equal opportunity fun pokerer. But then, I’m not a believer in the ‘No god’ thing either.
What? Huh? What on earth can this mean?!
It’s pretty simple. Three words, in fact. If you think you can manage, you can say them with me. Ready?
I don’t know.
And I’m OK with that. Because when it comes to contending views on the ‘truthiness’ of a given thing, to ’round out’ to the most likely, or most evidenced version is essentially a cop out. A by product of our biological compulsion to rationalize perhaps. Or maybe just a big flip of the bird to the party unable to prove their claim. (Either way, ‘liklihoodiness’ sounds nowhere near as good as ‘truthiness’)
And while most of the ‘scientifically minded’ folk are happy with the way the ‘burden of proof‘ works, I am not – it’s never really made sense to me. Lack of proof of the existence of a thing (in this case, a deity) does not, in any way, validate the counter-argument attesting to that thing’s non-existence. Something either exists, or it does not. It is either true, or it is not. The burden of proof shouldn’t fall on either party – determining the actual truth should be the goal of both. And if that truth cannot be determined, the only remaining option to to admit ignorance.
In the simplest possible way I can think to put it:
x = their view
y = your view
n = the ‘truth’ of the matter
n will never be either x or y – it will always be n.
x or y might accurately describe n, however if x or y cannot be infallibly found to do so there is no basis on which to claim that either x or y has anything to do with n at all. For all you know, a better description would be q. Or 784. Or Batman.
After you die-hard philosophers out there get over your apoplexy, I’ll ask you to consider this:
Should the answer to any question posed regarding the nature of a thing be biased toward the conventionalism, and the likeliness of one presented answer according to common opinion and the ideology of the time?
Once you’ve answered that (I’m sure it won’t take long) perhaps reflect on what Socrates might have thought.
I can’t tell you if god exists, but I can tell you something of what I do believe – that throughout our history, human beings seem compelled to envision an entity or power greater than themselves to whom (when anthropomorphized) they will submit their will, and while our nature leans toward an abuse of the power such compelling beliefs hold over our fellow mortals, these same beliefs have spawned such institutionalised concepts as law, morality, consequence and in a (granted, very) broad sense, are in fact a form of scientific endeavour.
While such beliefs may be inconsequential in the view of some, I myself cannot dismiss them as easily, given the impact they’ve had (and still have) on our culture, and by virtue of my own (irritating, I’m sure) tendency to leave every matter ‘open to discussion’ unless completely, unequivocally resolved.
OK, enough of the preamble. On with the show.
Continue reading Me vs Atheism