Thank you Google... Thank you.

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.

That is all – be awesome to eachother.

Add printer via user input

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:

vbscript input box function: http://www.w3schools.com/vbscript/func_inputbox.asp
vbscript IF statement: http://www.tizag.com/vbscriptTutorial/vbscriptif.php
wscript.echo: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee156599.aspx

AFACT cry foul, iiNet and Pirate Party and I respond

In an article published by the Australian yesterday, in which the Australian Federation against Copyright Theft (AFACT) claimed that ISPs are refusing to negotiate on Copyright (self) regulation, a claim that ISP iiNet – whom AFACT unsuccessfully sued earlier this year – strongly deny in their responding statement, in which the ISP points out;

“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.

Breaking down Google's new timeline feature for real time search

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.

Today, they announced via the Official Google Blog the rollout of a ‘replay’ option for their realtime search. Now, it looks a lot like what I had in mind, though it is restricted to updates from the ‘real-time’ web. So being the tinkerer that I am, I thought I’d take a look.

It didn’t work.

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.

In the meantime, in an awesome display of one of Google’s other recent announcements – you can finish the job for me.

stuffIponder

How do I get Twitter/Foursquare/Gowalla feeds onto a Google Map?
Can I get Windows folder/file changes converted to RSS?
How can I update Twitter & Yammer via Msoft Office Communicator?

Generate you Privacy Policy automagically with OECD

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.

OECD Privacy Statement Generator

OECD Privacy Generator

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

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

We think the kids will love it.

In other news today, April 1, 2010:

Google Leave Australia over ‘evil’ filter | ZDnet Australia

Google introduces ‘OCCA’ product for Australia| Google Australia Blog

Telstra announces new Bigpond Chief | Delimiter

MadMonkey - Be the Monkey you wish to see

It’s awesome. Seriously, the coolest thing I have ever designed (except the doomsday device, but that’s a secret)

Check it out, buy it – share the link around or criticize the bejesus out of it if you must. But you gotta admit – it’s pretty damn awesome.

Mad Monkey on RedBubble

Museum of Modern @rt

The New York Museum of Modern Art (Dept of Architecture and Design) has announced it’s acquisition of the @ symbol, stating on their blog that

‘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?

Predator Trailer now available on IGN

Oh. Hell. Yeah.

Steve Jobs Cheese Head

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)

I’ll put entries up on my brand spankin’ new Redbubble Site, and throw up an album on our Facebook Page. Now, there’s two versions of the head,

Not Melty

Melty

(Pics reproduced with permission from www.thecooksden.com)

So you can choose both your target and your method of cheese loving joculation:

Tweet your caption or hashtag entry

Post your entry on the PrometheusInk Facebook Page

Comment on the Buzz

Submit the form:

Your Name:


Your email:




Your caption/hastag or a link to your art for:


Upload a .jpg, .gif or .png file of your art:


Non Melty Steve Jobs cheese head caption or hashtag:


Melty Steve Jobs cheese head caption or hashtag:


Your website/blog/FB page/profile/whatever:



I agree to the below drivel:


By submitting this entry, I understand it may be used as promotional material for prometheusink.com, by some little twerp who's probably too lazy, stupid, or just plain uncreative enough to think up his own clever play on words. Little dweeb is probably a Microsoft fanboy, judging by his obvious disdain for the Almighty Steve Jobs, and his willingness to perpetrate what is probably the most shameless, disgusting example of meme-riding, on the coat-tails of what is easily the most awesome famous person mozarella head that has existed in the history of mankind, for an as yet undetermined prize that could easily end up being something as crap as belly-button lint, magic fairydust from underneath the couch or a licensed copy of Nortons Internet Security 2009 - although wouldn't it be cool if Apple was willing to throw a couple of iPad's, iPhones or iDon'tcareaslongasitsfree's at the very broke owner of this site, who - incidentally - can be emailed for enquiry/offers of free stuff at collin.vanuden(at)gmail(dot)com.


If you have human eyes and can see this - type it in below. If you're not human and try and submit the form, please run algorithm.... NOW



captcha



[Submit]

And remember: Qui non ridere possuit, In ano pillum intromit

Internet Filter Recap for the Resurfacing

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 offensive or prohibited content to the ACMA(Australian Communications and Media Authority)
Report a crime to the AFP (Australian Federal Police) including:
Report (International) child exploitation to :
Virtual Global Taskforcelaw 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)

see also:
-Direct links for the following forthcoming..-
Australian Library and Information Association
A quick note
Civil Liberties Australia
Dr Alex Byrne FALIA, University Librarian, UTS
GetUp!
Liberty Victoria
National Association for the Visual Arts
National Children’s & Youth Law Centre
NSW Council for Civil Liberties
QLD Council for Civil Liberties
Save the Children

(http://www.cla.asn.au/0805/index.php/articles/2009/active-anti-censorship-campaign-starts#more656)
(http://www.cnet.com.au/children-s-liberties-groups-protest-filter-339297339.htm)

The IIA (Internet Industry of Australia)

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:

Mandatory ISP Filtering – Further info

Filtering cost: – “Just over 28 million” :
http://libertus.net/censor/ispfiltering-au-govplan-p2.html#s_37
The Great Australian Internet Blackout:
Hilary Clinton’s Digital Freedom Speech :
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/01/135519.htm
Stephen Conroy’s gross misuse of part of ‘what she said’:
Why YOU should be watching what your kids are doing online:
Electronic Frontiers Australia : #NOCLEANFEED campaign :
http://nocleanfeed.com/
EFA’s “User-friendly” campaign :
http://openinternet.com.au/
Open Internet for Australia – Facebook Page:

On the effect of the Infoverse - a retort

I responded to a colleagues citing of (part of) this article from the New Yorker’s George Packer

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.

And finally (because I can’t help myself) an answer to engin_eer ‘s tweet about Stephen Conroy. He may not be ‘evil’, but this certainly makes him seem more than a little insane.

PlanBig - using the Social Web to make your idea happen

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…

PlanBig on Twitter

PlanBig Facebook Page

Getting Google to Buzz your site using the SGAPI recrawl tool

A nice little tool I tripped over poking my nose over at the Google Code pages – The Recrawl Tool

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>

Or, you can add in WordPress pretty easily.

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.

Google Profile - Add Links

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)

There you go Hive – now get Buzzing.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Youtube releases saftey mode

On the 9th of this month, YouTube enabled a new Parental Control style feature :’Safety mode’

An opt in setting that blocks out undesirable search results. Keep your kiddies safe (or, frustrate the hell out of someone you know goes looking for undesirable videos on YouTube.)

According to YouTube’s blog, the filter also blocks out “newsworthy video that contains graphic violence such as a political protest or war coverage.”

I’m a fan of keeping the kiddies safe, but for this to be used as a viable tool, rather than just a cover-all measure, I’d like to be able to modify the search terms used for the filter.

Instructions (with screenshots), more info and FAQ’s can be found here

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Reclaim your facebook status feed

Apparently, Facebook have decided we have too much information in our lives, and have decided the best way to deal with this is to limit the friends that show on our news feeds to 250. How they do this remains a mystery, no doubt involving complicated algorithms, technical jargon, and possible a HUGE wall and multi-fire dartgun.

Anyway, assuming you’re not as much of a loser as me, and have more than this default limit, here’s how you get all your Facebook besties back into your feed:

Step 1 – Scroll all the way to the bottom of your (Home) page, and select ‘Edit Options‘ (If you’re logged into Facebook right now, you should just be able to click the link on this page)

Edit your Facebook status feed options

Step 2 – Enter a new number in ‘Number of Friends’ higher than the number of friends you have. Or as in my case (as you’ll see in the pic below) higher than the number of friends you’ll ever have. Apparently, Facebook has a limit of 5000 for this field, but I wasn’t warned of going over at 5001, so you should be pretty safe. (Assuming you’re one of those people that hunts down everyone you’ve ever spoken to in your life.) Click save, and you’re done!

Add friends to your Facebook status feed

Notice also you can choose to hide selected friends from your feed – a handy super-power to wield.

Want to know anything else about Facebook? Let me know!

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

iiNet triumphs over AFACT

What a great day in Australia for truth, freedom, and the ‘not being an idiot’ way.

Those of us (with no lives) who appreciate such things waited with baited breath today for the verdict in the AFACT vs iiNet case from the Federal Court, and I for one was ready to pen some angry words and shout out for a better judgement in an appeal by iiNet.

Fortunately, it seems that common sense can indeed prevail in a court of law, and the Hon. Judge Cowdroy presiding deemed that AFACT’s arguement that iiNet authorised copyright infringement against their clients (most of the film and music industry heavy hitters) was in fact, a crock.

Yay!

Why is that important? Simply put, it’s a stupid basis for a case. It’s like saying Australia Post is authorizing the sending of ripped cd’s/dvd’s (or sheet music, as one Tweeter parodied), and therefore must be punished, or holding TV and Radio stations accountable for illegally recorded Video Tapes and Mix Tapes. (Brief pause for the collective ‘phew’.)

‘Cowdroy made it clear that the means of infringing the studios’ copyright was the use by iiNet customers of the BitTorrent file-sharing system. “iiNet has no control over BitTorrent,” ‘ ZDnet Australia posted shortly after the trial.

Now, we move on to the drama of awaiting AFACT’s appeal strategy. Will they or won’t they? I’m inclined to think they’ll take a somewhat softer approach, purely in the interest of getting back iiNet’s legal costs (that they were ordered to pay) back. I’m thinking a new case for ‘Gross negligence in monitoring/reporting/acting on reported infringements’

There you go AFACT. I giveth, and I taketh away.

iiNet vs AFACT links:

Judgement in full: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/24.html
#iinet Twitter Search: http://search.twitter.com/search?q=iinet

Note: I am an employee of Telstra. My opinions are my own, and not that of my employer. For the full disclaimer, click here

Humble apologies for the current sloppy outlay of the site – I’m working on it.

Collin Van Uden on Twitter
Collin Van Uden on Linkedin
Prometheusink on Twitter
Prometheusink Facebook Page
If you want to give me free stuff, or pay me to build you a cheap website, contact me here

If you enjoyed this post, you may also like:

Advance Australia CENSORED
ISPs are not IURs
How To Remove Facebook KOOBFACE worm

Aussies trendless in Twitter

Well, I’m only a few days behind Mashable on this one, so I thought I’d post it out anyway

Twitter has enabled local trends for all Twitter accounts but Australia is noticeably missing from the list of countries.

Screenshot of Twitters World Wide Trends list

Local trends for the globe, but Oz misses out so far..

Now, I didn’t expect humble little Ballarat to appear on our Cities list, but surely the great Down Under merits a national appearance?

When this rolls out in Oz, we should be able to get some interesting data on Aussie vs Global trends – I for one am looking forward to it.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Advance Australia CENSORED

I’ve tried a few times now to write this post. It’s about Stephen Conroy’s Mandatory Internet Filter, and I’ll be damned if it hasn’t been difficult not to have it descend into a sledgefest.

Here’s the thing. Conroy is not being honest with you. At all, about anything he’s said regarding the filter. And here’s the latest example.

Check out this announcement from the DCBDE (Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy)

In it, Stephen (we’re on a first name basis you know) states:

“The Rudd Government agrees with Secretary Clinton that the internet can transform societies and enable and empower individuals to engage, connect and have a greater impact than they ever have”

followed by a plug for the NBN, and throwing out this little gem as a chaser:

“The Rudd Government also agrees with Secretary Clinton’s observation that ‘all societies recognise that freedom of expression has its limits’.”

this leads in to a (broken recordish) description of RC Content, why it is bad, and how much Australia wants it filtered.

Now now, Mr. Conroy, you naughty naughty boy.

Take a look at the full ‘Digital Freedom’ speech as made by HC herself and you’ll notice that the paragraph Conroy has so eagerly borrowed from, ends with this:

“But these challenges must not become an excuse for governments to systematically violate the rights and privacy of those who use the internet for peaceful political purposes.”

Out of context much Stephen?

Now. I could theoretically use at least 80 – 90% of Hillary’s speech to rebut the whole filter idea. I did that in draft 6 of this post (the one with the least slander and insults), and I’ve decided instead that you should open that link back up and just read the whole thing. Seriously – it’s one of the best I’ve seen about rights, civil liberty and intellectual freedom for.. well, let’s just say that pretty much everything I’ve read that’s better came from a time before I was even born.

Once you’re finished, I’d like to point out a little something, for the benefit of the Pro-Filter folk who I just know will say I’m taking the speech out of context myself (coz’ it’s clearly a speech about Government oppression, not kiddie and goat porn.)

The murder of innocent civilians is a tragic crime, but a crime nonetheless. Thusly, we the good people of Australia would not be able to see such injustice on the net – it would be blocked by Conroy’s filter. (For our own good, and that of our children.)

I’ve been asked – “Why would you want (us) to see it?”, to which I reply:

Why wouldn’t we?

Crime is a reflection of our society, culture and community, just as much as any Nobel Peace prize, relief effort, and a hell of a lot more so that any music award.

Why shouldn’t we be made to be aware of just how crappy, mistreated and amoral our world is at it’s worst? Wouldn’t we better address the problems in society if we were?

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 are.

And 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.

What I do have issues with are the following:

1:
Spending large amounts of taxpayer money to achieve something that can be effectively done with Google SafeSearch on (which it is by default) and the most basic of options of any number of free or commercial Security Suites.

2:
Misleading the public about the feasiblity, the motivation, and the outcome of such an undertaking, knowing that as a historically conservative nation, the masses will comply if you make them believe they, and their innocent, fragile, at risk children will be safer for it.

3.
Using a great speech about civil liberties and digital freedom to get yourself back into Google News Results (Snap! Have at you Conroy!)

4.
Avoiding holding parents accountable for the actions of their children online. We as parents are accountable for their safety and their actions (by law) out in the ‘real’ world, so why not online?

Kids are not, nor have ever been the ‘victims’ they are being stoushed as in this debate. (‘cept for the actual victims of abuse/porn, obviously) If you think I’m kidding, check out this report from Symantec on the search habits of our youngest Internet users.

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 and willingness to be blindly led by the desicions and (mis)information of others.

I agree there are ‘limits’ to freedom of expression. And I’d be disappointed if my fellow Australians didn’t share this opinion.

I also believe that civilised 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.

Ignorance is not the path to progress. It the path of stagnation, soceital decay and promotes an isolation of social conscience that cannot be afforded if we are in fact to progress as a nation, as individuals, and as a species.

You can’t change what you don’t see (Thanks Dr. Phil) and I’ve never been a fan of dealing with symptoms, and leaving the cause to fester away unnoticed – this is what I see the Filter as.

Placating a misinformed, fearful public to achieve what? An ‘Out of sight, out of mind’ mentality that preserves some kind of vague illusion of ‘control’ over the undesirable, but very real, very dangerous aspects of our culture?

Yeah – aren’t we the lucky country.

Do you know why the Kangaroo and Emu are the animals holding up the shield on the coat of arms of this wide brown land? Because they can’t walk backwards. It’s a symbol of eternal progression. The nations anthem reflects this -

“In history’s page, let every stage Advance Australia Fair”

So, good people of Australia. Do we advance into an uncertain digital future looking to be part of the solution to society’s crimes? Or do we step forward with our eyes closed, our ears plugged, humming along with the Pied Piper himself as he leads us and our children to digital ‘safety’?

Note: In the interest of disclosure, you should know I am an employee of Telstra. Opinion here (and elsewhere on the interwebs) is my own, not that of my employer. For the full Disclaimer, click here
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]