Friday, 15 August 2025
The UberSchmarotzer
Monday, 19 July 2021
I've done my own research
More or less I'm just going to republish this as it stood; in the unlikely place of Facebook (link) However in case that goes away or you don't have Facebook here it is.
NOTE: emphasis and formatting mine:
“Do your research!!!”
Here’s the thing. Research is a learned skill; it is hard, it is nuanced and complex, and it is true that the majority of people would not even know where to begin or even HOW to do [their own] research.
Research is NOT:
- Googling,
- doom scrolling your FB newsfeed, or
- binge serial watching what the YouTube algo feeds you or
- reading Reddit / 4Chan 😖
A post credited to Linda Gamble Spadaro, a licensed mental health counselor in Florida, sums this up quite well:
Please stop saying you researched it.
You didn’t research anything and it is highly probable you don’t know how to do so.
Did you compile a literature review and write abstracts on each article? Or better yet, did you collect a random sample of sources and perform independent probability statistics on the reported results? No?
Did you at least take each article one by one and look into the source (that would be the author, publisher and funder), then critique the writing for logical fallacies, cognitive distortions and plain inaccuracies?
Did you ask yourself why this source might publish these particular results? Did you follow the trail of references and apply the same source of scrutiny to them?
No? Then you didn’t…research anything. You read or watched a video, most likely with little or no objectivity. You came across something in your algorithm manipulated feed, something that jived with your implicit biases and served your confirmation bias, and subconsciously applied your emotional filters and called it proof.”
This doesn’t even go into institutional review boards (IRB’s), also known as independent ethics committees, ethical review boards, or touch on peer-review, or meta-analyses.
To sum it up, a healthy dose of scepticism is/can be a good thing…as long as we are also applying it to those things we wish/think to be true, and not just those things we choose to be sceptical towards, or in denial of.
Most importantly, though, is to apply our best critical thinking skills to ensure we are doing our best to suss out the facts from the fiction, the myths, and outright BS in pseudoscience and politics.
Misinformation is being used as a tool of war and to undermine our public health, and it is up to each of us to fight against it.
PS: this video emerged on YouTube in late August of 2023 by Sabine
I strongly recommend watching it in full.
Next from this lecture in what amounts to a teams 50 years work on a topic we get this sound advice:
https://youtu.be/7mOvJbmpG6A?t=569
From the transcript starting at 9:31
Now before I present any clinical evidence let me just make three principles about research.
First of all my boss in the my early years in Cardiff, Archie Cochran, of this University, he very effectively publicized the principle that; in evaluating evidence it's essential at all available evidence is considered and never just a selection.
It's awfully easy to have a hypothesis and spend a Friday afternoon going through the literature and finding one or two Publications that show the same kind of thing as we're looking for in that particular hypothesis. That is so misleading it should never be done. So he went to enormous efforts as you will see in what follows that we would collect all the available evidence.
Then the follower of other modern medicines William Moser he said I think it sums up "medicine is a science of uncertainty and an art of probability". In the end science never proves anything, always [it is] another explanation and conclusions about a particular hypothesis [and] can only be established at best to be Beyond Reasonable Doubt.
Don't look to me for any certainty in what I say but I think we've established a number of important steps which go beyond Reasonable Doubt.
Lastly a new skill (for anyone not still in high school, where at least in Australia this is now part of the curriculum) is the concept of Critcal Thinking. Its outlined well at Monash Uni's site here.
Becoming an expert takes a lot more than just time, it takes feedback that you were wrong or confirmation that you are correct.
Best Wishes
Friday, 7 December 2018
Creative Desctruction (or how to move towards business evolution)
I often wonder how (if?) we can move beyond a competition based economy into something which can robustly absorb change without causing harm to people. We do need change after all.
Myself I sit on the side of Ecological Modernisation (meaning that we need to move into technology to solve our problems caused by population growth and our desire for more modern stuff). You know, stuff like this electric bicycle which would really effectively answer many of the commuting needs of people in big cities, while at the same time drastically reducing the need for power.
It has occurred to me that one of the failures (for humanity) of the competitive system is that if any industrial innovation which makes old technology obsolete (or drastically reduced in effectiveness) will be seen as a destructive force (bad) by those invested in the old (because it is going to be devalued or obsoleted by the new).
However if we were not engaged in "competition" (with one business as being a winner or loser) then we could more easily adapt and adopt newer technologies, thus making innovation in the business cycle a bonus to society (rather than a horror story for investors and employees).
The Machine is like a social ladder, some climb it, some fall down it, and most fail to see its existence.
Knowing the Machine is there (in the form of corporations) is the first step, understanding that it was made by us and can be therefore redesigned by us to better suit us (not better suit it) is the second step.
Now, all I need is an epiphany on how to move towards step 2...
Wednesday, 12 February 2014
the ME generation
As a Gen-X person I've often scratched my head with the mememe meme attitude that most Gen-Y'ers seem to have been marinated in. I guess that its become (what would seem to be) a natural progression from the first Generation to be targed by Advertising, the Baby Boomer generation. Then stimulated by instant communications and micro-publishing (through FaceBook where you naturally only focus on the "me" and what others say in responce to "me").
I've thought about this from the perspective of Narcissistic Personality Disorder for some time, but I am thinking that this is not quite the right angle. I think that there is more to the issue and viewing it from that perspective can change what we see.
While NPD was once considered a disorder it has now become so common in our society that it really is becoming the new normal. Quite sad if you ask me.
However to me its not the only explanation of the problem (as I see it).
Changing perspective (to use another metaphor: turning something over in your mind) can reveal that something we saw as being a rectangle and others saw as a circle can reveal that what we are looking at is actually a cylinder.
Equally I think that NPD is simply one aspect of the ME focus. Perhaps it is limited in view because the problem is more complex than anything earlier humans had to solve.
I spent some years living in Japan and South Korea, where the social values are quite different. There (and perhaps more commonly throughout Asia) people are more raised to be thoughtful of society rather than of themselves. Of course this is changing with the 'young generation' (who all seem to be living at home with their parents and spending heaps of time on social media too). See my post on the Rat Race ... its a different tangent. None the less Asian cultures have a different psychology to Western cultures, where the individual has always been more important.
Western Society is both constantly changing and constantly expanding its influence, perhaps even in a 'borg' like manner absorbing anything from other cultures that it finds interesting. This gives it the appearance of being more than it really is: but does wearing new clothes change who you are?
This whole "ME" thing is something I've been observing for some decades now, and to be honest I think its accelerating in growth. Perhaps like some cancers it can recruit and change people as it encounters them. So it does not just need people to be born into that 'generation'. Something like how Zombies recruit others to become Zombies by infecting them.
Finding the pathogen
I was quietly mulling this when the other day two things happened:- I got an email from my health insurance company
- I read an article on New Scientist called "Worried Sick"
In "Worried Sick" they discuss anxiety disorders. It seems that currently in the USA number of people diagnosed with anxiety is something like 20%. Personally I'd call that an epidemic. What is more interesting (and fitting the word epidemic) is the dramatic increase of the amounts of people with anxiety from about 2% in the 1980 to 20% now. If it continues to develop at this rate it will be like the spread of Zombies in World War Z
... and soon perhaps all but a few will not be effected.
Anecdotally I can say that my observation of this trend is pretty consistent with the above numbers.
First, something about my background.
As you can find on my blog I've had a type of heart problem which is called "Aortic Stenosis" (AS), more specifically mine is from being born with a Bicuspid Aortic Valve (BAV). When I was quite young a heart 'murmur' was picked up (like back in the early 70s). Some few years before this such a diagnosis was more or less a certain death sentence. However as I was born into a 'lucky time' there was hope for me. For I was born just 4 years after the first Aortic Valve replacement and so as I got older technology developed and when it became critical for me to have surgery such medical equipment was actually around.
Now from that perspective it is interesting to observe that when I was younger (and all this technology was both new and unknown) people were calm in discussion. I never saw open weeping or wailing, patients were quite matter of fact about it and family projected calm when being at hospital.
I don't know what everyone felt, but I know what I felt, I know what fellow patients felt and I had quite a few conversations with their families.
In contrast to that today I see people as howling wrecks with outbursts of tears an wailing.
People today say its all understandable. ... well from someone who went through that with others I say "BULLSHIT, no its not, its more like watching petulant children"
.
Getting back to the other symptoms of anxiety being epidemic in our society (and trying to find a cause) I come to this email I got from my medical insurance company.
The purpose is to wish me happy birthday (yeah, it was my birthday, so whats it to them?) The email reminds me that its all about me ... not my family, not society, not the world. Nope, its all about me.
How fascinating I am
How unique I am
How fantastic my life is
How Amazing my journey has been.
My first thought was "what the fuck is this shit all about". Next I thought well they wouldn't fucking know.
Its pretty clear that this is just designed to suck up to me. Like some disgusting sycophant would.
NB: sycophant: a person who praises people in order to get their approvalSuch communication just wouldn't come from a company when I was a kid, and perhaps would be laughed at too. However now it seems to be what everyone wants.
Like many things institutional, I reckon if you wish to try to understand things, follow the money trail.
Why would someone who I don't know suck up (in that above email example) to me like a hover? What benefit is it to them? Well basically they want my money. Since (in Australia) there is little to differentiate the insurance providers its all about 'perception' (not about reality). If they make customers feel good then they'll get more customers. Hell if it wasn't illegal I'd guess that any company offering free hand-jobs to clients who were waiting to make a claim would have a huge market share. Of course there would be the moral issue of who would do it?
It seems to me that the culprit for this epidemic in anxiety and the 'me' focus today is instituted by companies who seek your dollar. They have no morals (as they are not humans) and so by pandering to people's needs and desires (and then telling them its OK to need more and desire more) increase their market share.
After all its easier to give a perception than a product. Especially when perhaps I'm actually the raw materials from which they reap.
Somehow people seem to have become much like a budgie in a cage looking into a mirror and pecking that bell.
Facebook is exemplary in this, as it not only acts as an accelerant for the naturally NPD, but also assists with infecting you with some anxiety and leaverages off that.
Like the cartoon suggests, you may actually be the product not the customer.
Of course the vain and self absorbed will scoff at this because getting their daily dose of (as Andy Warhol so accurately identified) 15 minutes of fame is reall all that matters. I feel that its an extension of "if you see yourself on TV you've become famous", now you see yourself on your iPhone (and how much did you pay for that again?)
This behavior seems as addictive as many other chemicals are. Recall that its well established that just as some addictive chemicals are found in foods (like Fructose or Nicotine) and others come from internally (such as endorphins) and their productions can be stimulated from behaviors such as exercise (such as addiction to marathon running and over training)
I started my education life in biology (microbiology and biochemistry) and the study of life that is not visible to the eye (fungi, bacteria, viruses...). The study of these things has brought great benefit to our society. I have written a few things about "The Machine" and how it is an invisible cognizant entity which has grown from our scale of society.
Vitiant artus ægræ contagia mentis - when the mind is ill at ease, the body is in a certain degree affected
Getting back to the New Scientist, in that article one sufferer of anxiety reported:
despite trying 20 different therapies and 28 different anti-anxiety drugs, none of which gave lasting relief. ... Stossel first describes what severe anxiety is like: in his case, it is an obsessive fear of vomiting, coupled with uncertain bowel control, crippling social anxiety and panic attacksIt seems pretty clear to me that someone is profiting from this epidemic of Anxiety.
So I believe we have a new pathogen that spreads various diseases of the mind, this one infects individuals to break up social patterns and shift the benefits to itself. This isn't a new concept really, many people have tried to present this idea in various manners over time, including by fiction.
So are we nudged into becoming more 'anxiety suffering narcissists' simply to make us fit into the needs of The Machine better? Recall that humans irritate oysters deliberately to get pearls... It has been suggested (and in some case demonstrated) that plants exploit animals to get what they want, if the construct of "The Machine" does in fact 'live' then perhaps it is only a natural evolution to entrap its cells more tightly.
I view what ultimately its in your mind so therefore its within your minds power to control it. This is not a 'diss' as you should not underestimate your own power. Even if you don't believe in "the power of the mind" there is good medical evidence to suggest that the mind and your attitude towards things can have a massive impact.
Placebo effect is a good demonstration of this.
Archie Cochrane suggested in 1972[7] "It is important to distinguish the very respectable, conscious use of placebos. The effect of placebos has been shown by randomized controlled trials to be very large. Their use in the correct place is to be encouraged […]"Ultimately the ball is in your court: be controlled, take control of your life ... only you will benefit, its up to you if you wish to stay inside the control of external forces or take your life in your own hands.
I wish you well on your journey.
Monday, 28 May 2012
the fine print
Terms and conditions on Android (and iPhone) software often reminds me of the sort of thing I'd only want to install on a device where I could quarantine it in a virtual machine.
Recently there is talk of a Facebook phone ... makes me shudder. Like tonight I was about to click on a link a friend had posted and it took me to this:
Reading what I have to accept was a bit of a surprise:
This app may post on your behalf, including posts you voted on, answers you voted on and more.Bloody what? As if its not bad enough that I give it permission to post as if it was me (hello!) what the hell is and more?
I reckon when the Facebook phones come out it won't even trouble you with these sorts of things, it'll just do it for you.
And people want to have a phone from these guys? As a herd, people are just amazingly stupid.
Wonder how long it'll be before things like Pizza start turning up at your door because your phone and Dominos is in kahoots and reckons (based on your GPS data) you haven't eaten yet and they have some specials to flog you.
Science Fiction has written about this sort of thing since I can recall, and of course dramatises it to make the entire thing have more audience appeal.
The reality is that its what you can't see that is getting into our systems and like they say... resistance is futile.
gotta tell ya, they're not taking me that easy, and certainly not with my permission.
pah, more reasons to keep my older Nokia.
Friday, 23 September 2011
its life Jim but not as we know it
summary
In this post I will argue why we should consider large bureaucracy and corporation as actually living things. They are not actually made of the same stuff that we are familiar with living things being made of, but they are none the less alive. I think its important to understand these creatures, grasp how they perceive the world and perhaps then we can begin understand their cognition.
introduction
I have often argued that people are unable to comprehend what they can't see. We build a variety of tools to enable us to see into things which are beyond our ability for observation in part to allow us to see and understand more.
Microscopes are a good example of this principle. Before we were able to observe the microscopic we had no idea what were bacteria or how much of what modern medicine is built upon worked or that it even existed.
In my blog I occasionally make reference to a concept that I call "The Machine". In this article I will attempt to explain what this concept is. The Machine is not just a mechanism, The Machine is actually a kind of living organism but one which certainly not entirely organic and transcends a couple of layers of conceptuality. This is what makes the concept difficult to grasp and for many it will seem just some sort of fancy.
So what is a living thing? Seems at first like an easy task to identify that which is living and that which is not. I would like to venture a definition; I think that anything which can:
- make an observable change on the world
- reproduce
- make a decision
- die
How often have you heard some politician or company director or person employed in some role in a company, say
"I didn't want to do it, but I had no other choice in my role"Quite often I'm sure.
People have struggled for as long as we have written records (and probably longer) to understand what is it that makes a person or an animal alive. The various sciences have grappled with the question and we have uncovered many things about the nature of the bodies of living things to expand our understandings. While we understand much about biology, biochemistry, anatomy and even the electro-chemistry of nerves we just don't know why people are alive or why they die.
In this essay I would like to turn the question around, instead of looking at us I'd like to look at things outside of us, things we can't see but yet like the common cold know exists. We often call them systems.
Lets start with a system called Government.
Once upon a time in history we were manged in less complex groups and had a person who was our leader. We might call this person a King. Eventually the area of power under the control of a King grew too large and he called upon others to administer his authority for him.
This can become so large as to overwhelm the King and others in the system that the King has created. Eventually those who the King gave power to realise that they command more power than the King. So when something occurs to give them reason they can challenge his authority and even wrest power from the King.
Since I'm Australian and since Australian government derives its existence from the English government I thought I'd examine the this history (not because its special in any particular way).
In 1215 members of the King of Englands system Barons rebelled against him and forced him to sign the Magna Carta. This essentially took power from him and imposed a codified system of written ideas called laws.
These laws removed his power to act in any way that he wished and imposed upon him punishments (punishments upon the King!) if he resisted these laws.
a committee of 25 barons who could at any time meet and overrule the will of the King if he defied the provisions of the Charter, seizing his castles and possessions if it was considered necessary(wikipedia).So for the first time in English history the King, the person who ruled the land according to his will, was subjugated to rules written on paper.
I would guess at this point that some are saying: But these are just rules, just writing, they are not living, they are not something which can constitute as a living thing.
This is true, they are just a set of rules. But then so too are all the chemical reactions which define how our bodies work. These rules of chemistry and physics can also be used and manipulated to effect us and our thinking. Anti depressant drugs are a good example of this.
Lets consider a system with some very simple rules. Imagine a checker board for a game, but one which only has white squares. The rules of our game are simple,
- if a checker exists on our board then that square is "alive" and if no checker is on a square then that is "dead"
- Any live square with fewer than two live neighbours dies, as if caused by under-population.
- Any live square with two or three live neighbours lives on to the next generation.
- Any live square with more than three live neighbours dies, as if by overcrowding.
- Any dead square with exactly three live neighbours becomes a live square.
This is essentially the rules of the game called Life by John Conway. It seems very simple, just a set of rules or laws governing what happens to the checkers. It also defines a method of spawning new life and a circumstance where death occurs.
The graphic at left is an example of stepping though these rules and showing how this "thing" moves across the board in a simple movement behavior. Sure, its not living, perhaps its not even real ... but then when you look at the biochemistry of just one part of your body (say insulin production) that doesn't look alive either.
The same set of rules with enough pieces to act upon can make amazing things. For example:
this combination of rules and its effect on the pieces creates a system which is self perpetuating and grows forever.
It is in fact exactly that when you look at it from an engineering or scientific perspective. The engine is a collection of the rules of thermodynamics, chemistry and physics.
By applying these rules (collecting things together in the correct manner) we can create a machine.
Since the advent of computers it becomes perhaps easier to understand that a system can in fact be just a collection of rules, after all programing languages are actually just descriptions of what to do and what decisions to make.
Clearly computer programs require computers to operate them and equally our government system requires humans to execute the instructions and do the tasks.
So people have become the base hardware for the machine which we run and execute.
If this sounds like something out of the matrix, or something out of fiction which could not be possible; ask yourself this question:
Can you imagine a person doing something that that don't want to do but have to do it because its their job and that they are compelled to do this by law?
so what about reproduction?
Eventually some years later these colonies consider unification and the creation of a new governing body; the Federal Government was spawned in 1901.
When it comes to rules for the system to have complex morphology have a look at the list of legislations below, each one of them being far more complex in nature than the simple 5 rules which defined the operation of the "Life" simulation above.
If Government is a living thing then clearly Government is a very complex living thing.
It is not however only Governments which can be considered as living things. Companies too (especially under corporate law) are legal entities; they hold property, employ people, and make decisions.
So it would seem that we already have in our midst an organism which lives, yet does not breath and can not be easily touched. It shapes our lives and controls us in ways which expand with the rules which it creates.
If you doubt this then consider this article in a UK news paper where a child is accused of being racist by calling a boy ‘broccoli head’ and another was said to be homophobic for telling a teacher ‘this work is gay’. The article goes on to mention:
Schools are forced to report the language to education authorities, which keep a register of incidents.
and that
In total, 34,000 nursery, primary and secondary pupils were effectively classed as bigots because of anti-bullying rules.
The school can keep the pupil’s name and ‘crime’ on file. The record can be passed from primaries to secondaries or when a pupil moves between schools.
And if schools are asked for a pupil reference by a future employer or a university, the record could be used as the basis for it, meaning the pettiest of incidents has the potential to blight a child for life.
This does not sound like the sort of reaction a human would have on how to treat their kids but yet this is the reaction that the machine has for sorting us out.
What about this?
Arthur Mills, a fellow of the Royal Australasian College of Dental Surgeons, is accused of causing serious burns to the faces of two patients and superficial burns to another after a drill he was using overheated.
At least one of the incidents was referred to the Dental Council, which upheld the complaint about the burning.
It makes these findings in only 2 per cent of cases but still recorded no reprimands on his registration. He practises with no warning to the public.
It sounds more like a system protecting its component parts rather than something designed to look after humans.
I believe that there are far more examples and comparisons I could make to support my argument that Government and Corporations are actually living things, but rather than do that I'll leave you with a couple questions.
How do you negociate with such a machine?
Will it listen to you?
and can it be directed by human will?
holding the system responsible or even punishment of the system
If we decide that we don't like the party in control of government and we vote them out, does that change the machinery of government or just put it on a different PC?
As it stands at the moment we have very little understanding of this life form. We as yet are perhaps uncertain that it is a living thing, but make no mistake this thing can control our lives, alter the environment and exert influence.
The simple rule based system above called 'life' created stuff not so much different to observing bacteria growth, look again at the list of rules below which form our Acts of Law in Australia and tell me that does not form the basis for even more complex interactions. Combined with the execution on the human computing platform I think its almost certain we have something alive here.
*List of Australian Commonwealth acts (and don't forget the State legislations either!):
* 1901 - Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (No 2 of 1901) * 1901 - Customs Act 1901 (No 6 of 1901) * 1901 - Excise Act 1901 (No 9 of 1901) * 1901 - Pacific Island Labourers Act (No 16 of 1901) * 1901 - Immigration Restriction Act 1901 (No 17 of 1901) * 1902 - Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 (No 8 of 1902) * 1903 - Judiciary Act 1903 (No 6 of 1903) * 1903 - Defence Act 1903 (No 20 of 1903) * 1904 - Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (No 13 of 1904) * 1906 - Designs Act 1906 (No 4 of 1906) * 1908 - Quarantine Act 1908 (No 3 of 1908) * 1914 - Crimes Act 1914 (No 12 of 1914) * 1918 - Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (No 27 of 1918) * 1928 - Transport Workers Act 1928 (No 37 of 1928) * 1938 - Passports Act 1938 (No 15 of 1938) * 1942 - Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 (No 56 of 1942) * 1948 - Australian Citizenship Act 1948 (No 83 of 1948) * 1958 - Migration Act 1958 (No 62 of 1958) * 1959 - Banking Act 1959 (No 6 of 1959) * 1960 - National Measurements Act 1960 (137 of 2008) [1] * 1961 - Marriage Act 1961 (No 12 of 1961) * 1968 - Copyright Act 1968 (No 63 of 1968) * 1973 - Insurance Act 1973 (No 76 of 1973) * 1973 - Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973 (No 161 of 1973) * 1974 - Trade Practices Act 1974 (No 51 of 1974) * 1975 - Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (No 52 of 1975) * 1975 - Family Law Act 1975 (No 53 of 1975) * 1976 - Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (No 156 of 1976) * 1976 - Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976 (No 191 of 1976) * 1980 - Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act 1980 (No 156 of 1980) * 1982 - Freedom of Information Act 1982 (No 3 of 1982) * 1982 - Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Act 1982 (No. 119 of 1982) * 1984 - Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (No 4 of 1984) * 1986 - Income Tax Act 1986 (No 108 of 1986) * 1986 - Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (No 125 of 1986) * 1986 - Australia Act 1986 (No 142 of 1986) * 1988 - Extradition Act 1988 (No 4 of 1988) * 1988 - Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 (No 64 of 1988) * 1988 - Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 (No 106 of 1988) * 1988 - Privacy Act 1988 (No 119 of 1988) * 1988 - Higher Education Funding Act 1988 (No 2 of 1989) * 1989 - Lands Acquisition Act 1989 (No 15 of 1989) * 1990 - Patents Act 1990 (No 83 of 1990) * 1991 - Social Security Act 1991 (No 46 of 1991) * 1992 - Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (No 135 of 1992) * 1992 - Radiocommunications Act 1992 (No 174 of 1992) * 1993 - Native Title Act 1993 (No 110 of 1993) * 1996 - Workplace Relations Act 1996 (No 60 of 1996) * 1997 - Telecommunications Act 1997 (No 47 of 1997) * 1997 - Euthanasia Laws Act 1997 (No 17 of 1997) * 1998 - Charter of Budget Honesty Act 1998 (No 22 of 1998) * 1998 - Native Title Amendment Act 1998 (No 97 of 1998) * 1999 - Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (No 193 of 1999) * 2001 - Corporations Act 2001 (No 50 of 2001) * 2001 - Intelligence Services Act 2001 (No 152 of 2001) * 2003 - Intelligence Services Amendment Act 2004 (No 57 of 2004) * 2004 - Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Act 2004 (No 103 of 2004) * 2004 - Australian anti-terrorism legislation, 2004, incorporating: o 2004 - Anti-terrorism Act 2004 (No 104 of 2004) o 2004 - Anti-terrorism Act (No 2) 2004 (No 124 of 2004) o 2004 - Anti-terrorism Act (No 3) 2004 (No 125 of 2004) * 2005 - Anti-Terrorism Act 2005 (No 127 of 2005) * 2005 - Repealed Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005 (No 153 of 2005) - (Repealed by Parliament, 2008). * 2009 - Fair Work Act 2009 (28 of 2009) [2] (Passed as Replacement to repealed Act No 153 of 2005)
Saturday, 17 September 2011
weaklings

My wife is not anything like Arnold (weighing about 60Kg or about 130Lbs) and as you can see here carries it without the need of a "team lift"
Add to this the mania of "workplace health and safety" mandating in many of our workplaces you can't pick up anything more than 10kg and its only further tipping the scales of us being less likely to do ANY activity in our daily lives which may lead to developing or maintaining your fitness.
Sometimes I find myself hearing my grandfathers words come out of my mouth.
Poppa was a grazier and worked on properties all his life. He was a tough wiry sort of fella who loved to play tennis and work on his garden. I don't recall him saying this particular thing, but I'm sure he had his ideas about what was making us too soft back when he was telling me to stop being so lazy. He was a man who wasn't afraid to walk 2Km into town to get groceries, or haul something around by hand.
Meanwhile today everyone starts up their car to drive 2Km into the shops and then spends another 5min trying to get a park and fuming at all the other cars. People pay money to go to the gym where they ride stationary bicycles and think I'm crazy for riding a bicycle to work.
The entire occupational "work place health and safety" nutjob we've foisted upon ourselves sees a consolidation of this thinking with the local wine shop having more and more cartons of wine being boxed in 6 rather than 12 ... because 12 would be too heavy to lift. The machine of government is doing a good job in subjugating us and making us weaker.
While the intention is to protect us, I'm sure this can only have a negative impact on our health and fitness as people.
Sunday, 4 September 2011
The Kindle Surprise
It has a little toy inside which is the surpirse...
The Kindle surprise is when Amazon takes the excellent Kindle e-book reader with its great easy to read eInk display and fucks it over into yet another version of the iPad.
But this will be no iPad beater, as it looks to be dumbed down on price and use older versions of the Android OS.
So they'll loose full daylight reading, loose high battery life and loose what differentiates them in the market.
IDIOTS
What makes this worse is I am just about to buy a Kindle 3G because I love the screen so much for reading ebooks. Looks like I better go get my dodo before Kindle manage to kill it off.
This is so typical of consumerisation, where a good product gets killed by exposure to non savvy markets and then the savvy who steered the sheep to it abandon the product.
Friday, 18 June 2010
the Great Australian Sickie
Agencies are asked to provide a maximum of one candidate, which has been personally interviewed. The efforts of agencies to comply with this request will be noted gratefully.note the use of the word resource there ... not contractor, not person ... resource.
The following information should be provided as part of the quotation:
- Application addressing the Key Selection Criteria (above)
- Resume of the proposed resource
- Hourly/daily rate for the proposed resource
- Indication of earliest possible start date
With this in mind (from the night before) I read this article in the Australian which goes into descriptions of how the sickie is costing companies "$30 billion in lost productivity for the economy a year from casual and genuine sickies"
Heaven forbid we take genuine sick leave. The article wastes no time in suggesting:
“It seems to be getting worse,” says Paul Dundon, CEO of DHS, one of the growing number of companies set up to help employers manage absenteeism in the workforce.
Interesting, companies set up to manage absenteeism ... so now the machine is employing the equivalent of Lymphocytes to weed out this infection of productivity within the system.
Paul goes on to suggest that:
His latest research has found Australians now take off an average of 9.3 sick days each year, a 7.9 per cent rise from two years ago. That compares poorly with the UK’s average seven days and the US’s six.So, we compare poorly with the USA or UK ... why them? I wonder about how we compare to other developed world nations ... perhaps in the EU?
Has anyone here ever heard of what a meat grinder it is to work in the USA or that Australian productivity was higher than the USA??
Perhaps there is a reason productivity is higher here ... we were already working happier, and perhaps working smarter?
Anecdotally there is plenty of evidence that this "pressure" to be productive is not working, as I'm sure we've all seen stuff in emails which shows the amount of discontent over this situation.

This is not a new theme in culture as even Australian movies such as Spotswood are based in the critique of this, and expresses the difficulties of marrying scientific management principles to an actual community of people.
Yet strangely this seems be not understood by management? The article above has a wonderful quote in it from a Peter Gleeson (executive general manager of recruitment):
The reasons for the rise in absenteeism, as well as companies becoming less vigilant about checking up on workers, include employees being burnt out by heavier workloads shouldered during the financial crisis. “Many don’t have the same loyalty to their organisation as they did when times were tough,”
Perhaps when he refers to tough times he means when it was a sellers market on the jobs market ... meaning it was tough for the companies to find staff.
When times were tough to staff in the most recent GFC I don't recall loyalty being mentioned when it was time to sack people. I personally have lived and worked through at least 2 boom and bust cycles where it has gone from being bloody hard to get a job to jobs are available. One thing I noticed in this experience is that when the market favors employees that companies are tying to get you to believe in them, believe in loyalty ... work towards building a better place. When the shoe is on the other foot however you find no such lamentations of loyalty when they're sacking or laying off. (unlike the company owner in Spotswood ... its a good flick, but clearly a fiction)
Perhaps its time that a little ethics entered the programming of the machine?
I seriously wonder who this article is aimed at ... its surely not the workers. Perhaps its aimed at small business ... however they are the ones who normally have the biggest problems in affording staff and have other issues. All the examples mentioned in the article are not small business, so it must be either "patting themselves on the back and convincing their other mates its all OK" or some lame attempt to appeal to the workers (who are getting screwed often enough with iterative productivity pushes, work smarter, how can we save money, do more with less and please take more overtime requests).
The last line from this apparent stream of pro business propaganda is this perl:
“If people are off work for long spells, it can then be hard to get back to work,” Mary Wyatt, chair of the AFOEM’s policy and advisory committee, says. “If they take 20 days off, the chances of going back to work are just 70 per cent. Seventy days off and they’re down to just 35 per cent. And the health consequences of being off work for long periods are up there with smoking and work in dangerous industries like oil and forestry.”
In case you're wondering, the AFOEM seems to represent the Australasian Faculty of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.
I can only hope that Mary is a "full blown - away with the pixies - out of touch academic", because what she is saying is that if you are off work for as little as 2 months you have a 35% chance of getting a job again. Looking at the figures she presents you drop from 70% chance of going back to work after 20 days to 35% after 70 ... this trend suggests if you're away from work a year you'll never get a job (with chances of going back to work falling to zero %).
If this is true, then its nearly a national responsibility for companies to never sack a worker ... as they would never again be able to return to work.
Having spent 2 years unemployed and actively looking for a job in Finland I can say that if she thinks people want to remain unemployed then she's way out of touch with reality. Not being able to speak Finnish made getting a job very difficult for me in Finland, but that did not stop me trying. When I did get a job (a technically demanding position in a reasonably high profile organization) I was not only pleased, not only put in great efforts but performed so well as to exceed my employers expectations.
So either I'm a statistical outlier or the people above are full of 5hit!
With people like them forming the eyes and ears of the organisational machine it seems almost inevitable we have these boom and bust cycles which are only bad for the community and in the long run bad for business.
So the remaining question is ... how do we solve this problem?
Sunday, 9 May 2010
fiddler in the post: a serious violation of trust
The postal system is exactly one such thing. In this blog article I examine how what appears to be just rough postal handling is perhaps a disguise for the opening and pilfering of contents of my packages. The evidence is quite compelling. Naturally I am also taking this up with Australia Post and I will post updates of this as they come to hand. This blog post also serves for me to document my experiences while the memory is fresh and I am certain of what I found.
When I left Finland I posted back to my home many boxes of stuff, as a quick cost analysis showed that without "connections" in shipping it was economic (if still expensive) to use the postal system.
I packed all items well, wrapping most extensively in bubble wrap and some in camping mattress foam then bubble wrap.
When the first of my boxes arrived I was quite shocked to see how badly they had traveled. For example:
I was quite saddened that my boxes were carried so badly and at the same time worried about what else (more fragile) would be destroyed (such as our wedding champagne flutes, which were indeed destroyed).
Of course these boxes have come an uncertain route from Finland to Australia, so I could not have been certain as to exactly where the rough handling happened, but clearly this box was patched up by Australia Post.
I was at first thinking that some Aust Post worker had found the box gaping or torn and had patched it for me ... for which I was grateful.
However as I unpacked one of the more beaten examples I discovered this:
If you can't for some reason watch that video, I have found another postal item packed inside my item.
and here is that postal item in a little more detail.
Exactly how does an item posted from Finland back in early April end up containing an item that was posted in Ipswich Auatralia in late April?
Its also interesting that the other persons package was also opened and did not contain his contents (it contained some other items).
So at this point we have:
- at least this package of mine opened unofficially and searched as well as having items it contained destroyed (and perhaps something missing, we are still assessing this)
- another party's postal item, from Ipswich, opened unofficially and his items stolen
- the items of yet another (third) persons materials poked into the tube of the above mentioned party from Ipswich.
The sender of the postal tube tells me he sent this from Ipswich and the destination was Nerang.
So now I'm quite confident that the damage occurred in Australia. In fact some of the barcodes placed on the item for tracking in Australia (at point of entry in Melbourne) were so scuffed and abraded that the postal worker at my post office was unable to read them with his bar code scanner. As all of the boxes are like this its further evidence that the bashing took place in Australia.
However I suspect strongly that the damage was deliberate, done to mask what would be obvious signs of intrusion and searching on otherwise well presented boxes. I know that I packed things in these boxes carefully and used the shapes of objects to make a nice tight jigsaw puzzle holding the interior together.
This also allows a bit of cross referencing of the likely points of meeting of the two items and as I'm in Brisbane, it must be around this area where the fiddler is.
After the shock of this revaluation I began examining my other boxes more carefully. This box (which I had re-sealed to allow me to carry it)
With the light of the above revelations I noticed that this box shows a very tidy hand hole in the box to allow someone to grope around inside the box.
There is an interesting "fold" in the box there, indicating its been dropped heavily on that end. I don't believe this hole is anything other than man made.
Now sadly since this occurrence I've been doing some Google searching and I find that this is not a rare or unique occurrence.
Further (unlike one cockheads reply to this youtube post) this is neither something we should learn to live with or something we should tolerate. It is infact a criminal offense with a 5 year jail term.
Compared to the postal service of Finland the Australia post service is pathetic. In Finland any damage or resealing is identified on the post item and even where it happened is notice. They seem to offer a trustworthy and honest service.
Now Australians would be quick to ridicule third world ex-soviet and developing countries as being exactly the sort of places you would not want to send anything by post which was valuable or delicate because "you could be sure it will be pilfered" along the way.
Well it is seeming to me that Australia is now falling into that category. A quick Google on this topic will show many many more issues.
Folks, this is rapidly heading to be something which I feel warrants as much of an enquiry as the corruption in the Police has warranted.
More to follow...
Thursday, 7 January 2010
prime ministers and books
Kevin Rudd is our present prime minister, and I think that it goes without saying that he is a formidable debater with a keen eye for detail. However I genuinely feel that he lacks the sort of "stuff" of which Paul Keating was made.
Perhaps he does know quite a lot about China, but knowing and having experience in something is not quite the same as being respected by the leadership of those places.
I read today that Kevin is writing a book ... Paul wrote a book too.
Paul wrote a book called "Engagement: Australia Faces the Asia-Pacific" while the title of Kevin's book is yet unkown that its a"kiddies' adventure story about the PM's cat and dog will be published this month."
Paul publishes the first chapter of this book on his website here. I encourage you to give it a read.
I personally think this underscores the difference between politicians and politics between the 90's and now.
I was in Japan in the time after Keating, so I knew first hand what his influence was. At that time I was more or less still naive about politics (both Australian and International) but it didn't take me long to comprehend there was more behind the man than calling protesting students "Scumbags" and talking about "the recession we had to have".
I fear we are moving into an age of "democracy" where our "leadership" are little more than professional poll and voter mood watchers. Few seem to have ideals which they make public.
When was the last time you voted for someone who you really felt represented you?
So now I think the time has come for us to look closely at the machinery of government and legislation and get that legislation more in line with our community and its needs. The legislation is the "source code" for the machine of Government and the politicans are simply the agents who execute that code.
I think we should all get involved in a code review.
Monday, 5 October 2009
measuring bullshit
CLAIMS that cattle and sheep are responsible for 10.9 per cent of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions have been called into question after scientists discovered considerable variation in the amount of methane produced by individual animals.
right ... but we're not talking about cars here, we're talking about our food. Seriously government bodies can live without food but isn't the health of people who make up the system more important? The system seems not to think so.
Perhaps if we just ate 20% less meat (might be good for us) we could make a bigger per captia reduction?
An earlier study by University of Melbourne researchers found methane emissions varied from 146g an animal a day in a Victorian feedlot to 166g an animal a day in Queensland.well, if you look at the feedlot issues in the USA (corn fed beef) I think there is more at issue here than managing numbers. Health issues of what our food does to us seems to be left out of the picture here, and meeting 'target numbers' is paramount.
sheesh
does the machine make a good parent?
The article sounds really bad with stolen firearms, sounds like some kind of US gangland stuff, I'm sure htat to someone who has grown up and only lives in the city this may be hard to comprehend but examining the article a little further a picture emerges of just some naughty boys who probably just needed their asses kicked by their dad ... should they have had a responsible father figure.A 13-year-old boy has been charged after an 11-year-old boy was shot in the leg with a stolen firearm.
So essentially 4 kids (probably bored) broke into somes house (probably not locked) and pinched some guns to most likely shoot at road signs and peoples water tanks. Definitely this is wrong behavior and without a doubt needs to be dealt with ... but remember these are kids, so why is the "machine" of the law dealing with them as if they are adults...Police say four teenage boys broke into a property at Coolagolite, near Cobargo, on the New South Wales south coast, some time between Friday and Sunday.
They allegedly took four firearms and ammunition from a gun safe and fired them while at the property. The 11-year-old was wounded while the boys were shooting yesterday. He was taken to Bega Hospital and later flown to Canberra, where he is in a stable condition after further treatment to the entry and exit wounds in his leg.
Seriously, do they even understand the words? Why is there no mention of parental responsiblity here? Surely the parents are responsible? Well perhaps not ... the machine is taking away our rights as parents making control or disciplin of children a vexed issue. I don't have any answers for this (certainly not in this blog) but I'll leave you with a question: are we moving in the right direction? I think not, because one thing is sure about Governments, noone thinks of them as efficient or compassionate. Both things which kids need. Now if you don't have kids of your own this still effects you if you're a taxpayer. Why? well ... from another article ...A 13-year-old boy has been charged with reckless wounding, aggravated breaking, entering and stealing, and possessing and using a firearm. A 17-year-old boy and a 12-year-old boy have each been charged with aggravated breaking, entering and stealing, and possessing and using a firearm.
All three have been granted bail to appear at Bega Childrens Court on October 27.
WESTERN Australia's juvenile justice system is in crisis and desperately needs more resources to reduce the number of children being detained, according to the head of the state's children's court.So, as soon as we shift the burden of and responsibility for child rearing away from the parents we must put it in the hands of Government. Have you ever dealt with anyone who was a "ward of the state" ... Tough question, but we need to start thinking about and talking about this in a meaningful way in our society or we'll be heading for another Brave New World. Remember ... with rights also comes responsibility, we seem to be ditching on one and wondering why the other is being eroded.
Thursday, 9 October 2008
The Machine
If you've ever read The "BIOLOGY OF COGNITION" by Humberto R. Maturana you might be more comfortable with the idea that evry organisation is perhaps also a kind of living thing, an organizational organism.
Since the organism does not really exist (only its rules and governance policies), we tend to see only the people themselves who form the substance of the machine. Yet these people (while in their roles, following the rules which are its stuff) are not only doing the work of the algorithm that defines The Machine they are also giving it an ability to interact with the world (our world) and function.
Normally people are oblivious of this fact, but occasionally "things happen" which bring it to your attention. You might have had a clerical error in an accounting system in a large organisation or had a moderator remove your post from a list. If you don't think of it in these terms its easy to get confused and think that some person is causing you trouble. After all, we're all people, we're used to dealing with people, and its a person we see who is representing the organization. A good example of this is brought up in the documentary "the Corporation" (if you have not seen it I recommend it).
A classic example of this is Terry Gilliams movie "Brazil", in which the 'hero' finds himself fighting against people who are just regular policemen and civil servants carrying out their duty dispassionately, and unaware of why it is that anything is wrong.
So when problems occur, the people who are parts of the machine appear to take a contrary stance to another person. Their personal reactions cause them to feel uneasy in being contrary to another person (whom they often don't know) and so they react defensively by "sticking to the rules" (which compounds the situation).
Conciliation and compassion go by the way and we find that previously smiling neighbours can become our hated enemy. At times like this its hard to maintain composure and not feel something against that person who (now) represents the organizational organism and not just a person we know.
I believe that the root of the problem is that the organisational organizations need to learn how to structure themselves to allow their people to be people and perhaps we'll get along better.
PS: I just found (March 2018) that a quote from a book I read many years ago may have indeed spawned this theory:
“A government is a living organism. Like every living thing its prime characteristic is a blind, unreasoned instinct to survive. You hit it, it will fight back.”
– Ben Caxton (Robert A. Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land)
Same is true of sufficiently large corporations. They are all living machines just running a program (their corporate system) like a cell runs the program of its biology. Further reading on that topic in my article Its life Jim but now as we know it.