What does it mean?

The first definition for 'meteoric' provided by the Oxford American Dictionary, unsurprisingly, is:

of or relating to meteors or meteorites.

It then goes on to define 'meteor' as:

a small body of matter from outer space that enters the earth's atmosphere, becoming incandescent as a result of friction and appearing as a streak of light.

That's all well and good and sounds very fancy, especially the bit about the streak of light. But we all know what happens to a meteor. Either it burns up entirely in the atmosphere or it becomes a 'meteorite', for which the definition is decidedly less exciting:

a meteor that survives its passage through the earth's atmosphere such that part of it strikes the ground. More than 90 percent of meteorites are of rock, while the remainder consist wholly or partly of iron and nickel.

The word 'meteoric' is used most often to describe someone's career. Taken at face value, that would appear to mean it hurtles very fast towards the earth and either burns up before it gets there or hits the ground with a big thud. Yet the writer usually intends its meaning to be quite the opposite.

Most dictionaries do take care to note the figurative meaning, where 'meteoric' by consensus appears to be synonymous with 'rapid'. Indeed, a thesaurus search for 'meteoric' will suggest several similar words such as 'lightning', 'swift' and 'speedy'.

But any of those words fail to specify a direction. The default direction of a meteor is earthwards. Can you have a rapid career? That would suggest it's over quickly. So would lightning, swift and speedy.

It simply makes no sense to say someone has a meteoric career unless you mean it burnt up, hit the ground at great speed or was over in a flash. But below are just a few examples of the phrase as it's used regularly by writers in various publications. Click on an image to see the example in its original context.

The last one is my personal favourite because it's from a career coaching company which proudly promises people a 'meteoric career path'.

On the other hand, you can say someone has had a meteoric rise. Indeed, that is what is usually said. But it's still a little strange. When was the last time you saw a meteor rise?

Perhaps the lesson in all this is that if you're a writer looking for a meteoric career rise, then maybe you should keep your writing down to earth.

The Watch Your Language series is a tongue-in-cheek look at the way we have with words.

Click here to read my guest post at Somebody Think Of The Children...

25 Men Who Look Like Old Lesbians

This is one of the most hilarious things I have ever seen. It is so, so wrong. Thanks Jason!

Live Puppy Cam

Someone has a live webcam running of a bunch of puppies in a pet shop. You can log in whenever you want and see what they're up to - right now. SO CUTE!

A Beagle Escapes!

This dog's owners wondered how he kept escaping every day while they were out, so they decided to set up a camera and see for themselves. This is quite a determined beagle...

The Vet Who Did Not Vet

The election's over now, but this video is definitely still worth watching. The guy from Blue's Clues narrates a Dr Seuss style rhyme about John McCain and Sarah Palin. Very well done.

A Penguin Escapes

If you thought the beagle was clever, watch this penguin escape from a pod of hungry killer whales.

If you think we will defeat internet filtering just by being right or just because the facts are on our side - think again. This is politics. If we don't get properly organised with a clear and consistent message that reaches the people who need to hear it - we WILL lose.

Stop calling it the 'clean feed'!

To defeat internet filtering, you have to think politically. First off - stop referring to it as the 'clean feed'. That's what the Government calls it. You know why they call their idea the clean feed? Because it makes people think the internet is dirty. Everyone knows the internet is full of porn, right? A clean feed? Sounds like a good idea to me!

Yes, I know that's rubbish and so do you. But we're not the ones who need to be convinced that internet censorship is a bad idea. Call it what it is - censorship. There are still people who think censorship is a good idea, but there are lot of people who don't know much about the internet and might be worried about it, but who are against censorship. We just gave them a reason to listen to us.

It's not about freedom of speech!

You want to know how to lose this fight? Make it about freedom of speech.

I care about freedom of speech and net neutrality as much as you do, but we're not the ones who need to be convinced that internet censorship is a bad idea. To people who think censorship is a good idea, people like us are a bunch of mad raving lefties who think everyone should be exposed to child pornography and bestiality. That is how we will be painted if we let them, and IT WILL WORK. There are more of them than us.

This is not America. There is no constitutional right to free speech in Australia. The supporters will ask what's wrong with censorship? We censor movies, TV shows and video games and nobody complains - except those raving lefties of course but they would have us all playing Grand Theft Auto wouldn't they.

Don't make it about free speech. There are so many other things about internet censorship that make it easy to tear down. Free speech should be a closing argument, not the opening salvo.

Don't be smug

I can't say it any better than this guy does. Don't be smug and assume anyone who can't obviously see what a bad idea internet censorship is must be a rabid right-wing Christian fundamentalist, an idiot, or both. They may well be, or they may just be uninformed. Do you think calling people who are uninformed 'idiots' is going to endear them to your cause?

Many, many people think computers and technology are scary. They resent the digital world and how much it has encroached on their life. They resent that other people seem to know much more about it than they do, including their children. They want to protect their children. And because of that you're calling them an idiot? Fail.

Educate. Explain. Do it again and again no matter how boring it gets. Be patient, compassionate, and firm. You will appear knowledgeable and reassuring.

Burden of proof

The Government has said it's going to do this. At the moment, the burden of proof is on those who oppose it to make it clear WHY we oppose it. To those who support it or are undecided, at the moment we sound like smug, self-satisfied know-it-alls who like being superior in the world of the internet and are whinging at the thought of having someone take all our fun away. In the 'real world', it's obvious that a 'clean feed' is a good idea.

Doesn't it make you sick? It makes me angry. It makes me angrier when I see smart and caring people play right into their hands by getting hysterical about it all and making all the mistakes I've just mentioned.

We have the advantage of being right, and the facts are on our side. But that is only an advantage. It doesn't seal the deal. We have to get organised and put the burden of proof back on the Government and its supporters to explain why their plan is not an expensive and useless piece of populist junk.

How to win

I think there are four battle fronts we should be fighting on. Here they are in order.

1 - Why we don't need compulsory internet censorship

We need to talk to those who don't know much about the issue. We need to make it clear we care about a safe browsing experience, and that's why we think the Government's plan is a bad idea. It will do nothing to improve safety on the internet, there is a risk it could threaten safety and it will waste money that could be put to better use.

The Government can't make the internet completely safe, even if it wanted to. The best solution is to get street smart. Let's explain how to do that, what you need to know, what tools you can use and where you can go for more information.

By doing this, we are being mature, caring and helpful. Hard to paint that as hysterical. The Government will have to explain why its idea is better. Good luck with that.

We should use a campaign body to do this, set up a website, have a spokesperson and do interviews with media outlets, buy advertising and direct mail.

2 - Attack the Govt's proposal on technical grounds

The Government says it wants to make the internet safer. Will its plan actually succeed in doing this? Let's explain the many, many technical reasons why it won't in clear, concise talking points that invite people to argue the facts and which puts the burden of proof back on the Government to support its plan.

Mark Newton's 8-point list is a good place to start. Then, use these talking points to reiterate support Point 1 about how to enjoy a safe browsing experience.

3 - Attack the Govt's proposal on economic grounds

The Government has pledged to spend $125.8 million on the Cyber-Safety Plan. Not all of it will be spent on censoring the internet and some if it will likely be money well spent. But $40-odd million of public money to censor the internet is a lot of money for something that won't work. What would be a better use of that money?

Censoring the internet will cost ISPs money, especially dealing with confused/angry customers and chasing up false positives. That cost will be passed onto consumers and businesses. Censorship will slow the performance of the internet, which will hamper our progress in the global digital economy. The country will pay a big price for an idea that doesn't work to begin with.

Again, we need to avoid appearing hysterical and put the burden of proof back on the Government to explain why it wants to spend so much money on this even though it won't work and it has already been tried and dropped by the previous Government.

4 - It's un-Australian

Calling something un-Australian is a favourite weapon of the conservatives in the culture wars. Let's use it against the Government and supporters of censorship here.

Is Australia really a nanny state? Aren't we grown up enough to handle our day-to-day lives without the bureaucrats sticking their noses in and telling us how to care for our kids? Do we really want to throw our lot in with the likes of China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and North Korea? What does that say about us?

This is where the arguments for free speech come in. They are good, valid arguments which come across more powerfully after making the previous points. The Government must explain why it thinks foisting compulsory censorship onto everyone in the country is necessary.

It's the Senate, stupid!

Labor have the numbers to pass this bill in the House of Representatives. All they need are a handful of votes in the Senate to make it into law. Those votes could come from the Greens, Nick Xenophon the independent senator (who supports it!), Stephen Fielding of Family First (who loves it) or the Liberals/Nationals, who will be sniffing the wind with an eye to the next election.

Let's get real about this so it doesn't happen. We need to get organised. Educate the people who are sitting on the fence, attack the Government on technical and economic issues, force the burden of proof back onto them to defend their plan, protest to the Government and the Opposition and throw in the arguments about free speech as a final deal-breaker.

If we keep on going the way we are, we could lose. That scares the hell out of me. If anyone is serious about getting a campaign together, I will gladly get involved.

It's slow waiting for society to catch up with its most progressive citizens. My friend described it as 'glacial', but that's not the word I'd use. From an evolutionary standpoint, societal change actually happens pretty fast.

Following is a list of dates when various countries granted women the right to vote, which I am shamelessly ripping off from Richard Dawkins' well-researched and highly-readable book The God Delusion.

Women given the right to vote

• 1893 - New Zealand
• 1902 - Australia
• 1906 - Finland
• 1913 - Norway
• 1920 - United States
• 1928 - Britain
• 1945 - France
• 1946 - Belgium
• 1971 - Switzerland
• 2006 - Kuwait

As with anything, a bit of context is great for establishing perspective. The conversation we had was sparked by Barack Obama being elected president, and how much will really change because of it. I don't have time to start a discussion on that now, but I will post an essay on the subject when I have gathered my thoughts properly.

In the meantime, that list makes you think huh? I know folks who say people are people, some things never change and you can't change nature. I reckon that's bollocks. Change is nature.

What's the change in society you're waiting for? Leave a comment below.

"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances; ... if there is any reaction, both are transformed."
- Carl Gustav Jung

To me, this highlights the significance of the people we choose to be around.

The Art of Verbing

Believe it or not, verbing is an actual word. It refers to the creation of a verb from another word, usually an adjective or noun. In linguistics, the creation of new words from existing words in this way is called zero derivation.

In past times, you used Photoshop to edit an image. Now you simply Photoshop it. Instead of using Google to search for something, you Google it.

Verbing is a strange phenomenon, but it's not new. Remember when contact was a noun? Yeah, me neither. But it used to be that you would call someone to make contact. Now you just contact them. Some style manuals still insist that this isn't proper language, but apparently they didn't get the memo (or perhaps someone forgot to memo them).

The larger point, of course, is who has the authority to say what is proper language and what isn't? In an age where we are writing our own encyclopaedias and doing our own journalism, is proper language simply what is popularly accepted? Certainly lolcats have their own grammar and syntax, and woe betide the n00b who gets it wrong.

A verb by any other name

Verbing is widespread, but when it comes to any bastardisation of language, as usual, it's the marketing and middle-management types who are leading the charge.

Project managers used to give their projects the green light, now they greenlight them. A workshop used to be something you went to, now it's something you do. So is interfacing, leveraging, architecting, benchmarking, and of course, synergising.

In my opinion, people who get off on this sort of verbing simply prefer making 'action' words as a substitute to taking action, in an attempt to create meaning in an environment where there is none.

Nevertheless, verbing is enjoying an upward trend (it's trending upward), and perhaps that is simply a result of a society which increasingly values brevity in communication above all else.

To verb or not to verb

Is verbing a good or bad thing? I'm not sure that's the right question to ask. Whether it's good or bad...

Verbing is.

If you don't have a problem with the previous sentence, verbing is unlikely to matter much to you. In fact, you probably don't shitgive. If, on the other hand, parts of this post have made your eyes twitch and your brain want to ooze out your nose, verbing is likely to be a worrying trend.

For those who despair over verbing and all it represents, I think this quote says it best, in a tongue-in-cheek adaptation of the famous First They Came poem.

"First they came for the verbs, and I said nothing because verbing weirds language. Then they arrival for the nouns, and I speech nothing because I no verbs."
- Peter Ellis (some bloke posting on a Terry Pratchett fan group)

What are your thoughts on verbing? Comment below

"Before you embark on any path ask the question, does this path have a heart? If the answer is no, you will know it and then you must choose another path. The trouble is that nobody asks the question. And when a man finally realizes that he has taken a path without a heart the path is ready to kill him."
- Carlos Castaneda

• Establish and maintain a clear focus and purpose
• Build a loyal base of subscribers
• Raise my profile and reputation

Let's look at my progress towards these goals.

By the Numbers

I'm pleased to report another significant improvement in traffic to my site during October. I'm now averaging over 11 visits a day, up from 8 last month. Once again, in terms of internet traffic generally these figures are statistically zero, but so long as my traffic keeps growing I'm happy, no matter by how much or how little.

Once again, the proportion of first-time visitors to the site has increased, as has the amount of time spent on the site. Most of these metrics seem to fluctuate a fair bit from month to month, but I'm starting to see some trends develop. By the time I get to 12 months of blogging I'll be able to set some traffic and statistics goals.

Visits originating from other websites accounted for over 50% of the visits in October. Of those visits, most are still coming from Facebook and Twitter, but also from some other blogs where I have left comments.

Site Redesign

As part of continually honing my website's 'brand', I have made some further tweaks to the site's look and feel. I've changed the background and colour scheme, and moved from serif to sans-serif typography, which it seems is easier to read on the web.

In addition, because I'm starting to use the website more to sell my freelance services, I've also changed the tagline from 'random musings for thinking people' to 'writer / tutor / geek for hire' and rewritten the About page in an effort to better explain what I do.

Twitter

Twitter continues to be an indispensable utility which I find myself using more and more. I have added some badges to the sidebar which show the number of Twitter followers I have as well as my 'Twitter Grade', which measures my influence in the Twitter community.

Summary

Writing has entrenched itself as part of my day and I'm still having fun doing it. Traffic continues to grow steadily while my exposure rises gradually. I'll be back next month with another update.

What they do need is a little help with their marketing. I wrote up a quick list of general tips for getting new customers which I have shared below. The examples are slanted towards upscale coffee but can easily be substituted for any premium product.

Getting new customers - 9 points to remember

1. It is not your job to convince people your product is good - that is the product’s job. Your job is to give people the opportunity to find out!
2. Every complimentary card you give to someone new that results in a visit to the shop MAKES you money, it doesn’t cost you. Running a shop with no customers costs you. Give out as many complimentary cards as possible.
3. Whenever possible, get other people to find new customers for you using win-win situations. Give your regular customers and fellow businesses something for finding you new customers.
4. Know who you are competing against. A 5-star coffee doesn’t compete with a 2-star coffee. A 5-star coffee competes with not buying a coffee at all. Convince more people to buy coffee and more people will buy yours.
5. You might know your product back to front, but do your potential customers? Are they intimidated by the thought of looking stupid? The quality of your product is your unique selling point. Help people understand the product. Maybe they’ll rush off to share their new found knowledge with their friends.
6. Food and drink is an impulse buy. It’s easy to make and lose customers because of this simple truth. Once someone decides they want to buy, what obstacles must they overcome to actually make the purchase? Are you losing customers to impatience, fear or indecision? Make the decision to buy as easy as possible, then make the process of buying just as easy.
7. People like to compare things. When you give out samples, have more than one type to try. By offering a comparison, the decision moves from ‘do I buy a coffee or not?’ to ‘do I buy the mocha or the caramel?’
8. Never underestimate the power of FREE. If you offer people the choice between a $4 chocolate for 50 cents and a 50 cent chocolate for free, almost everyone will choose the free chocolate, even though the discounted chocolate is better value by $3.50.
9. NEVER discount a product that is better than your competitor’s. Ever. Sell it at full price, upgrade it or give it away, but never discount. Discounting cheapens what you have to offer. People will pay for quality. Those who don’t are not your customers.

These are my ideas. Feel free to suggest your own - I'll pass them along

The Facts

• The Australian Federal Government will provide $125.8 million over four years to establish the Cyber-Safety Plan.
• The plan calls for two levels of filtering to be implemented by internet service providers (eg Bigpond):
• a filter for material deemed unsuitable for children
• a filter for material deemed unsuitable for adults
• Both levels of filtering are to be active on all internet accounts in Australia
• It will be possible to opt-out of the children filter, but not the adult filter
• The previous Government provided free filtering software for families to download. Over 12 months, 140,000 users downloaded the software. Only 29,000 of these users were still using the software 3 weeks later after they had downloaded it
• Studies into the technological effectiveness of internet filtering have been commissioned by the Government and conducted by the CSIRO, Ovum, RMIT and Enex Testlab. All the studies concluded that filtering technology:
• slows down Internet access
• inaccurately blocks content which should not be blocked
• inaccurately fails to block content which should be blocked
• fails to accurately distinguish between legal and illegal content even when specifically configured with lists of illegal content under laboratory conditions
• Neither filter will be capable of censoring material passing through peer-to-peer networks (eg BitTorrent), which account for over 60% of all internet traffic

Why all the fuss?

I have no objection to the Government wanting to restrict access to illegal materials such as child pornography. What I object to is the way the issue is being handled by the Government, particularly Senator Stephen Conroy, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy.

Specifically, my objections are:

1. The Government has not demonstrated a need for mandatory internet filtering.
2. The Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has repeatedly said publicly that his Government will be about 'evidence-based policy'. The evidence says the technology is unnecessary, expensive and doesn't work, but this is being ignored.
3. Attempts by industry experts, Senate colleagues and private citizens to ask for more detail about the Government's plans are met with bullying from Sen. Conroy and claims those who object support child pornography.
4. There is to be no facility to opt-out of the filtering.

I wrote a letter to Senator Conroy on October 11 2008 outlining my concerns, to which I have not yet received a reply.

Ben Grubb (an 18-year-old IT professional and amateur podcaster on the Sunshine Coast) interviewed Senator Conroy's media representative Tim Marshall on October 17, who said those who oppose mandatory internet filtering have 'extreme views' and are not too interested in the facts. Marshall declined to provide any more detail about the plan but said there would be a press release in the 'near future'. So far that is yet to materialise.

Listen to the interview or read the transcript here.

When did this suddenly become a huge issue?

Senator Conroy's media rep's character smears are mostly directed at Mark Newton, a well-respected network engineer at Internode, who posted details of the proposed internet filtering plan on the popular Whirlpool site. Since then a firestorm has erupted and the entire tech community is up in arms.

Mark was speaking as an everyday citizen in his post, and was highly critical of the filtering plan. Senator Conroy's policy advisor Belinda Dennett then proceeded to engage in bullying by pressuring him through his employer and board members of the Internet Industry Association.

Mark Newton has since become even more vocal about the issue and has written a letter to his local MP Kate Ellis which is probably the most simple and concise explanation of the issue I've seen yet. As another IT professional pointed out, perhaps the single best part of that letter is this paragraph:

The image of technologically-disconnected parents floundering helplessly in a sea of pornography as they fail to adequately raise their children is a reflection of the appalling lack of Internet-savviness of our politicians, not society at large.

Politicians assume that parents are ignorant about the Internet because politicians are ignorant. Yet parents came to grips with it years ago; the last remaining social group in our country who expresses difficulty with the Internet appears to be baby-boomer Federal politicians, whose child-rearing days are mostly well behind them.

Read Mark's full letter here.

Senator Conroy was questioned extensively about the filtering plan in Senate Estimates on October 20 by Greens Senator Scott Ludlam. Conroy's responses to Ludlam's entirely reasonable questions were petty and defensive, and he accused Ludlam of wanting to give people access to child pornography. Ludlam's questions included asking what material would be deemed unacceptable, what benchmarks would be set for accuracy of the filtering, what the arrangements are of other countries who engage in filtering and what are the criteria for success.

The transcript of this questioning is available through the Hansard. There is also an edited version with commentary available at the Somebody Think of the Children site.

Why is the Government so intent on filtering?

All the evidence on internet filtering says embarking on a mandatory national progam is a fool's errand. The previous Government reached that conclusion. The other countries that have it (with the exception of China) do so under a voluntary basis. Many people are of the opinion the Government's motives are purely political.

Labor are 7 seats short of a majority in the Senate. To pass legislation, they need the support of the 5 Greens Senators, Senator Stephen Fielding of Family First and independent Senator Nick Xenophon. It's either that or work with the Coalition.

Some believe that the internet filter is a policy bone thrown to Fielding (who was elected with less than 2% of the primary vote) and Xenophon, who are supporters of the plan, to help get support for more difficult legislation in the future. If so, it seems that's a plan that's going to backfire in a big way.

What next?

For the moment we're waiting to see what the response from Conroy and Co. will be. So far they have displayed an arrogance that suggests the public will be overwhelmingly on their side on this issue and they do not have to worry about those with 'extreme views' who question the wisdom of their endeavour.

In the wake of the fury they have unleashed so far, they may well reconsider. If they persist, they will have a fight on their hands.

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill

This is why they call Chris Matthews' show Hardball.

But here's the interesting part - this survey shows that people with the INFJ type make up 9.8% of those using Twitter. Look closer and you'll see there is a massive difference between the proportion of other personality types in the general population and on Twitter too. In fact, there's a pattern.

People with the Intuitive characteristic are dramatically over-represented on Twitter, while those with the opposite Sensing characteristic are under-represented. Of those with the Intuitive characteristic, the over-representative effect is much more pronounced among those who also have the Introverted characteristic, like me.

To an intuitive person, the steady stream of emotional input that Twitter delivers is appealing and energising. To an intuitive and introverted person, the mass download of emotional introspection is not only appealing, it is deeply comforting and reassuring. It provides a shared experience and a connection that introverted and intuitive people do not often get a chance to enjoy. And it's there all the time, whenever you want to tap in.

Since I discovered Twitter a few months ago, I've been raving about it incessantly to everyone, but not many people seem to get the same joy from it that I do. Perhaps this explains why.

I hadn't thought about it much until now, but to me, Twitter is something which I enjoy on an intensely personal level, and now I understand why. It is a most welcome addition to my life.

Follow me on Twitter

See the survey or find out more about the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.

Clever photography with souvenirs

Michael Hughes goes travelling a lot. Whenever he visits a city, the first thing he does is buy a souvenir. Then he finds the exact spot where the image of the souvenir was taken from and works it into a photograph. It's simple, but very hard to do, and Michael has over 100 such shots. This article in the Telegraph UK showcases some of the best.

John Cleese on Sarah Palin

The first three seconds says it all. (via @wolfcat)

How common is your surname?

The World Names Profiler uses data from telephone directories and electoral rolls around the world to collate data about names. Search for your surname and you'll find out what its origins are, how common it is in countries, regions and cities around the world, as well as what first names it is most commonly coupled with.

Toy Story 2 meets Batman: The Dark Knight

Some clever nerd with far too much time on their hands has taken the audio track from the trailer of Batman: The Dark Knight and cut it to excerpts from Toy Story 2. It is cute and very well edited.

How to understand Geek-Speak

There is little doubt that internet geeks and hardcore gamers are wreaking havoc upon the English language. It might be a good idea to flick through this handy guide to speaking geek lest you be thought of as a n00b. kthxbai.

"Leadership is a combination of strategy and character. If you must be without one, be without the strategy."
- Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf

• Howard government announces $189 million to block internet porn - every family will be provided with free internet filter
• 16-year-old cracks government porn filter in 30 minutes
• Newly-elected Rudd Government says internet filtering will be mandatory for all ISPs - announces trials
• Tasmanian internet filtering trial is dismal failure - easily circumvented, blocks legitimate sites, causes network performance loss - Government calls it a success

And now, most recently...

• Reports that ALL Australian internet traffic will pass through censorship filter - no opt-out to be offered



It seems the Government is going to run two blacklists - one for material deemed unsuitable for children and one for material deemed unsuitable for adults. You'll be able to opt-out of one or the other but not both. If you don't opt-out at all you'll be subject to both blacklists.

The Government says it won't be blocking anything that is currently legal for Australians to view, but that doesn't account for the terrible inaccuracy of the software, the performance overhead it creates and the price increases that ISPs will undoubtedly pass along to maintain it, not to mention the moral basis and the fiscal responsibility of implementing the system in the first place.



Electronic Frontiers Australia is urging all concerned internet users to take action to have this impractical policy changed by using one or more of the means listed on their website.

I have written a letter to Senator Stephen Conroy outlining my concerns. I will post the response if and when I get one. The letter reads as follows:

Saturday, 11 October 2008

Dear Senator Conroy,

As an avid Internet user and professional working in the technology industry, I am concerned about the Government’s internet filtering policy. I had assumed that after the trial that was run in Tasmania, that the idea of a national rollout of a filtering system would be off the agenda, or at least on the back burner. Regrettably however I hear this is not the case.

From a technical standpoint it is surely difficult to justify spending money on an internet filtering system that is unable to reliably tell the difference between what is regarded as acceptable and unacceptable material, while at the same time increasing data overhead and internet access costs across the whole country.

I would also like to know whose judgment the Government will employ in determining the content of both proposed blacklists, if there will be a provision to opt-out of filtering altogether and if a directory will be made available to the public specifying which sites have been blacklisted and for what reason. From a moral standpoint it has to be questioned why the Government feels it is its job to decide what adults should be allowed to see in the first place.

I am told that your office’s standard response to similar letters to mine is that nothing will be blocked that it is currently legal for adults to view. This does not address my concerns. What about differences in laws between states? What about the filter’s proven ineffectiveness to identify which material is which? What is the justification for taking this approach in the first place? What consultation with industry experts has there been or will there be that recommend a national filtering system as the best course of action? What alternatives have been discussed?

Trying to rid the Internet of adult content is a futile waste of money. I would like to know what evidence the Government has that this is not the case and on what basis you feel the Tasmanian trial was a success warranting a national ‘clean feed’ rollout. I look forward to your response.

Yours Sincerely,
Danu Poyner

Please consider writing your own letter to Senator Conroy or using the one provided at this website. You can also send an email to Senator Conroy (minister (at) dbcde.gov.au) or at the very least sign a petition.

For more detailed information about the Government's mandatory internet blocking plan, refer to this comprehensive guide.


]]> http://www.danupoyner.com/2008/10/11/aust-govt-takes-next-step-on-mandatory-internet-clean-feed/feed/ http://www.danupoyner.com/2008/10/11/aust-govt-takes-next-step-on-mandatory-internet-clean-feed/ http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/djpoyner/~3/409777785/ http://www.danupoyner.com/2008/10/03/things-you-need-to-see-8/#comments Fri, 03 Oct 2008 00:55:55 +0000 danu http://www.danupoyner.com/?p=411 Well, the last edition was pretty heavy what with all the political stuff, so this time I'm serving up some links that are of the fun/amazing variety. Let's get to it.

Man Meets Whale

Off the coast of New Zealand, lucky National Geographic photographer Brian Skerry had an encounter with a right whale.



Said Skerry of the experience:

It came within inches. Here’s this softball-size whale eye looking at me. But then it stops—stops on a dime. It’s just hovering there, and literally one flick of its tail, and it would have crushed me like a bug. But it doesn’t. It was just highly curious.

You can read more about Skerry's experience here or head over to the National Geographic site to see the full gallery of pictures - they're beautiful.

Brave Suicide Ants

Every night, the Brazilian ant Forelius pusillus protects its colony by closing off all the entrances and disguising them with sand. The catch? A few of the colony are left outside to stand guard, and they do not survive the night.

It's an interesting twist of evolution that this could happen - one that Science Now magazine explores in this article, where you can also see video of the self-sacrificing ants disguising the entrance to the colony.

Ninja cat has stealth moves

This video is extremely cute, and a little scary.

1996 McDonalds Hamburger

Nutritional consultant Karen Hanrahan has a favourite prop she likes to use when giving talks on healthy choices - a hamburger she bought from McDonalds in 1996. It's disgusting. She hasn't made any effort to preserve the hamburger, it just preserves itself. She keeps it in a regular plastic container when it's not on show.

It reminds me of the footage from Supersize Me. You can see more pictures and read more about Hanrahan's workshop at her blog - Best of Mother Earth.

The Subprime Crisis Explained

For those of you who stand to be enlightened about how the financial crisis that is currently unfolding came to be - I highly recommend checking out this series of cartoon slides. They are both hilarious and wonderfully accurate. Check out The Subprime Primer here.




]]> http://www.danupoyner.com/2008/10/03/things-you-need-to-see-8/feed/ http://www.danupoyner.com/2008/10/03/things-you-need-to-see-8/ http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/djpoyner/~3/409706796/ http://www.danupoyner.com/2008/10/03/hows-the-writing-going-october-2008-update/#comments Thu, 02 Oct 2008 23:06:39 +0000 danu http://www.danupoyner.com/?p=403 It's time for another update on how my foray into the realm of writing is going. At the end of July I talked about my experiences in blogging to date and set some new goals for the rest of 2008. To recap, those goals are:
1. Establish and maintain a clear focus and purpose
2. Build a loyal base of subscribers
3. Raise my profile and reputation

Let's look at my progress towards these goals.

By the Numbers

I'm pleased to report that my traffic stats have improved in every metric in September as opposed to August. My traffic levels are still very small and almost statistically zero in internet terms, but any growth is good. Here are the graphs...





More people are coming to the site, more of them are new visitors and more of them are staying to check out more of the site before leaving. There are also some modest improvements when you look at where visitors are coming from...



A decline in the share of Direct Traffic is actually a good thing. Direct visitors are ones who type the site address directly into the browser or access it from a bookmark. They are most likely regular visitors or people I know personally. It's not that the number of these visitors is falling, it's that there are less of them compared to people who are finding my site either from other sites or through search engines. Also, regular visitors are encouraged to subscribe using an RSS reader, and RSS subscribers do not show up in these traffic stats at all.

The big news here is that more people are finding me through search engines, the most common keywords being 'danu poyner', 'technological blog' and more recently, 'bankruptcy'. I can anticipate the series of bankruptcy articles I am writing becoming quite popular as time goes on.

Writing Style and Focus

I seem to have settled into a steady rhythm of posting an article of 800-1200 words every few days on a variety of topics with the aim of giving readers something to think about. Themes of technology, media and politics are still readily apparent, but the focus is really more about raising awareness, self-development and thinking in general.

The Digital Migrant

I haven't written a great deal more of my book over the last month. I struggled to find an introduction to the 4th chapter for several weeks, and more recently have been occupied with other things, particularly the impending culmination of the US presidential race which I have been following for the last 12 months. I anticipate making a solid effort on the book once that is done with and still aim to have it finished by the end of the year.

Freelance writing

Last month I mentioned I had been approached by Nine MSN's travel department to see if I was interested in writing a travel guide to the Gold Coast. That didn't end up coming to fruition as they chose one of the other people they had approached. Looking at their travel site it doesn't really seem to be my style anyway, but nevertheless it was nice to be considered.

Where does writing fit in the scheme of things?

Writing is something I have always enjoyed but have only really rediscovered this year. This has been a year of introspection for me as I work out where to go next in my life. While I still don't have all the answers yet and change my mind every second day, I know that writing is going to be a large part of whatever I do next.

I will be back next month with another update on how it's going.


]]> http://www.danupoyner.com/2008/10/03/hows-the-writing-going-october-2008-update/feed/ http://www.danupoyner.com/2008/10/03/hows-the-writing-going-october-2008-update/ http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/djpoyner/~3/406812273/ http://www.danupoyner.com/2008/09/30/how-long-before-someone-mentions-social-credit/#comments Tue, 30 Sep 2008 01:58:05 +0000 danu http://www.danupoyner.com/?p=383 On Monday September 29, 2008, the US Congress shocked everyone by voting down a $700billion rescue package for investment banks. I'm not going to get into the details of that, it is already being well covered by the zeitgeist. But it is clearly a historic moment, and I predict it will the one people look back on as the day when the debt-based financial system became terminally ill.

The financial system used throughout the Western world has been rotten from the day it was first introduced. In this system, money can only ever be created by making a debt. The more a society produces, the more debt it gets itself into. The US national debt today stands at $9,896,734,646,582, or $32,467 for each citizen of the United States. It grows at an estimated $2.42 billion every day. (Australia's national debt is currently $585 billion.) It doesn't take a genius to know that that money is never getting repayed. In fact, it's impossible. If you add up every single bit of money in the entire country right now, it will be less than the debt.

In a debt-based financial system, there is always more debt in existence than there is money to pay it. Consider any bank. If everyone goes to withdraw their money at the same time, there won't be enough. The bank has bigger debts to its customers than it can possibly afford to pay.

The current financial crisis has come about because banks have been lending money to people who can't pay it back. The debt to the bank becomes worthless and then the bank can't pay its own debts so it collapses, and all the money it owes people becomes worthless too. If employers can't get money from their bank to pay the money they owe their employees, the employees can't pay their debts. If people can't pay their debts to the landlord, the landlord can't pay the mortgage so the debt to the bank becomes worthless and around we go again. It's not a recession - it's a depression.

When the whole money system is based on debt, everyone is always concerned about what they owe, and the total amount owed by everybody is always more than the total amount of money there is to pay. That's why prices rise and we get inflation. That's why governments create taxes, to try to pay down the public debt. And all the while, interest is being charged to the debt so it gets even further out of reach every day. And that folks, is the banking system.

Would you credit it?

The current financial system is fucked. It has only ever worked while people believe in it and don't think too much about it, but those days are over. Not since the Great Depression of 1929 have things been this bad for the banks, and no-one had the internet back then.

At first, everyone's attention was on the rescue package. Now it is about whether a 'rescue' is the right approach. There will be talk of good debt vs bad debt, but not till the whole thing comes crashing down will there be much talk of whether debt was the right approach at all.



Sooner or later, someone is going to mention Social Credit. It's a policy that was first put forward by British engineer Clifford Hugh Douglas in the 1920s, before the huge crash of 1929. In a social credit system, the main motivator isn't debt, it's production.

Put simply, the more a society produces, the wealthier it is. A system of money then should be based on what each member of society produces. When something is produced, it is recorded as an increase in wealth. When it is consumed, it is recorded as a decrease in wealth. In a social credit system, there is no need for inflation or interest. The national debt becomes the national dividend.

I posted a series of articles about social credit earlier this year. As the financial system dies a loud and painful death, I will probably post some more. In the meantime, I wonder when someone in the press will mention it. Anyone want to make a prediction?

Finally, consider this. Following are the words of an orthodox economist in Elmar O'Duffy's satirical 1933 book Asses in Clover.

“Suppose a party of people were wrecked on a desert island, what do you think would be the first thing they’d do? Obviously they would look around for a man with money to employ them in gathering fruit. If there were no capitalist among them, or if he didn’t see his way to make a profit out of the business, they would all remain unemployed and starve to death, no matter how fertile the island might be."

Wanna bet? Here is a story of five men who find themselves marooned on a desert island and how they fared...


]]> http://www.danupoyner.com/2008/09/30/how-long-before-someone-mentions-social-credit/feed/ http://www.danupoyner.com/2008/09/30/how-long-before-someone-mentions-social-credit/ http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/djpoyner/~3/405193840/ http://www.danupoyner.com/2008/09/28/what-makes-a-great-resume/#comments Sun, 28 Sep 2008 04:57:53 +0000 danu http://www.danupoyner.com/?p=379 My experience with most resumés is that they don't work very well. For the person writing their resumé it's hard to get across the depth and breadth of their life experience and character - most resumés read like a travel itinerary rather than, say, a eulogy. From an employer's perspective, resumés tell you very little - it really takes a face-to-face interview to learn about a candidate and assess their suitability for a position.

This strikes me as wasteful and misleading. For instance, I personally have plenty of desirable qualities and experience as a prospective employee, I'm pretty good at selling and not half bad at writing, yet whenever I try to write a resumé for myself using the usual structure I end up coming across as an unstable, indecisive serial underachiever. I certainly wouldn't give myself an interview. My experience as an employer in selecting people to interview and subsequently hire from their resumés seems to suggest I'm not the only one whose resumé isn't a true reflection of themselves.

So what to do? I propose a different kind of resumé, one that better reflects a person's full life experience and character rather than just a list of where they've been. After all, in a work environment that increasingly demands multiple skills and certain intangible qualities, an employer's focus is more likely to be on a candidate's accumulated wisdom and expertise than any individual achievement. My preferred resumé format would aim to map the candidate's life from three different viewpoints - discipline, timeline and personality.

The discipline projection would group achievements, education, experience and interests by discipline. This would give the reader a thorough and immediate insight into where the candidate's strengths and passions lie, in a broad 'whole-of-life' context.

The timeline projection would map the candidate's life progression by time, providing rich insight into which events have shaped and influenced the candidate's life, constructing a narrative and better informing the reader of the candidate's motivation and life experience.

Instead of simply stating the same old schtick about working well independently and as part of a team, coping well under pressure, having great time management and self-motivation etc etc, the personality projection would detail specific examples of events that have demonstrated various personal qualities. Displayed in groups by skill or attribute, this would pre-empt the usual interview questions asking for examples of when the candidate did such and such.

Taken individually or combined, these three projections would provide a much richer insight into a candidate's overall experience, motivation and state of mind than the usual dry summary. Such an insight would entice employers to explore further in a face-to-face interview, allowing more personalised and probing questions which would in turn result in better recruitment.

Recruitment firms try to do all of this already of course, but in my experience the 'recruitment process' is grossly impersonal and feels like being part of a scientific experiment. The aim is to process large groups of people using standardised activities and then match people to positions in many cases without the employer even being involved. To me that is just turning labour into a commodity that can be purchased using a tick and flick sheet. I propose making recruitment more personalised, not less. Our individual experiences, passions and personalities are what truly drive us. That's what recruitment should be based on, for the benefit of employers, employees and customers.

What do you think?

To test my proposal, I will put together a new resumé for myself using the format I've described and post it on my website. I'll then use it to attempt to find a job. Stay tuned...


]]> http://www.danupoyner.com/2008/09/28/what-makes-a-great-resume/feed/ http://www.danupoyner.com/2008/09/28/what-makes-a-great-resume/ http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/djpoyner/~3/404972592/ http://www.danupoyner.com/2008/09/28/things-you-need-to-see-7/#comments Sat, 27 Sep 2008 22:20:00 +0000 danu http://www.danupoyner.com/?p=377 Time for a political edition this week! Don't groan - we all know politics is important - I try to make it interesting and accessible on this blog. Less than 6 weeks out from the end of what will undoubtedly go down in history as the worst US Administration ever, here are some things you need to see...

How US elections work

In Australia we have what is widely regarded as the fairest electoral system in the world. Mention preferential voting to folks overseas and they will probably look at you like you're crazy. By contrast, the US system is very different indeed. Here's a short cartoon which explains how it works.