I was born a Protestant. I will more than likely die one, too. Intense excavation into family history has shown me that my genes are Protestant for at least 8 generations on both sides. Baptised and confirmed a Lutheran, I was taught a thing or two about the most successful (not the first) split from the Catholic Church by Martin Luther.

During public school mandated “religious education”, I was taught by the local Catholic Priest. He seemed nice enough; kindly taking us through the New Testament book Romans. It took many years for me to realise that this was an attempt at turning me from my heretic ways to the true canon. If I recall, he didn’t even use the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. Yes, Peter and Paul: the fathers of the catholic church.

After travelling to Europe in 1997 and 2004, I saw enough Saints’ relics: shrunken heads, fingers, toenails and shrouds to last me a lifetime. Large cathedrals raised in the name of the Virgin or some Saint across the cities of Europe show the folly of man, attempting to reach for terrestrial god status. The veneration of Saints and other popery not only rubs me the wrong way: I am sure my ancestors turn in their collective graves.

So as Mary MacKillop has moved through the man-made process of canonisation within the Catholic Church, my genes quiver.

We hear that the church wants old and young to travel to Rome to witness the canonisation ceremony. That will fill the coffers of the Romans.

I also heard many discussions on the “brand” of Mary MacKillop being valuable. Like a product. Even our ABC both on radio and TV seems to have caught the “Mary MacKillop” fever. So much for editorial independence.

And that is exactly what this canonisation is about. Money. Never get in the way of a large corporation and money.

Luckily the Catholics re-admitted her to the church. Otherwise they would have missed out on their cash.

This tradition and hunger for money is not new. Sainthood and pilgrimages have created many a city in the world as supplicant masses crawl on their knees to assuage their mortal sins. Paying money for Indulgences, as done in the Middle Ages, and more recently with special visits to random virgin sightings.

Don’t get me wrong: I am not anti-personal faith.

But please separate Mammon from Mary. She was, and I highlight was, just a notable Australian woman who did more for the downtrodden than any group of Cardinals, Abbotts or Bishops ever did. And I would argue, ever will.

It seems out of the old adage: speed, quality, cheap: pick any two that the department chose just speed.

From ABC1’s Q & A last night, members of both sides of the house marked Peter Garrett as an honourable and a decent man. His experience leading environmental lobby groups, and leading a successful band shows he can manage people. But Management in a Ministerial sense is way more complex.

Evidently, his department commissioned a legal risk assessment of the program in February 2009. This document was not seen by Mr. Garrett until early this year.

My speculation is:

• Mr. Rudd & Mr. Swan design a large program to inject money into the economy in light of the Global Financial Crisis. Getting this cash into the economy quickly is paramount.
• Based on a program created by the previous Government, it was seen as an easy mechanism to gain green credentials and inject fiscal stimulus.
• Someone in the Department engages an external party to detail any risks. In large projects, there are always risks. Mitigating risk is a part of sound project management. Not all problems can be solved nor foreseen: but those that are foreseen must be managed.
• Remember: timing is everything. Speed, speed, speed. The Department cannot wait months to create a viable infrastructure to manage all the risks, and as political pressure is on to spread the money out: nothing gets in the way of speed.
• Conversations between Ministers is all positive and about the velocity of the program;
• the Department keeps their risk assessment information to lower levels, in an effort to protect their Minister, the program and potentially their job.
• The Minister doesn’t want to hear or see bad news: even worse, pass this up the chain to the notorious micro manager Rudd.

The causes for this breakdown potentially are:

• An environment where negatives and risks are seen as bad PR. Bad messaging for the nightly news
• An environment where speed is critical. Now, now now rather than considered policy execution
• An environment where people fear raising bad news

Just “firing” the Minister is not going to solve the problem. Although Mr Rudd will probably reach a point where he jettisons Mr Garrett. That will be sad.

re: Australian ISP Internet Filters

As a parent, a technology industry veteran and citizen who works via the Internet, I feel it is my duty to provide a pragmatic perspective on the Federal Government’s proposed plans to adopt Mandatory Filtering of Australian Internet Service Providers (ISPs) for the benefit of Child Safety.

Current statements from Senator Conroy highlight the need to protect Australian Children from undesirable corners and content found the Internet. This is a worthy ideal, but Senator Conroy’s proposed solutions go nowhere near far enough to truly keep our children safe. Any half-hearted attempt at filtering exposes the Government to legal liability and voter discontent when their kids see any undesirable material that will fall through the cracks of a pure technology-based solution.

The blocking of internationally recognised child p-rn sites; and additionally adding warning bells to people accessing these sites is a must. Whilst the need for security, and the sequestering of these sites for criminal investigations is understandable — to counter claims of “censorship by stealth”, these sites should be reviewed by an Ombudsman on a regular basis.

The current rhetoric from the pro-filter lobby purposely associates children online with reprehensible child p-rn. I seriously doubt that children are going to purposely or not stumble on child p-rn. Rather, undesirable people will find children in the “clean” internet. This online safety aspect requires more than 1,000 or 1,000,000 sites on a filter list: it requires strong policing, parenting and school education: just as road safety is taught. Connecting two disparate and highly emotive issues obfuscates and politicizes the real need of parents.

However, the call for “undesirable” sites to be censored does cause alarm. “Undesirable” is an emotive, and very subjective definition for each parent and family: based on their own moral, religious, cultural, ethnic and many other highly personal considerations. 

Today, Education Departments provide Children-safe Internet access. This is treated much the same way as Kids-safe playgrounds and excursions: The legal principle of In-loco Parentis applies. To implement a Kid-safe filter of any less quality for kids at home seems counter productive. Experts in the field of internet-based education also note that these filters are very disrupting and significantly slow down access to the Internet: but it is a cost that is born out of necessity.

By having a laudible goal of implementing an Opt-out, completely filtered truly Kids-safe Internet, the unitended impact to Australian business and the economy will great. Therefore, filters should be Opt-in for ISPs and Consumers.

Both a “Kid-safe Internet” needs to be created as an Opt-in for Home access; backed by a strong education campaign from the Government to Parents, and a standard speed Filter-free Internet for the Australian Economy. 

Also, a “Kid-safe Internet” is much more than just what can be seen or read: there must be a code of conduct for advertising, safe social communities and business when interacting with our Children. For instance, the new phenomena of Cyber-bullying.

Any implementation of Opt-in Filters, Authorities and broad-based education campaigns should also realise that there is no absolute in safety. Just like pools, bicycles and cars: accidents can and will happen. The Internet itself is in constant change: therefore, any management system must be created with continual improvement as a strategic imperative.

My thinking and research on this matter has led me to the following structured recommendations:

Toward A Kid-Safe Internet:

1. Children must have access to the Internet. It is a fundamental part of our world economy; central to our future as humans in the 21st Century. Ignoring the Internet will seriously disadvantage future Australians from the world economy: similar to neglect teaching mathematics or literacy skills. Simply banning the Internet would be a draconian move that only a luddite minority would advocate. (Recent study on Childhood casual access to the Internet)
2. The world is a large and potentially dangerous place for young humans. That is why today Governments across the world regulate what/when children can see in movie theatres, read, smoke, drink, engage in sexual activity and drive. Therefore a strong precedent has been set for the Government to equally protect children when using the Internet.
3. The Internet is unlike other previously invented mediums, modes and technology of communication: highly distributed, uncontrollable, two-way, multi-faceted (for instances: video, text and sound in a myriad of formats). Therefore, a unique administrative mechanism for protecting those who need protection is required. Simply “listing” web sites with movie ratings will not work as will miss other content. A central filter for all internet traffic into and out of Australia is technically not economically nor technically feasible with current computer technology.
4. Equally, the Government should not be in the business of creating filtering software for all internet connected devices a child has access to. These devices number in their hundreds of millions, across thousands of versions shapes and sizes: PCs, Macs, non-Windows OS PCs, the wide range of internet-able mobile phones, Game stations and Music players. The NetAlert program of the previous Government has shown to have a low installation rate, and also misses the Internet connected mobile phones many children currently posses.
5. Having Kid-Safe filters at the ISP level seem to be a sound and logical solution.
6. If the Government initiates the process of protecting our children whilst they are on the Internet, and makes a public promise that “the internet is now safe for our Children”: simply relying on existing the existing static list-based systems provided by ACMA as proposed by Senator Conroy the Government will ultimately fail.
7. Senator Conroy talks of a list of ~1,500 sites, and is testing filters with a listing of 10,000 sites. If you assume 1% of the 1 billion web pages are not suitable for children; Senator Conroy’s plans is a few orders of magnitude out to safely restrict indecent sites.
8. Basing filters purely on HTTP/HTML protocol (that is, just Web browser traffic) will result in a filtering fail as the Internet comprises many protocols. Adding other protocols such as instant messaging (chat rooms), file downloads, sound and video doubles the load on filters for each new protocol added.
9. Keep Children “safe” on the Internet must be more than just blocking static pages, sites, protocols and streams. True Online Child safety must include Cyber-bullying, Social Community codes of conduct, Inappropriate Advertising (similar to Child TV advertising guidelines) and many other associated issues with a broad, two-way communications system.
10. Of greater concern is what our kids: either accidently, or on purpose; publish to the internet. With rampant identity theft, and the ability for people to publish video and images to the world: we need to ensure this is addressed by any kid-safe internet.
    

    My suggested approach:

11. A new Authority is created; resourced to keep Australian Children Safe Online.
12. This Authority is commissioned to address all the above issues, using the knowledge that already exists in the community
13. This Authority has the power to Certify Kid-Safe Internet Filters at both end Device and at ISP level. For the sake of this document, these are named Filter Devices.
14. This Authority also has the important responsibility to educate and communicate Internet Public Service Advice for Parents.
15. The Authority own a central policies and procedures to control the Filter Device Certification; and processes of continual management of the Filters. The Authority has the power to Certify and de-Certify Filter Devices installed at any point in Australia. Similar standards exist for toys that show child safety breaches. Parents rely on thse standards, recalls and Authority vigilance to offer a greater level of protection to children.
16. The Authority would have executive oversight over a distributed Filter Management Body. This body would be crowd-sourced, and be the clearing-house of filters, codes of conduct, industry best practices and connections with local Education departments and law enforcement. 
17. A central registry of what a Filter Device must clean, and other child-protection guidelines is managed by this management body. This registry may contain proscribed (child p-rn) sites, but to a larger extent all the child-inapproprate material on the internet. This list will be larger than the proposed 10,000.
18. Additionally, there must be Industry-based codes of conduct for online forums; age verification; phishing and other internet-related communities. This body would could use internet technology for rapid response, voting and sharing best-practise amongst all ISPs.
19. As much a legally possible, this body of filtering knowledge must be transparent to bona-fide interested parties, and would reflect community “norms” as the information comes from the community.
20. Every ISP who has a commercial wish to market and sell “Kid-Safe Internet” must comply with the Authorities policies and procedures (ie: Each ISP chooses to Opt-in).
21. And ISP may only sell a Kid-safe Internet connection if certified by the Authority. This could also apply to Education departments and private school groups where their connection to the internet should also be through a Certified Filter Device.
22. The knowledge of what is to be filtered/codes of conduct must be collectively shared so smaller, regional based ISPs can provide an equity of protection for rural children. These smaller ISPs will not have equal resources available to their own filter managers.
23. Parents and others interest parties have an internet-speed mechanism to report and escalate breaches to the Authority; all parties must have transparent access to these reports; and like Wikipedia: a history of decisions made.
24. The Authority also has the important responsibility to educate Parents and Guardians about the Internet. Parents have personal experience of morals, road rules, social norms, cultural expectations passed to them from their parents. The internet, being extremely new, is alien to today’s parents , and is incorrectly feared. Like in previous times where the Government has provided information on AIDs, currency changes (to decimal) : it also has a responsibility to educate today’s Australian parents on the Internet. The Authority must embark on a campaign to educate Parents as they are the last lines of defence. Parents must also be encouraged to purchase a Kid-safe Internet connection from their choice of ISP.
25. Parents who are internet-savvy could opt-out of the Kid-safe Internet system; thereby taking the responsibility for the protection of their children, or a range of filters based on a range of classifications could be created. A teenager will not want to view the internet as if they are 6 years old.
    

    The Cost of Filters

26. Any reasonable Adult Australian does not want a child-like view of the Internet as described above,
27. If left Opt-out, the resulting ISP Filtering speed-tax will reduce investment in Australian businesses, and due to the international nature of the internet drive employment and investment offshore.
28. As the deeper level of filters and codes of conduct as described above are enabled to rightly protect Children; there will be a slowing down of internet response for these filtered users. And just as alcohol, smoking, voting and other rules are relaxed for adults:  the same must apply to internet access.
29. General ISP connections should therefore be unfiltered, and Opt-in. Turning the internet into a pure-children’s playground will only hamper Australian businesses and governments as they conduct operations in the emerging global Digital age. Businesses do not conduct business in a playground.
30. The impact of Australia-wide mandatory filters would hurt Australia’s economic future across all sectors of industry. Email traffic, online banking, business to business commerce: will all slow due to mandatory filters.
31. Other competing economies do not have the same ISP Filtering-speed-tax, and can therefore out-compete Australian businesses.
32. Therefore, the filters must be Opt-in and kept separate from the grown-up, business internet; but to a deeper level as the Government takes on partial responsibility of In loco parentis
    

    Vigilance

33. Apart from child p-rn, there are many other insidious dark corners of the internet that impact all Australians. Nigerian scams, phishing attacks on bank accounts, general spam, cyber bullying: all drain our economy. The Australian Federal Police must be given more experienced and trained officers with strong Internet skills to protect all our citizens by policing those who embark on illegal activities. The Government must address these increasing risks, too. (reference: Online fraudsters ‘steal £3.3bn’)

The current confusing statements of policy by Senator Conroy strikes me as policy-on-the-run with a dearth of grass-roots (electorate) demand and little to no publicly articulated strategy. Therefore, fear-mongering and ad-hominem attacks from all sides of this argument have arisen. At this stage, it is in Senator Conroy’s hands to clearly articulate the strategy outside of pure technical “trials” and emotional and glib “child p-rn” arguments.

The lack of clarity and transparency is of deep concern as it thrusts at the heart of people’s desire for the freedom access to information as adults: uncensored and unfiltered.

Now that the Pandora’s box of a Kid-safe Internet is opened, it is in the Government’s hands to do the right thing for our kids without hurting the economy and freedoms we all enjoy. For the sake of Australia’s collective future.

Nick Hodge

Interesting Links

• Nocleanfeed started out with Mark Newton.
• What children need is censorship Article from The Guardian by Aric Sigman. P-rn is only one of the many things on the internet that we must protect children from; and ultimately parents must take control.
• Internet Censorship, Blogs, And The Government View More indepth results of the filtering trials
• Why internet filtering is bad for business post on Smart Company by Paul Wallbank. Apart from the potential accidental inclusion on a filter, the Internet-speed-tax on all Australian individuals, businesses and government agencies would make Australia an Internet back water
• Fireside chats in the 21st century by Barry Saunders on the ABC web site.  
  
• Elias Bizannes on The Rudd Filter: one of the original, and well thought and more importantly, well referenced out posts on the matter.
• With a public intellectual like this, who needs barbarians? by Jon Seymour, detailing the lack of logic from the mandatory filtering side of the argument; especially the “internet has p-rn, therefore opt-out all encompassing filtering is required.
• Glenn Milne of news.com.au writes a cohent and concise article on Internet Filtering and Censorship
• Senator Nick Minchin (Liberal-SA) on NBN and filtering. I like the quotation: “The opposition senator additionally claimed that Conroy’s policy was causing Australia embarrassment internationally, giving it a reputation as a repressive regime.” Ouch. The full statement from Senator Minchin has also been published.
• Tom Edwards and Gareth Griffith wrote in a special research note published by the NSW Parliamentary Library Service, reported in ZDNet: “NSW calls Conroy on Euro filter fudge”
• Mark Newston’s second, follow-up letter to his local Labor member.
• Libertus on Statistics Laundering: false and fantastic figures in regards to child p-rn online. Well researched, with many links. Highlights the current emotional, McCarthy-ist level of witch hunting with knee-jerk reactions does not help. Parental vigilance is a must.
• Background on The Australia Institute, and history of filtering prior to the current Government The ALP under Rudd is in fact far more moralistic and authoritarian than the Liberals ever were.
• iiNet’s statement iiNet and Internet filtering
• Kathryn Small of IT News reports on Net filters debated by experts at cyberlaw forum held on 27th November.
• Neutering the net is about repression, not protection In the Age, by Chris Berg of the Institute of Public Affairs. “wowserism dressed up in concerned rhetoric about the sanctity of childhood is still wowserism.”
• Children’s Welfare Groups slam Conroy’s Filtering Plans by Asher Moses, The Age
• Clive Hamilton, “Net porn: Whose rights matter most?”. Some notes: argument has moved from children to teenagers, two very different beasts as far as parenting is concern.
• Labor Plan to censor internet in shreds by Asher Moses, Senator Conroy has said that, under his filtering plan, Australia would sign up to the same IWF blacklist
• and in relation to the Internet Watch Association, the recent blocking of Wikipedia editing in the UK does not lend itself creditability.
• LeWeb’08 Attendees note that Australia is planning to Filter the Internet
• Australian Information Security Association on Mandatory Internet Filtering
• 37% rise in 2008 “money transfer scams” in Australia resulting in AU$33million in lost funds. (Choice magazine). Choice has more detail on how to avoid online scams. The failure of the Federal Government to make the broad populace aware of this is more problematic for kids than “p-rn”.
• Dept’s Response to postings to its “blog” about Internet Censorship. I just love the double-speak/managerial speak of the title, and the requests to stop calling it censorship, please!“ Minister Conroy on: Promoting a civil and confident society online.
• The Sydney Morning Herald reported on a secret report: Fatal flaws in website censorship plan, says report. Again, excellent reporting from Asher Moses
• Duncan Riley, Australia’s premiere blogger with logical analysis: Great Firewall of Australia. I agree with Duncan: we need to keep the Government out of our bedrooms. To quote Duncan’s last paragraph, to which I agree and further echo:
  

  Today I am ashamed to be Australian, ashamed that my Government should seek to implement draconian 19th century style censorship laws over the marvel of the modern age: The Internet. Free Speech may not be totally dead in Australia yet, but it’s about to be placed on life support. Conroy can say all he wants that this isn’t about free speech, but speech censored by Government isn’t free, no matter which way you want to spin it. 

• Response from the Sydney Morning Herald front page: Conroy and Prof Landfeldt respond to secret report article, trial delayed. I find it contemptable that Senator Conroy has access to this report in February 2008, yet continued to waste our money on “a trial”. A trial that is delayed until mid January 2009. The more that is revealed, the more this whole situation looks like a pure political play to ensure Senator Fielding’s votes in the Senate. So, who is genuinely looking after the kids?

Notes:

• need to find references to fact to back up some of the statements
• there are some leaps of logic that need to be addressed.
• I will modify as comments come in
• I have linked to various postings from all sides as the debate has raged. One day someone will find this useful

Join Government, business leaders and political bloggers for Australia’s inaugural Politics & Technology Forum, brought to you by Microsoft Australia.

Quick details: Date: 25th June 2008, Time: morning, Location: Hyatt, Canberra

For the first Forum, Microsoft is hosting keynote speaker Matt Bai, author and political writer for New York Times magazine. Matt will address the rise of political movements in the internet age, with a focus on new forms of Information Technology and how they fashion or replicate the political debate and trends.

In the midst of the neverending US Presidential Primary Season, and just prior to the Party Conventions: Matt visits Australia and provides a vision of the future of politics in the age of Hyperconnection.

Seats are complimentary and strictly limited. To reserve your place, RSVP by 11 June 2008 and quote event ticket code’BAI’.

Laurel, Australia’s expert on Social Networks has appeared on Australian Morning TV

Don’t forget us little people when you become famous, Laurel!

(This is Laurel before she became MSM famous)

OK, now we see we are getting 10 groups of 100 people thinking (thanks for correcting my spelling, Uncle Mike) deeply about topics important to the future of Australia in a radio-sound-byte year (why not 2022. Nah, 2020 just sounds better)

On the internet side of this weekend in Canberra I’d like vote up six independent, smart thought leaders in the future of technology space. Cameron Reilly, Stilgherrian, Mark Pesce, Peter Black ‚Laurel Papworth, Duncan Riley

(original image)

With Australian Politicians using “Fibre to the Node” and “Fibre to the Home” as election ploys, I think It’s Time to raise the issue to a new level:

Fibre to the Dunny.

We should not rest until every Dunny in Australia has Fibre. Face it, that’s where the best browsing occurs.

Also, with Australia’s rising colorectal cancer, an increase in our fibre diet would also help future generations.

They sent a little more than $18 million dollars to Nigeria. That is $135,000 per person.

Accountant, Lawyers, Doctors. Not people you would expect to fall for “get-rich-quick” schemes. I hope their tax, law and medical expertise is scientifically informed!

Keys, email management. Know who is sending you email.

(from Sky News, 2:15pm)

My comment: wisdom from my Dad: if something sounds too good to be true, ignore it.

At the Hill and Knowlton “Surviving and thriving in the next decade — Technology Publishing” Breakfast Bytes this morning, a group of eminent panelists in picture above, from the left:

• James Tuckerman – Publishing Editor, AntHill. New relatively magazine about ideas, money and skills. Previously more print than online, but adding new online projects later in 2007.
• Heather Craven — Director of Marketing & Communications, Circulations Audit Board,
  Australian Circulation Bureau. Sub-committee researching digital.
• Brian Haverty – Editorial Director, CNET Networks Australia : Readers first, video and text style publishing.
• Tony Sarno – Editor, APC. Adding new online APC projects later in 2007.
• Peter Roberts – Managing Editor, BRW. Part of the Fairfax group, around since 1857. Noted that http://www.afr.com/ relaunched this week, and closed content model AFR Access continues.
• Andrew Kirk, Hill and Knowlton: Chair

The theme from the morning’s panel and Q&A is that “there will be a mixture of online and print” and that “online and print” readers are treated as different readers by the big-names. My perspective as a corporate online/citizen journalist is slightly different.

Like the quintessential investigative journalists: Woodward and Bernstein learnt: follow the money. In the above listing of panelists, notice where their stated investment is going. It’s online.

From a traditional publisher’s perspective, the business is about employing journalists to gather hidden facts, connect, analyse and write stories. People buy the paper (atoms) to read the stories and maybe their eyeballs will stray onto an advertisement. The marketing groups of companies buy these positions on the paper in the hope that the right eyeballs are enthralled by the product and/or service — and buy the product. The core of a publisher’s job is managing the compelling content such that a specific audience is created that advertisers value.

The web is no different, except that anyone can be a publisher, and outsource the revenue side (advertising) to Microsoft or Google. Large publishers, such as Fairfax, are unhappy that their expensive infrastructure is subverted online: Peter Roberts mentioned twice that Google made $200 million in Australia without investing in the content-side.

Peter Roberts also commented on one of his competitors, Alan Kohler’s Eureka Report, having only an online mechanism but successful business model. My perspective is that Alan’s business is successful as he is seen as a respected and independent entity within Australia’s financial community. Alan Kohler is a trusted brand.

The Gadget Guy, Peter Blasina’s question near the end summarised the morning for me: What does the future really look like? Each of the represented panelist’s organisations (maybe with the exception of cnet) have their business strategies weighted toward print, and the brand-value that print brings.

Peter Blasina comes at this with credibility as a true multi-channel brand and personality: print, online and TV — and surmised that the coming generation will change the face of the print publisher’s world. And they know it.

The future for publishers is where the eyeballs are. And eyeballs are not going to be in print, it is going to be online. Eyeballs stay longer where this is trusted value, and most importantly where there is a community. Reading a magazine is an almost high-latency feedback medium; where two-way interaction is slow if attempted at all.

Demographics of the eyeballs are changing to more online: younger readers being digitally native and older generations having more time to explore online; with more females than males desiring a community and interaction rather than passive acceptance; high bandwidth connection to permit TV, Radio and Print being equal online mediums.

Whilst I have no research to back this up, I am going to state it here. A common refrain from print publishers is that “Radio did not replace newspapers, and TV did not replace radio” as their backwards looking perspective on why online will not replace these old media. My argument is that the internet can replace the media styles: with web pages, podcasts and vidcasts. As Rupert Murdoch is quoted as saying: “Big media no longer controls the conversation” 

James Tuckerman knows his readers, and I think has a plan to create value in Anthill’s community. He understands the emotional connection that he has with his readership. James also stated there are “population lumps” at birth-years of 1949, 1974 and 1985. According to the ABS, there is another population lump in the 2005–7 range too. My suggestion is to watch Anthill as a publisher. They are starting a conversation with their community.

A Question about SecondLife, the current “craze” in Australia potentially due to a visit in meatspace by a Linden Labs persona, resulted in Tony Sarno saying that “many PBL management have visited SecondLife”. I fear it is because of the gambling dens rather than the community aspect. About 20% of the audience of largely PR and technology industry attendees had logged into SecondLife, of which most had logged in once.

So, in industry parlance, what is the tip-on for online? It’s the community. Community is the new Brand.

"...We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,
"Before the year is out."

This whole poem seems to epitomise the current weather conditions, farmers and a fleeting glimpse of an old Australia, slowly disappearing.

Colin Thiele, a South Australian author of over 80 books died recently aged 85.

ABC News report his most famous book, Storm Boy; set on the Coorong of South Australia. Another, later book made into a movie by the SA Film Corporation was Blue Fin. Set in Port Lincoln (but filmed in Streaky Bay) — it detailed the relationship between a tuna fishing father, and his son.

In fact, most of Colin’s books dealt with father-son relationships set in South Australia. Fire in the Stone, Sun on the Stubble. Set settings were a unique view of farming life; the wheat, sheep; German heritage and a time in the first half of the 20th Century.

Even when I went to school, Colin’s books were a little “non-PC”, and as such they were not a part of the books curriculum. Both Colin and I are descendents of German immigrants, and his books had a semi-autobiographical quality — a shared perspective.

A good innings, and I am sure his writings touched many.

The early reports are that he was fatally stung by a stingray. Marine Medic web site reports that 2 people in Australia have died from stringray barbs. If I remember my Cousteau, the tail whips very quickly.

ABC News web site has more details. According to reports, a stingray barb went through his chest as he was filming an underwater sequence near Port Douglas, North Queensland. (edited from Cairns, 2:52pm)

No-one should die at work. Nor does the simple phrase “he died doing what he loved” ever repair the feeling of loss to those close to him.

A typical Aussie: a larrikin, non-conformist and passionate individual. The sort of Australian we Australians were quietly proud represented our country. Many may have thought of his over-the-top expressions, including the famous “crikey” as too flippant and superficial: no-one can deny his love for animals.

A common dinner conversation for Australians overseas is about our deadly flora and fauna. Sadly, this myth only partly based on reality is now augmented.

Australia, the world, and our native animals will miss Steve.

Good on yer, mate. Your innings were over too soon.

Today, thanks to Microsoft Australia’s, Frank Arrigo, I attended the Blogger’s Brunch. Great of Microsoft to reach out to a section of the local technology blogging community. None of the attendees (except Angus Kidman and Nic) are famous in the blogosphere, but on the internets — noone knows you are an Australian.

Whilst having been a Microsoft customer since 1984 (Microsoft Basic 1.0 on a Macintosh 128K — and the box is in storage somewhere), I am a relative noob to “marketectural” Microsoft. The speak is strangely familiar to my ears.

The following are some random thoughts and un-expressed questions from this morning’s session:

• To the Microsoft PR people. Sorry it paralleled Microsoft-Groove/Ray Ozzie history with Apple-NeXT/Steve Jobs. To Frank Arrigo. Sorry I stated that the *.live.com people are having fun being compatible with all the versions of Internet Explorer rather than implement Firefox support. Both of these were intended as jokes, not memes.
• Today’s Australian Financial Review’s IT section has quotes from various large Australian financial organisations stating that they are taking a wait-and-see approach to Windows Vista. Some are only now installing Windows XP. These organisations state they will install Vista in 2–3 years. I find this quite interesting as it has taken them 4–5 years to install Windows XP. Personally, I am concerned if a large financial organisation is not running a recent, up to date, tested and secure OS on all their desktop computers. I’d love to know what features in upcoming products are direct feedback from Australian customers. This would show that the software development process is a two-way street.
• Sharepoint should evolve into *.live.com server for the Enterprise. If Vista has all the hooks, and the connected/disconnected world and new applications are going to be mashed (lashed?) together with live stuff, this seems like a logical move. However, large organizations will be reluctant to put all their data into the world’s cloud for all to stumble upon. I am no expert on Sharepoint and all the positioning stuff, but it seems there might be a little “tension” (not a bad thing, mind you) between these two environments.*.live.com is garnering the mindshare as it is new-ish; many of the APIs and licensing models are to be determined. Come to think about it, these are probably the two reasons why they are still separate. Revenue and developer penetration.
• After hearing about the IT professionals fawned over the coolness of Vista infrastructure deployment … I left the session (both mentally and physically) asking “what are Microsoft’s customers going to do with all these fine trees?“Customers doing meaningful stuff with Microsoft’s software so that they can impress their customers is where it is at. Marketing people might call it Unlocking the value of the platform.
• Virtualization on the desktop has been one of my “things” for a while, so it’s interesting to hear that VirtualPC is to be included in the Enterprise version of Vista. Whilst listening to the intricacies of Vista vs XP deployment, my mind was racing thinking about the future of operating systems.So here goes: why is the Enterprise desktop so fat? Why not have a Singularity-based OS with .Net 3.0 Framework as the API. Win32 + other legacy apps could be virtualized to the desktop. As the world and work becomes more connected, the smart client at the edge of the network will have a different face.

In summary, I groked that Microsoft groks (sorry, Heinlein) the world as it exists today. Ensuring that no trees are felled in the rush to market is going to be an interesting challenge.

It took 33% of the time to complete the form online. Thank you to the tubes of the internets!

Will the next Australian Census look like this?

Creative Cow

Chaos Generation

Design is Kinky

Michael Efford, Digital Designer

Worsley Blog

Cari Jansen: InDesign CS2 Snippets

“Six out of ten industry professionals now use the Adobe product as their main layout program, according a Graphic Arts Service Association of Australia (GASAA) survey” InDesign cracks more than half the layout traffic in Australia in Print21 Online.

The data is from a GASAA survey: Adobe InDesign Usage Survey. Follows from from an August 2004 release: 96% of Australian service providers accept PDF files. Come to Australia to visit your layout, design and prepress future. It feels good to be a small part of this radical industry shift.