Trevor Cook

I used to love my RSS Reader, but things have changed

From your 76 subscriptions, over the last 30 days you read 0 items, starred 0 items, shared 0 items, and emailed 0 items.

via www.google.com

A few years ago I used to tell everyone that RSS readers were the next big thing after search itself, this was a widely shared view. But over the course of 2009 I just lost interest in it.

It's not real until its in mainstream media

To give you a personal example to illustrate my point, I was in the very lucky position in Copenhagen to be in possession of leaked documents on a regular basis.

One such document was a leaked memo updating the United Nation's Climate Secretariat on the state of the treaty talks. A very trusted source sent it to me and as one who has been in possession of many leaked documents over the years, I knew it was authentic and I ran hard with it. I posted it on several blogs, including Huffington Post. I also pushed it out hard on Twitter, Facebook and news filtering social media channels like StumbleUpon, Digg and Reddit.

The comments and emails started rolling in very quickly and many were asking: "Is this document real?" Fair enough, I responded saying that my source was solid and that I had taken adequate steps to ensure its authenticity. But the skepticism continued until this comment popped up: "The leaked memo is real, it has just been reported in the Guardian."

Now don't get me wrong, I love the Guardian, in fact, I write for them from time to time and I consider their columnist George Monbiot a friend. But the article the Guardian had published had taken no further steps to verify the leaked memo than I had.

The very same "media industrial complex" activists accuse of bias, inaccuracy and all sorts of underhanded agendas remains the trusted source of information, while reports using social media channels emanating from within the activist community itself remain questionable.

Of course, it could be that people just don't trust me. But I have seen this exact scenario played out many times over the years where new information that breaks on a blog is not "authentic" until mainstream media has reported on it.

via www.huffingtonpost.com

Fascinating observations - for all its faults there is still something important about the big media brands and the resources, processes and experience that underpins them.

Terrorism in context

About half a billion people died during the past decade, and fewer than 50,000 of them were victims of terrorism — say, one in every 10,000 deaths. At least 40,000 of those 50,000 victims of terrorism lived in India, Pakistan or Iraq, and fewer than 4,000 lived in the West.

via search.japantimes.co.jp

Is DELL a misleading advertiser?

Further to my blog post yesterday, the nightmare just gets worse. The local delivery company, an outfit called schenker logistics, say it's all Dell's fault because they said it would arrive earlier than it did (allegedly) and it only arrived in Australia last night,

So why did the delivery company insist that I be home from 12 to 5pm yesterday when they didn't have it to deliver, surely they knew this yesterday morning and could have let me in on the secret. Wasted my time, but hey.

It's here, but they can't deliver it before next Wednesday and I can't go and pick it up apparently for 'security' reasons. 

And so much for Dell's much touted online status tracker, which apparently is not worth a cracker and seems to be just a bit of advertising fiction. 

UPDATE: I spoke to a very sympathetic woman at Dell here in Sydney and within a few minutes the delivery company were back on the phone saying they will direct courier it to my home this afternoon by 3pm - my son is pleased - thank you Tania.

Another Dell service FAIL

Oh god why do I do this, dealing with these companies so easily degenerates into a nightmare.

So the delivery company tells me on monday that the new laptop will be delivered between noon and 5pm today. 

I wait for five hours nothing happens.

I ring Dell, get through automated voice response machine.

Human being located somewhere in the world, probably the Philippines, asks for order number.

I give the order number, short delay, and then she puts me through to customer care.

I wait, then male voice same accent, asks for customer order number.

I read it out and wait. And wait.

Finally, he's back on the phone with the vital information that it was due to be delivered this afternoon.

Sure, thanks. But its not here, that's the point, and they haven't rung so I don't know whether they're running late or not coming today or what's happening.

He gives me the delivery company number so "I can ring them direct".

I ring. Message comes on "Our office is closed".

That's it.

So I'm stuffed.

Will it come tonight, tomorrow, next week?

I could try ringing Manilla again.

But that would just be inflicting more pain on myself.

Gee thanks Dell. A cracker jack effort.

UPDATE 12pm Xmas Eve: I spoke to a very sympathetic woman at Dell here in Sydney and within a few minutes the delivery company were back on the phone saying they will direct courier it to my home this afternoon by 3pm - my son is pleased - thank you Tania.

Bad management, not women, is the problem

I will be honest. In my career, I have tended to promote more men than women. I have even generally given men higher salaries. Why? Am I sexist? Do men do a better job? The answer is a resounding no to both.

Actually, it is mostly women's fault. They simply don't ask for raises or promotions as often as men do.

via www.forbes.com

I'm sure the author, Shaun Rein, is a bright fellow but logic is not his strong point. He's not sexist he is just biased towards men, go figure Shaun.

Good managers seek out the best talent, cultivate and reward it accordingly. Poor managers reward the people who whinge and self-promote the most. Mr Rein fits into the latter category. His article reveals more about his own shortcomings as a manager, then they do about women.

Now breakfast is bad for you

Nutritionist Rosemary Stanton said that cafe breakfasts were an ''exaggeration of everything'' people would make at home, with typically much larger portion sizes and higher contents of fat, sugar and salt.

via www.smh.com.au

More from the people who believe that the sole goal in life is to live as long as possible, no matter how miserable.

The great myth of a christian right in Australia

Australia's most senior political leaders - Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott - might openly declare their Christian faith, but there is no evidence churches form a unified lobby able to sway the course of national politics, a study has found. An analysis of the 2007 election by academic Rodney Smith shows the power of the so-called ''Christian right'' has been overstated - by members of the Christian lobby, its critics, and commentators.

via www.theage.com.au

At last, some perspective

Turnbull: if Abbott was a leftist

I was much more disappointed by the change in policy direction than by the change in leadership.If Mr Abbott were a leftist you could understand his reluctance for market-based mechanisms for putting a price on carbon. After all, the whole point of emissions trading is that it allows industries to choose the best means of abating their emissions. The challenge of climate change is so great that no party can credibly or responsibly fail to take effective measures to address it.

via www.timesonline.co.uk

Turnbull keeps up the commentary - this time in the London Times

The Herald Sun's readers really are a wacky lot

Last week, the Melbourne Herald Sun reported that ‘Police are appealing for a man to turn himself in after another man was bashed to death with an iron bar in Albert Park.’ So, that can happen now, I thought; you can be walking through Albert Park in the middle of the day and be bashed to death by a random bloke with an iron bar. But no, reading on, the superbly named Det Sen Sgt Ron Iddles said of the alleged attacker, ‘We know who he is’ and revealed that the man he, Iddles, was looking for was ‘a former roommate of the dead man’.

via thescrivenersfancy.com

I suppose given the popularity of the Bolt we shouldn't be surprised. But Tony Martin's account of a recent stream of rage on the Herald-Sun's site is so funny it reads like Evelyn Waugh at his best. As you read the quoted comments from this shining example of a modern internet 'conversation' hold in your mind the thought that each one of these people has a vote and helps to determine the outcome of the next election,

Comment rage

So why do people write really poisonous things to politicians in language so vicious and nasty they would never utter it to someone's face or probably wouldn't utter at all? Among the many Christmas cards I receive are a few which include really vicious sentiments handwritten eg "I hope you rot in hell you leftwing bastard." this around a typical printed Christmas greeting such as "May the Peace of Jesus fill your family with happiness"

via malcolmturnbull.com.au

It seems that one of the great benefits of the Internet is that provides many more opportunities for people to vent their rage against what? the world, their lives, their bosses? Something must drive all that anger.

Megalogenis has an eureka moment

The opposition is wary of reading too much good news into the worker swings because Labor didn't run in either seat, and many Labor voters appear to have cast informal ballots. But the numbers do provide a warning to Labor that its base, when confronted with a choice between Green and Liberal, will fracture.

via www.theaustralian.com.au

No kidding, George. Another one of those "You can't read anything into this, but ..." articles that journalists seem to find so compelling. I'm still bewildered about who exactly thought that Labor voters would all just switch to the Greens (after all, a leftie outpost)because Labor wasn't running. Many labor voters after all have much more in common with the Liberals (especially smart young candidates like Fletcher and O'Dwyer) than they do with Bob Brown and Christine Milne. Have these journalists never heard of working class conservatives? Labor is not a more moderate version of the Greens, it is a qualitatively different party. We've had a few decades of lamentations about the lack of choice between the two major parties, and now we express amazement that many voters simply alternate between the two, WTF?

Abbott's poor debut - what today's Newspoll really says

Abbott gave not only the worst debut result of any Opposition leader that has taken control of the party mid-term, but was also the second lowest Uncommitted result of any new Opposition leader (including those that took control immediately after an election defeat). Only Beazley Mk 2 had a lower level of uncommitteds, suggesting that Tony Abbott is a significantly known quantity in the electorate, meaning there isnt much fat in the figures.

via blogs.crikey.com.au

Wonderful to read a proper analysis - with context (gee Denis imagine that) - rather than the garbage spewed by the Australian and disappointingly copied by most other outlets

Tiger Woods and the marketing problem

Given how desperately we want to believe in a human god, it didn't take much peddling from Team Tiger for us to accept Woods as a modern deity. With every new tournament victory, every new product endorsement, his divinity grew. His marketers made him a symbol of tolerance and brotherhood, and his father, Earl Woods, spoke gibberish about his son being a creature of destiny. Getting married and having children only added to Woods' marketability. I'm divine and monogamous and the center of a happy nuclear family. And we ate it up.

So now that the "real" Woods has been revealed as a wild bone-daddy who behaves more like your out-of-work, alcoholic brother-in-law than an object of worship, we feel cheated. Aside from the hundreds of millions he's earned from golf tournaments and endorsements, turns out he's a lot like the rest of us. Our hunger for salacious news about him isn't necessarily about voyeurism. We're embarrassed by the gap between who we believed Woods to be and who he really is; and, having put Woods on that pedestal, we want to bring him down where he belongs—with the rest of us sinners. We're like the kid who, upon learning that there is no Santa Claus, conducts a wide-ranging investigation to determine how such a fraud was perpetrated on him. And we'll keep consuming Woods news until our picture of him more closely conforms with reality. We love to crown kings and cultivate messiahs. And then kill them.

"I'm human and I'm not perfect," Woods said in his post-crash communiqué to his public. "I am not without faults and I am far short of perfect," he reiterates in his second communiqué, published today, in which he confesses his "transgressions." Gee, Mr. Woods, where did we ever get the idea that you were perfect? Oh, from you!

via www.slate.com

So much of modern marketing is based around the creation of impossible, unattainable dreams. We are drawn to the images of perfection, just as powerfully we feel compelled to destroy them. It's a fascinating dilemma.

The climate change article Tony Abbott should read

On November 18, with the United Nations Global Warming Conference in Copenhagen fast approaching, U.S. Sen. James R. Inhofe (R–Okla.) took the floor of the Senate and proclaimed 2009 to be "The Year of the Skeptic." Had the senator's speech marked a new commitment to dispassionate, rational inquiry, a respect for scientific thought and a well-grounded doubt in ghosts, astrology, creationism and homeopathy, it might have been cause for cheer. But Inhofe had a more narrow definition of skeptic in mind: he meant "standing up and exposing the science, the costs and the hysteria behind global warming alarmism."

Within the community of scientists and others concerned about anthropogenic climate change, those whom Inhofe calls skeptics are more commonly termed contrarians, naysayers and denialists. Not everyone who questions climate change science fits that description, of course—some people are genuinely unaware of the facts or honestly disagree about their interpretation. What distinguishes the true naysayers is an unwavering dedication to denying the need for action on the problem, often with weak and long-disproved arguments about supposed weaknesses in the science behind global warming.

via www.scientificamerican.com

Minchin and Abetz are probably too fixed in their views to benefit, but the author's treatment of the seven main arguments of sceptics could prove useful to any Coalition representatives who still maintain an open mind on climate change.

What lies behind all this debate are some simple propositions, it seems to me, which often get lost.

Climate change will adversely affect many people, perhaps most of us. CO2 levels affect global temperatures. CO2 levels have increased sharply in the last two centuries. Human activity, particularly industrialisation, population growth, deforestation, is contributing to rising CO2 levels. The evidence for these propositions is pretty strong.

Taken together it all adds up to a compelling case for intervention to reduce our reliance on carbon-sourced energy.

It would be nice if our leaders would leave the rhetoric and hyperbole behind and just get on with it.