Archives For General

Days after Clare “chk-chk boom” Werbeloff was exposed as a fraud online, the Australian newspapers have finally caught up.

According to reports, “she has also signed a contract with Channel Nine’s A Current Affair and is likely to appear tomorrow night” and that she wouldn’t be speaking to any other media outlet.

That would be the same Channel Nine that published her false account to begin with.

Here’s the things I can’t work out. The video on YouTube was placed. Nine doesn’t have an official YouTube account, at least that I can see, and the account holding the video thanks two other people for giving them the video…oh, and it links to Ninemsn. Note the no YouTube account isn’t surprising, Nine, through its relationship with Microsoft publishes things directly on NineMSN through the MSN video hosting platform.

Next: Nine probably could have pulled the video on copyright grounds: they didn’t. They could have driven traffic to the official video on NineMSN….they didn’t.

Last: if Claire wasn’t a witness (and wasn’t originally at the location when the shooting took place) how did she end up being interviewed to begin with? Nine interviewed other people, surely the odd witness statement from Claire would have been a give away that something was amiss (and remember, there was no “skinny wog,” the guy shot was built like a brick shithouse.)

So the question then becomes: was Nine in on this from the beginning? And if so, why?

Are we going to end up with some sort of story about how social media can’t be trusted perhaps?

One thing is for sure: we won’t get the full story on ACA Monday. What we’ll get it more lies and more spin, after all this whole thing started at a PR agency.

Update: I should add on the YouTube account, there was nothing untoward about it…but that’s the problem. The placement is too random…it’s too out of place. It’s the sort of account I’d pick if I wanted to go under the radar on questions, but likewise an account that wouldn’t have found the clip by itself.

As I noted last night, besides some small related investments, there was no additional funding allocated to the NBN in the 09/10 budget, leaving a $38.3b short fall.

The Government has previously said that the NBN would raise money via infrastructure bonds, but wouldn’t these bonds count as debt?

The on the books catch is that they may not need to appear in the budget, because the bonds will be raised by the NBN corporation; not dissimilar to Telstra debt when it was still majority Government owned (NBN will be min 51% Government owned.)

But here’s the part that’s got me stumped: the form of the bonds.

From a previous Government statement:
?¢‚Ǩ?ìThe network will be funded from Aussie Infrastructure Bonds while private sector investment in the new company will be capped at 49%”

The implication here is that those bonds are Government backed. If they are issued by the company, with the Australian Government backing them, the Government in effect acts as a guarantor for the bonds. The last time I looked a guarantee of debt is counted as a liability until such time the debt is cleared.

If they’re not guaranteed by the Government, the use of the Aussie Infrastructure Bonds name is erroneous, but more importantly the cost of raising the money will increase relative to the security offered being less, which will further drive up the cost of the NBN.

It’s one thing to turn around and say “shit, things got really bad, we have to act” but it’s another to blame the previous Government when your own Government not only delivered the last budget, but has had its hands in the till (well, really on the national Mastercard) dishing out money ever since.

Treasurer Wayne Swan blames revenue collapse on spending by John Howard: news.com.au

Two days before delivering his second Budget at a time of unprecedented global economic upheaval, Mr Swan yesterday told The Australian his efforts to deal with the recession-driven, $200 billion collapse in revenue had been complicated by a legacy of reckless spending by the previous government.

In an apparent move to make Mr Howard a fall guy for a tough Budget, Mr Swan said the former prime minister had behaved “as if the mining boom was never going to end” in handing out payments across the community.

“As a consequence of those unsustainable habits which developed at the top of the boom and, given the nature of the global recession and the unwinding of the mining boom, everybody will have to do their bit to put the budget on a more sustainable footing,” Mr Swan said

But hang on: those “unsustainable” habits weren’t addressed in last years budget, Swan’s first. It’s lovely having hindsight, but you can’t blame the last guy when you didn’t see the problem either.

There’s one thing I do agree on: the Howard Government spent far too much (particularly in middle class welfare) and didn’t put enough money aside for a rainy day. The Howard Government should have set the country up better.

However, the Rudd Government could have addressed that problem LAST YEAR. Instead, they increased spending in that budget, and then did two rounds of $900 stimulus payments to 90% of the adult population, on top of massive amounts of infrastructure and related spending.

They’ve raided the Future Fund to cover their spending…the very fund set up by Howard to save for a rainy day TO START WITH.

I don’t think the blame Howard line is going to wash with most Australians. The fact they’re using it reeks of desperation, and may be indicative of even worse news to be delivered tonight.

18 months to go until the next election. People aren’t stupid. Cutting taxes to meet an election promise, then upping the cost of living for everything else (possibly by a greater amount) is something voters will see through.

So much for a change to transparent and open Government. They should just dump the tax cuts and explain the reason why (without blaming Howard,) most people would accept the downturn as the reasoning.

The above video is on the front page of Reddit this evening. It’s a remix of an infomercial to music.

I would be lucky to watch TV once a week, and when I do it’s usually the ABC, so no infomercials. Oddly when I visit the US, I often watch informercials in my hotel room, only because they’re so foreign to me, I find them fascinating.

So I watched the above video, and while the music mix was good, I found the product even better. I did some quick research, and found some real world testing examples that backed up the claim.

I then hit Google to see 1: how much it cost 2: if you can get it in Australia. You can’t, but there are eBay sellers who offer shipping here.

For around $47 shipped (the shipping was more than the product), in about 10 days I’ll proudly own a Slap Chop 🙂

Waterboarding

April 24, 2009 — 5 Comments

Lets take away the arguments for and against the use of torture by the US Government as a legitimate tool in the fight against terrorists, and lets consider the effectiveness of the favored method of “waterboarding.”

The argument for waterboarding is that it’s an effective way of breaking prisoners, and gaining vital intelligence information.

And yet

“CIA interrogators used waterboarding at least 266 times on Zubaydah and Mohammed.”

If it’s so effective, why do you need to use in 266 times? Surely if it is effective, a couple of times, maybe a dozen max, but 266 times?

Where’s the real case that waterboarding works?

I can’t remember where I read it, but it was a fair point: the Allies sent Japanese to the gallows for using the same techniques during World War 2. What does it say about the United States that what was once condemned, is now passed off as acceptable.

Qantas Fail

April 20, 2009 — 6 Comments

SMH: Save Qantas from unfair practices, unions urge

QANTAS needs saving from “unfair competition” from foreign government-backed airlines to protect Australian jobs, the ACTU will argue today when it meets the airline over its decision last week to axe up to 1750 jobs.

Yes, but who saves us from Qantas extortion on routes without enough competition?

Or are the Union’s really suggesting that the Qantas, who given they’re suppose to be going into the red at the moment because they couldn’t organize an orgy in a brothel efficiently, should be allowed to charge more? That ordinary Australian’s, including union members, should pay more for their airfares?

Interesting tactic from the Union movement: argue that people should pay more when many Qantas routes are already excessively expensive.

Here’s the one thing that is a worry: if Qantas is as badly off as it seemingly might be, will the Government be bailing them out? Too big to fail?

More importantly: how could Qantas, who has long price gouged on routes like the Pacific, have managed to get into this mess in the first place? What, a cosy duopoly domestically isn’t enough for them?

I still don’t know what this bloke is playing at: I mean seriously, all the media attention and sucking in investors only to sell out at the 11th hour, but I love this line in response

The Age: Stunned investors vent fury at chairman

“He’s not going to get (the $4.5 million), I can promise you that,” Mr Byrnes said. “He’s just ruined his corporate life forever ?¢‚Ǩ¬¶ I’d trust Mr Bolton like I’d trust a rabbit with a lettuce leaf.”

Oz: Telstra open to break-up

TELSTRA will consider a voluntary separation of its wholesale and retail arms as well as the sale of some assets to the federal Government’s proposed $43 billion broadband network in a spectacular about-face that effectively dumps the aggressive four-year strategy championed by chairman Donald McGauchie and chief executive Sol Trujillo.

The radically different and more conciliatory approach is part of an attempt to ward off the threat of much greater government intervention in Telstra’s business. The company’s board has set up a special committee of directors and executives to come up with a new approach and to negotiate with the Government.

Even if the economics still don’t add up for the NBN, breaking Telstra up would be a massive win for the Government, and an even bigger win for consumers.

Now if only we could do something about censorship 🙂

Mark Day in the OZ (via Mumbrella)

IF we look through the increasingly clouded questions surrounding the Rudd Government?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s plans for a fibre-to-the-home high-speed broadband network, how it will be designed, who will build it, who will own it and what it will cost end users, one thing is crystal clear: this is a game-changer for media.

The $43 billion plan is a television killer. When it is built it will consign the Packer era of TV to the dustbin of history. Our future TV menu depends on new technologies and new paradigms.

It’s a nice theory. Will the internet kill TV? Yes, I believe it will, as I’ve argued time and time again. But will the NBN kill television?

No.

The problem isn’t one of lack of demand. You only have to look at the exceptionally high level of BitTorrent usage in Australia to know that Australians love their internet TV.

The problem is one of legal rights, and access to that content on a television set.

There’s no Hulu in Australia, and even Hulu in the US is trying its best to stay off of television sets. We have a mix of content now online from FTA providers, but it’s hit and miss, and not anywhere near consistent.

Lets say we’re 5 years behind the US (that we are behind is a given, but we can argue on the time frame): does Day really believe that the NBN is going to overcome issues not yet overcome in the United States?

The real problem comes down to rights distribution models. TV stations here pay a lot of money for rights to US content. The only way a NBC or CBS is going to offer their content directly online to Australians over the NBN to a large screen TV is when doing so delivers a higher return then selling the rights to a local TV stations.

As much as I wish to believe this will happen soon (and it will happen eventually), that’s not a short term proposition in Australia. NBN doesn’t change that at all.

Also consider that Australian uptake of pay-tv (cable) is far lower than most comparable markets. Australian’s aren’t all that keen in paying big dollars for content. That complicates the consideration more.

I mentioned in an earlier post that bundling may be the saving grace for the NBN: in that context, it’s not Day’s suggestion of internet TV (although it may be delivered via Internet protocols) but Cable over the NBN. That could work, well…depending on the cost.

We haven’t heard farmers complain for a while. Like clockwork though:

ABC: Rural areas ‘need broadband the most’

The Central Darling Shire Council’s general manager, Tim Hazel, says it is not fair Wilcannia will miss out on the Federal Government’s National Broadband Network.

The federal Minister for Communication, Stephen Conroy, says the $43 billion network will benefit regional communities but has admitted the scheme will only be available to towns with a population of 1,000 or more people.

Mr Hazel says smaller rural communities should be offered the same services as cities and larger rural centres.

“The smaller and more rural and remote towns probably need these types of services even more than our city counterparts or our regional counterparts,” he said.

Actually, why should they be offered the same services?

If you choose to live in the middle of no where, should you really expect that you’ll get all the same services as someone in a city with millions of people get?

Lets be clear on one point though: they’re not getting it because they don’t vote Labor (mostly.) Broadband went out to small communities under Howard because most of the regional/ remote seats were Liberal or National Party seats; it was always seen as helping keep the voters on side.

I do remember under Broadband Connect 1 a community of 50 people getting ADSL for example (Malloy Island, near Augusta WA).

And that might be the better solution here, a new Broadband Connect scheme that subsidizes regional connections in areas not covered under NBN. The Government could then cap the cost so the spend is the same as City areas;

Consider that under BC1, the subsidy was around $1200-$2500 per connection. NBN is slated at around $5k per connection. Rudd could say private operators get $5k/ connection if they provide access to areas not covered by NBN at a certain min spec (say 50mbps instead of 100mbps.)

The bigger question though comes back to whether we treat highspeed access as a social right for all like we consider a telephone connection.

That’s a political call more than anything.