Wednesday, 28 November 2012 - 4:46pm

Published by Matthew Davidson on Wed, 28/11/2012 - 4:46pm

I'm having a hard time believing that the revenue from coin-operated light switches figured very prominently in the Group Cex Club's calculations here.

The overwhelming incentive for clubs to support so-called "intra-clubs" is the pokie tax rebate rort, aka. ClubGRANTS. The parent club works out how much pokie tax it doesn't want to pay, invoices it's intra-clubs for that amount - ostensibly for the services it provides to them - and immediately "donates" the money back. The NSW government then obligingly deducts the pretend value of these "donations" from the club's pokie tax bill.

It's a neat little swindle, but sadly it does have it's limits, and in this case it turns out not to be worth $50,000. Sorry, snooker players; you've outlived your usefulness.

Wednesday, 28 November 2012 - 12:14am

Published by Matthew Davidson on Wed, 28/11/2012 - 12:14am

The gap between "I've had a few drinks, I'm feeling pretty good, and have half a mind to go mad and stay up all night," and "Actually, I think I might turn in shortly," is now somewhere in the region of thirty seconds.

Saturday, 24 November 2012 - 1:01pm

Published by Matthew Davidson on Sat, 24/11/2012 - 1:01pm in

Let's look at the constitution of this latest brains trust:

  • A Coffs CBD landlord who is doing very well thank you out of the status quo,
  • A shopping mall architect,
  • A builder who cheerfully admits decades of responsibility for metastasising the Group Cex Club, the biggest and ugliest concrete bunker in the region,
  • GM of property speculators Gowings, a company so lethally parasitic they were able to suck the life out of the oldest and most respected retailer in Sydney.

I admit I can't imagine how the Coffs CBD could possibly be a more depressing place, but I daresay these fellows could.

Saturday, 24 November 2012 - 12:35pm

Published by Matthew Davidson on Sat, 24/11/2012 - 12:35pm in

I've always been very impressed by how natural and untainted by "improvements" are our local beaches and surrounds, and was quite disappointed to learn that this is more the result of benign neglect than good management. Here's hoping council staff put their shoulders to the wheel and ensure Operation Boob Job collapses under the weight of it's own terms of reference.

Friday, 23 November 2012 - 9:45pm

Published by Matthew Davidson on Fri, 23/11/2012 - 9:45pm

It's good to see the Coffs Clarence police are finally unleashing a storm of responsibility on the threat of congregating carelessness. All too often law enforcement becomes bogged down by tedious distinctions between legal and illegal activity. To D.I. Lindsay and all in the LAC, I say "Mate, I'll always give you the heads up."

Remember kids, always hitch your loose thumbs securely behind your belts.

Saturday, 17 November 2012 - 9:26am

Published by Matthew Davidson on Sat, 17/11/2012 - 9:26am in

"Douglas! Come meet our new tenant!"

A large teddy bear of a man, cleaning the lenses of a pair of reading glasses on a corner of his cardigan, rounded the corner from the large living area at the far end of the hallway.

"Isn't he a handsome boy?" gushed Glenda proudly, as though assuming some responsibility for whatever comeliness was to be found there.

"Fine looking fellow," he concurred, smiling warmly. "Doug Henshaw. Pleased to meet you." He extended a hand, which Tim shook, detecting not a trace of macho over-firmness. "Let me show you to your digs."

What the estate agent had described as a granny flat, Tim would have described as a small house. It was situated halfway down a concrete path that ran the length of a huge back yard, and reminded him of the detached cottages in a caravan park where his family had stayed on one particularly rainy and generally ill-fated holiday. Except that it was nice. Overwhelmingly nice. Everything in the place had been procured and assembled with such a painstaking attention to niceness that he could only imagine that on completion, the person responsible had promptly committed suicide, their lifelong devotion to all things nice complete. "Good heavens! This is palatial! Are you sure you're charging enough?"

"Very kind of you to say so. We had it fixed up for my mother a few years ago. Only accumulating dust since. She passed away in intensive care; never got to stay a single night in the end."

"I'm sorry." And relieved. As a lifelong ardent sceptic, Tim knew he would otherwise be listening out for her ghost at night.

"Very satisfying the way the family came together for her. Lovely service, beautiful headstone."

Tim had been searching Doug's countenance for a trace of the mean streak that he'd been warned about, and concluded he'd find more lurking menace in a litter of labrador puppies. Both Doug and Glenda spoke with the slightly slurred diction of the stroke victim, the perpetually slightly drunk, or the very expensively educated. Tim guessed the third, and possibly the second. Still, the genial attitude was infectious, and he was beginning to feel very good indeed about his new situation.

"You can bring your car around the side when you're ready."

"That's okay," said Tim, heaving his bags onto his new double (queen sized?) bed, "I don't have a car."

"Ah! Might be able to help you there. I have a cousin in the trade. He should be able to sort you out with something reasonable."

"Don't have a license, in fact." Then, realising this may be interpreted as an admission of being a serial dangerous/drunk driver, he added "Never had one."

"Oh." Doug seemed genuinely flummoxed by this and unable to formulate a response. "Never mind," he said at last, "We're about to pop into town to run a few errands. I daresay you'll want to get settled in."

"Yes. I might go for a walk later. Thanks for the very kind welcome."

"Very pleased to have you. Good to finally get some use out of the old shed. Feel free to pop in whenever you need anything, or just for a natter. We keep a very open house. Truth be told, Glenda's often at a loose end since she retired, and a bit of conversation now and then will keep her from going completely ga-ga." He winked conspiratorially, and Tim couldn't help but smile.

"I'll do my best."

His new landlord departed with a cheery wave, leaving Tim to marvel at how yet again he'd managed to land on his feet. Tucking a few nagging threads of guilt into the back pockets of his mind, he lay on the bed, giving it an experimental bounce as he took in the details of his new home. His bed was at the far end of the cabin, beside a curtained window looking out onto the garden. Nice wardrobe at the end of the bed, with a nice but empty recess for a TV which he would fill in due course. Nice lounge, nice coffee table, nice kitchenette in the far corner with a very nice breakfast bar affair surrounded by nice stools. The door to what he assumed was a nice bathroom/laundry was mercifully closed. He would save that niceness for later. No point overdoing it.

After a nap, he would have a shower and amble down to what on his map was labelled "New Town Shopping Centre". Tim was very pleased to see the map had a picture of a half-full glass at one corner of the complex, which he took to denote some sort of pub. "Very nice," he mumbled to himself as he kicked off his shoes and drifted off to complete the previous night's sleep.

Saturday, 17 November 2012 - 7:29am

Published by Matthew Davidson on Sat, 17/11/2012 - 7:29am

"Mum! Mum! What's this slimy trail?"

"That's prestige, son. The queen has it; Crown Lager, waterfront property, industry awards, and the McDonalds McAngus burger all have it. Now that man has it. No! Don't touch it! It's not for the likes of us."

A Very Brief Introduction to Open Standards

Published by Matthew Davidson on Tue, 13/11/2012 - 5:00pm in

Introduction

Computer technology at it's most basic level is the storage, retrieval, and distribution of data. For different computer systems to operate together, they must employ the same methods of storage, retrieval, and distribution; that is, they must adhere to common standards.

For any two parties that wish to share data, the simplest way of achieving this is for both to simply use the same software from the same vendor to access the data. When a majority resorts to this method of achieving interoperability, the software they use becomes known as a de-facto standard. The widespread use of the many variants of Microsoft™ Word format is an example of this. De-facto standards are usually proprietary standards; how they work is considered a trade secret. It is difficult, and often illegal, to write other software that works with proprietary standards.

Often, an individual or organisation may claim a monopoly a particular standard through software idea patents, but license it's use to third parties. The MP3 audio compression algorithm is an example of this.

Alternatively, open standards define common data formats and transfer protocols which are available for anybody to implement and use. For example, the core standards which define how the Internet works are open standards.

Principles

There is no definitive description of what constitutes an open standard. Most attempts to define open standards enumerate principles which may be condensed to the following two:

1. Public Specification

The standard must be published so that it is technically possible for anybody to implement the standard. Software authors should be able to refer to the standard to write compliant software. Users should be able to refer to the standard to help them use software that complies with the standard.

Preferably, the development of an open standard should be open to public scrutiny and participation.

2. Free to Use

Anybody should be able to implement or use an open standard, without restriction.

It is possible in many countries to patent the algorithms (abstract ideas, distinct from the concrete expression of those ideas as computer code) contained in computer software. The patent holder not only has copyright over their own implementation of an idea, but also the right to restrict anybody else writing their own software which uses the same technique. This is somewhat analogous to the writer of a play or a novel being granted not only monopoly control over the publication or performance of their own work, but also any subsequent work by any author which can be shown to have a similar plot.

Most advocates of open standards insist that any technology used in a standard must at least be available for use under a royalty-free license. Many maintain that this still allows a patent holder to withhold the royalty-free license at some later point at time, and that therefore no standard that contains patented techniques can be considered an open standard.

Benefits of Open Standards

Some of the benefits of using open standards include:

Lower Cost

Open standards are free for anybody to implement, meaning that end-users can usually choose from many different software packages that perform the same task in the same way. This exposes software vendors to competitive pressure, lowering the acquisition cost of software based on open standards.

Lower Risk

The use of proprietary standards makes the user a hostage to the whims and fortunes of the owner of those standards. For example, the owner of a proprietary file format may at some point go out of business, or decide to discontinue support for that file format. If you store data in that format, you may subsequently find yourself unable to access your data as easily as you would like, if at all.

Interoperability

The use of open standards gives those with whom you share data the option to use software which best suits their needs.

Open standards allow software from different vendors to work together, allowing you to choose the best software for each task, rather than relying exclusively on software from one company.

Flexibility

Because software designed around open standards essentially works the same way, it is easy to adopt software that precisely suits your needs, rather than being forced to use the software that everybody else uses.

Faster Development and Implementation

Open standards make it easier to write software by defining standard ways to perform common tasks.

If the file formats and interfaces of the software you are using comply with open standards, you can easily replace this software with other software that complies with the same standards.

Further Reading

A Very Brief Introduction to Free Software

Published by Matthew Davidson on Tue, 13/11/2012 - 4:51pm in

Introduction

A lot of software is published under licenses that restrict your freedom to do what you want with it. Unfortunately, the widespread use of these restrictive licensing terms coincided with the widespread adoption of personal computers, so many people don't see the restrictions as anything unusual.

Definition

A program can be considered free software if it is distributed under conditions which guarantee the user:

  • The freedom to run the program, for any purpose
  • The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
  • The freedom to redistribute copies
  • The freedom to improve the program, and release these improvements to the public

Free as in Freedom

In general use, the word free has two possible meanings; "free from restrictions", or "free from monetary cost". In the context of "free software", it is the first of these that applies.

It is possible to sell free software, and it is also possible to acquire software at no cost which does not meet the above criteria for free software (such software is often called "freeware"). As a practical consequence of the four freedoms above, it is generally possible to acquire copies of free software at little or no cost, but low cost is only one of the benefits of freedom.

Copyleft

"Copyleft" is a technique employed in some free software licenses to ensure continued freedom by the imposition of one restriction. If you redistribute copylefted free software or software derived from existing copylefted free software, you must do so with no additional restrictions.

That is, you can't take copylefted free software and redistribute it under a non-free license.

Open Source

In 1998, a number of prominent members of the free software community began applying the term "open source" to free software, in the belief that it was a less ambiguous term which might encourage wider adoption of free software, particularly in the corporate world.

While this has undoubtedly been the case, the term "open source" is not without it's own ambiguities. These ambiguities, along with the open source movement's emphasis on the practical benefits of collaborative software development rather than freedom, have allowed some unscrupulous companies to imply that their products are "open source" simply by making the source code of their software available in some way, even if the precise distribution terms of the software do not meet either the Free Software Definition, or the Open Source Definition.

Because of this, and because we believe that freedom is desirable in itself, we prefer to use the term "free software".

Further Reading

Tuesday, 13 November 2012 - 4:44pm

Published by Matthew Davidson on Tue, 13/11/2012 - 4:44pm in

A while back we rebuilt our work website from scratch. It was decided almost unanimously (I abstained) that pretty much everything I'd written for the site was far too grumpy, beardy-weirdy, and alienating for potential clients, so none of that was preserved. I was since contacted by a university lecturer who wanted to know what had happened to one of these articles, as he wanted to assign it to his students as required reading. So, ha!

For the benefit of other connoisseurs of sharp wit and devastating insight, I'm finally getting round to retrieving such bits that are worth salvaging and republishing them here, under the tag rescued. Enjoy. Or not.

Pages