Planet Linux Australia
If you'd like to tell people how great your setup is; your current pet project; or almost anything else, then please let me know.
- by Michael Still
- Transcoding in MythTV
- by Paul Wayper
- MythTV Internals
- by Nigel Pearson
- Debugging DTV
- by Steven Ellis
- MythTV Development from '04 to Now
- by Nigel Pearson
- Lightning Talks
- Presence Awareness
- by Jonathan Oxer
WELLINGTON, New Zealand - Monday 15th June 2009 - Linux.conf.au announced the opening of its Call for Miniconfs for LCA2010. Miniconfs provide the opportunity of hosting 1-day mini-conferences on a variety of topics that run for 2 out of the 5 days during linux.conf.au. The Call for Miniconfs will remain open until 17 July 2009, after which time successful Miniconf Proposals will be notified and the best twelve selected to be included on the programme for LCA2010.
"Miniconfs are an important part of Linux.conf.au each year, and provide a great opportunity to host an entire day of sessions specific to a topic", says Andrew Ruthven, LCA2010 Director. "We're proud of hosting LCA2010 in Wellington, New Zealand and hope to see a variety of Miniconf Proposals to showcase the technical expertise of world's leading experts in free and open source software. When you gather IT experts together like this, the collective energy can help shape the future direction of emerging projects and developing technologies. That's what LCA2010 is all about – people getting together and making a difference".
IT businesses, government and community groups from around the world will also have the opportunity to showcase their work through presentations, displays and demonstrations at the LCA2010 Open Day, which will be held on Saturday 23rd January 2010. The conference will open its doors to the general public and highlight the best of breed Free and Open Source technology.
LCA2010 is easily affordable for professionals and hobbyists alike, thanks to generous sponsorship by leading proponents of free and open source software, and because the conference - much like the software - is largely organised by volunteers. If your business or organisation would like to take this opportunity to support LCA2010, please visit http://www.lca2010.org.nz/sponsors/why_sponsor.
Registrations to LCA2010 will open to delegates in September 2009.About linux.conf.au
Linux.conf.au is one of the world's best conferences for free and open source software! The coming Linux.conf.au, LCA2010, will be held at the Wellington Convention Centre in Wellington, New Zealand from Monday 18th January to Saturday 23rd January 2010. LCA2010 is fun, informal and seriously technical, bringing together Free and Open Source developers, users and community champions from around the world. LCA2010 is the second time linux.conf.au has been held in New Zealand, with the first being Dunedin in 2006.
For more information see: http://www.lca2010.org.nz/About Linux Australia
Linux Australia (http://www.linux.org.au/) is the peak body for Linux User Groups (LUGs) around Australia, and as such represents approximately 5000 Australian Linux users and developers. Linux Australia facilitates the organisation of this international Free Software conference in a different Australasian city each year.
For more information see: http://www.linux.org.au/Emperor Penguin Sponsors
LCA2010 is proud to acknowledge the support of our Emperor Penguin Sponsor, InternetNZ.
For more information see: http://www.internetnz.org.nz/Media Enquiries
Phone/Fax: +64 (4) 802 0422
Sociological Images has an interesting post by Jay Livingston PhD about a tennis final as a ritual . The main point is that you can get a much better view of the match on your TV at home with more comfort and less inconvenience, so what you get for the price of the ticket (and all the effort of getting there) is participating in the event as a spectator.
It seems to me that the same idea applies to community Linux conferences (such as LCA) and some Linux users group meetings. In terms of watching a lecture there are real benefits to downloading it after the conference so that you can pause it and study related web sites or repeat sections that you didn’t understand. Also wherever you might sit at home to watch a video of a conference lecture you will be a lot more comfortable than a university lecture hall. Some people don’t attend conferences and users’ group meetings because they would rather watch a video at home.Benefits of Attending (Apart from a Ritual)
One of the benefits of attending a lecture is the ability to ask questions. But that seems to mostly apply to the high status people who ask most questions. I’ve previously written about speaking stacks and my observations about who asks questions vs the number that can reasonably be asked .
I expect that most delegates ask no questions for the entire conference. I created a SurveyMonkey survey to discover how many questions people ask . I count LCA as a 3 day conference because I am only counting the days where there are presentations that have been directly approved by the papers committee, approving a mini-conf (and thus delegating the ability to approve speeches) is different.
Another benefit of attending is the so-called “hallway track” where people talk to random other people. But that seems to be of most benefit to people who have some combination of high status in the community and good social skills. In the past I’ve attended the “Professional Delegates Networking Session” which is an event for speakers and people who pay the “Professional” registration fee. Sometimes at such events there has seemed to be a great divide between speakers (who mostly knew each other before the conference) and “Professional Delegates” which diminishes the value of the event to anyone who couldn’t achieve similar benefits without it.How to Optimise a Conference as a Ritual
To get involvement of people who have the ritualistic approach one could emphasise the issue of being part of the event. For example to get people to attend the morning keynote speeches (which are sometimes poorly attended due to partying the night before) one could emphasise that anyone who doesn’t attend the keynote isn’t really attending the conference.
Conference shirts seem to be strongly correlated with the ritual aspect of conferences, the more “corporate” conferences don’t seem to offer branded clothing to delegates. If an item of branded schwag was given out before each keynote then that would increase the attendance by everyone who follows the ritual aspect (as well as everyone who just likes free stuff).
Note that I’m not suggesting that organisers of LCA or other conferences go to the effort of giving everyone schwag before the morning keynote, that would be a lot of work. Just telling people that anyone who misses the keynote isn’t really attending the conference would probably do.
I’ve always wondered why conference organisers want people to attend the keynotes and award prizes to random delegates who attend them. Is a keynote lecture a ritual that is incomplete if the attendance isn’t good enough?
-  http://tinyurl.com/m74pc95
-  http://etbe.coker.com.au/2013/02/01/speaking-stacks/
-  https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/RZ958TJ
We have only 1 week of the CFP left, and although we're getting some brilliant proposals we need a great deal more in order to build the wonderful conference that we want it to be. The linux.conf.au 2015 papers committee is looking for a broad range of proposals, and will consider submissions on anything from programming and software, to desktop, mobile, gaming, userspace, community, government, space, and education. There is only one rule:
Your proposal must be related to open source.
This year the papers committee is going to be focused on open source in education as well as our usual focus on deep technical content. We will also welcome presentations on:
- Clouds, datacenters and scalability.
- Community challenges; legal threats; education and outreach.
- Documentation for open source projects.
- HTML5; multimedia codecs.
- Kernel developments; new architectures.
- Open hardware; embedded systems; wearable computing.
- Security; privacy; anonymity.
- Networking; Software defined networking; bufferbloat; network function virtualization.
- Software development; programming languages.
- Sysadmin and automation.
What would you like to present at LCA 2015 in Auckland?
Yes? Then to submit your proposal, create an account, and select Submit a Proposal from the menu on the left hand side.
I don’t have nearly enough time to blog these days, but I am doing a bunch of writing for university. I decided I would publish a selection of the (hopefully) more interesting essays that people might find interesting Please note, my academic writing is pretty awful, but hopefully some of the ideas, research and references are useful.
For this essay, I had the most fun in developing my own alternative public policy model at the end of the essay. Would love to hear your thoughts. Enjoy and comments welcome!
Question: Critically assess the accuracy of and relevance to Australian public policy of the Bridgman and Davis policy cycle model.
The public policy cycle developed by Peter Bridgman and Glyn Davis is both relevant to Australian public policy and simultaneously not an accurate representation of developing policy in practice. This essay outlines some of the ways the policy cycle model both assists and distracts from quality policy development in Australia and provides an alternative model as a thought experiment based on the authors policy experience and reflecting on the research conducted around the applicability of Bridgman and Davis’ policy cycle model.
In 1998 Peter Bridgman and Glyn Davis released the first edition of The Australian Policy Handbook, a guide developed to assist public servants to understand and develop sound public policy. The book includes a policy cycle model, developed by Bridgman and Davis, which portrays a number of cyclic logical steps for developing and iteratively improving public policy. This policy model has attracted much analysis, scrutiny, criticism and debate since it was first developed, and it continues to be taught as a useful tool in the kit of any public servant. The fifth edition of the Handbook was the most recent, being released in 2012 which includes Catherine Althaus who joined Bridgman and Davis on the fourth edition in 2007.
The policy cycle model
The policy cycle model presented in the Handbook is below:
The model consists of eight steps in a circle that is meant to encourage an ongoing, cyclic and iterative approach to developing and improving policy over time with the benefit of cumulative inputs and experience. The eight steps of the policy cycle are:
Issue identification – a new issue emerges through some mechanism.
Policy analysis – research and analysis of the policy problem to establish sufficient information to make decisions about the policy.
Policy instrument development – the identification of which instruments of government are appropriate to implement the policy. Could include legislation, programs, regulation, etc.
Consultation (which permeates the entire process) – garnering of external and independent expertise and information to inform the policy development.
Coordination – once a policy position is prepared it needs to be coordinated through the mechanisms and machinations of government. This could include engagement with the financial, Cabinet and parliamentary processes.
Decision – a decision is made by the appropriate person or body, often a Minister or the Cabinet.
Implementation – once approved the policy then needs to be implemented.
Evaluation – an important process to measure, monitor and evaluate the policy implementation.
In the first instance is it worth reflecting on the stages of the model, which implies the entire policy process is centrally managed and coordinated by the policy makers which is rarely true, and thus gives very little indication of who is involved, where policies originate, external factors and pressures, how policies go from a concept to being acted upon. Even to just develop a position resources must be allocated and the development of a policy is thus prioritised above the development of some other policy competing for resourcing. Bridgman and Davis establish very little in helping the policy practitioner or entrepreneur to understand the broader picture which is vital in the development and successful implementation of a policy.
The policy cycle model is relevant to Australian public policy in two key ways: 1) that it both presents a useful reference model for identifying various potential parts of policy development; and 2) it is instructive for policy entrepreneurs to understand the expectations and approach taken by their peers in the public service, given that the Bridgman and Davis model has been taught to public servants for a number of years. In the first instance the model presents a basic framework that policy makers can use to go about the thinking of and planning for their policy development. In practise, some stages may be skipped, reversed or compressed depending upon the context, or a completely different approach altogether may be taken, but the model gives a starting point in the absence of anything formally imposed.
Bridgman and Davis themselves paint a picture of vast complexity in policy making whilst holding up their model as both an explanatory and prescriptive approach, albeit with some caveats. This is problematic because public policy development almost never follows a cleanly structured process. Many criticisms of the policy cycle model question its accuracy as a descriptive model given it doesn’t map to the experiences of policy makers. This draws into question the relevance of the model as a prescriptive approach as it is too linear and simplistic to represent even a basic policy development process. Dr Cosmo Howard conducted many interviews with senior public servants in Australia and found that the policy cycle model developed by Bridgman and Davis didn’t broadly match the experiences of policy makers. Although they did identify various aspects of the model that did play a part in their policy development work to varying degrees, the model was seen as too linear, too structured, and generally not reflective of the at times quite different approaches from policy to policy (Howard, 2005). The model was however seen as a good starting point to plan and think about individual policy development processes.
Howard also discovered that political engagement changed throughout the process and from policy to policy depending on government priorities, making a consistent approach to policy development quite difficult to articulate. The common need for policy makers to respond to political demands and tight timelines often leads to an inability to follow a structured policy development process resulting in rushed or pre-canned policies that lack due process or public consultation (Howard, 2005). In this way the policy cycle model as presented does not prepare policy-makers in any pragmatic way for the pressures to respond to the realities of policy making in the public service. Colebatch (2005) also criticised the model as having “not much concern to demonstrate that these prescriptions are derived from practice, or that following them will lead to better outcomes”. Fundamentally, Bridgman and Davis don’t present much evidence to support their policy cycle model or to support the notion that implementation of the model will bring about better policy outcomes.
Policy development is often heavily influenced by political players and agendas, which is not captured in the Bridgman and Davis’ policy cycle model. Some policies are effectively handed over to the public service to develop and implement, but often policies have strong political involvement with the outcomes of policy development ultimately given to the respective Minister for consideration, who may also take the policy to Cabinet for final ratification. This means even the most evidence based, logical, widely consulted and highly researched policy position can be overturned entirely at the behest of the government of the day (Howard, 2005) . The policy cycle model does not capture nor prepare public servants for how to manage this process. Arguably, the most important aspects to successful policy entrepreneurship lie outside the policy development cycle entirely, in the mapping and navigation of the treacherous waters of stakeholder and public management, myriad political and other agendas, and other policy areas competing for prioritisation and limited resources.
The changing role of the public in the 21st century is not captured by the policy cycle model. The proliferation of digital information and communications creates new challenges and opportunities for modern policy makers. They must now compete for influence and attention in an ever expanding and contestable market of experts, perspectives and potential policies (Howard, 2005), which is a real challenge for policy makers used to being the single trusted source of knowledge for decision makers. This has moved policy development and influence away from the traditional Machiavellian bureaucratic approach of an internal, specialised, tightly controlled monopoly on advice, towards a more transparent and inclusive though more complex approach to policy making. Although Bridgman and Davis go part of the way to reflecting this post-Machiavellian approach to policy by explicitly including consultation and the role of various external actors in policy making, they still maintain the Machiavellian role of the public servant at the centre of the policy making process.
The model does not clearly articulate the need for public buy-in and communication of the policy throughout the cycle, from development to implementation. There are a number of recent examples of policies that have been developed and implemented well by any traditional public service standards, but the general public have seen as complete failures due to a lack of or negative public narrative around the policies. Key examples include the Building the Education Revolution policy and the insulation scheme. In the case of both, the policy implementation largely met the policy goals and independent analysis showed the policies to be quite successful through quantitative and qualitative assessment. However, both policies were announced very publicly and politically prior to implementation and then had little to no public narrative throughout implementation leaving the the public narrative around both to be determined by media reporting on issues and the Government Opposition who were motivated to undermine the policies. The policy cycle model in focusing on consultation ignores the necessity of a public engagement and communication strategy throughout the entire process.
The Internet also presents significant opportunities for policy makers to get better policy outcomes through public and transparent policy development. The model down not reflect how to strengthen a policy position in an open environment of competing ideas and expertise (aka, the Internet), though it is arguably one of the greatest opportunities to establish evidence-based, peer reviewed policy positions with a broad range of expertise, experience and public buy-in from experts, stakeholders and those who might be affected by a policy. This establishes a public record for consideration by government. A Minister or the Cabinet has the right to deviate from these publicly developed policy recommendations as our democratically elected representatives, but it increases the accountability and transparency of the political decision making regarding policy development, thus improving the likelihood of an evidence-based rather than purely political outcome. History has shown that transparency in decision making tends to improve outcomes as it aligns the motivations of those involved to pursue what they can defend publicly. Currently the lack of transparency at the political end of policy decision making has led to a number of examples where policy makers are asked to rationalise policy decisions rather than investigate the best possible policy approach (Howard, 2005). Within the public service there is a joke about developing policy-based evidence rather than the generally desired public service approach of developing evidence-based policy.
Although there are clearly issues with any policy cycle model in practise due to the myriad factors involved and the at times quite complex landscape of influences, by constantly referencing throughout their book the importance of “good process” to “help create better policy” (Bridgman & Davis, 2012), they both imply their model is a “good process” and subtly encourage a check-box style, formally structured and iterative approach to policy development. The policy cycle in practice becomes impractical and inappropriate for much policy development (Everett, 2003). Essentially, it gives new and inexperienced policy makers a false sense of confidence in a model put forward as descriptive which is at best just a useful point of reference. In a book review of the 5th edition of the Handbook, Kevin Rozzoli supports this by criticising the policy cycle model as being too generic and academic rather than practical, and compares it to the relatively pragmatic policy guide by Eugene Bardach (2012).
Bridgman and Davis do concede that their policy cycle model is not an accurate portrayal of policy practice, calling it “an ideal type from which every reality must curve away” (Bridgman & Davis, 2012). However, they still teach it as a prescriptive and normative model from which policy developers can begin. This unfortunately provides policy developers with an imperfect model that can’t be implemented in practise and little guidance to tell when it is implemented well or how to successfully “curve away”. At best, the model establishes some useful ideas that policy makers should consider, but as a normative model, it rapidly loses traction as every implementation of the model inevitably will “curve away”.
The model also embeds in the minds of public servants some subtle assumptions about policy development that are questionable such as: the role of the public service as a source of policy; the idea that good policy will be naturally adopted; a simplistic view of implementation when that is arguably the most tricky aspect of policy-making; a top down approach to policy that doesn’t explicitly engage or value input from administrators, implementers or stakeholders throughout the entire process; and very little assistance including no framework in the model for the process of healthy termination or finalisation of policies. Bridgman and Davis effectively promote the virtues of a centralised policy approach whereby the public service controls the process, inputs and outputs of public policy development. However, this perspective is somewhat self serving according to Colebatch, as it supports a central agency agenda approach. The model reinforces a perspective that policy makers control the process and consult where necessary as opposed to being just part of a necessarily diverse ecosystem where they must engage with experts, implementers, the political agenda, the general public and more to create robust policy positions that might be adopted and successfully implemented. The model and handbook as a whole reinforce the somewhat dated and Machiavellian idea of policy making as a standalone profession, with policy makers the trusted source of policies. Although Bridgman and Davis emphasise that consultation should happen throughout the process, modern policy development requires ongoing input and indeed co-design from independent experts, policy implementers and those affected by the policy. This is implied but the model offers no pragmatic way to do policy engagement in this way. Without these three perspectives built into any policy proposal, the outcomes are unlikely to be informed, pragmatic, measurable, implementable or easily accepted by the target communities.
The final problem with the Bridgman and Davis public policy development model is that by focusing so completely on the policy development process and not looking at implementation nor in considering the engagement of policy implementers in the policy development process, the policy is unlikely to be pragmatic or take implementation opportunities and issues into account. Basically, the policy cycle model encourages policy makers to focus on a policy itself, iterative and cyclic though it may be, as an outcome rather than practical outcomes that support the policy goals. The means is mistaken for the ends. This approach artificially delineates policy development from implementation and the motivations of those involved in each are not necessarily aligned.
The context of the model in the handbook is also somewhat misleading which affects the accuracy and relevance of the model. The book over simplifies the roles of various actors in policy development, placing policy responsibility clearly in the domain of Cabinet, Ministers, the Department of Prime Minister & Cabinet and senior departmental officers (Bridgman and Davis, 2012 Figure 2.1). Arguably, this conflicts with the supposed point of the book to support even quite junior or inexperienced public servants throughout a government administration to develop policy. It does not match reality in practise thus confusing students at best or establishing misplaced confidence in outcomes derived from policies developed according to the Handbook at worst.
An alternative model
Part of the reason the Bridgman and Davis policy cycle model has had such traction is because it was created in the absence of much in the way of pragmatic advice to policy makers and thus has been useful at filling a need, regardless as to how effective is has been in doing so. The authors have however, not significantly revisited the model since it was developed in 1998. This would be quite useful given new technologies have established both new mechanisms for public engagement and new public expectations to co-develop or at least have a say about the policies that shape their lives.
From my own experience, policy entrepreneurship in modern Australia requires a highly pragmatic approach that takes into account the various new technologies, influences, motivations, agendas, competing interests, external factors and policy actors involved. This means researching in the first instance the landscape and then shaping the policy development process accordingly to maximise the quality and potential adoptability of the policy position developed. As a bit of a thought experiment, below is my attempt at a more usefully descriptive and thus potentially more useful prescriptive policy model. I have included the main aspects involved in policy development, but have included a number of additional factors that might be useful to policy makers and policy entrepreneurs looking to successfully develop and implement new and iterative policies.
It is also important to identify the inherent motivations of the various actors involved in the pursuit, development of and implementation of a policy. In this way it is possible to align motivations with policy goals or vice versa to get the best and most sustainable policy outcomes. Where these motivations conflict or leave gaps in achieving the policy goals, it is unlikely a policy will be successfully implemented or sustainable in the medium to long term. This process of proactively identifying motivations and effectively dealing with them is missing from the policy cycle model.
The Bridgman and Davis policy cycle model is demonstrably inaccurate and yet is held up by its authors as a reasonable descriptive and prescriptive normative approach to policy development. Evidence is lacking for both the model accuracy and any tangible benefits in applying the model to a policy development process and research into policy development across the public service continually deviates from and often directly contradicts the model. Although Bridgman and Davis concede policy development in practise will deviate from their model, there is very little useful guidance as to how to implement or deviate from the model effectively. The model is also inaccurate in that is overly simplifies policy development, leaving policy practitioners to learn for themselves about external factors, the various policy actors involved throughout the process, the changing nature of public and political expectations and myriad other realities that affect modern policy development and implementation in the Australian public service.
Regardless of the policy cycle model inaccuracy, it has existed and been taught for nearly sixteen years. It has shaped the perspectives and processes of countless public servants and thus is relevant in the Australian public service in so far as it has been used as a normative model or starting point for countless policy developments and provides a common understanding and lexicon for engaging with these policy makers.
The model is therefore both inaccurate and relevant to policy entrepreneurs in the Australian public service today. I believe a review and rewrite of the model would greatly improve the advice and guidance available for policy makers and policy entrepreneurs within the Australian public service and beyond.
(Please note, as is the usual case with academic references, most of these are not publicly freely available at all. Sorry. It is an ongoing bug bear of mine and many others).
Althaus, C, Bridgman, P and Davis, G. 2012, The Australian Policy Handbook. Sydney, Allen and Unwin, 5th ed.
Bridgman, P and Davis, G. 2004, The Australian Policy Handbook. Sydney, Allen and Unwin, 3rd ed.
Bardach, E. 2012, A practical guide for policy analysis: the eightfold path to more effective problem solving, 4th Edition. New York. Chatham House Publishers.
Everett, S. 2003, The Policy Cycle: Democratic Process or Rational Paradigm Revisited?, The Australian Journal of Public Administration, 62(2) 65-70
Howard, C. 2005, The Policy Cycle: a Model of Post-Machiavellian Policy Making?, The Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 64, No. 3, pp3-13.
Rozzoli, K. 2013, Book Review of The Australian Policy Handbook: Fifth Edition., Australasian Parliamentary Review, Autumn 2013, Vol 28, No. 1.
I recently had a medical appointment cancelled due to a “computer crash”. Apparently the reception computer crashed and lost all bookings for a day and they just made new bookings for whoever called – and anyone who had a previous booking just missed out. I’ll probably never know whether they really had a computer problem or just used computer problems as an excuse when they made a mistake. But even if it wasn’t a real computer problem the fact that computers are so unreliable overall that “computer crash” is an acceptable excuse indicates a problem with the industry.
The problem of unreliable computers is a cost to everyone, it’s effectively a tax on all business and social interactions that involve computers. While I spent the extra money on a server with ECC RAM for my home file storage I have no control over the computers purchased by all the companies I deal with – which are mostly the cheapest available computers. I also have no option to buy a laptop with ECC RAM because companies like Lenovo have decided not to manufacture them.
It seems to me that the easiest way of increasing overall reliability of computers would be to use ECC RAM everywhere. In the early 90′s all IBM compatible PCs had parity RAM, that meant that for each byte there was one extra bit which would report 100% of single-bit errors and 50% of errors that involved random memory corruption. Then manufacturers decided to save a tiny amount of money on memory by using 8/9 the number of chips for desktop/laptop systems and probably make more money on selling servers with ECC RAM. If the government was to impose a 20% tax on computers that lack ECC RAM then manufacturers would immediately start using it everywhere and the end result would be no price increase overall as it’s cheaper to design desktop systems and servers with the same motherboards – apparently some desktop systems have motherboard support for ECC RAM but don’t ship with suitable RAM or advertise the support for such RAM.
This principle applies to many other products too. One obvious example is cars, a car manufacturer can sell cheap cars with few safety features and then when occupants of those cars and other road users are injured the government ends up paying for medical expenses and disability pensions. If there was a tax for every car that has a poor crash test rating and a tax for every car company that performs badly in real world use then it would give car companies some incentive to manufacture safer vehicles.
Now there are situations where design considerations preclude such features. For example implementing ECC RAM in mobile phones might involve technical difficulties (particularly for 32bit phones) and making some trucks and farm equipment safer might be difficult. But when a company produces multiple similar products that differ significantly in quality such as PCs with and without ECC RAM or cars with and without air-bags there would be no difficulty in making them all of them higher quality.
I don’t think that we will have a government that implements such ideas any time soon, it seems that our government is more interested in giving money to corporations than taxing them. But one thing that could be done is to adopt a policy of only giving money to companies if they produce high quality products. If a car company is to be given hundreds of millions of dollars for not closing a factory then that factory should produce cars with all possible safety features. If a computer company is going to be given significant tax breaks for doing R&D then they should be developing products that won’t crash.
No related posts.
The ever-thoughtful Charlie Stross has written an article about the problems facing the NSA. There's not going to be just one Edward Snowden or Bradley Manning, there's going to be heaps of them - because the Three Letter Acronym security departments are busy getting rid of all of the permanent employees who felt loyal to them and replacing them with contractors who have no more loyalty to them than the security department's loyalty to the contractor.
Now, I personally believe in being loyal to my employer. I (of course) honour the various clauses in my contract that say they get to own all my work for them, and that I won't sell or leak their secrets, and that I won't work for someone else without telling them. I believe in being loyal to the customers I work for and the people I work with. I believe that I am more valuable to an employer the longer I work there because I know the intricacies of the job better and am better at solving problems by recognising them and their underlying causes. These are things that a new employee will always struggle with.
But I believe that the big problem with employers these days is this pernicious idea that their workforce is interchangeable, not to be trusted, and best used by screwing them for as much work as you can get out of them and then throwing them away. It's an "Atlas Shrugged" mindset that believes that somehow the people at the top are being held back by the people at the bottom, and that therefore workers don't deserve any of the benefits of being at the top. It's also contributed to by the idea that companies poach people - especially "rock star" workers and people high up the ladder; the idea that those people (and their loyalty) can be bought just for their experience and to (somehow) change their environment just by being in it.
The "glory days" of jobs for life that Charlie talks about in his essay are really the times before the MBA school of management came into being; when people managed companies because they'd worked their way to the top. Those people knew the business intimately, they'd sweated over it for decades, they knew the people - and the employees knew them. There was much more of a feeling of trust in those organisations, because it was about personal relationships more than work relationships or "rightsizing" or "mission statements". Walt Disney was famous for remembering every person in the 700-strong Disney workforce. These days, one gets the impression that the management of some companies consider it a burden to even associate with the people more than a step down the org chart.
At the moment all we're really seeing, IMO, is the 'tit for tat' nature of the Prisoners Dilemma being played out in corporate workforces. If you want to find the point at which employers started cheating on their workforces, then you have to keep on going back - past the 1980s anti-union laws and workplace deregulation, past the 1880s and the weavers and miners unions, past the 1780s and the clearances... in fact, just keep going: its feudal lords demanding tithes, and high priests demanding donations, and kings demanding tributes. The Greeks famously invented Democracy, but even then slaves, women, and other "not our sort" people couldn't actually vote. The process of cheating on the people beneath you for your own gain has a long history - far longer, I would argue, than the history of the workers rebelling and demanding their own rights.
So now the workforce is no longer loyal to their employer, and we see the mistrust and second-guessing that usually accompanies standard Prisoners Dilemma situations. I think the two are evenly matched - the employer might seem to hold the power (because they write the contract the employeee must sign without change) but the employees are many, and their methods of working around the employer's restrictions and exploiting the employer's weaknesses are many and subtle. The employee has much more mobility than the employer, and while there are usually non-competition restrictions in the contract the number of times I've heard people subtly, and not so subtly, ignoring these (for example, sales people poaching client lists) makes it difficult for the employer to fight all those battles.
Overall, it's a pity, because I think a situation where employer and employee trust eachother and work together is much better than one where each is subtly trying to screw the other. Once you see it as a contest, though, it's all downhill from there. Many organisations try to rebuild trust, but the "team building exercise" is such a cliche for uncaring management that it's boring to repeat it. If you're trying to rebuild trust, but not fundamentally changing the management style and not addressing the needs and issues of the workers, then it's really just an exercise in paying some management consultant to take your money and laugh at you.
I currently work at a company which does have, at least in our Canberra offices, a lot of respect for its workers. It's easy to imagine being paid well for being a "subject matter expert" rather than having to go into management to keep climbing the pay ladder. We have regular functions every fortnight or so where you can speak to just about anyone - not 'town hall' meetings which in my experience are still basically management telling the workers the way it's going to be. And I think that there are many examples of companies that are doing the right things by their workers and seeing a lot of benefits - it's easy to cynically see what Google get out of paying for their sysadmins to have good internet connections, but the sysadmins get a decent deal out of it too, and the trust and understanding that goes with it is not easily bought.
So I do think there's hope. But I think we have to see a profound shift in the employers and their attitudes to staff before that changes. For a start, weed out the psychopaths and bullies in management before you complain about theft of office supplies. Promote people from within rather than always hiring top management from outside. Stop trying to win my trust with company slogans and mission statements, and start actually listening to me when I tell you about the opportunity that I can see right in front of you. Stop treating companies like feudal families, with their fiefdoms and strict hierarchy, and start treating us all like citizens.
It's a token gesture, and I'd prefer something that actually causes a real change in the state of affairs. But hopefully the few people that visit my site will ask why its blacked out, and I'll tell them. Or they'll find out why for themselves. Or they'll know already.
Ultimately, the thing that worries me in all of this is that all the data collection, all the wire tapping and interception, all the bad cryptography and bastardised standards, all the spying and all the secrecy doesn't really improve our actual security. It hasn't found anything that normal detective work and normal policing and existing laws couldn't already deal with. It hasn't prevented any crimes, either against real people or against 'the state' or anything.
The 'baddies' are already adapting their methods and covering their tracks. There are far too many false positives, and much too much confirmation bias, to make the resulting 'intelligence' anything but a joke. The FBI already spends more money on covering up its mistakes - like its total waste of resources watching Brandon Mayfield - than it would if it had just asked him for an interview. Mean time they're missing the Boston Marathon bombers despite lots of evidence pointing to them. Then follows a lot of chest puffing and excuses and "we can't tell you the details, they're classified".
(Meanwhile, we have banks that are laundering money to supply to exactly the same terrorist organisations that get a slap-on-the-wrist fine and no jail time for anyone because they're "too big to fail". So not only did the NSA and all the security TLAs not find a massive source of funding for these organisations - something that's causing far more damage to USAdian society than 'terrorism' - but the entire rest of the government quietly brushed it under the carpet and pretended it didn't happen. Yeah, good one.)
Ultimately, all it's really about is perpetuating the existince of the security complex - mainly in the USA, but everywhere really. Its first imperative is to preserve itself, and it has all the means to do so. It has the secret courts and the secret laws to prevent legal challenge, and the arms and the blackmail material to prevent other attacks. And its paranoid level of secrecy and security makes it automatically treat any rein, any check on it, as a threat to its own existence - because, well, it would be.
So what REALLY scares me is that nothing we do will actually stop them at all. At this stage, it's basically impossible to even rein in the NSA's powers - and that'd be like taking a rabid tiger and smacking it on the nose to tell it to go away. To put in the high-level open oversight that lets the public see whether these agencies are actually doing anything useful with the vast quantities of money they control is a task that's beyond the realistic abilities of any government (to say nothing of the blackmail and subversive influence that any security agency can bring against anyone that wants to downsize them). Tackling the companies who run the prisons and supply the equipment and make a profit from all the unrest - that's just bordering on insane.
We've made the tiger, and we've fed the tiger because it said it would protect us, and we're on its backs because it's better than being in its jaws, and we've fed it more because we're afraid it might eat us, and it's only grown larger and hungrier. To be honest, I think the security complex will kill the world before climate change does.
Peter may be known to my readers, so I won't be otiose in describing him as a programmer with great experience who's worked in the Open Source community for decades. For the last couple of years he's been battling Leukaemia, a fight which has taken its toll - not only on him physically and on his work but also on his coding output. It's a telling point for all good coders to consider that he wrote tests on his good days - so that when he was feeling barely up to it but still wanted to do some coding he could write something that could be verified as correct.
I arrived while he was getting a blood transfusion at a local hospital, and we had spent a pleasurable hour talking about good coding practices, why people don't care about how things work any more, how fascinating things that work are (ever seen inside a triple lay-shaft synchronous mesh gearbox?), how to deal with frustration and bad times, how inventions often build on one another and analogies to the open source movement, and many other topics. Once done, we went back to his place where I cooked him some toasted sandwiches and we talked about fiction, the elements of a good mystery, what we do to plan for the future, how to fix the health care system (even though it's nowhere near as broken as, say, the USA), dealing with road accidents and fear, why you can never have too much bacon, what makes a good Linux Conference, and many other things.
Finally, we got around to talking about code. I wanted to ask him about a project I've talked about before - a new library for working with files that allows the application to insert, overwrite, and delete any amount of data anywhere in the file without having to read the entire file into memory, massage it, and write it back out again. Happily for me this turned out to be something that Peter had also given thought to, apropos of talking with Andrew Cowie about text editors (which was one of my many applications for such a system). He'd also independently worked out that such a system would also allow a fairly neat and comprehensive undo and versioning system, which was something I thought would be possible - although we differed on the implementation details, I felt like I was on the right track.
We discussed how such a system would minimise on-disk reads and writes, how it could offer transparent, randomly seekable, per-block compression, how to recover from partial file corruption, and what kind of API it should offer. Then Peter's son arrived and we talked a bit about his recently completed psychology degree, why psychologists are treated the same way that scientists and programmers are at parties (i.e. like a form of social death), and how useful it is to consider human beings as individual when trying to help them. Then it was time for my train back to Sydney and on to Canberra and home.
Computing is famous, or denigrated, as an industry full of introverts, who would rather hack on code than interact with humans. Yet many of us are extroverts who don't really enjoy this mould we are forced into. We want to talk with other people - especially about code! For an extrovert like myself, having a chance to spend time with someone knowledgeable, funny, human, and sympathetic is to see sun again after long days of rain. I'm fired up to continue work on something that I thought was only an idle, personal fantasy unwanted by others.
I can only hope it means as much to Peter as it does to me.
Pretty much all food is expensive. They're just in the process of setting up their own small abbatoir, which will allow them to serve local meat at Australian food safety standards. Fish is caught locally (outside the protected areas, of course), but is variable - some times they have to serve frozen fish caught days or weeks ago. There are a few people gathering chicken eggs, available at the local co-op store.
Everything else is brought in via ship. It costs about $540 per cubic metre - much, much more if you need it to be refrigerated or frozen in transit. Ice creams typically cost $6 to $8, a half round of White Castello cheese costs $14.60, and we had the smallest roast chicken you'd ever seen for $20. Even self catering is reasonably expensive here. Likewise, all fuel, all cars, pretty much all building materials - all are shipped here from the mainland. Mail day is pretty spectacular.
I don't know what electricity costs on the island but it's main supply is a series of diesel generators. Wind, wave and solar power are being investigated but the impact on the views and possibly wildlife is considered a downside (although I'd argue that they need to think differently; bird deaths due to wind turbines are much lower than you'd think and I for one would love to see a couple of wind turbines on Transit Hill or in some of the valleys, providing good clean energy). All power lines are underground, which I think is great, and street lighting is kept to a minimum (partly to save power, partly to not interfere with the many bird species here). The other complication with renewable energy is that there's simply not enough base load and not enough distribution to mean that the variable power supply can easily be used. Wind is OK when you've got hundreds of turbines spread across a state, but not so good if they're all concentrated in a square kilometre area.
But the real reason you should pity Lord Howe Islanders is their internet connection.
There is no undersea fibre-optic cable running here. One was connected to Norfolk Island, 700km east, but they didn't connect Lord Howe Island (for some unknown reason). So all internet connections are via satellite. One of the two satellite companies servicing the island decided to stop service, and only took some of their existing customers back at higher cost and reduced rate of data. The other is not taking any new customers. The NBN satellites are already oversubscribed - so "satellite internet" for regions may already be bad - which means that Lord Howe Island has no option for new internet connections. There are only a few satellite uplinks to serve the entire population, so link congestion is high.
What does this mean? It means studying, getting email, and even getting basic information takes a lot longer. It's costly and unreliable. You could do great business on LHI - selling Kentia Palm seedlings (which used to be the main business on the island), for instance - except you can't do it using the internet and compete with other sites on the mainland. Keeping in touch with children - most go to boarding school on the mainland - is slow and some things like video calls are impossible. So many things we take for granted on the mainland, things that are possible with 3G connections and "just work" on ADSL, just do not work at all on the island. Bufferbloat is crippling here.
The islanders are already conversing with Malcolm Turnbull about capacity of the NBN satellites and getting better speed. But I can see how easily it's overlooked - the problems experienced by 300 people and their 330 or so guests can look small beside an electorate of 100,000 or so. The pity to me is that the internet is a great opportunity giver. People can run businesses, find help, and get opportunities to better themselves (almost) regardless of where they are. My trip to Lord Howe Island has really shown how much we can take for granted the availability of information that the internet brings.
So I took backups, and copied files, and wrote new code, and converted old Django 1.2 code which worked in Django 1.4 up to the new standards of Django 1.6. Much of the site has been 404'ing for the last couple of days as I fix problems here and there. It's still work in progress, especially fixing the issues with URL compatibility - trying to make sure URLs that worked in the old site, in one Perl-based CGI system, work in the new site implemented in Django with a changed database structure.
Still, so far so good. My thanks once again to Daniel and Neill at Ace Hosting for their help and support.
This turned out to have unexpected complications: while liblzo supports the wide variety of compression methods all grouped together as "LZO", it does not actually created '.lzo' files. This is because '.lzo' files also have a special header, added checksums, and file contents lists a bit like a tar file. All of this is added within the 'lzop' program - there is no external library for reading or writing lzo files in the same way that zlib handles gz files.
Now, I see three options here:
- Abandon it. No-one uses .lzo files anyway.
- Copy and paste code from lzop into cfile, bloating it out considerably but supporting .lzo files.
- Create a separate 'liblzop' project and produce a library that supports reading and writing of .lzo files compatible with lzop. Something that the inventor of the LZO algorithms hasn't done at all.
LZO is a special case: it does a reasonable job of compression - not quite as much as standard gzip - but its memory requirements for compression can be miniscule and its decompression speed is very fast. It might work well for compression inside the file system, and is commonly used in consoles and embedded computers when reading compressed data. But for most common situations, even on mobile phones, I imagine gzip is still reasonably quick and produces smaller compressed output.
Now to put all the LZO work in a separate git branch and leave it as a warning to others.
Well, as luck would have it I recently bought several LiIon batteries at a good price, and thought I might as well have the working drill with a nice, working battery pack too. And I'd bought a nice Lithium Ion battery balancer/charger, so I can make sure the battery lasts a lot longer than the old one. So I made the new battery fit in the old pack:
First, I opened up the battery pack by undoing the screws in the base of the pack:
There were ten cells inside - NiMH and NiCd are 1.2V per cell, so that makes 12V. The pack contacts were attached to the top cell, which was sitting on its own plinth above the others. The cells were all connected by spot-welded tabs. I really don't care about the cells so I cut the tabs, but I kept the pack contacts as undamaged as possible. The white wires connect to a small temperature sensor, which is presumably used by the battery charger to work out when the battery is charged; the drill doesn't have a central contact there. You could remove it, since we're not going to use it, but there's no need to.
The new battery is going to sit 'forward' out of the case, I cut a hole for my replacement battery by marking the outline of the new pack against the side of the old case. I then used a small fretsaw to cut out the sides of the square, cutting through one of the old screw channels in the process.
I use "Tamiya" connectors, which are designed for relatively high DC current and provide good separation between both pins on both connectors. Jaycar sells them as 2-pin miniature Molex connectors; I support buying local. I started with the Tamiya charge cable for my battery charger and plugged the other connector shell into it. Then I could align the positive (red) and negative (black) cables and check the polarity against the charger. I then crimped and soldered the wires for the battery into the connector, so I had the battery connected to the charger. (My battery came with a Deanes connector, and the charger didn't have a Deanes connector cable, which is why I was putting a new connector on.)
Aside: if you have to change a battery's connector over, cut only one side first. Once that is safely sealed in its connector you can then do the other. Having two bare wires on a 14V 3AH battery capable of 25C (i.e. 75A) is a recipe for either welding something, killing the battery, or both. Be absolutely careful around these things - there is no off switch on them and accidents are expensive.
Then I repeated the same process for the pack contacts, starting by attaching a red wire to the positive contact, since the negative contact already had a black wire attached. The aim here is to make sure that the drill gets the right polarity from the battery, which itself has the right polarity and gender for the charger cable. I then cut two small slots in the top of the pack case to let the connector sit outside the case, with the retaining catch at the top. My first attempt put this underneath, and it was very difficult to undo the battery for recharging once it was plugged in.
The battery then plugs into the pack case, and the wires are just the right length to hold the battery in place.
Then the pack plugs into the drill as normal.
The one thing that had me worried with this conversion was the difference in voltages. Lithium ion cells can range from 3.2V to 4.2V and normally sit around 3.7V. The drill is designed for 12V; with four Lithium Ion cells in the battery, it ranges from 14.8V to 16.8V when fully charged. Would it damage the drill?
I tested it by connecting the battery to a separate set of thin wires, which I could then touch to the connector on the pack. I touched the battery to the pack, and no smoke escaped. I gingerly started the drill - it has a variable trigger for speed control - and it ran slowly with no smoke or other signs of obvious electric distress. I plugged the battery in and ran the drill - again, no problem. Finally, I put my largest bit in the drill, put a piece of hardwood in the vice, and went for it - the new battery handled it with ease. A cautious approach, perhaps, but it's always better to be safe than sorry.
So the result is that I now have a slightly ugly but much more powerful battery pack for the drill. It's also 3AH versus the 2AH of the original pack, so I get more life out of the pack. And I can swap the batteries over quite easily, and my charger can charge up to four batteries simultaneously, so I have something that will last a long time now.
I'm also writing this article for the ACT Woodcraft Guild, and I know that many of them will not want to buy a sophisticated remote control battery charger. Fortunately, there are many cheap four-cell all-in-one chargers at HobbyKing, such as their own 4S balance charger, or an iMAX 35W balance charger for under $10 that do the job well without lots of complicated options. These also run off the same 12V wall wart that runs the old pack charger.
Bringing new life to old devices is quite satisfying.
The other big generalisation is that this works purely on a cost amortisation calculation. I.e. that musicians are trying to cover costs, and therefore the cost of producing physical units and distributing them is the governing factor. Some musicians also look to make a living from their work, and that means setting a time period over which they hope to gain money from selling the product, an amount which they expect to live on, a number of units to sell, and so forth - all of which can vary widely and are complicated to fix. (Aside: this is why established artists push for extension to copyright - because theoretically they're extending the amount of time they gain from selling that product. This is a myth and a fairy story record labels tell them when they want them to support copyright extension.) It used to be that the cost of producing the units and distributing them were the major costs - see Courtney Love's calculation, for example - and therefore the label proposes to take that risk for the band (another fairy story); nowadays the distribution is free, and producing a new unit is cheap (in the case of digital distribution, it's totally free), so the ongoing costs of keeping the musicians alive and producing new music is the major cost for professionally produced music.
But I still think the big points made in the article is true: that the real cost of producing music - even music of reasonable quality - is coming down, that more music than ever is being produced and hence there's much more competition for listener's money, and that "hobby" artists who do it in their spare time and don't expect to make money out of their music (I'm one) drives the cost of actually getting music down too. So for professional musicians, who have sort of expected to make money out of music because their heroes of the previous generations did (due, as David points out, to a quirk in history that made the twentieth century great for this kind of oligopoly), it's a rude awakening to find out that people don't care about your twenty years in the industry or your great study of the art form, they care about listening to a catchy tune that's easy to get.
I also like the point that musicians are also inveterate software copiers. It's one reason I use LMMS and free plugins - because free, quality software does exist. I find it intensely hypocritical that professional musicians can criticise people for copying their music, when they may well have not paid a cent for all the proprietary software they use to produce it.
But to me this is really just about getting in touch with your audience. Companies like Magnatune exist to help quality artists find an audience by putting them in touch with an existing large subscriber base who wants new music. Deathmøle's insane success on Kickstarter shows that someone with an established audience can make it really big without having to sell their soul to big record labels. And Jeph himself is a great example of the way things work in the modern world, since Deathmøle is his side project - his main one is Questionable Content, which he also went into without having existing funding or requiring a big backer to grant him some money and take his rights in exchange. As Tim O'Reilly says, obscurity is a far greater threat to authors and creative artists than piracy; it doesn't matter if you're signed to the best record label there is, if they haven't actually publicised your work you might as well have not signed up at all. And, fortunately, these days we have this wonderful thing called the internet which allows artists to be directly in touch with their fans rather than having to hope that the record label will do the right thing by you and not, say, ignore you while promoting another band.
I wish David had made his point without the broad generalisations - I think it stands well without them.