DISQUS

Poor downtrodden Mr Gowers has a "problem":

I am unable to get some jobs because [...] employers feel that I’d simply be taking a job just to have one and would leave as soon as the market picks up.

Well, wouldn't he do just that? After all, he's a "professional".

With "three degrees".

Anyway, he's still got that "employee mentality", as I call it. That "a job" is something you expect someone else to create for you, with all the structure and planning and risk, and it's somehow someone else's fault if it hasn't been created for you.

And he has to "scramble" for the computers at Centrelink? You mean he's a "professional" but doesn't have his own computer? Or realise that every public library has free computers too? Or that he might have friends with computers he can borrow -- while they're out at work doing something useful?

Mind you, this is from NEWS.com.au, stable-mate of The Punch, where "three degrees" is political dog-whistle code aimed at the working classes, the "battlers", to flag a wanker.

3. It takes less effort to make a boring contribution than a non-boring one:

The prime example for me, online or offline, is someone who thinks that by repeating the script of someone else's TV comedy (usually inaccurately and without vocal inflection), they themselves become funny. The canonical example used to be Monty Python, but I suspect the world's moved on from there.

I know it's all about tribal bonding too, but still...

Now, offline we just ignore bores, don't respond to their boring comments and walk away. Isn't the online equivalent just not responding to their comments, rather than voting them down or saying they're boring?

To clarify one point for me, I was under the impression that tax concessions for research & development happened no matter what sort of R&D was being done, whether it be process improvement in coal mining or flux-generator efficiency improvements for time travel. Is that correct?

However what's being suggested is that other government programs, such as direct investment or places at NSW Technology Park or profile raisin through Austrade, tend to be more selective of the sectors they support -- and that anything web-based is looked down upon. Yeah?

If so, then I contend that's due to the failure of the web-based industries to lobby effectively i the traditional places where such lobbying is done. While there are certainly a few smart players out there doing their best, the bulk of the web-based industry players are, I reckon, spending to much time talking amongst themselves and whinging that the politicians don't come to them, rather than going to where the politicians are.

@Duncan Riley and @Mark Pesce: Please stop being such self-righteous stubborn pricks. I know it's in both your natures, but on this occasion it's annoying rather than endearing :) You're both smart, and you're both largely on the same page. Energy spent on refusing to budge an inch from strongly-held positions on the edge of the issue is energy wasted.

Duncan, what's really sad is what you saw in Melbourne today seems no better than what you saw in Sydney a year ago, when I quoted you in my Crikey piece Australia's web 2.0 wipeout on the wave of the future. Just what is wrong with this country?

As far as I could see, $54 million was budgeted for the NBN "implementation study" and other preparatory work in 2009-2010, and nothing beyond that. Since that study includes how the thing's going to be funded and the legislative framework, I assume that big blank space will be filled in at the next budget, costs, interest, the whole shebang?

Thanks for posting this, Duncan, because it means I can point to it instead of writing an entire response myself. ;)

What irritates me about Brian Mitchell's original comment is that he completely misunderstands the role of search engines like Google, and completely misunderstands the economics of his own industry, newspapers.

The cover price of a newspaper never paid for the news. It paid for the distribution, and mostly went to the newsagents / news stands, paper boys and truck drivers. What paid for the journalism was the advertising, and when newspapers were kings in their market they could charge premium rates. And they did.

It didn't matter if only 20,000 people read the used car adverts each Saturday, the newspaper charged as if all 500,000 readers (or whatever) did -- because you had no choice. You bought all of the newspaper, including the sections you weren't interested in, or none at all.

So if revenue comes from the advertising, as it also does with an online news site, that means gathering as many eyeballs as possible to maximise profit. Making sure you're listed in Google is vital, because it's a major traffic source. It seems perverse that Mitchell is suggesting you reduce the number of readers and reduce the advertising revenue.

Now as we've all discovered, the price you can charge for advertising online is vastly less than newspapers charged -- because it's a more open market and prices find their own natural level.

What we've also discovered is that mere facts -- what Mitchell calls "breaking news" -- is a commodity. Once someone's said "there's a plane in the Hudson", the fact is out there and has no value on its own. And yet he seems to be suggesting we pay for that.

But what's really irritating is that the people who do understand the online world have been through this discussion before. Mitchell's jumbled commentary is simply well behind the pace.

As I know you already know, Duncan, they key thing about understanding the Budget is to ignore the Treasurer's speech -- that's all propaganda -- and look at the detailed numbers in the official papers. Thankfully, the last decade and more of Budget papers are all online at budget.gov.au -- so we can see precisely what's been added and (more likely this year) taken away.

Budget Paper No. 2 is always the one to read for those figures.

Don't forget the National Broadband Network! The tick there will be to read carefully the exact words used to describe each budget line item, and how much is allocated each year for the next 3 or 5 years -- because that'll give a clue to the speed of the rollout and how it might relate to the timing of the next federal election in (presumably) late 2010.

Oopsie. The LInk post you mention quotes Kim Holburn at the top, but it's actually by the redoubtable Irene Grahem, who maintains the superb resource Libertus.net.

One could also ask, "What happens to renters who lose their jobs? Do they get their rent paid for a year? No? They get tossed out of their home." So it's not about the psychological damage of losing a "home", but the financial damage of losing a "possession".

Mike, explain to me again why "mainstream" people using some tool prevents "us geeks" also using that tool? In Twitter's case, since everyone chooses who they follow, and they don't see who they don't follow, why should it matter if one bunch of people use it in one way, and another bunch of people use it in another?

It seems to me that worrying about something having "mainstream appeal" rather than whether it's "useful" smacks not of geekery but of wannabe -- of choosing the tools you use as tribal markers to be cool. That'd be just as sheep-like in following brands as, say, someone joining Twitter 'cos they saw The Man on TV talk about it... ;)

Ahem! "There hasn’t been a single nuclear plant related death in 40 years"? ORLY? Tell that to the crew at Chernobyl! "237 people suffered from acute radiation sickness, of whom 31 died within the first three months."

Finally! Someone with the courage to point out what so many of us have feared for so long.

Robert, thanks for taking the time to respond. But I'm seeing an inconsistency...

Your recommendations are that we consign to the memory hole all the personal stuff, and especially anything which says we're not perfect workers, because employers will look for it and reject us if they find something "bad". But then you say that you yourself have online nude photos and pics of yourself partying that haven't prevented you getting a job.

I see nothing wrong with giving potential employers a "landing page" which emphasises your strengths from their point of view. Indeed, yur advice to have a separate blog for "personal" stuff is just the same thing. But why go to all the effort of erasing the rest of your identity? Why be so paranoid about just being human?

Two final points (for now)...

1. I reckon an employer who will only employ someone who doesn't have any material online which doesn't conform to some outmoded idea of "proper behaviour" is an employer you shouldn't work for.

2. I reckon the compartmentalisation of one's life into "work" and "personal" identities is unhealthy -- especially now that mobile communications blur the boundaries.

Poorly-formed thoughts at this stage. I may blog abut this later. No LOLcats though. ;)

Hmmm... The focus of all this seems to be on removing from your online identity everything that marks you as an actually fully-rounded human being, as opposed to a cog in someone else's machine.

Do we really want to work for organisations which are so shallow that they only see their employees are workerdroids? Are things really so desperate that we want to dehumanise ourselves this much?

Used as a marketing object, including animations and action figures, since childhood? Just like Michael Jackson? Well that all turned out OK so Bindi will be fine.

Alas, I think this list is a hoax. The Darwin Awards website lists the "first place" one about the constipated elephant as a 1998 Urban Legend.

Sunday's lecture was actually number 3 in a series of 6 lectures by Rupert Murdoch , all available for listening after their broadcast.

The editor of Sydney's Murdoch tabloid Daily Telegraph, David Pemberthy, has just been moved and will become "the central figure" of a new multimedia brand that will use politics as its main focus -- which sounds like the new branding Murdoch is talking about.

IT and Internet-related media and bloggers are running around like headless chickens. Oh dear! Skype is offline, the sky is falling!

Most Internet users have never even used Skype, since in my experience they can barely use email.

Skype is just another "thing" created by people, and things can break.

Thousands of people are actually KILLED on the roads every year -- and yet people still buy cars.

Talk of whether people will lose confidence because "a multi-day outage is possible" is silly, because a multi-day outage is ALWAYS possible. Or Skype, like other rapidly-growing companies, could also collapse and be offline tomorrow -- permanently.