For the last few years Nintendo have had somewhat of a monopoly in the motion sensor category in the console market through the Nintendo Wii; not anymore. At 2009's E3 we were introduced to Microsofts controller-less controller code named project natal and man did it look good. Although in early development the demonstrations where awe inspiring and the trailer left my jaw on the floor. But in 2009 we were given no details, no release date, no idea of actual playable games, nothing.

But now, a year later our questions are answered; well at least some of them. Renamed Kinect the device is set to revolutionise the way we play games, make calls and interact with our console in general. No longer are we tethered to a controller, needing to learn button combinations and making the battery industry rich, for with kinect your body, arms, legs and voice are the controls and it works however you move your body. After loads of internet rumours about a potential Q4 release date, Microsoft has finally confirmed a November 2010 release and announced the first 8 games to be launched along side the controller. Games launching in November will be;

• Dance Central
• Kinectimals
• Kinect Sports
• Kinect Joy Ride
• Your Shape: Fitness Evolved
• Kinect Adventures!
• Zumba Fitness
• Sonic Freeriders

And although I'm holding out to see the first shooters come to Kinect the launch line up looks creditable and definitely in the league to directly rival the wii with big names like fad sensation Zumba on board. That's right, no more trying to get the Sensor bar to pick up the Wii Controller, no more warnings about jumping on the Wii Balance board. With Kinect, go ahead and jump! Heck, kick, punch, dance, move however you see fit; it's all great with the Kinect.

But Kinect isn't just a game controller, it also enables you to make HD quality video calls from your TV when you have an Xbox Live Gold account. The camera in the Kinect automatically moves and traces you around the room, so you're always perfectly in frame, while multiple omni-directional microphones make sure everyone can be heard. Now it's possible for your whole family to keep in touch with grandparents, that nice family you met on holidays or whoever else, all on your TV! I'm sure more will be announced in the coming months, and I'll do my best to keep you up to date through this blog and twitter.

Links;

Official Kinect Website
Wikipedia Article
Project Natal YouTube Channel

Do you like Solitaire? Are you addicted? Then you need to check out world of solitaire! You have the ability to change decks, backgrounds and play around with the animation. So if you're hooked on solitaire or just want something to pass away an hour or so, visit world of Solitaire, you won't be sorry you did. Being that it's java/html based means also that you can play it from any basically any internet connected device!!!

This is a paid post.

Do you enjoy playing flash based games online? funbrain is a new website which caters for plenty of different genres. With classics to ultra modern on offer funbrain surely is a website everyone can enjoy. There is a nice mix of graphics in their games, being that there are games with very simply graphics and those with very detailed and somewhat realistic graphics. There are plenty of addictive and fun games to play so stay off your boredom the smart way, visit funbrain.com today; you won't regret it.

This is a paid post on behalf of payperpost.com and FunBrain.com

The following letter is from a network engineer named Mark Newton whom has brought up multiple concerns about the internet filter with the AMCA. But instead of addressing these concerns, in true fascist nature Senator Conroy and his office have attempted to bully Mr Newton into a campaign of silence on the issue. I am reposting this letter as I feel it captures a great deal of the concerns at the heart of this issue. I have pulled this letter from homepagedaily.com

Senator Stephen Conroy

------

Mark Newton's letter:

20 October 2008
The Hon Kate Ellis MP
Minister for Youth and Sport
161a Main North Road
Nailsworth SA 5083

Dear Ms Ellis,

I am writing to you to express my concerns about moves by Senator Stephen Conroy to implement the "clean feed" proposal described on page 5 of Labor's Plan for Cyber Safety by Senator Conroy prior to the 2007 election.

My objections to this policy are detailed below. In your reply to this letter, I would appreciate a direct, detailed response to each of these issues. I am making the assumption that collating such responses will be a simple matter, because a proposal as important as this one obviously wouldn't have proceeded as far as it has if these basic concerns had not been considered and alleviated. If that assumption is unfounded, then that fact should justify revisiting (or, alternatively, abandoning) the "clean feed" proposal.

While I approve of the general thrust of the Cyber Safety proposal, I have serious objections to the "clean feed" section, which will erect an online Government censorship regime in Australia for the first time.

I also have significant objections about the professional conduct of Senator Conroy as he has pursued this issue. The Senator has attacked critics by comparing them to child abusers; refused to provide details of his policy then maligned opponents for their "speculative" remarks; lied to the Australian voting public about the availability of an "opt-out" in December 2007; and failed to consult with the 21 million Australian stakeholders who will be most affected by this plan, in contravention of the Prime Minster's oft-repeated aim to implement a "Government for all Australians" [1, 2, 3]. Rather than addressing the serious policy objections which I outline below, Senator Conroy has preferred to respond with aggressive, offensive, extremist bluster.

The Government has not demonstrated a need for an online censorship regime.

While I accept that the presence of illegal material on the Internet is a cause for some concern, I'm appraised of two important points which the Government appears to have missed.

Firstly: Australians have been using uncensored Internet access for at least 30 years, and there's no evidence of a burgeoning problem concerning access to illegal material. I have been using the Internet almost every day since 1989 and have never seen any content that I'd expect to require Government intervention. Without demonstrating a need for this system, how can the Government credibly claim that it should be mandated?

Secondly: There is little evidence that Australian parents require Government assistance. Indeed, those who claim that parents require such assistance have a remarkable track record of being wrong.

In 1989 / 1990, the Senate Select Committee into Online Services carried out an enquiry into the nature of content available online, and made a rash of recommendations in favour of some kind of censorship scheme based on the expectation that unfettered access would harm the fabric of Australian society.

The passing of time has shown that 1990 Senate's concerns were completely wrong: Almost 20 years have passed since that enquiry, and Australians have enjoyed uncensored Internet access for the entire period. Society has not fallen apart, there is no emergency, children are not being raised in moral vacuums and turning into rapists and axe-murderers, parents are diligently and capably excelling in their efforts to raise their children into fine, upstanding citizens. Today's parents are comfortable with ubiquitous access to unfiltered Internet, having grown up using Google to assist with homework assignments, publishing blogs and websites, using email to stay in touch with friends and family, and treating the Internet in its current unfiltered form as a valuable resource for the education and social engagement of their children.

This fact is reinforced by the public's unresponsiveness to the previous Government's offer of free filtering software for family PCs. When only 140,000 users downloaded the free software over 12 months, and less than 29,000 of them were still using it three weeks later, Senator Conroy concluded that the $84M filtering software distribution plan failed because it wasn't mandatory, rather than the more rational conclusion that the failure of the initiative could be traced to lack of public desire.

The image of technologically-disconnected parents floundering helplessly in a sea of pornography as they fail to adequately raise their children is a reflection of the appalling lack of Internet-savviness of our politicians, not society at large. Politicians assume that parents are ignorant about the Internet because politicians are ignorant. Yet parents came to grips with it years ago; the last remaining social group in our country who expresses difficulty with the Internet appears to be baby-boomer Federal politicians, whose child-rearing days are mostly well behind them.

It is thoroughly insulting to Australian parents to undermine their efforts by asserting that the way to prevent societal decay is for the Government to step in and make decisions about the appropriateness of online content. That is a parent's role, not Senator Stephen Conroy's role.

The government has not demonstrated that mandatory online censorship is technologically feasibly.

Senator Richard Alston, in his tenure as Minister for Communications and the Arts, passed amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act in 1999. As accompaniment to that legislation, the Minister directed the ACMA (then ABA) to establish NetAlert, and for NetAlert to carry out periodic assessments of the "state of the art" of filtering technology.

Since that time, NetAlert and the Department have commissioned separate studies by the CSIRO, Ovum, and most recently RMIT and Enex Testlab. All of the studies have uniformly demonstrated that online censorship technology:

* slows down Internet access;
* inaccurately blocks content which should not be blocked;
* inaccurately fails to block content which should be blocked;
* is ineffective at inspecting or blocking "Peer to Peer" traffic that comprises over 60% of Australia's Internet traffic; and
* fails to accurately distinguish between legal and illegal content even when specifically configured with lists of illegal content under laboratory conditions.

The most recent trials, conducted in Tasmania by Enex Testlab earlier this year, found that the most accurate product tested incorrectly blocked 3% of innocent material, and incurred a "slowdown" performance penalty in excess of 70%, and failed to reliably block the ACMA's prohibited content list. It stuns disbelief that the Minister for Broadband would be interested in pursuing these systems whilst at the very same time advocating for a $20B National Broadband Network (NBN) intended to increase Internet speeds.

There is no evidence on the public record to demonstrate that mandatory online censorship is technologically feasible. Every time experts have been asked, they have uniformly concluded that it is not possible. Furthermore, advances in technology cause Internet speeds to increase faster then censorship systems' speeds, meaning that as time passes the performance penalty caused by these systems becomes worse.

It is very poor public policy to proceed with mandatory implementation of provably failed technology.

The government has not demonstrated that online censorship is effective.

Any Australian can obtain encrypted Virtual Private Network (VPN) access from the United States for less than $5 per month [1, 2]. This is the same technology that human rights activists use in China, Saudi Arabia and Iran to hide their activities from the Government, and provides an effective, guaranteed bypass of any effort by any National Government to filter Internet content.

There is no requirement for complicated software to use these services, VPN clients are installed by default on all common Operating System platforms. Australians who wish to hide themselves from Government Internet censorship efforts are only a few clicks away from total anonymity.

The government has failed to consider unintended consequences arising from the policy.

In order to implement a censorship scheme, the ACMA will need to make its blacklists available to ISPs.

There are approximately 400 ISPs in Australia. Even if each ISP only has a handful of staff in a position to access routers and scrutinise network configurations, that still leaves several thousand ISP technical staff with full knowledge of the contents of the blacklist.

A moment of consideration of that state of affairs yields the unavoidable conclusion that the blacklist will be "leaked". Many sites on the Internet specialise in providing repositories of "sensitive" Government data for the purpose of providing public access to documents against Governments' wishes, and a Government blacklist is exactly the kind of content those sites exist to publish.

When the Government makes a mistake, it will be public [1, 2, 3]. It is simply not believable that putting the same people who called for the destruction of the Bill Henson photographic exhibit in charge of a blacklist of pornographic imagery can end well. It also strains credibility to assert that there is value in putting the people who decided that Mohammad Haneef should be pursued on terrorism charges, or that David Hicks should rot in Guantanamo, in charge of a list of illegal terrorist material. Governments of both sides have a long and distinguished track record of embarrassing failure in these areas, and the public is wise to be sceptical of moves to place further faith in the demonstrably flawed judgement of our public officials and political representatives.

Leaks have other hazards: It will only be a matter of time before someone, somewhere in the world, testifies in open court that they knew where to find child pornography due to the assistance and enablement of a leaked copy of Senator Conroy's Internet blacklist. The Government will no doubt launch a flurry of PR spin to demonise the leaker and portray itself as an innocent victim of circumstance when it happens, but one fact which will not be in dispute when it happens is that the Government was warned and carried on regardless. How much child exploitation is the Government willing to accept as "collateral damage" associated with this policy? More than zero? How much more?

Encouraging people who wish to bypass censorship to use encrypted VPNs carries a further unintended consequence, namely that the Australian Federal Police are unable to effectively execute Interception Warrants on encrypted traffic. Implementing censorship will drive criminals towards encryption by blocking non-encrypted methods of accessing the content they desire. I invite you to ponder the likely political effect of the revelation that Australian law enforcement was unable to gather evidence to convict a child abuser or a terrorist because the ALP's censorship system had inspired the offender to encrypt their Internet traffic.

Senator Conroy has invalidated the government's claim for a mandate by lying to the Australian public about the scope of the policy.

In December 2007, Senator Conroy was widely reported in the press as stating that "...anyone wanting uncensored access to the internet will have to opt out of the service."

In October 2008, Darren Pauli from IDG/Computerworld obtained confirmation from the Minister's media spokesman that no opt-out will be available, "... the filters will be mandatory for all Australians."

As far as politicians' lies go, this one is breathtaking in its audacity. The Minister took the false impression that Australians will be able to (in his own words) "opt out of the service" to the last election, and allowed it to persist for almost an entire year even as the policy progressed to "live trials" with no opt-out provision. Then when the truth was exposed he launched personal attacks to denigrate critics as "extremist" "speculators".

Summary and Conclusion

Nearly a year has passed since Senator Conroy announced his plan, and none of the concerns described above have been addressed. The 21 million people comprising this policy's largest stakeholder group have not been consulted. We have not even been provided with the details we'd need to assess whether Senator Conroy's efforts to implement the policy are consistent with the Australian values, societal fabric, and child-rearing aims that the policy is purportedly designed to protect.

It disturbs me that Senator Conroy's response to these criticisms has been to label those who disagree with him as "speculators" and "extremists" and to compare them to child abusers. My criticisms are not "extreme", and I am not a child abuser. I am a voter, and I expect Senator Conroy to show some respect by answering my concerns without resorting to hysterical personal attacks. Senator Conroy's job is to convince the Australian public that his idea is worthy, but his habit of resorting to bluster, offensiveness and secrecy has severely undermined that role. Without Senator Conroy's detailed responses to these issues, the responsibility for any undesired "uninformed speculation" lies directly upon his shoulders.

I call upon you to:

1. respond to the policy concerns that I have outlined above; and
2. represent my interests in the Party Room to persuade Senator Conroy and the Prime Minister Mr Kevin Rudd to change track by abandoning the "clean feed" proposal.

The general aims of the ALP's cyber-safety initiative are worth defending. In particular, budget allocations for education programs and investigative law enforcement are commendable. But the "clean feed" proposal is impossible to defend on technical, moral, financial and public policy grounds, and should be reviewed for suitability for inclusion in the Government's policy agenda before being allowed to proceed any further.

Sincerely yours,

Mark Newton

-----

On the 15th of December it was announced that a Mandatory Internet Filtering system would indeed be installed in ISPs around Australia and should be switched on within 12 months time. Supporters of the filtering cite that it will stop child pornography so it's a good thing. How wrong can you be?

"Fact, online child pornography is most often distributed by private email attachments to avoid detection. The internet filter will ONLY block out websites"

Child pornography which is distributed online, is most often by private email between pedophiles as apposed to putting it on a website which would open the creator of the website, and it's members up to all sorts of criminal prosecutions. Simply put, if the main distribution network for child pornography was websites, then there would be a lot more pedophiles in jail. If your sole reason for supporting the filter is stopping child porn, then you need to rethink your position.

So what are the facts about the list? Well, the filter has it's roots all the way back in 1999 when the then liberal government introduced laws which gave the Australian Communications and Media Authority; authority over internet content displayed in Australia. Under that law Content hosted in Australia and classified Classification restricted, or 18+ without an age verification system would be issued a take down notice. Such content hosted internationally would be added to a black list for use in voluntarily installed software on home PCs.

In August 2007 the Australian government through it's NetAlert department offered free, voluntary downloads of internet filtering software to be installed on home PCs. Late 2008 the scheme was shut down, with ACMA Senator Stephen Conroy citing it had not been successful with very few Australian's downloading the software. Clearly that should have woken him up to how Australians feel about filtering the internet, but instead it only inspired him into ISP level filtering instead.

"This very much seems to be a situation where Stephen Conroy feels he knows what's better for Australian's then they do for themselves. If you look up fascism in the dictionary, it will define it very much in that way."

During the elections which seen Labor form the federal government, they claimed the ISP level filtering would be an opt-out scheme. Of course an opt-in scheme would have been more desirable but at least in an opt-out scheme you of course have a way to not be filtered online and gain unrestricted access to information on the internet. But since forming government the policy has changed to one of mandatory filtering at the ISP level. This means every household, school, business, organisation or other entity connected to the internet will be under the power of the internet filter without any way to remove it. If you have an internet connection, the internet filter affects you.

So what is the big deal right? I mean surely they're only going to block out websites that are illegal... right? Wrong! All Restricted Classification content, X18+ content and R18+ content will be blocked. Speficially the AMCA criteria states;

• * Any online content that is classified RC or X 18+ by the Classification Board. This includes real depictions of actual sexual activity, child pornography, depictions of bestiality, material containing excessive violence or sexual violence, detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use, and/or material that advocates the doing of a terrorist act.
• * Content which is classified R 18+* and not subject to a restricted access system that prevents access by children. This includes depictions of simulated sexual activity, material containing strong, realistic violence and other material dealing with intense adult themes.

In other words, ALL pornography will be subject to the filter not just child pornography. As well anything which is of an adult nature, that being something you wouldn't want someone under the age of 16 to see. All added to the filter and blocked from view for EVERY Australian, regardless of their age. But this isn't subject just to porn, there is so much more on the list than porn but before I get into that, consider this.

On the 18th of March 2009, wikileaks leaked a copy of the black list onto the internet. A user of the popular internet consumer forum whirlpool posted a link to the black list on the site. The AMCA then issued a notice to Whirlpools hosting company Bulletproof Media that fines of 11,000AUD would apply per day, for every day the link remained on the site. The AMCA furthermore when to extraordinary lengths to forcibly have the black list removed from the wikileaks website. So, consider this, the black list comprises simply the URLs (or domains names) of websites which can not be viewed through the filter. If the filter is such a great thing, then why is it that they are so guarded against the general public viewing the list?

The answer? Because of what the list actually blocks out. From the leaked list it was found that a Brisbane dentist's website was blocked, as was a tuckshop vendors website and the website of a dog kennel. These websites clearly have nothing to do with anything even remotely illegal or 18+ in nature, but yet somehow they're on the list?

But it goes further. In may of 2009 the Australian press, citing wikileaks as it's source broke the news that Dr Philip Nitschke's online Peaceful Pill Handbook, which is a website dealing with euthanasia has been added to the list, as have a range of other websites dealing with the same topic. Apparently the right to a peaceful death for the terminally ill remains out of the scope of reasoning for the federal government even though it isn't illegal in several Australian states.

But still, EVEN MORE FILTERING! In June 2009 the AMCA and the Australian government confirmed that the internet filter will block downloadable games, flash-based web games and websites which sell physical copies of games (like ebay and amazon) that do not meet the MA15+ standard. If the AMCA don't think someone under 16 should see it, then neither should anyone over 18 apparently.

"This isn't about stopping cyber crime; it's about controlling information the public see"

Already many anti-censorship websites campaigning for the filter to not go through have been forcibly taken down by the government. Other sites containing content which is anti-government, or does not support the government has been either forcibly taken down, or added to the black list.

In short the filter classification system stops anyone from not only committing an illegal act online, but from discussing anything that is illegal online, be they for or against the action. It further stops any member of the Australian public, regardless of age viewing any content not suitable for children. It blocks out anything that is deemed to be racist, or that submits a view other than that shared by the censor. Under this classification system, websites like wikipedia (which is a free, user contributed online encyclopedia)have already been announced to be added to the black list; and social networking websites like facebook (due to their user groups, fan pages and applications) have only a limited amount of time before they too are added.

It seem the ONLY way this filter is going to be revoked is if the majority of the Australian public, publicly announce this distaste for the filter and their desire to axe the scheme. If even that didn't work, well then it would be clear that we indeed no longer live in a democracy society. As it stands the labor party are moving very steeply toward a fascist dictatorship not only on filtering but on many issues. It time Australia, that we cut the government back down to size, before we end up in a situation where we suffer from tunnel vision due to lack of information and millions of Australian jobs are lost.

Links;

Wikipedia Article
Electronic Frontiers Australia
No Clean Feed
Labors plan for cyber safety (pdf)
USA Today article
Sydney Morning Herald article (March 19)
Sydney Morning Herald Article (December 15)
ABC News Article

As the year draws to a close we start to reflect on what that year has brought; and one can't reflect on such things without realising a considerable amount of the individuals privacy has been lost. So the question draws, will history hold 2009 as the year privacy was lost?

Facebook and Twitter and of course the Google machine have been the big violators of our privacy in 2009, gathering wads of data on us. This year Facebook made no less than 4 changes to their privacy policy, each one inching just that much more of your privacy away. As a result not only is everything you place on facebook up for documentation and collation with them, but so their privacy policy states, so is every other website you visit including how you interact with every site you visit.

Facebook also teamed up with Microsoft to place facebook on the Xbox 360, automatically updating your facebook status with what games, movies and music your using, as well as various other detailed information about them. Of course once the data is on facebook they file it away to make just that much more of an accurate picture of you. The world went twitter mad in 2009 as well, updating each other with their smallest, most tedious of actions. twitter itself; with a very facebook like privacy policy violated our privacy collating all the data we unwittingly delivered to them.

But it doesn't stop there, facebook took our twitter content and got us to stream it directly from twitter to them where the data could become facebooks to gather as well. And all the while the google machine gobbled up data from facebook, twitter and every other corner of the internet. Google's privacy policy shifted this year to allow for the collection of even more data. Your name, age, date of birth, the school you went to, your medical records, your likes and dislikes, your ex's, school grades, the games, movies and music you involve yourself with, your marital status, your credit rating, how much money you make, how much you paid for your house and how you paid for it...it's all their, publically viewable through google if you only know what to search for.

But where facebook collate each piece of our data as their policy allows for more collection, google play a more shifty game. For google the game plan is to creep through gathering more and more data, but to wait until the time is write to change the policy on collating the data.

But make no mistake, the time WILL come, after all Google are a targeted ads company, gathering data about you and collating it is what their business model is made up of. And with new services like Google's Public DNS and comments from Googles CEO Eric Schmidt on CNBC like

"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines - including Google - do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities."

the stage is certainly set for a future where google know and collate EVERYTHING you do online. And what's more, knowing google; it will all most likely become publically available as well. The thought becomes even scarier when you consider that more and more devices are moving online.

The future see's devices like the Television and Radio, the telephone, the washer/drier and even the fridge all moving online. Even the video game console seems set to be replaced by a Set Top Box to link into a virtual unit. In this future one can expect your weekly shopping list, your phone calls and even how often you wash your clothes and how much water you use to added to the list of google indexed and publically available content. A wise man once said, "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely."

The big question now becomes, where do we go from here? Knowing what has happened to privacy through 2009 do we allow our privacy to further unravel or do we steal it back from the fingers of sleazy two faced advertising corps, back into our own control?

Rockstar Games have taken the engine out of GTA:IV Episodes from Liberty City and have wacked it into their latest feature, due to be released April 2010. Much in the tradition of GUN, Red Dead Redeption is a Wild Western sandbox. Think GTA but with Cowboys and indians instead of Street gangs and cops. Be first to check out the offically released trailer here on TJandSarah.com

Today facebook released the following statement in relation to their new privacy policy which I highlighted in a previous post.

On Nov. 5, we wrapped up a week-long notice and comment period for a proposed revision to our privacy policy. This was a continuation of our ongoing effort to run Facebook in an open and transparent way. The goals of the revised policy were to make it more accessible and easier to understand.

We've spent the last week reviewing each and every one of your comments. While a lot of people participated, the total number of people commenting did not reach the threshold of 7,000 that makes a vote necessary according to our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities. Because of this — and the fact that many of the comments were positive — we've decided to adopt the revised policy. We'll be posting it in English, French, Italian, German and Spanish soon.

In the coming weeks and months, we plan to build on the progress we've already made in making the document more accessible by also adding definitions of key terms, screen shots of important pages and informational "learn more" videos. We think these visual resources will make it even easier to understand how privacy works on Facebook.

We received excellent feedback from many of you over the course of the week, and the number of fans for the Facebook Site Governance Page more than doubled. Overall, you supported the proposed changes. For example:

* Most of you liked that we removed more complicated technical and legal terms and replaced them with simpler language that everyone can understand.

* You preferred the structure of the new document, which provides key points at the beginning and easy links to jump to the different sections.

* A few of you asked for a redline version so you could compare the proposed revision to our current policy and see exactly what's changed. We weren't able to provide one this time because the policy was completely rewritten, but we think it's a great idea and are committed to doing it for future proposed changes to our governing documents.

As always, thanks for taking part in this important process. We're glad to have so many interested and engaged people using Facebook. Stay tuned for future updates by becoming a fan of the Facebook Site Governance Page.

Now it seems to me that given the majority of facebook users have NO CLUE the facebook site governance page exists; Let alone that they have to fan it in order to see announcements about how facebook will deal with their private information in the future, that this is NOT an open and transparent company. It is instead a company whom is trying to give a half arsed impression of being open and transparent, without actually needing to be open and transparent.

I tell you what, the majority of comments to their proposals where "give us a redline version". They weren't positive, they weren't negative they were impartial comments because they wanted a redline version to highlight the changes. Rewriting the document is no reason as to why a redline version can't be provided, that's a poor excuse if any. And 7000 people needed to vote? What? When are they EVER going to get 7000 people commenting on an announcement? Especially when only like 5%, that's right 5% of facebook users actually know there was an announcement in the first place. What happens to the voice of the other 95% of users? Where does their chance to vote come into play?

Fact of the matter is, regardless of how many people commented or what they had to say; facebook would have brought about the changes. They need those changes or all their new features they have lined up and have spent money on developing will go down the tube. They need those changes to further support business partnerships and link ups like the new Xbox Live & Facebook thing they have going. It's certainly no coincidence that Facebook was launched on Xbox Live the same day as the new privacy policy officially came into effect.

And seriously lets think about this Xbox Live/Facebook partnership. What does the user actually get from it? You can't navigate your facebook page like you can on your computer, you can't play your apps and game or visit peoples profiles. All you can do is look at friends photo's and change your status automatically depending on what you do on your Xbox. Lets think about it for a moment, do you really want your friends knowing what movie you're watching and when? Or how long you've been playing a game for, or what Achievement you just won in a game or whatever music you're listening to? Do you really want that automatically streamed to your facebook account?

And more over, do you really want that information falling into Facebook's hands with their privacy policy? A privacy policy which leaks your information to 3rd parties without consequence to facebook. A privacy policy which collates your data with you as a person and not annonymously and then uses that information to give to 3rd Party partner companies and advertisers? Do you seriously want them to know your every move?

What's next? The TV? Downloading information about what we watch on TV, for how long and when? Or the Fridge? What it's stocked with and how often we restock it? OR will facebook simply get inside the RFID network and log everything we own and how often we use it? Will that information become a matter of public record too? Facebook represents an advertisers dream world, where by WE the users ARE the PRODUCTS that facebook sell. They collate non-anonymous data on us in an ever growing way and I for one find it scary as hell.

Have you ever noticed that while the specifications of computers improves over time, and it seems every week there is a new break through for speed and performance, it never seems to mean much of a lot in the real world? Have you noticed that your new system running Windows Vista or Windows 7 runs no faster than your old Windows 98 system did all those years ago?

It seems as though, no matter how big the performance boost is meant to be, be it from more or faster RAM, a faster clock speed CPU or more cache memory on the CPU, heck even that fancy new Graphics card doesn't really improve performance to any great degree. So what's going on here? Why do we never seem to see any performance change?

One answer does lye of course in system bottle necks, but this really only applies to upgraders, as long as you've brought a decent system to begin with. Bottle necks are simply one component in your system which has less performance than the other components in your system. For example if you have the new wizbang processor, but only a small amount of RAM, than the processor simply can't be all it can be. The RAM is the bottle neck in this case, and all the other components have to wait for it. Thus you get slower performance than you should.

But system bottle necks aren't the major problem here, and certainly can't account for the lack of performance boosts. The program instead comes from Software Bloat, of which Microsoft is the chief offender. If you uninstalled Vista or Windows 7 and install Windows 98 instead and you'd quickly find you're system running a hell of a lot faster. Same goes for the other software you use, if you go back to a previous version, you'll quickly find speed improvements.

So what is happening here? Well plain and simple, as new technology comes out software producers push the technology to it's limit. And in most cases there is no discernible reason, nor benefit for this. It's often just a bell or whistle which while shiny doesn't really do anything, and is solely there to get you to upgrade so they make an income. Another cause of software bloat is simply poor &/or sloppy coding, where by useless bits of code are left in the final produce, making your system work harder and thus dropping performance.

And the last major cause of software bloat is... Spyware, Malware or add-on programs and you'd be surprised who adds it. Google for example add mountains of all three to your system with any install. Hardware Manufacture Giant HP adds spyware to their software, which sends usage stats back to home base. Even Microsoft do it! Yep, it's built right into the system core, completely irremovable if you want your system to still function.

If you want your computer to run faster, than we need to hold software manufactures and programmers accountable. We need to send a clear message to them that we aren't interested in sloppy programing, irrelevant bells and whistle or anything which Spies on us. We don't want third party applications which we didn't sign up for. We just want plain software that works! How do we sent them this message you ask? It's simple, if your current software works fine, does everything you need it to do, don't upgrade.

Install the software you're using now on subsequent system upgrades as they're required. Resist the new flashy bells and whistles! When these companies see people responding in this manner, they will be forced to rethink their strategies and methods or risk financial ruin. This works, already Microsoft is starting to rethink things with Windows 7, but they haven't gone near far enough. The Boycott of new versions WILL cause a shift which can only benefit you, the consumer.

Links;

OldVersion.com (Past versions of software you love)

Many years ago we were promised 100mbps wireless internet in the form of the 802.16e (WiMax) standard. Unfortunately only select countries ever had this promise fulfilled, for the rest of us, wireless internet has been confined mostly, to the 3G networks of cellphone providers.

With 3G HSDPA (High-Speed Downlink Packet Access) and 3G EDGE (Enhanced Data Rates for GSM Evolution) we seen speeds of up to 3.5mbps and 7.2mbps respectively. This was great for most web applications, but no good for streaming high speed, High Definition video on the go, or for multiapping across the web and uploading/downloading large files.

Now there is a new kid coming to the block and he's about to kick 3Gs ass. I predict 4G LTE (Long Term Evolution) will be the talk of late 2010 and into 2011. With promised theoretical download speeds of up to 160mbps it'll easily out do your home fibre optic connection. It's important to note also, this speed is considered stable traveling at up to 120km/h

Expect 4G to be released on mobile handsets and USB dongle modems to start with. But as this technology takes hold and blankets an evermore larger area expect other 4G enabled devices to be released. With a stable, super fast internet connection, while traveling at high speeds, there is no reason why internet radios, or car radios with internet radio capabilities can't be released. Nor is there a reason why the same can't be said for IPTV.

With faster mediums like 4G coming into play I can see no reason why eventually handset manufactures won't start to favour VOIP over traditional telephony signal mediums. But that again is only on the assumption we have a united developed world uptake of 4G.

With that said, such data through-put rates, in a mobile setting has to be enticing to ISPs and Mobile Carriers alike, and assuming they are able to get hold of the technology through a suitable reseller deal with a Mobile Carrier, I'm sure we'll see more ISPs entering the mobile internet and mobile phone markets. Yep LTE are the 3 little letters you need to remember, they're the next mobile future and could, if implemented right, spell good things for us all.

Links;

Wikipedia
iTWire Article
Nortel LTE site
Gigaom post

Consumerism. Marketing teams and companies alike would have us believe it will make us happier; that it will somehow improve and fulfill our lives. But deep down I think we all know that is an outright lie. Yet for some oddity, some of us, nay most of us, get sucked into the game. We consume at ever greater rates, products and services which fill us with empty promises of better, more exciting lives. Of more friends, a better job, more sex appeal, the list goes on..

Why do we do it to ourselves? What tricks are used on us? And is this limited to just adults? How much of a consumer whore have you truly become? These are just some of the questions I hope to explore in this multi-part series on consumerism. Expect the first addition to be released 6pm Australian Eastern Standard Time (GMT+10).

As we take on greater amounts of technology into our everyday lives, are we losing our ability to interact socially? With a vast number of people globally having access to the internet and the never ending flood of new mobile phones, it seems an almost obvious question to ask. With their billions of users world wide, are social networking sites, designed to bring people together; having the opposite effect on social interaction?

For generation Y, the first generation to grow up with these kinds of technologies automatically around them; this is certainly seeming the case. We have a generation who have not had the fortune to have grown up learning physical social interaction, and as a result we are seeing not only people incapable of physical social interaction, but criminally anti-social behaviors as well.

That isn't to say that all Gen Y's are displaying these traits, but the numbers are certainly going up. I remember a time when children, teenagers and adults alike, knew that destruction of public property was a boundary not to cross. Knew that you should keep your hands to yourself and not harm anyone else, at least not without a really good reason. In todays' world, destruction of public property and Grievous Body Harm (GBH) are both done "for kicks".

Similarly there are suddenly people without any mental defect incapable of understanding how to interact appropriately with others. These people make up the majority of anti-social traits in modern times. Of these people the vast majority have problems even speaking to another person face to face, reduced to a tongue tied mess. These are people who are suffering; can you imagine not being able to walk into a shop and ask for help? Or the loneliness associated with such a condition.

But is it really their fault? Or is it down to technology? As humans, we learn to socialise through experience. Children play freely without care of consequence and speak their minds. It is from this that we learn social boundaries and thus become socially capable and confident. But as technology powers forward children are losing their chances for physical interaction experience. Lets take video games for example.

Before video games where invented, children used their imaginations more to play. This lead to adults who were capable of effective problem solving skills, and of course better social interaction skills, as children played outside with friends. Enter video games, and while they reduced the need for imagination, they were and remain more fun playing with friends. Up until recently however, to play a video game with a friend, they had to physically be in the room with you, this still gave one the opportunity to interact socially, and thus learn much needed skills. With the utilisation of the internet for gaming however, the need for physical presence for multi-player gaming has vanished and it's social interaction along with it.

Similarly social networking, with it's massive databases of users have done away with the simplest of social interactions. We now have a generation who have friends that they have never met and probably never will. And yet a vast friendship has formed. There are people in the world where their entire friend base can be described in this manner, and those who can be described that way are growing.

What is the solution, I haven't a clue where to begin short of pulling the plug on the whole thing. But what is certain is that if the trend continues within a matter of generations that can be counted on 1 hand, the ability to interact, socially, face to face may be lost entirely. And I think THAT is a real shame, sure to bring with it, endless problems.

As we head ever closer to the Digital TV switch, consumer demand for lower cost LCD televisions has born a reduction in prices and I predict it's only going to get better. This week Big-W announced a price drop of $200AUD on their Sanyo 40" LCD 1080p televisions, now retailing for $996AUD it's capable of receiving and viewing True HD Digital TV all for under a grand.

Previously to get a TV of that size, for that price you had to buy Plasma, but as we all know Plasma is a poor investment as the gas runs out within 6 years and you're just left with a rather expensive paper weight. We are finally seeing the beginnings of a reduction in LCD prices such that the average Joe Blow can enjoy the technology previously only available to the wealthy or debt inclined.

In an economy which is springing back to life again after a government induced downturn, the timing for LCD prices to drop couldn't be better. And I predict it's only going to get better as we draw closer to the deadline. Over the next 12 or so months, as Digital TV take up increases and the Movie studio's push Blu-Ray expect the price of LCD TVs to drop in general another 2-3 hundred dollars if not more.

This will put the average 40" LCD TV at around $800AUD, which is a very reasonable price and inside the budgets of the average Australian (even if they do have to lay-by it). As the pushers of these new technologies get evermore desperate to upgrade everyone, expect some good things to come.