Manufacturing, efficiency, waste and all that #environment #business

Thinking of our carbon economy again, what can we do to solve our waste problem? How about by being less wasteful and more efficient? How about repairing rather than replacing?

It used to be that we repaired by preference, but now it's all about disposal and recycling and repairing is simply "old fashioned". But recycling has an energy cost, and probably a larger one than repairing (it's an assumption, but without doing some analysis how would we know?). And disposal means replacement - we get another one. It may be made from a higher proportion of recycled materials but it still had to be made. So how did we get here?

Well it's standard practice now, and has increasingly been so since post-WWII. It's taught. It's how we think. This is modern manufacturing practice. By constantly trimming the cost of production and making a "better" product we sell more, and fewer come back for repair. The consumer gets a cheaper, better product and can get an updated, even better one, sooner (it's a self-perpetuating feedback loop). At its heart the practice involves reducing the time spent assembling a product and cutting out wasted time and materials. Now you can also shift the assembly to the customer, a la IKEA, or you can incrementally redesign and "modularise" as much as you can (a la Toyota et al). And the latter method is very, very popular.

Now I have no real problem with the IKEA model, although I do wonder how many people simply give up on self-assembly or waste time and money taking it back; or - worse still - bringing someone else in to "fix" it. With the Toyota (or Deming, or Lean-influenced) model I have greater concerns. Perhaps in some instances - services, for example - it makes wholistic sense, but I do question the overall saving when applied to a manufactured product.

In this 'lean' manufacturing example a pre-configured module is just 'plugged in'. It's simple to install and less "wasteful" in terms of time, as well as dumbing-down the skill level required (thus cheapening the labour cost). It opens up assembly to more robotised processes, too, and designs-in less room for error. So you get a better, more reliable and cheaper product. Sounds good so far. However one issue with this highly modularised production process is that we end up with one module incorporating many functions. So when one function eventually fails you have to replace the whole module. That may mean replacing a headlight module instead of a bulb, for example, or in extremis it may force you to install an entirely new gearbox when you strip a gear. So repairs become more expensive, or simply impossible.

With cars (to cite just one example) becoming ever cheaper via streamlined, lower cost manufacturing and assembly and parts becoming individually more expensive (plus labour to fit) it becomes more likely (as time and problems mount up) that you'll simply get a new car and write off the old one. Which is of course only increasing demand for the less-repairable car and further lowering the cost (ensuring that the trend continues). Now that sounds fine if all we want is to eternally sell more cars, which the manufacturers certainly do, but is it sustainable, or even desirable for our community?

If we look far enough ahead we get dirt-cheap disposable cars for everyone. Whether they have petrol, diesel or electric motors doesn't matter, they'll be everywhere. And we'll throw them away like cheap MP3 players when one highly modularised function dies. Perhaps that's good, since we'll have the latest and greatest updates (including safety features, although we only get the safety features the manufacturers want us to have) whenever we want them. But if it's not good overall - for our society or the planet - then we need to rethink the balance between mass production and disposal/recycling/repairability. And find a way to reverse our current direction.

What we have really done (by focusing on least-cost manufacturing) is move the "waste" from the manufacturing process onto the consumer. So the upfront cost looks low, but the real cost is well and truly to be paid later. If you have safety concerns about an "old" product fleet, fine, there may be other ways to 'update' a product without re-manufacturing the whole product (look at the computer software market, for example). It comes back to innovation, rather than simply cost-effective manufacture.

Re-introducing some repairability may cost something, but it may also save us from ourselves.

On individuals tackling the carbon problem #environment

OK, we assume we have a problem and we want to fix it, but as I suggested yesterday the solution won't be just one thing but many things. And as I also suggested, merely swapping in an electric motor, a fuel cell or a solar panel won't fix it, in fact it will definitely make it worse in the short term and may never recoup what you expected. The key here is to break both the problem and the potential solutions down into smaller pieces and carefully analyse each "chunk". Then you pick and choose the size and shape of the solution that will address your personal situation. But of course who has the time or skill to do that?

Which is a definite problem. Let's say 90% of us can access a computer but only 30% of those can use a spreadsheet to any great effect. What we need then are those 30% doing their sums and working out a solution that will address their part of the problem. And then sharing that solution with the others. Alas, we don't all have the inclination or motivation to do that, and we may not even know where to look for the options, or for their relative potency. Let alone hooking up with a solution-server somewhere on the Internet.

So you'd hope that democratically elected governments would do the sums for us and offer some guidance. But do they? Well I would argue that they do it in a very broad but largely ineffectual way. They tell us there's a problem (usually too late) and in response set up schemes that either subsidise a product or service (such as insulation or solar panels) or impose an extra cost (such as a carbon trading scheme or carbon tax). But subsidies foster laziness amongst the manufacturers and distort the real market price of a product. They are also a "bet" on a particular solution, and carry the risk that the bet is wrong. And carbon taxes and their ilk, whilst an admirable way to cost-in a previously hidden cost, are prone to political interference. Primarily they will be set too low, as few governments will risk setting the correct price first-up as it will negatively impact (in particular) jobs in the most carbon-wasteful industries.

Still, it's a start, and an important one. We need to stop hiding the real cost of things. For example cars are not priced to cover the carbon emissions of their manufacture, nor do they pay for the shared resources of roads and hospitals or the opportunity cost of the land given up for roads and carparks. We see a cheap sticker price and forget about the cost of infrastructure that is laid on - often paid for by taxpayers - to support that product. It's this sort of subsidy - which extends to tax breaks for manufacturers and fleet leasers, bail-out schemes and import duties - that is a hidden distortion of the market place. And ultimately is the sort of "public service" that appears to be doing us "good" and satisfying our desire for cheap cars, when in fact it is undermining our car makers (making them lazy and inefficient) and setting them - and us - up for catastrophic collapse.

And governments of all types are typically too scared to tell the whole truth about the state we are in, or hamstrung by an opposition party that will oppose everything they say. Indeed an incumbent government will always have in the back of their collective mind the 'I want to be re-elected' desire. And they will compromise every which way in order to satisfy their desire for continued power.

So it really comes back to people power. Governments may fiddle around the edges of the problem, and they may get some good messages out, but it ultimately comes down to every individual reducing their carbon footprint in a measured but effective way. We all have our personal wants and needs, so we can't be prescriptive, but picking a few "do-ables" from a list like this could get you started:

• Turn off that TV if no-one is watching, and the lights in an unoccupied room
  
• Install insulation and run a fan before using the air-conditioner
• Repair before you replace and make recycling the final step, not the first
  
• If you need a new car, buy the smallest, most efficient one for your purpose. Then leave it at home and walk to the shops
• Make it a habit to reduce waste in every way
• Plant trees and shrubs that need less care (ie ones that suit your local habitat).
  

Now cutting back on waste means consuming less, and we have a society and an economy built on mass consumption and growth- so it will hurt someone, somewhere. Prices will rise. There will be job losses in the most polluting, wasteful industries - but there will be new opportunities - and jobs - created as demand swings behind such things as alternative energy sources and renewed, revitalised public transport infrastructure and - perhaps best of all - a reconstituted village-style society built on human beings out and about in the community, rather than cosseted in wheeled steel cans or walled up in their homes.

Indeed if we walked a lot more we'd be needing more shoes, for starters.

Solving the trouble we are in - carbon, cars and warming #environment

My answer is simple, yet contradictory: "It's never simple, and there's no one answer".

I do get annoyed (ever so slightly) at people who say there's just one, best way (usually their way) to deal with "problems". For example, let's assume that we are facing a global warming catastrophe and there's something we can do about it (like reduce carbon emissions). This is based on an assumption, but a reasonable one given the evidence to hand. So what to do?

• Some people say we should just consume less, but that means that our economy (predicated on sustained rather than 'sustainable' growth, of all things) will decline, shedding jobs (at least in the short to medium term, after which things may balance out). If it means your job, would you do it? (Or will the financial meltdown do it for us - at least for a while?)
  
• Others may say that fossil fuels are the problem, so we should swap over to hydrogen power and fuel cells. It's a super-clean fuel that just expels water as exhaust. Fine, but where does the hydrogen come from? Oh, we use electricity to crack water into hydrogen and oxygen. And where does that electricity come from? And what energy is used to compress the hydrogen into a usable volume, and where does that energy come from? And what energy is also used to make the light-weight but super-strong fuel tanks that hydrogen needs in order to be transported - and stored - where we need it, safely? Do we build more power stations to generate the energy required? Hmmm. And when we have done all that, are we actually ahead?
  
• Others say that we should swap to electric vehicles, but they also - obviously - need electricity. So we end up having to devise a sustainable method of generating that electricity, too. And by making electric cars we increase the load on our power stations, so we are making more of those (and potentially burning more coal, for example). At least we are not adding the 'create hydrogen' step as well, and by using mostly existing infrastructure (and by time-shifting peak loads) we avoid some of the massive new investment we'd need for say hydrogen fuel tanks, pipelines and tankers. But we are (as a consequence of 'replacing the fleet') building more vehicles, not less, and they don't just materialise out of nothingness. It takes energy (and other resources) to make and transport these electric vehicles to the end users, just as it does for petrol-powered cars. And to make a difference we need to get the volume up, quickly. Although electric cars are simpler (a good thing) they need batteries - and thus we have another calculation to make in dealing with an explosion in battery sales, storage, distribution and disposal. It's better, but when you look at the emissions you still have does it actually add up?
  
• Perhaps solar cells are the answer? It looks like a good idea on the surface, if only to replace household power, but they too have to be made, distributed, installed, maintained and replaced. If we all went out today and bought solar panels we'd drive the price up in the short term, which would induce new players into the market and eventually lower prices. But we'd also employ people to install the panels, and they would drive around in vehicles... which when added to the carbon emissions generated during manufacture this won't be lowering the carbon foot print at all - at least not for a while. Indeed, until solar panel efficiency levels rise, which we'd expect, it may be that the extra millions of individual investments in wiring, control units and panels actually cause an overall increase in carbon emissions... until at least we have reached some sort of balancing point. And then again, how long will these panels last? Will we be repeating the effort in 10 or 20 years time, or after the next major hail storm?
  
• Or we could focus on cutting back emissions in many other ways, including changing our diet to reduce meat consumption. That too will impact someone, somewhere.
  
• We could reduce our travel, perhaps cutting back on tourism, but that too will reduce the incomes of many people in many lands.
• We could plant lots of trees, but that's not necessarily creating natural habitat, and it may rob us of farm land, too.
• Or we could look to a technologically left-field answer like artificially reducing the planet's absorption of sunlight with an umbrella of scattered particles. But who knows where that may lead.
  

So it's not an easy question, nor does it have one simple, straightforward answer (at least not if you pull the options apart and think about the consequences, anyway). It probably means that we do a bit of everything, slowly, carefully, but in a directed, meaningful way. But do we have the time? For myself, I'm doing less driving, more walking and cycling. I use household electricity carefully, prudently, and stay as true to my general principles as I can. I'm not rushing out to buy a medium or large-sized (and complex) hybrid, or even an electric car - I'll stick with small, economical 4-cylinder cars thanks. It may mean that the car industry rationalises, consolidates and declines, but that may be one of the things we need to accept. And I'll hang back on solar panels (or wind turbines) until we see greater efficiency levels and more transparency in actual costs of manufacture, installation and distribution. But if the figures start to stack up, I'll be there.

ABC, SBS vanish in "Tectonic shift" in Aussie TV #language #media

Let me unravel the meaning behind the Sydney Daily Telegraph's statement today that "Network Ten’s launch of the digital-only free-to-air sports channel One is a tectonic shift in Australian television". This  is taking a geological term (the agonisingly slow, grinding movement of huge plates that comprise the Earth's crust) and applying it (very accurately) to the agonisingly slow, grinding progress that represents "change" in the Australian TV broadcasting industry.

It's a bit like a "quantum leap", which is of course a very, very small - almost undetectable - change in state (and one that will not exist if observed). But good on Channel 10 - or perhaps One - for making a move that the public broadcasters made a few years ago. Not that the public broadcasters matter - for as the Tele explained, "After years of an industry comprising just the Seven, Nine and Ten channels, since last Thursday night we now have a fourth – One." Hmmm. What's missing there? ABC 1 and 2, and SBS 1 and 2 perhaps? At least they are in good company - apparently "pay TV" is also not part of the "industry". 

Admittedly the Tele favourably mentioned the ABC a bit later when it said that "While the digitally savvy ABC has broadcast its unique digital channel ABC2 since 2005, it's taken the full eight years since free-to-air digital TV started in Australia for a commercial TV network to follow suit". Which is a good point, taking us back to "tectonic" for a moment; but leaving the ABC out of the industry remains a bit rich. Just because they don't show traditional, paid-for advertising. Let alone ignoring SBS completely (which, ahem, does accept money for adverts).

As always, go figure. It is the Tele, after all.  

From my image archive - Ansett flying boat at Rose Bay #images #airliners

Short Sandringham Rose Bay_005a
Originally uploaded by gtveloce

In cleaning up some old files I dug up some shots of the old Ansett flying boat base at Rose Bay, Sydney. Yes folks, this was the way to fly if you wanted to cross oceans in relative safety back in the 1930s and '40s. (But this was 1974!!) These big old Short Sandringham 'boats (and others like them) plied their trade on international routes for airlines such as QANTAS for decades before succumbing to their lighter and faster 'wheeled' competitors. Because Lord Howe Island had no runway until the mid 1970s two of these 'boats maintained an essential service to the island before being sold off to Maureen O'Hara and her husband...

BTW, I may not have taken this particular shot - I took a lot, but so did my late friend James Davidson, who had access to the Rose Bay base via his flight engineer father. James got me hooked onto black and white photography in the first place, and probably scared me out of riding motorcycles forever.

Electric cars - laudable but not 'carbon free' #environment #autos

Electric cars are certainly quieter, potentially more reliable and more durable than what we have now. And they make a lot of sense as a driving experience with their seamless instant-on torque delivery, but that doesn't mean that they are "perfect" or "green" or even better than anything else in every situation. They are an option, and a worthy one, if you really need to propel yourself and a tonne or so of metal and plastic around. I also know that the car-fan media is obsessed with "fuel" to the exclusion of all else. But really, this goes a bit too far:While Tesla’s electric cars grab headlines across the globe, a company in the NSW country town of Armidale is quietly developing its own contribution to carbon-free motoring.

Exactly how "carbon-free" is any electric car? Was it manufactured without burning fossil fuels? (Certainly not in this case - I can see plenty of coal-fired furnaces at work here.) Was it shipped around post-manufacture without emitting carbon? (Unlikely.) Were the raw materials mined or made without a single atom of carbon getting lost along the way? (Hmmm.)

What they (the media outlet) mean is that it's not a petrol car, it's electric. I think we gathered that anyway. Like the uncritical Top Gear fascination with hydrogen, it stumbles on a key point: it takes energy to make, store and move energy. Whilst making electric or hydrogen-powered cars may lead to a cleaner atmosphere in our cities, and whilst driving such cars may eventually be sustainable in some narrow sense, they still have to be made and distributed, and the energy to move it must come from somewhere as well. There's no free ride here folks.

HR mythology: Gen X and Y - repeated assertions make it so

If you want to believe in something as trivial as the difference in managing "gen Xers" and "gen "Yers", go right ahead, but don't foist it on everyone else just because you can. Yes, every person is born into a very slightly different world with a marginally different set of circumstances, and yes you can make broad generalisations about people based on what technologies have been popularised in their childhoods or the mean wealth their families may have accrued. You may even believe in the "soccer mum" theory that has supposedly led to a generation of high-expectation children. But as I keep pointing out, relentlessly, the demographics of many, many countries was massively distorted in a very real way by 2 successive 'world wars'. Now war robs us of young men in particular and creates (hopefully) temporary deprivation and profound uncertainty. These world wars (and the Great Depression for that matter) were not trivial, they reshaped nations and cruelly influenced succeeding generations in many profound ways. The so-called Baby Boomers were identified as the generational change that came after those events, and was measured as a surge in babies born immediately after WWII. I have no argument about that obvious, real and characteristic demographic bump, and I further accept that analysis has revealed correlations with many societal changes in attitudes and behaviours that can reasonably be attributed to that post-war "generation" and its circumstances.

But the increasing trivialisation of "generations" based on increasingly weak correlations (or pure assertion) is stretching belief too far. To imagine that the computer, the mobile phone and the "soccer mum" is a driver of social conditioning comparable to a world war is frankly, quite silly.

OK, everything has an influence and we are a product of our environment as well as our genetics and social circumstances. Yes, the technologies that we use in our daily lives influence how we live, interact and behave. But to assert that we should manage people "differently" because they are labelled "Gen X" or "Gen Y" is making some gross - and to my mind pretty shallow - assumptions about them as individuals. In fact we should manage people as individuals and drop our preconceptions before opening our mouths.     

Aussie Federal Govt backs mind control startup? #tech #mind control

There I am digesting this Forbes article (with annoying adverts) on mind control gadgets when I read that "As imperfect as both companies' technologies may be, they've each found real venture funding. Neurosky says it's received a total of $7.7 million in investments but wouldn't reveal the investors. Emotiv has taken $15 million in funding from Technology Venture Partners, Epicure Capital Partners, Stillwater Capital and the Australian federal government".

Whilst I can see the applications - now and in the future - will find enormous markets (after all, who doesn't want telekinetic powers?) I was a bit surprised to see Kevin Rudd's government backing Emotiv. The company's website says that one backer is Aussie investor TVP. Whilst I can't yet see the link with any Aussie government investment I imagine (read guess) that it's of the tax concession variety. But I could be wrong.

One application that I imagined straight away was using mind control to drive a car, thinking that was probably a stretch (and likely to be a bit dangerous in the 'real world' of drug-fueled road-rage and distracted cell phone users). But of course they've already done it. 

Peekaboo - local Brushtail possum and baby #image

Brushtail possum_0952
Originally uploaded by gtveloce

These brushtails live in our roof - somewhat of a speciality of the species, at least since urbanisation. We have a host of mature gum trees in the garden, so hopping from roof to tree is a breeze, and there are plenty of flowers to snack on. As a treat these two are pilfering parrot seed hanging from the roof of our back deck...

I get drawn into reading this weird quasi-scientific trash #timewasters

Conspiracy theorists of the world, unite! It's about time you guys got together (secretly, of course) to spread rumour, half-truths and claptrap via the Internet... oh, hey, you already do!

In that vein this is a classic read, if a little long-winded. It's a mix of the plausible, the ridiculous and the, umm, plain downright dangerous. But I like it; for some strange reason I like reading recycled rants. They creep up on you, sound very possible at first and then start slowly dropping in magical properties as 'widely known' facts. 

The best bits are many, but I do like the copper tools (not as carinogenic as steel ones, apparently) and the old 'microwaved water kills plants' experiment. And the many, many ways you can "improve" water by 'clustering' the molecules or "electron charging" it are amazing. Truly. It's all good science, trust me (or trust the authors, anyway).    

Business schools are the root of all evil... really! #MBA

One of the philosophical underpinnings of western society is individualism - the idea that we are free to do what we want, when we want, with the simple caveat that we don't hurt someone else in the process. OK, that's a short take on it, but the essence is clear. And clearly something has gone wrong right now, and people are being hurt. So logically we should look for the individuals who let us all down and expect them to take individual responsibility (rather than pay rises and termination jackpots). We have laws to enforce that, of course, up to a point.

However it rarely works like that. Yes, some brave souls will 'do the right thing' and accept that the individualism that fed their corporate lives and wealth should be paid back with the individual responsibility and integrity we expect or hope for. But others will blame the system, or the law, the lack of control or - would you believe - their education! Yes folks, it's the MBA system, the business schools that are to blame. Clearly courses like 'Capitalism without regret' and 'Greed 2.0 - the strategic imperative' don't help (and yes, I made those up, but you know what I mean); but it's really just blame shifting, isn't it? Unless we can all be reprogrammed so easily that the last school we attended is the only thing that influences us... in which case every school, business or otherwise, needs to take some heat right now.

There is of course some truth in everything, but no absolutes. We are not simply the robotic output of a failed school system, we are thinking beings that absorb, reflect, analyse and synthesise everything in our environment. Yes, business schools need to digest the economic crisis and adapt their courseware, if not their entire agenda. Indeed you'd expect that as a matter of course - this crisis will be high on their case study agenda anyway. And the truth is that business schools have actually been teaching concepts like the triple bottom line and corportate social responsibility for the last decade, if not longer. Perhaps the real problem is that the business schools - indeed all schools - aren't as influential as we think. Maybe peer pressure, group think and so-called 'individualism' are more to blame than we care to admit.     

When cyclists bonk they are on the bike and hitting the wall #language

It happened to Grand Tour winner Alberto Contador, and he lost 3 minutes and the race lead in the process. Cyclists call it "bonking", but "bonking" can mean many things. I'm not going mad - even Lance Armstrong knows what I mean: "Bonked" basically means running out of fuel. Happens to us all.

It's the point where you simply feel so wasted, so tired, that all form and much forward motion is lost. You aren't injured, you simply have no energy. Physiologically you can increase your endurance and stave it off, but you still must eat as you ride if you are to avoid it. For me personally it usually happens around the 80-90km mark, but only if I don't eat. If I eat something - anything - every 25-30km I'm OK.

But I wondered - how did it get this name? So let's look for clues from a few online sources...

1. First definition - To strike or cause to come into contact It's close - like 'hitting the wall' in marathon running, which is a nice image until you experience it
   
2. Or perhaps to have sexual intercourse No, I don't think that's it - is it? Not on a bike, anyway
   
3. Paul Beale tentatively connects it to bonk ‘a short, steep hill’ I don't think so, although short hills become mountains when you have bonked
4. Eric Partridge in his Dictionary of slang (not online, sadly) suggested the same, a short sharp hill, from about 1840. He also suggested that it was circus slang and gave an attribution. Hmmm. No cycling connection, at least not that far back
5. More recently Fergusson, Partridge and Beale dropped the circus slang and the hill reference and went for 'a resounding hit' (citing a verbal usage in 1919, and as a noun in 1920). They also agree with sexual intercourse (who wouldn't?) and eccentric behaviour; and if the former was performed on a bike it would certainly constitute the latter in my book!
   
6. More pertinently, a sudden attack of fatigue or light-headedness sometimes experienced by racing cyclists and other athletes is spot on, and is dated 1952 - but why a bonk??
7. I felt myself start the unstoppable downward spiral that leads to what we Americans call “bonking” Nice description but I think the English made it up first - but again, where's the proof?
8. From left field: Bonking is a card game for 4 players that is played with one deck of cards. Everyone plays for themselves. In total 11 rounds are played, in which every round has its own goal. The goal of the game is to score as many points as possible. The player who scores the most points is declared the winner. I haven't thought of playing this game whilst riding, but it may be possible...
9. And of course: Bonkers "crazy," 1957, British slang, perhaps from earlier naval slang meaning "slightly drunk" (1948), from notion of a thump on the head. Now we are making some sense.

I think I'll stop here as I've hit the wall on this one. There's an onomatopoeic (is that how its spelled?) element here, I reckon. My theory being that "bonking" was originally an approximation of the sound of hitting or colliding with something - perhaps even something like a human head! If it was a human head (and it would be a suitably muffled bonking sound, surely?) then it's possible to acquire a brain injury, which would lead to "bonkers", or a form of madness, hopefully temporary. In a less drastic fashion it may be more like a wobbly, drunken state, as suggested by the naval slang. From there it's a short hop to the exhausted, similarly wobbly and slighty incoherent state of the cyclist's "bonk".

Thus I blame the British Navy circa 1950 allowing drunken sailors to ride home on shore leave, possibly falling off their bikes and "bonking" themselves silly. Actually I see the other popular definition coming into play as well, with those same sailors involved, but with bikes purely optional!

Pro-car body says congestion tax 'a failure'... oh really?

In a nutshell Sydney's congestion tax isn't perfect - it doesn't target all vehicles that enter the CBD, and the effect - after admittedly a fairly short period of use - has been restricted. But it has had a small effect, and it has brought to local prominence the possibility of using variable charges to influence traffic congestion. Given the inelastic nature of the car-use demand curve, and the relatively modest impost involved, you could say it's actually been quite a success. But the opposition pollies, the lobbyists and the tabloid press - and even the broadsheets are tabloids nowadays - are howling about an(other) abysmal failure by the State government. But the complainants all have vested interests, don't they?

Now this is a world-wide issue, but I'm looking at Sydney as my example for the moment. The basic problem here is that we are at the cusp of a major change in attitude to transport planning and energy use, and it hurts. There are many lobby groups fighting these changes, trying to get the best deal they can for their special interest; and then there are the forces of change themselves that are making a nonsense of the lobbyists and their self-interest. History tells us that a compromise will be made, but that it will be a short-term one, followed by either radical change that will better our society long-term, or a succession of similarly poor compromises until we arrive incrementally at the same radical solution. Occasionally change doesn't happen fast or deep enough and the society perishes.

How's that for an overview? Could that actually happen? Well (mostly for reasons of land degradation, vulcanism and war) it's happened to big cities, nations and cultures in the past, so it can happen again. It sounds grim, but let's look at Sydney's planning, or perhaps non-planning as an example of a big city that has grown immensely over the last 200-odd years. For the last 70 years or so developed countries like Australia have chosen to vastly expand their road infrastructure, mostly at the expense of mass transport systems. Older, more established cities (especially in Europe) have mostly resisted, but all have had to face the challenge of the car. In many cases funds have been diverted from rail and tram building, mostly to road construction. Now this has largely been a popular move, at least up to now, and one based on 2 basic tenets: (1) that individualism is good and should be encouraged, even if that means encouraging the adoption of personal, individualised mechanised transport and (2) that fuel is cheap. Societies basically invested in the motor car by subsidising the road building and even the car-makers themselves. (And with each bail-out, import duty imposition, 'innovation funding' or tax concession to car manufacture or use we dig ourselves deeper.)

Well if we didn't wake up with the fuel shock of 1973 we started certainly doubting our basic premises in 2008. (Not that it's stopping us yet.)

Not every culture so worships individualism, indeed there's a sliding scale at work here. But Australia is a new-ish country, built along British lines but with an Irish urge to thumb the nose at authority. So we have the knack of falling into line like the British - or perhaps especially the English - whilst doing our utmost to pour scorn on our elected officials. So when Britain largely dumped trams and adopted buses, so did Australia - mostly. Melbourne resisted, at least a bit more than most Aussie cities. But Sydney had absorbed the English and Irish influences as well as a love for the USA and its individualistic 'freedoms'; thus the NSW capital not only adopted the bus but the car as well; and in so doing threw away its extensive - 2nd only to London in scope and size - tram infrastructure. Literally burning the carriages and burying the tracks under tar. All achieved by 1961, a brilliant result for the car and petroleum lobbyists in particular.

Now that was a radical change, but coming out of WW2, anything individualistic and "free" was looked at as "good". It felt good. It looked prosperous, fresh and new. Out with the old, in with the new!

But now, in 2009, let's face some facts. Sydney's inner-city road network was largely designed for horses, carts and pedestrians. For at least 150 years we didn't make wide boulevards, build garages or parking lots, indeed we didn't even pave main roads. But since then we have gone car-crazy, seemingly relegating the walking shoe, the bicycle and the horse to both the sporting pages and the lunatic fringe. And somehow convinced ourselves that fumes, noise and ferocity are acceptable prices to pay. It's OK to have cars and trucks travelling at 40, 50 or even 60 kilometres an hour just inches from pedestrians and cyclists. It's OK - even good- that we don't have to walk to the shops anymore. It's been so successful a deal - or brainwash - that we have closed down our corner stores and congregated our shops in huge malls that are largely out of walking range anyway. We have made the car a planning instrument in our daily lives.

And it's been a seductive sales pitch. Cars are comfortable and convenient and can reflect our moods. We are in control and can go where we please. Cars are a valued extension of ourselves, our prosperity and our personalities. But now we are tiring of the sheer sheetmetal involved - Aussie cars in particular are too big, too thirsty. We don't have big families like we once did and we fear that petrol will rise in price. Cars are becoming a dead weight around our necks. We fear also that we are doing something wrong to the planet by turning all of these fossil fuels loose in the atmosphere. Some of us fear calamity and are looking to change our habits.

Which brings me to the lobbyists that are fighting hard for "us". Groups such as the grandly-named National Roads and Motorists Association (of which I am a long-standing member), or NRMA for short. Although they claim to represent road users they do little or nothing to support bicyclists sharing those roads, or even cyclists having their own infrastructure. Although they claim to represent motorists they remain fixed on the old belief that car use should be subsidised by all (even the cyclists and pedestrians), to better grow the network of roads and encourage even more congestion. They say that they are against congestion but then again they don't want to pay for any decongestion: : PREMIER Nathan Rees' city congestion tax is a spectacular failure with a study revealing thousands of drivers now clogging alternative suburban routes to get to work to avoid the $4 toll.

Now logical analysis tells us that the CBD congestion tax will not be 'perfect' until we are charging it to all road-users who enter the CBD. That will be a technological and road-designing solution that I suspect will come to pass, but will cause even more political pain - something the NSW politicians in particular (on either side) do not want right now. However what we have now targets 2 congested roads - a bridge and a tunnel - and is effective. It has raised the cost of travelling along those arteries and put the minds of the motorists to work on solving the equation - is driving to work still worth it? In a year or so we will have the data and can assess its overall effectiveness at shifting congestion, either by time-shifting the road traffic or by moving people onto public mass transit. Tentatively it is doing both, yet the NRMA thinks not - although it states the opposite in its own analysis. Logically, if a small charge increase in peak hour drives some change, albeit a small one, a larger charge will drive more change. Whilst car use may be a fairly inelastic thing, a hefty enough charge will have an impact. Now that will drive more motorists to change their habits - and thus will reduce congestion. But the NRMA appears to want the opposite - no charge, and by logical extension, more congestion.

Go figure. Do we wind back road charges and build even more roads, or start asking a fair price from road users for public infrastructure?

McKinsey Quarterly on making #Web 2.0 work for #business

Serious stuff now - McKinsey Quarterly is a good read and worth registering for the free content. This piece on making Web 2.0 work in the workplace is both logical and well researched, which you expect from McKinsey. It's not cutting-edge but it's worth a read.

Instant webification with Web 2.0-style domain name generator #timewaster

Not very new or original, but funny enough. Well I had a (small) laugh. Actually if you are stumped for a new name, here's dot-o-mator. A very practical webifier indeed.

Self healing coatings based on shrimp shell extract #innovation

Finding new uses for existing things is innovation, at least in my book. So creating a self-healing polymer by taking polyurethane and adding a raw ingredient from crustacean shells meets my criteria for interest and innovation.  To accomplish the self-healing, just add UV light. 

Whilst self-healing of scratches has been achieved to some extent already with heat-sensitive resins, this is new in that it could form a paint-like surface on just about anything that's exposed - or could be deliberately exposed - to sunlight. In a small way it's similar to the process of hardening or bonding of dental fillings using light or heat, where either the natural temperature of your mouth or the deliberate use of a special wavelength of light causes a change from 'malleable' to 'hard'. OK, it's different but there's a link there somewhere. I wonder if a variant of this self-healing polymer could put a friction and bacterially-resistant coating on teeth?

I'm sure that if we think about it long enough we can find other uses. 

Postscript to yesterday: Windoze restored #Windows XP

Just to finish my story of PC adventure... after chkdsk /p /r had run on both those old Windows XP boxes (took an hour or so) I ran FIXBOOT on the old nail (as it wouldn't boot) and when that didn't work I tried FIXMBR. At this point I was informed that the MBR was either missing or as corrupt as most politicians, and that I could possibly lose everything - presumably including my house, my family - if I continued. Despite that apparent threat I went ahead, bravely. Alas, no dice (again, with feeling).  So then instead of using the Recovery Console I went into clean install but chose "Repair". Perhaps I should have started here - it zapped plenty of files and started copying new ones.

I had to type in the dreaded Product Key as it acted like a clean install, but that was no problem as it was legit and there was a sticker to prove it. Less than an hour later I had Windoze running again, no spontaneous reboots anymore and all of my data intact, including the old accounts, all programs and key settings. I just had to plug everything back in and turn back "on" what I had turned "off" in the BIOS. In the course of this adventure I had also installed a CD player (as it was using an external DVD player/writer before all went crazy) and changed the boot order in order to boot from the Windows disc... but for now I'll leave it like that. I also cleaned up inside and removed an old spare IDE cable. I used a version of Windows with SP2 as I wasn't sure if I should use the latest SP3 disc - but I actually can't see why that wouldn't have worked. I also have the original pre-service pack Windows disc but didn't want to restore back that far only to have to reinstall all of the service packs.  Anyway, it works.

Now with the other, newer, machine the chkdsk /p /r was enough to solve the problem - it booted up successfully. Again I needed to restore all functionality in the BIOS and I'll now clean it up and resolve a few old issues in the registry. But it works.   

My Windoze PCs like to hang together.. as in stop #Windows XP

It all started with a dead monitor before Christmas. So I swapped it out with a spare good one. Then XP PC number 1 started to have some hard drive errors (and was getting a bit slower anyway and needed to be freshened), so it got put upstairs to be cleaned up, where it would replace an older XP box that was in an even worse state. The kids would actually think it was quick compared to their usual machine. Meanwhile a brand new (and fast) no-name XP box took up prime position downstairs, so I was happy.

When the dead monitor came back to life (after a bit of tinkering), the kids got that too. But then the real fun started. The really old nail refused to start again in its new position, so it got put aside. Fine. But now the usually reliable PC number 1 also disliked its new upstairs home and after a few days refused to start. Well, it would start and hang whilst loading mup.sys, or so I learned from Safe Mode. Taking a quick break from real work, today I got 'stuck in' to both problems.

The old nail just beeped at me - no video at all. So everything (meaning all USB and Firewire connections) came off the back and I swapped in 'guaranteed' safe bets like a new keyboard and mouse I had handy. When that didn't work I unplugged the monitor. It was still beeping and hanging. So I took the lid off and reseated everything, especially the RAM and the video card that sat in the PCI slot. Bingo, we had Windoze again! But shortly after displaying the Windoze welcome it auto-rebooted itself. And repeat, ad nauseum. Having checked for silly wiring issues, I resorted to the Windows XP master disc and the Recovery Console.

But first I had to get the Recovery Console to run. It would start fine, but kept hanging at "Starting Windows...". Fearing my life was being sucked out of my body by this machine, I went over to old reliable and started the same process. And lo it came to pass that it too got stuck "Starting Windows" (you'll recall it was hanging when loading mup.sys, more than likely indicating (a) the power supply failing to meet requirements; (b) a hard drive error in a bad spot, like ontop of a driver or related registry entry or (c) a hardware failure somewhere else. Vague, I know). So I started pulling wires to lessen the load on the power supply and remove some of the suspects. No dice, although I noticed there was (shockingly) more than 5V coming out of the Epson printer's USB cable... hmmm - a related issue? Anyway, having disconnected whatever I could, I went into the BIOS and started disabling everything 'likely', one by one. I did this on both machines and the old nail finally woke up and went into recovery. I started chkdsk /p /r before it changed its mind and went back to old reliable for more fun.

Reseating the RAM and generally checking everything (and cleaning the fan) seemed to do the trick and I repeated the chkdsk task...

I don't know if I've fixed anything yet, but at least I have had an adventure!   

Aussie raw vegan philosopher.... Harley Johnson

I don't entirely subscribe to the radical raw vegan diet - in fact I probably disagree with it - but the message is good: whatever you do in life, every dollar you spend, every action you take -everything you do - is a vote for what you believe in. If you don't believe in it, don't do it.

Funny enough to forgive - one chicken's appeal #waste #environment

Yes, yes, it's an ad.. yes, yes, I work for IBM (but nothing to do with the ad). But it is funny - and true.

Short and simple guide to using PHP with Twitter's RESTful API

From IBM's DeveloperWorks (hey, my day job is with IBM but nothing to do with DW), a simple and concise article on Twitter's API and how to tap into the stream using PHP and the Twitter API.

I can't believe I'm reading this. Melinda Gates in Vogue

I can't believe I followed this Steve Bass link and found myself at Style.com, but gee it was an interesting read. You don't get this stuff in PC World.

Melinda Gates on disease and hunger: Melinda French Gates may be the most ambitious woman on Earth; she certainly has some of the most profound ambitions. “We are trying to solve hunger in the world,” she says matter-of-factly when asked what she considers the principal goals of the world’s largest philanthropy, which she runs with her husband. “And, of course, disease.”

Melinda on quitting her job and starting a family: Yet, after marrying the boss—yes, that boss, Bill Gates—in 1994 and giving birth to their first child two years later, she decided to leave the company. “Bill was shocked. He said, ‘But you love your job so much, how can you do that?,’ and I said, ‘Come on, Bill. I can’t work and have you with a full-time career and think this is a family.’

And the big one, Melinda on what the kids can't bring into the house:Still, being a Microsoft child does carry unusual burdens. “There are very few things that are on the banned list in our household,” Gates tells me. “But iPods and iPhones are two things we don’t get for our kids.”

It's actually quite an engaging read.

What gets missed in carbon calculations - almost everything

It gets missed over and over again. The media is promoting some excellent ideas for a new carbon-reduced economy (here's another swag of great ideas) but it almost always involves simply replacing one existing form of engine or power-supply for another, with any pay-off well down the line. Yes, it's great to swap out petrol engines for electric, but the electricity still comes from somewhere.  Yes, reducing fuel use per kilometre is a great idea but what if it just means we drive further? Yes, solar cells are fabulous but how do they get onto your roof? Do they just materialise there, or are they trucked there? Do the workers drive to your site to fit them? How were the solar cells made - did it involve energy, and how much carbon was released? How long do we have to use the solar cells before we have neutralised the carbon released in their sales, marketing, manufacture, fitting and maintenance? We can ask the same about almost anything - including hybrid cars - and I can guarantee it won't be a pretty calculation.

I'm fairly certain (yes, this is an opinion only) that most of those who claim 'carbon-neutrality' haven't added it all up. In every case I've seen so far they look only at neutralising the variables, like fuel and power. When you add in everything else - the infrastructure, the elaborately manufactured goods, the services that supply, fit and maintain these goods - we can see an overwhelming problem. We are just fiddling with the edges and not attacking the central issue: our expectations are set sky-high and seemingly no-one is prepared to face that reality. We simply buy, use and discard too much stuff. And how do we propose to fix this? Well currently we propose to buy, use and discard even more - but slightly "better" or "greener" - stuff. Can someone explain how this helps?   

 

Ramifications - GM flogs SAAB, SAAB ditches Aussie-built engines #economics

Everything is connected in this globalised world. The cash-strapped and sinking fast General Motors Corp. has been knocked back by the Swedish government, so far, and is looking for financial support elsewhere - probably by flogging SAAB to the highest bidder. Now that's all very sad for SAAB but it appears likely that for various reasons, including fuel efficiency and the understandable urge to downsize, SAAB has ditched the GM-sourced and Aussie-built V6 engine (that also sits inside most Holden Commodores). There's a big dent in the Aussie engine export program (maybe they should have stuck with exporting 4-cylinder motors after all?).

This follows FIAT-owned Alfa Romeo, another Holden engine customer and former GM-playmate, recently ditching - or at least down-playing - the same V6 (well, the block, anyway - they use their own head) in favour of a new, high-tech and hyper-efficient 4-cylinder. FIAT and Alfa are planning to introduce what looks uncannily like an electro-hydraulic version of a desmodromic valvetrain that will get at least 2-litre performance out of 1.4 litre petrol engines without the extra weight and complexity of a hybrid powertrain.

Holden's had better get working on those 4-cyclinder motors, the sands are shifting fast.

Airlines - just 2% of the carbon emission problem? #airlines #greenhouse

There's a great article here in the EthicalCorp magazine that touches upon much of what is wrong with the airline industry and how it shapes up to solve some of the issues, especially the carbon-waste problem. However there is much more under the surface that needs to be thought through too. It's a bit like the car industry, in that just one variable - fuel use - gets the focus. So we tend to get bogged down in semantics about fuel efficiency per seat and forget about the bigger picture.

As with road traffic, air traffic demands that a vehicle is built from a diverse set of raw materials; that substantial (often public) infrastructure is laid on for these vehicles and that whole sub-industries are developed in support of designing, researching, testing, maintaining and operating these vehicles. There are specialist mechanics, training institutes, designers and builders. There are airports and terminals, hangars and hardstanding. It's an awful lot of concrete, aluminium and steel, much of it brought to site by carbon fuels and smelted by carbon-emitting energy... so when you add up the consequential emissions they are far, far greater than the simple fuel emission. (Not forgetting also that aircraft disperse much of their fuel-based carbon output at altitude, not just at ground level, and spread it around unlike any other form of transport.)

But as is the case for road transport we choose to look only at the variable - our fuel load. Now this clearly is a better bet for the airlines than it is for the car makers - airlines at least want to maximise operating profit and are under constant pressure to maximise passenger and freight loadings. Unlike a private car user, no airline wants to fly empty airliners around just for fun. And it is important to minimise fuel use, anyway. But we never seem to want to address the remainder - the infrastructure. We turn a blind eye to it because in our hearts and minds we want big, bustling airports, we like to travel, and we like new planes better than the old ones. Overall, we like to get somewhere - anywhere - quicker rather than slower. And planes fit the bill.

Or do they? If carbon emissions truly matter, both as a contribution to climate change and to acidification of our oceans, perhaps we need to question everything - from aviation to fast trains, from private cars to bicycles - and be prepared to make some really big changes. Until we get serious about it we are just playing around the edges.

"Wallah" in lieu of "Voila".. is it just me? #language

I keep reading the word "wallah" in a context that suggests that the English word (procured from the French) "voila" was actually meant. As in "Look there!" Is this a simple mistake, where people have heard a word and taken a best guess at the spelling? Or is it a deliberate attempt to rid the English language of a French invader? Perhaps they are being funny, but it comes across as simply sad. Maybe it's me.

Here's an example: All I had to do was connect an Ethernet cable to my office network, turn it on, and wallah we were into the land of smart storage management.

Reaper, Anvil Studio, Audacity.. it's audio day #music #tech

It's audio install day for me. Actually every day seems like audio install day, but today I am installing Reaper and Anvil on the Core2Duo. (I loaded Audacity the other day, and configured the Behringer USB guitar link as well, along with the Native Instruments Virtual Amp. Should all run better than on the P4. It means copying over a lot of VST plug-ins and what-not but it'll be worth it. Why is it worth it? Where's the fun in editing and processing sound? Well it's like Photoshopping images - either you get a kick out of making stuff out of nothing, or doing just a little touching up, or you don't.

Cars, gasoline, transport and the future #futurism #cars

It's easy to say that the car market is changing - there are some obvious forces at play. Most clearly we see the pending collapse of the US-owned auto-makers, GM, Ford and Chrysler. In truth it's been a long-time coming and, indeed, it hasn't happened yet. They may be rescued, for example. FIAT may indeed buy Chrysler, or some other deal may arise. GM may cut/sell-off enough arms and legs that it can scrape by, as could Ford. And various governments around the world may stump up more direct cash or indirect subsidies to keep these dinosaurs and their local offshoots alive.

But there's more afoot here - even Toyota reports bad times in the car trade. So let's dig deeper. What is happening here and what can we expect in the future?

• Fuel prices have demonstrated greater volatility, scaring the market out of larger, heavier, faster or potentially riskier purchases
• Awareness has risen in the marketplace, of peak oil and climate change especially, dampening enthusiasm for cars in general and larger, thirstier cars especially
• Global financial collapse has threatened the ongoing provision of capital for the makers and dampened the desire and available cash flow of the consumer
• The rise of developing nations and their car makers has shifted the global focus towards low-impact, affordable cars

It's the last point that really grabs my thoughts right now. In some ways it answers, at least partially, some of the other points, too. By shifting production to smaller, less complex vehicles we not only meet the demand for personal transportation and open up economic possibilities for people in developing countries, we provide renewed competition for established makers in the developed world. It shakes things up and creates hope for greater innovation in addressing both alternative fuel sources and climate change. The fact that lower-cost cars use fewer resources will be an important change in an industry that has arguably become fat, lazy and complacent on a long-term diet of cheap oil. However the downside to opening up new markets is that any growth in manufacturing will increase pressure on our available resources and potentially lead to additional pollution, be it carbon or other wastes. It will also put pressure on public transport to offer effective competition, or to decline, as it has in much of the developed world.

The negatives are obvious, but we also have some positive forces at work here, including a push towards smaller cars with less impact overall, and more flexibility in fuel options. So what have we got in terms of lower-impact, lower-cost cars in the pipeline? The Indian Tata Nano is an obvious one, and from the same locale is the petrol/LPG Suzuki-Maruti 800. We also have the Romanian Renault, the Dacia Logan; the Fiat 178 project's offshoot, produced in several countries - the Palio, with an electric version mooted; and offerings from Russia's Lada. Plus there's Renault-Nissan working with Bajaj on a Tata Nano competitor, and further developments in China.

The flavour here is small, efficient cars with flexible powertrains. Some with the backing of existing large auto-makers such as Renault, FIAT and Suzuki, others based on what has been learnt from previous licensing deals and/or the production of so-called "legacy" or obsolete cars.

Paramount in meeting the developing world's demand for cars is low cost. The consumer will expect - and probably can only afford - a low purchase price with equally low running costs. That means manufacturers will need to scale up volume whilst driving down costs. Margins will be small. There's little room here for complacent "old school" car makers. Yes, they can continue to feast on the wealthy nations and their taste for over-large, over-insulated and overweight vehicles, but not joining in and competing will see these lower-cost makers taking more and more market-share over time. Eventually the penny will drop.

What can we expect to see over the next 10-15 years? There are no guarantees, but there is clearly an emerging market for smaller cars with flexible engine and fuel options, and it's an opportunity that will be addressed by the companies most eager to adapt. Lower-cost cars will gain traction and spread, with exports likely from countries such as China, India and Brazil, to name but 3. A second wave may come from other Asian and South American countries with African production ramping up as well. As these producers gain share existing small-car makers such as Hyundai and Suzuki will join in, as will the more agile of the "old school" makers such as VW, FIAT and Toyota. However many of these companies, and certainly the less flexible makers such as GM and Ford, will find it tough to adapt to this ultra-low-cost environment and will look to premium brands for salvation. Whether there will be enough room on that shrinking island remains to be seen.

We also cannot discount other disruptive entrants into the market. As cars are forced into a better balance with public transport and electric cars gain momentum there is an opportunity also for companies outside of the car-making game to come into play. Whilst hydrogen and fuel cells are largely discounted as power sources in the immediate future, they too may well gain ground as new possibilities emerge. And the very concept of personal transport could be threatened by new forms of flexible, lower-cost public transport. Both heavy and light rail solutions may continue to decline and be replaced by loosely-coupled personal transport modules that forsake some of their "freedom" for a degree of shared infrastructure and scheduling. Combined with electronic control of roadways (using GPS and RFIDs, for example) personal cars of the future may offer a new form of "train" that services wider areas by road rather than inflexible fixed rail. Whilst it may be difficult to imagine the current car owner giving up some of their current freedom to move at will, the sheer volume of cars on the roads and the likelihood of traffic gridlock will compel governments to consider a transition of some sort.

AV Labs Music Studio - audio outputs #gadgets #tech

AV Labs Music Studio audio outputs_0918a
Originally uploaded by gtveloce

The other side of the box. Standard RCA outputs as well as USB out. Essentially the box becomes your audio device in your Windoze Control Panel audio properties. What you can do is plug an RCA cable into this end and run it into your home audio system. Thus I can get Last.fm to play in another room through some big speakers. Is it worth it? Depends how desperate you are to play computer audio in the living room (without actually having a computer in the living room). It's not the only way to do it but it's one way.

If you podcast it would be a useful box for mixing your voice with music. It comes with software to do that. I also run my guitar through my PC using USB.

AVLabs Music Studio #gadgets #tech

AVLabs Music Studio inputs_0919a
Originally uploaded by gtveloce

It was only $A119, so why not? This little box allows me to more easily mix audio on the PC. This pic shows the input side. Microphone in on the left, standard RCA audio on the right. The flashing blue LED in between is over-bright and a bit annoying.

Lack of news forces news.com.au to mine YouTube #media #laziness

Surely news.com.au can do better than just rehash what they find on YouTube? Apparently not! This is headed 'Most terrifying plane landings' and was written, if that is the correct term, by Kate Schneider: HOLD on to your seats and be thankful you weren't onboard these terrifying flights as we take a look at some of the scariest plane landings ever. From nearly hitting the heads of beachgoers to swinging violently from side to side, these videos show some extreme and amazing landings. Yes folks, this is the travel section! Brought to you by a quick Google of YouTube!

Yes, some scary crosswind landings there, but these videos aren't hard to find, are they? My 2 year old has seen these already. And crosswinds are part of the flying game, just as not hitting the terrain is considered a good thing. It wouldn't be so bad if Kate had actually researched the topic a bit more widely and made some more thoughtful and valuable comments. It seems to me that an airport's 'scariness' shouldn't be judged on the number of posts found on YouTube... nor would a prudent and informed writer say that pilots were 'forced' to fly close to buildings; rather perhaps they flew a safe and pre-determined glidepath that was approved by the appropriate flight safety bodies. It may be that it looks dramatic, especially when viewed through a long-focal-length lens, when if fact it was quite day-to-day for the pilots and passengers concerned to 'skim' buildings or beaches.

Maybe it was just a s-l-o-w day at news.com.au.

Dollar 'plummets' - doesn't just fall #media #economics #language

This is about language, especially the language used by the traditional media, but we'll open up with some simple economics: the Australian dollar is traded on an open marketplace and moves up and down in response to demand. (Long ago it was fixed by successive governments, mostly notably the conservative ones, but a Labor federal government reformed our currency system and floated the dollar.)

By floating or trading the currency the value of the dollar adjusts itself to the realities of, for example, importers wishing to exchange Aussie dollars for other currencies. These importers need to do this in order to buy goods and bring them into the country. Now as the dollar falls in value against any particular currency that means more Aussie dollars are needed to buy that foreign currency. This raises the local cost for the importer which will be reflected either in lessened profit for the importer or (more likely) an increased price to the consumer. The upshot of that is a fall in demand for price-sensitive imported products and more cash available to buy locally-produced products, or to invest locally. Is this good or bad? Or neutral?

To read the local Aussie press you'd think it bad, by default: Australian dollar plummets on weak US data. Note that it didn't fall - by about a cent, mind - rather it plummeted. Doesn't sound good, does it? I can imagine many readers assuming the worst.

However the flipside to a falling dollar is that exporters will be selling Aussie goods at local Aussie prices to importers in other countries, and they will receive payment in a foreign currency. As the Aussie dollar falls in value against those currencies (and it may not, as each is traded individually), they get more Aussie dollars in return for a stronger overseas currency. For example an exporter may have signed a contract in $US and will expect to get a certain number of Aussie dollars when those gratefully received US dollars arrive. However a falling Aussie dollar means they will get more Aussie dollars than they originally expected. It's a bonus, it adds value and profit to the exporter's bottom line and encourages further investment. So now, is that good, bad or neutral?

Media-speak is a wonderful thing, but it does distort the news by adding colour and flavour where none is needed. Rather than report an event, they re-write it to suit what they want to portray. Whilst some traditional media play a straight bat most of the time, all succumb to temptation over time and manipulate stories to their advantage. We know this, and put up with it. After all, we know the game-plan of each media outlet is to sell their product - or do we?