Once again we see why Bill English is unfit to lead New Zealand. He thinks workers are lazy and drug addicted. >>See Labour's reaction here<< On top of that, he doesn't even know what the law is on drug testing. Here's a guide from the government he leads:
https://www.employment.govt.nz/workplace-policies/tests-and-checks/drugs-alcohol-and-work/
It is the employers responsibility to deliver a safe workplace, and it is better to work on prevention rather than trying to manage the effects of drugs and alcohol. This is the official line.
What do employers need not do? They do not have to test prospective employees nor do they have to randomly test all employees. They cannot even target an individual for a test if that is not provided for in their employment agreement. I score the Prime Minister a D- on this effort. Not only is he a bigot, he's uninformed and stupid as well.
February 28, 2017
Controversy at the Academy Awards
Did the organisers of the 89th Academy Awards blunder when they handed Warren Beatty the envelope for best actress instead of best picture, or was the fix in and someone gave Beatty the wrong envelope as a kind of heads up, the winner wasn't really the winner.
This kind of error rarely happens, especially at the level of the Oscars, so you have to at least ask the question. People get caught cheating in sports all the time, so why not awards like these.
One way to settle things would be to open up the voting records to independent third party scrutiny, and then sample those voters to ensure their vote was properly recorded - a two step vote verification system. Call it an audit if you like, an audit of PwC who counted the votes in the first instance.
Until that is done, I lifted the following from Twitter...
This kind of error rarely happens, especially at the level of the Oscars, so you have to at least ask the question. People get caught cheating in sports all the time, so why not awards like these.
One way to settle things would be to open up the voting records to independent third party scrutiny, and then sample those voters to ensure their vote was properly recorded - a two step vote verification system. Call it an audit if you like, an audit of PwC who counted the votes in the first instance.
Until that is done, I lifted the following from Twitter...
February 27, 2017
Dance Moms
I've got a child interested in watching Dance Moms, a reality TV show featuring the often unhinged and unstable Abby Lee Miller and her dance school students. One of the dance students under the heel of Ms Miller has gone on to become famous as the girl dancing in Sia videos.
Is all that goes on staged for the entertainment of the audience? Surely it must be, some of the dancing can be quite good, yet that particular girl lose or end up being thrown off the team by Abby. One such is Daviana Fletcher, an obviously accomplished dancer. My thinking was that Daviana was brought in as a cameo, to boost ratings, and then she moves on.
Another problem I have is with the placement of black girls on the pyramid at the start of the show. They're usually lower down the pyramid, and rarely on top. It is becoming obvious, though they're never so bad that they should always be placed at the bottom.
I'm not so sure watching this stuff is healthy what with this Abby Lee Miller, who is the perfect example of a bad teacher.
Is all that goes on staged for the entertainment of the audience? Surely it must be, some of the dancing can be quite good, yet that particular girl lose or end up being thrown off the team by Abby. One such is Daviana Fletcher, an obviously accomplished dancer. My thinking was that Daviana was brought in as a cameo, to boost ratings, and then she moves on.
Another problem I have is with the placement of black girls on the pyramid at the start of the show. They're usually lower down the pyramid, and rarely on top. It is becoming obvious, though they're never so bad that they should always be placed at the bottom.
I'm not so sure watching this stuff is healthy what with this Abby Lee Miller, who is the perfect example of a bad teacher.
February 26, 2017
Teach First NZ
The path into teaching in New Zealand can be a difficult one if you've graduated yet gone on to work in another industry. Changing direction can be next to impossible as a Graduate Diploma is needed and that means more expense and leaving work; you give up your salary to train for a year.
However there is now another way to becoming fully qualified and that is to enrol in the Postgraduate Diploma in Teaching (Secondary) from the University of Auckland. This course is run over two years in conjunction with Teach First NZ which is a not-for-profit organisation helping end educational inequality.
The good part of this is the trainee gets paid a full-time salary while being trained. After an initial eight week intensive, the trainee goes to work in a school and teaches 60% of a full load. That leaves the rest of the time to do the course work and to be tutored.
The catch is this offer is only extended to candidates who are qualified to teach one or more of the following: English, Mathematics/Statistics, Chemistry, Physics, Te Reo Māori, General Science or IT. Those accepted for the course must be prepared to teach disadvantaged pupils in lower decile schools. These are in Auckland and Northland and no other areas of New Zealand as yet.
Links: https://www.teachnz.govt.nz/thinking-of-teaching/qualifications-information-for-2017/view/87
http://teachfirstnz.org/programme/who-we-look-for
If you're looking to make the switch and wondered how, this is the best option IMO. Don't be put off by the prospect of teaching in poorer areas, the rewards as a teacher are greater and the teachers are usually very committed so you get a more collegial environment. There are challenges but if you make it through, you'd be a great teacher.
When it comes down to what salary level you'd be on, that is a function of two things; the level of educational qualification and what educationally relevant experience you've already received. You don't necessarily start at the bottom of the scale as a graduate; a PhD starts at the top, Masters next down, Bachelors is in the middle somewhere. The big benefit of this scheme is you get paid while training, unlike other graduates who usually take on student loans while attaining the entry qualification (usually the Graduate Diploma in Teaching).
However there is now another way to becoming fully qualified and that is to enrol in the Postgraduate Diploma in Teaching (Secondary) from the University of Auckland. This course is run over two years in conjunction with Teach First NZ which is a not-for-profit organisation helping end educational inequality.
The good part of this is the trainee gets paid a full-time salary while being trained. After an initial eight week intensive, the trainee goes to work in a school and teaches 60% of a full load. That leaves the rest of the time to do the course work and to be tutored.
The catch is this offer is only extended to candidates who are qualified to teach one or more of the following: English, Mathematics/Statistics, Chemistry, Physics, Te Reo Māori, General Science or IT. Those accepted for the course must be prepared to teach disadvantaged pupils in lower decile schools. These are in Auckland and Northland and no other areas of New Zealand as yet.
Links: https://www.teachnz.govt.nz/thinking-of-teaching/qualifications-information-for-2017/view/87
http://teachfirstnz.org/programme/who-we-look-for
If you're looking to make the switch and wondered how, this is the best option IMO. Don't be put off by the prospect of teaching in poorer areas, the rewards as a teacher are greater and the teachers are usually very committed so you get a more collegial environment. There are challenges but if you make it through, you'd be a great teacher.
When it comes down to what salary level you'd be on, that is a function of two things; the level of educational qualification and what educationally relevant experience you've already received. You don't necessarily start at the bottom of the scale as a graduate; a PhD starts at the top, Masters next down, Bachelors is in the middle somewhere. The big benefit of this scheme is you get paid while training, unlike other graduates who usually take on student loans while attaining the entry qualification (usually the Graduate Diploma in Teaching).
February 24, 2017
When swimmable is not really swimmable
Now we get to see just how incompetent Bill English and his best friend Nick Smith really are. They do not understand that you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. What the National led government of New Zealand have done is lower the standard by which water quality is measured. Dirty is the new clean. It's nothing more than outrageous.
And why is Nick Smith, Minister of Friendship with the Prime Minister, referencing overseas standards? North America and Europe have screwed over their environment, why should New Zealand do the same?
National is a political party for farmers, so it is to be expected they'd protect their own. But the reason we're in this situation is because New Zealand failed to do two things, and this will be very unpalatable for the Greens to hear.
New Zealand failed to exploit mining, and it failed to develop secondary manufacturing. Had it done both, then the land would not need to be flogged the way it is now and the rivers would be clean. Instead what we have are thousands of farms irrigating like billy-o and polluting heavily. Or the rivers don't even reach the sea in some cases.
It didn't need to be this way, but New Zealand jumped on the Thatcherite bandwagon and threw the baby out with the bathwater, gutting the country's manufacturing as it existed back in the 1980's. Then latterly the Greens, who are simply communists re-branded and can't be trusted with anything, oppose mining on any level. Grow up New Zealand, minerals in commercial quantities are concentrated in certain areas, unlock those minerals and sit back and de-intensify the farmland. Then make stuff in factories and export that output.
And why is Nick Smith, Minister of Friendship with the Prime Minister, referencing overseas standards? North America and Europe have screwed over their environment, why should New Zealand do the same?
National is a political party for farmers, so it is to be expected they'd protect their own. But the reason we're in this situation is because New Zealand failed to do two things, and this will be very unpalatable for the Greens to hear.
New Zealand failed to exploit mining, and it failed to develop secondary manufacturing. Had it done both, then the land would not need to be flogged the way it is now and the rivers would be clean. Instead what we have are thousands of farms irrigating like billy-o and polluting heavily. Or the rivers don't even reach the sea in some cases.
It didn't need to be this way, but New Zealand jumped on the Thatcherite bandwagon and threw the baby out with the bathwater, gutting the country's manufacturing as it existed back in the 1980's. Then latterly the Greens, who are simply communists re-branded and can't be trusted with anything, oppose mining on any level. Grow up New Zealand, minerals in commercial quantities are concentrated in certain areas, unlock those minerals and sit back and de-intensify the farmland. Then make stuff in factories and export that output.
February 21, 2017
Adrian Orr is worth it
Adrian Orr is the CEO of the New Zealand Super Fund. It is colloquially referred to as the Cullen Fund, so named after the Minister of Finance Michael Cullen who established it. The fund was set up to help offset the escalating cost of retirement faced by the New Zealand government. The baby boomers are starting to retire in increasingly large numbers and everyone in NZ is entitled to an income from the age of 65. The entitlement is not means tested. Baby boomers are generally considered those born after the Second World War, up to about 1966. They comprise a bubble or boom in population and all of them qualify for this universal superannuation.
The story behind the fund is that it has been remarkably well managed. Adrian Orr is the latest Chief Executive Officer and he has performed outstandingly. Through GFC's and various global meltdowns that have wiped out some economies and seen large financial institutions destroyed, the 'Cullen Fund' has returned 9.67% growth.
Its performance is one of the better out there and Adrian Orr is to be commended. But instead what we see is the Cullen Fund and Orr becoming a political football. Criticism has been vocal from the the current and likely temporary Prime Minister, Bill English, who is notable for having done nothing apart from be a professional politician and faux Southlander. The criticism is backed by the State Services Commission who oversee state sector salaries. They're a bunch of time-serving bureaucrats who struggle to balance their own cheque books, let alone juggle the complexities of the likes of the Cullen Fund.
Their complaint is that Adrian Orr earns too much and that the board that supports him agrees with what he is paid. Shock, horror, a CEO that does his job superbly and a board that knows he does. The critics know nothing about money and so should, to put it bluntly, shut up and let them get on with it.
But wait there's more; the Prime Minister and his lackeys have threatened to not re-appoint the board. I presume this is intended to bring the board into line and reduce or throttle Mr Orr's salary. And why would anyone want that? Oh wait, would it be jealousy, he's good at what he does, and proves it year in year out.
The downside is Orr takes off to deliver his skills to some other country or corporate, and NZ sits there and the Cullen Fund loses money. People like Mr Orr don't come cheap. If they do then they're no good. You pay handsomely to get the job done right. Orr is probably worth twice what he's getting, shh, don't tell him, he seems to like living in NZ.
Don't vote for National this election. NZ has to get rid of this Bill English fool, he's going to break the country. That means NZ is going to end up broke with him at the helm. Yes I know he was Minister of Finance but he had John Key looking over his shoulder, his stupidity was reined in then.
I got the idea to comment on this matter yesterday. I had two brake pads on the rear of the Subaru replaced by a man who comes to your house or workplace to do the job in twenty minutes. He has a successful business and he's run off his feet doing brake jobs all over town. He's had two brake businesses previously and both have done well, but for the mobile service he got the idea from Australia when he was there. Talking to this chap about things (such as would you trust your car to one of the franchise car mechanic outfits from Australia (never) and what were the most reliable cars - Subaru, they are actually made in Japan), I was able to work out what he made on his own with his one van. About $200,000 a year. Not bad eh, 10 to 12 hour days but few overheads. Are you seeing where I'm going with this?
That's right, my brake repair chap makes money and do I begrudge him that? Hell no, he's not the most expensive, nor is he the cheapest, he just has the very pleasing habit of doing the job right. So why does the Prime Minister complain about someone competent like Adrian Orr doing the job right and making money doing it? Hasn't Orr, like my brake repairer, earned the rewards? Well yes he has, now Bill English, grow up and remove yourself from meddling in things you don't understand. There's a job of work to be done by people who know what they're doing.
The story behind the fund is that it has been remarkably well managed. Adrian Orr is the latest Chief Executive Officer and he has performed outstandingly. Through GFC's and various global meltdowns that have wiped out some economies and seen large financial institutions destroyed, the 'Cullen Fund' has returned 9.67% growth.
Its performance is one of the better out there and Adrian Orr is to be commended. But instead what we see is the Cullen Fund and Orr becoming a political football. Criticism has been vocal from the the current and likely temporary Prime Minister, Bill English, who is notable for having done nothing apart from be a professional politician and faux Southlander. The criticism is backed by the State Services Commission who oversee state sector salaries. They're a bunch of time-serving bureaucrats who struggle to balance their own cheque books, let alone juggle the complexities of the likes of the Cullen Fund.
Their complaint is that Adrian Orr earns too much and that the board that supports him agrees with what he is paid. Shock, horror, a CEO that does his job superbly and a board that knows he does. The critics know nothing about money and so should, to put it bluntly, shut up and let them get on with it.
But wait there's more; the Prime Minister and his lackeys have threatened to not re-appoint the board. I presume this is intended to bring the board into line and reduce or throttle Mr Orr's salary. And why would anyone want that? Oh wait, would it be jealousy, he's good at what he does, and proves it year in year out.
The downside is Orr takes off to deliver his skills to some other country or corporate, and NZ sits there and the Cullen Fund loses money. People like Mr Orr don't come cheap. If they do then they're no good. You pay handsomely to get the job done right. Orr is probably worth twice what he's getting, shh, don't tell him, he seems to like living in NZ.
Don't vote for National this election. NZ has to get rid of this Bill English fool, he's going to break the country. That means NZ is going to end up broke with him at the helm. Yes I know he was Minister of Finance but he had John Key looking over his shoulder, his stupidity was reined in then.
I got the idea to comment on this matter yesterday. I had two brake pads on the rear of the Subaru replaced by a man who comes to your house or workplace to do the job in twenty minutes. He has a successful business and he's run off his feet doing brake jobs all over town. He's had two brake businesses previously and both have done well, but for the mobile service he got the idea from Australia when he was there. Talking to this chap about things (such as would you trust your car to one of the franchise car mechanic outfits from Australia (never) and what were the most reliable cars - Subaru, they are actually made in Japan), I was able to work out what he made on his own with his one van. About $200,000 a year. Not bad eh, 10 to 12 hour days but few overheads. Are you seeing where I'm going with this?
That's right, my brake repair chap makes money and do I begrudge him that? Hell no, he's not the most expensive, nor is he the cheapest, he just has the very pleasing habit of doing the job right. So why does the Prime Minister complain about someone competent like Adrian Orr doing the job right and making money doing it? Hasn't Orr, like my brake repairer, earned the rewards? Well yes he has, now Bill English, grow up and remove yourself from meddling in things you don't understand. There's a job of work to be done by people who know what they're doing.
February 20, 2017
More nonsense from Gareth Morgan
As if we didn't already have enough evidence to confirm that no-one should vote for Gareth Morgan's Opportunities Party in New Zealand, he goes and gives NZ even more reason to ignore him.
I'm talking about his latest policy announcements concerning education. If I have this right, he wants all teachers in NZ to have a masters degree and the children at high school level would only be tested at year 13 (12th grade). This would achieve two things, there would be no teachers recruited as their parents would tell their children at university, 'go and get a job that only requires a bachelors degree.' How do I know parents would say that? Because that's exactly what I'd say.
Then the second result; a segment of the population in NZ would be left without any qualifications. A lot of children leave school from the age of sixteen, they go and start trade training or whatever. Employers need to know exactly what level the school leavers are on aged 16, 17, 18. The man's an idiot.
You could look at the US where a lot of states do require teachers to have a masters. How has that worked out for them? The standard of education in the US could best be described as poor. Does NZ want that?
When you see requirements such as you must have a masters to do a simple job, look at the union behind that job. It's called a barrier to entry. Strong unions limit the number entering occupations, it's about job protection, not quality of service.
I'm talking about his latest policy announcements concerning education. If I have this right, he wants all teachers in NZ to have a masters degree and the children at high school level would only be tested at year 13 (12th grade). This would achieve two things, there would be no teachers recruited as their parents would tell their children at university, 'go and get a job that only requires a bachelors degree.' How do I know parents would say that? Because that's exactly what I'd say.
Then the second result; a segment of the population in NZ would be left without any qualifications. A lot of children leave school from the age of sixteen, they go and start trade training or whatever. Employers need to know exactly what level the school leavers are on aged 16, 17, 18. The man's an idiot.
You could look at the US where a lot of states do require teachers to have a masters. How has that worked out for them? The standard of education in the US could best be described as poor. Does NZ want that?
When you see requirements such as you must have a masters to do a simple job, look at the union behind that job. It's called a barrier to entry. Strong unions limit the number entering occupations, it's about job protection, not quality of service.
February 17, 2017
Cadbury Factory Closure
I've come across some staggeringly stupid business decisions in my time and Cadbury just made one of the worst kind with their announcement they'll close their Dunedin factory. The factory at Dunedin in the South Island of New Zealand can trace its roots back to the 1880's. Cadbury is a name that regularly comes first in New Zealand when measuring most trusted brand.
Read about the closure here: http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/money/2017/02/dunedin-s-iconic-cadbury-factory-set-to-close.html
From this day forward, that's it for Cadbury as far as I'm concerned, I'll no longer consume anything made by them.
Why move production to Melbourne, Australia? The answer must be something silly like the management team don't like visiting Dunedin. They probably prefer Melbourne. It can't be that the factory in Dunedin is losing money, because it isn't, or that they're not up to standard, as such a claim would be patently false.
And the comments I'm hearing, that they export 70% of their output is a good thing, not a negative. Aren't businesses meant to export?
Australians don't do anything better than New Zealand. Okay, so they drink beer better and they laze around all day, that they manage to excel at. But in everything else, New Zealand is better and every Australian knows it. I can't think of a single thing that Australians make that amounts to half a tin of anything. Some bean counter wanting to close a famous factory (I chose my words carefully) is close to insanity. It is certainly incompetence.
Don't buy anything Cadbury.
Oh and check out this link from the UK illustrating just how stupid Cadbury have been of late...http://www.telegraph.co.uk/food-and-drink/features/the-many-ways-cadbury-is-losing-its-magic/
Read about the closure here: http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/money/2017/02/dunedin-s-iconic-cadbury-factory-set-to-close.html
From this day forward, that's it for Cadbury as far as I'm concerned, I'll no longer consume anything made by them.
Why move production to Melbourne, Australia? The answer must be something silly like the management team don't like visiting Dunedin. They probably prefer Melbourne. It can't be that the factory in Dunedin is losing money, because it isn't, or that they're not up to standard, as such a claim would be patently false.
And the comments I'm hearing, that they export 70% of their output is a good thing, not a negative. Aren't businesses meant to export?
Australians don't do anything better than New Zealand. Okay, so they drink beer better and they laze around all day, that they manage to excel at. But in everything else, New Zealand is better and every Australian knows it. I can't think of a single thing that Australians make that amounts to half a tin of anything. Some bean counter wanting to close a famous factory (I chose my words carefully) is close to insanity. It is certainly incompetence.
Don't buy anything Cadbury.
Oh and check out this link from the UK illustrating just how stupid Cadbury have been of late...http://www.telegraph.co.uk/food-and-drink/features/the-many-ways-cadbury-is-losing-its-magic/
February 14, 2017
Product Warning: E-Tech Dynamo LED Flashlight
Beware, the flashlights selling in hardware stores everywhere are not what they seem. The packaging makes it look like they are a wind-up flashlight. They're not, they have a battery inside, placed just behind the bulb and hidden away.
The dynamo handle on the side gives just enough of a flash for a momentary shot of light, it does not charge the battery at all.
When the packing says 'no batteries required' it means the battery is already fitted, that's all.
These flashlights sell very cheaply and are a disposable form of lighting with some very limited dynamo illumination added. They are not suitable for most applications and consumers may get the wrong idea about what it does.
Here is a video of someone opening one up to show how it works:
The dynamo handle on the side gives just enough of a flash for a momentary shot of light, it does not charge the battery at all.
When the packing says 'no batteries required' it means the battery is already fitted, that's all.
These flashlights sell very cheaply and are a disposable form of lighting with some very limited dynamo illumination added. They are not suitable for most applications and consumers may get the wrong idea about what it does.
Here is a video of someone opening one up to show how it works:
February 13, 2017
Columbia University and Value Investing
Do you take ongoing executive education seriously? If you are looking for a valuable course, then look no further than Columbia University and their course on Value Investing.
This course is based on the Ben Graham and Warren Buffett approach. The following is the link for you to get started... http://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/execed/program-pages/details/61/VI
I notice the next course starts on June 20, cost $7,250. What a bargain.
Don't forget to look through the rest of their executive education programme. You earn a Certificate in Business Excellence by completing 18 days of programming within 4 years. Or you can knock that back down to 13 days for a Certificate in one field, such as Finance, or Leadership, and such, by completing 13 days of programming (8 days in one field) within 4 years.
Heh, I'm not getting paid to give this plug.
This course is based on the Ben Graham and Warren Buffett approach. The following is the link for you to get started... http://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/execed/program-pages/details/61/VI
I notice the next course starts on June 20, cost $7,250. What a bargain.
Don't forget to look through the rest of their executive education programme. You earn a Certificate in Business Excellence by completing 18 days of programming within 4 years. Or you can knock that back down to 13 days for a Certificate in one field, such as Finance, or Leadership, and such, by completing 13 days of programming (8 days in one field) within 4 years.
Heh, I'm not getting paid to give this plug.
February 12, 2017
Denver Nuggets v Cleveland Cavaliers - Statistics
Today's NBA game between the Nuggets and the Cavaliers produced a set of figures even more stark than the earlier Warriors v Grizzlies match-up.
I followed the Nuggets v Cavaliers game from the 8:10 mark in the third quarter, until the end of the game. This was to compare apples with apples. This time I made a note of open looks, not just when shots were taken.
From the 8:10 mark in the third quarter, until game end; the Denver Nuggets took a shot from an offensive set that involved three or fewer passes, 100% of the time. 47% of those shots were completely open looks.
The Cleveland Cavaliers took such a shot 99% of the time, 45% of those being completely open looks.
This 'open look' figure would be higher if I included lay-ups, which I decided not to include, only set or jump shots in open play.
The Nuggets started out 13 points down and ended the game 16 points adrift. This has got to be a failed strategy then, that of bombing away without considering whether the shot is truly on or not. But then, were the Nuggets trying to win? Or were they maintaining an open style of play with a lot of shots, in order to entertain, with the result being secondary.
During the monitored period of play there were no suspect calls of the type I've mentioned; that is where the referee relieves the pressure for a favoured attacking team by calling an off-the-ball foul, but then the offense generally flowed for both sides.
The only dodgy call was in the third quarter when the Cavaliers Kyrie Irving was called out of bounds. He had stepped out but then put a foot back in, the other foot being in the air, when he regained control of the ball. Someone may like to correct me if I'm wrong, but generally in basketball, if you're out of bounds, you re-establish yourself inbound by having a piece of you touching the floor, which Irving had actually done. I figured this incorrect call was designed to hand the Nuggets possession and keep the game close coming up to half time. But then I could be getting paranoid.
I'm going to stick my neck out and call this matter proven. There appears a modus operandi whereby players are left open most often on the second or third pass of an offensive set, and when behind on the scoreboard the tactics employed rarely change, the spectacle must be maintained. The teams are not playing to win.
What tactics should the Nuggets have employed? The approach that seemed to get them the best results was to slow their offense down and feed their big man, Jokic. He would either draw shooting fouls or get a close two points. They did not do this often enough, preferring to try and look good instead. Then on defense they did not foul enough. They needed to send Cavaliers players to the free throw line more often. But then my approach lacks pizazz, hmm.
February 11, 2017
Golden State Warriors v Memphis Grizzlies - Statistics
I was watching the Warriors v Grizzlies game and it occurred to me that this game conformed with my claim that NBA games are rigged. I started tracking two of my claims, that players get easy looks and when the favoured team falters on an offensive play, they're handed the ball back, usually off an off-the-ball foul.
I started taking Stats from the 8:10 mark in the third quarter, the score was 74-60; the Warriors up by 14. I kept tracking the game until the end, 122-107 to the Warriors.
This is the way it looked:
Off all offense which resulted in a shot being made: Memphis took a shot in 3 or fewer passes 92% of the time, while Golden State took a shot 79% of the time.
What I am saying is that room is made for the shooter to get an open look, on average off the second or third pass after the ball crosses the half way line, or from when the ball is passed inbound from the sideline in the front court. The next step will be to refine this some more, separating out open looks from contested looks. But I think this is pretty conclusive and prima facie evidence of rigging.
I was also looking for suspicious calls when the favoured team faltered on an offensive play, and this happened twice. The first time was when an off-the-ball foul was called during the third quarter. Golden State had fumbled, their offense had no structure and the referee quickly blew his whistle and gave the ball back to Golden State.
The next time something happened; it was the fourth quarter and Kevin Durant was fouled forcing a shot from beyond the three point line and he went to the line to shoot three. This was a dumb foul as the Warriors offense had stalled and the shot clock was running down. Was there collusion? Hard to say in this case, I didn't get to hear if Durant called to the defender to move into him. But the earlier example, where the referee relieved the pressure for the Warriors was exactly what I'm saying happens frequently.
Memphis finished the game roughly where they stood with 8:10 to go in the third quarter. They took many shots, most with no chance of success, they simply did not want to win. Meanwhile, Golden State expected to win and the referees obliged.
If this game wasn't rigged, how should Memphis have approached the game? They should have made every possession count that's what, not flung shots will nilly. They were within reach if they stayed disciplined and picked away at the score. Players that experienced know to pick up all shooters, fight over all screens or if you have to switch then do so quickly, not leave wide open space for shooters to line up.
I'll follow one or two more games, but I know what the result is going to be, shooting takes precedence over defense; the spectacle being more important than the result. The teams set out to entertain, not to win. And seeing as there must be a winner, then the favoured team usually wins, the referees see to that.
I started taking Stats from the 8:10 mark in the third quarter, the score was 74-60; the Warriors up by 14. I kept tracking the game until the end, 122-107 to the Warriors.
This is the way it looked:
Off all offense which resulted in a shot being made: Memphis took a shot in 3 or fewer passes 92% of the time, while Golden State took a shot 79% of the time.
What I am saying is that room is made for the shooter to get an open look, on average off the second or third pass after the ball crosses the half way line, or from when the ball is passed inbound from the sideline in the front court. The next step will be to refine this some more, separating out open looks from contested looks. But I think this is pretty conclusive and prima facie evidence of rigging.
I was also looking for suspicious calls when the favoured team faltered on an offensive play, and this happened twice. The first time was when an off-the-ball foul was called during the third quarter. Golden State had fumbled, their offense had no structure and the referee quickly blew his whistle and gave the ball back to Golden State.
The next time something happened; it was the fourth quarter and Kevin Durant was fouled forcing a shot from beyond the three point line and he went to the line to shoot three. This was a dumb foul as the Warriors offense had stalled and the shot clock was running down. Was there collusion? Hard to say in this case, I didn't get to hear if Durant called to the defender to move into him. But the earlier example, where the referee relieved the pressure for the Warriors was exactly what I'm saying happens frequently.
Memphis finished the game roughly where they stood with 8:10 to go in the third quarter. They took many shots, most with no chance of success, they simply did not want to win. Meanwhile, Golden State expected to win and the referees obliged.
If this game wasn't rigged, how should Memphis have approached the game? They should have made every possession count that's what, not flung shots will nilly. They were within reach if they stayed disciplined and picked away at the score. Players that experienced know to pick up all shooters, fight over all screens or if you have to switch then do so quickly, not leave wide open space for shooters to line up.
I'll follow one or two more games, but I know what the result is going to be, shooting takes precedence over defense; the spectacle being more important than the result. The teams set out to entertain, not to win. And seeing as there must be a winner, then the favoured team usually wins, the referees see to that.
February 10, 2017
Trump's Executive Orders
Just being the devil's advocate here, but I've thought of an obvious solution to Donald Trump's problem with the court effectively suspending his executive order banning people from seven specific countries in Africa and the Middle East,
My solution would be; why does he not just issue another executive order. This time, include a couple of countries in the new order that are Christian or Buddhist majority countries. Say, Myanmar (Burma) for its human rights breaches and recent ethnic cleansing, and Kenya for the problems it's having and the type of terror there. By doing this, the challenge that his order is unconstitutional subsides, clearly the order would then be targeting terror and other forms of violence, not religion
Then if that order was challenged, start issuing orders every week, and then every day, changing the wording each time, adding and subtracting countries until opposition runs out of energy or money, or both.
Nasty eh.
My solution would be; why does he not just issue another executive order. This time, include a couple of countries in the new order that are Christian or Buddhist majority countries. Say, Myanmar (Burma) for its human rights breaches and recent ethnic cleansing, and Kenya for the problems it's having and the type of terror there. By doing this, the challenge that his order is unconstitutional subsides, clearly the order would then be targeting terror and other forms of violence, not religion
Then if that order was challenged, start issuing orders every week, and then every day, changing the wording each time, adding and subtracting countries until opposition runs out of energy or money, or both.
Nasty eh.
February 09, 2017
Edge TV, Get Better or Shut Down
Pity the New Zealand television viewer relying on free to air broadcasts. What they get served up is genuinely dreadful and Edge TV, the television arm of a radio station, is the worst on offer amongst a bad bunch.
Edge, I have a twelve year old who says they can do better than you, and you know what, that twelve year old isn't wrong. I remind this child that it is a bunch of eight year old children running the station, that's why it is so bad. I'm probably being a bit harsh on the abilities of those just eight years old.
Here's an idea, how about some variety, not those boring songs you insist on regurgitating. My twelve year old suggests Elvis Presley. Edge, did you not know the youngsters are into older stuff these days.
Edge, I have a twelve year old who says they can do better than you, and you know what, that twelve year old isn't wrong. I remind this child that it is a bunch of eight year old children running the station, that's why it is so bad. I'm probably being a bit harsh on the abilities of those just eight years old.
Here's an idea, how about some variety, not those boring songs you insist on regurgitating. My twelve year old suggests Elvis Presley. Edge, did you not know the youngsters are into older stuff these days.
February 08, 2017
Win Great Prizes
The first contest is underway. You can win a paperback copy of my second novel by answering the two questions correctly on the prizes link here:
http://kenhorlor.blogspot.com/p/win-prizes.html
The deadline for entries is Feb 10th 2017. Get both answers right and you win. One book for each person with a correct entry, no duplicate entries thank you.
The book cover looks like this...
http://kenhorlor.blogspot.com/p/win-prizes.html
The deadline for entries is Feb 10th 2017. Get both answers right and you win. One book for each person with a correct entry, no duplicate entries thank you.
The book cover looks like this...
February 07, 2017
Was Super Bowl 51 Rigged?
I do not know about American Football. To me it looks like a heavily simplified version of Rugby League. So anyway, I was watching some of the Super Bowl 51, the game drags on for far too long for my liking, and then the players just push one another, there might be some game played but if you blink you'd miss it.
Then I did watch the final quarter and the new England Patriots made an amazing comeback. They miraculously levelled the score 28-28. Then in overtime, they won the toss and got the first possession, ending the game from there by scoring the first touch down.
If the game was rigged, that coin toss would be rigged, no? Was there an independent third party inspecting the coin as it landed and calling heads or tails? There was only the ref and players there.
The part fans are claiming proves the game was rigged was when the Falcons were up by eight and in possession, someone on YouTube describes it like this....
It was obvious. The Falcons had the ball with a few minutes left, up by 8, and within field goal range. It would have been a chip shot from where they were. Instead of running the ball until fourth down, then kicking a field goal to go up by 11, they opted to pass, the QB ran backwards and got sacked for a huge loss. They were still in field goal range. It would have been a 53 yard field goal from there. They could have run the ball on 3rd down and hoped for maybe a 48 yard attempt on fourth. Instead, they opted to pass and they got a holding penalty, forcing them out of field goal range and forcing them to eventually punt. This is all the proof I need. The Falcons had the game in the bag and the play calling made it too obvious. It's like the person calling the plays wanted to lose the game. This happens all the time in the NFL. I don't know how nobody notices this.
American football fans, defend your sport or condemn it. The Falcons performed an incredible collapse. They even gave up the extra two points the Patriots needed. It could be just about the biggest collapse in professional sports final few minutes. Was it fixed?
I don't know, to me it looked like the All Blacks losing to France in the quarter-final of the 2007 Rugby World Cup. Instead of positioning for a winning drop kick, they went for the try and came up short. Not rigging, just stupidity in that case.
Then I did watch the final quarter and the new England Patriots made an amazing comeback. They miraculously levelled the score 28-28. Then in overtime, they won the toss and got the first possession, ending the game from there by scoring the first touch down.
If the game was rigged, that coin toss would be rigged, no? Was there an independent third party inspecting the coin as it landed and calling heads or tails? There was only the ref and players there.
The part fans are claiming proves the game was rigged was when the Falcons were up by eight and in possession, someone on YouTube describes it like this....
It was obvious. The Falcons had the ball with a few minutes left, up by 8, and within field goal range. It would have been a chip shot from where they were. Instead of running the ball until fourth down, then kicking a field goal to go up by 11, they opted to pass, the QB ran backwards and got sacked for a huge loss. They were still in field goal range. It would have been a 53 yard field goal from there. They could have run the ball on 3rd down and hoped for maybe a 48 yard attempt on fourth. Instead, they opted to pass and they got a holding penalty, forcing them out of field goal range and forcing them to eventually punt. This is all the proof I need. The Falcons had the game in the bag and the play calling made it too obvious. It's like the person calling the plays wanted to lose the game. This happens all the time in the NFL. I don't know how nobody notices this.
American football fans, defend your sport or condemn it. The Falcons performed an incredible collapse. They even gave up the extra two points the Patriots needed. It could be just about the biggest collapse in professional sports final few minutes. Was it fixed?
I don't know, to me it looked like the All Blacks losing to France in the quarter-final of the 2007 Rugby World Cup. Instead of positioning for a winning drop kick, they went for the try and came up short. Not rigging, just stupidity in that case.
Buying a book through Amazon
I gave this a go and I won't be going through the exercise again unless the title is completely unavailable locally, either new or secondhand, and I'd have to really want it as well.
I bought a book from SuperBookSellers-- Turns out they're untrustworthy. What happened is I bought a book but realised I didn't need it and cancelled within the hour of placing an order. I followed up a few hours after that. NO response from SuperBookSellers--
Then I got confirmation the order was being processed. Days later they replied to my two cancellation requests by saying the order had been processed already so they could do nothing. The arrival time for this book shows as April 6, and it was shipped February 3. The very same book is sitting in bookshops all over town.
I don't believe a word of it. SuperBookSellers-- just don't want to cancel anything and are forcing through the order. They don't even have the damn book, they must be procuring it, hence the long lead time, meanwhile real retailers have the book in stock.
Will anything actually show up? That's the next question. It would be pointless returning the goods as you can see what they're like, they can't be trusted. So I'll sell the book on Trade Me in New Zealand or something instead, for whatever I can get for it. That is, if it actually shows up.
Warning: SuperBookSellers-- are not to be recommended, they're sharp, don't say you weren't warned.
[Edit to add: the book showed up. I still won't be dealing with them.]
I bought a book from SuperBookSellers-- Turns out they're untrustworthy. What happened is I bought a book but realised I didn't need it and cancelled within the hour of placing an order. I followed up a few hours after that. NO response from SuperBookSellers--
Then I got confirmation the order was being processed. Days later they replied to my two cancellation requests by saying the order had been processed already so they could do nothing. The arrival time for this book shows as April 6, and it was shipped February 3. The very same book is sitting in bookshops all over town.
I don't believe a word of it. SuperBookSellers-- just don't want to cancel anything and are forcing through the order. They don't even have the damn book, they must be procuring it, hence the long lead time, meanwhile real retailers have the book in stock.
Will anything actually show up? That's the next question. It would be pointless returning the goods as you can see what they're like, they can't be trusted. So I'll sell the book on Trade Me in New Zealand or something instead, for whatever I can get for it. That is, if it actually shows up.
Warning: SuperBookSellers-- are not to be recommended, they're sharp, don't say you weren't warned.
[Edit to add: the book showed up. I still won't be dealing with them.]
February 06, 2017
How I think the NBA is rigged
I've been following the NBA for decades, right back to when I first learnt to play basketball in fact. In the early days, from where I lived, it wasn't easy to get information. It was all about Rugby and Cricket. But over the years that changed and now there are a lot of games on the television and the internet is a godsend.
The games are brilliant entertainment. The skill is exceptional, no doubt about it. But here's the rub, I think the games are manipulated for certain outcomes and the below is my take on how that is achieved.
Firstly, to address this, we need to ask ourselves what the NBA is and what it is not. It is an entertainment business, it is not there to organise fair competition between participants. That said, there is a type of player favoured, no secret this, they must have good shooting skills and be athletic. That generally means taller players, with elevation. But first they must be able to shoot. In this equation, defensive skills are secondary.
What you don't find are teams full of 5'8" defensive specialists. Hmm? Is that a marketable commodity?
Here are the four ways I feel the games are orchestrated. There must be either an express arrangement or at the very least a tacit understanding.
1. Shooters get good looks
That's right, I think the top entertainers are given room to shoot. Time and again players hang off known lethal shooters. Space appears made on the second or third pass in-bounded in the front court, or the second or third pass once the ball comes over the half way line. This is not all the time, but often enough that I've had to question it. The ball handler brings the ball up, then passes off > pressure > receiver passes > second receiver then gets an easy look and he shoots.
The reason I feel they do it like this is not to look too lame. If there is an easy shot every time first pass, well, questions would be asked.
2. Do not pick up in transition
If there is a turnover, the team that is now attacking seems to get an open shot. This happens a lot. Defenders do not pick up players as they come over half way, especially when their opponent is on a fast break. Players should know to shut down fast breaks, but instead defenders routinely allow them. What happens is defenders retreat into the restricted area, seemingly trying to prevent a drive to the hoop. This rarely works as either a shot is open from the outside or the attackers drive and draw a foul.
I think they do not pick up players in transition in order to promote an open style of play, a free-wheeling and shooting style. High scoring games are achieved this way.
What I'm describing is counter intuitive; if the defense put pressure on the perimeter shooters, they'd shut down the chance of a three point shot. Yes, this leaves the basket open and a cutter could score two points, but in this equation you've saved one point. So it makes sense to deny three pointers, not leave players open, and in so doing open the team up to fouls when players do drive or cut to the hoop. It makes statistical sense to instead pick up all players as they come over half way, especially if they're on the break, and to deny them easy looks from beyond the arc.
It even makes statistical sense to foul players on the break in open play, to prevent them getting set. But this rarely happens. What does happen is players retreat to the keyhole and wait, leaving the outside shot open. This happens often enough to be noticeable.
3. Referees collude
There is a body of evidence to show how referees dictate the outcome of games. The most valuable research has been in professional Rugby League. Referees there decide games according to where and when they blow the whistle. The team not favoured is always penalised when hard on defense or hard on attack and this happens most often earlier in the game. This has the effect of either applying more pressure or relieving the pressure on their favoured opponent, and dictates how the game will develop - this is Rugby League (the penalty count is evened up later once the game is effectively over, with a lot of paddy-whack penalties that amount to nothing for the unfavoured team).
In the NBA I believe they do something similar. Referees call off-the-ball fouls on the defender that is less favoured. They do this if the favoured team has not made headway on their first offensive attempt. Thus, the favoured team often gets a second chance.
At the other end of the court, the unfavoured team gets no such luck, they're just as likely to be denied fouls or they'll be called for charging.
4. Not slowing the game down
NBA games must always be up tempo and high scoring encounters. When was the last time two teams scored less than 70 points each? More than ten years ago? (I looked this up, I think it was 2002).
Surely, as a game tactic, it pays to slow the game down to frustrate the opposition and tire them out. But you know what I see too often; a team that wins the ball off a turnover, takes an irresponsible shot early, instead of holding the ball up and making the other team work on defense some more. Bear it in mind next time you watch an NBA game, how often do you see a team having won the ball quickly off a turnover, take a quick long range and low percentage shot and often before their own players can get under the basket for offensive rebounds.
Think about the cumulative effect of irresponsible shot selection. If the team on attack quickly loses the ball and is now suddenly on defense, the team that has won possession should want to slow the game down, to drag the opposition back down the court, if a quick layup is not on, or if there isn't a two on one happening (at minimum a nice high percentage shot from the top of the key). Even if they fail to score, slowing the game down once the easy basket is not available, has the effect of making the opposition defend one more time for the duration of the shot clock, and have them up and down the court one more time each way.
But if an irresponsible shot is attempted, it has to be made good, or the effect is to give the opposition a rest, while their big men wait down the court for their guards to bring the ball up. They are spared having to make the trip back into their own half.
Failure to slow the game when it is tactically appropriate is obvious in the NBA, that's how they achieve high scoring games, with pizzazz. The actual outcome, winner and loser, is secondary to the spectacle, I believe. But seeing as there must be a winner, the team preferred is that which represents the best scoring potential, not the best team defensively.
Does the NBA favour teams from the big media markets? I see no evidence of that. If this was true and the NBA was chasing audience above all else, then the Knickerbockers and the Lakers would be on top, but they aren't. No, each team sits in its own market and the NBA has strong business reasons to see all teams prosper, having their moment in the sun. The way I see this league, they favour the team that provides the best spectacle, and they engineer a certain type of open game over alternatives which are often more defensive.
There you have it, there may be something I'm missing, tell me how I'm wrong.
The games are brilliant entertainment. The skill is exceptional, no doubt about it. But here's the rub, I think the games are manipulated for certain outcomes and the below is my take on how that is achieved.
Firstly, to address this, we need to ask ourselves what the NBA is and what it is not. It is an entertainment business, it is not there to organise fair competition between participants. That said, there is a type of player favoured, no secret this, they must have good shooting skills and be athletic. That generally means taller players, with elevation. But first they must be able to shoot. In this equation, defensive skills are secondary.
What you don't find are teams full of 5'8" defensive specialists. Hmm? Is that a marketable commodity?
Here are the four ways I feel the games are orchestrated. There must be either an express arrangement or at the very least a tacit understanding.
1. Shooters get good looks
That's right, I think the top entertainers are given room to shoot. Time and again players hang off known lethal shooters. Space appears made on the second or third pass in-bounded in the front court, or the second or third pass once the ball comes over the half way line. This is not all the time, but often enough that I've had to question it. The ball handler brings the ball up, then passes off > pressure > receiver passes > second receiver then gets an easy look and he shoots.
The reason I feel they do it like this is not to look too lame. If there is an easy shot every time first pass, well, questions would be asked.
2. Do not pick up in transition
If there is a turnover, the team that is now attacking seems to get an open shot. This happens a lot. Defenders do not pick up players as they come over half way, especially when their opponent is on a fast break. Players should know to shut down fast breaks, but instead defenders routinely allow them. What happens is defenders retreat into the restricted area, seemingly trying to prevent a drive to the hoop. This rarely works as either a shot is open from the outside or the attackers drive and draw a foul.
I think they do not pick up players in transition in order to promote an open style of play, a free-wheeling and shooting style. High scoring games are achieved this way.
What I'm describing is counter intuitive; if the defense put pressure on the perimeter shooters, they'd shut down the chance of a three point shot. Yes, this leaves the basket open and a cutter could score two points, but in this equation you've saved one point. So it makes sense to deny three pointers, not leave players open, and in so doing open the team up to fouls when players do drive or cut to the hoop. It makes statistical sense to instead pick up all players as they come over half way, especially if they're on the break, and to deny them easy looks from beyond the arc.
It even makes statistical sense to foul players on the break in open play, to prevent them getting set. But this rarely happens. What does happen is players retreat to the keyhole and wait, leaving the outside shot open. This happens often enough to be noticeable.
3. Referees collude
There is a body of evidence to show how referees dictate the outcome of games. The most valuable research has been in professional Rugby League. Referees there decide games according to where and when they blow the whistle. The team not favoured is always penalised when hard on defense or hard on attack and this happens most often earlier in the game. This has the effect of either applying more pressure or relieving the pressure on their favoured opponent, and dictates how the game will develop - this is Rugby League (the penalty count is evened up later once the game is effectively over, with a lot of paddy-whack penalties that amount to nothing for the unfavoured team).
In the NBA I believe they do something similar. Referees call off-the-ball fouls on the defender that is less favoured. They do this if the favoured team has not made headway on their first offensive attempt. Thus, the favoured team often gets a second chance.
At the other end of the court, the unfavoured team gets no such luck, they're just as likely to be denied fouls or they'll be called for charging.
4. Not slowing the game down
NBA games must always be up tempo and high scoring encounters. When was the last time two teams scored less than 70 points each? More than ten years ago? (I looked this up, I think it was 2002).
Surely, as a game tactic, it pays to slow the game down to frustrate the opposition and tire them out. But you know what I see too often; a team that wins the ball off a turnover, takes an irresponsible shot early, instead of holding the ball up and making the other team work on defense some more. Bear it in mind next time you watch an NBA game, how often do you see a team having won the ball quickly off a turnover, take a quick long range and low percentage shot and often before their own players can get under the basket for offensive rebounds.
Think about the cumulative effect of irresponsible shot selection. If the team on attack quickly loses the ball and is now suddenly on defense, the team that has won possession should want to slow the game down, to drag the opposition back down the court, if a quick layup is not on, or if there isn't a two on one happening (at minimum a nice high percentage shot from the top of the key). Even if they fail to score, slowing the game down once the easy basket is not available, has the effect of making the opposition defend one more time for the duration of the shot clock, and have them up and down the court one more time each way.
But if an irresponsible shot is attempted, it has to be made good, or the effect is to give the opposition a rest, while their big men wait down the court for their guards to bring the ball up. They are spared having to make the trip back into their own half.
Failure to slow the game when it is tactically appropriate is obvious in the NBA, that's how they achieve high scoring games, with pizzazz. The actual outcome, winner and loser, is secondary to the spectacle, I believe. But seeing as there must be a winner, the team preferred is that which represents the best scoring potential, not the best team defensively.
Does the NBA favour teams from the big media markets? I see no evidence of that. If this was true and the NBA was chasing audience above all else, then the Knickerbockers and the Lakers would be on top, but they aren't. No, each team sits in its own market and the NBA has strong business reasons to see all teams prosper, having their moment in the sun. The way I see this league, they favour the team that provides the best spectacle, and they engineer a certain type of open game over alternatives which are often more defensive.
There you have it, there may be something I'm missing, tell me how I'm wrong.
February 05, 2017
Divide Australia Up
I've been laughing about Donald Trump having strong words with Australia's Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull (or Trumble, either will do, no worries). Trump is so naive at times, doesn't he realise that Australia is like a spoilt child. They want to have their cake and eat it.
To be fair, there is another side to the story. Australia buys a lot of military equipment from the US. Big ticket items like F/A 18's, Abrams M1 main battle tanks and Harpoon missiles to name a few. In doing their deal with Obama, whereby the US takes refugees held on Pacific Islands and refused entry to Australia, they were effectively calling in a debt.
Well Trump doesn't see it like that and doesn't seem to care. On that score, while there is a lot to dislike about the man, this time he has got it right.
If we take this seriously and look at Australia, there is no reason for it to exist. It is an anachronism. They've conducted genocide against the indigenous people, raped the environment and want the world to thank them for it. Well enough, let's tell them they don't get to keep all those resources and land they're sitting on when useful hard working and thrifty people need it.
My solution is this; let India have Western Australia, plenty of room there for India's huge population to grow. Indonesia can take the middle of Australia. From the Western Australia eastern border through to the Great Dividing Range. They need all of this as a lot of it is flood plain so of no real use. They'd use mostly the fertile area to the north and very south.
Then lastly, New Zealand takes all of Australia east of the Great Dividing Range and Tasmania. That way the cities like Brisbane and Sydney stay within an English legal framework, but the indigenous people get their rights respected. New Zealand is very good at all this indigenous stuff, reconciliation, you name it, they've been doing it for a century or more.
It's a win/win all round. Australia would cease to exist, as it should.
To be fair, there is another side to the story. Australia buys a lot of military equipment from the US. Big ticket items like F/A 18's, Abrams M1 main battle tanks and Harpoon missiles to name a few. In doing their deal with Obama, whereby the US takes refugees held on Pacific Islands and refused entry to Australia, they were effectively calling in a debt.
Well Trump doesn't see it like that and doesn't seem to care. On that score, while there is a lot to dislike about the man, this time he has got it right.
If we take this seriously and look at Australia, there is no reason for it to exist. It is an anachronism. They've conducted genocide against the indigenous people, raped the environment and want the world to thank them for it. Well enough, let's tell them they don't get to keep all those resources and land they're sitting on when useful hard working and thrifty people need it.
My solution is this; let India have Western Australia, plenty of room there for India's huge population to grow. Indonesia can take the middle of Australia. From the Western Australia eastern border through to the Great Dividing Range. They need all of this as a lot of it is flood plain so of no real use. They'd use mostly the fertile area to the north and very south.
Then lastly, New Zealand takes all of Australia east of the Great Dividing Range and Tasmania. That way the cities like Brisbane and Sydney stay within an English legal framework, but the indigenous people get their rights respected. New Zealand is very good at all this indigenous stuff, reconciliation, you name it, they've been doing it for a century or more.
It's a win/win all round. Australia would cease to exist, as it should.
February 03, 2017
Free Virtual Router - Watch Out
I decided to turn one of my computers into a virtual router. What this means is your computer becomes a hotspot and you can transmit the internet to anyone that connects. There are two ways you can set this up, the first way is to perform command prompts as administrator, setting up a local area network. This is very effective and you can connect up to 100 devices wirelessly. The problem is that when you turn your computer off, then turn it back on and want this hotspot again, you have to do those command prompts all over again.
One way around that is to install so-called free software which lets you perform the above task and have the hotspot activate as you boot up. Fine and dandy, but I have tried six such programs, with mixed results and here's the goss':
1. OSToto
I downloaded the file from their recommended link and it would not set up or run. Nothing. I uninstalled and tried again. Same result, won't finish installation.
I should mention that I'm on an Hp 15 running Windows 10. There should be no problems.
2. Connectify
I gave this a go after getting rid of OSToto. It works, but the free version has limitations. The main limitation from where I'm sitting is it turns itself off after 30 minutes even with a client connected - that's very inconvenient. Annoying eh. The hotspot just stops right in the middle of the client doing something. And if someone turns their connected client computer off and goes away for an hour, even if the device transmitting the hotspot is still running they'll have lost their connection and the 'mother' computer needs to click 'create hotspot' again.
Then less annoying are pop up ads that try to get you to buy their Max version which enables you to do other stuff, most likely you'll never need that stuff though.
Basically, this program cannot be taken seriously and will have to go too, at some point.
But it does all work. Oh, I set Connectify to start up on boot-up, but it doesn't always start automatically, that has to be policed as well.
3. MyPublicWifi
Do not download this, it is almost a Virus, or Malware, it is really bad. What this rubbish does is install, then you cannot change the SSID or transmitted name, it is locked at MyPublicWifi, and you cannot change the key or password, it is always 12345678. Holy crap, you're sharing with the world. Then when you try to uninstall it won't let you do that. Getting it out of your system is a nightmare. It took me an hour. Yeah, this is total crap, beware.
Now when you searched for 'virtual router' in Google did those techie clever dick sites tell you any of this? Hmm? No they didn't did they. So I'm using Connectify, it isn't the best but it works. I'm looking for something reliable that stays up all the time, transmitting lovely stuff, securely, privately and is stable. Good luck with that one.
Now I do also have a WiFi connection from the router, I decided to run both, I can't be down you see, if the WiFi from router stuffs up then I can connect via ethernet and run from the virtual hotspot. Get the idea? Not that easy in fact, the devil is always in the detail.
Then onward, ever the optimist...
4. PCTuneUp Wifi Hotspot Creator
This was rubbish, it did not want to load, kept getting an error message, and it downloaded some ad malware to boot. Avoid this one.
5. WinHotspot
Would not start, was in a perpetual state of 'stopped working.'
6. Virtual Router Manager
Finally got somewhere, this actually works. It stays connected. Problem is though, it does not start on boot-up, you have to do that. But once started it works fine. Initially it did not want to start, gave the 'stopped working' message, but after a couple of tries it started and worked. It's very simple, just does the job it's meant to. We'll see if it lasts, I'm not holding my breath.
So of the six tried out, two worked; Connectify can be set to start on boot-up and this works most of the time. But you're limited to 30 minute sessions and you get ads delivered to you. Virtual Router Manager is simpler, works okay but not does not start on boot-up, stays connected it appears, and does the job with no ads or other nasties infecting your computer. Then you have the command prompts approach, which is better than most, I feel.
By all means head over to the Discussion Forum to discuss this.
One way around that is to install so-called free software which lets you perform the above task and have the hotspot activate as you boot up. Fine and dandy, but I have tried six such programs, with mixed results and here's the goss':
1. OSToto
I downloaded the file from their recommended link and it would not set up or run. Nothing. I uninstalled and tried again. Same result, won't finish installation.
I should mention that I'm on an Hp 15 running Windows 10. There should be no problems.
2. Connectify
I gave this a go after getting rid of OSToto. It works, but the free version has limitations. The main limitation from where I'm sitting is it turns itself off after 30 minutes even with a client connected - that's very inconvenient. Annoying eh. The hotspot just stops right in the middle of the client doing something. And if someone turns their connected client computer off and goes away for an hour, even if the device transmitting the hotspot is still running they'll have lost their connection and the 'mother' computer needs to click 'create hotspot' again.
Then less annoying are pop up ads that try to get you to buy their Max version which enables you to do other stuff, most likely you'll never need that stuff though.
Basically, this program cannot be taken seriously and will have to go too, at some point.
But it does all work. Oh, I set Connectify to start up on boot-up, but it doesn't always start automatically, that has to be policed as well.
3. MyPublicWifi
Do not download this, it is almost a Virus, or Malware, it is really bad. What this rubbish does is install, then you cannot change the SSID or transmitted name, it is locked at MyPublicWifi, and you cannot change the key or password, it is always 12345678. Holy crap, you're sharing with the world. Then when you try to uninstall it won't let you do that. Getting it out of your system is a nightmare. It took me an hour. Yeah, this is total crap, beware.
Now when you searched for 'virtual router' in Google did those techie clever dick sites tell you any of this? Hmm? No they didn't did they. So I'm using Connectify, it isn't the best but it works. I'm looking for something reliable that stays up all the time, transmitting lovely stuff, securely, privately and is stable. Good luck with that one.
Now I do also have a WiFi connection from the router, I decided to run both, I can't be down you see, if the WiFi from router stuffs up then I can connect via ethernet and run from the virtual hotspot. Get the idea? Not that easy in fact, the devil is always in the detail.
Then onward, ever the optimist...
4. PCTuneUp Wifi Hotspot Creator
This was rubbish, it did not want to load, kept getting an error message, and it downloaded some ad malware to boot. Avoid this one.
5. WinHotspot
Would not start, was in a perpetual state of 'stopped working.'
6. Virtual Router Manager
Finally got somewhere, this actually works. It stays connected. Problem is though, it does not start on boot-up, you have to do that. But once started it works fine. Initially it did not want to start, gave the 'stopped working' message, but after a couple of tries it started and worked. It's very simple, just does the job it's meant to. We'll see if it lasts, I'm not holding my breath.
So of the six tried out, two worked; Connectify can be set to start on boot-up and this works most of the time. But you're limited to 30 minute sessions and you get ads delivered to you. Virtual Router Manager is simpler, works okay but not does not start on boot-up, stays connected it appears, and does the job with no ads or other nasties infecting your computer. Then you have the command prompts approach, which is better than most, I feel.
By all means head over to the Discussion Forum to discuss this.
Chris Trotter on Endless Cycles
I thought the following article by left-wing political commentator, Chris Trotter, to be somewhat thought provoking, you can read it here:
http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/2017/01/endless-cycles.html
http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/2017/01/endless-cycles.html