Phil Peters

The National Broadband Network debate seems to have quickly escalated into a “he said/she said” battle of false figures and meaningless rhetoric, so the present situation is not only difficult to read, it is also almost impossible to claim to know the “right” answer. However, it seems that the passing of Margaret Thatcher came at a curious time in the course of this debate, because as many of you will know, Mrs Thatcher was a big proponent of the “just good enough” approach when it came to government spending, and it seems as though the Lib’s plan for the NBN is in the same vein.

As I mentioned before, the debate between the two major parties’ NBN plans has become somewhat of a pissing match, but really at the core of the proposals is not a difference in “the vision for Australia”, a difference in ideologies. The Liberal party believe that discarding the “perfectly good” current copper wiring system is unnecessary, and simply upgrading the part of the network will be sufficient to keep most Australians’ internet ticking over. The Labor party believe that now is the time to install a new fibre system capable of delivering faster speeds and potentially longer-term stability, but at a greater cost.

Now it’s true that the Labor NBN is a costlier short term investment, especially in the “we must have a budget surplus because……reasons” era of politics, but many believe that the Liberal NBN plans could end up being costlier in the long term anyway, economically or otherwise. The copper wiring that has been in use for over half a century is slowly but surely degrading and will need constant maintenance until eventually it will need replacing. The argument that by that time, fibre technology will be cheaper to implement is valid, but even if the theoretical mountain of money can be saved by that time, it seems like a “save a penny, lose a pound” outcome.

Australia is already behind the rest of the developed world in terms of both internet access and speed, and the highest possible speeds that the Liberal party could promise by 2020, up to 100mbps, is already being surpassed in America where Google’s own experimental fibre network is already delivering speeds of 1gbps. That’s 1000mbps, or 10 times the theoretical Liberal NBN speeds. And let’s not forget that “theoretical” government plans rarely deliver their “theoretical” peak. The Labor party on the other hand has the upper hand in the theoretical speed department, and as fibre is basically an entire new system it too can be upgraded as needed moving forward.

As you can probably tell I am more of a fan of the Labor NBN plans, but I can see the merit of the Liberal plan too. However it seems to me that the Liberal party’s plan would have been revolutionary five or ten years ago, but greatly underestimates the needs, and desires, of the public. The internet is one of, if not the most used and most important part of the every day lives of the Australian people, and seeing that Australia is in the favourable position that it is compared to other countries economically, now seems like the perfect time to invest in a technology that can tangibly help a majority of Australians. Despite the higher economic cost compared to the alternatives offered, it seems to be the opinion of many industry leaders that the cost of not having it would be greater.

Peter Green

Cody Wilson, founder of Defence Distributed

There has been a lot said and written about gun control in the US in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre and a spate of other mass shootings in 2012. However Defence Distributed, a small firm based in Austin Texas, and its founder Cody R Wilson, might have found a way to completely curtail the arguments for stronger gun control being made by many in the US political class and notably President Obama. Mr. Wilson and Defence Distributed are using 3D printing technology to print (among other parts) lower receivers for the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. The same gun that was used at Sandy Hook by Adam Lanza.  The lower receiver is the component that houses the trigger mechanism, and to which all other components of the gun; barrel, stock, magazine etc, are attached. For this reason, this part alone is considered to be a firearm under America’s 1968 Gun Control Act. Making printable patterns for this part and distributing them to people with 3D printers means that anyone with the correct technology and an Internet connection can download and print a lower receiver. You can then order the other parts of the rifle in the mail (as these are not regulated because they would be useless without a lower receiver) and assemble the finished product literally without needing to leave your bedroom.

There are several problems with this process at present. Despite recent advancements in Defence Distributed’s production and design process that it claims (and has demonstrated on their YouTube Chanel) mean their parts will now not fail under the stresses of firing, printed receivers have previously failed after a relatively small number of shots; a prototype demonstrated for Vice failed after 27 rounds. Magazines and other components have also been problematic. However the process is still in its infancy, as is the printing technology on which it is based, and both the design process and the materials that can be used in the printing process are still being developed, and are improving on a daily basis. Defence Distributed had also faced legal problems in distributing their lower receivers, but have previously attained a license that allows them to make and sell fire-arms legally. Despite this, Mr. Wilson is not currently, and apparently does not plan to, make his receivers commercially available, but will instead distribute the pattern for their manufacture free of charge online.

Cody Wilson fires an AR-15 equipped with 3D printed compontents.

This is because Mr. Wilson is not attempting to turn a profit, but rather to make a political and technological point. Even if his components fail in a relatively short time, they can be made from around $20 worth of raw materials with a printer currently worth around $1000. I say currently because if New York Times technology reporter Nick Bilton is to be believed when he says that there will be one of these printers in most homes in the next ten years (see below), then that seems like a price that is only going to move in one direction. If this turns out to be correct, then by 2030 we could be living in a world where 3D printable files are consumed and traded in the same way that MP3 files are at present. This is a version of the future that Mr. Wilson not only believes in but welcomes as a new dawn of unregulated information and goods similar to the birth of the Internet. And he is absolutely, perhaps worryingly right.

At present, though the Internet can get you many valuable things: music, films, images and even tools that one can use for cyber terrorism without and sometimes in spite of government regulation, it is more difficult to obtain regulated physical goods. This is because while software and computer files can travel anywhere in the world without anyone’s approval and remain mostly undetected, freight and shipping companies or the physical transportation of goods by other means are a necessary part of transporting physical goods around the globe, and this enables most governments to reasonably effectively regulate the goods that are bought and sold both within and beyond their borders.

However, in a world where everyone has a 3D printer, there is no reason why gun components, even entire guns, accessories and attachments could not be proliferated in the same way that music, movies and TV shows are now. While it might be easy at the moment for government agencies to keep tabs on the trafficking in down-loadable AR-15 lower receivers, you can see on DEFCAD, (a distribution site hosted by Defence Distributed which is currently one of the only sources of templates for weapon parts) the demand and supply are extremely low. At present the market is limited to a small group of young people who have adopted the technology, a large part of this group are also ideologically opposed to what Mr. Wilson is trying to prove: that this technology makes government regulation of not only guns, but all forms of deadly weapons, as well as a huge and perhaps limitless number of other goods, completely meaningless.

Do you remember that ad that used to run before the main feature on DVDs that reasoned that your shouldn’t download movies because you wouldn’t steal a car? What if you could download a car? It probably won’t be terribly complex, but an entirely mechanical car with no electronics involved in the moving parts should be fine, I drive one, they’re lovely. I’m not sure I’d want to drive one made entirely out of plastic but I’m sure I’d get used to it. What we are talking about here is a revolution in the way people do business, the way we look at ideas like copyright and intellectual property, the ability of the government to control what we do, what we have access to. What people like Cody Wilson see in 3D printing is that it puts the means of complex production entirely in the hands of individuals. Where previously barriers of technical skill and industrial capability stood between the population and the production of high-end manufactured goods, this technology means that almost any object can be manufactured with minimal outlay and absolutely no effort in your own home. Viewed in that context, while perhaps they are a worrying example, the proliferation of fire-arms barely even rates a mention in what could well be a global shift in the way our society operates and interacts with business and government.

Vice’s Documentary

Nick Bilton’s New York Times article

Defence Distributed and their YouTube Channel

Pete Green

The Daily Telegraph’s petition to stop ‘cyber bullying and trolls’ has made big news this week. Especially, for some reason, in the Daily Telegraph, who seem to think it’s very important. The petition aims to stop the ‘faceless bullies’ on the Internet, adding weight to my theory that a homosexual, socialist asylum seeker with no face may well be conservative Australia’s worst nightmare. I found this story pretty interesting, first because it seems that none of the 60 year old men who are behind this campaign, perhaps unsurprisingly, have even the remotest idea what trolling is.

Secondly because it seems to me that if the Daily Telegraph, and other conservative press outlets were to shut down all the bullies, fear mongers and bigots on the Internet, they would have trouble finding ways to distribute their content to a global audience by means of electronic communication networks. Let’s be honest, if Bob Brown turns out to be the owner of the Super Trawler, that would be less hypocritical than this petition.

Thirdly, even if this was a vaguely coherent campaign that was not beset on all sides by the forces of its own hypocrisy, if you wanted to stop trolls, a group of people who deliberately try to be provocative in order to get a rise out of people that don’t really know what they’re doing on the internet, then this has got to be the most cartoonishly ridiculous way of not doing that. It’s so mad I’d be worried I was being double troll-bluffed by the Daily Telegraph, were it not for the predominance of elderly, obese, internet illiterate morons running that particular organisation. In addition, as I’m sure we all remember, KONY2012 taught us the invaluable lesson that raising awareness is about as useful a tool for solving huge social issues as getting naked on the streets of San Diego.

So if it’s not about making sense, and it’s not about stopping trolls, then what is this campaign about?

Continue Reading

by Phil Peters

In an article on torrentfreak.com, a site devoted to Bittorrent, copyrighting and generally sticking it to the man, a list was released of the top 10 most downloaded shows this spring season.

Notable inclusions in the list were the ever popular “How I Met Your Mother”, Chuck Lorre’s nerd-flavoured cash cow “Big Bang Theory”, whiskey sipping drama “Mad Men”, as well as “Modern Family”, “Revenge”, “Desperate Housewives”, “Family Guy” and surprisingly, the new series of “Supernatural”.

The second season of HBO’s boobs and swords extravaganza “Game of Thrones” took the number one spot with nearly 3.9 million estimated downloads per episode. For perspective, the number of average US TV viewers per episode was 4.2 million. So why are there so many people pirating it I hear you ask? Well gather round children and I shall tell you a tale of a weird and wonderful place called America.

You see, in America, there is no free to air TV. Well, none worth watching anyway. So in order to gain access to ANY form of worthwhile television, you pay a price. In years gone by, that existed as cable TV, which is not dissimilar to FOXTEL here in the homeland. Now this service still exists, but as has been happening more and more these days, big studios have been deciding to cut out the middle man and distribute their shows using their own services and subscription models. These services include Hulu, Netflix and, of course, HBO GO.

Continue Reading

by Sam Hamza

After mass online protest, persistent media vilification and tenacious dissent from the likes of Wikipedia, Google and Facebook, it appears that the diabolical cunning of the American congress hasn’t lulled. No, I’m not some tea party hating, neo-socialist prophet of doom who sees the American senate as a freedom-sucking abyss. Or perhaps that last sentence was just rhetoric, legitimizing my unfolding hate speech? You’ll never know. But unfortunately, there is some truth in my words.

Just months after the power of the people said no to the nefarious Stop Online Privacy Act, the House of Representatives has passed the bill for the Cyber Intelligence Protection Act. But why do I care? Those lard-eating Americans aren’t any of my business I hear you say? Well, apart from the fact that we’d probably follow suit to the American’s and create similar legislation in typical Australian fashion, this thing quite literally fucks up the Internet. We were scared enough when Megavideo got the boot; now it isn’t people’s boredom that is at risk anymore, it is the people.

Continue Reading

by Duncan McIntire

Cordyceps is quite possibly the most nefarious and terrifying genus of fungi. It is classified as an endoparasite, meaning that unlike its tranquil cousin the mushroom, it feeds directly on live prey (usually insects or arthropods) instead of digesting our waste. Cordyceps invades a host with its tube-like mycelium and creates a network of intertwining hyphae throughout the host’s body, concentrating in the brain. Once the fungus has siphoned enough nutrients from the host, it erupts through the host’s head or thorax with its elongated ascocarp. And if that description isn’t enough to give you nightmares I should probably mention that while the fungus infests its prey, it literally uses brute force to take control of the host’s brain. Continue Reading