Windows has always treated me well and provided me with all (well most) of the tools that I need in my daily computing.  Sure the usual shortcomings of the operating system bugged me.  I’ve had my fair share of instability issues, incompatibility issues and just plain stupid errors that make no sense (like a rundll error every time I try to delete an mpg file).  But the thing that kept me loyal was that the alternatives just weren’t substitutes.

I like Mac OS X and Leopard really interested me.  My biggest problem with Macs and the Apple philosophy is that you pay for everything.  You pay for the hardware because it’s just too tricky to make the software work on anything other than official hardware (slowly becoming less of an issue because of the Intel revolution).  You pay for the software because once you’ve paid $3000-$4000 for your hardware you show you have deep enough pockets to afford another couple of hundred on software.  And you pay for support because if you can’t drag and drop you need an expert.  Sure Mac OS is a finely tuned, well made operating system.  Everything is easy to do and simplicity is the key.  There is no clutter that there is with Windows.  But you MUST pay.  This doesn’t quite work for me because for years and years of computing I have essentially paid nothing.

So the next logical step is to open the door to open source software.  I have played with Linux before and each experience has been worse than the one preceding it.  Lets face it, most Linux users have a dual boot setup even if the primarily use Linux so the experience can’t be THAT good.  Sure, the software is free, readily accessible and can do everything that closed source software can do but it’s just not the same.  There is only one Office.  There is only one Photoshop.  There is only one …

I decided a few weeks back to push the boundaries a little and I have been sweetly surprised.  I installed kubuntu (intrepid ibex) on my laptop and I must say that it is fantastic.  It runs quickly and with a smoothness my laptop hasn’t seen since a fresh install of XP (stupid Vista!) and the look and feel is comforting.  There are still the quirky Linux features which will take a little getting used to but on the whole the experience is great.  Open Office shatters all my preconceived ideas on MS Office alternatives - by actually being a viable alternative.  And KMail blew my socks off.  Despite my initial inklings, I am enjoying the fact that each application I use is a separate application and not an intermingled mess clever marketing men call a ’suite’.

Under Windows, I would use Remote Desktop (Terminal Services) to use my desktop remotely and that was a big feature that I didn’t want to lose.  Well to my great surprise, with rdesktop and krdc (which come as standard in kubuntu) I can still use remote desktop without any third party applications on the desktop.

I think the feature of Linux which I am finding so liberating is that it allows me to decide the direction of my computing.  I am not restricted by someone else’s ideas or decisions as to how I should compute.  I am free to (and encouraged to) change, alter and customise everything.  If I don’t like something, I’ll change it - rather than the Windows approach of getting used to it.

Only time will tell how my allegiances will change but watch out Windows - something BIG is coming!

The mission was simple; get a generic BSB code from Bendigo Bank to correct the mistake of my customer to allow them to be paid.  For international readers a BSB number is simply a routing number for our banking system which identifies the Bank, State and Branch.  There is nothing personal about these numbers, in fact they are widely published and publically available.

In an effort to save time and hassle I thought to myself “I will call Bendigo Bank and ask them what their generic BSB number is.  That way they can confirm I have the correct details and I will save having to hassle the client for information they may not know or have readily accessible.”  Of course I realised that any bank will not divulge private or personal details about their client however since the BSB I was asking for doesn’t even link to a branch local to my client there should be no problems.  How wrong I was!

Firstly, the man on the phone sounded either half asleep or stoned, greeting me in a bored, monotonous manner unacceptable for even a Friday afternoon.  Then he asked for an account number and I freely quoted him my clients number in the hope that it may expedite the process of getting information out of them.  I explained that I needed to confirm the generic BSB for the bank so that money could be sent to the account I had quoted him.  His response was to ask for further details, like the account name and address and other personal information I didn’t know or care to share.  I again explained that those personal details were irrelevant and that all I needed was a generic number used by all clients.  He told me that the bank had two numbers which could be applicable - depending on the type of account.  I said I didn’t know what type of account it was but if he was to give me both the numbers then I could take that information back to my client for confirmation.  His response was “But then you will just try both of them!”.  Before I had a chance to explain that I had been quoted, by my client, that his BSB was 333-000 (which is incorrect, hence the confirmation of bank details) the ‘customer service representative’ had hung up on me.  WHAT?

I understand that banks have private and confidential information that they cannot just share with anyone.  I also understand that there are people out there who aim to steal private information for their own gains.  I also understand how in a situation where the assistant is suspicious of an enquiry to be evasive or difficult to deal with - but hanging up!  My instant response was to hit redial and join the queue again but I didn’t have time at this stage and I still had to get these details before the end of the day.  But honestly, would it have been that hard for him to say “I’m sorry I cannot provide that information as you haven’t sufficiently identified yourself and privacy laws prohibit me from sharing any customer details”.  Obviously.  I’ve been in plenty of situations where I am faced with a brick wall because I cannot provide ID - it’s disappointing but it is understandable.  Instead of being hung up on I am left feeling like privacy issues are a concern but customer service is still important.  Clearly Bendigo Bank don’t share this view.  Much better just to hang up!

The most amusing part to this whole drama is that on Bendigo Bank’s own ‘Contact Us’ page the BSB number I was looking for is freely available under their contact number.  I doubt there are two numbers (I have dealt with enough banking details to know that much) so I suspect he was just trying to throw me off the scent.

Ultimately, here’s the tip for business.  Customer service is the most important aspect of operations.  If customer’s don’t feel satisfied or feel like they are important to the business, then the business won’t retain customers for long.  Personally, I’m not likely to ever be a Bendigo Bank customer after this experience and I doubt I will ever recommend the bank to others either.  Customers never forget!

Anyway, for anyone who is interested (which, sadly, I know is basically no one) I found this thing on the Twitter website and I thought it was pretty cool and worth sharing. For those of you shaking your heads in disappointment or concern with how pathetically uninteresting my life is, console yourselves with the thought that I will probably get over it all soon enough. Until then, enjoy following my new Twitter obsession and possibly even get one yourself to see just how fun something so simple can be!

Pope Benedict has paid tribute to the work of the 17th century astronomer Galileo Galilei, who was convicted of heresy by the Catholic Church in 1633.

In an address marking the 400th anniversary of Galileo’s earliest observations using a telescope, the Pope said an understanding of the laws of nature could stimulate appreciation of God’s work.

Galileo was able to demonstrate that the Earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around, which directly challenged the church-held view at the time.

Earlier that day I had been reading a book by a Muslim about how Darwin is wrong.  His argument was fairly typical of religious fundamentalists - everything is too complicated for ‘random chance’ to have ‘created’ it, and besides Darwinism, evolution and science generally asks too many questions that we may not yet have a complete answer to yet (always asserting that God does have an answer).  It made me wonder how many years it will take until Darwin is vindicated and ‘paid tribute to’ by religious leaders?

Most religious people must realise that throughout history scientific discovery has been made and shattered the popular belief of the time, usually to the detriment of religion.  Then religious thinking shifts as the leaders of religious groups try to remain current.  Why can people not understand that it is possible to remain spiritual (if they wish) without denying scientific advances?  Surely “an understanding of the laws of nature could stimulate appreciation of God’s work”?

Instead some religious groups use a pseudo-science where they pick and choose scientific facts to prove/disprove a ‘belief’ or an ‘idea’.  I think the moral to the story is that you may pick and choose parts of your religious text which is relevant to you (and completely ignore the other things the text says which are just plain stupid in a modern situation) but you cannot do the same with facts discovered through the use of logical thinking and the scientific method.

The following is taken from TV.com:

This short series, first aired in the UK in 1999, has garnered quite a cult following through (very) late night repeats especially in Australia where the fans have literally inundated the National Theatre Of Brent’s website demanding a DVD release. Alas, to date this has yielded nothing.

The series features the pantomime skills and talents of Desmond Olivier Dingle (Patrick Barlow) and the entire cast of The National Theatre Of Brent, Raymond Box (John Ramm), re-enacting six of the pivotal events of the last century, from the death of Queen Victoria, through the Cuban Missile Crisis to the Clinton/Lewinsky Affair.

Although generally played for laughs - mostly centred around the fact that the two lead actors play every character in every scene with scant effort to disguise the fact - there are some quite poignant moments of insight especially in the Cuban Missile Crisis episode with respect to Cambodia’s role (or lack thereof) in the Vietnam War.

Most people who actually get the chance to see Massive Landmarks love it with a passion.

I have not seen the entire series but desperately wish to but because it has never been released on DVD I cannot see it … or so I thought.  Then I found this blog post where the comments section had been almost hijacked as a forum for sharing National Theatre of Brent material (radio programs and the long lost TV series).  I posted there, almost expecting no response, to see if I could get my hands on a copy and, to my surprise, in my inbox this morning was an offer to post me two DVD’s containing this fantastic series.

Thanks to the kindness and generosity of others I will be able to finally revisit this show and share it with everyone who has no idea what I’m talking about.  If you would like a copy, please leave a comment.  I want to spread the laughs as best I can.

My job requires a thorough understanding of particular tax laws and so I have primarily been working on learning the laws inside out.  I have also been producing spreadsheets and reference materials which should help me out further on down the track.  On a side note, it’s interesting how the attitude of my employer is completely different to my old employer.  My new employer helped me in producing a reference guide, gave me time to do a good job and afterwards rewarded me with having it laminated and distributed throughout the office.  My old employer shunned the creation of reference guides and there was no time or reward for creating one.  I am definitely glad that I moved.

As an accounting student I had already been exposed to the tax law, fringe benefits tax (FBT) and salary packaging but I know that not everyone else really understands it.  In fact, based on articles I have read, even so called ‘industry experts’ have little understanding of salary packaging or the tax law.  The principles of FBT and salary packaging are simple but the application is not.  There are subtle intricacies that many don’t understand and as such many falsehoods exist about salary packaging.

So what is salary packaging?
The concept of salary packaging goes back a long way.  Some wise employer worked out that if an employee was paid in things (cars, clothes, houses, etc) then the employee would not incur any income tax because income tax is only collected on cash salary or wages.  Salary packaging still exists today; although the government has taken measures to stop blatant tax evasion.

What is Fringe Benefits Tax?
FBT is the tax imposed on the other things an employer provides it’s employees.  Unlike income tax, the tax rate is set at the highest marginal tax rate to discourage employers paying employees with things.  FBT closes the loophole and stops employees from evading income tax.  It is also somewhat preventative because very few have to pay the highest rate of tax and even when they do, they still save comparatively because of the marginal tax system.

A Happy Medium
Because of FBT the perception that salary packaging is ineffective (and in some people’s mind illegal) prevailed and the people packaging stopped.  Well.  It’s not that simple.  The government did understand the benefits of salary packaging to both the employer and employee however they didn’t want those with the knowledge and ability to avoid paying tax whilst others (who didn’t know or couldn’t do) had to pay.  As such, some concessions were built into the law to allow for certain benefits to be packaged and for certain organisations to be exempt or treated concessionally by the tax.  This meant they could stop exploitation of the tax system but still encourage particular employers by providing tax incentives.  For example, charity workers provide a public good and so have the ability to salary package and pay no FBT in certain circumstances.

As you can see, the principles are relatively simple.  The law is complicated, confusing and constantly changing but the principles remain the same.  However, people’s perceptions of salary packaging need to change.  If things are too difficult for you to understand, ask someone who does!  Almost every employee in Australia could benefit from salary packaging if only they talked to people who knew.  There are some limitations and restrictions but salary packaging is not just for the ‘rich’ and anyone who thinks or says so doesn’t understand the intent of the law.  The whole point of FBT is for equity in the tax system - stopping the rich from having an advantage.

The best thing about my employer is that they are honest and transparent in their dealings with customers.  Many other salary packaging companies are not and as such the industry is tarnished and people again think of salary packaging as dirty and illegal.  In some circumstances other companies do fall foul of the law and their clients (those liable to pay the tax) have no idea whilst I sit back and hope they are audited.  Let’s face it; the industry standard can’t be that high if after working for three weeks I already know more than people who have been in the industry for years.  That is not implying that I am a genius but that others don’t know, or care to know, what the law says.

If you can’t tell, I like my new job.

I live and work in Australia and am talking about the Australian taxation system.  This may or may not be relevant in other countries.  This is not financial advice either.  If you are considering salary packaging talk to a qualified financial planner or accountant.

More and more I am seeing JavaScript’s which are unreadable to human eyes but which can still be understood.  In the past, scripts that scramble the code made websites bloated and ‘heavy’ for users to view - not to mention that the encryption key that had been used to scramble the HTML was readily accessible to any viewer who knew where to look.  These days however the scripts which ’scramble’ are intended (initially at least) to compact the script to help sites load faster.  It is an unexpected bonus that the code is also unreadable to humans.  Ever seen something like “eval(function(p,a,c,k,e,r){…};”?  Want to know what’s really going on?

The fundamental problem with web based applications is that the end user’s browser needs to be able to understand the data it is given.  Browsers are able to send and receive information securely, but once that information is delivered to the client it is effectively there’s to do with what they will.  Let’s face it, if the browser couldn’t understand and interpret the data then there would be no web!  So web developers write code in a way that browsers understand (and sometimes in the case of IE, they don’t understand).  JavaScript’s also need to be understandable to the browser because they are processed on the client unlike a host of other languages which are processed on the server side.  With a server side language, the script is processed and a web page is outputted and sent to the client.  With a client side language, the script is sent to the client, the script is processed and the output displayed on screen.

But wait, the script that I have is ‘packed’ like the example above!  How can that be?

Well the answer is rather logical and right in front of you.  The script that is ultimately run is sent to you inside another script.  The container script is a simple compression script which, when run by the browser, outputs the ‘real’ script which, in turn, is run by the browser.  Rather nifty!  However this script-in-a-script setup means that should the user view the page source they will only see the packed script which is unreadable to humans.  Even better!

So how do we see what the actual script is?  There are a few ways.  Firstly, it is possible in Firefox to select an area on the page and view just the selected source.  This source isn’t just a cropped section of the page source (what is downloaded from the web server) it is an output of the page actually displayed by the browser.  This means you see what the page looks like after the scripts have run.  But the catch is that most JavaScript’s are contained in the head of the page meaning they cannot be selected.

The next option is to open up the error console in Firefox (Tools>Error Console or Ctrl+Shift+J) and paste in the packed code with “eval = alert;” in front of it.  This will then pop up a dialog box which contains the code that has been packed.  The output of this code isn’t very pretty but it works in most cases.  The only issue I have run into is that when you are unpacking unusually large scripts it becomes cumbersome (if not impossible) to get the entire script.  Also, the data isn’t formatted very well.

So my quick solution to this (which I am sharing with you now) was to throw together a couple of scripts that I found online which decode the packed script passed to it and then display it in an easy to use way.  There is both a code view for easy on-screen reading and a text-box view which makes for easy copying into another application.  It does take a few seconds to finish decoding (most of that time is spent waiting to be honest) so don’t be too hasty to click Decode! again.

Hopefully this helps people out.  You can download the files to your computer and run the tool offline.  Let me know what you think.

Fear not! New Nici art will be coming soon. I am hoping to get at least one drawing done this week and hopefully that’ll get me back into the swing of things. Keep your eyes peeled.

Also, I have lost access to the official Nici product pictures which are also available on nici.thestable.info. If anyone reading this has access to or knows where/how I can access these images again, please leave a comment or send me an email.

Finally, for those Nici fans who were visited by Santa - I hope you enjoy your present. We will be looking at a similar offer in the future and hopefully getting more retailers on board. For those who have no idea what I’m talking about, or missed out on claiming their gift, leave a comment and you will be notified next year when Santa comes by again.

Love your plush!

While thinking about this I wondered why school canteens didn’t provide an online shopping portal for making lunch orders.  This again would be an ideal usage of technology.  A student and/or parent logs on and shops, as they would any other online shop, for lunch the following day (or perhaps a few days into the future) and then they pay online through PayPal or credit card etc.  Each day then, the orders relevant for that day are delivered to the canteen operator who can prepare the lunches and deliver them to the student at the appropriate time.

The benefits to the parent are obvious.  Firstly, no need to scrounge for change on lunch order day.  Secondly, credit card payment is secure and the parent knows exactly how much is being spent on lunches.  Thirdly, the order is locked in and so the parent knows exactly what their child will have for lunch; no more changing ’salad sandwich’ for ‘pie and chips’.  Finally, the system could be established to give children access to a particular amount of credit so that students wouldn’t have to carry money with them and the parents would be billed monthly.

The benefits for the canteen operator are a little less obvious but still well worth the cost of the system.  Firstly, all orders are delivered to the operator at the same time daily in the same format.  No more deciphering handwriting on envelopes or brown paper bags.  Secondly, payment is received in a secure manner so only a smaller float is needed on site.  Thirdly, and most profoundly, the operator doesn’t need to be on site in the morning the order is placed allowing for a greater degree of outsourcing, less commuting for operators running multiple canteens and reduced overheads in terms of staffing.  Finally, costs of implementation would be low because there is already free e-commerce software available which would only need minor modification to suit this application and hosting could be handled by the school for a reduced or no fee.

With everyone relying more heavily on technology I think this idea will be implemented at some point, but it’s just a question of when.  What do they say about the simplest ideas?

Personally I believe that the Internet should not be filtered, censored or ‘cleaned’ (as some ministers will say) and I believe that government policy should be written on the best advise possible and, therefore, the experts should not be ignored - in all matters.  But this only addresses the second question.  What about parents who still want to provide a safe online environment for their children?

Safety for children comes from supervision, rules and control.  Let’s take, for example, swimming pools which are fun but also impose significant risks.  How do we mitigate those risks?  We supervise children when in the pool, we establish rules for pool behaviour (don’t run around the pool etc.) and we control when and how children can access the pool (erecting a fence around the pool).  Hopefully this is all common sense and is practiced regularly by those households with pools.  But how many households with Internet access practice these behaviours?  I would maintain very few!  In fact in many households the children are the ones administrating Internet access which, if you consider it in terms of our pool analogy, is utterly ridiculous.

It is possible for parents to mitigate the risks of Internet usage and provide safe computing for their children by being proactive and following the same basic principles of supervision, rules and control.  All of this can be done in either a low-tech or a high-tech way (depending on the parent’s technical ability) but hopefully you will see that a high-tech option doesn’t necessarily mean a more difficult option.

I would like to say that I don’t recommend the usage of a software filter on the desktop computer (client based) for numerous reasons; the biggest being that, time after time, they have been broken or circumvented too easily thereby reducing their effectiveness.  However they can be useful tools and inexpensive (considering the Australian Government still provides one for free) and do provide a layer of protection which, if maintained properly, should at least slow down mischievous children.

My preference, and recommendation, is to have server based filtering and control software which provides the best protection and can also be inexpensive (or free).  Most households have more than one computer and more often than not one of the computers is old, redundant and considered rubbish.  Well your old PC can be revived into a network server which provides protection for your household - simply by downloading and installing ClarkConnect (an “Internet server and gateway solution”).

ClarkConnect is a Linux based operating system offering a variety of features to provide a safe Internet experience.  It contains firewall software (the best ever created) which stops unwanted access to your household computers.  It contains proxy software which; logs all the Internet traffic, caches websites and Internet content (making pages load faster - not slower like the Government’s proposed filtering solution) and also provides user authentication (users have to log in to the server before they have access to the Internet).  It contains a content filter to block inappropriate websites and is also easily configured to block other sites as desired (say youtube.com).  It contains ad-blocking software which strips out advertisements from websites making web pages load faster, uses less bandwidth and stops annoying banners and pop-ups which lead to viruses and malware.  It contains access control software which can be set up to block Internet access at particular times for particular users/computers - providing you complete control.  These are just some of the features of ClarkConnect and you can have them all for FREE!

But why is a server based solution better than a client based solution?  And isn’t it harder to manage or set-up?

A server based solution allows you to control your Internet connection completely.  You choose what comes in and what goes out.  You control which sites are blocked.  You control Internet advertising.  And you say what happens when.  Whilst client based solutions can offer many of these features they do not offer all of these features.  Then to get all the features you would need to run multiple client based solutions which may conflict and could make it easier to circumvent the protection measures.  Also, as said earlier, client based solutions are notoriously easy to break/avoid.

Set-up of a server based solution is probably more difficult than a client based solution (you are installing an operating system and not just software, and you are also configuring the software in the operating system to your desired security level) however once set up properly, maintenance is easy and in most cases unnecessary.  ClarkConnect is designed for ‘always on’ computers and so even rebooting after system upgrades is kept to an absolute minimum.

But isn’t the Government simply proposing a server based solution to be implemented at the ISP level?  And doesn’t that provide us with all these benefits without the hassle - leaving the work up to the experts?

The Australian Government’s solution is to set up an ISP level content filter only (not all the other cool features discussed).  This solution has been proven to be easier to circumvent than most client based solutions and will exclude much of the Internet traffic.  Whilst ClarkConnect can block all peer-to-peer (P2P) traffic (bittorrent, edonkey etc.) the Government filter cannot.  Surveys have shown that up to 95% of all Internet traffic is caused by P2P transmissions and yet the Australian Government completely disregards this fact.  Since P2P networks are the most anonymous networks most illegal networks operate this way (paedophiles, terrorists, all those other nasty folks).  And still the Australian Government doesn’t care.  Why abdicate your control of the Internet to a government who cannot and will not provide you with the level of control that you require?

High-tech talk aside, computers and the Internet can be made perfectly safe for children by simply following our three principles of supervision, rules and control and these can be easily implemented without technology.  The following are some ideas on how to create a safe computing environment for your children and can be implemented in either a low-tech or a high-tech manner.

Supervision:

• Get involved with your child’s computer usage
• Position the computer in a communal space which can be easily monitored even when busy
• Ask your children about what they are looking at and ’snoop’ by looking at the browser history
• Encourage children to discuss their computer usage and any issues raised by it (what is porn?  why is it there? etc.)

Rules:

• Each household member should have their own login credentials and passwords should not be shared
• Children should ask permission before accessing the Internet
• Children should be encouraged to ask for help if they discover inappropriate content (and parents should explain why it is inappropriate content and how to avoid it)
• Limits should be placed on the amount of time spent on the Internet/computer each day

Control:

• Children should be restricted to accessing the Internet only when a supervising adult is around
• Computer access should be revoked if the rules are broken
• Sites with inappropriate content should be banned or blocked