Friday, March 25, 2011
Thursday, March 24, 2011
BLEASDALE SECOND INNINGS MALBEC 2009
Check out this website I found at australianwinejournal.blogspot.com
Bleasdale, a really great stop down in Langhorne Creek. Free pour, taste at your own pace/style yet still great friendly staff! These guys really got me interested in Malbec...
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Beer wars: big retail v Foster's - The Age
Return to videoVideo feedback
Use this form to:
- Ask for technichal assistance in playing the multimedia available on this site, or
- Provide feedback to the multimedia producers.
Video will begin in 5 seconds.
Foster's cuts beer supply
Foster's cut supplies to Coles and Woolworths after learning they planned to extend their price war to beer, Ian Verrender reports.
Beer has become the new battleground in the supermarket price war after Australia's biggest brewer, Foster's, pulled key beer brands from Coles and Woolworths upon learning of a plan to sell them for $28 a slab - well below cost.
The Age has learned that Foster's, in a late-night operation this month, stopped the delivery of tens of thousands of slabs of VB, Carlton Draught and Pure Blonde to Coles' First Choice liquor stores and Woolworths' Dan Murphy's chain.
Got a tip? email aferguson@fairfaxmedia.com.au
Advertisement: Story continues below
Illustration: Ron Tandberg
An order went out around the country for Linfox delivery trucks loaded with beer to be emptied until further notice.
The decision came in response to intelligence received that Coles had prepared a brochure advertising brands including VB for $28 a slab.
A slab of 24 VB stubbies usually wholesales to the big supermarket chains for about $33 and retails for $38. Smaller retailers say they are being charged between $37 and $41 - with some even higher - for the same slab.
''We personally sell a slab of VB for $40.95, making a profit margin of around $1.95 and that's not taking into account the cost of refrigeration, etc,'' said Justin Grant, who said he was an independent liquor retailer with more than 30 years in the industry.
A slab of 24 VB stubbies usually wholesales to the big supermarket chains for about $33 and retails for $38. Smaller retailers say they are being charged between $37 and $41 - with some even higher - for the same slab.
''We personally sell a slab of VB for $40.95, making a profit margin of around $1.95 and that's not taking into account the cost of refrigeration, etc,'' said Justin Grant, who said he was an independent liquor retailer with more than 30 years in the industry.
Inner city prices can be even higher. One independent outlet on Spencer Street in Melbourne's CBD was selling a slab of VB for $48.99, while a nearby IGA rival was offering them at $52.81.
A Foster's spokesman said supply was withheld to protect its brands against ''loss-leading'' - the practice of deliberately selling a product at a loss in the hope of attracting customers who will also buy other products that are not discounted. ''We take loss-leading of our brands very seriously," the Foster's spokesman said.
For at least three days this month, some liquor stores put up signs explaining why they were out of VB. One sign said: "We're out of stock because Foster's, the supplier of VB, says we are selling it too cheap."
Coles and Woolworths, which control 50 per cent of Australia's liquor distribution, have never before been taken on in this way by a supplier.
The milk industry, which is the subject of a continuing price war between the supermarket chains, has been unable to stop the discounting because it involves brands that are not well known and suppliers lacking the same market clout as Foster's.
There are also legal issues associated with withdrawing supply, including restraint of trade. Foster's relied on an aspect of competition law that permits companies to withhold supply when their products are being used as loss-leaders.
Apart from the objections of Foster's, the move by the big retailers to try to extend the milk war into the multibillion-dollar beer industry could also raise social issues about whether an age-restricted and potentially harmful product such as alcohol should be used as a loss-leader. Foster's and its main rival, Lion Nathan, have spent large amounts of money and time trying to promote the notion of responsible drinking.
By trying to sell alcohol at lower prices than bottled water, the supermarkets risk drawing the negative attention of government and regulators concerned about rises in drunken violence, one industry expert warned.
In Britain, brewers persuaded legislators to pass a law preventing the sale of alcoholic beverages at below cost price.
The aborted beer war between Coles and Woolworths was not the first such attempt at heavy discounting in Australia. In February, online discounter getwinesdirect.com.au tried selling Crown Lager for below wholesale price.
Woolworths is the biggest player in liquor retailing, with more than 1200 stores, including the Dan Murphy's chain.
Asked about recent events involving discounting of Foster's products, a Woolworths spokeswoman said: ''Beer is an extremely competitive product regardless of whether it is sold at independent or larger chains.''
A Coles spokesman said: ''We have been trying to offer the most competitive beer offer for our customers whenever we can.''
On the Foster's intervention, the Coles spokesman said: ''There was some disruption to the supply, but that has not been material to the business and we have continued to meet consumer demand for beer.''
via news.google.com
Had a conversation with a Rep about the Wine-side of this war today. As a consumer, one might bemoan the missed opportunity to relive genuine 1990s Beer Prices, but it is unlikely to bode well for the future if there are only two retailers left in the market at the end of the "war". On the wine side, it seems it is in the interests of the, newly renamed Treasury Wine Estate, to focus on Independent Channel and On-Premise brands... RSA is an interesting diversion but IMHO just that..
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Australian Defence Force National Australian Football Championships [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
UNCLASSIFIED
Department of Defence Media Mail List
------------------------------------------------------------------------ MSPA 100/10 Friday, 9 April 2010 Australian Defence Force National Australian Football Championships What: 2010 Australian Services Australian Football Association (ASAFA)
National Championships. Why: The championship games will determine the Australian Defence
Force (ADF) national champion men's and women's teams, with Navy the
defending champion in both arenas. The national carnival also provides the pool of players for
selection in the ADF Men's and Women's All Stars teams, with the ADF
Men's All Stars to play against a Combined Emergency Services team, as
part of a Services Challenge in Adelaide on the Anzac Day weekend. Where: Whitten Oval
417 Barkly Street, Footscray West, Melbourne When: The draw is:
Game 1: 14 April - Whitten Oval
1300: Women - Army v RAAF
1500: Men - Army v RAAF Game 2: 16 April - Whitten Oval
1200: Women - Navy v First game loser
1415: Men - Navy v First game loser Game 3: 18 April - Whitten Oval
1100: Women - Navy v First game winner
1315: Men - Navy v First game winner Who: Players and officials will be available for interview in the
lead-up and during the championships. Photo editors are welcome to send
a photographer. Media note:
The ASAFA National Championship is the major event for Navy, Army and
Air Force footballers and provides an opportunity for players to
represent their respective Service and the ADF. Spirited and fair
competition is the hallmark of the championship and spectators are more
than welcome to witness the high-quality action. Media contact: Defence Media Liaison: (02) 6127 1999 or 0408 498 664 DEFENCE MEDIA ALERT Issued by Ministerial Support and Public Affairs, Department of Defence,
Canberra, ACT
Phone: 02 6127 1999, Fax: 02 6265 1545
Media Releases are available via e-mail if you register at
www.defence.gov.au/media
________________________________________________________________________ If you wish to unsubscribe go to http://152.91.28.130/unsubscribe.cfm
Enter your E-mail address, click the Submit button"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence
and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914.
If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact
the sender and delete the email.
Department of Defence Media Mail List
------------------------------------------------------------------------ MSPA 100/10 Friday, 9 April 2010 Australian Defence Force National Australian Football Championships What: 2010 Australian Services Australian Football Association (ASAFA)
National Championships. Why: The championship games will determine the Australian Defence
Force (ADF) national champion men's and women's teams, with Navy the
defending champion in both arenas. The national carnival also provides the pool of players for
selection in the ADF Men's and Women's All Stars teams, with the ADF
Men's All Stars to play against a Combined Emergency Services team, as
part of a Services Challenge in Adelaide on the Anzac Day weekend. Where: Whitten Oval
417 Barkly Street, Footscray West, Melbourne When: The draw is:
Game 1: 14 April - Whitten Oval
1300: Women - Army v RAAF
1500: Men - Army v RAAF Game 2: 16 April - Whitten Oval
1200: Women - Navy v First game loser
1415: Men - Navy v First game loser Game 3: 18 April - Whitten Oval
1100: Women - Navy v First game winner
1315: Men - Navy v First game winner Who: Players and officials will be available for interview in the
lead-up and during the championships. Photo editors are welcome to send
a photographer. Media note:
The ASAFA National Championship is the major event for Navy, Army and
Air Force footballers and provides an opportunity for players to
represent their respective Service and the ADF. Spirited and fair
competition is the hallmark of the championship and spectators are more
than welcome to witness the high-quality action. Media contact: Defence Media Liaison: (02) 6127 1999 or 0408 498 664 DEFENCE MEDIA ALERT Issued by Ministerial Support and Public Affairs, Department of Defence,
Canberra, ACT
Phone: 02 6127 1999, Fax: 02 6265 1545
Media Releases are available via e-mail if you register at
www.defence.gov.au/media
________________________________________________________________________ If you wish to unsubscribe go to http://152.91.28.130/unsubscribe.cfm
Enter your E-mail address, click the Submit button"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence
and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914.
If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact
the sender and delete the email.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
TEDTalks (video) - Hans Rosling
Brilliant. Check out this podcast on iTunes:http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=160892972
Sent from my iPhone
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Handheld Cellphone Bans Don't Reduce Car Crashes After All [Driving]
Unfortunately, the answer will be to up Policing
30 January 2010 5:31
by Brian Barrett
Handheld Cellphone Bans Don't Reduce Car Crashes After All [Driving]
Now, this seems different from specifically texting while driving, which is demonstrably dangerous. But in the four states the IIHS studied, the implementation of a ban on hand-held phones behind the wheel made no difference in the number of accidents:
Month-to-month fluctuations in rates of collision claims in jurisdictions with bans didn't change from before to after the laws were enacted. Nor did the patterns change in comparison with trends in jurisdictions that didn't have such laws.
Honestly, this makes some sense, given that it's not phones themselves that are the problem, but the distraction they cause. There are plenty of other legal methods of taking your eyes off the road, and a hands-free conversation isn't necessarily any safer than one where you've got your phone in your hand.
It's unlikely that this will cause any states with bans of cellphone use while driving to backtrack, but it may force other local governments to look a little more broadly at what's behind all those collisions. [NY Times via IIHS]
Driving Bans Cellphones Laws Legal Studies
Sent from my iPhone
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
‘Legs Tight, Butt Tight, Breathe!’ Inside an Air Force Centrifuge
27 January 2010 5:29
by Noah Shachtman
‘Legs Tight, Butt Tight, Breathe!’ Inside an Air Force Centrifuge
Reason # 6,247,568,657 why I will never become an Air Force pilot: There’s no freaking way I could pull 7 Gs. Watch these wannabe dogfighters give it a try at the centrifuge at Randolph Air Force Base. The fun starts about 1:55 in.
Air Force Randolph AFB Video Fix
Sent from my iPhone
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Monday, November 23, 2009
TEDTalks (video)
Check out this podcast on iTunes:http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=160892972
Sent from my iPhone
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Adelaide SA, Australia to Canberra ACT, Australia - Google Maps
View Larger Map
via maps.google.com
Our planned move to Canberra commences in the morning, so I thought I would post the intended route. Day one aims to depart Adelaide early and press right through to Beechworth, to stay at the La Trobe University Accommodation. Day two will have us backtracking through Rutherglen before heading down to Lakes Entrance via Bright. Day three hopes to see us safely delivered to Canberra via Cooma. I will be attempting to post progress throughout the days using http://gowalla.com/
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Visual Bookshelf on Facebook | Six Thinking Hats - Edward De Bono - Books
Six Thinking Hats
Edward De BonoUsing case studies and real-life examples of his "six thinking hats", de Bono shows how each of us can become a better thinker through deliberate role-playing.
The De Bono 6 thinking hats have managed to creep their way into the business vernacular. In fact, I would go so far as to say that many of the adoptees of the language haven't read the book or methods.
Essentially, De Bono introduces a framework in which a group of people may switch modes of thinking such that a well-rounded decision can be reached in short-order. This is achieved through the adoption of hats which ritualise the role change of the thinkers.
Whilst I am sure that in a mandraulic sense, there is some benefit to using this technique in a team who have a rudimentary understanding of the method, it is difficult to believe that once internalised to an organisational culture that it is not just gamed such that the use of the hat is merely to mask the true agenda of the individual thus becoming another tool in the power play.
I found De Bono overly critical of the Western approach of debate/argument instead favouring this rather clinical mode-switched thinking method. It leaves me wanting to defend the Platonic tradition as a more natural and thorough exploration of a topic. I liken this to asking someone to tell you the funniest joke in the world. The fact is that the brain builds and relates, it doesn't recall facts in isolation and nor would I think that it can switch modes so easily as described.
Despite my protests, it is an essential read and worth understanding the delineations drawn by De Bono if for no other reason than to speak with some knowledge when using the vernacular
Friday, September 18, 2009
Seth's Blog: The hierarchy of success
« The end of dumb software | Blog Home | The problem with non »
The hierarchy of success
I think it looks like this:
- Attitude
- Approach
- Goals
- Strategy
- Tactics
- Execution
We spend all our time on execution. Use this word instead of that one. This web host. That color. This material or that frequency of mailing.
Big news: No one ever succeeded because of execution tactics learned from a Dummies book.
Tactics tell you what to execute. They're important, but dwarfed by strategy. Strategy determines which tactics might work.
But what's the point of a strategy if your goals aren't clear, or contradict?
Which leads the first two, the two we almost never hear about.
Approach determines how you look at the project (or your career). Do you read a lot of books? Ask a lot of questions? Use science and testing or go with your hunches? Are you imperious? A lifehacker? When was the last time you admitted an error and made a dramatic course correction? Most everyone has a style, and if you pick the wrong one, then all the strategy, tactics and execution in the world won't work nearly as well.
As far as I'm concerned, the most important of all, the top of the hierarchy is attitude. Why are you doing this at all? What's your bias in dealing with people and problems?
Some more questions:
- How do you deal with failure?
- When will you quit?
- How do you treat competitors?
- What personality are you looking for in the people you hire?
- What's it like to work for you? Why? Is that a deliberate choice?
- What sort of decisions do you make when no one is looking?
Sure, you can start at the bottom by focusing on execution and credentials. Reading a typical blog (or going to a typical school for 16 years), it seems like that's what you're supposed to do. What a waste.
Isn't it odd that these six questions are so important and yet we almost never talk or write about them?
If the top of the hierarchy is messed up, no amount of brilliant tactics or execution is going to help you at all.
Technorati Links • Save to del.icio.us (286 saves, tagged: strategy sethgodin success) • Digg This! (35 Diggs, 6 comments) • Email this • Stumble It! (3 Reviews) • Subscribe to this feed • Share on Facebook • Twit This!
Posted by Seth Godin on September 14, 2009 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b31569e20120a5298903970cListed below are links to weblogs that reference The hierarchy of success:
» Downsizing is no longer optional from The Hound Dog Blog
This includes, but is not limited to: people, things, pictures, papers, mementos, etc. I don't want to sound like a Feng Shui because a) I don't know much about it and b) it is true that my bed does, in fact, point towards the door. (Feng Shui insists,... [Read More]Tracked on September 14, 2009 at 08:04 AM
» Six Steps to Content Marketing Execution Success from Junta42 blog
Just finished this last post on content strategy before content marketing, then saw this perfect post from Seth Godin. It really puts what we are trying to accomplish with content marketing in perspective. Seth maps out six specific steps when... [Read More]Tracked on September 14, 2009 at 08:46 AM
» The hierarchy of success from metacool
Seth Godin has written a really important post: The hierarchy of success When it comes to the art and science of bringing cool stuff to life, this point is especially important: As far as I'm concerned, the most important of... [Read More]Tracked on September 14, 2009 at 05:18 PM
» Business Strategy and Corporate Governance for Small Business from Doug Wagner @ Sunwapta
Corporate structure goes something like this: Shareholders - The owners of the business or enterprise Board of Directors - The elected representatives of the shareholders whose function is twofold: provide strategic guidance to the corporate officers (... [Read More]Tracked on September 15, 2009 at 03:42 PM
» 3 Key Content Pieces for Starting an Online Business from Writing on the Web from Patsi Krakoff, The Blog Squad
I've been talking to my retired friends Lucy and Tom who asked me how they could supplement their income by starting "a little online business." My advice was a little counter-intuitive, because I said to just start blogging! Before even... [Read More]Tracked on September 16, 2009 at 08:12 AM
« The end of dumb software | Blog Home | The problem with non »
Continuing my love affair with Seth Godin in 2009, I thought this post on his blog was worth a note.
I can honestly say that in my recently estranged job, at least they made it to goals and strategies.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Official Google Australia Blog: Google for the Public Sector lands in Oz
I can only imagine a time when this will be ubiquitous and reaches usefulness in Defence
Sunday, September 13, 2009
10 Ugly truths about modern journalism :: 10,000 Words
10 Ugly truths about modern journalism
Friday, September 11, 2009
1. The stories that are published are the stories that sell
The reason you're more likely to read about a shooting spree than a library opening is because with dwindling resources, broadcasters and print publications must devote their time to stories that will grab the most attention. Hyperlocal sites like EveryBlock have stepped up to fill the void, but the phrase "if it bleeds, it leads" has never been truer.
2. Many stories are not copy edited
In the age of layoffs and buyouts, many of the first people to go in the newsroom are the copy editors, the people ensure that published stories are accurate and well-written. Without copy editors, many stories, especially those that appear online, are being published without first being checked for spelling and grammar. These errors are becoming even more frequent and are a mark of credibility against the news outlet.
3. Many stories come from wire services
Years ago, newspapers were brimming with stories written by staff reporters about national and international issues. As these reporters are being downsized, more of the national stories that appear in the local paper are written by wire services like Reuters and the Associated Press, meaning a lack of diverse voices covering any given issue.
4. Some journalists are driven by awards
The great majority of journalists gravitate to the profession to spread the news to as many people as possible and enlighten the communities they cover. There are also some journalists who write stories not for readers, but with the intent of winning big name awards like Pulitzers and Emmys. Though they may not openly admit it, some stories are written to gain the adoration of other journalists rather than to empower readers.
5. Journalists are biased
There is no such thing as unbiased...it is humanly impossible. While journalists often strive to make sure their stories are as unbiased as possible, many cover particular subjects or issues because they feel particularly strong about them.
6. Some journalists use Wikipedia
Although the use of Wikipedia is frowned upon in many newsrooms because of its perceived unreliability, many reporters do use the wiki as a source and unverified facts that appear on the site sometimes make their way into news stories. Such was the case with the obituary of French composer Maurice Jarre. Many newspapers published a quote found on his Wikipedia page that was never uttered by Jarre himself, but was added to the page by a then 22-year-old university student.
7. There is no big conspiracy
Not so much an ugly truth, but a truth some refuse to accept. There are a growing number of critics who decry the media for collectively and intentionally pushing either the liberal or conservative agenda (which agenda depends on who you ask). The truth is such a coordinated effort does not exist and most publications are made up of individual journalists with a wide of variety of interests and (you guessed it) political leanings.
8. Many journalists have side projects
In the golden age of journalism, reporters could dedicate themselves exclusively to their work in the newsroom when there was no fear of being sudden layoffs. But when a pink slip could come at a moment's notice and paychecks are becoming increasingly smaller, many more journalists are writing books, creating blogs, consulting, and anything that can build their personal brand or bring in a few extra dollars.
9. Entertainment stories rule
When journalists lament the "death" of journalism, they are often referring to the big investigative pieces that expose politicians and bring to light previously uncovered issues. The reality is, the most popular stories on news sites are often not investigative pieces, but entertainment stories and celebrity news. Paris Hilton can often drive more traffic than the president.
10. No one has the answers
Everyone is looking for the savior of journalism and the solution to the industry's problems. Social networking, paywalls, restructuring and micropayments have all been suggested as the key to saving journalism, but anyone who says they have a definite answer is delusional or misinformed. Together we will try to do everything to ensure journalism's future, but what exactly that magic solution is remains to be seen.
Also on 10,000 Words:• 10 Reasons why online news sites suck
• 10 Things I wish they'd told me in J-School
• 25 Things I've Learned About JournalismLabels: news on the news
10 Comments
David Gerard Says:
Heh. I do volunteer press for Wikipedia in the UK. I speak to lots of journalists and journalists' researchers - most of whom, by the way, are entirely decent people who do their best - and I don't think I've spoken to one in the past four years who *doesn't* use Wikipedia as their handy universal backgrounder.Of course, one definition of journalism is turning useful-but-unreliable sources into quality ones. So they have the mental equipment to deal with Wikipedia entirely properly, and when they get lazy it's presumed they were big boys and should have known better :-)
Wikipedia is not "reliable" - it's just written by people - but it's useful. Just check the references!
kungle Says:
Hi,
I think your opinion is influenced by actual economic, social and political problems.Try to find publisher from different countries - you will always find interesting news.
I'm using the news aggregator kungle.de to follow many thousands of headlines daily.
Currently there are many news about the beginning football season (of course), but have your heard about the protest against dolphin slaughter in Taij (Japan Times)?There a more interesting news on the web than you can imagine.
And a small amendment: Political stories rule, followed by economy and boulevard news. Take a look at the stats on that page.
The idea that journalists aren't unbiased seems to come up a lot on this site. The problem is this is thrown around in the media and online to try to back up the claim that there's no real difference between journalists and bloggers (or TV pundits). The difference is that journalism is a profession, and professional journalists have a set of mental tools they use to try to strip bias out of their stories, plus a team of editors to catch what they may have missed. It's a skill, and one that bloggers and TV blowhards don't have and don't wish to learn. That's fine, as long as readers and viewers know there is a difference.7. There is no big conspiracy.Really? Check out Dec 24, 2007 COVER STORY of Time magazine.
Topic - Discuss the Republican candidates speaking at the debates and running for President.
They only discussed 5 when there where 6. They literally took photoshop and cut the 6th person OUT.
If it isn't a conspiracy the only other choice is sheer incompetence and bias.
Thanks to the fact many people don't have internet we have the worthless president we have today.
Hope..Change...sheesh.
Only thing that changed was the name on the desk.
Hello from the planet of ski-jumping & wife-carrying championships, so please do forgive me my poor English skills.Nr 5 is actually called 'specializing' = more in-depth journalism
Nr 8 is also called enthusiasm,curiosity, networking & digging deeper.
Nr 9 Entertainment = also a well-
written story about gardening or birding, for the specific target group. Also: most 'entertainment' stories are written with the highest journalistic standards & with the same, or even tighter, journalism ethics than the 'serious' stories.Nr 1 = what reader wants = a successful mag = biz. Concepts & target groups vary but the purpose for businesses and most publishers is to make profit. It doesn't mean bad journalism. It means quality. It means readers get what they want and that they also want to buy the next issue. The publisher makes money, but it needs professionals to reach that goal.
Regards, a publisher who hires only professionals who don't need awards to be great
You have a heuristic argument: "There is no conspiracy because media organizations have journalists that can thinking on their own."Like any rule of thumb, it may be right in some contexts and wrong in others.
You seem to suggest that conspiracies that aren't covered by the media don't exist. Perhaps some which weren't covered by the media are eventually covered by the media, while some aren't.
You don't do much research on this topic, do you? If you look, there are many books on this topic. Try Into the Buzzsaw. Here are two Web resources that make the
Exhibit A:
Iran-Contra's 'Lost Chapter' By Robert Parry (A Special Report) June 30, 2008 -
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/062908.html
(It covered up the CIA-run Republican propaganda system that pays media entities to spread propaganda. News Corp. and UPI are among those paid.)Exhibit B:
The CIA and the Media: How Americas Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up
http://carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php
(At that point 400 CIA agents had infiltrated the media, sometimes with the cooperation of upper-level management.)Remember: You didn't hear about this from the mainstream media.
Check out Sibel Edmonds to see how even the sale of nuclear secrets by members of Congress is not being reported widely.
Add Your Comment
No TweetBacks yet.
via 10000words.net
Nothing new here but a nice summary
Is Australia losing it's religion?
To play mp3s in your browser, you will need to have Javascript turned on and have Flash Player 9 or better installed.
A interesting exploration for theist and non-theist alike (via http://twitter.com/misssandy)
Friday, September 11, 2009
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
And who should appear
Yesterday I posted on the discussion and today as I am catching up on my RSS feeds (in my breaks), Dave Snowden provides the necessary expansion. In my argument, I represented that as human's are natural, they can not violate nature. I think that the introduction of Niche Construction might better represent the point of the argument, showing that there are differences between the knocking down of a tree to dam a brook and mass irrigation depriving the Murray mouth of fresh water. Or am I missing something?
The nature of things
By means of a debut post via posterous and through all of the automation that follows I thought I would paraphrase a vigorous debate held at work this morning over coffee.
Essentially, my colleague and I disagreed over whether Human action is natural. His point, as I understood it was that man manipulates the environment so significantly and severely that it ceases to be natural. I on the other hand argue that man's actions can not violate nature as they are just another modulator in the system.
I am certain that many of my colleague's arguments are used to beat the drums of despair about the destruction and offence (although his words were rape and pillage) of Mother Nature. To this I can not deny that much of the procession of human history has been in ignorance, oblivion and arrogance to its impact on the biosphere, but this is not a reason for the actions to be considered un-natural nor beyond the biosphere to deal with (albeit not to humankind's liking). I will not entice Sandy into another debate about the validity of Climate Change...
More than hearing opinions on the debate, I wouldn't mind the odd link to some links to some expert debate on such thinking/musings
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Guest Post From Wal:
Wal is a colleague of mine that offered this criticism of the workshops that he assisted facillitating:
My main concern with the model creation was that the end result didn't leave me with an action plan that would solve the participants problems. The information used came from anyone within the organisation, which is what you are after. However, the problem I had with it was that each comment was placed straight onto the model and then allotted a position within one of the four sectors. These comments were not agreed upon by consensus or catalogued as the same point with other comments. They were looked at individually, allocated a sector then the group moved onto the next comment. Furthermore, if you have more than one group working on the same comments, each comment can be placed under any sector dependant on the groups thoughts. So it is possible you could end up with same comment under all four sectors, what does that prove??? If this did occur I would almost guarantee during the action planning phase all the groups would still come out with the near / same solution even though they were in different sectors. I say this because most participants in these form of workshops are not keen to be there, thus they will take the easy path out to get to the final result. Hence, even though the comments have been sorted into their respective sector the participants will not truly acknowledge that sector's title in problem solving, rather than they will concentrate on the comment itself and ignore that it is a complicated or simple problem.(NB: Comments in this instance were the SMI's [frustrations and improvements] captured over a number of weeks)
Because the comments can emerge in any domain, I feel that the process doesn't allow for looking at the problems holistically. Each comment is looked at individually then allocated a sector, move on to the next problem. Because the comments are in no particular order, commonality between points or the holistic problem can be missed, especially if the group is not excited about being there. During the action planning they may be able to fix up a symptom but miss the real problem.
Duplication is also a problem. Because each group is working within their own table, they do not know what is happening on other tables. A situation could transpire where four groups are working on the same problem, yet come out with either four different solutions or all the same, either result doesn't seem to be an efficient method or use of participants time.
My last concern is again knowing your customer. As I have mentioned before many of these workshops have people who don't won't to be there but are volunteered. There attitude is not there so when the process is told to them and it is slightly confusing they shut down even more. When I saw this process done the facilitator explained it very well due to his thorough understanding of the process and theory behind it, but the group did not have the same comprehension of the facilitator. So even though it was well explained he still had to go through each separate table to explain again the process. Still further he was explaining the process whilst the table were doing it as they were still getting it wrong. From an observers point of view it was confusing for the group because they are not use to these types of processes and were not putting too much mind space into the tasks. Of course this is a problem with many workshops.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
