I won’t go into details here.

The purpose of this post is to reflect on the wonderful world of writing instruments – in this case a pencil crafted as a functional piece of art: the [...]]]> It’s been a while since my last post, and it seems that so much has occurred since just on a month ago.

I won’t go into details here.

The purpose of this post is to reflect on the wonderful world of writing instruments – in this case a pencil crafted as a functional piece of art: the Pelikan Souverän pencil.

Though I really enjoy using a (fountain) pen, it is only on rare occasions that I actually need such: basically on the occasions when some document or other needs to be signed. A pencil, on the other hand, is something I use everyday to annotate reading, make separate notes, or simply jot down points I wish to later follow up on.

The MontBlanc equivalent is certainly really nice (and more expensive). The Pelikan, however, is simply exquisitely beautiful.

Rudolf Steiner, in his writings on the social order, talked of its inherent threefold nature, each having [...]]]> It may perhaps seem obvious from some of my posts that I tend more towards a libertarian approach to politics. Yet, I will suggest, this appearance is based more on the current ‘labels’ available. So where do I stand?

Rudolf Steiner, in his writings on the social order, talked of its inherent threefold nature, each having a different modus operandi. So what are those three areas? They are the:

• spiritual-artistic-educational sphere;
• judicial-political realm; and
• economic-farming-manufactoring-distributive plane.

Each of these areas works in different ways. Part of the downfall of the social order occurs when one area permeates the other two, and seeks to impose its own way of best doing things in sectors that can only be harmed by such. One of these current occurrences is the manner in which the economic plane is permeating the judicial-political realm, and how the latter is insinuating itself in the educational-artistic sphere – to the detriment of all.

Using the three-fold ways in which humans co-engage, which has, for some time now, been all too closely tied to the French state in its revolutionary forms, there are distinct differences between the comradeship of fraternity, the need for individual liberty, and the valuing of each in equality. Let’s connect these to the three areas of the social order:

• spiritual-artistic-educational sphere: freedom
• judicial-political realm: equality
• economic-farming-manufactoring-distributive plane: comradeship

In a nutshell, then, the above forms the basis of how I strive to engage, which leaves me, often, at odds with those who may more easily wear existing labels.

Of high merit are the links to the right under the ‘Socio-political’ category of which, I should add, New Matilda is struggling financially… so do consider making a donation if able and that way inclined:

Rubin Reports predominantly reflects the rather incredibly poor and biased world media against Israel, and that media’s tendency to either dig its head in the sand or seemingly want to manipulate against the very existence of the one country in the region in which the political structure is not overshadowed by bigotry!

The Daily Bell does something similar to Rubin Reports without the focus on Israel, but rather world trends. In addition, it also provides regular financial analysis and trends.

Let me quickly first outline the nature of the network, as it’s very likely that the types of issues I encountered would not manifest in a different [...]]]> About three weeks ago, I decided to upgrade our server from OS-X 10.5 to 10.6. The Apple installation disks were 10.6.3, though the latest update was by then 10.6.4.

Let me quickly first outline the nature of the network, as it’s very likely that the types of issues I encountered would not manifest in a different setting. The room can be described as an island network: ie, the 30 client machines therein are the only ones accessing the server, and the server does not act as a webserver. All clients run 10.5 (except for one with 10.6, which will eventually be used to clone all others to 10.6) and are connected with ethernet cabling through 3 1GB switch-hubs. The ADSL modem also acts as DHCP, though all the clients (and server) have been allocated a manual address.

Note should also be made that the network worked, on the whole, very effectively (apart from the slow ADSL account, and another problem with the latest update to Safari to which I shall return).

NO AppleTalk!!!!

Another aspect of this network is that there is an older (errr… some would call it a dinosaur) model Lexmark laserprinter networked therein.

An IMPORTANT note should really be made that 10.6 is, in many important ways, quite unlike 10.5 and earlier. The main claim from Apple is that it only works on Intel-based machines, and is thus ‘leaner’ – though that’s undoubtedly true, as a user, I also wish they had written in bold headline that 10.6 DOES NOT SUPPORT APPLETALK! This may seem minor, but it took me quite some time to be able to get my MacBook Pro to be able to again talk to various printers, and I know other people who had similar problems. Basically, printers and the like now need to be accessed via IPP (unless the printer can be accessed with Bonjour – which thankfully most recent ones can), which also means, with older printers, finding out how to alter the IP settings on the printer (in some cases, a waste of a few hours of fiddling).

Server Upgrade

But let’s return to the Server upgrade.

I of course did not do a backup… though I did have a backup from a few days earlier in a worst case scenario situation. For now, however, let’s just say that I had no effective backup.

Running the installer appeared faultless, and even updated to Server 10.6.4 without a seeming hitch.

But now, NONE of the 200+ users were able to login from the client machines.

The Log-in is really a two-step process: the Server acts as LDAP database with username and password for the user to access the machine (except for the single local admin user); and the Server also acts as location for users’ directories (folders and files).

With 14/20 hindsight, it appears that the LDAP was working fine, but that the real issue came with incorrect directory permissions. But that’s with 14/20 hindsight – and I do not even claim 20/20 hindsight as there are other small issues that may indicate that the problem was a little more than this.

To also quickly skip through many other considerations I took into account in seeking to isolate the problem(s) with may have been more general problems on the network, I switched off all except one client computer, replaced cables, used only one switch, restarted Server and all machines, etc. From all that can be surmised and as was eventually the case, these steps were unnecessary, as the network itself proved faultless (still, they are steps that one needs to take, I suppose, even if they prove a waste of time).

Reverse Mapping

Part of the problem was that the reverse mapping was not correctly set – something that 10.5 never properly created, but also something that 10.6 requires. So this I did manually. After trying various other tweekings here and there (and I’m reasonably ok with OD networks), I eventually called support which, given the nature of the problem, transferred me to a very helpful specialist based in the USA. Much of the same procedures as I had already undertaken were repeated (which only confirmed that I had at least been on the right track). We then took the more severe steps of destroying the Open Directory and recreating it (a list of users and groups had previously been exported to another location, to avoid having to re-enter each name).

Everything appeared fine as I was able to login as a ‘test’ user, thanked him, hung up… and the problem recurred, without even that same user able to log in again after logging out!

At that stage, I thought it possible that some invisible and corrupted database file was causing havoc, so I decided to take a rather radical step: after re-exporting all user documents to another drive, I ZEROed the server, and re-installed OS-X 10.6.3 Server afresh, and created a couple of NEW users totally afresh as well (in case the problem was in the user database). Checking reverse settings with Terminal, it also appeared that all was fine.

Forwarder IP Addresses

Information from the server installation also gave me one new suggestion: that the DHCP point to the server’s address, and that I did, as well as setting Forwarder IP addresses to the ISP’s DNS. That I also checked, and they appear to the left in the lower panel.

I want to return to this image in a while, for there’s something else that appears different here…. but more on that in a while.

Quite frankly, by that stage, and after two weeks of fiddling around with settings that are really, for those amongst us that tend to work with servers often enough, relatively straightforward, I accepted defeat. Either there was a bug in the server software, the installation disks, or something else entirely. I decided to call a local person who also runs OS-X Server courses… and lucky I had not called him a week earlier, for he mentioned that only a few days earlier he had encountered a somewhat similar problem which was fixed by the REVERSE MAPPING BEING RECREATED USING NAMES THAT DO NOT MIMIC THE COMPUTER NAME.

Anyway, I thought that I’d spent too much time on the thing, and contracted him to come and assist.

(If in the Melbourne area, I highly recommend him: Richard Gynes at www.designwyse.com.au)

Installing afresh for the third time

Turns out that the problem was not as obvious as it appears… we had ongoing problems so decided to AGAIN wipe the Server, and re-install afresh.

JUST in case part of the problem was caused by my installation disks, or installation 10.6.3, we used his 10.6.2 disks (which we later updated once installation was complete). As per the previous times, we also installed everything manually, and even used Apple exampled network names (as is evident with the reverse mapping info above).

Next was CREATING a NEW main zone and new machine name to reverse map, for the existing one cannot be deleted until a new one is created (ie, it always needs to actually have one). Having done all this, next step was to delete the self-made zone, and rename the ones created to be as previously shown ones above.

Terminal checks showed that all appeared (again) fine.

The ONLY differences between all that we had done previously and this time are: firstly, the zone/machine reverse mapping were fully manually entered; and secondly, and inexplicably as to why it was missing the other times, ‘Localzones’ appeared in the ‘recursive queries’ in the DNS settings info box (as in image above left).

We also reset the LDAP on the Client test machine to see the now newly named network (this, incidentally, had also been done each time before).

Now for testing it with a test account… and same thing, again, though with obvious delay differences, and also differences in that it was obvious (from the delay in login) that the LDAP DB was being correctly read, but that the user, whose directory was on the server, was unable to be accessed.

It should also be mentioned that from the AFP, Home directory locations had been specified, and user accounts appears to have been properly created. Users were imported (as were groups), passwords had to of course be reset.

In comes Passenger to the rescue

Using Passenger, the directories were re-configured so that permissions reflected users…

after that, all worked. What I still don’t get is why things had not operated the way they ought to in the first place.

A rather painful and still confusing process as to why things had not worked in the first place.

Firstly, we are a Federated Commonwealth of States. In some ways, this is somewhat akin [...]]]> Given the 2010 Federal election results (still pending), I’ve received (from both local and o/s) queries about how our Australian system of government works, so I thought I’d try and give a very brief overview, with inevitable small ‘errors of exception’.

Firstly, we are a Federated Commonwealth of States. In some ways, this is somewhat akin (though with vast differences) to, for example, the USA, in which numerous responsibilities remain the prerogative of individual States, rather than the Federal or national parliament.

The national parliament consists of two houses:

• the Senate, which effectively represents the member States, and hence each State has an equal number of electors (12 each + 2 for each of the two territories which do not have ‘state’ status); and
• the house of Representatives, which numbers 150, each representing their respective electorates of approximately equal number of citizens (hence the reason for electoral boundary alterations as population numbers change over time ).

Senate (Upper House)

The voting system for the Senate stems from a modification of proportional representation, but within each State. As each State has vastly different numbers of residents, smaller states are more heavily represented (ie, Tasmania, having approximately only one tenth of the population of NSW, still has the same number of Senators: 12).

Representatives (Lower House)

The Government, however, is selected from the lower house. In theory, any person or small group of individuals who has the support of more than 50% (ie, 76 seats or more) could form government. In practice, only the major political parties are likely to gain that kind of support. In a hung parliament such as we currently have, with both the LNP (Libs+Nats) & LAB (Labor) having less than 74 seats, the remaining elected representatives will need to indicate which side they intend supporting in order for either to be able to form an effective executive, or, as we generally call it, Government.

Once this executive is nominated, individuals gaining ministerial portfolios need not be from the lower house (Representatives), but have in the past been from a combination of upper (Senate) and lower (Representative) houses, and neither need they be from the major parties (hence the Libs often allocate some ministerial cabinet position to a member of a smaller party within their coalition).

Executive Government or Cabinet

Now also gets the other ‘tricky’ bit: the responsibility of deciding on who will in fact form the executive, ie, effectively form government, rests not on either the elected Representatives nor on the elected Senate, but rather on the government-appointed Governor-General [GG]. In the past, this has not proved a problem as convention dictates that the GG will follow the obvious choice of appointing the leader of whichever party has gained at least 76 seats.

Hence the reason for why the four independent candidates are discussing various options with the two major parties, in the latter’s respective hope that they will gain the support of a sufficient number of independents and thus become able to form government… but

…now comes the very tricky situation we face, and that the GG herself faces:

• Firstly, our current GG was not only appointed by the Labor party, but her daughter is married to a Labor MP [member of Parliament]. Though her independence and professionalism will undoubtedly be maintained, it is also inevitable that whichever side she ‘favours’ will be in part seen or portrayed in light of this (whether as an influence for, or against, the choice made);
• Secondly, though the tally for 2PP (two-party-preferred) votes in the house of Representatives is not yet complete, it appears likely that the final figures will be quite close to where they now stand: just over (less than half a percentage point) 50% towards LAB, and hence just under 50% towards LNP; BUT
• Thirdly, and again though the tally is not complete, with a far greater preference of primary votes towards LNP (44%) than towards LAB (37%); as well as
• Fourthly, a greater number of seats likely won by LNP (73) than LAB (72) – of these, one of the LNP is of an ‘independent’ National Party seat, and another seat, currently considered a LAB seat, is in fact way too close to even now definitely call;
• Fifthly, the upper (Senate) house will continue to have a higher LNP number of senators… only until next July, after which some senator changes will take effect. This is due to the fact that Senate positions change at a specified time, rather than at election time. In effect, this means that whoever forms government will need to effectively deal, for part of its time in office, with a Senate that is at odds with the lower (Representative) house.

So, in a nutshell, this remains our situation…

please do make a comment in case I’ve overlooked something that really should be included. I’ve tried and avoid political orientation in this post for the sake of explaining the situation, rather than commenting on my own preferences (which should be obvious from other posts I’ve made).

Each is of course free to decide how best to choose. After all, that is the nature of an independent candidate.

One of the factors (and possibly a factor above all [...]]]> The four elected independents are being wooed by the two major parties for their support in forming government… so how should they decide whom to support?

Each is of course free to decide how best to choose. After all, that is the nature of an independent candidate.

One of the factors (and possibly a factor above all else (other things being – more or less – equal)) is, in my personal view, the will of their own local electorates: assuming the independent not been elected, how would the votes have been distributed? Whichever party, I suggest, would otherwise locally win is also the party that the independent had best support (unless other rather significant mitigating circumstances dictates otherwise).

[There's also an online petition against the proposed building]

Like many other Australians, I stayed up last night watching the election counting result on the ABC. Like numerous other Australians, I was relieved to see the loss of so many seats previously held by the Labor Party. I write ‘relieved’ for the very reasons I outlined in a [...]]]> Date: Sunday, morning after 2010 Federal elections.

Like many other Australians, I stayed up last night watching the election counting result on the ABC. Like numerous other Australians, I was relieved to see the loss of so many seats previously held by the Labor Party. I write ‘relieved’ for the very reasons I outlined in a post I wrote a couple of weeks ago as to why I would not be voting Labor this election (Cf ‘Why I shall NOT be voting Labor this month‘).

So now, we are faced with a hung parliament. Unlike some, this is something I am personally not worried about as long as each and every elected individual strives to act in the interest of the Australian public – which may very well be somewhat different to the ‘National interest’ as perceived by various international affiliations.

So what would I like to see result and develop out of the current situation?

First and foremost, that decisions are made that work towards ensuring freedom to each and every Australian. There has been a progressive trend over the past thirty years (since 1983) to diminish individual freedoms and autonomy. Though this has mainly occurred under Labor governments, the previous Liberal government not only entrenched some of the Labor policies, but also introduced new measures under the supposed claims of ‘security’. Case in point: airport abuse of passengers.

It was J.G. Bennett, in his four volume The Dramatic Universe, who wrote that ‘security can only ever be achieved at the cost of freedom’, with the implication that this is not, of course, a desirable direction: rather, freedom has to continue to be viewed and considered as amongst the highest of ideals that underpins other important considerations such as justice, opportunity, and equitability.

So what are the specific changes in direction from the previous government that I am personally hoping to see?

On education, a move forward to enabling a diverse educational landscape, and providing opportunities for those who may not be able to really afford a genuine choice to so have that possibility. Foremost is the need to do away with the proposal of a so-called ‘National Curriculum’: such (first mooted under the Howard Liberal government and taken to extremes under Labor) is totally antithetical to the various philosophical underpinnings that permits the ongoing development of a broad range of pedagogical unfoldments. Under a so-called National Curriculum, the many positive alternatives that Australia has already taken up are simply no longer genuinely possible – or become so watered down as to only become ‘alternatives’ in name only, not substance. For example, not only would the vast and positive contributions that have been made by different States moving in different directions be nullified, but so would the many impulses to education be diminished (and would never have been able to even take place had the current trend been in place): genuine Steiner, Montessori, and a host of other, perhaps far lesser known alternatives, would cease to exist in their own right. Something like the International Baccalaureate would not even have been able to arise – or at least not in its infancy, and thus the specifically Australian situation would not have able to inform its progressive emergence.

With regards to the internet, I’m amongst the first to bemoan the relative slowness of not only the speeds to which we have access, but importantly also the proportionally very high prices we pay relative many EU and North American countries. Still, to roll out fibre-optics to each home is living beyond one’s means. I do not have ADSL2+ at home not because it remains unavailable, but because of its prohibitive price. Having fibre optics to my home, at the current price I pay for a relatively poor ADSL 512 connection would of course be nice, but I also know it’s economically unsound – and that on two counts: the first is that it places the next two generations having to repay the outlay, without them necessarily reaping the benefits (there are various technologies in development for ultra-fast connections); the second is that unless a within-Australian-borders ultra-high speed is supplemented by (even more expensive) ultra-high band-width reaching the rest of the world, the only ultra-high connections will be for sites remaining within the Australian continent – and let’s face it, most (even Australian sites) are hosted overseas.

This does not mean that infrastructure work should not be undertaken: of course it should, and a solid ‘backbone’ of fibre-optics should be slowly and progressively rolled out. On this the Liberals had, I must admit, what appears to be a far more sensible option.

Another point with regards to the internet is the last government’s proposed secretive filter. I totally fail to understand what motivated Labor to seek to implement such retrogressive legislation. It is obvious that not only would this not actually stop organised crime or the dissemination of materials that remains undesirable (as well as illegal and against human decency), but would bring into place the same kind of filter that has seen, in other nations in which this is in place, blocking of sites that are deemed ‘against the national interest’. Would, for example, a site highly critical of a future government be ‘blocked’ if deemed against the ‘national interest’?!? Unfortunately, this can be far more likely than most of us would prefer to even consider – yet the events of 11th September 2001 should remind us that we collectively too readily accepted diminishment of personal autonomy and freedom, and that the backward steps taken at that time are still in place and have, it seems, only been further entrenched over the past three years.

A third point, and one rather more difficult to articulate, is the autonomy of States. Unless we keep in mind that we are a Federation of States, we shall progressively slide ever more to greater and greater centralised government. This is in large part what not only the Labor government has already done (and I certainly do NOT call this ‘moving forward’), but similar steps were also taken by the Howard Liberal government (admittedly first used by the Hawke-Keating Labor govnmnts) by finding loopholes in the constitution and using the false call of ‘transparency and accountability’ to introduce so-called ‘benchmarks’ into areas that have naught to do with the Federal government. Instead, the Federal Government’s task needs to continue to be to certainly collect taxes, but then to also re-distribute these so that services are provided at State and local levels.

On another point, given the election likely outcome – hung parliament with the balance of power in the hands of a few, and in the Senate a relatively large number of Green party members – we should remind ourselves that we do NOT elect a centralised government, but rather a local representative. I have already heard, in the last 24 hours, all too many times a call for ‘proportional representation’. This assumes an entirely different political landscape: it forces a government that is not formed from local representatives, but rather from political parties. Certainly changing the voting to proportional representation would add the number of Green (and Democrat, for that matter) representatives in both houses, but that would really take Australia backwards in terms of how our democracy works. In a small country such as Liechtenstein, proportional representation may indeed be the best form of democratic representation, but it certainly is not when considering the great vastness of Australia and its diversity!

Then there are also climate change issues (which, in any case, are all too closely connected to population growth, which only few people, such as Suzuki, are willing to admit). What I’d like to see here is definitely not added taxes (i.e., no ‘carbon trading scheme’ – with all the additional bureaucratic levels this would add) nor cappings (however useful these may be), but rather the far more effective positive encouragement (and financial rebates) for broader usage of solar panels – subsidies to which the Labor government prematurely stopped! – double glazing, water tanks, added insulation, and other energy efficiency measures. There’s no doubt that the rapid rate of change as well as technological and engineering developments in this area are occurring more quickly than many perhaps even imagine: let’s further encourage this by providing support to those amongst us who wish to transform our own homes and workplaces. Another step which may significantly assist this (though this is a State, not a Federal, decision) would be for taxes and ‘duties’ (stamp duty and other associated costs) to be proportionately lowered according to the amount spent on rendering a house more energy efficient prior to, or within a specified time, of sale.

Finally, it’s good to see that move is afoot to recognise the legitimacy of marriage following the intimacy that may develop between any two adults, irrespective of gender. Whilst acknowledging that churches may wish to restrict marriage ceremonies to their members, with or without conditions (such as gender), marriage itself is not something that a government should stipulate according to gender. To also be clear on this, and as may be rather obvious from various sections of my site, I am not only (Judeo-)Christian, but also heterosexual and happily married. To seek to present Judaism or Christianity as somehow being against homosexual marriages is to present the views of the egregore (or shadow) of various church bodies, rather than religion. My hope is that each elected representative will, when the time comes, vote according to his or her conscience on this matter (which, I suspect, will be up for parliamentary vote within two years).

…oh! and I haven’t talked about ‘border protection’ and immigration. There are many points therein that are rather difficult. First and foremost it should be apparent that the world is already over-populated. Apart from other factors, the main reason behind the over-fishing of our oceans, GMO developments in farming (to which I remain totally opposed), and water shortages in all too many parts of the world, should alert us to this. In the 1980s, Suzuki was already talking about this problem. Being politically charged, however, it seems to simply not make it in public discussion any longer. First and foremost, then, what I would like to see is a reduction in population. What this effectively means includes, indeed, a reduced immigration intake. This does not mean that people who are escaping impossible situations in other parts of the world should be further inhumanely treated. Nor does it mean, on the other hand, that the image projected across the world is that here – Australia – is where people may easily illegally get to. I’m frankly unsure as to how best balance these two apparently opposite impulses.

At the national level, one of the other major personal concerns I have (and I make no apology for that, on the contrary, it needs to be spoken more clearly), is the rise of islam in the western world (including our country) over the past decades. Islam, like other political streams (such as Nazism and Communism) that seek to work against the impulse to freedom, needs to be openly challenged, for it is a force that undermines all too many aspects of the freedoms our forebears have fought hard to either win or maintain!

…well, that’s it for now… though I’m sure I’ve missed much I’ll no doubt be discussing with various people at a local level!