The interwebbers are abuzz over an article titled “The Autumn of Multitaskers“, a wandering study and story of multitasking and its many and varied pitfalls, chief among which is the argument that multitasking is a productivity illusion. It allows you to look busy, but really you end up doing both things half-arsed. Bloggers of the world nod along in agreement, hailing it as a revelation while reading it on their iPhones, listening to the latest Arctic Monkeys on the commute in to work (while another tab loads up in the background).

The main point made in the article is that multitasking requires the brain to chop and change between tasks frequently, forcing it to move from a deep-involvement to shallow-involvement, and the penalty of multitasking is a drain on productivity, reportedly costing $650 billion a year in America in lost value

For the most part, I would agree with the point of the article, but there are two things that I would take to task about this.

The first is that this is somehow news. Breaking: doing many things at the same time means not everything is done perfectly! The author’s primary example is when he used a phone in his car, and nearly ended up killing himself. Can you say ‘duh’? Other examples are cited, though some, such as Enron’s ability to appear to be a successful trading company while really being a shonky outfit, is dubiously connected to multitasking.

The ‘revelation’ part of this article should be the part of the scientific study that suggests the hormonal shift of chemicals could be damaging in the longer run (it shouldn’t surprise that hormones shift), and the effect this particularly has on kids. Little column inches are dedicated to this, though to be fair it would make for dry reading.

The second is the excuse that the metaphor of brain-as-computer is somehow part of the cause of multitasking, as though computer multitasking has translated into expectations of human multitasking. This is part of the point that many are picking up on around the net, suggesting that somewhere we went overboard with the ability of computers to multitask, and that’s now harming us.

The reality is, as any credible 3rd year computer science student should be able to tell you, computers don’t multitask any better than we do. Until the recent popularisation of dual-core and multi-CPU machines, computers by and large had one CPU, one ‘brain’. Multitasking was an illusion provided by the operating system, where it did exactly what our brains do - puts down the current bit of work, picks up the next bit of work, and works on it, the loop repeating ad infinitum.

The metaphor of brain-as-CPU is a poor one because we can’t do the mathematical calculations as quickly. However, it is an appropriate one when it comes to multitasking, because computers do exactly the same thing. (One might suggest something about ‘in our own image’, if one was so inclined.) The argument that somehow we model our concept and use of our own brains through the metaphors of things we have made (with our brains), and thus computers are to blame for the multitasking world we find ourselves in is a fallacy, if simply because it is a tautology - we think our brains work as computers because we modelled computers on our brains.

Some in the blogging world have taken this as a revelation, and the enlightenment suggests why people maximise program windows (to see more? no, to focus more, obviously!), and the success of the full-screen writing apps recently. I would contend that you’re conflating one issue (multitasking vs single task focus) with other issues entirely (reduction of distraction temptations, more screen real estate). Computers have not foisted multitasking upon humanity, they have merely enabled it to run away from our limited abilities to keep up.

I do not argue that multitasking does not reduce competence, but I do argue with the attempt to blame it on our devices. We’re at fault, and our devices are enablers. We’ve worked out how to put multiple brains in computers to improve multitasking, but we’ve yet to get to that point in humans - until then, multitasking remains a high-investment low-return activity.

Lies, damn lies, and cold hard evidence: The Australian Federal Police had a plan to keep Haneef locked up all along.

To quote:

The Australian Federal Police have admitted they had a secret “contingency” plan to keep then terrorist suspect Mohamed Haneef behind bars if he was bailed by a Brisbane magistrate.

The details of the plan came to light when details of emails, obtained by Mr Haneef’s lawyers under freedom of information laws, were published in The Australian today

Wow.

“The emails relate to normal operational contingency planning,” the spokeswoman [for the AFP] said.

Double Wow.

Leave aside all considerations of whether or not Haneef was guilty, or whether he was being used as a political football to kick dubious goals. The AFP have frankly admitted they had a ‘plan’ to keep a suspect in custody beyond that afforded to them by the standard democratic process. Wow. Only the brave would admit such a thing under free democratic process.

The evidence?

The first email, written by Brisbane-based counter-terrorism co-ordinator David Craig to commanders of the AFP’s counter-terrorism unit at 5.22pm on July 14, states: “Contingencies for containing Mr HANEEF and detaining him under the Migration Act, if it is the case he is granted bail on Monday, are in place as per arrangements today.”

Sounds pretty explicit. If they want to detain him under the Migration act, well, the way the Migration Act works means that they have to involve the Immigration ministry at some point in the chain. What does the Immigration department have to say?

After getting advice from Mr Andrews last night, [spokeswoman] Ms Walshe said the minister had “absolutely not” been involved in any “contingency” plan to thwart Ms Payne: “It’s not our email and it’s not something that we considered beforehand.

Really? Because, well, funny that, it sure as hell looks like it. The fact that he was detained right after he was granted bail sure looks like the contingency plan swinging into action.

This email was forwarded at 8.10am on Monday, July 16, by agent Luke Morrish, the AFP’s Canberra-based acting manager for domestic counter-terrorism, to top Immigration Department public servant Peter White.

Mr White, the department’s assistant secretary responsible for character assessment and war crimes screening, gave Mr Andrews comprehensive advice on his powers and his authority to cancel Dr Haneef’s visa and keep him in custody on the basis of secret evidence.

And it was the “character assessment”, funnily enough, that came to be the trigger for retaining Haneef. Hmm. From this, we can draw one of two conclusions:

• The minister knew and played along with the AFP’s contingency plan, abusing powers left right and centre.
• The minster didn’t know and was clearly incompetent.

As much as I favour the latter, I would be more inclined to believe the former.

A leading defence lawyer and close follower of the Haneef case, barrister Greg Barns, last night said the emails showed that “the AFP in conjunction with the Government were essentially completely undermining the judicial process.”

“They were ripping up the doctrine of the separation of powers,” Mr Barns said.

Clearly, there is some measure of abuse going on in the system here, and if Minister Andrews or Commissioner Keelty don’t fall on their swords as the slightest gesture to contrition, it’s not a system anyone can or should believe in.

The terrorists have a primary goal to restrict the freedoms of those in the west to act as they wish within a fair and equal legal framework. I wonder who is going to be the first to ring them to congratulate them that they’ve won. Long ago.

Apple announced their financial results for the last quarter yesterday, and the numbers were good. And the market is pleased, send AAPL up and up and up, approaching $185 today.

Leave aside all the market cap nonsense that everyone is talking about, here’s a far more fundamental figure. If you’d bought Apple stock on Oct 31, 1997, and sat on it for ten years, you would have made a pretty penny or two. On 31/10/1997, Apple was $4.25 a share. Leaving the two stock splits since out of it, now, each share is worth $185. That’s a sweet little $180 per share you can book as profit.

But wait, there’s a time value to money too - what’s the cost of having it sit in Apple stock for so long when it could have been doing something else, like earning interest? Well, it’s take an average 4%, compounding yearly. That ought to flatten out the period in the middle when US interest rates were 1% ish. 4% over 10 years means you’ll pull out … $6.29. $6.34 if it’s continuous compounding! So you could book, uh, $178 as performance above average.

Put it another way - if it was yearly compounding, you’ve got 45% interest p.a., 38% if it’s continuous. Or a straight-up 3100% if it’s simple. Try getting that from your bank.

What about the competition? Microsoft? Hah. They’re up 81% total (opposed to Apple’s 3100% figure). Intel? 18%. (n.b. figures from Google Finance)

One might take the view that Apple’s current price is unsustainable, trading as they are at 50x Price-to-Earnings ratio, but if I’d had Apple shares in trust 10 years ago, and it expired right about now, I’d be more than happy to cash out =)

The Election certainly kicked off with a bang following the Coalition’s $34 billion dollar tax cut package (over 3 years). Labor held out to the end of the week before unveiling a similar package, for $31 billion, with the bulk of the additional $3 billion going towards education - as a tax rebate for families - and some $600 million promised to reduce waiting lists at hospitals, and finally pocketing some $200 million out of the remainder for the government surplus.

The Liberal move surprised me little - Howard and Costello have a track record of buying votes with tax breaks, and people have come to expect them rather than consider it an exceptional circumstance. The truth is however that these reductions in personal tax rely on some other part of the tax base holding up the fort, and while that is the companies at present, it’s a fragile thing on which to base a long term strategy, which eroding the income tax base certainly seems to be.

Still, it’s a bit of more-of-the-same from the Liberals, and I don’t think anyone was surprised too much by them. Polls on Wednesday suggested it resulted in a 2% swing back to the Liberals, bringing them to within 10 points for the first time in a long while.

Labor held out for a few days, rather than react and be forced to reveal their own policy in whatever state it happened to be in. However, when it was released it by and large mirrored the Coalition policy, up to the point of the richest tax bracket (i.e. completely irrelevant to the majority of voters).

This disappointed a lot of people, I’m sure - when you’ve got Jeff Kennet saying the tax cuts would be better spent on health, education and such like, you know perspectives have changed; now we’re just waiting for the politicians to catch up. The $2.3 billion for education and $600 million for hospitals that Labor skimmed off the Liberals’ policy got buried in the headline that the tax cuts will be largely mirrored.

It seems like both sides took to appealing very cynically to people, effectively saying your vote is linked to your hip pocket; it may be that this turns out to be true, and that is what Labor is betting on by trying to neutralise the issue in mirroring the cuts. What I think a lot of people wanted to see though was for Labor to be different - it might not win so many cynical votes, but by being different Labor could have stolen a march on the Coalition.

Spending on education and health are two things that the Liberals could not attack for being “wasteful” or any of the tag lines that would typically be rolled out in the face of different priorities. If $15 billion had been poured into universities and technical schools, virtually guaranteeing a reduction in HECS and fees, it would play very well to the families. Spending the next $15 billion on hospitals would have made a huge impact and really cemented Labor’s position as the social-services party - it might be an old cliché, but the Liberals would be committed to delivering some $30 per-week-over-three-years worth of tax cuts while Labor would be promising to fix services. That would be the true test of the cynical vote and establish a clear difference.

Instead, we’ve got a race to the bottom. The tax cuts are clearly inflationary, and the Reserve Bank is sure to take this view when considering the next round of interest rate movements.

If I were to draw the analogy to the financial world, this is a company promising to pay out a huge dividend. This pleases the simple investors - it means they get a cheque in the mail that’s money for holding the shares. More sophisticated investors however should take it as a warning - dividends are only paid out when the company has no idea what to do with the profits and cash it’s got sitting on its books. That means the company doesn’t have any useful projects it could invest the money into and potentially generate more money down the track.

Microsoft for years didn’t pay a dividend because it had projects to invest money into. In 2004, they had a lot of money on their books and nothing useful to do with it - so they paid it out. This was a clear indication Microsoft didn’t know where to go next, and these tax cuts are much the same concept, broadly - returning money to shareholders of Australia Inc. Except those shareholders are effectively customers too, and they aren’t necessarily happy with the service they’re getting.

All in all, tax cuts are a cynical way to win government, and indicate a lack of direction. They do have an immediate appeal, however, and we see this played out particularly in Australia where compulsory voting pushes the decision of choosing government to the marginals, where cynicism is far more likely to win for its immediate appeal, rather than any long term plan that might help. Here’s hoping this is one promise that can be reneged in favour of more appropriate spending.

John Howard finally got the guts up to call the election, now set for Saturday the 24th of November. Instantly, he was on the attack and up to his old tricks.

His attack against the opposition was clear and upfront - they “are inexperienced” and his team “had the experience to serve”; if Labor came to power, it would remove “all checks and balances” with Labor parties in government in all the states. You could almost sense Howard going for that sense of inertia keeping people pinned back, relying once more on the status quo to prevail for the sake of it.

Howard also trotted out a new take on the economy, given the previous Coalition claims that interest rates would always be lower under them was now transparent to the public - he claimed unemployment would be lower - from 4.2 today to “something with a 3 in front of it”, and “better sharing of the benefits of strong economic growth.”

Please, can we have enough of this same-old clap-trap left outside of this campaign? Clearly not, I suppose.

Were experience always in question, we would never have switched governments - or oppositions would have to be filled with the same old fogeys going backwards and forwards. This argument should persuade no-one, and it’s clear from previous voting patterns that sometimes, those less experienced do manage to jump through even unexpectedly (Bracks in Victoria is probably the best example). And it’s not as if these people are absolute outsiders to the world of politics, either - this rings clearly as Howard’s weakest attack, targeting the “trust” image of the new Labor - polls suggest though that the people are fairly confident in Rudd, and he’s been prominent for the last year at least.

Checks and balances is a pure matter of misrepresentation; the division of areas of responsibilities between the states and the federal government was something that worked for years before the current government’s reign. To suggest that somehow the federal government is in place to counteract the states is purely ridiculous, and symptomatic of Howard’s downward-reaching policies which has seen the federal government replicating functions the states should be performing, or otherwise reducing the usefulness of the second tier of government, or at worst pushing them down one more tier and leaving councils entirely maintenance oriented. If you’re going to do that, remove them altogether and empower councils. The check and balance for the party in power should be the upper house, the Senate - that is what it was designed for, and what purpose it serves well enough when the government party doesn’t hold a double-majority as with the current Liberal-National government.

Having failed to make his point with taxes, Howard (and by proxy, his “economic manager” and heir-apparent Costello) has chosen to ‘tackle’ unemployment down from 4.2 percent to, at the least, 3.9%. And how does he propose to influence such outcomes? The implication is the answer to more employment lies in the WorkChoices industrial policy - and this shows exactly how Howard is missing the point of the electorate that has rejected WorkChoices out of hand.

Let us not forget that the “unemployment” rate is inevitably a slightly arbitrary figure - it only counts the numbers of those looking for work in comparison to those with, leaving out the disenfranchised entirely - and that its defition can (and has) changed; the barrier for entry to the total ‘employment’ figure counts those on limited hours too, which is parcilarly misleading. Finally, further employment rises are more likely to expose inflationary pressures and also is a good indicator of the fact that we have a severe skills shortage. For something he’s got limited control over, again, it’s a bit much of a claim.

Better sharing of economic growth? From Howard? Does he think he’s a socialist all of a sudden? Ha, if you can’t see through this…

Finally, last but far from least, Howard’s sudden contrition around Aboriginal reconciliation; 10 years after he adamantly threw out any sign of caring for reconciliation with these most disadvantaged of Australians, he suddenly finds it within himself to propose a referendum on getting an entirely symbolic passage inserted into the constitution. Wow, Howard, did you come up with that over your lunch break, or did you scramble it in on the limo ride on the way to your speech? He even went so far as to admit that he comes from a time when Aborigines weren’t a political issue, and yet he should recall that his peers and predecessors were able to approach the issue openly, and it has only really been Howard who is most recalcitrant about this issue.

In summary?

Howard, your approach to this election is even more cynical than I could have expected. The Liberals deserve a leader, not another cynical power grab, and i’m afraid that’s what you’ve gone for, quite evidently.

Apple released the new iPod family today - a revised iPod Shuffle lineup (colours, really), the iPod nano (3G), the iPod classic (5.5.5G?) and the all-new iPod touch, which takes the iPhone and strips out the phone functionality.

Is this Apple’s New Coke/Coke Classic moment? And where was Jon Ive when they were designing the new nano?

They’ve tacitly acknowledged the desire for oodles of space with the 80GB and 160GB (!) iPod “classic” line, but it does look increasingly isolated as the rest of the iPod line profilerating with flash-based storage. While my own experiences with a hard-drive based iPod suggests this is probably a smart move, and higher capacities are still impractical with flash, it does feel a bit like the classic monkier is a bit of a cop-out - I’m sure everyone would’ve been far happier with the top-of-the-range iPod touch being hard-drive based for a bit more dollars, but that would have gouged the sales of the iPhone even more.

Instead, you effectively have Apple pointing towards the flash players as the future, and keeping the classic there to assuage concerns about a lack of high capacity options.

The new iPod nano is, to be frank, a bit of an abomination to me (and many others, it would seem). While the “fatty” tag it has been getting is far from fair (or PC), its aim to be a video-nano seems a bit incoherent to me. A two-inch screen is pretty small, and I’m sure any video you’re really watching will be a little squint-inducing. The 2G version was elegant and purposeful; this one looks a bit like an effort to really stretch the nano brand. Could we get a nano-classic here?

I really think either Jon Ive was away when this design was dreamed up, or someone else has usurped his primary role in the design process.

Finally, the iPod touch is also the first flavour most outside of the US will get of the iPhone’s new interface, which should be interesting (in the sense that I will get to play with it). And to show just how far we have come - at the end of 2004, I paid AU$550 dollars for a 40GB iPod (which incidentally you can get refurbished today for $179); today, the new iPod touch 16GB is available for the same price point.

Two steps forward, one step back?

Ed: Also of note! The iPod touch doesn’t have games. Something pending in an upcoming update for both the touch and the phone, perhaps?

Apple unveiled the new iMac today, along with the iLife 08 and iWork 08 suites (neatly skipping the question of ‘07), and suffice to say, they move once again another step forward, keeping themselves way ahead of the curve in both hardware and software.

iMac

One thing that the latest release really confirms is that, in consumer terms, Apple doesn’t make desktop computers any more. They make portable computers, in sizes 13, 15, 17, 20 and 24. There’s no way the components of the iMac are anywhere near the “PC standard” - no chance of being completely user servicable or upgradable. Sure, the iMacs as opposed to the laptops aren’t going to be the most portable devices, but when compared to practically any other “desktop” system, it’s as portable as a … uh… very portable thing.

Anyway.

Apple is light years in front, were light years in front anyway last week, but now they’ve pulled another one out to make sure they stay ahead. Sony’s Vaio series is the only mass manufacturer that even comes close. And Apple can afford to do it, too, because their customers know and expect Apple to control the hardware. The only way to compete would be for a laptop manufacturer to ditch the idea of user-upgradability and just go for it. Oh and poach John Ive while you’re at it, otherwise you’re doomed.

I remember Dad complaining more than once that there was too much clutter around the PC, especially with all those wires. I think I’m going to have to get him a Mac to show him that his wish to get rid of all that crap has come true.

iLife

Nothing so groundbreaking as to warrant dropped jaws, but a big tick of approval as far as I’m concerned with better management in iPhoto, and a revision of iMovie. Again, Apple outpaces anything Microsoft and the Windows universe can throw at them; I just wish that there’s a decent export option in iPhoto 08.

iWork

Keynote and Pages are known quantities: no matter what the upgrade is, the core message is already out there and anything else is just a tweak. Where Apple really pulled a rabbit out of a hat, I feel, is the new spreadsheet app, Numbers.

It’s a continuation of the straightforward naming scheme, and while it is sold as a “spreadsheet”, this ain’t your daddy’s Excel. Without having even used it myself, and having little conceivable use for it in any case, I love it. I love how intelligent this app is - just watch the demo videos on the site and tell me if you don’t find yourself thinking “oh, that is cool actually…” Everything is just more intuitive.

Far and away the best feature, though, is the flexible canvas. It is far more than something for a spreadsheet layout - quite simply, it’s a design tool that’s suddenly shown a gap everywhere else. A spreadsheet as a design tool? Why can’t I do the drag and drop thing this intuitively in Dreamweaver? Is there any design tool which does the same thing? It’s a concept that’s certainly captured my mind. Now if only we could get that to output HTML…

If you’ve watched the demo videos and are returning to your own machine, you should quickily pick up just how right Numbers looks. A simple illustration of this is when you highlight a column, the sidebar comes up with a drag-and-drop of common formulas that might apply - simply pick up the Sum item from the sidebar and drop it in the required cell. A simple idea that will replace the existing mindset, the Lotus 1-2-3 method of hiding it away as a function that you have to “know”.

It’s no Excel, at least from the perspective I’ve seen at work on the trading floor, but when Steve Jobs said spreadsheets for the rest of us, he wasn’t wide of the mark.

Sexy new theme - Redoable Lite. As nice as Unsleepable was, this is a bit more shiny =)

So I spent nearly a whole day chasing a seemingly simple solution to a Microsoft Access problem, and I’ve finally found the officially sanctioned solution. Here it is.

Now, the non-geeks can go read the posts below, or wait for the next one. This post isn’t for you.

Have a quick read, my fellow software developers, especially the part about creating a form to supply parameters to a query. You’ll note the following steps:

1. Create a new form and add the controls needed for entering the parameters.
2. Modify your query so that it obtains its parameters from the controls on the form.
3. Add an OK button to the form that runs the query and then closes the form.
4. Add a Cancel button that closes the form without running the query.

Yes, you’re modifying the query so that it obtains its parameters from the controls on the form. This is a test to see how much attention you were paying in your software design classes (or indeed if you had any).

If you fail to see the problem, then clearly… you’re an Access developer (dare I say Microsoft Developer?). I now have nothing but disdain for you, and all Access MVPs. I’d assume someone would stand up and point out to Microsoft how bad it really is, but clearly you never realised.

If on the other hand, you’re now looking on in sheer terror, welcome to my frustration! What manner of infernal coupling is this?! Could it be that there’s no method to pass a variable?! Yes, dear friend, Access doesn’t let you pass a parameter to a query. Oh no, you must either bind a database element (the query) to a GUI element (the field on the form), or rely on the user to put in the value through a series of generic input dialog boxes.

Reuse? Bah!

Access is not so much a database system as an evil, evil lie.

</rant>

The Daily Dish compares and contrasts the Nazi torture intensified interrogations with that of the current American regime

If this doesn’t convince you that what is happening at Gautanomo and was occurring at Abu Gharib is entirely wrong and unjustified, or that the Bush administration has totally sold-out the moral high ground (did they ever have it?) in the name of their own agenda, I’m not sure what will.

The similarities are stunning; will a future administration be brave enough to call them on it and convict? Or will it fundamentally remain as a sop to “Middle America”, the Red states whose votes count for so much, and be passed off as a phase of history, possibly regretted but never fully apologised for?

I wonder if the revulsion that so many have for the Nazi regime would ever turn on the torturers enhanced interrogators of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al. I suspect not; the wrong-doers in this case are English speaking and elected by the majority, so they see too much of themselves in the current regime (those who are already angry are justifiably so). Also, it’s committed on “their own watch”; they re-elected these guys, despite it all.

What hath September 11 2001 wrought?