The 'Barne Yarns' begins



G'day good folk of the Barn Yarn. I know it is an empty, lonely, dusty blog space at the moment, but type it and they might come...although more than likely they won't.

I'm not blogging because I think the web needs more input from somebody whose opinion and humour aren't worthy of a paying gig, but for my own amusement. Admitting that does not mean I won't kid myself that there is an audience peeping at my prose.

So as one of the rare few to stumble into the Barn Yarn, why not take a minute or two to find out what some nobody thinks about stuff, you might even enjoy your time here. If you don't enjoy it at least you will have killed some time or procrastinated that bit longer, oh and don't bother telling me you don't like it, like a care what a nobody like you thinks...unless of course you like it.

Thursday, 13 February 2014

Not my fault fatty

No boring bits?
When an icecream company promotes  the fact it has no boring bits it does raise the question; Exactly how obese are we that it makes marketable sense to suggest we get bored eating an unadorned portion of a competitors icecream?
It is a modern western luxury to be capable of calorizing ourselves to death or become so weight obsessed we starve ourselves to death. I could look up the facts but we all know the gist without me boring myself studying; poor diet and a sedentary lifestyle cause a deep fried bucket load of health problems.
On the eating disorder scale I am far closer to obese than sickly skinny; unfortunately when anybody comments on my relatively lither appearance than their morbidly obese mental picture of me it is inevitably to do with a lower rate of socialising in the preceding weeks than a long term lifestyle change. I admit to not having a soap box worthy of carrying my girth on this topic but when has that ever stopped me?
Unless fat has clogged your ears and diabetes taken your eyesight*  you know how to eat well and move a bit so have no excuse for a paunch. We are free to eat what we want and exercise our arse off (literally) yet increasingly eat rubbish and live sedentarily. That said two recent attempts and shirt loads of other products and policies that make it harder to be fit really get my goat. One of the recent cases was the pressure applied to the World Health Organisation not to release clear recommendations on exactly how much your daily sugar intake should be and  instead make a bland statement about balanced diets. The second was a decision to take down a website with star ratings for the health of food (with alleged implications on the independence of our assistant health minister and her senior staff). Both cases, labelling laws, official dietary advice and government policies are rife with the whiff of junk food lobbying stopping campaigns that might make a difference from getting off the ground while supporting rubbish healthy living promotions (it was all covered on an ep of Hollowmen).
Smoking kills, and that was well known by tobacco companies when they were actively rubbishing the science, but Tobacco dealers continued to take healthy profits from their unhealthy products long after they stopped the charade and admitted the truth. Smokers of my generation have got into it knowing the facts, even if they got hooked when young and reckless. Likewise anyone living on icecream with no boring bits knows the consequences. As the makers of that ad know, we are a bunch of lazy fat bastards and the companies profiting should be happy with that. However it is a new level of bastardry for purveyors of cholesterol to hide the information for the rare times (or the fit few) who are trying to improve their diet. The promotion of bad food as health food, deliberately burying information to stop customers learning the implications and blocking policies that will help is worse than James Hardie’s  asbestos bastardry. James Hardie was also prepared to cross the bridge from blissful ignorance into wilful deception for profit but sugar/fat companies have seen the example of tobacco and asbestos and chosen the same evil route. I am a fat bastard, but let me choose to take my health in my own hands, there are enough of us round ones around to prop up bad food companies without needing to beat the path to hell and damnation tobacco and asbestos have trodden.
*I know you haven’t been living under a rock because your too fat.

Saturday, 8 February 2014

Nobody has ever had a good idea they didn’t steal.

There are no good original ideas. There are crap weird ideas that are incrementally built upon that lead to great ideas, but a fresh thought in isolation being any good does not happen. That is why IP rights are very wrong.
The first person to milk a cow was shunned by the community and turned into an outcast, it was a silly idea, practiced by a weirdo that led to a huge global industry. This fictional-facttm demonstrates that it is impossible to have a good idea, far easier to copy an idea and make it better and easiest of all to ridicule any mug having a go.
This is why our system of broad scale patents for “new technology” to protect “research investment” is patently ridiculous. Research and development needs to be protected from pilfering so it can make a profit and make it worthwhile investing in. This does not mean innovators should be given the ability to block further development until they have wrung as much profit as humanly possible from a small innovation. The innovation inevitably only enjoys its lofty, marketable status because it is  standing on the shoulders of the entire history of invention. By allowing intellectual property rights to be so dominant we are stifling further development and providing a cash cow that innovators do not deserve to milk. I see it as being akin to a prospector that struck gold in the 1800’s being allowed to stake a claim over the entire district and chip away at his leisure for the next 50 years. 
For some reason Apple, Monsanto and their ilk can make an incremental increase in development using the entire history of development to work with and patent it barring any further innovation in that sphere until done with it. As a species it is in our best interest to encourage innovations but instead we have managed to invent a system aimed at protecting R&D that does the opposite unless you can afford the best IP lawyers. Some companies suckling from innovation cash cows are so big they can now ride roughshod over elected governments in pursuit of protecting their profits.
So what is the answer? Companies can’t restrict the use of their patents but can charge a fee for use of their IP for profit. So the guy who milked the first cow would not be the only cow milker allowed to operate, however that weirdo would have a right to claim .02% of every Big M sold for the next 50 years. The licence fee would be determined by an independent subject expert estimating the contribution any licenced  IP has made to the product. If it is a blatant rip off you lose most of your profits to the inventor, if it is a significant improvement then you make money and the poor schlup who invented the original concept also gets a cut. Yeah I know this bit of my idea does need more work but that is just confirming my point, people will come along and improve on my concept. Heading in this direction would allow for innovation, encourage R&D and of course make heaps of work for lawyers and everybody loves lawyers taking a cut of the action…maybe we need to work on that?