Rethinking the “dole-bludging” Poor

When you think about the unemployed poor, what do you see in your mind's eye? Overweight slackers dragging themselves to Centrelink? People eating hot chips and hamburgers for dinner? Families of sixteen kids with five different surnames between them? “Dole bludger” is an oft-used, horrid term to describe these people. It's an utterly judgemental term, and it instantly focuses our attention on the worst attributes in people. It holds no compassion, and it comes from a place of superiority. “I'm no dole bludger,” you might proudly say, “I work hard for my money.” You'd be right in thinking hard work has more merit than living off handouts. But I think both “dole bludgers” and our opinions of them need to be re-thought.

Think about the term “disadvantaged”. It's a word that gets thrown around in relation to the poor (“disdvantaged children” “disdvantaged families” etc.), but I don't think people ever stop to consider it's full import. The poor are DISADVANTAGED. They do not have the same material advantages in life that the middle-to-upper classes enjoy. We live in a highly competitive society that has rich rewards for the people who find themselves at the top of the pyramid – but a pyramid, by it's very nature, has very little room at the top. Consequently a tiny percentage of people in the first world hold a huge percentage of its wealth. It's a dark side effect of the capitalist economy. Wealth trickles up, not down, and the further down the “food chain” you are, the less inherent chance for “success” you have.

There is a misconception that all one needs to succeed at life is to work hard. Dead wrong. Hard work certainly equates to material success, but to be capable of that hard work, one needs support. Family units, friendship groups, a quietly supportive atmosphere surrounding a work environment, perhaps spiritual faith: all of these, and more besides, allow someone to be capable of the hard work that results in 'success'. It's all very well for the sons and daughters of middling-to-upper wealth to scoff at dole bludgers when they've never known financial hardship, but the fact remains that we aren't born equal. Some families have to fight harder than others ever will for financial security. Consider also that poverty is often endemic – that is, if mum and dad were dole bludgers, their children likely will be too. The children of working-class and/or poor families statistically have far less of a chance to go on to higher education than, say, the children of doctors. That is a simple life fact – the kids of dole bludgers are at a disadvantage from their moment of conception. Plenty of those children never rise above those circumstances their whole lives, because there is rarely a role model around to encourage them to aim higher. I think it's important not to blame parents here either – they too are products of their upbringing, and most do their best. The truth is, for poor families, life can be a sad, vicious cycle from one generation to the next.

However! While our CHANCES for success in life are badly skewed, we all have the same CAPACITY for success. If you've ever sat in a Centrelink waiting room and cast your eyes around at the people surrounding you, you don't immediately look at a teenage mother and think “she could be a famous author” or look at a tough-looking hoodie-clad teenager and see his potential to be, say, an engineer – but you probably should stop to think. The people in Centrelink waiting rooms have the same amazing potential as everyone else – doctors, professors, businessmen, leaders – but they are people who made bad choices, or grew up in uneducated families, or broken homes, or came from abuse or personal tragedy – and nobody was around to pick them up off the ground. Consider that the first thing an actor/actress does when they receive an Oscar is to thank everyone. Those long “acknowledgements” sections in the front of heavy books aren't for show either. Success, while ultimately personal, is the end result of so much loving support, and none of us can reach our potential without it.

So then. I think it's callous to expect anyone to pick themselves up off the ground by their own efforts alone, but people can and should make the effort to rise above their circumstances. If you're an individual from a comfortable background, have compassion for “the disdvantaged” and the “dole bludgers” and see them as fellow human beings, because they are as worthy as you or I. If you're from a lower background, or from abuse or tragedy... seek out people who can help you grow and achieve. Be careful who you get encouragement from: plenty of people from the same background don't like to see someone decide to rise above mediocrity, because it challenges their own laziness. Teachers, have patience for unruly kids. Be loving and kind, and you never know – you may have offered encouragement to the next Prime Minister, Nobel or Pulitzer Prize winner. 

Everyone, above all remember this: each and every living person is capable of amazing things. 
The tragedy is that not enough of them do.


Read more by Solomon

Does Australia deserve Centrelink?

This week is 'Versus Week'. Each Hello Noise blog post this week is going to be taking a brief look at a particular topic or question with one writer covering the positive and another the negative. We hope it gets you pumped up for our first Hello Noise debate night on November 3rd.

*Not every persons statement reflects their own personal beliefs.*

For the Positive: Solomon

The main argument against Centrelink payments is that people cheat the system. Everyone has heard the term “dole bludger,” and associates it with people who live on welfare, basically getting money for nothing. However, the media constantly neglect to mention that the overwhelming percentage of people who receive Centrelink payments are those who need it. Students, single mothers, the disabled, the elderly, and genuine job seekers are all good examples of this. To get rid of Centrelink would end the people who cheat the system, certainly, but it would also cripple the far greater number of people who depend upon it – students can't become doctors and teachers without the means to feed themselves in the meantime; single mothers can't feed and clothe their children with no money; and the elderly and disabled simply cannot survive without financial assistance, since their working days are over.



On a purely economical level, it's important to remember that any kind of money distribution stimulates the economy. The countries that best survived the recent GFC were also countries with extensive welfare systems – Australia and Sweden being good examples. When people spend money (whether it's on life-saving medicine or cigarettes) the economy keeps ticking over; when people don't spend, the economy grinds to a halt and you get an economic depression. In this way, the regular flow of Centrelink payments help to keep Australia's economy afloat, and that benefits every last person who lives here.



Essentially, Centrelink payments involve taking a fairly small percentage of taxpayer dollars (from those with enough money to be able to afford it) to solve a bigger problem, and the end result is a better country for everyone who lives here. When you take note of the high rates of homelessness, poverty and crime that exist in countries without welfare systems, a handful of “dole bludgers” seem like a small price to 
pay when the tradeoff is living in a country with an exceptional standard of living... and the alternative is a nation where the poor are starving in the streets. 


For the Negative: Morgan

Whether it’s right or it’s wrong, the first things that tend to come to our minds when we talk about Centrelink are bogans, single teenage mothers and “the dole”. This isn’t necessarily because we’re judgemental, prejudiced or shallow; it’s because these are the types of things we see and hear about in the media: people from low income backgrounds making poor choices, causing trouble and generally running amuck … whilst happily being on the receiving end of generous Centrelink contributions. It’s no wonder that we often come to negative conclusions when it comes to Centrelink and the lifestyle it seems to be promoting.



Centrelink’s tag line – according to main page of its website – talks about assisting people to become self-sufficient and supporting those in need; however, it can often be difficult for those receiving a Centrelink payment, particularly the long-term unemployed, to become independent from Government support. Quite often, in fact, there’s simply no motivation to find work or continue with study or training: with their stable, sufficient income and related health care benefits in hand, individuals cease to be active members of society and nothing is given back to the community as a result. 



Although it may be harsh to say that Centrelink is turning Australians into a country of lazy dole bludgers, it’s easy to see where that mindset might come from. Would we be more motivated to study, work full time, and train to earn qualifications if there were no Centrelink safety net to catch us? Would young women be less likely to fall pregnant and have children in their high school years if there was no Baby Bonus? If we take the media’s word as truth, the money distributed by Centrelink to “needy” Australians buys little more than cigarettes, alcohol and $2 scratchies – it all seems like a terrible waste of taxpayer dollars.

Do Australians deserve Centrelink? What do you think?

Leave a comment below or email us at info@hellonoise.com.au

Should young people be doing more to prevent Climate Change?

This week is 'Versus Week'. Each Hello Noise blog post this week is going to be taking a brief look at a particular topic or question with one writer covering the positive and another the negative. We hope it gets you pumped up for our first Hello Noise debate night on November 3rd.

*Not every persons statement reflects their own personal beliefs.*

For the Positive: Jacob

Hello ladies and gentlemen.  Look at your environment, now at this landscape.  Back to your environment, now back to this landscape.  Sadly your environment is not this landscape, but maybe if today’s youth would do more to prevent climate change it could look like this landscape.  All jokes aside though, this issue of climate change is no small thing.  I assume you are aware of how global temperatures have been rising over the past couple years.  We’ve all heard the story, carbon dioxide is being released into the sky realms and it’s killing out atmosphere like H. H. Holmes to one of his tenants, now why wouldn’t you want to help in some way?  I’m not one to believe that climate change will end the world, but I do like our climate where it is.

Helping to prevent climate change doesn’t have to be difficult and tedious, it can actually be quite fun if you make it.  On top of that, by helping in the task of prevention, you are also choosing to help the prevention of the ice caps, home to many, many adorable animals.  Because let’s face it, you wouldn’t want to be responsible for the deaths of animals from the ice caps.

So how can you help? Well it is actually very easy.  Just to name a few things, you can try wearing a sweater in the winter (turn down that thermostat!), use a reusable water bottle instead of buying those plastic bottles,  make sure your electronics are off when not in use, and oh yeah… eat lots of steak.

That’s right, because cows (among other livestock) are a huge source of methane gas being released into the atmosphere, aiding in this thing we call climate change; so it stands to reason that the more cows you eat, the less there will be to pollute the atmosphere.  So think about it, not only do you get to enjoy a nice sirloin, but you also get to stick it to a hippie.

For the Negative: Nick

Young people shouldn’t have to put too much time into changing their ways for climate change. They are young and those above them should be making a way for them to enter into a brighter world. Adults contribute just as much if not more to our climates problems and need to be questioned as to whether they could make a more positive change to the climate.

The Government should be the leaders in creating change. If they want the future world to work properly, and in a healthy manner, then they should attend to the needs of the climate. Young people should not be relied upon to take responsibility for such a thing. They are already enduring through a hard and stressful time with school, university and planning for the future.

I think that this question comes down to personal choice. If someone envisions the world as a melting gassy ice block then they can aim toward their own conquest of saving it, but as a generation young people shouldn't be help responsible.

Our world is stuck in a cycle. Adults provide the world - and youth - with cars, cars which are known to be killers of the environment. But it's all good to share the news of public transport, but how many people would actually sell their car? We can’t live without transport and just like the generation before us, it would be hard for youth to change the world's main means of travel.

The Youth of today are unfairly thrown into the grasp of consumerism and most of the products that they would buy vastly and incrementally add to the effects of a bad climate. But we have to remember that people make a living off selling kids useless junk. So youth shouldn’t be to blame in this area. We all live off the world and it pays for it. It's a big problem but the youth aren't the generation who should have to take action. 

Just as the older generation prepare us for the world, they should also prepare the world for us.

What do you think? Should young people be doing more to prevent Climate Change? If yes, what kind of things should we be doing? 

Leave a comment below or email us at info@hellonoise.com.au

Is Social Media destroying our relationships?

This week is 'Versus Week'. Each Hello Noise blog post this week is going to be looking at a particular topic or question with one writer covering the positive and another the negative. We hope it gets you pumped up for our first Hello Noise debate night on November 3rd.

*Not every persons statement reflects their own personal beliefs.*

For the Positive: Dylan

I don’t believe that Social Media was designed to create anarchistic behavior amongst people and I don’t believe that it was designed to destroy relationships. Not one bit. But just because something was designed one way, doesn’t mean that is used in that way. Take alcohol for example, under mass consumption and when used by the wrong people it can lead to devastating results such as spousal and child abuse or alcohol poisoning which cane lead to death. But if used by the right person and with certain parameters in place it doesn’t have to be like that at all.

Social Media and Social Networking in particular wasn’t designed to destroy our relationships, but unfortunately it is. And it’s our fault. We haven’t taught ourselves how to properly use Facebook. And that may sound ridiculous, but how many people have ever gossiped, ‘mouthed’ or even said something mean to someone indirectly on Facebook. You know the whole “She is such a %#!$#” thing. Where it’s aimed at someone without names being used. Is that how we should talk to people offline? Is that why Facebook was created? Of course not. Then why do we do it? Because we do those things, people become hurt and upset and relationships and people break down. And if we continue to act in that manner we’re setting an example to younger people that that kind of behaviour is ok. 

If we use Facebook irresponsibly through our actions and words we’re saying it’s ok to hurt people online, it’s ok to be a weak and hurtful person. That’s the example that’s being set. Take the story of the two American preteens who hacked into a similar aged girl’s Facebook account and posted sexually explicit images, insinuating that she was a prostitute. These girls were 12. What happened for those young girls to think that that was an ok thing to do. Sure we could can blame it on their parents, but the reality is unless we all take a stand to use Facebook correctly this behavior will continue. 

Social Media is destroying relationships. Because we’re letting it.

For the Negative: Brayden

Some people have stated that social media will be the death of relationships, breeding generation after generation of socially awkward, fat, computer slobs who live in the fantasy realm of the interwebs. These people are wrong! And here is why.

Social media isn't a complete replacement for human interaction and conversation and in most cases it shouldn't be viewed as such. It is in fact an extension of the human to human experience, complimenting and enhancing relationships and communication. Never before have the people of planet Earth been so connected and in relation with one another than now in the present and this is almost solely due to social media. Yes the way that relationships are happening is changing, but I find it ridiculous to argue that the number one creator of relationships in the modern society is what is killing them. Blatant contradiction.

But you say ' relationships aren't dying, it's the art of relationships that is dying.' and to that again I say, that it isn't dying, merely changing. Generally the people I find hating on Social media, firstly don't/have never had an account, secondly they don't like change and lastly they aren't big fans of technology. They can't make relationships in Social media work, so therefore no one can. If this were the case for everything in life then no one in the world could touch their toes, or effectively multi-task, just cause I suck at it. Again, stupid logic.

There are countless stories of people being able to keep in contact with loved ones and rekindle old friendships with long lost pals, due to social media, It also introduces an entirely new way to share ourselves with others online and to build better connections thorough shared interests. It shouldn't be the sole source of human communication but people should definitely not steer clear of it just because a small number of people are hating on it. Because I think social media is a valuable extension to relationships in a modern society that thrives off the Internet and technology.

What do you think? Is Social Media destroying our relationships? YES or NO? 

Leave a comment below or email us at info@hellonoise.com.au

Should we allow Asylum Seekers into Australia?

This week is 'Versus Week'. Each Hello Noise blog post this week is going to be looking at a particular topic or question with one writer covering the positive and another the negative. We hope it gets you pumped up for our first Hello Noise debate night on November 3rd.

*Not every persons statement reflects their own personal beliefs.*

For the Positive: Grace

Australia is a big, wide, glorious piece of land why shouldn’t we share it with other people? Although most asylum seekers come illegally I don’t blame them for wanting to leave their own dangerous, death trap of a country, which they have to call home and come to Australia, which is HUGE.

This being said, most Australians think the country is getting crowded but that’s really just the main cities like Melbourne and Sydney. There are parts of Australia which aren’t even inhabited because they are thought to be “unsuitable conditions” I’m sure asylum seekers would think that safe land is a lot better then the lands of shooting and death which they come from.

I would believe that asylum seekers don’t want to flee their countries, because their friends and family are there! But the harsh conditions they are living in leave them with no other option than to seek refuge in countries like Australia and the UK. When the government wants to send them back to those horrific countries don’t they feel slightly ashamed? I agree that it’s not fair for those people who want to live and work in Australia and have to complete form after form to be allowed in the country, where as illegal immigrants just waltz through the back door, but under their circumstances where their lives are in danger I don’t really blame them at all. It’s not like Australia ISN’T 7.6 MILLION square kilometers or anything, SHARE THE CHUNK OF SOIL around!

I mean SERIOUSLY most of the asylum seekers come from Afghanistan and Iraq where there are major wars going on, why can’t Australia just do a little something and care for some of the innocent people threatened by their own country? We have a large beautiful land. SHARING IS CARING.


For the Negative: Lauren

The asylum seeker debate has gone on for what seems like forever. I am not going to claim to know all that much about it... except that there seems to be an inherent fear among Australian’s regarding “boat people”. I suppose that that fear comes from the societal and generational fear that unites people worldwide. The fear of the unknown. I myself always feel uncertain about the unexpected and I think that is why some politicians and general citizens fear asylum seekers. 

They fear what, or in this case, whom, they don’t know. Whether that fear is merited is a completely different debate. Personally, I don’t fear that asylum seekers are going to take all our jobs, because in Australia, to get a job you usually require qualifications that asylum seekers don’t have. I don’t think sending asylum seekers to Malaysia as a ‘solution’ is going to fix anything. And I don’t think being fearful of these so called “boat people” is going to do anything positive. And I don’t think we should be treating any people inhumanely.

What I do have to query is the use of rules and regulations. Australia prides itself on a legal system and a law that, quite within reason, is expected to be followed. All Australian citizens and residents are expected to abide by the law. All travellers to our country are expected to also succumb to our law, which includes the use of a passport and Visa. We’ve all seen snippets of the (terrible) Border Security programs on TV about people who don’t do this and the consequences they suffer. So with asylum seekers, where does law come into place? If we were to let all asylum seekers into Australia without citizenship, that would be illegal. And if the government is partaking in illegal activity doesn’t that just tell the rest of Australia that law doesn’t matter?

What do you think? Should we allow Asylum Seekers into Australia? Let us know in the comments below or email us your own blog post at info@hellonoise.com

September 11

Every American who was old enough at the time will remember the events of September 11, 2001.  It was a day that shocked the entire nation.  I remember exactly where I was on that day, I was in 4th grade, sitting at my desk and waiting for class to start with the rest of my classmates.  Our teacher rushed into the room and turned on the television, telling everyone to be quite.  We all saw the second plane hit the towers as it occurred live in New York.  The rest of that day is a complete blur, but I’ll never forget seeing that plane hitting the tower. 

There is definitely no doubt that 9/11 was a traumatising day for the US.  It was the beginning of a period of escalated fear and caution, especially with the anthrax scare and pipe bombings that occurred afterwards.  People were afraid to get on planes, no body wanted to open their mail, and on top of that, our military was getting ready to go to war.  Although it is only remembered on the one day, 9/11 did not end on September 12, it was the only focus of America for the rest of 2001 as well as over the next couple of years.  Not all of this focus was bad, however.

While 9/11 is considered to be one of the worst days of America’s history, it did manage to unite the country and restore the sense of patriotism that we pride ourselves on.  While everyone was on high alert over the next couple years, most of us refused to allow ourselves to be overcome by the fear that the attacks tried to inflict.  I can’t really describe the state of America as a result of the attacks, but my best attempt would be to say that America was on a patriotic high for the next two years.

It’s difficult to fit into words the exact impact of 9/11 on the US.  There’s no way to give justice to the people who lost their lives in the initial attack or even in the war that followed.  The only thing that I can think of to do is to give my respects every year to all of the people who lost their lives and every family who was torn by it.

Read more by Jacob

The Falls Festival

If you’re a total music/folk/culture/social event nut like me, you’re probably getting pretty excited about the upcoming Falls Music & Art Festival that will be gracing the shores of Marion Bay at the end of the year. If you aren’t (or if you have no idea what I’m talking about) then I have some explaining to do! The Falls Festival is a big, colourful, three or four day (depending on where you are) celebration of music, art and culture and takes place in both Tasmania and Victoria at the end of every December. It began in Victoria in 1993 and its musical stages have hosted the likes of Silverchair, Wolfmother, John Butler, Joan Jett, Interpol, Angus and Julia Stone and so many others (previous line-ups can be seen here). When I travelled to the festival for the first time last year, it came to my attention that there are a lot of (often nasty) preconceptions about Falls and the types of people that attend. In light of the Falls Festival drawing nearer once again – and my ticket for 2011 slowly making its way to my letterbox –  I thought I’d shed a little light on the Falls experience and try to dust away some of those prejudices.

Firstly: Falls is tent city. It’s camping… with roughly 10,000 of your closest friends and lots of music playing pretty much all the time. Mosquitoes, steaming hot days, cold nights, sleeping bags and big containers of water that go warm in the sun, but fear not: it doesn’t have to be completely traumatic and filthy if you don’t want it to be. There are plenty toilets on site, taps and sinks for clean hands and free water all the time. There aren’t any showers, but that ceases to matter when everyone else is in a similar predicament; people are generally having too much of a good time to be judgemental! I’m not a huge fan of camping at the best of times, but I found adequate salvation in deodorant, dry shampoo, sweet-smelling facial wipes and a big, colourful headband. Oh, and lots of water and sunscreen. Three days in the blazing sunshine cannot be braved without them!

One of the most common gripes I’ve heard about Falls (and most other music festivals) is regarding the drug and alcohol culture: people tend to imagine rowdy, out-of-control young people making fools of themselves in the wilderness on a base diet of warm beer and Burger Rings. I have no doubt that such young people exist and attend music festivals; however, they definitely weren’t the majority at Marion Bay last summer. The festival is designed to be a family-friendly event, with parents and their children enjoying the daytime atmosphere as much as anyone else. Alcohol is sold at Falls, but only during specific night-time hours and BYO is completely off-limits. In fact, regulation is so strict that potentially car-dismantling searches are undertaken: anyone found trying to smuggle drugs or alcohol (and anyone else in their car) is refused entry without a refund. That isn’t to say that everyone that tries to be sneaky is caught, but it does mean that there is practically no incentive to potentially disadvantage yourself or the people around you (wouldn’t you be fuming if someone in your carpool ruined the trip for everyone?).  

To be frank, I think that if you like music, being social, the outdoors and making new friends, the Falls Festival is something you should try at least once. It’s an expensive venture and it can be a bit of a culture shock if you’re not used to sleeping rough (or generally being around 10000 people in a relatively small space) but Falls isn’t all offensive teenagers and illicit substances. It’s folk music, rock music, dance music, roots music, blues music and nearly any other music you can imagine – blended with spectacular scenery, people from all walks of life and what may end up being your most memorable camping trip. I’m probably a little biased, though, so – what are your thoughts on music festivals and young people? Have you been to Falls? How did you find it? Have a comment!

Read more by Morgan

Computer Wars: What Does Your Computer Say About You?

What does your computer say about you?  This is one of the greatest questions of the technological era, and if right now you are thinking to yourself, “I’ve never heard of this debacle…” then I’m going to guess that you are right now using a PC computer running some form of Windows Operating System (OS) on your computer.  Am I right? Of course I am, because like a shockingly decent amount of stereotypes, a person’s computer preference can give you a 73-87% accurate measure to a person’s technological savvy and basic personality template (don’t quote me on that statistic).  The marvel of a person’s choice of computer is that it has the capability of showing you outright both how they see themselves and how the rest of the world sees them.  Let us now delve into the world of computer OS’s and the people who use them.

Windows:
I have to start with Windows because I understand that a majority of the people reading this blog are going to be using a Windows OS.  This should come to no surprise to anybody because almost everybody and their grandmother uses whatever Microsoft will charge them for.  Windows is generally the default Operating System of the computer world and is generally known for having access to all video games, being a free five star hotel for viruses, and slowing down after about six months of use.

How they view themselves:
Because Windows has such a wide user range, there are several different self-images that could portray how a Windows users view themselves.  For the sake of this article, I am going to narrow this range down to two.  The first is the image of “I’m just a dude/dudette who owns a computer,” these are people who either like the idea of the Internet and digital new-age things, or people who believe that technology is the devil and gosh darn it, this lump of metal should work! Why doesn’t it work?!?!? (usually old people).  Either way, these are generally people who own a computer but do not care about using it for anything other than solitaire, school, and the Internet.

The other Windows user is a person who sees themselves as the flippin’ bee’s knees.  What these people have done is buff up their computer with as many specs as possible in order to play the most high tech and up-to-date video games on the market.  Some of these people will also consider themselves to be top-notch programmers and hackers (some of the some of those people are…).  You may find people like this giving their computers names such as “Beast,” “Bathilda,” or some other Russian sounding name.

How everyone else views them:
If you own a pc that operates on Windows, you are viewed by all as some dude/dudette who owns a computer.  If you belong to category two of the above section, then you are seen as that annoying dude/dudette who owns a computer.  Linux users also view you as incredibly not tech-savvy.


Apple/Macintosh:
Arguably the most aesthetic of the big three OS’s, Apple computers (Macs) are seen as confusing to Window’s users, a step up from Windows to Mac users, and an abomination to Linux users.

How they view themselves:
If you own a Mac, you will see yourself as one of two people.  The first of these people is the dude/dudette that was sick of putting up with the crap they kept getting from Microsoft and decided to pay a little (a lot) extra for a computer that will work for longer and with little to no virus issues.  The second type of Mac user sees themselves as a “higher class of person.”  These are generally the people you see sitting in Starbucks “writing a novel” or blogging.  A lot of these people are people who own a Mac because they think it makes them cool to own a shiny piece of technology that weighs twice as much as it looks (and costs twice as much as it should).  You can usually pick these people out from a crowd because they’ll be dressed like arts students (you know the type).

How everyone else views them:
The world sees Mac users as a special brand of annoying, like once someone has been zombified by Apple, they become a never ending commercial.  Chances are that if you own a Mac, everybody with a Windows computer either thinks you’re a poser or envies you for having a computer that works, and everybody who uses Linux thinks you know nothing about computers.

Speaking of Linux…

Linux:
The cheapest OS money can’t buy (because it’s free).  Linux (and Linux based OS’s like Ubuntu) is an open source Operating System that was created and built on the idea that everything available for a computer should be free and peer based.  One of the great things about Linux based computers is that they are virtually virus free, and for one main reason: the people who create viruses use Linux OS’s.

How they view themselves:
People who use a Linux based OS will generally see themselves as a god in the computer world.  This self-image comes from the fact that Linux OS’s are the most convenient to learn how to program, and as a result, most Linux users are, in fact, programmers.  So needless to say, using Linux can cause a sense of superiority among other computers.

How everyone else views them:
The funny thing is that they don’t, or at least the majority of everyone else doesn’t.  This is because the majority of computer users are the category one Windows users mentioned above and these people have most likely either never heard of Linux or have heard the name but possess no clue as to what Linux is.  The portion of the computer world that is aware of Linux views Linux users as a bunch on hackers and programmers.

Now here is a picture to sum up this entire post for you.  Enjoy.

Read more by Jacob

Pottermore

I’m sure that you’re part of either two groups of people. Those who are signed up, in and excited for Pottermore and those who are bloody sick of so many Facebook statuses about it. I’m the former.

Pottermore is an interactive Harry Potter website, created by J.K Rowling, which was announced at the end of June (intentionally a few weeks before the release of Deathly Hallows Part 2 I’m guessing). For a while, no one quite knew what it was, or what to expect – but Potter fans were none the less excited for a new installment to the fandom. While the site doesn’t officially open until October, visitors to the site were encouraged to return on the 31st of July (Harry’s Birthday) for a chance to be one of the lucky million who would be able to use the Beta testing website early.

Enter the Magical Quill challenge. For seven days from the 31st of July, there was a clue posted each day regarding each of the seven books. Once correctly solved and the Magical Quill located, you were allowed to submit your registration details. I registered myself on the first day of the challenge, and then the second (just to be sure) as well as a couple of my friends. To ensure safety, registrants were given an option of five usernames to pick from. (Mine is QuillFeather164) instead of using our own personal names. What followed was a process of emails – a registration confirmation and a “you have been selected for early entry into Pottermore” - in other words, a lot of waiting. I was unable to access the site until I received a welcome email, which was sent about ten days ago.

I have been excited for Pottermore throughout the process, if a little tired of the waiting. But when I got my welcome email my excitement was tenfold. Essentially Pottermore is a re-creation of the books. Starting at Privet Drive in Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone, it follows each chapter of the book, with each chapter containing “moments”. The moments are basically a scene, a picture, with new information to unlock and objects to collect. Some contain basic challenges that must be completed until you can continue to the next moment. After completely Philosophers Stone you go to Chamber of Secrets then to Prisoner of Azkaban and so on. To be honest, Pottermore isn’t as exciting or interactive as I hoped, as it’s mostly just clicking of the mouse.

Shopping for school supplies in Diagon Alley was fun but was again just clicking things off a list. It would have been better to explore the actual shops in further detail. Choosing an owl, cat or toad for a pet was nice, (ginger cat for me) and I then had to complete a questionnaire for my wand to choose me (Chestnut with Phoenix Feather, 10 ¾ inches, slightly brittle). After travelling on the Hogwarts Express, it was time to be sorted. This was the one thing I was most excited about for Pottermore – finding out which house I belonged to. After answering questions I was sorted into… Hufflepuff. Not quite happy with this result I waited for the welcome email to my other account and answered the questions differently. Hufflepuff again. I’ve now accepted my Hufflepuff-ness, but it just goes to show that you can’t fool the Sorting Hat.

Pottermore allows you to earn house points by collecting items, successfully brewing potions and dueling with other students. The whole experience sounds quite fun, and while I have enjoyed aspects of it, it is a bit of a letdown. I have completed the Philosophers Stone and Chamber of Secrets is locked, dueling is unavailable and there is not all that much left to do. While reading the new extra details about plots and characters from J.K Rowling is great and it’s visually beautiful, I expected more from the site. I understand I’m a mere seventh of the way through and that it is the Beta testing period, I just wanted it to be great. Perhaps all the waiting led to extra excitement because now it seems a bit overrated.

I’m hoping the site will improve as I continue through the story as I really want to love it. I’ll always love Harry Potter, but at the moment it’s a bit of a letdown. Although of course that doesn’t stop me from visiting rather frequently and brewing potions to gain house points. People outside of Pottermore seem to think it’s all a bit stupid – so if you are a Pottermore user or not – what do you think of it? Stupid? Letdown? Epic? Time for everyone to get over Harry Potter? (Not that that will ever happen!)

Read more by Lauren

Labels

Last week, I was on the bus to school and a girl got on. Her fringe was covering her eyes and some kids from up the back of the bus instantly yelled out, “EMO!” They weren’t joking. She sat down and immediately slumped down into her seat, pretending not to care. What annoys me though, is that her hair, it wasn’t even the typical “emo” black, it was dark blonde. What’s more, is that she had a sports bag…you didn’t hear me screaming out, “YOU FREAKING JOCK! GET OFF THE BUS!!!”

I guess we’ve all been guilty of labelling someone based on a stereo type or a physical feature before, but have we ever stopped and had a serious think about what we’re doing? Maybe that girl on my bus was only called “emo” once, but imagine if suddenly she was labelled everyday, by multiple people, as “emo”. What if she took on the activities and mindset associated with being “emo” and did start feeling depressed or even harm herself. All of this just because of one little word? On the other hand, she might be completely scared out of the whole “emo” thing altogether, but being scared out of a label is not always a positive thing. Imagine if instead of “emo” she was given the label of “nerd”. (Personally, I applaud “nerds” and “geeks”, because they’re smart, intelligent and pretty much control the world with their skills). But as I was saying, imagine all these people giving her the label “nerd” instead of “emo”. What if this young girl suddenly felt like her knowledge and smarts were all bad things and locked them away just to fit in with the crowd? That seems like a huge waste to me.

As a society, why do we have to put people into these categories and make generalisations? All we’re doing is limiting our knowledge and understanding while describing one aspect of a person. For example, there are numerous Facebook groups labelling people based on an individual thing about them. “You have a bandana? Oh, you must be a gangster!” The girl on my bus could just like the “emo fringe” style. It doesn’t mean she’s depressed. In fact she probably could be helping fight depression and youth suicide within the community for all we know.

A lot of us don’t understand other people’s styles, fashion and way of life, but it doesn’t mean we have to label them or assume everyone who has a certain style acts or thinks the same, or needs to be like that. I'd like to know how you deal with labeling, but first I’ll leave you with this video I remember watching when it first came out. Enjoy.

Read more by Kyle

Death of the Famous

There’s something I don’t understand with the nature of death. Those who live vilified and under public scrutiny die suddenly then all their misdemeanors are forgotten and they are suddenly a hero for dying. I just find it strange to not hear people comment on how such and such had it coming for the weird things they did. Once people die the media is behind them with tributes and countless articles on how wonderful they were. A total reshuffle on the years they went and scrutinized them.

When someone dies it is quite normal to feel something toward the event. Some feel sorrow, heartfelt pain, relief, joy and even nothing these would all depend on the person and circumstance. Hitler was seen as an evil man, his actions were sinister and he was the villain of the world. It was a clear representation to all who opposed him. To the relief of many he died and after death he has been viewed in the same light, a villain. Unless you’re a Nazi no one is going to admit, “We were harsh on Hitler maybe he wasn’t so bad after all.” To me it seems like this is how many deceased people are viewed today. People won’t hold back on bagging them out for who they are when they’re alive but once they die they express their gratitude for all that person has done in the world. It’s a little late for the acknowledgement and it just sounds pathetic. Michael Jackson did some weird stuff and the media portrayed him that way, referring to him as ‘Wacko Jacko’. He wasn’t liked massively by those who didn’t like his music so why does him not being alive make him better? Once he died they swept their attitude under the mat and focussed on the good stuff he’d done, to me it’s disrespectful and isn’t showing him much honour.

In general I think media giants see themselves as the voice of the world so they have to say something on a famous death. They have to appear human after all. It irritates me when an article headline states the ‘world’ mourning someone.  For example [1]’World Mourns Michael Jackson.’ I have to say I felt nothing and I didn’t want to be thrown in with the false general consensus. I have feelings towards those that have died that I know but not Michael Jackson. If I was walking to the beat of a different drum then oh well, that felt more compassionate to me then putting on a hypocritical facade of grief.

Why though do we do it, why do we suddenly ride along? No one does it for a lowly commoner of society who dies.  We wouldn’t think anything of this commoner if they died. Would we if the news did a big spill on them and their life? People who don’t even know him probably will. If so then doing this may come down to human nature and general empathy for those who the commoner were associated with.  I’d just like to see genuine remorse for people.

I have empathy for those who love someone that dies but I’d rather people not jump on a bandwagon to support them when it’s way too late.

Read more by Nick