There has been an interesting court case I have been tracking. It has led to the conviction of three former Google executives of violations to Italy's privacy code, due to the uploaded of video by some school kids of themselves bullying another child who suffers with Down Syndrome.

While ISPs are not held accountable, the hosts of material that infringes on such laws are. This seems to cross over into the same territory that led to Anna Bligh to complain about Facebook allowing alleged offensive content to be published onto websites dedicated to two schoolchildren murdered in separate incidents.

One of the big attractions for the internet, hence a catalyst for it's growth was the perceived freedom that allowed individuals to indulge in their fantasies. Whilst the content posted onto the dedication pages was most probably offensive and possibly illegal, we seem to have reached or at least nearing the crossroads of the internet.

If we allow freedom of expression, then prepared to be trolled, and do not be surprised at input that some individuals might provide. If you dislike the input that some individuals provide, then feel free to lock down the interwebs. If you lock down the internet, do not be surprised when your online services are attacked.

While I understand Mrs Bligh's sympathies for the irreverence shown towards the victims, the internet is not the preserve of the political classes for communicating to the population. Rather the internet was developed by individuals to aid communication for academic, social and at times nefarious means, and have, from one perspective, been hijacked for commercial and political benefit. The twitterati should not be surprised when IRL incidents are impacted by Anonymous.

The internet is not regulated, controlled, logical, rational, sociable, ethical, nor civilised. It transcends national boundaries, crosses cultural divides and makes money where none is found physically. Internet users in every single country can be contacted. Chinese dissidents are supplied with the tools to communicate freely from internal and external sources. Russian gangsters acquire identity information. A girl in the US posts her musings about cute Japanese culture. A boy remixes the wav files from Windows to make a song.

The rule about the internet is there are no rules. That is until governments have complete control over it, including content, access and speed. I think governments are starting to realise, that the easiest way to control public opinion is to control what is accessible through the internet. A sanitised, healthy version will appear and I don't think I'm delusional in this opinion; Mr Conroy has the plan going forward, and dangerous websites peddling harm to our children will be excluded from public view.

The thing is, the government doesn't own the internet, so why should they control it?

The Falkland Islands

It seems Argentina seems to have got the backing of such wholly respected politicians and statesmen such as Mr Chavez.

Due to a British company now drilling for oil in what some people would claim is within British territorial water, Argentina are looking to the UN to approve their claim that the continental shelf geography allows them to claim territorial claim over the drilling area.

The thing is, I'm still not sure how Argentina can claim sole ownership of the islands and surrounding waters. It was once occupied by Argentinians during the early 1800's but prior to that, it has been variously explored, mapped and claimed by French, Spanish, Patagonians, Portuguese and British seaman.

Simple argument; as it is closer to Argentina, they can have it. If we are going by the continental shelf ruling then Australia now own Papua and Papua New Guinea, while Malaysia now owns Singapore, Indonesia and Brunei.

While we are at it, lets hand the Canary Islands (Spanish) and Madiera (Portuguese) to Morroco, Gibralter (British) to the Spanish, Cyprus(erm) to Turkey, Jersey (British) to France, Bermuda (British) to USA, Clipperton Island (French) to Mexico, Hawaii (USA) to Kiribati, American Samoa (er USA obviously) to Samoa, Christmas Island (Aus) to Indonesia.

If we are going to do this seriously, then lets hand over Japan to the Chinese, Ireland to UK, UK to France, Indonesia to Australia or visa versa, Sri Lanka to India, Seychelles to Madagascar, and Taiwan to the Philippines.

3000 British people call the Falkland Islands home. /discussion.

Training - What is it?

The K. J. Ross & Associates Summer School has been a good opportunity to reflect on what makes a good trainer. I developed a peer review form ages ago to record a trainer's performance, yet there are so many qualities essential to training and presentation, I'm starting to find it hard to place adequate measurements in place to determine if a trainer is ready for the big wide world. In other words, "Who am I to say!".

1. Firstly, by being a trainer, you end up, or have to have, such an in depth knowledge of the subject you are teaching to gain the trust and be perceived as being an authentic purveyor of the information. If the class don't believe you then they won't believe what you teach them and you will fail.
2. Secondly, you have to be able to relax. If you look under pressure, then chances are you are stressed, and the class will read this, as a lack of confidence.
3. You. Must. Engage. With. The. Audience. You are on-stage. You are a performer. It doesn't matter if you have the knowledge and expertise if your delivery style is as dry as a Tanquery Gin Martini without a smidge of Noilly Prat.

3 covers so much.

• Gauge the pace of delivery to meet the brain capacities of the audience. Is this startingly new material for them? Don't say that it is, but slow down. Does it appear like they know it? Speed up, but confirm they are keeping pace.
• Vary your voice. Your voice is a very useful tool for getting information over, but use it too often and its like a waterfall to peoples ears; they hear it but it's a constant stream and doesn't have any detail or clear distinction.
• That means vary pace and volume, including talking quietly and loudly, insert pauses and don't be afraid of dead air, so don't add "umm, err".
• Be careful about moving around too much. They are focused on your voice and face. It is helpful to gauge if they are awake when their eyes don't follow you around room, but make sure you are walking to check the attendees alertness, and to move to a closer position to help engage with them subtly.
• Powerpoint. Its incredibly useful yet deadly. Use it to display paraphrased ideas, rather than lengthy details or descriptions. Use it to prompt you, and project key messages, rather than for it to contain more than you are saying. And whatever you do, never ever ever ever read each slide word for word. You will lose the crowd within 5-10 minutes..
• Use of props. This can be both useful and a distraction. I haven't worked out if there is a magic rule for when the former becomes the latter. Certainly, they are a visual cue when doing a call-back to a previous discussion point, and they might inject humour into the introduction of a topic, but I'm sure there are limits.

There are other aspects too. Some people have a natural ability for quick thinking, and I also think it can be developed in some individuals over time. This allows you to adapt to particular situations, perhaps with difficult students or when the exercise doesn't go according to plan. Saying that, all adaptability does is to provide you a back-up plan, when others might have prepared more fully and hence not needed to adapt.

Training has become one of my main areas of focus over the past 4 or 5 years, and yet it still challenges me; there is always a better way to get your message across. Many more people now consider online training a critical path to rolling out training in the future. Having sat CBT courses when I first joined Ericsson 14 or 15 years ago, I know they are far from replacing a classroom and a skilled trainer. Yet if the skilled trainer provides guidance how CBT might provide a bit of variation in the delivery and present the most appropriate information in an online manner, then we might have some success.

One of aspects I see attendees value in attending IRL courses is the ability to have a skilled trainer relate and explain content to an individual, and enthuse that individual with the same passion in the topic as the trainer. CBT has no passion, so what content is best suited for that delivery? Content that might have heated debate with CBT thereby removing the opportunity for contentious discussion, or where content is bland?

I'm going to continue looking at some open source and commercial LMS and see how well they integrate with our CRM, and while there seems to be something fundamental missing when discussing online delivery, I'm hoping a great epiphany will strike me and make me push ahead with CBT.