14 
Our cousins down under somehow hoodwinked PM Julia Gillard into writing about her “remarkable experience” using Google Glass. Can you imagine the uproar if David Cameron slipped a pair on and found time to write for us? Beats banging on about Kate Middleton and The Smiths, mind. [Gizmodo Au]
The Aussies Have Built One Badass Flight Simulator
Recruitment Drive Lures Aussie Tech Companies to UK
Aussie Scientists Make Long-Life Beer
Dave wearing them while playing cricket in India would have been interesting
The question is, should I switch jobs when Glass is released, as site security wouldn’t let me anywhere near the office to use it…
Maybe you should wear this to the office instead…
http://goo.gl/JrDR8
Wouldn’t really fit with the rest of the outfit
I assume you work at the North Pole?
Close enough, and Sony already have us wrapped up in legalese with the NDA over what the PS4 looks like! Can you imagine trying to get a camera in here?!
couldn’t you use a Pi to put a covert camera in a bell on your hat or shoes?
We’re both routinely and randomly scanned on entry and exit, so not a chance
You’ll just have to wait til Sony reveal…
Personally I don’t care about Sony
Stone the crows mate!
I knew she was going to use it as chance to flog the White Elephant that is the National Broadband Network!
oh I like their comments system on Giz AU. It looks nice, has vote down as well as up … I bet they can edit comments they have just written for a limited time too, to fix the typos!
Agreed, there commenting system looks like the bees knees
Couldn’t you have just reposted the article Kat? You speak both languages so the translation would have been easy.
LOL
So you get time with the Aussie PM and you get her to write a review of Google Glasses?
You could have written a story about how Google has been using its money, power and influence recently to influence politicians around the world. That was probably too hard though…
You could have written an article about how elected officials should really not be reviewing products for tech mags given they have better things to do and it hurts competition.
Or you could have asked her why her government has abandoned Julian Assange, an Australian national?
That would have probably made for a better story.
Whats next, Tony Blair reviewing the iPhone 5 while dodging questions about the people he had kidnapped and tortured?
Gizmodo is becoming something of a joke. Im waiting for your next propaganda story on how North Korea will destroy the world.
I watched Red Dawn the other night, where North Korea invades the US. That absolute crap which was the plot / back story, where North Korea was technologically superior to the US and had a vast and well equipped army, enough to take a whole US coast, is about where the level of journalism is right now on Gizmodo.
Except Red Dawn is supposed to be fantasy.
So, not a fan then? Note that it was Giz Australia that did this, not Giz UK.
I have been a fan of Gizmodo but lately something seems different.
While im English I do have Australian family and I can tell you Gillard is not liked for some of the American policies she has adopted, some directly related to the tech industry.
A fan of Google, again I was, but recently nope. Why should Google be allowed privileged access to the worlds governments, especially when it pays no taxes and regularly breaks the law. What business is it of Larry Page to go to North Korea? Why is it, when a bit of money is splashed around it a multinational allowed to build such a monopoly unopposed. Why does google have a direct like to UK government ministers?
When Microsoft built their monopoly it caused untold problems and held back the tech industry. It cost the world Billions and Billions and destroyed companies. When Gates gives away money to charity, its not his money, its yours and mine, taken through deceptive practices, bribes and artificially high prices.
I have probably read at least 4 anti N Korea or anti Iran on Giz this year, if not more. Last year there was a few as well. Usually just copied from the American website.
All I am asking for is less propaganda, less PR articles for multinational and more actual journalism.
“What business is it of Larry Page to go to North Korea?” – None at all it was Eric Schmitt.
“Why should Google be allowed privileged access to the worlds governments” – Google (and other companies) are actively sought out by governments bother because of their “cool factor” and because they know what they are talking about, which is more than any government minister does.
Yeah noticed that after pressing submit. Giz needs an edit button.
Google may have a ‘cool factor’ but they know nothing more than anyone else, except for what benefits their business interests. Those business interests do however run contrary to what is in a countries best interests and probably yours as well.
Its worth remembering Google was driving round stealing everyones wireless info, a crime if you did it. They worked with criminal gangs and profited from them selling fake medicines. Im sure they would sell you out if there was profit in it and probably have done a few times.
They also have the cheek to complain how countries are not investing in broadband etc… while avoiding billions in taxes. Something that really hurts 3rd world countries.
Can I just check, Is the sand in your vagina just there because of Google or all multinational tech companies?
“they know nothing more than anyone else” are you mentally deficient? Google knows a shittonne more about net issues than the average person. Whoever does Giz’s IT stuff knows more about net issues than the average person.
I’m sorry but if you cannot be rational in your statements I will just dismiss you as a dick with an agenda. I bid you good day sir.
Really, honestly, if you think that then you are the one who is a dick.
When I said no one else, in was in line with others in the Industry and other government advisors, like Universities. Only an irrational fool like yourself would extrapolate that to ‘everyone on the planet’. There is no point asking north sea fishermen advice in internet policy, nor my gran, nor a 2 year old.
Google did not design the transistor, cpu, touch screen, mobile phone, the internet not anything else apart from the parts of the code that run their own services. They, as other companies do, use what is in the market and build a product or service. They have invested heavily in their own software / hardware for the backbone to their data centres etc… but thats the sum of it.
If you were to ask Google about any facet of the tech industry, the reply you would get would be the one most favourable to their business model. Microsoft would probably give different answers, more favourable to their business model.
That is why it is not wise to have monopolies making or influencing government polices. When they do it works out worse for the consumer.
I suppose, unlike yourself, I do not worship multinational companies, and I am sorry if I have offended your ‘beliefs’.
From yesterdays news for instance…
“BRUSSELS (Reuters) – Google’s latest privacy policy could land it with a fine of upto $1 billion under a new law allowing Europe-wide challenges to U.S.-based Internet giants, Europe’s top justice official said on Tuesday.”
“The ongoing dispute between EU data protection regulators and search engine Google showed the weaknesses of the current system, which relies on each country identifying and punishing privacy breaches.”
Regulators think what Google is doing is illegal. Google thinks not and so carries on regardless.
http://news.yahoo.com/google-risks-huge-fine-under-eu-data-rules-170405002.html
Would you ask your north sea fisherman about north sea fishing? Obviously. Therefore you would ask Internet companies about internet business. You wouldn’t ask just one company, or indeed just rely on private sector opinions,but would canvas opinion from all sources. If you have evidence that big business is buying policy that is favourable then the media would love to speak to you, because this government does consult widely on issues.
I do not “worship multinational companies” but if you think they are all as evil as it appears you do, you need to get off the internet which was and is largely invented, built and run by them.
Im not talking about asking one company, but certain companies having unprecedented access to government.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jan/18/buddy-scheme-multinationals-access-ministers
From Greenpeace – “The concern about the government’s buddy system was always that policy would end up skewed towards narrow corporate interests rather than the wider public good, and these revelations will do nothing to allay those fears,” executive director, John Sauven, said.
The internet, computers and the like were not invented by multinational companies. They were invented by government agencies or places like Universities.
Multinationals took existing research and essentially mass produced it, but again certain advances were either pioneered by small teams of people or through research. Google would not and would never have invented say, Graphene, but in a few years time they could well benefit and profit from its existence.
I am not saying multinationals are bad, what I am saying is monopolies are bad, especially international ones which are hard to regulate.
What you suggest does not happen though in the UK or US. Those who have the most money essentially get to write the laws. In the UK you just need to donate to the party in power, in the US a shady organisation writes and proposes laws, American Legislative Exchange Council among all the money that sloshes about.
Whilst it is common knowledge that a monopolised market is bad for everyone, I do not accept that Gillard writing a review is a symptom of the problem. As you’ve pointed out, she seems to be getting some grief over some of her tech policies – and rightly so if the little I have read is anything to go by. So it would seem to me that this is nothing more than a politically manoeuvre; an attempt to prove that she is tech savvy after all. And you cannot blame Giz for caching in on the stunt. If David Cameron wanted to wash my car to seem more working class, I’d let him, I’d take photos, and I’d send them to everyone. As for Gillard promoting Google – she’s a polarising figure and I doubt any company would gain a gargantuan sales bump as a direct result of her endorsement, and since google glass is the only product in its category, she cannot be accused of bias either.
Its not as much Gillard, but how Google is getting so pervasive in different Governments.
Google glasses is not the issue either, its how politicians lend a level of respectability ( laughable I know but they do ) to the company, maybe against others in the same market.
Go to Samsung’s UK website, they have the ‘by Royal Appointment’ logo and a bit on how the queen likes their TV’s.
We also have news that Samsung has employed child labour in their factories / supplier factories.
The royal seal lends credence to a company which may, if certain consumers knew the truth, they would be disgusted.
The royal appointment logo is given to products supplied to a royal court or person. So if Samsung have sold a TV to any of the above, then they should get the logo. The people who are astute enough to notice the significance of the logo, are most likely those the people au fait with the morally grey runnings of the company.
I suspect it is perhaps the principle you take most issue with, as oppose to the repercussions of endorsement – and I guess I do too – but I accept that child labour and similar issues will be tackled most efficiently by legislation, which will be unperturbed by personal preference for TVs and fancy eyewear.
Yeah I get that, give them a bunch of free stuff for a few years and you can use the logo.
My gran would notice the logo, especially as she is from a time when it was used a lot more.
To her it would signify the company was a reputable one who was good enough to supply products to the Royals. Like the marmalade Harrods sell ( or something along those lines ).
We cant legislate for other countries unfortunately or have not done as of yet. It is down to Samsung, Apple etc… to police their own supply lines. Given the Billions in profit they make each years it would cost them nothing. Yet they choose not to, instead its easier to cosy up to officials and get nonsense royal seals etc…