Kind of a depressing read

Blacklist proposed for fossil fuels : Nature News & Comment

Summing it up

I think the reaction to the Paris terrorism has been pretty encouraging, actually.   The Parisians themselves have been dignified and very impressive.  To a large extent, it has unified the Right and Left in revulsion.

Sure, more broadly, on both sides of politics, there will always be someone who makes silly and inappropriate statements, but I think the fact that this was an attack on a Lefty publication in a Left leaning country has meant that there has been actually next to nothing of the excuse making sometimes seen from the soft Left.   Waleed Aly wisely avoids any contextualizing about it, except to the extent of pointing out that, in Australia at least, anyone's risk of being a victim of terrorism is still vanishingly small.  This is a valid enough point, and perhaps even a needed response to the more extreme "We are at War!" commentary that comes from some.   Still, imagining that there are even a few hundred men in your country who are willing to commit extreme acts of terrorism for purely ideological reasons is not encouraging.

Which brings me to the point:  yes, we've all know for quite a while now extreme or radical Islamism is not compatible with Western values; there is actually no new news in that - the question is how to deal with it, especially in your own country.

And here it seems to me no one has complete answers.   Certainly, some are more useless than others, and  here's roughly how I see it:

*  strong conservatives mutter about ending all Muslim immigration and refuse to believe that moderate Islam exists at all.  Always prepared to see the end of the West as being just around the corner due to what is still a small minority of their population, most of which is not radical; they always want to leap to exaggerate a (claimed) weakness of  most citizen's attachment to Western values.   From such unrealistic premises, you can't expect useful contribution at all. 

*  the libertarian Right are the most obsessed with privacy and most opposed to increased surveillance by security services.  They are also most obsessed with free speech, to such a degree that it seems some think that not causing offence to moderate Muslims is harmful to the cause of de-radicalising the radicalised - a position I find hard to fathom.  They exaggerate the effect of something like s18C RDA, acting as if its existence is the greatest crisis to free discussion ever, despite the fact that it doesn't even address religious discrimination (although some State legislation does) and no one can go to jail for breaching it.    Some also have a silly "open borders" idea, in which they (oddly) come close to the Greens soft and impractical position on this.   And let's not mention their nutty obsession with guns, and how they think arming everyone helps a society be safer.   All in all, they (both libertarians and the Greens) are therefore all over the shop, and have no great practical contribution to make.

*  the soft Left:  can spend too much time on contextualising and fretting how it really is our own fault for not being nice enough to men before they become radicals, and while they do have some suggestions for better social integration (more sports clubs for young Muslim men, I heard this morning) but they all sound rather whimpy and well intentioned but hardly convincing.

*  the "hard" Left:   well, not sure that it really exists anywhere apart from a few corners of Europe, although many on the Right put virtually the whole of France in that category.   But really, if you consider the ban on face coverings as one of the most interventionist ways of seeking to get better cultural integration of  Muslims that has been attempted anywhere, those on the Right should at least be congratulating the country on the attempt.   (I guess that whether it's an idea that appeals more to the Left due to it being a legislative attempt at social manipulation that they tend to like, or to the conservative Right, which just wants to make life as difficult for Muslims as they can, is hard to say.)   Of course, it's not clear that its working, but hey, what is?

In any event, as I say, no one has all the answers.   Reasonable surveillance powers for our intelligence services make sense;  effective gun control and potential weapon checks and balances (such as the controls on potential bomb making ingredients) make sense;  as does active action against radical leaders encouraging killing, of course;  continued engagement with moderate Islamic leaders makes sense.

But ultimately, radicalism within Islam probably has to burn itself out within Islam, and its unclear how much the rest of us can do to assist that ideological (and actual) war.

Update:  it has occurred to me, I should probably say that the conservative Right takes a too strongly one-eyed view always in favour of whatever Israel does, and the hard Left - and sometimes the soft Left too - can be too one-eyed in favour of Palestine.

Before anyone gets too carried away with accusing any on the Left of "appeasement" of Islamism...

...have a read of some of the extraordinarily inane political point scoring attempted in American Right wing media sources in light of the attack.

I also note that David Leyonhjelm could not resist the temptation to (indirectly, via re-tweet) re-publish his "if only more people had guns for self protection" line.  That's pretty offensive, in my books:

Of particular interest at the moment

Reforming Islam: Where change comes from | The Economist

Decent analysis, but light on suggestions for solutions

Europe’s confused debate about Islam and terrorism: Europeans are both too Islamophobic and too timid about facing the roots of Islamic fundamentalism.
Well, not just "light".  Actually non-existent. 

Free speech where it's genuinely an issue

Is it right to jail someone for being offensive on Facebook or Twitter? | Law | The Guardian

The article may be from mid 2014, but it really is quite surprising to read about the law in the UK, and how "offensiveness" in on line communications there has led to jail terms (and, no doubt, hideous legal expenses to those who have escaped conviction.)

Once again, I will make the observation that Australia seems to often manage to strike the happy medium between the two extremes one sees between the US on the one hand, and Britain or other parts of Europe on the other.

And it is pretty puzzling that Britain manages to exist without serious internal debate about this issue, especially when in other respects it has a very retrograde social approach to matters such soft porn in newspapers.  I mean, why are those who want any form of offensiveness on line illegal not prominent in seeking to have Rupert Murdoch stop using soft porn as offensive to women?    Or, I guess, is it the case that the page 3 girl is seen there by some as the last bastion of "free speech", or some such guff?   It's a very mixed up country, it seems...

Cater goes "frightbat"

Long March with bra-burning Bill | The Australian

I just got around to reading Nick Cater's column from yesterday, in which he gets all worked up about Bill Shorten and one line about women he used in November.   In the course of his column, Cater adopts the immature "frightbat" terminology invented by Tim Blair.

I find this all very strange.   Immaturity in politics used to be the province of the young Left.  (And indeed, it's still to be found there - it always will, while ever young people are generally more idealist than pragmatic in their early political views.)

But with this bunch of nutty Right wannabe culture warriors (all climate change deniers, by no coincidence at all) who want to try to provoke fights over matters where the great majority of the public and governments have become centrists anyway, you see so many of them openly showing rude immaturity.

Yet they are not of tender years themselves.  In fact, they skew heavily to white, male and over 50.  Or being Judith Sloan.

Strange, very strange. 

A set of grooming observations

*  My favourite deodorant is now made in South Africa and seems to me to not be as good as it used to be.

* I was given after shave balm from L'Occitane as a Christmas gift, and I note that it has "wild juniper" in it.  It does remind me of gin a little bit.  It's nice.

*  At Daiso, the cheap Japanese style "dollar" store, I bought a metal dental pick several months ago.  It certainly does help with that problem which is not uncommon - the formation of "scale" behind the lower front teeth, regardless of how routinely the area is brushed.  I once asked a dentist why it forms there in particular, and the answer is to do with the close proximity to salivary glands and the fact that saliva contains calcium and other ions.   Here, from the internet, I see confirmation of this:

Calculus formation is related to the fact that saliva is saturated with respect to calcium and phosphate ions. Precipitation of these elements leads to mineralization of dental plaque giving rise to calculus. The crystals in calculus include hydroxyapatite, brushite, and whitlockite, all of which have different proportions of calcium and phosphate in combination with other ions, such as magnesium, zinc, fluoride, and carbonate.

The cheapo dental pick I am using does seem very pointy, though, and I do worry that if it is not used cautiously enough, I may damage real tooth enamel.  So far so good, though.

Addiction considered

What Heroin Addiction Tells Us About Changing Bad Habits : Shots - Health News : NPR

I remember Theodore Dalrymple citing the American soldiers returning from Vietnam who successfully kicked the heroin habit as a reason to not overly pander to heroin addicts who claim an inability to get off methadone.  (My post about this is here.)

Well, this NPR article puts more flesh on the bones of the Vietnam vet story, and makes the point that researchers think it is the change of environment that makes all the difference.

This makes some sense, and also suggests a reason why urban addicts who are stuck in their domestic environment may well find it harder than returning soldiers to kick drug habits.

It also suggests why remote aboriginal communities with drugs problems look so hopeless.

Not decanting babies any time soon

The High-Tech Future of the Uterus - The Atlantic

Quite a good article here on the remarkable medical advances with respect to the uterus, as well as looking at past ideas (artificial wombs, or "in-vitro gestation") that no longer look viable.

This section is particularly interesting:

Since Liu’s mouse experiments, the medical community has more or less abandoned in-vitro gestation. The past decade saw a renaissance in transplant technology, and advances in the burgeoning field of human prenatal epigenetics have rendered gestation outside a mother’s body a less plausible concept. Scientists are learning more about the interplay between fetal
development and the mother’s whole body—not just her uterus.


“The fetus gets an advantage by developing within a maternal body,” says Janet DiPietro, associate dean for research at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. DiPietro oversees the Johns Hopkins Fetal-Development Project, a 20-year endeavor that tracks how
physiological aspects of the maternal-fetal bond shape development. DiPietro told me that everything from a mother’s circadian rhythms to her posture sends cues to the growing fetus.

“The maternal voice is heard very well, which probably sensitizes the baby to the sounds of their own language. Amniotic fluid develops the odor of certain foods that women eat, and so there’s a notion that cultural likes and dislikes are transmitted to the fetus via the amniotic fluid,” she says, “So the maternal context provides an environment that goes far beyond the direct circulatory-system connection.”

DiPietro explains that in the future, an artificial-uterus transplant is “far, far more likely” than in-vitro gestation, in part because the placenta, which grows from the uterus after implantation, is “one of the most enigmatic organs that we have.” Scientists can’t understand it, let alone construct it from scratch. The complex interplay between the placenta—which grows from the fetus’s own cells—and the mother’s blood flow, immune system, and circulating oxygen has been so poorly researched that Alan Guttmacher, director of the National Institute of
Child Health and Human Development, recently called it “the least-understood human organ.” But with a bioengineered uterus, the assumption is that if you get the uterus right, a placenta,
amazingly, will grow on its own once the transplant recipient becomes pregnant.

The other half speaks

Robert Webb: Peep Show has taught me we need to let women be idiots, too

David Mitchell, who I think has been the funniest man on British TV for quite a few years now, has worked a lot with Robert Webb, but I have never seen the latter writing or saying anything alone.  Well, that's now been corrected by the above article in The Independent.

Like Mitchell, it's very easy to mentally hear his voice in his writing.

As for Peep Show, which has been on for years but I have only been intermittently watching it for 18 months or so, it really is one of the pretty extreme examples of the cringe inducing comedies of embarrassment that Britain seems to specialise in (nearly to the exclusion of all other sitcom styles, as far as I can tell.) 

It is something of a guilty pleasure - the language is far too unnecessarily vulgar too often; some of the actions of some of the characters are just a bit too appalling to feel real; and you can start to feel a kind of claustrophobia from spending even 30 minutes with such hopeless losers.  But for all of that, it can be intermittently very funny.  I think both Mitchell and Webb are very good comedic actors; I just wish the material they were working with in the show was not always so relentlessly bleak about their character and prospects....

Can someone explain to me how this makes sense?

I see that Judith Sloan continues her charm offensive [deep, deep sarcasm there]  at Catallaxy by calling Piketty's Capital in the Twenty First Century "unreadable sludge"; laughs about how it is probably not fully read by most people who buy it (yeah, so by that standard Stephen Hawking's career is worthless too, I guess); and refers to her Australian column where she discusses the book  a little bit more.

Unsurprisingly, she's enamoured of McCloskey's critique of the book, which she explains as follows:

Her central criticism of the book is that Picketty does not include human capital when he discusses (and measures) the accumulation of capital over the several hundred years.
“The only reason to exclude human capital from capital appears to be to force the conclusion Piketty wants to achieve, that inequality has increased, or will, or might, or is to be feared”, she writes. “If human capital is included, the workers themselves now in the correct accounting own most of the nation’s capital and ­Piketty’s drama from 1848 falls to the ground”.

Now, I had read McCloshey's lengthy (and passive aggressive) review of the book at Catallaxy, and didn't understand that point at the time.

I still don't understand it.

OK, so let's Google what "human capital" means, and I take it that it means human education and skills.  

So what?   Going back a century or two, and by comparison, I'm sure the total world "human capital" has increased massively.   Widespread literacy would surely account for a huge slab of it.

But how the hell does some attempt at accounting for that supposed to offset the increasing disparity in actual wealth that Piketty argues is happening and likely to continue to intensify if corrective measures aren't put in place? 

Are we supposed to feel consoled that the poor at the start of the 21st century may well have a high school diploma, whereas 100 years ago they may have only had finished primary school?  Does an unemployed person with a degree somehow experience poverty less because of their degree?   [In fact, they will likely have an un-serviced debt that the unemployed high school graduate won't - no?]

Now, I can understand the argument that poverty today being not what it used to be - all but the poorest of the poor in the West at least have a refrigerator and TV now,  for example - is a reason not to fret so much about rising inequality, but that is nothing to do with "human capital" as far as I can tell. And I don't agree with the argument anyway - just in case you were wondering.

If someone can explain the logic or common sense in what Sloan finds convincing, please let me know.

About the last cold Chicago winter

From the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society:

The winter of 2013/2014 had unusual weather in many parts of the world. Here we analyse the cold extremes that were widely reported in North America and the lack of cold extremes in western Europe. We perform a statistical analysis of cold extremes at two representative stations in these areas: Chicago, Illinois and De Bilt, the Netherlands. This shows that the lowest minimum temperature of the winter was not very unusual in Chicago, even in the current warmer climate. Around 1950 it would have been completely normal. The same holds for multi-day cold periods. Only the whole winter temperature was unusual, with a return time larger than 25 years. In the Netherlands the opposite holds: the absence of any cold waves was highly unusual even now, and would have been extremely improbable half-way through the previous century. These results are representative of other stations in the regions. The difference is due to the skewness of the temperature distribution. In both locations, cold extremes are more likely than equally large warm extremes in winter. Severe cold outbreaks and cold winters, like the winter of 2013/2014 in the Great Lakes area, are therefore not evidence against global warming: they will keep on occurring, even if they become less frequent. The absence of cold weather as observed in the Netherlands is a strong signal of a warming trend, as this would have been statistically extremely improbable in the 1950s.

Capsule summary: The winter of 2013/2014 was notable in central North America for its persistent cold, the cold waves were not unusual. The absence of cold waves in Europe was statistically more extreme.

Catching up with Kruggers

Paul Krugman has been writing good stuff recently, including his one on Reaganolatory; how the anti-Keynesians keep making claims about inflation and Keynesianism that are wrong; his nominated most important chart of 2014 (although it's not that easy to understand that one);  and the interview in which he discusses some science fiction-y ideas as well as economics.

From that last link, I liked this discussion about whether super AI is really a threat, or not:

Ezra Klein: But let’s assume it does emerge. A lot of smart people right now seem terrified by it. You've got Elon Musk tweeting, "Hope we're not just the biological boot loader for digital superintelligence. Unfortunately, that is increasingly probable." Google's Larry Page is reading Nick Bostrom’s new book Superintelligence. I wonder, reading this stuff, whether people are overestimating the value of analytical intelligence. It’s just never been my experience that the higher you go up the IQ scale, the better people are at achieving their goals.

Our intelligence is really lashed to a lot of things that aren’t about intelligence, like endless generations of social competition in the evolutionary fight for the best mates. I don’t even know how to think about what a genuinely new, artifical intelligence would believe is important and what it would find interesting. It often seems to me that one of the reasons people get so afraid of AI is you have people who themselves are really bought into intelligence as being the most important of all traits and they underestimate importance of other motivations and aptitudes. But it seems as likely as not that a superintelligence would be completely hopeless at anything beyond the analysis of really abstract intellectual problems.

Paul Krugman: Yeah, or one thing we might find out if we produce something that is vastly analytically superior is it ends up going all solipsistic and spending all its time solving extremely difficult and pointless math problems. We just don't know. I feel like I was suckered again into getting all excited about self-driving cars, and so on, and now I hear it's actually a lot further from really happening that we thought. Producing artificial intelligence that can cope with the real world is still a much harder problem than people realize.

Speaking of movies...

Just before Christmas, I found in a remainder store a book by Australian director Bruce Beresford "Josh Hartnett DEFINITELY wants to do this.."  [Subtitle - True Stories From A Life in the Screen Trade.]

Published in 2007, it's simply his diary notes from 2003 to 2005, when he seemed to be caught in a period of "development hell" on several projects.   Ironically, the only movie he actually directs in this period is one which went straight to DVD in the US, despite its big name stars (John Cusack and Morgan Freeman).  (He really did not want to do it at all, but it's the one he ends up committed to.)

I have a vague recollection of reading some reviews of the book at the time it came out, but I'm glad I stumble across it.  It's a really fascinating, amusing, almost disturbing, insight into this bizarre business.


You have to wonder how anything good ever manages to get out of such a horrendous system, which really does seems extraordinarily full of chronic liars, exaggerators, the intensely libidinous, vanity filled stars, and producers who delegate artistic decision making to mere college graduates.  About the only thing he doesn't seem to mention is recreational drug taking in the industry - perhaps that really is a bit 1970's - 80's now.

I'm not all that fussed with Beresford's own output, which ranges wildly in style ("Adventures of Barry Mackenzie", "Puberty Blues" - yuck - "Breaker Morant" - pretty good -  "Tender Mercies" - haven't seen it, and "Driving Miss Daisy" - way over-rated -  to name a few) but he's had such a long career on all continents that his extremely frank comments on the industry  sound very convincing.   He also, surprisingly, is apparently regarded by some as right wing.  (Well, he certainly is a long term friend of conservative-ish Barry Humphries, but it seems clear he is left sympathetic, just not as invested in it as many on the Left in the arts are.  He is also sensible and dismissive of those on the Left who do things like semi defend the Castro - or worse - communist regimes.)

Amongst other snippets from the book:

* an American producer asked him to change the name "Singapore" in war drama Paradise Road because it "sounded silly." 
* Harrison Ford did not say a word to him - just a few grunts - during a lunchtime meeting.  (I had heard that one before.)
*  Makes the observation that a director barely has to know what he is doing, but if the technicians around him do, a film will still be made.
*  Directors have to have a medical examination - often a few - to satisfy the insurers before they are hired for a movie these days.
*  Recently retired Australian movie critic Evan Williams had 3 (or 4?) daughters who all got caught up in an Indian cult.

Perhaps the thing best illustrated by the book is the line by  famous screenwriter William Goldman that in Hollywood "nobody knows anything."   I mean, Beresford himself admits he's made totally wrong calls on movies which turned out to be smash hits.  He also spends a lot of effort during the period of the diaries trying to get made his own adaptation of a historical Australian novel I certainly have never heard about and which ends with the central character going insane.  Don't see much box office potential in that, myself...

On the other hand, a lot of what he says does strike a cord of common sense.

What he doesn't address is the one thing I still puzzle about - how the move to digital technology in both filming and projection has (apparently) completely failed to made movie making a cheaper, quicker, more economical business.

 It's clear that anyone who manages to get their screenplay made into a film with significant exposure to the market is extraordinarily lucky.   Which, like the hundreds of budding actors each year who never get beyond being wait-persons in LA restaurants, is a little depressing.

Still, a surprising enjoyable read.

Animation reviews

I've seen 3 animated films over the last week or two, and here are my thoughts on each:

*  Big Hero 6:   a very pleasing and exciting mashup of Marvel movie style action (which, to my mind, plays better in animation than with real life actors on obviously CGI filled screens) and revenge themes; Pixar style superb animation; and eye moistening Disney style (when they get it right) emotionalism.   

To elaborate a bit further:  the action sequences reminded me a bit of The Incredibles - it may be completely unrealistic, but with animation, you can avoid worrying about that but just be pleased by the visual excitement.  (Contrast some of the ridiculously big falls that characters are meant to walk or run away from in some big budget live action films these days.) 

The animated world it's set in is delightful and (as I read in someone's review) like an upbeat version of the setting of Blade Runner.  And the emotionalism - I think they get it just right. 

Both my kids said immediately after it finished that they wanted to see it again - not such a common reaction these days - and that speaks for itself.

*  Penguins of Madagascar:  sure, there are laughs to be had from some of the funniest support characters from the Madagascar movies; but really, with the villain being an evil octopus that manages to pass itself off as human (happens all the time), the movie is too obviously pitched at too young an audience.  

Somewhat disappointing for this reason.  Sure keeps a lot of Indian animators in work, though.

[I see that the less than expected box office has renewed discussion of whether Dreamworks animation is - sorta - in trouble.   They do have a fair bit of trouble with story strength, if you ask me.]

*  The Wind Rises:   finally caught up with Miyazake's semi-historical film about the famous (in Japan) lead designer of the Zero fighter.

Lavishly animated in the very pleasing Miyazake painterly style, I found it always engaging, and continually raising the question "I wonder how accurate that part of the story is?"

I see from articles like this one that it is more accurate in tone than in many details, and sort of merges two sources (one fictional) together.  I don't think it matters much, as the fairly extensive dream sequences make it clear that the details are often coming from the mind of Miyazake.

I find the narrative in his films often starts petering out in interest in the last third, but this one really was good to the end.   This makes it one of his strongest films, and well worth seeing.

As always, if your DVD or Blu-ray copy has a press conference with Miyazake as a special feature, do try to watch it.  He's again a cranky about certain questions, but it makes him pretty endearing.  (For example, he's really unhappy about being asked persistently about crying when seeing the completed movie.)

Yay for Free Will

Although it appears that Daniel Dennett has been making this argument for some years now, I haven't followed him closely.

In any event, the way he explains his position regarding free will in this interview extract that recently appeared on Salon is, in my opinion, very convincing.

It's good to see a professional philosopher type explaining well a line of argument that, I always felt  during idle showertime thoughts on the topic, made a lot of common sense.  Here are some key sections:

NW: The classic description of the problem is this: ‘If we can explain every action through a series of causal precedents, there is no space for free will.’ What’s wrong with that description?

DD: It’s completely wrong. There’s plenty of space for free will: determinism and free will are not incompatible at all.

The problem is that philosophers have a very simplistic idea of causation. They think that if you give the lowest-level atomic explanation, then you have given a complete account of the causation: that’s all the causation there is. In fact, that isn’t even causation in an interesting sense.

NW: How is that simplistic? After all , at the level of billiard balls on a table, one ball hits another one and it causes the second one to move. Neither ball has any choice about whether it moved; their paths were determined physically.

DD: The problem with that is that it ignores all of the higher-level forms of causation which are just as real and just as important. Suppose you had a complete atom-by-atom history of every giraffe that ever lived, and every giraffe ancestor that ever lived. You wouldn’t have an answer to the question of why they have long necks. There is indeed a causal explanation, but it’s lost in those details. You have to go to a different level in order to explain why the giraffe developed its long neck. That’s the notion of causation that matters for free will.
 ....

 NW: So that’s an evolutionary hypothesis about giraffes’ necks. H ow does it shed any light on the free will debate?

DD: If I want to know why you pulled the trigger, I won’t learn that by having an atom-by-atom account of what went on in your brain. I’d have to go to a higher level: I’d have to go to the intentional stance in psychology Here’s a very simple analogy: you’ve got a hand calculator and you put in a number, and it gives the answer 3.333333E. Why did it do that? Well, if you tap in ten divided by three, and the answer is an infinite continuing decimal, the calculator gives an ‘E’.

Now, if you want to understand which cases this will happen to, don’t examine each and every individual transistor: use arithmetic. Arithmetic tells you which set of cases will give you an ‘E’. Don’t think that you can answer that question by electronics. That’s the wrong level. The same is true with playing computer chess. Why did the computer move its bishop? Because otherwise its queen would have been captured. That’s the level at which you answer that question.

Happy New Year, possums

Guess what?  Possums have returned to the under-the-balcony hidey spot after a full year's absence.

Have I mentioned this story here before?  In December 2013, we had a contractor come in to replace a retaining wall in the back yard, and this involved laying down a concrete base.  He put the (inherently loud) concrete mixer - you know, this type of thing:

- in the front yard, close to the balcony, within a few metres of the spot where we would often find and feed a possum or two in the daytime.

Clearly, possums hate loud mechanic devices in close proximity, and they disappeared from that spot, although we still hear them walking on the roof and making that awful call some nights.

But lo and behold, a furry tail was spotted out the window of 31 December, and here is what we found:

and:

Close observers of my possum pics over the years may note that the mother possum here is not the one who used to regularly feature:  she had a distinctive notch out of her right ear.  So this may be a new generation of possums, but its nice that they do return - eventually.  And they still like to be fed.

Christmas Greetings

Not sure how Christmas-y that really is, but there sure is a lot to look at

Update:  for the person who asked in comments, the painting is Salvador Dali's Madonna of Port Lligat, which is discussed at Wikipedia here.  It gets a lengthier analysis at this site.  

The remaining mystery of "what does"

Income management doesn't work, so let's look at what does

So some research has reported that income management for aborigines in the Northern Territory is not really working.  But, as many people in comments after this piece say, the author does not address what does work, other than in the type of general platitudes that are always floating around these issues.