This is a compelling article...written by a Canadian citizen..

Salute the Danish Flag - it's a Symbol of Western Freedom By Susan MacAllen

In 1978-9 I was living and studying in Denmark. But in 1978 - even in Copenhagen, one didn't see Muslim immigrants. The Danish population embraced visitors, celebrated the exotic, went out of its way to protect each of its citizens. It was proud of its new brand of socialist liberalism one in development since the conservatives had lost power in 1929 - a system where no worker had to struggle to survive, where one ultimately could count upon the state as in, perhaps, no other western nation at the time.

The rest of Europe saw the Scandinavians as free-thinking, progressive and infinitely generous in their welfare policies. Denmark boasted low crime rates, devotion to the environment, a superior educational system and a history of humanitarianism.

Denmark was also most generous in its immigration policies - it offered the best welcome in Europe to the new immigrant: generous welfare payments from first arrival plus additional perks in transportation, housing and education. It was determined to set a world example for inclusiveness and multiculturalism. How could it have predicted that one day in 2005 a series of political cartoons in a newspaper would spark violence that would leave dozens dead in the streets -all because its commitment to multiculturalism would come back to bite?

By the 1990's the growing urban Muslim population was obvious - and its unwillingness to integrate into Danish society was obvious.. Years of immigrants had settled into Muslim-exclusive enclaves. As the Muslim leadership became more vocal about what they considered the decadence of Denmark's liberal way of life, the Danes - once so welcoming - began to feel slighted. Many Danes had begun to see Islam as incompatible with their long-standing values: belief in personal liberty and free speech, in equality for women, in tolerance for other ethnic groups, and a deep pride in Danish heritage and history. The New York Post in 2002 ran an article by Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaard, in which they forecasted accurately that the growing immigrant problem in Denmark would explode. In the article they reported:

'Muslim immigrants constitute 5 percent of the population but consume upwards of 40 percent of the welfare spending.' 'Muslims are only 5 percent of Denmark's 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country's convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are non-Muslim. Similar, if lesser, disproportions are found in other crimes.'

'Over time, as Muslim immigrants increase in numbers, they wish less to mix with the indigenous population. A recent survey finds that only 5 percent of young Muslim immigrants would readily marry a Dane.' 'Forced marriages - promising a newborn daughter in Denmark to a male cousin in the home country, then compelling her to marry him, sometimes on pain of death - are one problem'

'Muslim leaders openly declare their goal of introducing Islamic law once Denmark's Muslim population grows large enough - a not-that-remote prospect. If present trends persist, one sociologist estimates, every third inhabitant of Denmark in 40 years will be Muslim.'

It is easy to understand why a growing number of Danes would feel that Muslim immigrants show little respect for Danish values and laws. An example is the phenomenon common to other European countries and the U.S .: some Muslims in Denmark who opted to leave the Muslim faith have been murdered in the name of Islam, while others hide in fear for their lives. Jews are also threatened and harassed openly by Muslim leaders in Denmark, a country where once Christian citizens worked to smuggle out nearly all of their 7,000 Jews by night to Sweden - before the Nazis could invade. I think of my Danish friend Elsa - who as a teenager had dreaded crossing the street to the bakery every morning under the eyes of occupying Nazi soldiers - and I wonder what she would say today.

In 2001, Denmark elected the most conservative government in some 70 years - one that had some decidedly non-generous ideas about liberal unfettered immigration. Today Denmark has the strictest immigration policies in Europe. ( Its effort to protect itself has been met with accusations of 'racism' by liberal media across Europe - even as other governments struggle to right the social problems wrought by years of too-lax immigration.)

If you wish to become Danish, you must attend three years of language classes. You must pass a test on Denmark's history, culture, and a Danish language test. You must live in Denmark for 7 years before applying for citizenship. You must demonstrate an intent to work, and have a job waiting. If you wish to bring a spouse into Denmark, you must both be over 24 years of age, and you won't find it so easy anymore to move your friends and family to Denmark with you.

You will not be allowed to build a mosque in Copenhagen. Although your children have a choice of some 30 Arabic culture and language schools in Denmark, they will be strongly encouraged to assimilate to Danish society in ways that past immigrants weren't.

In 2006, the Danish minister for employment, Claus Hjort Frederiksen, spoke publicly of the burden of Muslim immigrants on the Danish welfare system, and it was horrifying: the government's welfare committee had calculated that if immigration from Third World countries were blocked, 75 percent of the cuts needed to sustain the huge welfare system in coming decades would be unnecessary. In other words, the welfare system as it existed was being exploited by immigrants to the point of eventually bankrupting the government. 'We are simply forced to adopt a new policy on immigration. The calculations of the welfare committee are terrifying and show how unsuccessful the integration of immigrants has been up to now,' he said.

A large thorn in the side of Denmark's imams is the Minister of Immigration and Integration, Rikke Hvilshoj. She makes no bones about the new policy toward immigration, 'The number of foreigners coming to the country makes a difference,' Hvilshøj says, 'There is an inverse correlation between how many come here and how well we can receive the foreigners that come.' And on Muslim immigrants needing to demonstrate a willingness to blend in, 'In my view, Denmark should be a country with room for different cultures and religions. Some values, however, are more important than others. We refuse to question democracy, equal rights, and freedom of speech.'

Hvilshoj has paid a price for her show of backbone. Perhaps to test her resolve, the leading radical imam in Denmark, Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban, demanded that the government pay blood money to the family of a Muslim who was murdered in a suburb of Copenhagen, stating that the family's thirst for revenge could be thwarted for money. When Hvilshoj dismissed his demand, he argued that in Muslim culture the payment of retribution money was common, to which Hvilshoj replied that what is done in a Muslim country is not necessarily what is done in Denmark. The Muslim reply came soon after: her house was torched while she, her husband and children slept. All managed to escape unharmed, but she and her family were moved to a secret location and she and other ministers were assigned bodyguards for the first time - in a country where such murderous violence was once so scarce.

Her government has slid to the right, and her borders have tightened. Many believe that what happens in the next decade will determine whether Denmark survives as a bastion of good living, humane thinking and social responsibility, or whether it becomes a nation at civil war with supporters of Sharia law.

And meanwhile, Canadians clamor for stricter immigration policies, and demand an end to state welfare programs that allow many immigrants to live on the public dole. As we in Canada look at the enclaves of Muslims amongst us, and see those who enter our shores too easily, dare live on our taxes, yet refuse to embrace our culture, respect our traditions, participate in our legal system, obey our laws, speak our language, appreciate our history . . we would do well to look to Denmark, and say a prayer for her future and for our own..

Posted by Karl Rohde at 12:00 pm | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Politics

Rob O'Neill's article Naked DSL costs don't add up for customers covered a big part of the issue regarding New Zealand's Naked DSL offering.

But he missed one very critical part.

Telecom is still causing grief for people. ISPs and customers alike.

Our home phone is billed through TelsraClear, but is still a Telecom line.  At the moment we are unable to get Naked DSL, or even move our phone number to VoIP.

Why? 

Telecom's provisioning team (who actually disconnect our phone just to change ISPs) can not currently support moving a phone billed by another providers like TelsraClear to a VoIP provider.

The only way they can do it is to "decommission" the line (which means you loose the phone number) and create a brand new "line".  Even then it is most likely you will be without phone and internet for close to a week.

So, the only option for us is to "switch" back to Telecom ($50 churn fee) then have our Naked DSL commissioned via WorldXChange.

Ridiculous.  But shows that nothing has really changed in New Zealand.

Posted by Karl Rohde at 8:30 am | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Technology

Arthur Taylor. Photo / Paul Estcourt

Big stuff up from the Corrections Department, and not really on.  They are doing their internal investigations.  People are being taken to task over the stuff up.

But now the fuckers that were in files want money.  Get this, for "distress and humiliation".

Career criminal Arthur Taylor (pictured) and his wife Carolyn were among them.  They want $10,000!

"The legal claim will be to address the anxiety and distress suffered by these people. It's hard enough getting parole as it is without this sort of thing happening," Tennet said.

Tennet is the bloodsucking lawyer representing theses individuals.

From my perspective, privacy is very important.  But an apology from the Corrections Department is all these bastards are entitled to. They have shown a complete disregard for the laws of the land, and now expect the laws of the land to "protect" and "compensate" them.

If they do win, which due to the dottery fools we call judges in New Zealand, their reparation should first go to the victims of their crimes.  This should include any money that is destined for these criminal low lives' family, who apparently also have their hands out.

At the end of the day, these clowns broke the law, hurt people, and attacked the foundations of society.  They are not entitled to compensation.  If they win, it will cause "distress and humiliation" to their victims and their victims' families.  I doubt they will be entitled to seek damages for this.

Where is the justice in that?

Posted by Karl Rohde at 8:00 am | Comments (1) | Trackbacks (0) | Law_and_Order

I don't normally put technology stuff on my blog; it feels too much like work.  However, I recently read an article on computerworld's site called Protecting your software investment.

I have never read so much technology drivel in my life. It is obvious they were drunk when writing it, and they show a complete lack of understanding about the real issues facing businesses that undertake bespoke development projects.

Firstly, a disclaimer, have I, or my companies (Red Toad Solutions currently, and Synergy Software historically) always got it right? No. Unfortunately not. It is really hard to get the balance between delivery to the customer, profitability, reusability and more importantly ensure people do what is expected of them.

I have a mantra about projects:

Projects seldom fail because of technology, they fail because of people.

The article waffles on about escrow services, virtual machines, licensing of the codebase and various other things the typical SME owner/decision maker knows nothing about.  What's more, the article fails to raise the key problem of developing bespoke solutions to the SME market.  Budget.

It all comes down to that one word.  I'll say it again.  Budget.

When dealing with SMEs, bespoke development eventually comes down to price.  Not whether you are the best in the business, or the most highly qualified to undertake the work, or have the best track record and testimonials or can show all this with white papers and case studies.  It comes down to can you say you will do something for a price that is worth it to the customer.

[Note to self: this is gonna be a LONG entry in the blog - sigh]

I will share with you a little project that started over two years ago for my company.  It was a relatively straight-forward CRM solution.  The initial estimate for bespoke solution was close to $50,000 from memory or several thousand a month for an off the shelf solution using something like Microsoft Dynamics.  The client was a start-up; they had limited funds and it was too much for them.  I suggested open source with some customization, but no - their business was "unique" and they wanted bespoke. 

The question put to me was "can I cut the costs down".  Regretable I said "I will see what I can do".

So... out came the scalple.  We cut out the following:

• proper discovery stage and design stage - we relied on a very rough excel spreadsheet as out "specification"
• various bits of functionality
• documentation
• full Systems and QA testing - relying on the client to do this
• no project management

Well, two years later, we still have issues passed to the client waiting for retests, the client is unhappy with the system, and we now look rather less than professional.  It cost them less than 50% of the original estimate; but they got what they paid for.

In hinde-sight I should never have allowed the project to get past the "could you cut some costs" stage.

Now, back to tweedle dee and tweedle dumb [Note to self: probably better remove that - might upset Chris and Mark]

None of what they say makes sense really.  As I have "picked up the pieces" from several Glazier Systems, Agility Group and Intergen provided solutions over the years, the article re-enforces my believe it is very hard to get it right. 

However, I do have some rules that protect both the client and the vendor in this process.

1. Always have a dicovery stage; if the client doesn't won't to pay for it they don't value your time or their own business. Next client please.
2. Use tried and true technology; let the corporates with shit-loads of cash blow it on new technology.  The SME can not afford to be guinea pigs. 
3. Documentation is your friend; make sure you document everything.  It is the best "escrow" service you can have. It means there is no dispute about what is delivered, how it is delivered, and how it can be maintained. Despite many client's expecting it for free, it is as valuable as the code itself, and therefore should be a charged item.
4. Regular meetings; don't be shy!  Meet regularly and often. Communication is essential to a successful project.  And again, some client's seem to think meetings are "free". Wrong. They are part of the process, they take time and therefore are a chargeable item.
5. Don't discount; Discounting does no one any favours.  The price is the price. If the client doesn't want to pay for it they don't value your time or their own business. Next client please.
6. Testing; testing is part and parcel to all bespoke development.  Never avoid it, and never "remove it" to save costs.
7. Maintenance fee; Insist on it.  15% of the inital project should be considered a normal annual fee for ongoing fixes and maintenance.  Client's may think this is unreasobable, but quietly suggest to them they go to Microsoft and ask for a free upgrade from Windows 95  to Vista.  See what happens.

Now, as to who owns the source code, thats a subject for another blog.  In fact I could probably write a book on it.

Something providers and potential client's need to remember is your are both "in business".  The provider's responsibility is to build a professional system that meets the client's known needs.  Emphasis is "known needs", providers generally don't have a crystal ball (note the importance of 1, 3 and 4 above).  The client's responsibility is to impart as much knowledge as clearly and efficiently as possible to the provider.  It is also the client's responsibility to value the provider's time.

Companies like Intergen are great at preaching about process and new technologies.  There are so many companies out there, some of them award wining, that say they are very good at what they do. So far in fifteen years in ICT, most of them as a senior consultant, I have yet to find a company that gets it right all the time.

It all comes down to that one word again.  Budget.

When the budget is tight, which it usually is for bespoke development for SMEs, usually the first three things to go are design, documentation and communication.

The provider needs to be firm about the necessity of these, and the client needs to value them.  These are areas that are directly influenced by people.

Projects seldom fail because of technology, they fail because of people.

Anyway, enough!  I need to pee and get myself a glass of wine!

Posted by Karl Rohde at 3:00 pm | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Business

"There is no way that it is fair for one employee to be paid less each week in their take-home pay than an employee doing the same tasks, simply because they choose to be in KiwiSaver and the other employee doesn't," Mr Mallard told the Weekend Herald.

In principle, up to the government contribution of $1043 I agree 100%.  After that however, I strongly disagree. I say:

There is no way that it is fair for one employee to be paid less each week in their gross pay than an employee doing the same tasks, simply because they choose NOT to be in KiwiSaver and the other employee does.

Let's take the average income of a software developer with 8 years experience.

They can expect to be paid $65,000 per annum, depending on their specific skill-set.

Once the 4% employer contribution kicks in, the employer will be "topping-up" $1557 per annum for a salary of $65,000.

If the employer has two employees with equal experience, and they are both as good as each other, but only one is in Kiwisaver, the employer will have to pay the non-Kiwisaver person an extra $2373 for them to be on the same remuneration as the person on Kiwisaver.

The net value of $1557 is gross $2373 after 33% tax and 1.4% ACC.

However, it seems the change to legislation actually makes out that the employer is penalizing the person in Kiwisaver, which is simply not logical.  They are getting a net benefit from the employer of $1557.  Just because someone has not joined Kiwisaver does not mean they should be entitled to anything less.  In fact it could probably be argued the employer is prejudicing them by not giving them the same "package".  This would be even more likely if the person not in Kiwisaver happened to be female, but thats a completely different problem that needs to be dealt with.

Assuming the market rate is $65,000 per annum.  Kiwisaver in fact makes the market rate $67,3773 - if the employee was given fringe benefits to the value of $1557 (in simplistic terms sticking to their 33% tax bracket) there would be a gross liability for the employer of $2373.

So, is the employer offering a $65,000 gross package based on market rates really in breach of the legislation if one person decides to join Kiwisaver and one person does not?  $65k total package should be exactly that.  Obviously the Kiwisaver would still get the $1043 subsidised amount - but that's the government paying it, not the employer.

Does the legistaltion only cover that $1043 or is it the whole 4%? 

These are questions that small employers need answers to, $2373 in gross terms means each developer in this scenario would have to bill out an extra 3 hours a month to cover it.  That may not sound a lot - but for professional services, it can be hard enough to keep consistent billing.  Since services companies trade time for money, it is very much a problem.

The person in Kiwisaver is making a choice as to whether or not to join.  If they do join, their package is still the same as the person that didn't join, so they take home less pay.  That is not the boss ripping them off, it is simple mathmatics.

It shows yet again that Kiwisaver was not properly though through, and that most MPs have no clue about the real business world.

Don't get me wrong, I am not against Kiwisaver in principle - but the details are a huge can of worms that will be hurting people for many years to come.

Posted by Karl Rohde at 6:00 pm | Comments (3) | Trackbacks (0) | Politics

The Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Act 2007

Wow. That's a mouthful!

I actually agree with this new bit of law in principle.  However, as with anything "flexible" between an employee and employer there is always a risk of abuse, in this case from the employee.

I do have an issue with some of the wording:

"To provide the employee with appropriate support and information during the course of the request."

I personally think the employer, especially the small business, is already burdened with enough.  If an employee knows about the fact they can request flexible working options, then it's up to the inidividual to be fully informed of their rights. If they can't be bothered, I for one would be concerned about giving them the flexibility they are asking for.

In fact I would go so far as stating I would make it an unwritten company policy that an employee who is clueless about the process would be covered by:

• detrimental impact on performance
• detrimental impact on quality

They would therefore be refused their request.

It would also be necessary to put some very careful monitoring into place which many small businesses simply could not have the resources to do or even the knowledge to do.

Luckily that is covered by:

• burden of additional costs
• detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand

I continue to dispute that the employer should be tasked with keeping their staff fully informed in matters of employment.

It comes down to empowering people; the more responsibility we take away from someone the less empowered they become.

Unfortunately New Zealand labour laws are generally about dumbing down the labour force, which is why we are so low on the OECD's GDP per Hour tables.  You need a consciencious and educated employee to be productive, something the New Zealand labour force sadley lacks.

I for one will be watching the collateral damage this new law creates as it is tested in employment courts around the country.

I am sure employment law vultures like Garry Pollack, who has historically been quick off the mark to test new labour laws, are on the edge of their seat dribbling in anticipation.

Posted by Karl Rohde at 6:00 pm | Comments (1) | Trackbacks (0) | Politics