The brilliant “Everything is a Remix” is now finished. Here, for posterity’s sake, are all four instalments.
These are really nicely put together. If you haven’t seen the first ones, start from the top…
The brilliant “Everything is a Remix” is now finished. Here, for posterity’s sake, are all four instalments.
These are really nicely put together. If you haven’t seen the first ones, start from the top…
The original film clip to this song was so incredibly trippy that it was unwatchable.
But this is cool. Some sciency people who were working on making explosions and stuff in a place called the Blast Lab made a whole lot of other sounds, which were stitched together to produce this…
This is sensational, and somewhat beautiful.

Dropbox is, without doubt, the coolest and most useful webapp/utility going round. If you don’t use it – click here – and sign up via my referral link. Then I’ll get some extra space.
The referral system is a brilliant way for Dropbox to grow, and it’s at the heart of this post.
Dropbox offers 250 megabytes per referral in online storage space, and everybody has one of those referral links.
I have a Google adwords account. I used it to play around with some ad stuff a while ago. When I signed up, Google gave me $75 of free advertising. This week they gave me another $100 for some reason.
So I set up an ad for Dropbox using my referral link. I’d read about this trick on Lifehacker. 18 free dollars later, I’m up to 6GB in Dropbox space, and I still have a bit of Google money left.
So I’m willing to offer the first five people who ask in the comments here their very own ad with their very own referral link – just email it to me, or post it as a link in the comments. I don’t mind. I’ll put $10 of my google credit towards your campaign.
It seems to work better during office hours in a non-Australian timezone – ie I got most of my clicks overnight on Thursday, our time.
So anyway. Hit me up. And if you don’t use Dropbox already, click here.
UPDATE: The five slots filled up pretty quickly. Sorry to those who missed out.
Tetris is my favourite timewaster. Minesweeper used to be. So you’ll forgive me for never having time to blog here again now that I’ve discovered Tetrisweeper.
The instructions are in a foreign tongue – but here are the controls.
Shift + click to highlight a mine.
Click to clear squares.
W to rotate.
A to go < -
d to go ->
s to go V
Tetris pieces become squares on the minesweeper board.



We’re reading Calvin in two subjects this year – which is nice and efficient. Anyway. I’ve been thinking about the nature of offending people online, and how it behoves a reader to be charitable in one’s interpretation of other’s words. While I understand that communication is a two way street, and the speaker (or writer) has some responsibility for how a hearer (or reader) will understand their words – I think you can only cater so much for this, and the reader has a responsibility to think about context, and other interpretive principles. Anyway. Here’s Calvin distinguishing between the types of readers (or hearers) one should care about offending.
“I will here make some observations on offenses, what distinctions are to be made between them, what kind are to be avoided and what disregarded. This will afterwards enable us to determine what scope there is for our liberty among men. We are pleased with the common division into offense given and offense taken, since it has the plain sanction of Scripture, and not improperly expresses what is meant. If from unseasonable levity or wantonness, or rashness, you do any thing out of order or not in its own place, by which the weak or unskillful are offended, it may be said that offense has been given by you, since the ground of offense is owing to your fault. And in general, offense is said to be given in any matter where the person from whom it has proceeded is in fault. Offense is said to be taken when a thing otherwise done, not wickedly or unseasonably, is made an occasion of offense from malevolence or some sinister feeling. For here offense was not given, but sinister interpreters ceaselessly take offense. By the former kind, the weak only, by the latter, the ill-tempered and Pharisaical are offended. Wherefore, we shall call the one the offense of the weak, the other the offense of Pharisees, and we will so temper the use of our liberty as to make it yield to the ignorance of weak brethren, but not to the austerity of Pharisees.”
From Book 3, Chapter 19.
Umm. Wow. Last year some people were shocked when Arcade Fire won a Grammy off the back of their amazing album The Suburbs. That was depressing.
This is worse.

More, with a not so slight language warning, on the buzzfeed page dedicated to documenting this heinous crime against music.
P.S. Paul McCartney was, of course, the bass player in Wings.
Are you a social media junkie? Do you not already give me your very divided, nay, fragmented social media attention? Even if you’re not either of those things, but you’ve started reading lately or something here are some other things you should be aware of:
Nothing really to see here – except nathancampbell.com.au – which is a PR consulting holding page type thing.
There you go. PLEASE GIVE ME MORE ATTENTION. Or just follow me. I’m probably most active on Facebook, Instagram, and my blogs. But I’m trying to use Twitter more and more (I read tweets more than I tweet).
These introductions to critical thinking are, I think, an essential primer that all Christians seeking to engage in apologetics online, or in the real world, should watch – or at least be aware of…
I found them at Brain Pickings (my dad also emailed me the link – don’t know what he was trying to tell me…).
I love these literal Dr Seuss covers from Buzzfeed.


There are a few more. The whole exercise of examining the worldview or moral behind the stories in picture books is something I’m looking forward to doing over the next few years.
Once upon a time, when I wrote media releases for a living, media releases about economic development projects in regional Queensland, I banned myself from using the word sustainable (it’s even in my blacklist). Words like sustainable function on a law of diminishing returns – and as XKCD points out – the use of the word sustainable is unsustainable.

Via XKCD.
When Tommy Jordan discovered a rant his teenage daughter had posted about her parents on Facebook (she forgot to hide it from the dog). He decided to make a little video response and share it with her friends.
There is a language warning here – but I’m posting it with the disclaimer Tommy included when he posted it to YouTube.
“Warning: Since this video seems to have gone crazy, I figure I’ll post this notice. I’m going to read a letter my 15 year old daughter wrote. There ARE some curse words in it. None of them are incredibly bad, but they are definitely things a little kid shouldn’t hear… not to mention things MY KID shouldn’t say!
If you want to see the original Facebook thread, it’s located at:
http://www.facebook.com/tommyjordaniii/posts/299559803434210
——————————————————————————–————–My daughter thought it would be funny/rebellious/cool to post on her Facebook wall just how upset she was and how unfair her life here is; how we work her too hard with chores, never pay her for chores, and just in general make her life difficult.
She chose to share this with the entire world on Facebook and block her parent’s from seeing it. Well, umm… she failed. As of the end of this video, she won’t have to worry anymore about posting inappropriate things on Facebook…
Maybe a few kids can take something away from this… If you’re so disrespectful to your parents and yourself as to post this kind of thing on Facebook, you’re deserving of some tough love. Today, my daughter is getting a dose of tough love.”
The first seven minutes of this video essentially function as a back story to the rather dramatic, and pretty awesome, ending. So once you feel you understand the hurt the father is feeling, skip to around the 7 minute mark.
My friends at Brisbane Property Solutions have been busy. Not only are they terrible, terrible, bond cleaners in Brisbane. And not only should you not trust them to clean your house. They are terrible reviewers of their own business. And you should not trust them to talk about themselves…
As a follow up to the situation described in the previous post – I emailed the company with some feedback, pointing out our areas of concern. The email featured the photos from the gallery in the previous post.
Subject: Our House “clean”
Hi,
We finally had the chance to check out the clean you guys did of our house for our exit today. We’re handing the keys over to the landlord on Monday.
And we were staggeringly underwhelmed.
We booked a bond guarantee end of lease clean – and while we understand that it was a big job, which took extra time, which we paid for… I was quite clear in my directions to Kirsty, our cleaner, over the phone. Especially regarding what we wanted done in the additional time – the walls and the floors.
I am sure you are familiar with the included items listed on your website for this standard clean (at this page: http://www.brisbanepropertysolutions.com.au/712fd69e-58e0-4590-81ea-a8841203f8b0.aspx – just so we’re clear).
It seemed to me from our inspection that the vast majority of these tasks were not attempted, which leaves us feeling a little robbed, and considering our options.
I took some photos, which are included in this email, I look forward to hearing what your solution to this is.
I pointed out that they had dirtied the carpet that we had had cleaned, and mentioned that the walls and floors had not been completed, as requested (several times). And finished with:
“These are just some examples of the state of the house, which, as you can see, we have several reasons to be disappointed in, after spending a significant portion of the bond we are anticipating receiving on this clean. We booked your company on the basis of the product you offered, rather than labour time involved – and the jobs quoted on were not completed.
I will wait for your reply before taking any further action, but as I say, we’re meeting with our landlords on Monday, and I hope to be able to offer them some sort of explanation and solution at that time.”
I sent this email on Saturday. Which, as was pointed out to me in some detail by Lisa, the company’s representative, over the phone – was well and truly outside the time guaranteed.
To point out that we were aware this was outside the 48 hour period, I sent a follow up email – almost immediately after the previous email:
“we were unable to attend the property within the 48 hour period stipulated due to work and family commitments. We have a newborn baby, and I have just started a new position so taking time away from work or home for either my wife, or myself, is difficult. Today was our first opportunity to examine the work.
Secondly, the house has been vacant, and locked, since completion of the work – the owner is, to our knowledge, moving back in to the property so there have been no rental inspections, and nobody else inside the house.
We trust that you will respond to this complaint quickly and in good faith.”
We weren’t necessarily expecting a written response prior to heading over to the house on Monday morning. And we weren’t disappointed not to get one. But, as we drove to our old house on the Monday to start cleaning the bits they refused to touch (the rendered walls), I called them. And spoke to Lisa. And wow. I’ve never been treated more rudely by a product supplier ever before. I’d post the last three minutes of the ten minute call, which we recorded – but doing so would probably see me fall foul of the law. It is hilarious. She cackled triumphantly when she realised that because our job fell outside the guarantee period, we weren’t covered.
As an aside – I can understand the need to not provide a lifelong guarantee for a cleaning job. But 48 hours seems pretty arbitrary. Are they expecting their work, in a locked house, will vanish in a puff of smoke, or turn back into a pumpkin, when the clock rotates four times (clocks are 12 hours, remember).
It was a bizarre phone call, in which, as I am wont to do on occasion, I mentioned that bad reviews are bad for business, and mentioned that I work in Public Relations so get pretty good bang for my buck review wise. I wasn’t trying to blackmail her, or be vindictive, I was just blown away by what was passing for customer service over the phone, and I suspect the owners of the company would be too. I’m going to do my best to contact them directly, along with the real estate agents who “recommend” this company.
I sent a follow up email, after our call ended with threats of legal action from both directions (I had informed Lisa that I had asked the Commonwealth Bank to investigate our payments on the basis that the goods (in this case services) received were not as described), in that email I outlined the facts as described in these posts. And I have not received a response.
So, onwards and upwards.
I am curious about how a company like this gets business – especially when they get such horrible reviews from customers online (if only we’d checked that first, I know…). Here’s a sample of the reviews from True Local.
DO NOT USE THIS COMPANY. Worst company ever. We had nothing but problems from the start with them stuffing up the booking and booking the wrong house, wrong number of bedrooms and trying to ask payment to fix their mistake. They didnt turn up on the right day with no phone call to let us know. They charged us $600 and all they did was give a quick mop and vacuum. No light fittings, walls, fans, windows, oven or anything were cleaned. Do not use this company
1 WEEK AGO
$1000+ later my 2 bedroom townhouse was clean. Caused problems with my previous real estate. Rude and over ridiculously priced for the bad, slow and inaccurate.
Do not hire them you’d be better off doing it yourself! It’d take a quarter of the time and money. My real estate recommended them also, so watch out and READ REVIEWS which I obviously didn’t do.
2 WEEKS AGO
After the second attempt the owner of the apartment told us the carpets werent clean enough so we asked for a partial refund and this business claim that the dirt on the carpets and everything on the list mentioned above was due to inspections and having people come in and look at the place? They took no responsibility for their shotty work and blamed it on people who came in to look at the place (with no evidence or knowledge of how many inspections were held after the first clean).
– i had to explain instructions numerous times and gave me attitude for having to do re-work.
– told me a manager would meet me instead sent cleaners again whilst lying to me on the phone
– very hard to contact a manager, all i got was a business owner who told me it wasnt there fault – taking no responsibility for their service or lack there of.
– poor customer service – requested them to call me and never did, instead, just emailed me with ridiculous illogical EXCUSES to why things werent completed.
$600 – it is safe to say I got ripped off because their “bond clean” didnt get my bond back even after two attempts.
8 MONTHS AGO
Paid more than $200 – a complete waste of money
10 MONTHS AGO
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. These reviews so perfectly describe our interactions with the company – and I can’t help but think that were I running this company and seeing such reviews typed in pixels, permanently emblazoned on the interwebs, I’d be more than a little concerned.
Now the social media experts (the people who write books) say that dealing with criticism online is important. And you should respond publicly, graciously, and likeably, so that other people see that you are interested in your customers.
You probably shouldn’t go writing your own reviews…
I mentioned that I spoke to Lisa on the phone. Lisa had a strong New Zealand accent. Interestingly, the latest five star review, the first positive review after a string of half star reviews, was by a Joy Packer, the second was by a Lisa Craig – with a kiwi bird as her Facebook profile picture. Now, this could be an unhappy coincidence. But I think not…


Joy Packer has reviewed two bond cleaning companies in ten months. She promised to use the last one again. But it appears she’s fickle.

Compare Joy Packer’s reviews with Lisa Craig’s reviews…

Now. I’m not a great believer in coincidences. And I’d put my money, and at the very least, my mouth, on the line and I’d say these two people are the same, and I’d say there’s a fair chance it’s the very same staff member who abused me on the phone.
1. Don’t use your real name (speaks for itself).
2. Do just one, or thousands. Two reviews in quick succession after a string of negatives doesn’t look great.
3. Variety is the spice of life – four stars is fine. If you shoot for the top, and talk about yourself in glowing terms, people will get suspicious. Reality bites. Use different words.
4. Keep track of which fake accounts have reviewed what.
5. Pay someone else. Review writing can be outsourced. It’s a bit sad when you have to stoop to doing this yourself – especially if you get caught.
6. Just do the job you promise to do, in the manner you promise to do it in – then you won’t have to invent reviews. You’ll get good ones that are deserved.