Thursday, July 3, 2014

Ian Narev, the CEO of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, this morning “unreservedly” apologised to clients who lost money in a scandal involving the bank’s financial planning services arm.

Last week, a Senate enquiry found financial advisers from the Commonwealth Bank had made high-risk investments of clients’ money without the clients’ permission, resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars lost. The Senate enquiry called for a Royal Commission into the bank, and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).

Mr Narev stated the bank’s performance in providing financial advice was “unacceptable”, and the bank was launching a scheme to compensate clients who lost money due to the planners’ actions.

In a statement Mr Narev said, “Poor advice provided by some of our advisers between 2003 and 2012 caused financial loss and distress and I am truly sorry for that. […] There have been changes in management, structure and culture. We have also invested in new systems, implemented new processes, enhanced adviser supervision and improved training.”

An investigation by Fairfax Media instigated the Senate inquiry into the Commonwealth Bank’s financial planning division and ASIC.

Whistleblower Jeff Morris, who reported the misconduct of the bank to ASIC six years ago, said in an article for The Sydney Morning Herald that neither the bank nor ASIC should be in control of the compensation program.

Monday, November 28, 2005

SpaceX called off the much-delayed inaugural launch of their new Falcon 1 rocket on Saturday from Kwajalein’s Omelek Island launch site. The intent was to launch the U.S. Air Force Academy’s FalconSat 2 satellite, which will monitor plasma interactions with the Earth’s upper atmosphere and magnetosphere.

The launch was delayed, then finally cancelled after an oxygen boil-off vent had accidentally been left open. The oxygen was unable to cool the helium pressurant, which then proceeded to evaporate faster than it could be replenished. A main computer issue, probably serious enough to cause a scrub on its own, was also discovered.

This long-anticipated flight was originally expected to be launched in January 2005, however a series of setbacks forced a series of delays, with the flight most recently scheduled to be in early 2006. It was intended to be launched from the Kwajalein atoll in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

The maiden voyage was originally intended to launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California with a Naval Research Laboratory satellite and a Space Services Incorporated space burial payload.

Saturday, January 21, 2006

Judge M. Brooke Murdock of the Baltimore Circuit Court in Maryland struck down a 1973 law banning same-sex marriage yesterday, ruling the measure violated a state constitutional amendment prohibiting sex discrimination.

The decision will not allow gay couples to be immediately eligible for marriage licenses because Murdock stayed the order pending an appeal. The state’s attorney general’s office filed the appeal right after the ruling was made.

“Although tradition and societal values are important, they cannot be given so much weight that they alone will justify a discriminatory statutory classification,” the judge stated in the ruling. “When tradition is the guise under which prejudice or animosity hides, it is not a legitimate state interest.”

In making the decision, Judge Murdock wrote, “the court is not unaware of the dramatic impact of its ruling.”

Ken Choe, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union’s (ACLU) Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, said “men and women were indeed treated differently under the law Judge Murdock struck down. A man can marry a woman, but a woman can’t marry a woman. Same-sex couples need the same protections for their families that opposite-sex couples do.”

The ACLU hailed the ruling, calling it “a historical step toward allowing same-sex couples to legally marry in Maryland.” She considered but dismissed all the state’s arguments for the restriction, noting “Prevention of same-sex marriage is not rationally related to the state’s interests in promoting stable families and protecting the best interests of children. … These arguments are illogical and inaccurate.”

Governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. released a statement saying that that the state will “begin a vigorous appeals process. I firmly believe the institution of marriage is for one man and one woman only.”

Governor Ehrlich had sent to Attorney General J. Joseph Curran Jr. (D), a letter in response to the ruling advising him to appeal the decision and offered additional resources to support the appeal.

“We have noted an appeal and think it appropriate that the court stayed the operation of its order,” said Kevin J. Enright, a spokesman for Curran, in a statement. “We await having the decision of Maryland’s appellate courts.”

The Maryland House of Delegates scheduled hearings for January 31, 2006 on proposals dealing with same-sex marriages, including a proposed constitutional amendment.

John Lestitian, a plaintiff in the case, said Murdock’s decision was “a step in a very long process. As a 40-year-old man, I should be able to decide who my family is.”

“This is such an exciting moment,” said Lisa Polyak. Her partner of 24 years, Gita Deane, was a plaintiff in the case. “Our participation in this lawsuit has always been about family protections for our children. Tonight, we will rest a little easier knowing that those protections are within reach.”

The equal rights amendment in Maryland’s State Constitution was ratified by voters in 1972. The marriage law which defined marriage as only between one man and one woman was approved the following year.

The lawsuit leading to the decision started when nine gay and/or lesbian couples and one individual sued court clerks in five Maryland counties for denying marriage licenses to them, citing legal, financial, and emotional harm. In July of 2004, the ACLU filed the suit challenging the state ban on same-sex marriage.

Same-sex marriages are only legal in the state of Massachusetts in the United States, with the states of Vermont and Connecticut recognizing other civil unions. Hawaii and New Jersey offer some legal protections to same-sex couples, while 13 states have appoved constitutional amendments rejecting recognition of same-sex marriage. Courts in California, New Jersey, New York and Washington State are facing cases on the issue.

Saturday, November 27, 2010

A judge in the High Court in Aberdeen, Scotland has criticised the care doctors gave to baby Alexis Matheson. Lord Uist made the comments while sentencing Mark Simpson, who was yesterday convicted of murdering the six-week-old girl.

Simpson, 29, will serve at least twenty years of his life sentence after he attacked Alexis — the child of his then-girlfriend Ilona Sheach, who he blamed for Alexis’s wounds — over the course of a month. The child suffered broken ribs and brain damage. Lord Uist said staff at Woodside Medical Group might have been able to prevent the death but failed to realise the baby was being hurt deliberately.

Sheach had initially been unable to get an appointment at Aberdeen-based Woodside for her daughter; instead, Dr Mohammed Athar spoke on the phone with Sheach and prescribed three drugs without seeing the infant. When she did see a doctor the following week despite being, said Lord Uist, “seriously concerned” for Alexis’s health, the doctor she saw — Linda Mackay — believed Sheach’s explanation the baby was constipated. She felt Alexis’s blood-red eyes were due to straining; a consultant neurosurgeon testified at trial that this did not explain the subconjunctival haemorrhages in the eyes.

That consultant felt a referral to a paediatrician would have been approrpiate. A consultant paediatrician told the court if Dr Mckay had phoned one Alexis would have been urgently hospitalised. These circumstances have led to calls for legislative changes, according to The Scotsman, which compared the death to the recent Baby P case in neighbouring England. Lord Uist also made this comparison, saying “Scottish health authorities have to treat this case with a similar degree of importance and urgency” to “[t]he Baby P case down south”.

Lord Uist was “very disturbed” that “nothing was done” following Dr Mackay’s assessment. He also criticised the delay in seeing a doctor, saying “[i]t is my opinion the appointments system operated at this surgery may require urgent review so as to ensure children requiring urgent attention receive it by being seen by a doctor.”

He continued “[w]hether the death of baby Alexis could have been prevented had she been so referred is a matter which, in my opinion, merits a very full inquiry. The training of GPs, and also health visitors, to detect signs of non-accidental injury may be a matter that requires further consideration.”

The same day as these comments, Crown Office announced that a fatal accident inquiry will occur. “These are very serious criticisms by Lord Uist of the way the health services operated,” said Scottish Conservatives health spokesman Murdo Fraser. “Clearly, there were serious failings in relation to this baby’s treatment and lessons have to be learned from this case.”

The health board stated “NHS Grampian and the Woodside Medical Practice would like to extend their condolences to Alexis’s family. We understand that Lord Uist has issued a statement that it is critical of perceived failings in the care given to Alexis. We will consider these comments very carefully.”

The Scottish Government has also taken note. “We extend our deepest condolences to the family of Alexis Matheson,” according to a spokeswoman. “We continue to monitor the situation very closely, and will await the findings of the fatal accident inquiry. Following this we will work with the health board to determine any necessary changes and ensure that any lessons are learned.”

Friday, April 12, 2013

Yesterday morning in the Australian Capital Territory, two unconscious men were discovered outside the University of Canberra’s New Ressies.

Police said both men were in critical condition after being transported to nearby Calvary Hospital. According to the University of Canberra and Campus Living Services, who operate the university’s residence halls, neither man attended the university. Detective Sergeant John Giles from ACT Policing’s Criminal Investigations said the police believe both men overdosed on a synthetic ketamine product, which they likely consumed believing it was ecstasy. According to Giles, ecstasy is commonly used at nightclubs in Canberra.

Emergency services were first called to the scene at 11:00am Canberra time; officials were on site for at least another hour and a half. ACT Policing secured the area while AFP Forensics investigated. At this stage, the Australian Federal Police do not believe there were any suspicious circumstances surrounding the incident.

The incident follows a fire alarm going off at 3:20am Canberra time, and going off again around 7:20am. Fire alarm testing has been scheduled for today.

Friday, October 5, 2007

The winners of the 2007 Ig Nobel Prize have been announced. The awards, given out every early October since 1991 by the Annals of Improbable Research, are a parody of the Nobel Prize, which are awards given out in several fields. The awards are given to achievements that, “first make people laugh, and then make them think.” They were presented at Harvard University’s Sanders Theater.

Ten awards have been presented, each given to a different field. The winners are:

• Medicine: Brian Witcombe, of Gloucestershire Royal NHS Foundation Trust, UK, and Dan Meyer, who studied the health consequences of sword swallowing.

• Physics: A team from the USA and Chile, who made a study about how cloth sheets become wrinkled.

• Biology: Dr Johanna van Bronswijk of the Netherlands, for carrying out a census of creatures that live in people’s beds.

• Chemistry: Mayu Yamamoto, from Japan, for creating a method of extracting vanilla fragrance and flavouring from cow dung.

• Linguistics: A team from the University of Barcelona, who discovered that rats cannot tell the difference between Japanese and Dutch when spoken backwards.

• Literature: Glenda Browne of Blue Mountains, Australia, for her study on how the word “The” confuses people when they try to put things in alphabetical order.

• Peace: The US Air Force Wright Laboratory for trying to develop a “Gay bomb” that would turn enemy soldiers homosexual.

• Nutrition: Brian Wansink of Cornell University for his investigation into the limits of the human appetite, by using a self-refilling “bottomless” bowl of soup.

• Economics: Kuo Cheng Hsieh of Taiwan, for patenting a machine that catches bank robbers by dropping a net on top of them.

• Aviation: A team from the National University of Quilmes, Argentina, for discovering that impotency drugs can help hamsters recover from jet lag.

Thursday, March 31, 2005

Oral arguments in the landmark case of MGM v. Grokster legal battle were heard before the Supreme Court of the United States March 29. In the case, 28 entertainment companies have joined together to sue StreamCast, maker of Morpheus software, and Grokster.

A final ruling is expected on the case within a few months. The issue heard before the court was an appeal of prior decisions made since 2001 at the U.S. district court level and from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Both of those decisions were in favor of Grokster’s right to market its P2P software.

P2P stands for peer-to-peer software, which uses the Internet as a medium for millions of users to distribute digital content, such as music, movies, books, and software, among themselves. By far the majority of the content distributed through this method is without the permission of the copyright holder.

Morpheus is one of the most-popular peer-to-peer software products worldwide. StreamCast also operates MusicCity.com. Lawyers from the EFF Foundation (www.eff.org) are serving as defense counsel in the case.

The result of this case could determine the ultimate fate of P2P software in the U.S., whether it is legal for software companies to produce and sell software that, in the opinion of some, facilitates profit illegally from the trade in copyrighted materials. However, even if illegal in America, such software might still be widely available from international hosts due to technological limitations of enforcing such a ruling. The companies behind this effort are aiming to hold technological innovators legally responsible for infringing uses of their technology.

“About 36 million Americans — or 27 percent of internet users—say they download either music or video files and about half of them have found ways outside of traditional peer-to-peer networks or paid online services to swap their files”. As a measure of public opinion on the issue, they stated, “49% of all Americans and 53% of internet users believe that the firms that own and operate file-sharing networks should be deemed responsible for the pirating of music and movie files,” according to Pew Internet & American Life Project in their most recent survey,

The landmark Betamax decision of 1984 (Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios) is the most relevant U.S. case law in this matter (note: the precedent Betamax case supports the legality of P2P netowrks). A decision in the MGM v. Grokster case could either affirm Betamax, or overturn it. This is the case that essentially created the VCR market in America for distributing movies at home, and so in this modern technologically updated version, there are billions of dollars in future revenues now at stake.