It would be futile to assume that print isn’t already on the road to its grave, as longstanding publications such as Newsweek shut the presses. The real question is not whether print is dying, but how much time it has left?

Digital media encompasses a raft of innovations that drastically differentiate it from the traditional print medium. Newspapers aren’t simply a slab of text coupled with an accompanying image in the digital world; they have been transformed into an audio-visual experience, complete with slide shows, videos, animations and infographics. Articles can be stored for later with the click of a button; published work is instantly available to readers, no matter where in the world it originated.

Compare this to the stacks of print magazines in the corner of your room waiting to be read, or the restrictions of the traditional news cycle—whether that be daily, weekly or monthly. Breaking news from all corners of the globe is just a touch away with the advent of alternative media outlets such as Twitter. And yet there is something that draws some of us longingly back towards print.

Maybe it’s the format’s tangibility—the fact you can pick it up, admire its full page image spreads and showcase it on your coffee table? Or even the knowledge that you own this snapshot of time? Print can’t be taken way from you when servers crash half a world away.

It’s difficult to pinpoint what that endearing, unique quality of print is. But whether we prefer one format over the other, it is going to impact our budgets in the near future. Newspapers are primarily a business, and editors are realising that dirt cheap home subscriptions are burning a gaping hole in their bottom line. As printing and transportation costs continue to rise, it’s inevitable that we’ll see print subscription rates go through the roof.

Print won’t go away, at least until we start paying through our teeth for it, and that transition may take longer than expected. Many still can’t grasp the concept of paying for a product they can’t hold in their hands. There’ll probably always be a niche market for print, however, in much the same way as vinyls have been revived in our current day-and-age.

No one could give you an exact date for print’s death notice, but the signs lean towards just a few years. The Age‘s Editor-in-Chief  Andrew Holden has said he can’t guarantee there will be a printed daily edition of The Age beyond the next two years.

Hallowed publications such as Britain’s The Guardian and Observer and America’s The New York Times have seen steep drops in print circulation, while their digital reader numbers have skyrocketed. The Guardian‘s print circulation is plummeting at a rate of 3.85 per cent every six months, while the The New York Times‘ is falling at a startling 6.2 per cent.

The print arms of newspapers may be fading away but digital statistics tell a different tale. The New York Times‘ weekday digital circulation rose at a gobsmacking rate of 40 per cent in the last six months—as of March 31 2013, it was 1,097,467—though this trend will undoubtedly run out of steam sooner or later. So with the original cash cow of print advertising already sent to the knackers, can the media survive in the harsher and stingier online world?

A publication’s digital arm used to be a supplement to the print edition, but it is ever-increasingly becoming print’s replacement—not just as a website, but in the forms of apps for mobile and tablet too. With this influx of new readers online, flagship newspapers and other independent outlets such as digital-only Crikey have turned towards paywalls. With companies reluctant to pay more for online advertising slots, despite increased visitor numbers, the media has been forced to protect its bottom line by charging for its content. Unable to rely solely on paid advertising, publishers must provide quality journalism to ensure readers are willing to pay for content they are used to getting for free.

Paywalls aren’t impenetrable fortresses—readers only need to copy and paste of an article into Google, or wipe their computer’s cookies, to get around a publication’s quota for free articles. Readers aren’t always willing to pay up legitimately either, as evidenced by a 15 per cent drop on the overall digital readership of The New York Times in its first year after a paywall was implemented. But digital subscribers did increase by 45 per cent to 676,000 in that same year. Despite this, advertising revenue dropped by 11 per cent in the first quarter of this year, which reflects the overall revenue fall of two per cent.

Paywalls haven’t been delivering results closer to home either, with the Herald Sun knotting a mere 26,436 digital subscribers after a paywall was introduced back in March 2012. The number of digital subscribers is clearly not compensating for the 9.4 per cent drop in print readership either, which now hovers at 425,000 for the weekday edition. To combat the dismal performance of paywalls, The New York Times are planning to launch cheaper, more barebones digital products in late 2013 and early 2014 in the hope of luring more casual readers.

As Fairfax newspapers prepare to dip themselves in the paywall system around mid-year, more and more online content is opting for a paid model, which has allowed the rise of independent digital-only outlets such as Vox Media’s The Verge and The Bleacher Report. While attracting significantly less readers than flagship media outlets—The Verge has one tenth the unique monthly hits of The New York Times—they are serving readers in targeted markets and drawing them away from traditional media sites. AOL’s The Huffington Post is also providing a major threat to stalwarts such as The New York Times, with the two sites running neck-and-neck in terms of unique visitor numbers.

Perhaps the only consolation for the business-minded is the fact that US digital magazine sales doubled in the second half of 2012. Magazines around the world are benefiting more and more from digital revenue through the onset of profitable interactive ads, which include 360 degree product views and explanatory videos in digital editions of magazines. The shift from print to digital may be even quicker for magazines, with major players such as Wired already generating half their overall revenue through digital sales.

Print will never go away completely, but only time will tell when the majority of publications will shift to digital. That time will invariably be sooner rather than later, so print-lovers best enjoy the medium while they can.

Such well-off individuals include Zach Braff, an actor best known for his role on Scrubs. Several weeks ago, he launched a Kickstarter page for his second film, Wish I Was Here. The Kickstarter page raised nearly $2.2 million in pledges over the course of just four days.  Though nobody can deny the campaign was a success, it has left many people wondering why a TV star loaded with both money and connections needed the internet to fund his film?

Braff commented that, though he may be successful on television, he still does not have the means to fund a big budget picture out of pocket. “I am going to put a ton of my own money into this endeavor, but I can’t go out and fund what will likely be a $5.5 million movie out of my wallet,” he said. He didn’t want to sign with a production company, as he did not want to hand over creative control of the film.

Braff is the latest of many well-known faces turning to Kickstarter. He revealed that he was inspired to fund his film after Rob Thomas raised over $5.7 million to fund a movie based on the 2004 TV series, Veronica Mars. Kickstarter has brought a unique opportunity for big names to have more control of their own projects, but does this come at the expense of those who are just trying to get started in the business world?

Internet celebrity Bob Lefsetz shared his confronting vision in his most recent newsletter, stating that “when the big boys come to play, it squeezes out the wannabes. Kickstarter’s no longer a left field club, but the playground of the people who won’t hang with you, who are always behind locked gates and velvet ropes.”

The recent outcry over Braff and Thomas’ use of Kickstarter has brought about a bit of déjà vu for some. Last year, the singer/songwriter Amanda Palmer requested $100,000 to fund her band’s album, Theatre is Evil, and instead raised nearly $1.2 million. Palmer faced a great deal of criticism after this, especially when the extra funds were not put towards her tour. Palmer went on to join panels on the power of crowdfunding, however, and even gave her own TED talk.

On the other hand, some people are beginning to wonder if celebrities using Kickstarter may actually come to benefit independent content creators. Celebrities using sites like Kickstarter encourages fans to visit the page, bringing more traffic to the website and subsequently introducing them to more campaigns. While big names might force many projects off the front page, it is more than likely that those projects will have a larger audience than ever before.

There’s no easy answer to the question of whether celebrities should be allowed to use Kickstarter. For now, backers will continue to fund whatever projects they wish, regardless of the status of the creator. While people should feel free to put their money wherever they think it is most deserved, it is important that they keep in mind what Kickstarter was created for: bringing to life the big dreams of little people.

It’s at about the time you want to go to bed that bad things happen—the same way that if you dare go outside in a pair of coffee-stained tracksuit pants and yesterday’s make-up, you are bound to bump into every single person you know.

On Monday night, a fortnight ago, I was just about to collapse into bed when I found that an article of mine published that morning had been trolled, twice. The first comment started out at Angry, took a detour through Vulgar, and ended at Illogical: “hate people like you…my penis is huge…clock”.

Thankfully, the second one had better grammar and was, should I attempt to personify the comment, a sarcastic little so-and-so. It was just trite mockery masked in pseudo-constructive criticism and yet, oddly, both these comments had names to them. It is always disconcerting when someone puts in their full name in a mainly anonymous comment forum. For reasons unknown, the names had been stolen from two people I sit in class with on a daily basis.

The next day someone in our school community died. It amazes me that in spite of this, the rumour mill had time for me and my little article. Suddenly teachers knew, and something that had been purely virtual took a shaky step into reality. It’s like mixing oil and water: at first it looks like they might fit, but the longer you wait, the more the oil divides itself. Events that happen online, when placed in a structured offline environment, feel like they make no sense.

Because what happens on your laptop, late at night in your bedroom, is supposed to stay there.

It’s not particularly shocking that people say things online that they would never say to someone face-to-face. The barrier between the typer and the receiver is enormous, and there’s nothing like distance to make something impersonal. The everyday slurs that float around online don’t register the same way that ‘real-life’ communication does; screaming at someone through the glass of a computer is distinctly different to the glass of a car window.

Which is why being told not only that the commenter’s penis huge, but that apparently my vagina smells, was easier to take than the harsher response from the non-trolling commentariat that pretended to engage with the substance of my piece—that type of criticism based on only reading the first word of every paragraph, and filling in the blanks with preconceived bias.

At the end of the day, there are some stock comments that seem impossible to subtract from our world: “your gay” from YouTube, “your a n00b” from online gaming, “your fat and ugly” from Tumblr, “your a slut” from an abundance of selfies, and the self-proclaimed Grammar Nazis running around with their “*you’re”.

What I experienced was definitely ‘trolling lite’ (though the 99 cent version still does the trick), and over the years there have been many virtual protests about what goes on online. At the end of 2011, around the time the Occupy movement got kicked out of Wall Street, there was a viral Twitter campaign about the type of anonymous comments female writers typically receive, #mencallmethings.

Here’s just a few random examples:

• Borderline personality disorder. Psycho. Crazy. We used to confine people to sanitariums for these kinds of outbursts. 

• Humorless, Stalinist hag.

• “The problem is this there are soooooooo many liberals…and so few bullets.” Sent by a gov employee from his gov email.

• Full of shit, no one would fuck you, you’re so ugly you look like you have downs syndrome, you’d be thankful to be raped. 

Overall, I’m very thankful that no rape, death, pain, plague and eternal-ugly-unloved-solitude were curs’d upon me.

It occurs to me around now that if we live online, as so many of us loudly proclaim, then we live in a garbage dump that doesn’t abide by the same moral code that governs the reality beyond our many screens. When, in a previous article, a comment (with the same identity theft motif) informed me that my article was “so shit” the reader wanted to fart in a bag and suffocate themselves, I took a deep breath and moved on. If someone said that to me at school, I would have locked myself up in a bathroom stall and cried for a few hours. Spot the difference.

There is a very simple conclusion that could be drawn: the values and moral structures of the non-virtual world, otherwise known as reality, do not work online; vice versa the anarchy that rules online cannot—or so we pray—exist outside it. But the division between the two is like spilt soup—sloppy, shapeless, ever spreading. And at some point, we will all drown (in my metaphorical soup).

What if we—the generation who have grown up in this double world, beholden to a division that will eventually crumble—are changing what ‘normal’ is? Does it mean that we will be the ones to watch the collapse of what was once the most self-evident idea—to treat others as you would have them treat you, with (as my school drills into us every day) dignity, respect, care and compassion? Will we even blink?

If you’re thinking about commenting on this article, or anything else my wonderful and talented colleagues write, please have a conscience. Rule of thumb? Only write something you wouldn’t mind your grandparents seeing. Or your teachers. Or the love of your life.

Or yourself, when you were six and got excited that your parents bought wrapping paper from the same shop that Santa did.

As of April 2013, same-sex marriage is now legal in 11 countries: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa and Sweden, along with nine US states. In New Zealand too, a bill to legalize same-sex marriage has been enacted and will become law in August 2013.

But why is this even an issue in Australia? How can preventing this time-old expression of love be justified?

There is no singular answer to this. Here are the most common arguments against same-sex marriage:

1. Same-sex marriage is against nature
“It is not natural for two women or two men to be married. If it was natural, they would have the equipment to have a sexual relationship,” said Sue Everhart, chairwoman of the Georgia Republican Party.

The idea that same-sex relations are unnatural, and therefore undesirable, is a common argument against same-sex marriage. The very concept of marriage, however, is more unnatural than same-sex relationships.

According to Bruce Bagemihl, author of Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, approximately 1500 species of animals have been observed engaging in homosexual activities, including lions, dolphins, penguins and whiptail lizards. A study of the common sheep, conducted by Dr Charles E Roselli of the Oregon Health and Science University, found that “about 10 per cent of rams (males) refuse to mate with ewes (females), but do readily mate with other rams.”

2. Same-sex marriage would corrupt the sanctity of marriage
Sanctity is defined by Oxford dictionaries as “of ultimate importance and inviolability”. In terms of marriage, this means not divorcing, cheating, and being completely faithful to one’s partner.

Bob Barr, a former federal prosecutor and a former member of the United States House of Representatives, authored and sponsored the Defence of Marriage Act, a law enacted in 1996 which states that only marriages that are between a man and a woman can be federally recognized; individual states may choose not to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state. This was during his first of three marriages.

Failed presidential Republican candidate Newt Gingrich, an opponent of same-sex marriage, divorced his wife while she was dying of cancer. According to Gingrich’s campaign treasurer L. H. Carter, Gingrich said of his first wife: “She’s not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of the President. And besides, she has cancer.”

Sanctity in marriage is all but gone; information gathered from the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicates that every third marriage in Australia ends with divorce. Regardless of whether same-sex couples would exacerbate the problem, sanctity of marriage is already in shambles.

3. Same-sex marriage contradicts ‘traditional’ marriage
“Since the dawn of time, traditional marriage—the union between one man and one woman—has been the building block of civilization,” said Republican Senator James DeMint.

It has been rightly argued that to include same-sex couples in the definition of marriage would mean changing the very definition. The belief that would be negative, however, is curious. The English language, like all languages, is subject to perpetual change.

The definitions of words such as ‘slut’, which originally referred to a woman who kept an untidy room, or ‘girl’, which originally denoted a child of either sex, are indicative of the constant changing aspect of the English language. This belief in the importance of preserving the traditional definition of marriage is contrary to the nature of language itself.

4. Same-sex relations are forbidden in the Bible
Homosexuality is condemned in the Bible. Lev 18:22–23 preaches, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”

Here is a list of other things the Bible condemns:
• Wearing two different fabrics—Leviticus 19:19
• Eating shrimp, crab, or any other ocean crustacean—Leviticus 11:10.
• Wearing gold or pearls—Timothy 2:9
• Talking against a man—Timothy 2:12
• Tattoos—Leviticus 19:28
• Birth control or masturbation—Genesis 38: 9-10.
• Sex before marriage—Deuteronomy 20: 20-21
• Cursing one’s mother or father—Leviticus 20:9

So, unless opponents of gay marriage unconditionally live their lives following these rules, they themselves are guilty of sin. As Jesus said, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

5. Having same-sex parents will lead to gay children
There is also a persistent belief that having homosexual parents will lead to homosexual tendencies in children.

Disregarding the fact that, following that logic, heterosexual couples could not have bred a homosexual child, the question that must first be asked is why is that necessarily a bad thing? The reasoning is that homosexuals are bad because they breed more homosexuals, who in turn are bad because they breed more homosexuals.

Given that same-sex couples are incapable of conception through sexual intercourse within the relationship, the decision to have a child must be a conscious one; the child is therefore undoubtedly desired by the parents, rather than the result of unsafe sexual intercourse.

The materials used to make the devastating bombs that killed three people and injured 264 more were items that are easily accessible to the public. With the two culprits caught and their history discovered, how is it that two young men with little income could manufacture such devices?

The internet is to blame. In a blink Google has given me 18,000,000 results related to bombs. How to build them, how to find materials to build them and how to cause the most pain. It’s sickening, but real. And so easily accessible that a 19-year-old university student and his 26-year-old brother could easily search up and build a bomb that would later take the lives of innocent people, with no prior experience needed.

So much for the evil multi-billionaire stereotype. Provisions to assemble weapons of terror are often materials from around the house, such as timers, irons, batteries and even forks. The bombs used at the Boston Marathon were essentially pressure cooker bombs—easy to make, and incredibly dangerous. Many websites provide simple instructions on how to build a pressure cooker bomb, and have everyday materials listed.

This isn’t the first time such simple bombs have been used though. Easy-to-make car bombs were set off a little after midnight on New Years Eve in Egypt, outside the al-Qiddissin Church. At least 21 people were killed and 70 hurt in the suspected suicide attack. The explosion was caused by a car bomb, made for just a little over $400. The components cost more than those used in the Boston bombs, and cost more lives too.

As I view all the results for bombs one site in particular grabs my attention, The UnMuseum. With one click of the mouse I am engulfed in a series of instructions, from how to build an atomic bomb to how to assemble a pressure cooker bomb—simple and deadly, apparently. And to think, there are so many other websites like The UnMuseum out there. It seems cyberspace is every terrorist’s playground. With every fibre of my being, I believe that the internet is partially to blame for the bombs used in Boston being built.

What happens when children get involved? All you need is some tech-smart kids, with a few science skills and a grudge, and we have a potential problem on our hands. Many gun massacres occur every year at high schools across America. What happens when these troubled youths find out how to destroy even more lives, with less money and less effort?

Easy access to bomb-making instructions, and to the materials needed to build them, are a certain danger to a safe society and a safe life. The internet is becoming too dangerous for its own good. Do we want more people to die in similar acts of terror?

Ever wondered if the success of a circus depended on things like the stereotypical animal shows and creepy surrealism?

After previewing the amazing new show from Circus Oz, I am pleased to answer: no.

Forget about circuses as you know them. With everything from the staple trapeze and juggling, to more contemporary hip-hop acts and pendulum drumming, Circus Oz breathes new life into this venerable art form, providing more than enough variety to entertain the most discerning audience.

Performer Hazel Bock even juggles a table—with her feet!

After premiering a similar in Melbourne last year, Circus Oz has returned with their reconstructed version, Circus Oz 2013: Cranked Up.

Born in Melbourne in 1978, 2013 marks Circus Oz’s 35^th birthday of international touring. During this time, they’ve confirmed their place in the hearts of generations of Australians.

Though the founding members of Circus Oz had a passion for the skills and tricks of the traditional circus, they aimed to add a twist to their own show to cater for more contemporary audiences. So what did they do? They added elements of rock’n’roll, humour and satire.

The result was a unique and entertaining show, and it’s no surprise that the company gained immediate fame, and continue to do so.

Circus Oz began its first and critically acclaimed international tour in 1980, and has since toured to over 100 cities and regions, across 26 countries.

With over three million people having witnessed Circus Oz already, you’d be crazy to miss out on this once in a lifetime spectacular.

Circus Oz 2013: Cranked Up will be performed from June 19–July 14 in the Circus Oz Big Top at Birrarung Marr. For more details, visit circusoz.com.

Check out our special sneak preview photo gallery, snapped by resident photographer James Liu, below:

Community radio represents some of the most diverse and unique voices in Australian media, representing communities all over the country. With over 350 licensed community radio stations, it’s a predominant sector that the media industry cannot afford to lose.

Due to a lack of federal funding in the maintenance of digital community radio, however, this could just be the case.

Unlike mainstream radio stations, community radio gives those who wouldn’t traditionally be heard in the mainstream media a voice—an opportunity to be able to represent their perspective, their culture and their experiences.

While mainstream media provides many Australians with their daily news, entertainment and reality fixes, community radio focuses on exactly that—the community. Whether it be up-and-coming musicians or local news, community radio caters for the unique needs and wants of local listeners.

“The role of community radio within the wider media landscape is to provide a voice for the communities they represent, which is something that commercial radio cannot cater for,” says SYN Radio Programming Manager David Crowe.

Australia is a multicultural country. Almost a quarter of Australians were born overseas, so there is fair reason why almost a quarter of Australians listen to community radio—it’s local and reflects how Australia really looks today. If digital community radio is lost because of a lack of funding, a significant portion of the modern Australian voice will be lost too.

“Community radio is very important, and your voice is important, and diverse voices need to be heard,” says Wesa Chau, director of cross-cultural organisation Cultural Intelligence.

Enter the ‘Commit to Community Radio’ campaign. When the federal government failed to deliver sufficient funding to ensure the future of digital radio in the May 2012 budget, Commit to Community Radio was set up to hold the government accountable for its actions.

In Melbourne alone, nine community radio stations including youth station SYN FM and popular local broadcaster RRR are currently at risk—media outlets that are vital in the current volatile media landscape.

Commit to Community Radio aims to secure the necessary $3.6 million in the 2014 federal budget, due to be released on May 14, to maintain and develop digital community radio across Australia.

To join the campaign, simply visit their website and sign the online petition.

On average, smartphone users check Facebook 14 times a day, and a quarter of users’ social time on their phones in spent on this social network—a substantial figure. The study, sponsored by Facebook and conducted by the analytical firm IDC, can be found here.

There’s no doubt that Facebook has become an integral part of our lives. It’s a central hub for keeping in touch with friends and loved ones, as ubiquitous as the humble computer and as powerful as having the entire world in your hands—literally.

But there’s a problem. Right now your family, your friends, and the rest of the people you care about are locked in a 25 megabyte app somewhere on your phone’s home screen. As prevalent as Facebook has become, it needs an even larger presence; the question is how?

Welcome to Facebook Home.

Rumours began circulating late last month of yet another ‘Facebook phone’, designed by the folks at the social network and manufactured by a third party. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg debunked this year’s rumours himself during an interview at TechCrunch Disrupt in September last year, saying that such a device “makes no sense”.

The company already released a similar product with the Taiwanese company HTC in June 2011. The phone, dubbed the HTC ChaCha (or the Status, depending on the market it was destined), was a failure—an undesirable piece of hardware for anyone but the diehard Facebook user.

However, the young billionaire seems to have changed his mind.

“Come See Our New Home on Android.” Large blue letters emblazoned on a white background, the invitation was sent out to members of the press and the technology blogosphere; the event was less than a week away when it was announced at the end of March.

Most surprising was the outright mention of Android, the open-source OS made by Google traditionally always a step or two behind Apple’s iOS (which powers iPads, iPhones and iPod touches). The popularity of Android has risen dramatically over the past few years. This increase is attributable to the growing market in countries like India and China, where budget smartphones running Android are plentiful and more accessible to the average consumer.

The open-source nature of Android means that developers are able to dig into the guts of the system more effectively than a closed product like iOS or Windows Phone. There are virtually no restrictions, allowing companies to provide “beautiful, immersive experiences” of their own that Apple would never allow.

So, the rumour mill churned again—would it be a Facebook phone, a new Android app, or even a launcher? Announced on April 5, the HTC First became the flagship product for Home, an aptly named 4.3”, 720p smartphone running Android 4.2.1 Jellybean. Proposed photos of the device had already been leaked in the days prior to the launch.

With a dual-core 1.4GHz Snapdragon processor, one gigabyte of memory, a five megapixel rear camera and 16 gigabyte of fixed storage, there is no doubt that the First is a mid-range handset.

But Facebook says that doesn’t matter anymore. They want Home to be “a completely new experience that lets you see the world through people, not apps”. With such a people-centric focus, a well-optimised software package running on mid-range hardware is more than enough to keep users happy.

Being a launcher for your Android device, Facebook Home essentially takes over the entirety of your phone’s home and lock screens. The traditional array of pages containing icons of your apps and widgets disappear, giving way to a constantly updated stream of information shared by your friends.

“From the moment you wake up your phone, you become immersed in Cover Feed,” touts Facebook. Cover Feed presents your news feed in a full-screen view, with status updates overlaid on photos. Users are able to swipe between stories, which are sorted by popularity rather than most recent. Double-tapping anywhere on a story ‘likes’ it, and comments can be accessed through a button on the bottom left, which when open remains overlaid on Cover Feed.

Also residing at the bottom is your profile picture, encased in a circular container dubbed the ‘bobble’. Your friends can also have their own bobbles too, called ‘chat heads’, if you so desire. These float above the rest of the user interface, and offer quick access to chat conversations, reinforcing the importance of people above apps. Chat heads can be moved anywhere on the left or right edge of the screen by simply flicking them about, and work even without Home installed. (They are integrated into the Messenger app.)

You can’t help but relate the bobble to the ‘spot’ in the failed Microsoft Kin phone. The spot was placed in more or less the same location, and allowed users who purchased the device (in the less than three months it was on sale) to drag photos, videos, and what have you into the spot, for instant sharing with friends. It wasn’t the idea that was flawed—the execution was—and there is little doubt that Facebook will be eager to implement their own version in Home in the coming months.

Right now though, the bobble is used for accessing Facebook Messenger, your home screen, and the last used app. The animations are smooth, and contribute greatly to the refined but basic layout of the interface. There’s not much else to do apart from glancing at Cover Feed and scrolling through your apps, but there wasn’t much to do on the stock home screen either.

To the power user, it might appear bland, but to average user who is looking for a fresh, new experience, the cleanliness of Home is a welcome change.

Although Facebook Home has amassed over 500,000 downloads since it has been available in the Play Store, it sits at a depressingly low two stars out of five, with the majority of the over 11,000 people who voted declaring their disapproval.

There are serious privacy concerns regarding how Home circumvents the lock screen of your phone; a thief, or a friend attempting to “hack” (the term has risen in ambiguity ever since sliding to unlock someone’s phone became a form of hacking) your phone could see your news feed, post status updates, photos, and check in to venues. Only when you launch another app does the phone ask for your unlock code.

The unfavorable reviews could also be a result of users’ misunderstanding of what exactly a launcher is. The company has promised monthly updates, however, so it is very likely that entirely new features will be implemented, and some of the annoyances ironed out.

As much as they can introduce new features, the core components of Home will not change. The question is, do you trust your friends enough to allow them to take over your phone?

It’s all about bringing the stuff you like, and the people you care about, front and centre. Facebook wants to be there the minute you wake up, and the last thing you see before you sleep, delivering their status updates the second you hit the power button.

The type of experience users will have with Home is almost entirely dependent on the content posted by their friends. Do you want to see hyper-saturated photos of food after you wake up? Red-eyed and overexposed photos taken with flash before you sleep? Memes, memes and more memes throughout the day?

Your phone’s home screen is made to be a place of tranquillity, not the latest exhibition at a zoo. Facebook’s attempt at providing a pleasurable experience can only be achieved with the algorithms necessary to curate your news feed into something worth looking at, not the jumble of crap it probably is right now.

While Facebook Home is a welcome attempt at creating something new which leverages the power of open source, it has a long journey ahead if it wants to find a home on everyone’s phone.

Facebook Home is available as a free download on the Google Play store for select devices. If your device is not officially supported and you want to try Home, visit this XDA Developers thread for instructions.

Any notion of Australian nationalism in its current form falters, however, when faced with undeniable statistics that we’re a nation comprised of people from around the world.  According to the 2011 census, one in four Australian citizens were not born in Australia, and 43 per cent of us have at least one parent who was born overseas.

In everyday Australia, it seems one’s nationality is often thought to be intrinsically linked with one’s ethnicity. When I was growing up, if someone had different coloured skin or hair, an unusual accent or feature, they invariably faced the question, “What nationality are you?”, the inference being that the answer couldn’t possibly be “Australian”.

Who fits the ‘typical Aussie’ label better: the Chinese who emigrated during the Gold Rush, the Afghani families who owned camels in the top end pre-federation, or the children of Ten Pound Poms?

None is more typical than the other—they all are. If someone holds Australian citizenship, they’re no more ‘Aussie’ than anyone else who does. The idea that there are varying degrees of legitimacy in our nationality is shamefully Victorian. Whilst the White Australia Policy was abandoned in 1973, it appears the legacy still lives on.

This is why, at times, I find Australian nationalism unapologetically offensive—particularly on April 25, when Australia chooses only to celebrate the military contributions of the ANZACS. We all know of the courageous sacrifices they made for their country, and I wholeheartedly believe they deserve to be respectfully remembered. But they’re not the only ones.

Anyone can see I have an Anglo-Saxon surname, but would you view this article differently if I published it under my mother’s maiden name? It’s Italian, and both she and I am proud to be Australian. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.

Coincidentally, both my grandfathers fought in the Battle of Normandy at Caen, a week after D-Day. They were on opposing sides, and only one of them is talked about as a hero in my country. No one cares to remember my maternal grandfather fought for the same reason many Australian troops did, and that was for love of country. But he’s never remembered or celebrated on my country’s national day of remembrance and celebration.

It has not escaped my notice that it’s specifically called ANZAC day, and not Remembrance Day like November 11. The concept of a national day of military remembrance has evolved over the decades, from focusing on those who served in World War One to include all members of the Australian armed forces. So why can’t that same evolutionary principle be extended once again, to include the military efforts of all Australians and their ancestors? ANZAC isn’t just a day or an acronym—it’s a uniquely Australian spirit embodied by its citizens, who come from a many places.

I share a situation common to many Australians, especially those of us who are young. We were born here and consider ourselves Australian, though don’t have a genetic makeup that can be defined by one single country’s name. None of our ancestors lived here, though can any non-Indigenous person really claim theirs did?  Eight-odd generations in this land pales into insignificance when one considers the history of a people who have been living in this country for more than 60,000 years.

Here’s some food for thought; the next time you congregate to celebrate the country, start a conversation about who we are as a nation. Whilst tucking in to our national feast of overcooked sausages (British), prawn cocktails (British), fish and chips (British), meat pies (British), vanilla slice (French), parmigiana (Italian) or pavlova (let’s be honest, New Zealand), reflect on our taste buds and how we’ve evolved to include those dishes as our own.

How sad it is Australia can adopt and celebrate different types of food, but not impassioned human beings.

This season, however, has been a totally different ball game. Here’s why:

Closing Out

James and the Miami Heat have been able to consistently, and rather ruthlessly, close out match after match in the regular season. The Heat’s menacing fourth quarter play and ability to extend small margins into comfortable leads later on is epitomised by their 27-game winning streak during the latter part of the home and away fixture.

LeBron James

The ‘King’, as James is affectionately called, isn’t a three-time MVP winner for nothing. Averaging 27 points, seven assists and eight rebounds a game this season, he is nearly receiving a triple-double every game, which is no mean feat in anyone’s books.

A stunning stat sheet is one thing, but what every coach craves is scoring efficiency. The ability to score consistently on offense is what separates a good team from a bad one. The Heat’s incredible 66–16 record is largely the result of a career high shooting performance by James. Scoring with an average field goal percentage of 57 per cent, he has been by far the most economical player in the league when average points per game are taken into account.

James’ decision to leave the feel-good story that was the Cleveland Cavaliers after a revolutionary seven-year tenure at the helm of what had virtually become a one-man team was a controversial move. The number one overall draft pick had come desperately close to lifting the hallowed Larry O’Brien trophy, but it was clear that he wasn’t going to win that legacy-defining championship ring without a helping hand.

The Supporting Cast

Basketball is a team game and despite James’s immense skill and athleticism, one man can’t carry a team to a finals victory. This is where the Heat come in.

James’ move to South Beach in 2010 bore with it countless naysayers, myself included. We all wanted the fairy tale championship win for Cleveland but honestly, we were kidding ourselves; it wasn’t going to happen.

James was criticised for only caring about the money and the fame, leaving the team that had nurtured him (and the fans that had supported him from the very start) with nothing. His jerseys and effigies were burned outside the arena, and fans around the league booed as he was introduced before games.

But James had made the right decision, joining a team with a stellar roster and innovative coach. Flanked by a nine-time all star in Dwayne Wade and three-time all star Chris Bosh, James has thrived in an environment where the burden of the entire team’s scoring wasn’t being placed on his shoulders. Despite James often steering the ship, Bosh and Wade have played key roles. Averaging 19 points, four assists and six rebounds per game, Wade has done more than his fair share. Bosh’s average of 13 points and seven rebounds have also proved pivotal.

The X-Factor

All the limelight at Miami is usually directed towards the “Big Three”, but a smaller duo has also done a world of good. Ray Allen touched down in South Beach at the start of this season after being signed during free agent negotiations in the off season, while Chris Anderson was signed mid-January. Allen brings with him experience and a deadly three pointer, while Anderson provides a strong rebounding presence and energy off the bench. They have both proven worthy additions with Allen averaging 14 points per game, and Anderson chipping in 10 points and seven rebounds per game.

Defense

The Heat’s offense is bursting at the seams, but their defense is as equally versatile and strong. James was recently awarded second best defensive player in the league and is one of the pillars of Miami’s intimidating defense. With Bosh and Wade ranked among the top defenders for their position, and the added prowess of Mario Chalmers and Shane Battier, the court often looks like a fortress for opposing teams.

The Heat know what they have to do this playoff season. James and Co. know what it takes to win it all. Save for any unexpected mishaps in the form of injuries or suspensions, prepare for another Miami Heat championship victory.

Sure, we’ll see the Knicks play their heart out in the Eastern Conference Finals and the Thunder even more so in the big event, but it’s time NBA fans stopped kidding themselves and embrace the beautiful play that they are about to witness.