My company got sucked into moving several thousand numbers to Vodafone (via Crazy Johns) several years ago, suckered in by cheap prices.
The first month, their whole computer system crashed. They couldn't recover the statements and in the end we got that month for free.
The second month, every single charge on every single statement was overcharged by about 30%-40%. It took 3-4 months to get this sorted out, massively delaying our billing cycle. Eventually we had to issue 3 months of bills within several weeks which caused huge amounts of ill will (towards us, not Vodafone).
By then it had turned out that their billing system wasn't actually capable of processing the phone plan they'd sold us. It literally couldn't compute the fees. So, I had to personally develop custom software (took about 2 days) to make the micro adjustments to each item on the bills before we sent them on, then chase Vodafone for the appropriate refund. Running this internal rerate each month is now a standard part of our billing process.
In the midst of all this fucking stupidity, for about the first year, they were unable to bring up our account on screen because it was so large (kept crashing), so they couldn't effectively respond to our account enquiries.
That's just my own personal direct experience, but more broadly they're recognized as having the worst coverage, they may have a class action coming against them for unreasnoable network drop outs, and now on top of that they've demonstrated deplorable security policies.
Vodafone: you suck at life. Fuck you. Fuck you fuck you fuck you.
All home broadband plans throttle speeds after you hit your limit. Most business plans charge you an excess.
What the hell are they supposed to do, let you go past your "limit" as much as you like with no consequence? Some penalty is implicit in the advertising of a x-MB/GB plan.
You're basically repudiating thousands of years of history that culminates in sayings like "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
This is a good guiding principle, but no-one seriously believes in its ubiquity. Why are children not allowed to vote? Why are some people taxed more than others? Why are some people jailed up for years? etc, etc.
They are endowed with reason and conscience
Most of them aren't.
and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."
Yeah, unless they're being a dick...
Hey, it can bring the viewpoint I advocate some temporary advantage, let's throw the whole system down and start discriminating on basis of intelligence. You do know denying voting rights to "stupid" people has a dark, fascist history, right?
Take a person who knows little about politics, the media, the world, or even how various policies will effect them personally. They vote based on personal impression - they like Julia Gillard's hairstyle, for example.
Name one good reason for this person to have a vote, other than the impracticality of discriminating against them?
How about this one? "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression;
Except if they're expressing racism, terrorism, pedophilia, etc...
this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." What if said opinions are, in your opinion, "stupid"? After all, it's not inherently wrong to discriminate against stupid people.
Sorry, this confused me a bit... anyway none of the ideals you mentioned are ACTUALLY considered to be universal. Therefore the question becomes one of degree and context, rather than upholding unalienable and fundamental values...
I said "Basically I hate the way democratic politics works, it's crap" and this came across as hating everything about democracy.
Actually I think democracy is probably the best known political system around, currently.
I do, however, hate the way it leads to populist politics, how it gives influence to people who wield it irresponsibly (members of the public), how political communication in the media is generally in the form of a barrage of universal abuse, and how election campaign degenerate into the kind of mindless rubbish in the ad I linked to.
So I utterly reject the fascism reference, but I concede my last comment could have been interpreted in that way.
Hey, this post is worth responding to without a barrage of sarcasm, so I'll take it seriously.
It's really frightening to see feelings so solidly against representative government modded up to +5.
I, and my post, are not against representative government. I'm against stupid, simplistic, and pathetic criticisms of political events like "She's unelected!!!"
I'm also profoundly disillusioned by the influence of cheesy cartoons in political campaigns. This is not a criticism of the politicians, or even their campaign advisors - it's a criticism of the general population, specifically, the fact that they are influenced by that garbage.
And I do believe it's a tragedy that stupid people are allowed to vote, even if I don't have a workable alternative.
When did Slashdot become a fascist playground?
Uh.... no comment.
It says "people shouldn't have this much influence" right there.
Why shouldn't we discriminate against stupid people? We already discriminate against young people, or people with extreme mental conditions etc.
Of course we'll never *actually* discriminate against stupid people, but that's because there's no effective way of actually doing it in practice, not because it's inherently wrong.
Explain again what "voting for a party" means exactly?
I didn't know, so I googled it, and thought this summed it up pretty well:
"When we go to the polls, we are voting for a set of these policies and the team that champions them."
Anyway,
We also vote with the chief in mind. Look at the difference between the abbott and turnbull factions on the other-side. Would you have wanted to vote for Turnbull only to have it changed to Abbott half way through? Who the prime minister is matters you ignorant arse.
Of course it matters, you (umm....) son of a motherless goat fucker, but the truth remains that the unelected status of Julia is about as relevant to the future of Australian politics as your average slashdot thread. In fact she was elected, indirectly, by the strong support of her party, the party which received more votes (basically) at the last federal election.
Yeah but you're basically voting for a party - the structure of polls leading up to the election reflect this. And the voting system on election day reflects this.
Gotta run - too little time too many moronic democracies to twist...
Yeah it really scares me how almost half the people have below average IQ. We need to do something about it.
More seriously though, while I hate certain aspects of democracy, I don't have an alternative. There's something fundamental to the nature of complex systems (like a population of selfish human beings in a resource-limited environment) which leads to crap of some sort or another. Democracy seems to simply be the latest, somewhat-less crappy attempt at working it all out...
Rudd's unpopularity is in part a reflection of his ineffectiveness as a leader and a politician.
More likely he didn't connect at a personal level with the voters, came across as cold, snobbish and distant. He's also a bit ugly (sorry Kevin). The average people on the street have a general bad attitude towards politicians in general, and don't tend to make cold, calculated evaluations of their actual performance.
Realistically, that's the reason he was unpopular, I suspect.
The electorate selected him because they expected significant change. The electorate also voted the previous PM out. Yet Rudd's tenure is marked by a parade of wasteful ineffective policies. He was all talk and no delivery.
Perhaps, but this is the sort of generic criticism we find levelled at all politicians, from someone, somewhere, basically all the time. There's an almost universal, unstoppable stream of criticism hurled by all sides, at all other sides. This can mean that the actual, specific criticisms of a politician may not be that relevant to their popularity, as anyone who is already supportive or critical will find the praise or abuse they need to justify their bias.
I really find it frustrating, actually. The media is virtually useless when trying to form an opinion on political issues.
Disaffection has been brewing for some time now, for years for some people who voted for him only to be quickly disappointed (myself included). We by our politics may disagree on these points, but from my point of view and my political leanings his ousting is a good and rational outcome. Gillard's own policy execution record is flawed but to give her benefit of the doubt she was to some extent executing Rudd's vision. Lets wait and see what new vision she can bring forward as a leader.
The Leader, the PM is actually important. Yes party is important, but so too is the leader. Especially if the leader is a bit of a control freak with a narcissistic streak who genuinely believes (s)he is the smartest person in the room. The PM has significant influence in steering party policy. Just look at opposition party and how its policy focus has dramatically shifted from its parade of leaders in the past 18 months from Howard to Nelson, Turnball and now Abbott - all very different people who all set different policy tones for the opposition party.
While I believe the actual intricacies of the inner workings of a political party are far beyond the comprehension of the average voter (which is why a funny cartoon could be more persuasive than something of substance)......yes I agree, the leader is hugely important to the party, and the party is best positioned to select their leader.
Who cares that she was unelected? You voted for a party, not an individual, you moron. The policies of the party are unlikely to change significantly under Julia. The party leader can and is elected or negotiated) by the party, not the public.
I mean are people really this fucking stupid? I'll give you a hint - yes they are.
While I'm ranting, there's another thing I hate. I hate this ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf3KovsW1Zo Actually I love the ad, it's friggin' hilarious. What I hate is the fact that this is the quality of election campaigning which political advisors think is worth engaging in. I hate this because this indicates that this is the sort of thing people are persuaded by when they decide who to vote for. People are persuaded more by a cute, idiotic cartoon, than actual political records, history and peformance. Those people are fucking stupid.
I mean think about it - Kevin was replaced mostly because he was unpopular with voters, and Julia gives Labor a better chance at the next election. This in itself proves the point - despite things not being significantly different under Julia, this change of leader will sway people's votes. WHY SHOULD IT?! It shouldn't, but it does.
Basically I hate the way democratic politics works, it's crap. And I hate stupid people. Stupid people shouldn't have this much influence.
You object to the filter blocking information on euthanasia. You should object to it on that basis, because the government has no right to criminalise such discussions.
Yes but by any reasonable measure, they have the right (in fact the moral obligation) to criminalize "discussions" of committing terrorist acts, or "discussions" of how to promote child pornography.
The thing is, the government has no right to criminalise any discussion, only actions.
Freedom of speech is the guarantor of all other freedoms, and that's why it must always be defended against petty tyrants like Kevin Rudd and Stephen Conroy.
Oh rubbish. Nobody serious defends the right of an Islamic extremist to "discuss" what buildings to blow up next. Get real.
Of course censorship rules aren't limited to mainstream media. They essentially apply to all mediums. They already apply to internet content hosted in Australia, this simply extends what we already have to internet content hosted internationally as well. So what's the big deal? (tin foil hate references to human rights abuses aside)
I wouldn't propose we filter emails. I mean email filtering technology is already pretty advanced (probably easier to filter than the web)... plus it's hardly idea for videos anyway lol
I've only followed it loosely, however my understanding is that the blacklist has been reviewed by independent bodies. (I'll happily be corrected on this.)
And like I said, the government virtually can't get away with censoring outside their stated intentions because we'd inevitably find out anyway.
Why do you trust the government to nanny you in the press, in CD-ROMs, in books, in radio, in advertising, on television, and on any other form of media?
Assuming your answer is, "I don't!!", then your position is essentially that there should be no censorship in any form of media.
OK, so you don't object to filtering the internet per se, you simply believe the proposed methods will be detrimental to performance, or that the government has sneaky intentions they aren't telling us, or that it will be ineffective and a waste of tax payers money?
1. OK, so you object to one of the intended uses (so do I), but not the principle of filtering itself? This is a much weaker objection.
2. Yes but as I said, it's virtually impossible for the government to get away with it, which is a strong disincentive.
3. Huh?
It's when people start objecting to it on a moralistic, human-rights basis that my brain starts turning to porridge. They're probably just worried about losing their porn... lol
Correct, so we can say that Conroy's plans automatically incur some of the problems of other forms of media, which is a pretty trivial concession in the context of the debate.
Slashdot Mirror
Hm, thank you for getting NAMBLA listed in my workstation's search history....
My company got sucked into moving several thousand numbers to Vodafone (via Crazy Johns) several years ago, suckered in by cheap prices.
The first month, their whole computer system crashed. They couldn't recover the statements and in the end we got that month for free.
The second month, every single charge on every single statement was overcharged by about 30%-40%. It took 3-4 months to get this sorted out, massively delaying our billing cycle. Eventually we had to issue 3 months of bills within several weeks which caused huge amounts of ill will (towards us, not Vodafone).
By then it had turned out that their billing system wasn't actually capable of processing the phone plan they'd sold us. It literally couldn't compute the fees. So, I had to personally develop custom software (took about 2 days) to make the micro adjustments to each item on the bills before we sent them on, then chase Vodafone for the appropriate refund. Running this internal rerate each month is now a standard part of our billing process.
In the midst of all this fucking stupidity, for about the first year, they were unable to bring up our account on screen because it was so large (kept crashing), so they couldn't effectively respond to our account enquiries.
That's just my own personal direct experience, but more broadly they're recognized as having the worst coverage, they may have a class action coming against them for unreasnoable network drop outs, and now on top of that they've demonstrated deplorable security policies.
Vodafone: you suck at life. Fuck you. Fuck you fuck you fuck you.
All home broadband plans throttle speeds after you hit your limit. Most business plans charge you an excess.
What the hell are they supposed to do, let you go past your "limit" as much as you like with no consequence? Some penalty is implicit in the advertising of a x-MB/GB plan.
The fuck am I missing here?
No, that's normal.
(what, isn't it?)
Let's take a look a this:
You're basically repudiating thousands of years of history that culminates in sayings like "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
This is a good guiding principle, but no-one seriously believes in its ubiquity. Why are children not allowed to vote? Why are some people taxed more than others? Why are some people jailed up for years? etc, etc.
They are endowed with reason and conscience
Most of them aren't.
and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."
Yeah, unless they're being a dick...
Hey, it can bring the viewpoint I advocate some temporary advantage, let's throw the whole system down and start discriminating on basis of intelligence. You do know denying voting rights to "stupid" people has a dark, fascist history, right?
Take a person who knows little about politics, the media, the world, or even how various policies will effect them personally. They vote based on personal impression - they like Julia Gillard's hairstyle, for example.
Name one good reason for this person to have a vote, other than the impracticality of discriminating against them?
How about this one? "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression;
Except if they're expressing racism, terrorism, pedophilia, etc...
this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." What if said opinions are, in your opinion, "stupid"? After all, it's not inherently wrong to discriminate against stupid people.
Sorry, this confused me a bit... anyway none of the ideals you mentioned are ACTUALLY considered to be universal. Therefore the question becomes one of degree and context, rather than upholding unalienable and fundamental values...
No no, basically the argument hurts my brain so much that I want to take my own life just to ease the pain.
I said "Basically I hate the way democratic politics works, it's crap" and this came across as hating everything about democracy.
Actually I think democracy is probably the best known political system around, currently.
I do, however, hate the way it leads to populist politics, how it gives influence to people who wield it irresponsibly (members of the public), how political communication in the media is generally in the form of a barrage of universal abuse, and how election campaign degenerate into the kind of mindless rubbish in the ad I linked to.
So I utterly reject the fascism reference, but I concede my last comment could have been interpreted in that way.
Hey, this post is worth responding to without a barrage of sarcasm, so I'll take it seriously.
It's really frightening to see feelings so solidly against representative government modded up to +5.
I, and my post, are not against representative government. I'm against stupid, simplistic, and pathetic criticisms of political events like "She's unelected!!!"
I'm also profoundly disillusioned by the influence of cheesy cartoons in political campaigns. This is not a criticism of the politicians, or even their campaign advisors - it's a criticism of the general population, specifically, the fact that they are influenced by that garbage.
And I do believe it's a tragedy that stupid people are allowed to vote, even if I don't have a workable alternative.
When did Slashdot become a fascist playground?
Uh.... no comment.
It says "people shouldn't have this much influence" right there.
Why shouldn't we discriminate against stupid people? We already discriminate against young people, or people with extreme mental conditions etc.
Of course we'll never *actually* discriminate against stupid people, but that's because there's no effective way of actually doing it in practice, not because it's inherently wrong.
Explain again what "voting for a party" means exactly?
I didn't know, so I googled it, and thought this summed it up pretty well:
"When we go to the polls, we are voting for a set of these policies and the team that champions them."
Anyway,
We also vote with the chief in mind. Look at the difference between the abbott and turnbull factions on the other-side. Would you have wanted to vote for Turnbull only to have it changed to Abbott half way through? Who the prime minister is matters you ignorant arse.
Of course it matters, you (umm....) son of a motherless goat fucker, but the truth remains that the unelected status of Julia is about as relevant to the future of Australian politics as your average slashdot thread. In fact she was elected, indirectly, by the strong support of her party, the party which received more votes (basically) at the last federal election.
How about using "200" as the middle point? That way I can say I have a whopping 170 IQs!!
Yeah but you're basically voting for a party - the structure of polls leading up to the election reflect this. And the voting system on election day reflects this.
Gotta run - too little time too many moronic democracies to twist...
Yeah it really scares me how almost half the people have below average IQ. We need to do something about it.
More seriously though, while I hate certain aspects of democracy, I don't have an alternative. There's something fundamental to the nature of complex systems (like a population of selfish human beings in a resource-limited environment) which leads to crap of some sort or another. Democracy seems to simply be the latest, somewhat-less crappy attempt at working it all out...
Rudd's unpopularity is in part a reflection of his ineffectiveness as a leader and a politician.
More likely he didn't connect at a personal level with the voters, came across as cold, snobbish and distant. He's also a bit ugly (sorry Kevin). The average people on the street have a general bad attitude towards politicians in general, and don't tend to make cold, calculated evaluations of their actual performance.
Realistically, that's the reason he was unpopular, I suspect.
The electorate selected him because they expected significant change. The electorate also voted the previous PM out. Yet Rudd's tenure is marked by a parade of wasteful ineffective policies. He was all talk and no delivery.
Perhaps, but this is the sort of generic criticism we find levelled at all politicians, from someone, somewhere, basically all the time. There's an almost universal, unstoppable stream of criticism hurled by all sides, at all other sides. This can mean that the actual, specific criticisms of a politician may not be that relevant to their popularity, as anyone who is already supportive or critical will find the praise or abuse they need to justify their bias.
I really find it frustrating, actually. The media is virtually useless when trying to form an opinion on political issues.
Disaffection has been brewing for some time now, for years for some people who voted for him only to be quickly disappointed (myself included). We by our politics may disagree on these points, but from my point of view and my political leanings his ousting is a good and rational outcome. Gillard's own policy execution record is flawed but to give her benefit of the doubt she was to some extent executing Rudd's vision. Lets wait and see what new vision she can bring forward as a leader.
The Leader, the PM is actually important. Yes party is important, but so too is the leader. Especially if the leader is a bit of a control freak with a narcissistic streak who genuinely believes (s)he is the smartest person in the room. The PM has significant influence in steering party policy. Just look at opposition party and how its policy focus has dramatically shifted from its parade of leaders in the past 18 months from Howard to Nelson, Turnball and now Abbott - all very different people who all set different policy tones for the opposition party.
While I believe the actual intricacies of the inner workings of a political party are far beyond the comprehension of the average voter (which is why a funny cartoon could be more persuasive than something of substance)... ...yes I agree, the leader is hugely important to the party, and the party is best positioned to select their leader.
How do you think this will be handled differently under Julia's reign?
It was nice of everyone to agree to stop marketing against each other, but that's hardly a game changer.
This argument makes me want to kill myself.
Who cares that she was unelected? You voted for a party, not an individual, you moron. The policies of the party are unlikely to change significantly under Julia. The party leader can and is elected or negotiated) by the party, not the public.
I mean are people really this fucking stupid? I'll give you a hint - yes they are.
While I'm ranting, there's another thing I hate. I hate this ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf3KovsW1Zo Actually I love the ad, it's friggin' hilarious. What I hate is the fact that this is the quality of election campaigning which political advisors think is worth engaging in. I hate this because this indicates that this is the sort of thing people are persuaded by when they decide who to vote for. People are persuaded more by a cute, idiotic cartoon, than actual political records, history and peformance. Those people are fucking stupid.
I mean think about it - Kevin was replaced mostly because he was unpopular with voters, and Julia gives Labor a better chance at the next election. This in itself proves the point - despite things not being significantly different under Julia, this change of leader will sway people's votes. WHY SHOULD IT?! It shouldn't, but it does.
Basically I hate the way democratic politics works, it's crap. And I hate stupid people. Stupid people shouldn't have this much influence.
-Brendan
You object to the filter blocking information on euthanasia. You should object to it on that basis, because the government has no right to criminalise such discussions.
Yes but by any reasonable measure, they have the right (in fact the moral obligation) to criminalize "discussions" of committing terrorist acts, or "discussions" of how to promote child pornography.
The thing is, the government has no right to criminalise any discussion, only actions.
Freedom of speech is the guarantor of all other freedoms, and that's why it must always be defended against petty tyrants like Kevin Rudd and Stephen Conroy.
Oh rubbish. Nobody serious defends the right of an Islamic extremist to "discuss" what buildings to blow up next. Get real.
Of course censorship rules aren't limited to mainstream media. They essentially apply to all mediums. They already apply to internet content hosted in Australia, this simply extends what we already have to internet content hosted internationally as well. So what's the big deal? (tin foil hate references to human rights abuses aside)
You think the state censoring racial hatred or child pornography in various forms of media is WRONG? I assume you're joking.
I wouldn't propose we filter emails. I mean email filtering technology is already pretty advanced (probably easier to filter than the web)... plus it's hardly idea for videos anyway lol
Yes, it's a valid objection.
I've only followed it loosely, however my understanding is that the blacklist has been reviewed by independent bodies. (I'll happily be corrected on this.)
And like I said, the government virtually can't get away with censoring outside their stated intentions because we'd inevitably find out anyway.
Why do you trust the government to nanny you in the press, in CD-ROMs, in books, in radio, in advertising, on television, and on any other form of media?
Assuming your answer is, "I don't!!", then your position is essentially that there should be no censorship in any form of media.
OK, so you don't object to filtering the internet per se, you simply believe the proposed methods will be detrimental to performance, or that the government has sneaky intentions they aren't telling us, or that it will be ineffective and a waste of tax payers money?
1. OK, so you object to one of the intended uses (so do I), but not the principle of filtering itself? This is a much weaker objection.
2. Yes but as I said, it's virtually impossible for the government to get away with it, which is a strong disincentive.
3. Huh?
It's when people start objecting to it on a moralistic, human-rights basis that my brain starts turning to porridge. They're probably just worried about losing their porn... lol
Lol this got modded "troll"? You gotta be joking.
Correct, so we can say that Conroy's plans automatically incur some of the problems of other forms of media, which is a pretty trivial concession in the context of the debate.