Then why not sue years ago when they had more money? Yahoo! is circling the bowl. We all know it....
Because when they had money, they didn't HAVE to sue to stay afloat. The money that they were spending on development was supposed to keep them in the black at this point in time. However, now that it is obvious that those duckies weren't in a neat row, they need to find another means of getting enough money to stay afloat - and what better company to hit up than Facebook?
nail in the coffin of US dominance of the internet
I never looked at the US as being dominant on the internet. I do agree that a LOT of American companies were dominant, but I looked at it as more of a "in the right place" type of scenario. It was like the companies got ahead of the law/regulation curve and made the money. Now that the government and lawmakers have realized just how much power and control they have lost, they seem to be going out of their way to claw it back. Combine that with the other companies that have lost out because they didn't get on the boat in time (Imma looking at you RIAA) crying and throwing tantrums and you have a huge amount of momentum behind draconian regulation and the like. Now, on top of all of that, throw in some judges that have no idea of how a computer, let alone the internet works, taking down Canadian websites for breaking US laws and it really forces you to laugh or cry.
You know, I started this arguing some of what you said, but I think after thinking about it and writing some of it down, I have come to agree with your statement. This is yet another nail in the coffin of US dominance of the internet.
There have been a few nice cases where the folks that issued a false takedown notice ended up being given some interesting punishments. It's not a level playing field, but it's not totally utterly one sided.
Better yet, go after the company that issued the false takedown.
I believe that this is the best approach. You won't make much money ffrom this sort of action, but I am pretty sure that there are some fairly strict rules about issuing false notices and the penalties for doing so. He wouldn't make too much from it, but the company that issued it would surely be in a world of hurt. Perhaps this is a great opportunity for the EFF or someone similar to take up the cause and do it on behalf of the photographer?
Yes, the folks in charge want the 3rd world model, or the roman empire right before the fall model, where a couple people own everything, and everyone else is in extreme poverty.
Wow, really picking at your statements today Vlm, sorry old chap:)
I don't think that the folks necessarily WANT the others in extreme poverty, I think it just turns out that way. As the folks in power strive to make more money and more power, have their operations more and more efficient, it means that less of their wealth is being passed downward, which will eventually lead to the scenario you describe. If you look at it long term, I think driving the masses into utter poverty is probably a very bad idea for the folks in charge. History is replete with incidents where the masses turned on their masters due to poverty and too much disparity between their two positions.
The other problem is just being realistic, the 10 former IT guys will be in the US and the 3 new jobs will be in India. So its more like all 10 will go soylent green.
I think you forgot to include that one or two of them will come back to the company as contractors when the cloud doesn't prove to be as amazing as first described in the sales pitch. Once the bugs start comng out and problems arise, a few of them will be hired back (probably at much higher rates than they originally worked) to solve the issues that are coming up so that the company can continue to operate "business as usual".
That's not always true. I love a good show, and I do often borrow shows to watch. I do want to become a customer - and my very extensive DVD collection backs that statement up. However, when products aren't available here (such as Dollhouse even though it came out three years ago!) I will find other means of watching them. When it comes out, I will happily go out and buy it. Why? You ask?
Because as someone who enjoys watching good entertainment, the only way that I can, as a consumer, encourage the folks that makes what I call good entertainment keep making good entertainment is to let them profit from it.
I am not interested in reality TV. I am not interested in watching soaps or cooking shows. I am however interested in watching a show with a good storyline, good characters and see them develop over time and improve as people - albeit fake TV show people. If I find a product made by media companies that I enjoy, I speak with the only voice that they hear. My money, and I do it gladly. If by spending a few dollars on a TV series I can encourage more of that show, or type of show to be made, then I do it gladly - for there is benefit to me.
That's actually quite insightful, but I don't totally agree with it. When you have a lot of propaganda coming from one side about how good it is that the government is doing all of this to catch the bad guys, you sometimes need to balance that with a different view showing how all that "good work" can be used against anyone. I find the best way to put that into perspective is to show the listen how it can apply to THEM.
While using some fear and uncertainty may not be the most ethical way to get a message across, it generally jolts people out of their stupor and a more intelligent conversation can continue.
and 2006? You might argue that it was retaliation, but there aren't too many people who can honestly they don't think it was a massive over-retalliation. Lebanon was doing very well in terms of economy and was quite stable. The last thing that Israel needed was another much larger state in nearby proximity that was starting to have solid relation with the west, a growing economy and starting to weild some clout at the international table. It is much more convenient to have the surrounding states clawing to fix the most basic of infrastructure.
If it comes down to nukes Amman, Damascus and Cairo (along with any other Arab city a F-16 with drop tanks and one bomb can reach) will be destroyed, no matter who shoots first.
The chances of those nukes coming out if it means that Israel will also become a glowing ember are much smaller. The only thing that held back nukes during the cold war was mutually assured destruction. At the moment with Israel being surrounded by countries without the bomb it has a big advantage. When it knows that their "big red button" may as well be connected to the opposing sides "big red button" I am sure that there will be even more locks and keys put on it.
Oh, I totally agree, but if we are to have any hope at all, then it is these masses that need to be aroused. Certain protests can be made by very visible means, take Gandhi walking to the sea to make salt - perfect protest. Very visible, gathered momentum, turned into a spectacle. In others protests though, it is much harder to have that sort of visibility. When teaching others in regards to online privacy or draconian laws, I try to put it as much into a "this could happen to you..." context. I have found that if you word it like that, people will show much more empathy to the cause and in doing so actually become aware of what is going on.
If you tell someone that the government is putting up cameras on street corners, most people shrug it off, but if you say that the government is putting up cameras that record their every move at a nearby intersection, they get interested. If you tell them that the government is reading people's emails to stop terrorists, they don't mind - but if you tell them that their personal email is being read they suddenly take interest.
Telling someone something for the fifteenth time means you aren't getting the message through. Try using a different message to get the same meaning across:)
You shouldn't mistake the apathy at something that isn't seen to directly influence them with a proper agreement when it does come to bite them personally. Most people are so intoxicated with their own importance or so sheep-like that they do not see how many laws passed to protect them can be later misused against them. I do however find that many people, once informed properly do take umbrage to what is happening.
I think that we need to stop calling people out on their apathy while showing the same towards them in a if you don't care, why should I? approach, but rather inform, educate and bring them to our side of the fray.
Try to get support from "the community" when you discover a bug in a code path that nobody except you encounters. Suddenly the community becomes very small indeed.
I disagree. If you know how to identify the bug properly and present a solution on how to solve it, show that you did a little research and aren't just a) totally lazy, b) incompetent or c) whining that it doesn't solve all your problems out of the box without understanding it then you will often find the folks helpful. The open source community aren't any different to say the folks that support the software in your office. If you start talking to a tech with "I can't send email, can you fix my windows?" you will likely get the same sort of reply. If you say, "Hey, it looks like my network connection is being refused, I rebooted and I haven't changed any credentials recently, can you look into my account?" you will more likely get a more helpful answer.
They must have taken that decision after a few pints of Guinness...
No, just a junior minister who wants t become a senior minister. Having heavy pockets like those behind his campaigns will certainly help getting that little blister re-elected.
Because the average patient doesn't have the background to understand what they're getting themselves into
I thin it is partly that, but probably a much greater part is pure politics. The conservatives and religious types hold much of the voter base, especially in the bible belt and heartlands of the US. A strong approach to "limit the evils of scientists" in political speeches goes a long way to garnishing some of those votes. This isn't new at all, with movement as early as 2006 during the Bush administration when the US was limiting this type of research, but the EU was pushing boldly ahead. However, more recently, they banned patents which came around due to stem cell research which is sort of good and sort of bad - it means that companies are less likely to invest as heavily into the research, but it means that all government funding will certainly be to the benefit of the population.
One would argue that they might not do a better job compared to the leaders that we currently vote in.
Here's one for you. Opt in citizenship to a nationless, territory free country. I wonder how many might not try to be a part of such a thing. I often wondered what would happen if a group started buying up adjoining land and reserved it for new members, and spread out and out as more members joined. Set up a civilised statute early on and let people come in as they wanted to.
It would be like colonising an already colonised land through market transactions and finance. I also think it would scare the bejesus out of the governments.
Actually, this fellow seems interesting. Having read into a few articles, I saw this interesting snippet:
Prior to law school, Weyer was a Peace Corps Volunteer in Lesotho and now works as a volunteer engineer in Antarctic expeditions.
and this:
In an earlier case Weyer sued Network Solutions and Register.com for violating his patent on the selection of an e-mail address based on a domain name. He has also sued Harley Davidson, Bosch, and MySpace. Those cases have all settled.
It seems more like this guy is fraking the system over to allow him the freedom to go out and make a difference. You know, if I had a way to pick the pockets of fat cats while giving me the time to spend volunteering in third world countries or doing explorative expeditions - I just might.
To you and peragrin who basically commented the same thing:
stars don't actually twinkle when seen from space
I am quite aware that they don't. I was using it as an example of better picture quality. On the DVD, each star (and other details like windows on the ships, particles from explosions etc) was basically a bright hazey spot that covered a few pixels on the TV. On the BR, these details are in fact a pinpoint of light while the surrounding pixels are black - which actually makes the whole sky look black and shows much more contrast which is pleasing to the eye.
I am not replying to end up with "naanaanaaa!" but rather to say that I used that as an example of the improved picture quality. I do find it hard to resist a jape though, so I will say that you do know that spaceship fighters, capital ships and cylons don't exist right?:P I kid, I kid.
I bought BSG (the recent version) on DVD but later found a BR pack containing everything on sale - so I decided to snag that. While I rarely buy something on BR that I already own, I must say the improvement in certain scenes was quite noticable. The "inside" scenes weren't really improved, but the difference in space was rather surprising. When I first watched them on DVD, I thought they were great, but when I saw them on the BR, I saw just how much difference it made. The stars in the background actually twinkled, and the overall darkness in space was much more apparent.
While I won't be rushing out to get everything on BR just because it looks this good in BSG, it was certainly a nice eye-opener - even with such a new series.
Don't most Android phones use USB connections while Apple uses a proprietary one?
Yes, but pointing that out will just make the Apple fans and Google bashers cranky. I recently bought a new phone (ended up with Samsung Galaxy SII) and all the phones (granted, there weren't THAT many) that I was looking at had a Micro USB as the interface.
On that note, I find it amazing how many gadgets these days (clock radios, steros etc) all have iPod docks on them, but finding something like that with a Micro USB is damn near impossible. I used to have an iPhone and charging it by clicking it into my clock radio was rather handy, I wish I could find a similar thing for Micro USB - though perhaps a Micro USB slot is too small/weak to stand a phone upright on.
The most interesting thing in this article for me is lifespan. If I buy a phone with a funky feature I expect that feature to be active for the life of the phone - two to five years. However, if I buy a car, I would expect that all the features keep working for the life of the car - which is a lot longer. What is going to happen if in five or ten years time, Apple decides that Siri wasn't the right direction and makes something else? It comes back to the old DRM needing to be supported for the life of the product. What would happen to all the cars with this embedded if the servers were turned off?
Having said all that, something like Siri is probably the last thing I would want in a car, I am even discouraged by car commercials that offer "Built-in iPod docks" and the like. Too much lock-in for a specific product and brand.
where's that quote about never ascribing something to conspiracy where idiocy will suffice
It is Hanlon's Razor, though it says to never attribute to malice that what can easily be explained by stupidity.
I would say that an undersea cable being cut isn't newsworth on its own, but cut a bunch in the same place in roughly the same time and it becomes news. The cables are cut all the time (I do wonder if the ship that cuts the cable has to pay the bill for repairs?) but a lot of the time it is possible to simply re-route and there isn't too much hassle.
Here in Australia, where we have hundreds of thousands of miles of roads (not looked it up, but wouldn't be surprised if that was fact) our interstate (read 1000-4000 km raods) are only lit up at places of interest, sch as turn offs or areas approaching a city or town. Our country roads are generally not lit up unless they incur heavy use.
When there are no lights, the road itself does seem brighter as you turn on your high beams and the reflectors point that light right back into your field of view. Now normally, you can easily see a car approaching with high beams on before you see the car (there is a haze around the next bend or above the crest of a hill) and both cars politely lower to normal headlights. However, if the other car doesn't lower his headlights in time, you can quite easily be blinded for a moment when struck by the full intensity of the high beams.
On raods that are lit up on the other hand, drivers less frequently use their high beams, so there isn't the potential to be blinded for a few seconds, but at the same time visibility isn't nearly as good.
In my opinion, having a safer road system is all about improving drivers rather than giving or not giving illumination on the roads. The best lighting on a road can't save you from a bad driver coming the opposite way - and by the same token, a total lack of lights doesn't kill people. I personally prefer less lights to encourage high beam use, but only if the other cars are alert enough to lower them if needed. To that point, to even get your learners permit here, you need to be able to answer correctly what to do if an oncoming car has high beams on (answer is look down and away to the road marking on the outside of the road which allows you to keep your car on the road and blinds you the least as your eyes are as far as possible away from the oncoming headlights while still keeping your car safely on your side of the road).
Slashdot Mirror
Then why not sue years ago when they had more money? Yahoo! is circling the bowl. We all know it....
Because when they had money, they didn't HAVE to sue to stay afloat. The money that they were spending on development was supposed to keep them in the black at this point in time. However, now that it is obvious that those duckies weren't in a neat row, they need to find another means of getting enough money to stay afloat - and what better company to hit up than Facebook?
nail in the coffin of US dominance of the internet
I never looked at the US as being dominant on the internet. I do agree that a LOT of American companies were dominant, but I looked at it as more of a "in the right place" type of scenario. It was like the companies got ahead of the law/regulation curve and made the money. Now that the government and lawmakers have realized just how much power and control they have lost, they seem to be going out of their way to claw it back. Combine that with the other companies that have lost out because they didn't get on the boat in time (Imma looking at you RIAA) crying and throwing tantrums and you have a huge amount of momentum behind draconian regulation and the like. Now, on top of all of that, throw in some judges that have no idea of how a computer, let alone the internet works, taking down Canadian websites for breaking US laws and it really forces you to laugh or cry.
You know, I started this arguing some of what you said, but I think after thinking about it and writing some of it down, I have come to agree with your statement. This is yet another nail in the coffin of US dominance of the internet.
There have been a few nice cases where the folks that issued a false takedown notice ended up being given some interesting punishments. It's not a level playing field, but it's not totally utterly one sided.
Better yet, go after the company that issued the false takedown.
I believe that this is the best approach. You won't make much money ffrom this sort of action, but I am pretty sure that there are some fairly strict rules about issuing false notices and the penalties for doing so. He wouldn't make too much from it, but the company that issued it would surely be in a world of hurt. Perhaps this is a great opportunity for the EFF or someone similar to take up the cause and do it on behalf of the photographer?
Yes, the folks in charge want the 3rd world model, or the roman empire right before the fall model, where a couple people own everything, and everyone else is in extreme poverty.
Wow, really picking at your statements today Vlm, sorry old chap :)
I don't think that the folks necessarily WANT the others in extreme poverty, I think it just turns out that way. As the folks in power strive to make more money and more power, have their operations more and more efficient, it means that less of their wealth is being passed downward, which will eventually lead to the scenario you describe. If you look at it long term, I think driving the masses into utter poverty is probably a very bad idea for the folks in charge. History is replete with incidents where the masses turned on their masters due to poverty and too much disparity between their two positions.
The other problem is just being realistic, the 10 former IT guys will be in the US and the 3 new jobs will be in India. So its more like all 10 will go soylent green.
I think you forgot to include that one or two of them will come back to the company as contractors when the cloud doesn't prove to be as amazing as first described in the sales pitch. Once the bugs start comng out and problems arise, a few of them will be hired back (probably at much higher rates than they originally worked) to solve the issues that are coming up so that the company can continue to operate "business as usual".
That's not always true. I love a good show, and I do often borrow shows to watch. I do want to become a customer - and my very extensive DVD collection backs that statement up. However, when products aren't available here (such as Dollhouse even though it came out three years ago!) I will find other means of watching them. When it comes out, I will happily go out and buy it. Why? You ask?
Because as someone who enjoys watching good entertainment, the only way that I can, as a consumer, encourage the folks that makes what I call good entertainment keep making good entertainment is to let them profit from it.
I am not interested in reality TV. I am not interested in watching soaps or cooking shows. I am however interested in watching a show with a good storyline, good characters and see them develop over time and improve as people - albeit fake TV show people. If I find a product made by media companies that I enjoy, I speak with the only voice that they hear. My money, and I do it gladly. If by spending a few dollars on a TV series I can encourage more of that show, or type of show to be made, then I do it gladly - for there is benefit to me.
This is the very definition of FUD.
That's actually quite insightful, but I don't totally agree with it. When you have a lot of propaganda coming from one side about how good it is that the government is doing all of this to catch the bad guys, you sometimes need to balance that with a different view showing how all that "good work" can be used against anyone. I find the best way to put that into perspective is to show the listen how it can apply to THEM.
While using some fear and uncertainty may not be the most ethical way to get a message across, it generally jolts people out of their stupor and a more intelligent conversation can continue.
Lebanon, 1982?
and 2006? You might argue that it was retaliation, but there aren't too many people who can honestly they don't think it was a massive over-retalliation. Lebanon was doing very well in terms of economy and was quite stable. The last thing that Israel needed was another much larger state in nearby proximity that was starting to have solid relation with the west, a growing economy and starting to weild some clout at the international table. It is much more convenient to have the surrounding states clawing to fix the most basic of infrastructure.
If it comes down to nukes Amman, Damascus and Cairo (along with any other Arab city a F-16 with drop tanks and one bomb can reach) will be destroyed, no matter who shoots first.
The chances of those nukes coming out if it means that Israel will also become a glowing ember are much smaller. The only thing that held back nukes during the cold war was mutually assured destruction. At the moment with Israel being surrounded by countries without the bomb it has a big advantage. When it knows that their "big red button" may as well be connected to the opposing sides "big red button" I am sure that there will be even more locks and keys put on it.
Oh, I totally agree, but if we are to have any hope at all, then it is these masses that need to be aroused. Certain protests can be made by very visible means, take Gandhi walking to the sea to make salt - perfect protest. Very visible, gathered momentum, turned into a spectacle. In others protests though, it is much harder to have that sort of visibility. When teaching others in regards to online privacy or draconian laws, I try to put it as much into a "this could happen to you..." context. I have found that if you word it like that, people will show much more empathy to the cause and in doing so actually become aware of what is going on.
If you tell someone that the government is putting up cameras on street corners, most people shrug it off, but if you say that the government is putting up cameras that record their every move at a nearby intersection, they get interested. If you tell them that the government is reading people's emails to stop terrorists, they don't mind - but if you tell them that their personal email is being read they suddenly take interest.
Telling someone something for the fifteenth time means you aren't getting the message through. Try using a different message to get the same meaning across :)
people simply don't care anymore
You shouldn't mistake the apathy at something that isn't seen to directly influence them with a proper agreement when it does come to bite them personally. Most people are so intoxicated with their own importance or so sheep-like that they do not see how many laws passed to protect them can be later misused against them. I do however find that many people, once informed properly do take umbrage to what is happening.
I think that we need to stop calling people out on their apathy while showing the same towards them in a if you don't care, why should I? approach, but rather inform, educate and bring them to our side of the fray.
Diss it all you want, but it seems to be holding up well, even growing against the US$.
Not taking a stand on bitcoins either way, but at the moment, just about everything is growing against the US$.
Try to get support from "the community" when you discover a bug in a code path that nobody except you encounters. Suddenly the community becomes very small indeed.
I disagree. If you know how to identify the bug properly and present a solution on how to solve it, show that you did a little research and aren't just a) totally lazy, b) incompetent or c) whining that it doesn't solve all your problems out of the box without understanding it then you will often find the folks helpful. The open source community aren't any different to say the folks that support the software in your office. If you start talking to a tech with "I can't send email, can you fix my windows?" you will likely get the same sort of reply. If you say, "Hey, it looks like my network connection is being refused, I rebooted and I haven't changed any credentials recently, can you look into my account?" you will more likely get a more helpful answer.
They must have taken that decision after a few pints of Guinness...
No, just a junior minister who wants t become a senior minister. Having heavy pockets like those behind his campaigns will certainly help getting that little blister re-elected.
Because the average patient doesn't have the background to understand what they're getting themselves into
I thin it is partly that, but probably a much greater part is pure politics. The conservatives and religious types hold much of the voter base, especially in the bible belt and heartlands of the US. A strong approach to "limit the evils of scientists" in political speeches goes a long way to garnishing some of those votes. This isn't new at all, with movement as early as 2006 during the Bush administration when the US was limiting this type of research, but the EU was pushing boldly ahead. However, more recently, they banned patents which came around due to stem cell research which is sort of good and sort of bad - it means that companies are less likely to invest as heavily into the research, but it means that all government funding will certainly be to the benefit of the population.
One would argue that they might not do a better job compared to the leaders that we currently vote in.
Here's one for you. Opt in citizenship to a nationless, territory free country. I wonder how many might not try to be a part of such a thing. I often wondered what would happen if a group started buying up adjoining land and reserved it for new members, and spread out and out as more members joined. Set up a civilised statute early on and let people come in as they wanted to.
It would be like colonising an already colonised land through market transactions and finance. I also think it would scare the bejesus out of the governments.
Actually, this fellow seems interesting. Having read into a few articles, I saw this interesting snippet:
Prior to law school, Weyer was a Peace Corps Volunteer in Lesotho and now works as a volunteer engineer in Antarctic expeditions.
and this:
In an earlier case Weyer sued Network Solutions and Register.com for violating his patent on the selection of an e-mail address based on a domain name. He has also sued Harley Davidson, Bosch, and MySpace. Those cases have all settled.
It seems more like this guy is fraking the system over to allow him the freedom to go out and make a difference. You know, if I had a way to pick the pockets of fat cats while giving me the time to spend volunteering in third world countries or doing explorative expeditions - I just might.
To you and peragrin who basically commented the same thing:
stars don't actually twinkle when seen from space
I am quite aware that they don't. I was using it as an example of better picture quality. On the DVD, each star (and other details like windows on the ships, particles from explosions etc) was basically a bright hazey spot that covered a few pixels on the TV. On the BR, these details are in fact a pinpoint of light while the surrounding pixels are black - which actually makes the whole sky look black and shows much more contrast which is pleasing to the eye.
I am not replying to end up with "naanaanaaa!" but rather to say that I used that as an example of the improved picture quality. I do find it hard to resist a jape though, so I will say that you do know that spaceship fighters, capital ships and cylons don't exist right? :P I kid, I kid.
I bought BSG (the recent version) on DVD but later found a BR pack containing everything on sale - so I decided to snag that. While I rarely buy something on BR that I already own, I must say the improvement in certain scenes was quite noticable. The "inside" scenes weren't really improved, but the difference in space was rather surprising. When I first watched them on DVD, I thought they were great, but when I saw them on the BR, I saw just how much difference it made. The stars in the background actually twinkled, and the overall darkness in space was much more apparent.
While I won't be rushing out to get everything on BR just because it looks this good in BSG, it was certainly a nice eye-opener - even with such a new series.
What about MY right to remember history the way it truly happened?
Apparently, you are allowed to remember whatever you like, just not distribute information regarding it over the internet.
Don't most Android phones use USB connections while Apple uses a proprietary one?
Yes, but pointing that out will just make the Apple fans and Google bashers cranky. I recently bought a new phone (ended up with Samsung Galaxy SII) and all the phones (granted, there weren't THAT many) that I was looking at had a Micro USB as the interface.
On that note, I find it amazing how many gadgets these days (clock radios, steros etc) all have iPod docks on them, but finding something like that with a Micro USB is damn near impossible. I used to have an iPhone and charging it by clicking it into my clock radio was rather handy, I wish I could find a similar thing for Micro USB - though perhaps a Micro USB slot is too small/weak to stand a phone upright on.
The most interesting thing in this article for me is lifespan. If I buy a phone with a funky feature I expect that feature to be active for the life of the phone - two to five years. However, if I buy a car, I would expect that all the features keep working for the life of the car - which is a lot longer. What is going to happen if in five or ten years time, Apple decides that Siri wasn't the right direction and makes something else? It comes back to the old DRM needing to be supported for the life of the product. What would happen to all the cars with this embedded if the servers were turned off?
Having said all that, something like Siri is probably the last thing I would want in a car, I am even discouraged by car commercials that offer "Built-in iPod docks" and the like. Too much lock-in for a specific product and brand.
where's that quote about never ascribing something to conspiracy where idiocy will suffice
It is Hanlon's Razor, though it says to never attribute to malice that what can easily be explained by stupidity.
I would say that an undersea cable being cut isn't newsworth on its own, but cut a bunch in the same place in roughly the same time and it becomes news. The cables are cut all the time (I do wonder if the ship that cuts the cable has to pay the bill for repairs?) but a lot of the time it is possible to simply re-route and there isn't too much hassle.
Actually, there is a little truth to each.
Here in Australia, where we have hundreds of thousands of miles of roads (not looked it up, but wouldn't be surprised if that was fact) our interstate (read 1000-4000 km raods) are only lit up at places of interest, sch as turn offs or areas approaching a city or town. Our country roads are generally not lit up unless they incur heavy use.
When there are no lights, the road itself does seem brighter as you turn on your high beams and the reflectors point that light right back into your field of view. Now normally, you can easily see a car approaching with high beams on before you see the car (there is a haze around the next bend or above the crest of a hill) and both cars politely lower to normal headlights. However, if the other car doesn't lower his headlights in time, you can quite easily be blinded for a moment when struck by the full intensity of the high beams.
On raods that are lit up on the other hand, drivers less frequently use their high beams, so there isn't the potential to be blinded for a few seconds, but at the same time visibility isn't nearly as good.
In my opinion, having a safer road system is all about improving drivers rather than giving or not giving illumination on the roads. The best lighting on a road can't save you from a bad driver coming the opposite way - and by the same token, a total lack of lights doesn't kill people. I personally prefer less lights to encourage high beam use, but only if the other cars are alert enough to lower them if needed. To that point, to even get your learners permit here, you need to be able to answer correctly what to do if an oncoming car has high beams on (answer is look down and away to the road marking on the outside of the road which allows you to keep your car on the road and blinds you the least as your eyes are as far as possible away from the oncoming headlights while still keeping your car safely on your side of the road).