Very few places hold 'free speech' as an absolute right like the Americans idealise it as. Most places have a balance between freedom of expression, and other considerations which may conflict with that ideal. The key international human rights instruments (Australia is a signatory to these, of course) also note that freedom of expression is not an absolute and has to be weighed against other competing rights. It is very important and should never be unduly interfered with - but it's not an absolute. I don't expect you to understand that viewpoint - but it is valid, and the 'all or nothing, black and white' view of some people on this point often mystifies some of the rest of us. Australia has constitutional rights to freedom of political expression (a necessary requirement for any real democracy), but that does not extend to an all-conquering right to free speech generally.
Having said that this, I wonder whether this is even a "free speech" issue to begin with. An Australian individual is free to say, write or print anything they want, without having it classified. I can stand down on the corner and spout whatever crap I like and I wouldn't be breaking any law (though, just as in the US, I imagine I'd be moved along by nearby business owners if they get pissed off at you for driving away their customers). Classification is only a restriction on what is allowed to be SOLD. That is, classification law is about what is approved to be commericialised - stuff that is sold in stores, in public places, where the general public has access to it etc.
But stuff that is refused classification in Australia is not illegal to own, possess, view, transmit to others etc. It simply can't be whacked on a shelf and sold by a business (at least, not legally). Classification is a restriction of commerce, not necessarily of speech or expression.
A difference between M15 and MA15, if you're wondering, is that M15 is "recommended" for 15 years or older, whereas MA15 is "restricted" to 15 years and over. So a 13 year old can go to the movies with their parents and watch an M flick, but could not be granted admission for a MA15 flick.
(Having said that there is not really much actual enforcement of any of this - but on paper, that's the difference).
Agreed. No matter how well organised or intuitive your start menu/apps menu/equivalent is, it can't beat typing the first 2 or 3 characters of the thing you are looking for and hitting enter. I used to pride myself on how well I organised my menus in older versions of Windows, but with Win 7 that went out the window. My top couple of apps are pinned to the Start Menu, and anything else I just hit "Winkey, first few letters, enter", which takes half a second.
It pisses me off greatly when I have to use Win XP again without any such functionality (Start, All Programs...er is it under the name of the program or the name of the software company or under a category... hmm I know it's here somewhere...)
As for Ubuntu - I've used it for a while (since 8.x) but gave up and installed Debian instead now that they got rid of Gnome Classic. Don't like Unity, though for me it wasn't so much the interface that irritated me, but rather the fact that it was INCREDIBLY BUGGY on my machine for some reason (oh and I had serious issues getting MythTV running on it properly... might just be me though).
Actually I quite like the SYD-DFW flights. Suits me better than via SFO or LAX (but that's just me, obviously everyone is different). Qantas is building a market for that route now, in anticipation of delivery of the 787s they have on order, which will be able to make that route without any issue. Keep in mind that the 787s are years late - they were supposed to be in the air for years before now.
But that's aside from the point - one poor route choice (in your opinion) does not a loss-making airline make. You will note that they changed from SFO to DFW before their big route restructure earlier this year - and the flights that got the cut were not flights to/from North America. North America is actually profitable for QF (not as much competition on the trans-Pacific routes) - it's the European and Asian routes that are killing them.
Having said that I wish they had swapped LAX for DFW instead of SFO for DFW. LAX is indeed a shithole. DFW and SFO are both pretty good. But some massive proportion (like 60%) of Aus-USA traffic is destined for LA or southern California, so I can't see them ever dropping LAX.
Yes I was specifically ignoring the option of changing the open skies policy or returning to at least some degree of protectionism. Not because I think they are bad ideas, but because I can't realistically see them happening, that's all.
I actually agree with you 100% that the ideas you list are things we should be looking at. But my 'black and white view' wasn't considering those options because I don't think either side of government in Australia right now would have the stomach for it. And the public certainly wouldn't enjoy being subjected to 1990s airfares again - they have become addicted by the cheap air travel that has emerged in the last decade or so. But yeah, something needs to be done - protectionism may not be appropriate in all industries, but air travel is one where Australia has a distinct, and massive disadvantage that needs compensating for.
Qantas employees generally already have higher pay and better conditions than equivalent positions at other domestic carriers (Virgin, Jetstar, Tiger) - and FAR more than carriers in almost any foreign country that you could name. Also, Alan Joyce, though just given a $1.5M raise, voluntarily took a $7M/year pay cut previously. So he's just regaining some of what he previously lost (not that that justifies anything, just pointing it out).
AJ is a bit of a dick, but Qantas really is between a rock and a hard place. Or more accurately, Qantas International (the domestic arm is doing fine). QF international is losing money hand over fist through no real fault of their own. The problems are:
1. Geography: Australia is a terminus when it comes to air travel. You don't travel 'through' Australia to get to anywhere else. So you don't have the advantages of being based in a hub, like places in the Middle East or Asia, which can attract substantial traffic from within their catchment area and ALSO a lot of transit traffic (people just passing through in transit to other locations). Australia is the 'end of the road' so to speak, which makes their potential market much smaller.
2. Australia has an open skies policy these days, which has allowed the likes of Singapore Airlines, Qatar, Emirates, Malaysian Airlines, Cathay Pacific, Etihad to operate Australian services. These are airlines that already have the inherent advantages of being based in hub locations (thus are not as reliant on origin-and-departure traffic as Qantas is). They are also airlines that, due to being based in locations with much lower wages than Australia, have costs in the order of HALF what Qantas has, to operate the same flights. Qantas tickets are therefore more expensive. And as a result, noone buys them - Qantas now has only 20% market share for international flights to/from Australia (and falling).
So, QF international is losing money. Their successful domestic arm has been subsidising it, but that can only continue for so long. So what's the solution? They can either start basing at least some of their core maintenance and piloting operations from a hub somewhere in Asia (Singapore, HK etc.)... or go out of business. This is what Alan Joyce announced earlier this year as a plan to save QF International - moving some operations offshore and creating a new premium airline in Asia. The unions oppose it - they obviously don't want jobs to be lost within Australia, nor do they want their members to miss out on pay or entitlements. Fair enough, from their perspective.
But what would you have Qantas do? They have no choice - if QF International is to survive at all, they MUST significantly reduce their cost base. That would be impossible to do while keeping all existing jobs in Australia. And even more impossible to do if the unions force them to pay even more. They are competing against foreign carriers whose costs are half as much, remember. What a sad thing it would be if Qantas - the second oldest continuously operating international airline in the world - was forced to close its doors.
There really are two sides to this story - the vilification in the media of Qantas as being greedy, un-Australian etc etc. is to some extent unjustified, as they are really running out of options, and noone can force them to keep operating their international arm at a loss.
More accurately, they have never had a fatality in the jet aircraft age. They did have a few fatal accidents in the early days and also lost some planes due to being shot down during WW2.
But yes, they have one of the best safety records and most respected (and highest paid) pilots in the (civil aviation) world.
This is actually why I thought female voices for announcements were used in general, instead of male. I remember reading that a long time ago - the female voice cuts through background noise better in places like airports, train stations etc etc.
While I agree that that royally sucks and the process could be improved... I don't think that's the average experience. For me and my wife (with 4 iOS devices between us) it was:
1. Plug in device. iTunes immediately does a sync and backup automatically (like normal when you plug the phone in) 3. Hit 'Update' 4. Wait as it downloads 700 MB (for the first device only - otherwise it's cached on the HDD) 5. Select 'restore from [previous backup file] 6. Done. Everything is as it was before.
Sounds like your machine wasn't properly synced with the device, which gets you into a world of hurt with iTunes even if you AREN'T trying to do an iOS update at the same time.:(
iTunes works very well... but ONLY if you stick to Apple's "1 device paired and synced to 1 computer" paradigm. Soon as you start dealing with multiple machines/iTunes libraries or manual file management it gets messy very quickly. Which I agree is a massive shortcoming of the whole iOS ecosystem, but it's not worth fighting it IMO... just play along with Apple's game and everything works flawlessly. (Or, buy an Android if you hate the concept of single-machine syncing and prefer to manually manage files, which is a perfectly legitimate and understandable choice).
It's not that big - he's referring to iOS 5, not iTunes. iTunes is only around 70-80 MB on Windows / 100 MB on Mac. That includes hardware drivers for iPod, iPad and iPhone, as well as the media player itself, so the file size is perfectly reasonable. I have printer drivers three times the size of that.
No, of course he can't. Climate changes due to natural events and cycles. I don't think anyone denies that.
However, he can point out that according to the best figures we have, the climate is currently changing at a far greater rate than has occurred previously (outside of major extinction events), and that that pace of change cannot be explained by natural causes alone. We are seeing changes over decades-to-centuries time frames that would normally take millennia (or longer).
Frustrating, isn't it. Irritates me no end when someone hears that we just had, for example, "the coldest August day in x years" (or coldest month/year/etc), and then starts ranting about how global warming must therefore be completely made up.
Never mind the fact that for every minimum temperature record that's getting set around these parts nowadays, there's at least 5 maximum temp records being set (no matter which time scale you look at - daily, monthly, yearly). As you say, that 'probability curve' has been shifted upwards. Noticeable even in my lifetime (and I'm not that old) - it's generally hotter and drier here (south-east Australia) than it used to be (on average), despite the fact that yes, we still get cold and wet days/months/years.
Not that I'm not one of those global warming panic merchants - I don't buy into the extreme scenarios. But anyone with a decent understanding of basic statistics can't argue with the fact that it is, globally, on average, getting warmer over time (and at a much faster rate than has historically occurred due to natural cycles, outside of major extinction events). The cause of that and impacts of that are up for debate, but I really don't think the raw numbers are.
Replying to own post here. GP used a five year time period (should have read closer!) which changes the figures. Apologies to GP.
Even so though I think you'd be hard pressed to pay six grand over 5 years (here, at least). I don't think $100+ plans exist here, even unlimited ones are only in the order of $60/month...
Agreed. Here in Australia I paid $899 for the iPhone (bought outright, unlocked, no contract) and spend $20 a month on calls and data. My cost over two years is thus $1379.
Who is paying six grand for an iPhone over two years? Even on contract on a high-end/unlimited plan it's nowhere near that much.
Though don't feel too bad. I technically have ADSL2+ but because my line is rather long, I get under 6 Mbit (i.e. well short of even the top ADSL1 speed) anyway.
The way I see it, NBN is at worst, the same price for more speed (for someone already on a good ADSL2+ line). And at best (people stuck in Telstra monopoly areas/on long lines/on ADSL1 only), it's cheaper AND more speed. It's a win for almost everyone.
Precisely. If unlimited is genuinely unsustainable, it's much better to do what other countries/carriers do and state a figure for the limit. Also: offer multiple plans with different sized limits so those that need a high amount can still pay for it and get it, rather than have no option whatsoever (this also benefits light users, who can be happy saving a bit of money on a lower-limit plan).
Limits suck compared to unlimited, sure, but if they have to exist, it is better to be transparent about them and give the consumer a range of choices. "Top 5%" is a completely stupid method of doing it, since you can't predict what this figure will be and it will fluctuate from month to month anyway!
A 1 TB cap is pretty huge though. In practice, would you even come close to hitting it?
Also this is just the first 'batch' of ISPs that have announced pricing on the network - and they are all currently considered "premium" ISPs for existing DSL connections. Wait until the cheap and nasty ISPs get on board and I'm sure you'll see unlimited plans happening (might take a few years... but if they can offer unlimited cap 24 Mbit ADSL2+ now, which they do, they can do it on the NBN).
Firstly, it's 'only' around $29-30 billion now (the 40+ billion figure was the budget BEFORE the Telstra conduit-sharing deal was struck).
Secondly, $40 billion over the 12 or 13 years the rollout will take really isn't much. Compare it to what we spend over that time period on other infrastructure like roads, schools, hospitals etc. You make it sound like it's a $40B bill that's all due in one hit up front or something. Plus it'll form the 'guts' of the telecommunications network in this country for the next century. I really don't think the cost is outrageous when you consider that... what do you think the original copper POTS network cost to roll out?
Lol - Australia is pretty close to that, actually. Mid-$15/hour range is minimum wage (and that doesn't include 9% compulsory retirement savings that gets paid into a fund on your behalf by the employer - if you include that it's $17/hour!)
Internet costs more in Australia due to distance from the rest of the English-speaking world (i.e. where 95% of internet hosts we want to access are located), huge area and small population. We will never be able to compete with Europe on price. Also you're picking the entry-level 12/1 40 GB plan for home users (which includes a home phone service with untimed national calls BTW, not just internet) to compare with... and it only costs only a few euro more than what you pay (59 AUD = ~42 EUR). That ain't bad, considering what prices and speeds are like now. Besides, if it ain't fast enough, up to 100/40 Mbit is available to everyone, and gigabit for business plans.
The relevant comparison is between what Australians can get now (generally ADSL2+ on which for most people get 10 Mbit unless they live close to the exchange), and what we can get on the NBN (same cost - much faster). Not between what you can get in Australia vs. what you can get in densely populated Europe. It's a pointless comparison - EVERYTHING costs more here (but wages are very high too - it all balances out in the end).
It's also likely unlimited plans will be offered by some ISPs on this network too. You have to remember - all you are seeing now is the first batch of pricing released from the first batch of ISPs. Once more get on board and the rollout gathers pace, prices will decline, just as they have been for the ADSL2+ offerings over the last decade. ISPs like TPG already offer unlimited ADSL2+ for $29/month, so I foresee them offering a similar thing on NBN eventually too. It's still early days.
Hell yes. You pay $59.95 with Internode now for only 30 GB plus home phone service, all on a rusty old copper phone line that (for me) syncs at 6 Mbps on a good day. For the same price on the NBN I could have 4 times the speed, much better reliability and a higher download quota.
Sure if you are one of the 0.1% of the population who live close enough to the exchange to get 24 Mbit out of ADSL2+, it's not so compelling. But the majority of people are on long and unreliable lines. Or even worse, RIMs or pair gain systems. NBN is a huge boon to the quality of Australian connectivity, both in the large cities and the small towns.
Will be signing up in a flash when it's available (which will be a few years yet in this part of the world, unfortunately, although the area just 5 km north of me is one of the second release sites getting it next year - lucky sods!)
This is a $40 billion+ project to rip out the 100-year old existing copper POTS network and replace it with a new, independently operated layer 2 FTTH network (upon which dozens of competing ISPs will be able to offer layer 3 services to the end user). Nationwide - from the large cities to small towns in the middle of nowhere (every town with >1000 people will get fibre, smaller hamlets will get some form of 4G or WiMax fixed wireless). There will then be dozens of ISPs operating layer 3 services on this network to the end user.
Dual US/Aussie citizen here who splits their time between both countries. Australia IS more expensive than the US for almost everything (except, interestingly, cellphones and cellphone plans - Australia kicks the US' ass on this front in terms of selection and price). But clothes, cars, food, rent and housing, entertainment... everything else is considerably more expensive in Australia (1.5x for food and electronics, about 2x for everything else)
Including the Internet. It's one of the curses of being a 'terminating destination' (i.e. cables don't really go ~through~ Australia to get to anywhere else, so they have to be purpose-built and laid under 10,000 miles of ocean to serve a total population smaller than some single American cities). Not to mention that 90% of our traffic has to be pulled all the way from the US/Europe because we are an English-speaking country located distantly from the main sources of English language content. (This is a problem that doesn't affect other 'language isolate' countries such as Japan and Korea - most of their traffic is domestic and hence much cheaper).
It doesn't matter though. Prices here are higher but wages are higher. I find it balances out about the same in the end... I don't feel like I have less disposable income in Australia than I do in the US. Plus you make savings in other areas (healthcare is free or very cheap etc.)
(* PS: Also keep in mind that the NBN plans quoted generally include a home telephone service with free or cheap national calls.)
They don't charge you extra, they just throttle your speed down. This is what they do now on xDSL and cable connections, and so it will be on the NBN as well.
Having said that, if you are hitting your cap regularly, just pay a few bucks extra and upgrade to the next highest plan. All the big ISPs are offering plans up to 1000 GB (1 TB) per month, which is enough for almost any conceivable domestic (non-business) need. At the moment I'm only on a 30 GB plan because that's all I use. The next plan up only costs another 10 bucks a month and gives me 200 GB - a large jump for not much money, and I won't hesitate to upgrade if I need to.
The other thing you have to factor in is that Australian ISPs also typically have a lot of value-adds, including large file mirrors and access to various other Internet services that are 'unmetered' (i.e. data from which is not counted against your cap). For instance one ISP might offer unmetered streaming TV services, unmetered iTunes etc. Another might give you unmetered access to file mirrors such as Major Geeks, Tucows, Linux repositories, gaming servers etc. These are incredibly useful: about 25-30% of my typical usage per month ends up in the "unmetered" bucket and for some people it's higher.
Slashdot Mirror
Very few places hold 'free speech' as an absolute right like the Americans idealise it as. Most places have a balance between freedom of expression, and other considerations which may conflict with that ideal. The key international human rights instruments (Australia is a signatory to these, of course) also note that freedom of expression is not an absolute and has to be weighed against other competing rights. It is very important and should never be unduly interfered with - but it's not an absolute. I don't expect you to understand that viewpoint - but it is valid, and the 'all or nothing, black and white' view of some people on this point often mystifies some of the rest of us. Australia has constitutional rights to freedom of political expression (a necessary requirement for any real democracy), but that does not extend to an all-conquering right to free speech generally.
Having said that this, I wonder whether this is even a "free speech" issue to begin with. An Australian individual is free to say, write or print anything they want, without having it classified. I can stand down on the corner and spout whatever crap I like and I wouldn't be breaking any law (though, just as in the US, I imagine I'd be moved along by nearby business owners if they get pissed off at you for driving away their customers). Classification is only a restriction on what is allowed to be SOLD. That is, classification law is about what is approved to be commericialised - stuff that is sold in stores, in public places, where the general public has access to it etc.
But stuff that is refused classification in Australia is not illegal to own, possess, view, transmit to others etc. It simply can't be whacked on a shelf and sold by a business (at least, not legally). Classification is a restriction of commerce, not necessarily of speech or expression.
Fallout's 'drugs' have names like Med-X, Rad-away, Jet etc. for that very reason.
And Whiskey is fine - alcohol isn't an illicit drug in Australia, so that classification guideline is irrelevant to it.
A difference between M15 and MA15, if you're wondering, is that M15 is "recommended" for 15 years or older, whereas MA15 is "restricted" to 15 years and over. So a 13 year old can go to the movies with their parents and watch an M flick, but could not be granted admission for a MA15 flick.
(Having said that there is not really much actual enforcement of any of this - but on paper, that's the difference).
Agreed. No matter how well organised or intuitive your start menu/apps menu/equivalent is, it can't beat typing the first 2 or 3 characters of the thing you are looking for and hitting enter. I used to pride myself on how well I organised my menus in older versions of Windows, but with Win 7 that went out the window. My top couple of apps are pinned to the Start Menu, and anything else I just hit "Winkey, first few letters, enter", which takes half a second.
It pisses me off greatly when I have to use Win XP again without any such functionality (Start, All Programs ...er is it under the name of the program or the name of the software company or under a category ... hmm I know it's here somewhere...)
As for Ubuntu - I've used it for a while (since 8.x) but gave up and installed Debian instead now that they got rid of Gnome Classic. Don't like Unity, though for me it wasn't so much the interface that irritated me, but rather the fact that it was INCREDIBLY BUGGY on my machine for some reason (oh and I had serious issues getting MythTV running on it properly ... might just be me though).
Actually I quite like the SYD-DFW flights. Suits me better than via SFO or LAX (but that's just me, obviously everyone is different). Qantas is building a market for that route now, in anticipation of delivery of the 787s they have on order, which will be able to make that route without any issue. Keep in mind that the 787s are years late - they were supposed to be in the air for years before now.
But that's aside from the point - one poor route choice (in your opinion) does not a loss-making airline make. You will note that they changed from SFO to DFW before their big route restructure earlier this year - and the flights that got the cut were not flights to/from North America. North America is actually profitable for QF (not as much competition on the trans-Pacific routes) - it's the European and Asian routes that are killing them.
Having said that I wish they had swapped LAX for DFW instead of SFO for DFW. LAX is indeed a shithole. DFW and SFO are both pretty good. But some massive proportion (like 60%) of Aus-USA traffic is destined for LA or southern California, so I can't see them ever dropping LAX.
Yes I was specifically ignoring the option of changing the open skies policy or returning to at least some degree of protectionism. Not because I think they are bad ideas, but because I can't realistically see them happening, that's all.
I actually agree with you 100% that the ideas you list are things we should be looking at. But my 'black and white view' wasn't considering those options because I don't think either side of government in Australia right now would have the stomach for it. And the public certainly wouldn't enjoy being subjected to 1990s airfares again - they have become addicted by the cheap air travel that has emerged in the last decade or so. But yeah, something needs to be done - protectionism may not be appropriate in all industries, but air travel is one where Australia has a distinct, and massive disadvantage that needs compensating for.
Qantas employees generally already have higher pay and better conditions than equivalent positions at other domestic carriers (Virgin, Jetstar, Tiger) - and FAR more than carriers in almost any foreign country that you could name. Also, Alan Joyce, though just given a $1.5M raise, voluntarily took a $7M/year pay cut previously. So he's just regaining some of what he previously lost (not that that justifies anything, just pointing it out).
AJ is a bit of a dick, but Qantas really is between a rock and a hard place. Or more accurately, Qantas International (the domestic arm is doing fine). QF international is losing money hand over fist through no real fault of their own. The problems are:
1. Geography: Australia is a terminus when it comes to air travel. You don't travel 'through' Australia to get to anywhere else. So you don't have the advantages of being based in a hub, like places in the Middle East or Asia, which can attract substantial traffic from within their catchment area and ALSO a lot of transit traffic (people just passing through in transit to other locations). Australia is the 'end of the road' so to speak, which makes their potential market much smaller.
2. Australia has an open skies policy these days, which has allowed the likes of Singapore Airlines, Qatar, Emirates, Malaysian Airlines, Cathay Pacific, Etihad to operate Australian services. These are airlines that already have the inherent advantages of being based in hub locations (thus are not as reliant on origin-and-departure traffic as Qantas is). They are also airlines that, due to being based in locations with much lower wages than Australia, have costs in the order of HALF what Qantas has, to operate the same flights. Qantas tickets are therefore more expensive. And as a result, noone buys them - Qantas now has only 20% market share for international flights to/from Australia (and falling).
So, QF international is losing money. Their successful domestic arm has been subsidising it, but that can only continue for so long. So what's the solution? They can either start basing at least some of their core maintenance and piloting operations from a hub somewhere in Asia (Singapore, HK etc.) ... or go out of business. This is what Alan Joyce announced earlier this year as a plan to save QF International - moving some operations offshore and creating a new premium airline in Asia. The unions oppose it - they obviously don't want jobs to be lost within Australia, nor do they want their members to miss out on pay or entitlements. Fair enough, from their perspective.
But what would you have Qantas do? They have no choice - if QF International is to survive at all, they MUST significantly reduce their cost base. That would be impossible to do while keeping all existing jobs in Australia. And even more impossible to do if the unions force them to pay even more. They are competing against foreign carriers whose costs are half as much, remember. What a sad thing it would be if Qantas - the second oldest continuously operating international airline in the world - was forced to close its doors.
There really are two sides to this story - the vilification in the media of Qantas as being greedy, un-Australian etc etc. is to some extent unjustified, as they are really running out of options, and noone can force them to keep operating their international arm at a loss.
More accurately, they have never had a fatality in the jet aircraft age. They did have a few fatal accidents in the early days and also lost some planes due to being shot down during WW2.
But yes, they have one of the best safety records and most respected (and highest paid) pilots in the (civil aviation) world.
This is actually why I thought female voices for announcements were used in general, instead of male. I remember reading that a long time ago - the female voice cuts through background noise better in places like airports, train stations etc etc.
While I agree that that royally sucks and the process could be improved ... I don't think that's the average experience. For me and my wife (with 4 iOS devices between us) it was:
1. Plug in device. iTunes immediately does a sync and backup automatically (like normal when you plug the phone in)
3. Hit 'Update'
4. Wait as it downloads 700 MB (for the first device only - otherwise it's cached on the HDD)
5. Select 'restore from [previous backup file]
6. Done. Everything is as it was before.
Sounds like your machine wasn't properly synced with the device, which gets you into a world of hurt with iTunes even if you AREN'T trying to do an iOS update at the same time. :(
iTunes works very well ... but ONLY if you stick to Apple's "1 device paired and synced to 1 computer" paradigm. Soon as you start dealing with multiple machines/iTunes libraries or manual file management it gets messy very quickly. Which I agree is a massive shortcoming of the whole iOS ecosystem, but it's not worth fighting it IMO ... just play along with Apple's game and everything works flawlessly. (Or, buy an Android if you hate the concept of single-machine syncing and prefer to manually manage files, which is a perfectly legitimate and understandable choice).
It's not that big - he's referring to iOS 5, not iTunes. iTunes is only around 70-80 MB on Windows / 100 MB on Mac. That includes hardware drivers for iPod, iPad and iPhone, as well as the media player itself, so the file size is perfectly reasonable. I have printer drivers three times the size of that.
No, of course he can't. Climate changes due to natural events and cycles. I don't think anyone denies that.
However, he can point out that according to the best figures we have, the climate is currently changing at a far greater rate than has occurred previously (outside of major extinction events), and that that pace of change cannot be explained by natural causes alone. We are seeing changes over decades-to-centuries time frames that would normally take millennia (or longer).
Frustrating, isn't it. Irritates me no end when someone hears that we just had, for example, "the coldest August day in x years" (or coldest month/year/etc), and then starts ranting about how global warming must therefore be completely made up.
Never mind the fact that for every minimum temperature record that's getting set around these parts nowadays, there's at least 5 maximum temp records being set (no matter which time scale you look at - daily, monthly, yearly). As you say, that 'probability curve' has been shifted upwards. Noticeable even in my lifetime (and I'm not that old) - it's generally hotter and drier here (south-east Australia) than it used to be (on average), despite the fact that yes, we still get cold and wet days/months/years.
Not that I'm not one of those global warming panic merchants - I don't buy into the extreme scenarios. But anyone with a decent understanding of basic statistics can't argue with the fact that it is, globally, on average, getting warmer over time (and at a much faster rate than has historically occurred due to natural cycles, outside of major extinction events). The cause of that and impacts of that are up for debate, but I really don't think the raw numbers are.
Replying to own post here. GP used a five year time period (should have read closer!) which changes the figures. Apologies to GP.
Even so though I think you'd be hard pressed to pay six grand over 5 years (here, at least). I don't think $100+ plans exist here, even unlimited ones are only in the order of $60/month...
Agreed. Here in Australia I paid $899 for the iPhone (bought outright, unlocked, no contract) and spend $20 a month on calls and data. My cost over two years is thus $1379.
Who is paying six grand for an iPhone over two years? Even on contract on a high-end/unlimited plan it's nowhere near that much.
Ah yes very true.
Though don't feel too bad. I technically have ADSL2+ but because my line is rather long, I get under 6 Mbit (i.e. well short of even the top ADSL1 speed) anyway.
The way I see it, NBN is at worst, the same price for more speed (for someone already on a good ADSL2+ line). And at best (people stuck in Telstra monopoly areas/on long lines/on ADSL1 only), it's cheaper AND more speed. It's a win for almost everyone.
Precisely. If unlimited is genuinely unsustainable, it's much better to do what other countries/carriers do and state a figure for the limit. Also: offer multiple plans with different sized limits so those that need a high amount can still pay for it and get it, rather than have no option whatsoever (this also benefits light users, who can be happy saving a bit of money on a lower-limit plan).
Limits suck compared to unlimited, sure, but if they have to exist, it is better to be transparent about them and give the consumer a range of choices. "Top 5%" is a completely stupid method of doing it, since you can't predict what this figure will be and it will fluctuate from month to month anyway!
A 1 TB cap is pretty huge though. In practice, would you even come close to hitting it?
Also this is just the first 'batch' of ISPs that have announced pricing on the network - and they are all currently considered "premium" ISPs for existing DSL connections. Wait until the cheap and nasty ISPs get on board and I'm sure you'll see unlimited plans happening (might take a few years ... but if they can offer unlimited cap 24 Mbit ADSL2+ now, which they do, they can do it on the NBN).
Firstly, it's 'only' around $29-30 billion now (the 40+ billion figure was the budget BEFORE the Telstra conduit-sharing deal was struck).
Secondly, $40 billion over the 12 or 13 years the rollout will take really isn't much. Compare it to what we spend over that time period on other infrastructure like roads, schools, hospitals etc. You make it sound like it's a $40B bill that's all due in one hit up front or something. Plus it'll form the 'guts' of the telecommunications network in this country for the next century. I really don't think the cost is outrageous when you consider that ... what do you think the original copper POTS network cost to roll out?
Lol - Australia is pretty close to that, actually. Mid-$15/hour range is minimum wage (and that doesn't include 9% compulsory retirement savings that gets paid into a fund on your behalf by the employer - if you include that it's $17/hour!)
Internet costs more in Australia due to distance from the rest of the English-speaking world (i.e. where 95% of internet hosts we want to access are located), huge area and small population. We will never be able to compete with Europe on price. Also you're picking the entry-level 12/1 40 GB plan for home users (which includes a home phone service with untimed national calls BTW, not just internet) to compare with ... and it only costs only a few euro more than what you pay (59 AUD = ~42 EUR). That ain't bad, considering what prices and speeds are like now. Besides, if it ain't fast enough, up to 100/40 Mbit is available to everyone, and gigabit for business plans.
The relevant comparison is between what Australians can get now (generally ADSL2+ on which for most people get 10 Mbit unless they live close to the exchange), and what we can get on the NBN (same cost - much faster). Not between what you can get in Australia vs. what you can get in densely populated Europe. It's a pointless comparison - EVERYTHING costs more here (but wages are very high too - it all balances out in the end).
It's also likely unlimited plans will be offered by some ISPs on this network too. You have to remember - all you are seeing now is the first batch of pricing released from the first batch of ISPs. Once more get on board and the rollout gathers pace, prices will decline, just as they have been for the ADSL2+ offerings over the last decade. ISPs like TPG already offer unlimited ADSL2+ for $29/month, so I foresee them offering a similar thing on NBN eventually too. It's still early days.
Hell yes. You pay $59.95 with Internode now for only 30 GB plus home phone service, all on a rusty old copper phone line that (for me) syncs at 6 Mbps on a good day. For the same price on the NBN I could have 4 times the speed, much better reliability and a higher download quota.
Sure if you are one of the 0.1% of the population who live close enough to the exchange to get 24 Mbit out of ADSL2+, it's not so compelling. But the majority of people are on long and unreliable lines. Or even worse, RIMs or pair gain systems. NBN is a huge boon to the quality of Australian connectivity, both in the large cities and the small towns.
Will be signing up in a flash when it's available (which will be a few years yet in this part of the world, unfortunately, although the area just 5 km north of me is one of the second release sites getting it next year - lucky sods!)
This is a $40 billion+ project to rip out the 100-year old existing copper POTS network and replace it with a new, independently operated layer 2 FTTH network (upon which dozens of competing ISPs will be able to offer layer 3 services to the end user). Nationwide - from the large cities to small towns in the middle of nowhere (every town with >1000 people will get fibre, smaller hamlets will get some form of 4G or WiMax fixed wireless). There will then be dozens of ISPs operating layer 3 services on this network to the end user.
That is much more significant than a new ISP.
Dual US/Aussie citizen here who splits their time between both countries. Australia IS more expensive than the US for almost everything (except, interestingly, cellphones and cellphone plans - Australia kicks the US' ass on this front in terms of selection and price). But clothes, cars, food, rent and housing, entertainment ... everything else is considerably more expensive in Australia (1.5x for food and electronics, about 2x for everything else)
Including the Internet. It's one of the curses of being a 'terminating destination' (i.e. cables don't really go ~through~ Australia to get to anywhere else, so they have to be purpose-built and laid under 10,000 miles of ocean to serve a total population smaller than some single American cities). Not to mention that 90% of our traffic has to be pulled all the way from the US/Europe because we are an English-speaking country located distantly from the main sources of English language content. (This is a problem that doesn't affect other 'language isolate' countries such as Japan and Korea - most of their traffic is domestic and hence much cheaper).
It doesn't matter though. Prices here are higher but wages are higher. I find it balances out about the same in the end ... I don't feel like I have less disposable income in Australia than I do in the US. Plus you make savings in other areas (healthcare is free or very cheap etc.)
(* PS: Also keep in mind that the NBN plans quoted generally include a home telephone service with free or cheap national calls.)
They don't charge you extra, they just throttle your speed down. This is what they do now on xDSL and cable connections, and so it will be on the NBN as well.
Having said that, if you are hitting your cap regularly, just pay a few bucks extra and upgrade to the next highest plan. All the big ISPs are offering plans up to 1000 GB (1 TB) per month, which is enough for almost any conceivable domestic (non-business) need. At the moment I'm only on a 30 GB plan because that's all I use. The next plan up only costs another 10 bucks a month and gives me 200 GB - a large jump for not much money, and I won't hesitate to upgrade if I need to.
The other thing you have to factor in is that Australian ISPs also typically have a lot of value-adds, including large file mirrors and access to various other Internet services that are 'unmetered' (i.e. data from which is not counted against your cap). For instance one ISP might offer unmetered streaming TV services, unmetered iTunes etc. Another might give you unmetered access to file mirrors such as Major Geeks, Tucows, Linux repositories, gaming servers etc. These are incredibly useful: about 25-30% of my typical usage per month ends up in the "unmetered" bucket and for some people it's higher.