Well, whirlpool.net.au fits the bill quite well already, although its scope is not as wide as Slashdot. I read and post on both. The point of the internet is to create global discussion, not partition everyone off into their own country.
Frankly I've lived in both the US and Australia and you are subject to the luck of the draw in both countries. There are plenty of places in Australia where you can get connections better than many places in the US. There are also awful Internet blackholes which are, I agree, hell on earth. E.g. places covered only by RIMs or with terrible backhaul congestion.
I lived in the US for a couple of years in a mid-sized city and the fastest home connection I could get was DSL from AT&T at 6000/768 (down/up in kbps). Back here in Australia, in a similar sized city, I get 18Mbps/2Mbps ADSL2+ (using Annex M for the faster uploads). But I do understand that's just an anecdote. There are places in the US that you can get incredible speeds (FiOS-covered areas, for instance). And there are many places in Australia where ADSL2+ is a distant dream.
The point is though that you can't paint either country with a broad brush - the US isn't ~all~ a broadband paradise, and Australia isn't ~all~ terrible. The US also suffers from essentially having one DSL monopoly and one cable monopoly in most areas, cf. Australia where if you can get ADSL, you can almost always get it through a wide choice of providers (even if it's really just resold Telstra Wholesale in some areas).
XP was written in the day when most Internet connections were either dialup, or broadband that was slow by today's standards (128, 256, 512 or 768 kbps DSL, for instance). A small window size is preferable for that kind of situation, and as you say, provided the latency is low, it scales up well to the 100Mbps range. So in the US with your sub-100ms latency to the majority of hosts, it's not really an issue. But if you are more geographically distant, window scaling matters a lot.
Here in Australia, the XP TCP/IP stack on its default settings can be a real throttle on Internet speed (due to being 10,000 miles and 300-400ms away from US hosts, and 500+ms from many European hosts). And let's face it... most average users aren't going to be diving in and fiddling with their RWIN etc. The XP networking stack used to be the reason behind a LOT of "why is my Internet not meeting its advertised speed" problems. It usually manifests itself in the following way: downloading from an Australian site saturates your connection and you get the full advertised speed, but downloading from a US site only gets you half or less of that speed... however if you open up multiple simultaneous downloads from that US site, you can still saturate the connection.
This problem was particularly prevalent in the period after the wide-scale introduction of ADSL2+ in Australia, which offers downstream speeds of up to 24 Mbps, but before the release of Vista. (As an aside, it seems as if ADSL2+ is really rare in the US... most providers still seem to have ADSL1 only which is limited to 8Mbps or less - I suppose this is because you have cable in most places which offers ADSL2+ equivalent speeds or better)
Thankfully the default configuration in Mac OS, Linux, Vista and Win7 is a lot better adapted to high latency, high bandwidth connections, so these problems are becoming a thing of the past.
Well, to be fair, there hasn't been a (Federal) election since they were formed, so the Australian Pirate Party couldn't really have any seats (by-elections notwithstanding) yet.
Not that I think they WILL get any seats come next election. But still...you never know.
Problem is, no driver that actually was at risk of using the phone while driving would want to opt in to this system. The people that would be interested in such a warning system are the type that weren't really prone to doing this in the first place.
Re:This is why you need version control on laws
on
Full ACTA Leak Online
·
· Score: 1
Yep good analogy. I'm not a programmer so I guess that didn't spring to mind. But that's exactly what it is.
Full = the entirety of it (i.e. not missing any sections)
Consolidated = in one piece, with up to date edits and amendments included.
The latter is typically used with legislation that undergoes amendment. You have the amendment itself, which says thing like "in section 3, omit the words blah and replace with blah" or "section 82(b) is hereby repealed". The amendment is what gets passed, and either a ~consolidated~ version of the full legislation is made (with the changes from the amendment effected), or it's not, and you have to read the original text + the amendment ~together~ to get the full meaning.
So in this case we have the consolidated version (no reference to external modifying documents needed), which is also the full text.
Yeah I've noticed American schools start a lot earlier than in many other countries.
9am is the standard school start for both primary (elementary) and high schools here in Australia, as it is in the UK school in TFA. End time is typically 3pm for primary school and 3:30pm for high school (although of course, you may have extra-curricular stuff such as sport or music afterwards).
I, as a non-American, can buy a yearly travel insurance plan that covers me for unlimited medical expenses, travel to the US for a year, and be covered for everything bar a $100 deductible, for far less than any of those. So tourists pay less (and potentially get more) than citizens? That's sad.:(
I remember getting AOL install discs in the mail here in Australia in the 90s. What's kinda funny is that it was called "AOL Australia". America On-line Australia. Hmmm. Australia even starts with an A so why couldn't they have just called it (Australia)OL?
I imagine (s)he's posting as AC because the opinion voiced is very much against the typical Slashdotter's opinion, and they don't want their karma (and pride) to be modded into oblivion.
Not really. US law like DMCA is imposed on ~sites run by US individuals or companies~, who are subject to US law. DMCA doesn't apply to a sit running elsewhere. But it so happens that most popular sites are based in the US, or run by US companies (e.g. Google).
Having said that, I agree that it is irritating. I particularly love the constant "sorry, this content is not available outside the US!" on Hulu/Pandora/many YouTube vids/etc/etc.
Indeed but, to play devil's advocate, doesn't that describe almost every country. By that definition, the only non-Socialist country would be one with almost complete anarchy or a tiny government that only handles things like international diplomacy, but doesn't collect taxes or actually run anything. And a term like 'socialist' would be fairly meaningless if it described almost everyone.
I think the US is still relatively 'un-socialised' compared to most other Western countries (particularly European). The government 'does' less, and has less of a hand in things in the US than it does in most of Europe. The flip side of this though is that the US collects considerably less of its citizens money in taxes -
This data is a bit old (2005) but check out the green (personal tax) line. The US is towards the top of the list of low-taxing developed countries. I suppose at its core, this is what issues like this are about - do you prefer to pay more in tax but have more stuff provided free to you? Or keep more of your money but have to pay more in day to day life? Advantage of the former is convenience and efficiency, advantage of the latter is that it potentially could be cheaper overall since you have more choice.
Yes I have to admit, imposing a fine on those who choose not to take out insurance is a bit... odd. Or at least, ~calling~ it a fine is. Many other countries kinda do a similar thing, although its 'dressed' differently.
The healthcare system in my country (Australia FWIW) roughly works like this:
1. There is a universal, public system that will treat you, for free or very cheaply, called Medicare (not to be confused with the US 'Medicare'). Like any government-run system, it is funded by taxes - specifically a 1.5% levy on your taxable income, if you earn more than a certain threshold. So the poor are covered, and because they are poor, don't have to pay the levy either. The wealthier people on the other hand do pay a portion of their tax towards Medicare. But...
2. Although every citizen (and most legal permanent residents) are entitled to treatment under Medicare, it would be too much of a drain on government money if everyone actually DID use it. Thus, despite the existence of the universal/public option, the government nonetheless provides incentives for people to take out separate, private insurance. The incentive basically is that - if you have separate private health insurance, you don't have to pay the Medicare levy (even if you otherwise would have to, due to your income being above the threshold). Purchase your own insurance and pay 1.5% less income tax, essentially. This makes sense, after all you aren't burdening the public pocket, so why should you pay into it as much?
The reason I mention this is to contrast it with the idea in the US: "if you could afford insurance but you still don't get some, we will fine you". The way Australia does this is phrased in the opposite way: "if you DO get insurance when you can afford it, we'll reward you with -1.5% income tax". Same result though in the end - you pay more (miss out on a tax saving, vs. a 'fine') if you could afford insurance, but don't get it. In both cases they government is trying to make it attractive for you to ~not~ rely on public money.
But if the new US proposal genuinely does fine people who can't afford it, that ain't cool. Then again, at 1900+ pages, it's not like I have a very in depth understanding of exactly what this Bill entails. It is somewhat relevant to me because I'm moving permanently to the US in around 2 years so I'm keen to get my head around it.
Ok fair enough - I was assuming US tourists would be covered because I know those from the UK, NZ, CA etc. are. That's due to reciprocal arrangements, as you pointed out. The US is not included in that.
Doctors are free to set up private practices (e.g. as GPs) in Australia and run it as a business. That's all I was getting at with the 'private enterprises' language (just to counter the ideas that some have that think 'universal health care' = 'mandated Government-run treatment' where doctors aren't free to practice where they like etc). It wasn't the central point I was trying to make.
In fact I wasn't trying to make 'a point' at all. I was merely relaying a recent story that happened to me, ~in agreement~ with the poster who was saying that US medical care is of good quality.
I wasn't trying to compare the pros and cons of any system. As you've pointed out, that would require knowledge that I don't have. I was just adding an anecdote about my (only) exposure to the US system, which like any other anecdote, should be taken with a grain of salt.
Yep absolutely. There's a sweet spot in that 20-30 dollar range where you're getting 80% of the quality of a top wine for 10% of the price. Bit like buying computer hardware really:)
Yes but that's indicative of the UK's particular problems and not really to do with the merits (or otherwise) of socialised health care. Other countries with good survival rates similar to the US also have socialised health care.
This article mentions that the US, France and Japan have the best survival rates, with Australia and Canada not far behind. The UK lags (as you say). But all those countries other than the US have universal/single payer healthcare systems.
The UK health care system does have some problems... but the fact that it's socialised isn't really one of them (at least, not by itself).
Indeed. The quality of heath care in the US is top notch... if you can get it/afford it. It's that "if you can get it" that's the issue.
A little story. I'm Australian. We have free universal health care in Australia, like most other countries. And the quality of that healthcare is good. Better than in the UK, IMO (I've lived in both countries). Three months ago I was visiting relatives in the US. Unfortunately I suffered an acute illness that required hospitalisation. I should point out that I'm young (27) and healthy, and have never required admission to hospital before. Now as a visitor to the US for three weeks, naturally I have no insurance/employer/any other connection to the US.
I was only in the ER for 89 minutes. The bill was over $2000 USD for that hour and a half! What struck me most about the US system though, more than the COST, was the incredible inefficiency. A bill from the hospital got mailed. Then a separate bill from some other company who apparently had some role. Then another bill from the doctor himself (wtf, doesn't the doctor work for the hospital?). All this paperwork, all these separate entities at play. In Australia and most other countries, there's a single payer system. You pay nothing and a single (government) insurer picks up the bill. It works well, not because it's socialised (the hospitals/doctors themselves are still private enterprises), but because it's just more efficient. Health care providers don't have to chase down 100s of different insurers with different paperwork and different requirements. They just batch their bills up and a single entity pays them.
But I do admit that, although expensive, the doctor gave me excellent treatment. He did many tests (including ones that I thought were unnecessary, and probably wouldn't have been done in the same situation at home). This is probably why the cost was so huge.
So yes, US healthcare is excellent quality. And particularly so for more advanced or cutting edge treatments - you can often only get them in the US (mostly because most health research is still done in the US). But if you are poor, God help you, because you can't afford it. Or if you are a visitor like me - I'm not poor and I have private health insurance at home in Australia, but that doesn't mean Jack in the US.
Ironically, if I were an American visiting either Australia or the UK, and the same thing happened to me, I'd get the same treatment for free. THAT irritates me... my tax dollars pay for treating US tourists, but they don't extend the same courtesy to me as a visitor to their country.
Although the way you wrote this is a bit inflammatory, I'd have to agree. Most people here (Australia) would be aware of MLK and what he did, but only in rather vague or general terms. Hitler on the other hand... Australia along with most other Western nations spent the best part of 6 years fighting him so no introduction needed there.
I dare say most of the world would be similar. MLK was a great man, but his achievements were primarily US domestic ones. A bit like if I, as an Australian, were to mention Eddie Mabo - most outside of AU would not know off the top of their head who he was (not that I'm trying to say Mabo was on the same scale of importance as MLK).
Still I don't think it's invalid to put them in the same sentence. The GGGP didn't try and state that they were equally influential... just that both of them wrong interesting things while locked up:) Which is true.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, whirlpool.net.au fits the bill quite well already, although its scope is not as wide as Slashdot. I read and post on both. The point of the internet is to create global discussion, not partition everyone off into their own country.
Frankly I've lived in both the US and Australia and you are subject to the luck of the draw in both countries. There are plenty of places in Australia where you can get connections better than many places in the US. There are also awful Internet blackholes which are, I agree, hell on earth. E.g. places covered only by RIMs or with terrible backhaul congestion.
I lived in the US for a couple of years in a mid-sized city and the fastest home connection I could get was DSL from AT&T at 6000/768 (down/up in kbps). Back here in Australia, in a similar sized city, I get 18Mbps/2Mbps ADSL2+ (using Annex M for the faster uploads). But I do understand that's just an anecdote. There are places in the US that you can get incredible speeds (FiOS-covered areas, for instance). And there are many places in Australia where ADSL2+ is a distant dream.
The point is though that you can't paint either country with a broad brush - the US isn't ~all~ a broadband paradise, and Australia isn't ~all~ terrible. The US also suffers from essentially having one DSL monopoly and one cable monopoly in most areas, cf. Australia where if you can get ADSL, you can almost always get it through a wide choice of providers (even if it's really just resold Telstra Wholesale in some areas).
XP was written in the day when most Internet connections were either dialup, or broadband that was slow by today's standards (128, 256, 512 or 768 kbps DSL, for instance). A small window size is preferable for that kind of situation, and as you say, provided the latency is low, it scales up well to the 100Mbps range. So in the US with your sub-100ms latency to the majority of hosts, it's not really an issue. But if you are more geographically distant, window scaling matters a lot.
Here in Australia, the XP TCP/IP stack on its default settings can be a real throttle on Internet speed (due to being 10,000 miles and 300-400ms away from US hosts, and 500+ms from many European hosts). And let's face it ... most average users aren't going to be diving in and fiddling with their RWIN etc. The XP networking stack used to be the reason behind a LOT of "why is my Internet not meeting its advertised speed" problems. It usually manifests itself in the following way: downloading from an Australian site saturates your connection and you get the full advertised speed, but downloading from a US site only gets you half or less of that speed ... however if you open up multiple simultaneous downloads from that US site, you can still saturate the connection.
This problem was particularly prevalent in the period after the wide-scale introduction of ADSL2+ in Australia, which offers downstream speeds of up to 24 Mbps, but before the release of Vista. (As an aside, it seems as if ADSL2+ is really rare in the US ... most providers still seem to have ADSL1 only which is limited to 8Mbps or less - I suppose this is because you have cable in most places which offers ADSL2+ equivalent speeds or better)
Thankfully the default configuration in Mac OS, Linux, Vista and Win7 is a lot better adapted to high latency, high bandwidth connections, so these problems are becoming a thing of the past.
Well, to be fair, there hasn't been a (Federal) election since they were formed, so the Australian Pirate Party couldn't really have any seats (by-elections notwithstanding) yet.
Not that I think they WILL get any seats come next election. But still...you never know.
Problem is, no driver that actually was at risk of using the phone while driving would want to opt in to this system. The people that would be interested in such a warning system are the type that weren't really prone to doing this in the first place.
Yep good analogy. I'm not a programmer so I guess that didn't spring to mind. But that's exactly what it is.
As I understand it, it can be both.
Full = the entirety of it (i.e. not missing any sections)
Consolidated = in one piece, with up to date edits and amendments included.
The latter is typically used with legislation that undergoes amendment. You have the amendment itself, which says thing like "in section 3, omit the words blah and replace with blah" or "section 82(b) is hereby repealed". The amendment is what gets passed, and either a ~consolidated~ version of the full legislation is made (with the changes from the amendment effected), or it's not, and you have to read the original text + the amendment ~together~ to get the full meaning.
So in this case we have the consolidated version (no reference to external modifying documents needed), which is also the full text.
Gah - sorry, modded you redundant, meant to click on insightful. Posting to undo moderation ... sorry.
That's not exactly 'lunch' then, is it? :)
Yeah I've noticed American schools start a lot earlier than in many other countries.
9am is the standard school start for both primary (elementary) and high schools here in Australia, as it is in the UK school in TFA. End time is typically 3pm for primary school and 3:30pm for high school (although of course, you may have extra-curricular stuff such as sport or music afterwards).
Wait ... what?
I, as a non-American, can buy a yearly travel insurance plan that covers me for unlimited medical expenses, travel to the US for a year, and be covered for everything bar a $100 deductible, for far less than any of those. So tourists pay less (and potentially get more) than citizens? That's sad. :(
AOL used to be a lot more widespread than the US.
I remember getting AOL install discs in the mail here in Australia in the 90s. What's kinda funny is that it was called "AOL Australia". America On-line Australia. Hmmm. Australia even starts with an A so why couldn't they have just called it (Australia)OL?
I imagine (s)he's posting as AC because the opinion voiced is very much against the typical Slashdotter's opinion, and they don't want their karma (and pride) to be modded into oblivion.
I'll +1 the grammar Nazi above, by acting as a helpful grammar Nazi myself.
The word(s) you are looking for are 'regardless', or possibly 'irrespective'.
Not really. US law like DMCA is imposed on ~sites run by US individuals or companies~, who are subject to US law. DMCA doesn't apply to a sit running elsewhere. But it so happens that most popular sites are based in the US, or run by US companies (e.g. Google).
Having said that, I agree that it is irritating. I particularly love the constant "sorry, this content is not available outside the US!" on Hulu/Pandora/many YouTube vids/etc/etc.
And of course, I forgot the stupid link, didn't I: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg
Indeed but, to play devil's advocate, doesn't that describe almost every country. By that definition, the only non-Socialist country would be one with almost complete anarchy or a tiny government that only handles things like international diplomacy, but doesn't collect taxes or actually run anything. And a term like 'socialist' would be fairly meaningless if it described almost everyone.
I think the US is still relatively 'un-socialised' compared to most other Western countries (particularly European). The government 'does' less, and has less of a hand in things in the US than it does in most of Europe. The flip side of this though is that the US collects considerably less of its citizens money in taxes -
This data is a bit old (2005) but check out the green (personal tax) line. The US is towards the top of the list of low-taxing developed countries. I suppose at its core, this is what issues like this are about - do you prefer to pay more in tax but have more stuff provided free to you? Or keep more of your money but have to pay more in day to day life? Advantage of the former is convenience and efficiency, advantage of the latter is that it potentially could be cheaper overall since you have more choice.
Yes I have to admit, imposing a fine on those who choose not to take out insurance is a bit ... odd. Or at least, ~calling~ it a fine is. Many other countries kinda do a similar thing, although its 'dressed' differently.
The healthcare system in my country (Australia FWIW) roughly works like this:
1. There is a universal, public system that will treat you, for free or very cheaply, called Medicare (not to be confused with the US 'Medicare'). Like any government-run system, it is funded by taxes - specifically a 1.5% levy on your taxable income, if you earn more than a certain threshold. So the poor are covered, and because they are poor, don't have to pay the levy either. The wealthier people on the other hand do pay a portion of their tax towards Medicare. But...
2. Although every citizen (and most legal permanent residents) are entitled to treatment under Medicare, it would be too much of a drain on government money if everyone actually DID use it. Thus, despite the existence of the universal/public option, the government nonetheless provides incentives for people to take out separate, private insurance. The incentive basically is that - if you have separate private health insurance, you don't have to pay the Medicare levy (even if you otherwise would have to, due to your income being above the threshold). Purchase your own insurance and pay 1.5% less income tax, essentially. This makes sense, after all you aren't burdening the public pocket, so why should you pay into it as much?
The reason I mention this is to contrast it with the idea in the US: "if you could afford insurance but you still don't get some, we will fine you". The way Australia does this is phrased in the opposite way: "if you DO get insurance when you can afford it, we'll reward you with -1.5% income tax". Same result though in the end - you pay more (miss out on a tax saving, vs. a 'fine') if you could afford insurance, but don't get it. In both cases they government is trying to make it attractive for you to ~not~ rely on public money.
But if the new US proposal genuinely does fine people who can't afford it, that ain't cool. Then again, at 1900+ pages, it's not like I have a very in depth understanding of exactly what this Bill entails. It is somewhat relevant to me because I'm moving permanently to the US in around 2 years so I'm keen to get my head around it.
Hahaha well played :) Me likey!
Ok fair enough - I was assuming US tourists would be covered because I know those from the UK, NZ, CA etc. are. That's due to reciprocal arrangements, as you pointed out. The US is not included in that.
Doctors are free to set up private practices (e.g. as GPs) in Australia and run it as a business. That's all I was getting at with the 'private enterprises' language (just to counter the ideas that some have that think 'universal health care' = 'mandated Government-run treatment' where doctors aren't free to practice where they like etc). It wasn't the central point I was trying to make.
In fact I wasn't trying to make 'a point' at all. I was merely relaying a recent story that happened to me, ~in agreement~ with the poster who was saying that US medical care is of good quality.
I wasn't trying to compare the pros and cons of any system. As you've pointed out, that would require knowledge that I don't have. I was just adding an anecdote about my (only) exposure to the US system, which like any other anecdote, should be taken with a grain of salt.
Yep absolutely. There's a sweet spot in that 20-30 dollar range where you're getting 80% of the quality of a top wine for 10% of the price. Bit like buying computer hardware really :)
Yes but that's indicative of the UK's particular problems and not really to do with the merits (or otherwise) of socialised health care. Other countries with good survival rates similar to the US also have socialised health care.
This article mentions that the US, France and Japan have the best survival rates, with Australia and Canada not far behind. The UK lags (as you say). But all those countries other than the US have universal/single payer healthcare systems.
The UK health care system does have some problems ... but the fact that it's socialised isn't really one of them (at least, not by itself).
Indeed. The quality of heath care in the US is top notch ... if you can get it/afford it. It's that "if you can get it" that's the issue.
A little story. I'm Australian. We have free universal health care in Australia, like most other countries. And the quality of that healthcare is good. Better than in the UK, IMO (I've lived in both countries). Three months ago I was visiting relatives in the US. Unfortunately I suffered an acute illness that required hospitalisation. I should point out that I'm young (27) and healthy, and have never required admission to hospital before. Now as a visitor to the US for three weeks, naturally I have no insurance/employer/any other connection to the US.
I was only in the ER for 89 minutes. The bill was over $2000 USD for that hour and a half! What struck me most about the US system though, more than the COST, was the incredible inefficiency. A bill from the hospital got mailed. Then a separate bill from some other company who apparently had some role. Then another bill from the doctor himself (wtf, doesn't the doctor work for the hospital?). All this paperwork, all these separate entities at play. In Australia and most other countries, there's a single payer system. You pay nothing and a single (government) insurer picks up the bill. It works well, not because it's socialised (the hospitals/doctors themselves are still private enterprises), but because it's just more efficient. Health care providers don't have to chase down 100s of different insurers with different paperwork and different requirements. They just batch their bills up and a single entity pays them.
But I do admit that, although expensive, the doctor gave me excellent treatment. He did many tests (including ones that I thought were unnecessary, and probably wouldn't have been done in the same situation at home). This is probably why the cost was so huge.
So yes, US healthcare is excellent quality. And particularly so for more advanced or cutting edge treatments - you can often only get them in the US (mostly because most health research is still done in the US). But if you are poor, God help you, because you can't afford it. Or if you are a visitor like me - I'm not poor and I have private health insurance at home in Australia, but that doesn't mean Jack in the US.
Ironically, if I were an American visiting either Australia or the UK, and the same thing happened to me, I'd get the same treatment for free. THAT irritates me ... my tax dollars pay for treating US tourists, but they don't extend the same courtesy to me as a visitor to their country.
Although the way you wrote this is a bit inflammatory, I'd have to agree. Most people here (Australia) would be aware of MLK and what he did, but only in rather vague or general terms. Hitler on the other hand ... Australia along with most other Western nations spent the best part of 6 years fighting him so no introduction needed there.
I dare say most of the world would be similar. MLK was a great man, but his achievements were primarily US domestic ones. A bit like if I, as an Australian, were to mention Eddie Mabo - most outside of AU would not know off the top of their head who he was (not that I'm trying to say Mabo was on the same scale of importance as MLK).
Still I don't think it's invalid to put them in the same sentence. The GGGP didn't try and state that they were equally influential ... just that both of them wrong interesting things while locked up :) Which is true.
It's Monty Python? Wow wouldn't have guessed. I have seen a reasonable amount of Python but I guess not that one. That explains it though, thx.