However, even if they didn't believe in it, chances are they'd say "no dice" after the Moral Panic started, so they wouldn't have had to explain to angry parishioners why they were allowing Satanic Minions of Satan to meet on church property.
When we used to play D&D in the high school library we were prohibited from rolling any 6-sided dice because they could be used for gambling.
I'm sure that wasn't what you meant by "no dice", but I never let a good segue pass me by.
6.3 What Are The Voice And Data Plan Requirements?
A voice plan is required on all voice-capable Devices, unless specifically noted otherwise in the terms governing your plan.
An eligible tiered pricing data plan is required for certain Devices, including iPhones and other designated Smartphones. Eligible voice and tiered pricing data plans cover voice and data usage in the U.S. and do not cover International voice and data usage and charges. If it is determined that you are using a voice-capable Device without a voice plan, or that you are using an iPhone or designated Smartphone without an eligible voice and tiered data plan, AT&T reserves the right to switch you to the required plan or plans and bill you the appropriate monthly fees. In the case of the tiered data plan, you will be placed on the data plan which provides you with the greatest monthly data usage allowance. If you determine that you do not require that much data usage in a month, you may request a lower data tier at a lower monthly recurring fee.
That being said, just because it's in a contract that doesn't mean it's legal. AT&T's arbitration clause prohibits customers from joining class action suits, but allows small claims actions. Last year a California man won against AT&T over throttling on his unlimited data package, but I don't know anyone has sued over this clause in small claims court. Any arbitration results would most likely be kept secret.
According to the standard AT&T customer agreement, (http://www.att.com/shop/en/legalterms.html?toskey=wirelessCustomerAgreement#arbAgreement) small claims court is still an option.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, either party may bring an individual action in small claims court.
Google does OK by the Nexus line, but not as well as Apple with the iPhone. The Nexus one released in January of 2010 and its last patch came in Sept of 2011. The Nexus S launched in Dec 2010 and can run Android Jelly Bean 4.1.2, but Google announced last Nov. that it will not be updated to 4.2. The Galaxy Nexus was released in Nov of 2011 and can run Jelly Bean 4.2.1. When asked about Android phones I only recommend the Nexus line product.
Why would AT&T want a customer that doesn't use data?
AT&T keeps complaining that they are running out of bandwidth due to all of these smartphone users abusing their network, and so they need to buy up all of their competitors and absorb their spectrum allotments. If they are really running out of bandwidth, they could simply let smartphone users drop their data plans.
The only thing I don't understand is why the Militia doesn't work the same way as in Switzerland (or why feminists have no interest in being part of said Militia, but that's another topic entirely).
To the best of my knowledge, the closest the US government comes to training the populace is the Civilian Marksmanship Program. http://www.odcmp.com/
The only ambiguity that's often raised is whether the National Guard constitutes said well-regulated militia. It's unclear since service isn't universal (or at least universal for the sex that cares about protecting freedoms).
The National Guard may have qualified as a militia at one time, but at this point they are essentially a federal army. Militias are made up of non-professional citizens. National Guard members are paid for their time and are provided arms when they are on duty. Armies, obviously, do not need constitutional protection from the government in order to have weapons.
In the context of 18th century military parlance, armies would consist of regular and irregular troops. The regulars were professional soldiers who received training and identical weapons and equipment. The irregulars were conscripts and volunteers who received inconstant surplus gear and weapons, if they received anything at all. Many times the irregulars had to equip themselves as well as they could. So, a well-regulated militia would be one that was well equipped and well trained.
The intentions of the founders was that in the event of the US being attacked, the citizens, the unorganized militia, would pick up their guns and fight to the best of their ability. This is America's irregular army. Because the unorganized militia is expected to bring its own arms and know how to shoot, the people need the right to keep and bear arms.
In addition, many states have state defense forces under the command of the governors. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force) While they are sometimes paid when mobilized, they largely have to provide their own weapons and equipment. So in order for them to operate the members also need the protection of the 2nd Amendment.
I don't care if it's onerous. And I don't really care why TWC decided not to peer with Netflix. None of that should affect how Netflix interacts with me as a customer. All I should have to care about is "is my pipe wide enough to receive the stream". If it is, Netflix should send me the stream. If not, Netflix should not send me the stream. The rest of it is none of my concern.
Netflix is the one changing the game, here. They are really the first B2C entity telling customers that they will treat them differently based on the topological structure of the internet between the customer and the business. That's really unprecedented.
What if Apple said "we're not going to deliver large apps to customers on networks that don't peer with us" or "we're going to charge an extra _% to deliver large apps to customers on networks that don't peer with us". People would go BALLISTIC. So why is it OK for Netflix to do that?
Would you rather have them turn it on and charge everyone more, probably loosing customers in the process? Maybe they should just charge TWC customers? As much as you don't like their decision, it is not some arbitrary position. Netflix is barely holding on. Their net income went from 226 million in 2011 to 17 million in 2012 in the face of skyrocketing content licensing costs. Compare that to TWC with a net income of 1.7 billion for 2012. Netflix could turn on Super HD for everyone, but they would have to raise prices and would end up loosing customers. Or, they could just charge extra to people on ISPs who won't or can't peer with them. Which would be better? Or would you rather have Netflix just go out of business? No business, not even an Internet based business, has a moral obligation to provide a service at a loss.
Treating customers differently based on Internet geography is not unprecedented. I'd bet that it happens a lot but just isn't publicized. Comcast already started doing this. First, Comcast had their spat with Level 3 where they wanted L3 to pay Comcast for delivering data that Comcast subscribers were downloading. Then Comcast followed up by exempting their in-house video streaming service from the data caps. According to surveys, 64% of US broadband customers are under a data cap. Time Warner Cable is not currently under a cap, but that is because the customer base went into open revolt when they tried it in Texas. Netflix is not changing the game, it is responding to conditions on the field.
Oh, and the reason Apple could not get away with a similar scheme is because Apple is the 2nd most valuable company in the world. Size makes a difference, and Netflix really is not a very big company.
You are missing the point. Peering with Netflix will save Time Warner Cable money as well.
Here's how it works. You pay your ISP a fixed amount every month for a fixed amount of bandwidth. Your ISP connects to a backbone provider, and it pays said backbone provider for bandwidth and traffic. Netflix also connects to one or more backbone providers and pays them for bandwidth and traffic. The backbone providers connect their respective networks at peering points and have peering agreements where they agree to carry traffic for each other at relatively low cost. If data is flowing through a peering point in both directions at a relatively equal volumes they just call it a wash.
Now, Netflix is offering a peering agreement where they will connect to ISPs directly, cutting out the backbone providers. Virtually all of the traffic will be one-way, but neither party will have to pay for it. That will save Netflix money by not having to pay a backbone provider for carrying that streaming data. It will also save ISP's money by not having to pay backbone providers when receiving all of that streaming data from Netflix. It's a win-win. For large ISP's with a presence in Atlanta, New York, Chicago, Dallas, Seattle, or Los Angeles, where Netflix's CDN has a presence, this should be a piece of cake. Small ISP's will have a harder time tying into these peering facilities, which is unfortunate for them.
Netflix could just turn on Super HD for all customers, because, like you say, you should be treated like any other subscriber. But that would drive up their costs, which they would pass on to their subscribers. It would also drive up costs for Time Warner cable, who would pass the costs on to their subscribers. TWC appears to have made the strategic decision, at least for the moment, not to peer with Netflix. That's why this is your problem, and why you don't get Super HD.
Incidentally, I don't get SuperHD either. My two ISP choices are TWC, which goes down for hours to days at a time every week, or a 1.5 Mb DSL from a regional telco. I'm with the telco.
In a nutshell, it specifies that an ISP must be connected to one or more peering facilities where Netflix has a presence, there are some minimum connection speed and throughput figures, and neither party will use the other's network to deliver non-Netflix related traffic. That's about it. Nothing onerous at all.
I use one called 3G Battery Saver Pro that is a little more restrained.
-create Bluetooth connections -read phone state and identity -bluetooth administration -change network connectivity -change Wi-Fi state -modify global system settings -write Access Point Name settings -Google Play license check -view network state -view Wi-Fi state -automatically start at boot
Automatic join is cool, because you pop your phone and make a search or whatever.
No, no it isn't. Automatic join means that anybody can set up an access point in a public place and people's phones will connect to it. From there an attacker can attack your phone's networking stack directly while it is sitting in your pocket. Or, because your phone is programmed to prefer to use 802.11 data networks over the cellular network, it puts them in a position to perform man-in-the-middle attacks when you use the Internet.
No, automatic join is fucking dangerous and people are simply not paranoid enough.
Look, this article is just another BS anti-net neutrality argument showing how the poor internet carriers can't afford to support rich Netflix's content. Powerful Netlix is strong arming the little Internet providers (like, ahem, Time Warner) into carrying all of that expensive streaming video and cutting off ISPs who won't play ball.
But the whole article is BS, and this is why: There is no buy in. No one is getting cut off.
According to TFA, Netflix is not forcing any ISP to carry this traffic and they are not charging any ISPs for the privilege. Netflix is providing local caching servers to minimize traffic across the national backbones. This will save Netflix money and save the ISPs money because local traffic is cheaper than backbone traffic. If Netflix really wanted to stick it to the ISPs, they could just turn on Super HD for all subscribers and really rack up the bills. Netflix is being downright polite with this. At best, Super HD will be a minor competitive advantage for a handful of ISPs who have the servers.
A scientist should also run experiments multiple times to see if the results are repeatable before publishing those results. If you can't repeat your results you can't possibly give others instructions on how they can repeat them. Not knowing that the HVAC failed for a couple hours during one run out of a dozen should result in outlier results that can be investigated or discarded.
What makes you think all the sites you use even bother to hash passwords, or to hide the passwords from the administrators? A couple weeks ago I called up a site where I have an account because I was having some trouble logging in. The customer service rep read off my fucking password to me.
In my early 20's I took a summer job in a warehouse. It involved manhandling 50 to 70 pound cardboard boxes all day, every day. The boxes quickly wore down my fingerprints until my finger tips were completely smooth.
All it takes is one dishonest admin at one site you use to read your password and then know all of your passwords. Yeah, a well run site will not let the admins see the user's passwords, but...
I finally had to forward my calls to a non-working number for a week. The "doo-doo-DOO you have reached a number that is not in service" message they got when they called convinced them I had changed my phone number and they couldn't call me anymore....
I have a similar problem with my cell phone number, but my phone lets me forward specific callers straight to voicemail. Collections agencies never leave voicemail.
Not even a little bit. The medium is irrelevant. If a prof chisels his exam onto basalt tablets is it still an exam? So, if it takes less time for a prof to scribble off an exam and hand it to an assistant or grad student for typing, then the prof has more time to do what they are really employed to do.
From what I have seen, the best way for professors to keep their jobs is to: A) publishing research papers, thereby raising the prestige of the university, thereby attracting more (full pay) students. B) apply for and win grants. In most universities grad students do most of the instruction. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just pointing out the reality of the situation.
As an NRA type, I agree with locking up guns. Mine are. What I don't want to see are "safety checks" where a TLA gets to come to my home and inspect my storage. I also don't want to see mandated, specific "safety technologies" like trigger locks, which I maintain makes a firearm less safe for keeping loaded. If a person wants to keep a firearm close at hand for self defense they should be wearing it.
I don't know what background you are coming from, but I grew up with and around NRA members. My experience has been that most are thoughtful students of firearms and grasp the weight of gun ownership.
This is probably a reference to the PIET anti-tank weapon. It was widely regarded as a piece of shit. Complaints to HQ about it would not be unique. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIAT
Methinks someone who takes the attitude "Its 1000 miles to Wongamonga, we've got half a tank of gas, half a packet of cigarettes, it's dark, we're wearing sunglasses and we've got GPS - hit it!" is an accident waiting to happen.
You clearly haven't driven in Australia... that would be 1,600 kilometres, you wouldn't leave with only half a pack of cigarettes and where's the booze?
Maybe if you're really lucky, Wongamonga's got smokes, alcohol and the world's last Blockbuster Video store where you can rent "The Blues Brothers" after enjoying a relaxing evening of Country and Western music.
Not possible.... The world's last Blockbuster is about a mile from here. (hint: I'm not in Austrailia)
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair, the tablet was probably given to them by their school.
However, even if they didn't believe in it, chances are they'd say "no dice" after the Moral Panic started, so they wouldn't have had to explain to angry parishioners why they were allowing Satanic Minions of Satan to meet on church property.
When we used to play D&D in the high school library we were prohibited from rolling any 6-sided dice because they could be used for gambling.
I'm sure that wasn't what you meant by "no dice", but I never let a good segue pass me by.
It is in the wireless customer agreement. http://www.att.com/shop/en/legalterms.html?toskey=wirelessCustomerAgreement#whatDataMsgServicesOffer Section 6.3.
6.3 What Are The Voice And Data Plan Requirements?
A voice plan is required on all voice-capable Devices, unless specifically noted otherwise in the terms governing your plan.
An eligible tiered pricing data plan is required for certain Devices, including iPhones and other designated Smartphones. Eligible voice and tiered pricing data plans cover voice and data usage in the U.S. and do not cover International voice and data usage and charges. If it is determined that you are using a voice-capable Device without a voice plan, or that you are using an iPhone or designated Smartphone without an eligible voice and tiered data plan, AT&T reserves the right to switch you to the required plan or plans and bill you the appropriate monthly fees. In the case of the tiered data plan, you will be placed on the data plan which provides you with the greatest monthly data usage allowance. If you determine that you do not require that much data usage in a month, you may request a lower data tier at a lower monthly recurring fee.
That being said, just because it's in a contract that doesn't mean it's legal. AT&T's arbitration clause prohibits customers from joining class action suits, but allows small claims actions. Last year a California man won against AT&T over throttling on his unlimited data package, but I don't know anyone has sued over this clause in small claims court. Any arbitration results would most likely be kept secret.
According to the standard AT&T customer agreement, (http://www.att.com/shop/en/legalterms.html?toskey=wirelessCustomerAgreement#arbAgreement) small claims court is still an option.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, either party may bring an individual action in small claims court.
Google does OK by the Nexus line, but not as well as Apple with the iPhone. The Nexus one released in January of 2010 and its last patch came in Sept of 2011. The Nexus S launched in Dec 2010 and can run Android Jelly Bean 4.1.2, but Google announced last Nov. that it will not be updated to 4.2. The Galaxy Nexus was released in Nov of 2011 and can run Jelly Bean 4.2.1. When asked about Android phones I only recommend the Nexus line product.
Why would AT&T want a customer that doesn't use data?
AT&T keeps complaining that they are running out of bandwidth due to all of these smartphone users abusing their network, and so they need to buy up all of their competitors and absorb their spectrum allotments. If they are really running out of bandwidth, they could simply let smartphone users drop their data plans.
The only thing I don't understand is why the Militia doesn't work the same way as in Switzerland (or why feminists have no interest in being part of said Militia, but that's another topic entirely).
To the best of my knowledge, the closest the US government comes to training the populace is the Civilian Marksmanship Program. http://www.odcmp.com/
The only ambiguity that's often raised is whether the National Guard constitutes said well-regulated militia. It's unclear since service isn't universal (or at least universal for the sex that cares about protecting freedoms).
The National Guard may have qualified as a militia at one time, but at this point they are essentially a federal army. Militias are made up of non-professional citizens. National Guard members are paid for their time and are provided arms when they are on duty. Armies, obviously, do not need constitutional protection from the government in order to have weapons.
In the context of 18th century military parlance, armies would consist of regular and irregular troops. The regulars were professional soldiers who received training and identical weapons and equipment. The irregulars were conscripts and volunteers who received inconstant surplus gear and weapons, if they received anything at all. Many times the irregulars had to equip themselves as well as they could. So, a well-regulated militia would be one that was well equipped and well trained.
The intentions of the founders was that in the event of the US being attacked, the citizens, the unorganized militia, would pick up their guns and fight to the best of their ability. This is America's irregular army. Because the unorganized militia is expected to bring its own arms and know how to shoot, the people need the right to keep and bear arms.
In addition, many states have state defense forces under the command of the governors. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force) While they are sometimes paid when mobilized, they largely have to provide their own weapons and equipment. So in order for them to operate the members also need the protection of the 2nd Amendment.
I don't care if it's onerous. And I don't really care why TWC decided not to peer with Netflix. None of that should affect how Netflix interacts with me as a customer. All I should have to care about is "is my pipe wide enough to receive the stream". If it is, Netflix should send me the stream. If not, Netflix should not send me the stream. The rest of it is none of my concern.
Netflix is the one changing the game, here. They are really the first B2C entity telling customers that they will treat them differently based on the topological structure of the internet between the customer and the business. That's really unprecedented.
What if Apple said "we're not going to deliver large apps to customers on networks that don't peer with us" or "we're going to charge an extra _% to deliver large apps to customers on networks that don't peer with us". People would go BALLISTIC. So why is it OK for Netflix to do that?
Would you rather have them turn it on and charge everyone more, probably loosing customers in the process? Maybe they should just charge TWC customers? As much as you don't like their decision, it is not some arbitrary position. Netflix is barely holding on. Their net income went from 226 million in 2011 to 17 million in 2012 in the face of skyrocketing content licensing costs. Compare that to TWC with a net income of 1.7 billion for 2012. Netflix could turn on Super HD for everyone, but they would have to raise prices and would end up loosing customers. Or, they could just charge extra to people on ISPs who won't or can't peer with them. Which would be better? Or would you rather have Netflix just go out of business? No business, not even an Internet based business, has a moral obligation to provide a service at a loss.
http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3ANFLX&fstype=ii&ei=9KAGUcDzGPCy0QGc7QE
http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3ATWC&fstype=ii&ei=caAGUejWObGh0AGoRw
Treating customers differently based on Internet geography is not unprecedented. I'd bet that it happens a lot but just isn't publicized. Comcast already started doing this. First, Comcast had their spat with Level 3 where they wanted L3 to pay Comcast for delivering data that Comcast subscribers were downloading. Then Comcast followed up by exempting their in-house video streaming service from the data caps. According to surveys, 64% of US broadband customers are under a data cap. Time Warner Cable is not currently under a cap, but that is because the customer base went into open revolt when they tried it in Texas. Netflix is not changing the game, it is responding to conditions on the field.
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2010/11/29/level-3-vs-comcast-more-than-a-peering-spat/
http://techland.time.com/2012/04/16/netflix-ceo-takes-swing-at-comcast-xfinity-over-net-neutrality/
http://gigaom.com/2012/10/01/data-caps-chart/
Oh, and the reason Apple could not get away with a similar scheme is because Apple is the 2nd most valuable company in the world. Size makes a difference, and Netflix really is not a very big company.
Saudi Arabia
You are missing the point. Peering with Netflix will save Time Warner Cable money as well.
Here's how it works. You pay your ISP a fixed amount every month for a fixed amount of bandwidth. Your ISP connects to a backbone provider, and it pays said backbone provider for bandwidth and traffic. Netflix also connects to one or more backbone providers and pays them for bandwidth and traffic. The backbone providers connect their respective networks at peering points and have peering agreements where they agree to carry traffic for each other at relatively low cost. If data is flowing through a peering point in both directions at a relatively equal volumes they just call it a wash.
Now, Netflix is offering a peering agreement where they will connect to ISPs directly, cutting out the backbone providers. Virtually all of the traffic will be one-way, but neither party will have to pay for it. That will save Netflix money by not having to pay a backbone provider for carrying that streaming data. It will also save ISP's money by not having to pay backbone providers when receiving all of that streaming data from Netflix. It's a win-win. For large ISP's with a presence in Atlanta, New York, Chicago, Dallas, Seattle, or Los Angeles, where Netflix's CDN has a presence, this should be a piece of cake. Small ISP's will have a harder time tying into these peering facilities, which is unfortunate for them.
Netflix could just turn on Super HD for all customers, because, like you say, you should be treated like any other subscriber. But that would drive up their costs, which they would pass on to their subscribers. It would also drive up costs for Time Warner cable, who would pass the costs on to their subscribers. TWC appears to have made the strategic decision, at least for the moment, not to peer with Netflix. That's why this is your problem, and why you don't get Super HD.
Incidentally, I don't get SuperHD either. My two ISP choices are TWC, which goes down for hours to days at a time every week, or a 1.5 Mb DSL from a regional telco. I'm with the telco.
The peering guidelines are publicly available here: https://signup.netflix.com/openconnect/guidelines
In a nutshell, it specifies that an ISP must be connected to one or more peering facilities where Netflix has a presence, there are some minimum connection speed and throughput figures, and neither party will use the other's network to deliver non-Netflix related traffic. That's about it. Nothing onerous at all.
I use one called 3G Battery Saver Pro that is a little more restrained.
-create Bluetooth connections
-read phone state and identity
-bluetooth administration
-change network connectivity
-change Wi-Fi state
-modify global system settings
-write Access Point Name settings
-Google Play license check
-view network state
-view Wi-Fi state
-automatically start at boot
That's everything.
Automatic join is cool, because you pop your phone and make a search or whatever.
No, no it isn't. Automatic join means that anybody can set up an access point in a public place and people's phones will connect to it. From there an attacker can attack your phone's networking stack directly while it is sitting in your pocket. Or, because your phone is programmed to prefer to use 802.11 data networks over the cellular network, it puts them in a position to perform man-in-the-middle attacks when you use the Internet.
No, automatic join is fucking dangerous and people are simply not paranoid enough.
Look, this article is just another BS anti-net neutrality argument showing how the poor internet carriers can't afford to support rich Netflix's content. Powerful Netlix is strong arming the little Internet providers (like, ahem, Time Warner) into carrying all of that expensive streaming video and cutting off ISPs who won't play ball.
But the whole article is BS, and this is why: There is no buy in. No one is getting cut off.
According to TFA, Netflix is not forcing any ISP to carry this traffic and they are not charging any ISPs for the privilege. Netflix is providing local caching servers to minimize traffic across the national backbones. This will save Netflix money and save the ISPs money because local traffic is cheaper than backbone traffic. If Netflix really wanted to stick it to the ISPs, they could just turn on Super HD for all subscribers and really rack up the bills. Netflix is being downright polite with this. At best, Super HD will be a minor competitive advantage for a handful of ISPs who have the servers.
Partly for the slingshots, but mostly for hearing Jörg giggle after every shot.
A scientist should also run experiments multiple times to see if the results are repeatable before publishing those results. If you can't repeat your results you can't possibly give others instructions on how they can repeat them. Not knowing that the HVAC failed for a couple hours during one run out of a dozen should result in outlier results that can be investigated or discarded.
What makes you think all the sites you use even bother to hash passwords, or to hide the passwords from the administrators? A couple weeks ago I called up a site where I have an account because I was having some trouble logging in. The customer service rep read off my fucking password to me.
In my early 20's I took a summer job in a warehouse. It involved manhandling 50 to 70 pound cardboard boxes all day, every day. The boxes quickly wore down my fingerprints until my finger tips were completely smooth.
All it takes is one dishonest admin at one site you use to read your password and then know all of your passwords. Yeah, a well run site will not let the admins see the user's passwords, but...
I finally had to forward my calls to a non-working number for a week. The "doo-doo-DOO you have reached a number that is not in service" message they got when they called convinced them I had changed my phone number and they couldn't call me anymore....
I have a similar problem with my cell phone number, but my phone lets me forward specific callers straight to voicemail. Collections agencies never leave voicemail.
Not even a little bit. The medium is irrelevant. If a prof chisels his exam onto basalt tablets is it still an exam? So, if it takes less time for a prof to scribble off an exam and hand it to an assistant or grad student for typing, then the prof has more time to do what they are really employed to do.
From what I have seen, the best way for professors to keep their jobs is to: A) publishing research papers, thereby raising the prestige of the university, thereby attracting more (full pay) students. B) apply for and win grants. In most universities grad students do most of the instruction. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just pointing out the reality of the situation.
Perhaps they would... If they were employed to produce word documents.
As an NRA type, I agree with locking up guns. Mine are. What I don't want to see are "safety checks" where a TLA gets to come to my home and inspect my storage. I also don't want to see mandated, specific "safety technologies" like trigger locks, which I maintain makes a firearm less safe for keeping loaded. If a person wants to keep a firearm close at hand for self defense they should be wearing it.
I don't know what background you are coming from, but I grew up with and around NRA members. My experience has been that most are thoughtful students of firearms and grasp the weight of gun ownership.
"Counter Measures [against] Panzers Not Working".
This is probably a reference to the PIET anti-tank weapon. It was widely regarded as a piece of shit. Complaints to HQ about it would not be unique.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIAT
Methinks someone who takes the attitude "Its 1000 miles to Wongamonga, we've got half a tank of gas, half a packet of cigarettes, it's dark, we're wearing sunglasses and we've got GPS - hit it!" is an accident waiting to happen.
You clearly haven't driven in Australia ... that would be 1,600 kilometres, you wouldn't leave with only half a pack of cigarettes and where's the booze?
Maybe if you're really lucky, Wongamonga's got smokes, alcohol and the world's last Blockbuster Video store where you can rent "The Blues Brothers" after enjoying a relaxing evening of Country and Western music.
Not possible.... The world's last Blockbuster is about a mile from here. (hint: I'm not in Austrailia)