No, it's US politics that has the terms mixed up (as does Australian poltics). The definition of "liberalism" as being about freedom and individual rights is correct from a political science point of view.
The original terms come from Britain - the Liberals (Whigs) and the Conservatives (Tories) duked it out for most of the 19th century. (The British Liberal Party still exists today but it is really minor as the main contest now is between the Conservative and Labour Parties). In fact, the Liberals were famous for promoting a "laissez faire" philosophy of letting market forces rule the economy. The stuff about government regulation and welfare came from the Labour Party, which grew out of the trade union movement.
Of course, things have changed since then but the basic rule is that liberals believe in small government and individual freedom.
The Australian Liberal Party is "liberal" in the sense that they ostensibly believe in small government (although their actions belie this) and they belive in the rights of the states (Australia like the US is a federation). But in the main they are quite socially conservative, so their name is commonly regarded as a misnomer.
The main alternative in Australian politics is the Australian Labor Party, which is more democratic socialist or what you Yanks incorrectly call "liberal". It is not really "liberal" because it's about big government and welfare but it does tend to be more "liberal" when talking about individual rights. They are more socially progressive, for example letting gay couples adopt children or single women seek IVF treatment.
I guess the same is generally true of the US Democratic and Republican parties.
Today when you talk about economics, "liberalism" or "neo-liberalism" refers to free trade - lowering tariffs etc. This is now such a mainstream doctrine that it is a fairly conservative one, in the sense of maintaining the status quo.
I personally do not feel these terms are particularly useful. This discussion shows what a lot of disagreement there is about their meanings. It also depends on what axis you measure things. Liberal vs Conservative is not the same as Left-wing vs Right-wing, which is not the same as Communist vs Fascist or Anarchist vs Libertarians.
The interesting thing is that - at the extremes each political philosophy starts to resemble each other. Eg. Communists are left-wing and Fascists are right-wing but in practice they are both about authoritarianism. Another Eg., Libertarians are regarded as right-wing and Anarchists as left-wing. However, they come to largely the same conclusions (but for quite different reasons).
The truth is that every political party mixes political philosophies in different ways.
It's interesting that they are now denying the spying, because a Government minister was quoted yesterday defending the spying in this AAP story run on the Sydney Morning Herald website. They seem to have edited the story now, but the original quoted Federal Workplace Relations Minister Tony Abbott saying the most interesting thing about the Telegraph report was the fact that the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) was making phone calls to the Norwegian ship!
It's completely outrageous that the Government is trying to deflect blame by questioning the MUA's motives. That completely side steps the issue. I couldn't care less what the MUA and the captain discussed, the point is that they have a right to do so. This was a political issue not a matter of
national security.
It's an ethical minefield, regardless of whether the Government's actions are in the letter of the law. I object to a taxpayer-funded spying organisation that was set up to protect Australia's national security being hijacked for political ends. A Norwegian ship captain is entitled to talk to people in Australia without being spied on unless he is suspected of terrorism or something similar. In this case, the only purpose of the eavesdropping was to formulate a political response in an election campaign.
Today there are plenty of good columns and editorials condemning the Government.
You're a fool. Copyright still applies even if there is NO EULA, but you're still allowed to sell your copy of the software.
I was going to reply properly to this message, but I know realise there are a number of people who have done that already. Go read their comments, then you'll understand the difference between software licences and copyright.
I could live without the ewoks, but I wouldn't go so far as to call the entire movie "cheesy". And I was about six when I first saw the movie, so I don't think I was terribly offended by ewoks at the time. It was actually the first in the trilogy that I saw, cos I was too young for SW and ESB.
IANAL, but my understanding was that the law doesn't "state that only trials involving the feds are open". For one thing, we're talking about depositions, not the actual trial itself. Secondly, it says that depositions involving the feds are open, and it's up to the judge whether or not to extend that openness to other depositions where the feds are not involved. So, it would also be perfectly legal to make these proceedings fully open. In this case, the judge has asked the media to make a submission before she makes a final decision, which is quite innovative.
If there is especially sensitive material then it is appropriate to ban the press. For example, in Australia it is illegal to report on proceedings in the Family Court, which deals with divorce and custody issues.
But this has to be balanced with the fact that we (the US, Canada, Australia etc) are a democracy and one of the fundamental principles of democracy is the fair and open administration of justice. Having faith in the justice system can only come from regular public scrutiny, which includes press scrutiny.
I don't agree with your suggestion to shut the press out at the "slightest perception of a problem". It's very easy for a company like Microsoft to create the perception of the problem, when this is not necessarily backed up by reality. To me, 'erring on the side of caution' entails allowing public/press access unless there is a very compelling reason not to. And by that I don't just mean the potential embarrassment of a multibillion dollar software company.
If the depositions become public record once they are submitted as part of the case, they can form the basis for news articles at that time. So it seems somewhat pointless to ban the media when the depositions initially take place.
As for 'spin', true objectivity is not always attainable, but the media is often accused of flagrant bias for no good reason. (To paraphrase an old saying "never attribute to conspiracy what can be adequately explained as f---up!").
IMHO, reporters do a really good job at 'summarising' and 'interpreting' events to the general public. In the case of court reporting, sceptics are always entitled to attend court or read the original documents for themslves, but most people have neither the time nor inclination to do this. The media ensures the widest possible audience has the necessary information.
The Associated Press is saying the opposite in this story, titled Reporters OK'd at Microsoft Hearing. I quote the first paragraph: "The judge in the Microsoft antitrust case ruled Tuesday that news organizations can listen to lawyers question technology executives in pretrial depositions unless Microsoft can prove the sessions would reveal confidential information."
You can't close something to the press and keep it open for the public.
On a philosophical level, there is a public interest in open and accountable administration of justice and press represents members of the public who can't be there in person.
And on a practical level, individual journalists are still considered members of the public. And if a journalist can attend a hearing as a private citizen, there is nothing to stop them taking notes and filing a news story. (Of course, contempt-of-court rules would still apply in terms of what and how they report).
Therefore the only way to prevent media coverage is to ban the public entirely, which undermines the principles of accountablity and transparency of justice.
Actually, computer games - whether in DVD, CD, disc or cartridge format - are classified as movies rather than software under Australian law. That sounds dumb, but it's actually partly at the request of companies like Warner! The Australian Government is lifting parallel import restrictions on software but not on movies, so the game industry wanted to ensure games were in the movie basket. Sounds like Warner is trying to have its cake and eat it too!
The issue with this case is that the judge found the main point of hiring a DVD is to watch the content (the movie and any extras) and the software is incidental.
Justice Emmett said a DVD contained computer programs that allowed the film to be played, but the film itself was not a computer program.
"If I hire a book from a lending library, the subject matter of the hire is the paper and cardboard with markings in printers ink," he said. "The essential object of the hire, however, is to be able to read the contents of the book."
Why is the Herald only reporting this now? And why is Slashdot only accepting the submission now? This was reported in Australian IT on December 10 (Films aren't software, court rules). It was also submitted to Slashdot, but rejected. Why? What's the bet that this comment gets censored too?
Re:hmm, now there's a moral dilemia
on
Aussies Ban GTA3
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It's further complicated by the fact that the OFLC doesn't actually set the censorship guidelines - they enforce the censorship guidelines written by nine state, territory and federal ministers. The OFLC is working quite closely with the game industry trying to get an R rating, but all nine ministers will have to approve the change!
After you have sex with the prostitute (which is only shown by the shaking car), you can bash her and kill her for money. It's obviously not part of the main game play.
Re:FIRST THE GUNS... then the world!
on
Aussies Ban GTA3
·
· Score: 1
That's because that's all that/. ever runs about Australia. It's not really any worse in Australia than anywhere else - just take a look at your Digital Millennium Copyright Act or whatever it's called and the criminalisation of hackers in the US. And I agree with gun control, thank you very much.
I think games - like movies - should have a rating system. The issue here is that there should be an R rating - it shouldn't stop at MA15+. I think that will change soon.
The other issue is that killing a prostitute for money is not part of the main game play for GTA3 - you can kill _anyone_ in the movie, so why should the prostitute be any different?
This is interesting... A good friend of mine is now working as a Java developer. Yet he did a BA (Honours) majoring in medieval history and semiotics. I think he's a little ahead of the crowd because of his arts background. He can write and he understand how the world fits together and that's important in any career. Semiotics is mostly linguistics, so he understands Java as a "language" more than many people would. People seem to associate computer work with maths, but if you're talking coding, linguistic ability is probably more important.
Actually I would argue that you shouldn't teach the "tree" until the student has grasped the "forest". Having a good general picture of things so more specialised knowledge can be slotted in like pieces of a puzzle is probably the single most valuable skill at any time of life/career, including the first ten years out of uni. It's certainly more important than turning out students with a deep specialised knowledge and no understanding of the wider world!
I think it's INSANE that you guys only get 2 weeks annual leave per year. How can you survive with that?
I live in Australia where annual leave is 4 weeks a year. It's the same in Europe and most other industrialised countries - in some it's even 6 weeks a year!
The government sets a minimum wage, why not a minimum annual leave period?
Surely it's better to have happy, more productive workers and give them a reasonable time off per year. It's better for society too.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's US politics that has the terms mixed up (as does Australian poltics). The definition of "liberalism" as being about freedom and individual rights is correct from a political science point of view.
The original terms come from Britain - the Liberals (Whigs) and the Conservatives (Tories) duked it out for most of the 19th century. (The British Liberal Party still exists today but it is really minor as the main contest now is between the Conservative and Labour Parties). In fact, the Liberals were famous for promoting a "laissez faire" philosophy of letting market forces rule the economy. The stuff about government regulation and welfare came from the Labour Party, which grew out of the trade union movement.
Of course, things have changed since then but the basic rule is that liberals believe in small government and individual freedom.
The Australian Liberal Party is "liberal" in the sense that they ostensibly believe in small government (although their actions belie this) and they belive in the rights of the states (Australia like the US is a federation). But in the main they are quite socially conservative, so their name is commonly regarded as a misnomer.
The main alternative in Australian politics is the Australian Labor Party, which is more democratic socialist or what you Yanks incorrectly call "liberal". It is not really "liberal" because it's about big government and welfare but it does tend to be more "liberal" when talking about individual rights. They are more socially progressive, for example letting gay couples adopt children or single women seek IVF treatment.
I guess the same is generally true of the US Democratic and Republican parties.
Today when you talk about economics, "liberalism" or "neo-liberalism" refers to free trade - lowering tariffs etc. This is now such a mainstream doctrine that it is a fairly conservative one, in the sense of maintaining the status quo.
I personally do not feel these terms are particularly useful. This discussion shows what a lot of disagreement there is about their meanings. It also depends on what axis you measure things. Liberal vs Conservative is not the same as Left-wing vs Right-wing, which is not the same as Communist vs Fascist or Anarchist vs Libertarians.
The interesting thing is that - at the extremes each political philosophy starts to resemble each other. Eg. Communists are left-wing and Fascists are right-wing but in practice they are both about authoritarianism. Another Eg., Libertarians are regarded as right-wing and Anarchists as left-wing. However, they come to largely the same conclusions (but for quite different reasons).
The truth is that every political party mixes political philosophies in different ways.
The original story was in The Daily Telegraph, GOVERNMENT SPIED ON US yesterday.
It's interesting that they are now denying the spying, because a Government minister was quoted yesterday defending the spying in this AAP story run on the Sydney Morning Herald website. They seem to have edited the story now, but the original quoted Federal Workplace Relations Minister Tony Abbott saying the most interesting thing about the Telegraph report was the fact that the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) was making phone calls to the Norwegian ship!
It's completely outrageous that the Government is trying to deflect blame by questioning the MUA's motives. That completely side steps the issue. I couldn't care less what the MUA and the captain discussed, the point is that they have a right to do so. This was a political issue not a matter of
national security.
It's an ethical minefield, regardless of whether the Government's actions are in the letter of the law. I object to a taxpayer-funded spying organisation that was set up to protect Australia's national security being hijacked for political ends. A Norwegian ship captain is entitled to talk to people in Australia without being spied on unless he is suspected of terrorism or something similar. In this case, the only purpose of the eavesdropping was to formulate a political response in an election campaign.
Today there are plenty of good columns and editorials condemning the Government.
Editorial: Canberra must answer spy allegations
and Scott Burchill: Indefensible breach of privacy
Of course, we all know that governments spy on us (think Echelon) but it's more than a little grubby if the data is used for political ends.
It's morally unjustifiable to shrink-wrap CDs in the first place - total waste plastic!
You're a fool. Copyright still applies even if there is NO EULA, but you're still allowed to sell your copy of the software.
I was going to reply properly to this message, but I know realise there are a number of people who have done that already. Go read their comments, then you'll understand the difference between software licences and copyright.
I could live without the ewoks, but I wouldn't go so far as to call the entire movie "cheesy". And I was about six when I first saw the movie, so I don't think I was terribly offended by ewoks at the time. It was actually the first in the trilogy that I saw, cos I was too young for SW and ESB.
Nothing wrong with Return of the Jedi in my book.
IANAL, but my understanding was that the law doesn't "state that only trials involving the feds are open". For one thing, we're talking about depositions, not the actual trial itself. Secondly, it says that depositions involving the feds are open, and it's up to the judge whether or not to extend that openness to other depositions where the feds are not involved. So, it would also be perfectly legal to make these proceedings fully open. In this case, the judge has asked the media to make a submission before she makes a final decision, which is quite innovative.
This is a ridiculous comment. Banning the press from the court won't stop the judge making stupid comments outside of court.
There was no problem with the press coverage of the proceedings under Judge Jackson, the problem was with Jackson's big mouth.
If there is especially sensitive material then it is appropriate to ban the press. For example, in Australia it is illegal to report on proceedings in the Family Court, which deals with divorce and custody issues.
But this has to be balanced with the fact that we (the US, Canada, Australia etc) are a democracy and one of the fundamental principles of democracy is the fair and open administration of justice. Having faith in the justice system can only come from regular public scrutiny, which includes press scrutiny.
I don't agree with your suggestion to shut the press out at the "slightest perception of a problem". It's very easy for a company like Microsoft to create the perception of the problem, when this is not necessarily backed up by reality. To me, 'erring on the side of caution' entails allowing public/press access unless there is a very compelling reason not to. And by that I don't just mean the potential embarrassment of a multibillion dollar software company.
If the depositions become public record once they are submitted as part of the case, they can form the basis for news articles at that time. So it seems somewhat pointless to ban the media when the depositions initially take place.
As for 'spin', true objectivity is not always attainable, but the media is often accused of flagrant bias for no good reason. (To paraphrase an old saying "never attribute to conspiracy what can be adequately explained as f---up!").
IMHO, reporters do a really good job at 'summarising' and 'interpreting' events to the general public. In the case of court reporting, sceptics are always entitled to attend court or read the original documents for themslves, but most people have neither the time nor inclination to do this. The media ensures the widest possible audience has the necessary information.
The Associated Press is saying the opposite in this story, titled Reporters OK'd at Microsoft Hearing. I quote the first paragraph: "The judge in the Microsoft antitrust case ruled Tuesday that news organizations can listen to lawyers question technology executives in pretrial depositions unless Microsoft can prove the sessions would reveal confidential information."
You can't close something to the press and keep it open for the public.
On a philosophical level, there is a public interest in open and accountable administration of justice and press represents members of the public who can't be there in person.
And on a practical level, individual journalists are still considered members of the public. And if a journalist can attend a hearing as a private citizen, there is nothing to stop them taking notes and filing a news story. (Of course, contempt-of-court rules would still apply in terms of what and how they report).
Therefore the only way to prevent media coverage is to ban the public entirely, which undermines the principles of accountablity and transparency of justice.
The issue with this case is that the judge found the main point of hiring a DVD is to watch the content (the movie and any extras) and the software is incidental.
From Films aren't software, court rules on Australian IT:
Justice Emmett said a DVD contained computer programs that allowed the film to be played, but the film itself was not a computer program.
"If I hire a book from a lending library, the subject matter of the hire is the paper and cardboard with markings in printers ink," he said. "The essential object of the hire, however, is to be able to read the contents of the book."
Very sensible, I think!
No, they can't do that with VHS. If it has that label, they're just trying it on.
Why is the Herald only reporting this now? And why is Slashdot only accepting the submission now? This was reported in Australian IT on December 10 (Films aren't software, court rules). It was also submitted to Slashdot, but rejected. Why? What's the bet that this comment gets censored too?
It's further complicated by the fact that the OFLC doesn't actually set the censorship guidelines - they enforce the censorship guidelines written by nine state, territory and federal ministers. The OFLC is working quite closely with the game industry trying to get an R rating, but all nine ministers will have to approve the change!
After you have sex with the prostitute (which is only shown by the shaking car), you can bash her and kill her for money. It's obviously not part of the main game play.
That's because that's all that /. ever runs about Australia. It's not really any worse in Australia than anywhere else - just take a look at your Digital Millennium Copyright Act or whatever it's called and the criminalisation of hackers in the US. And I agree with gun control, thank you very much.
I think games - like movies - should have a rating system. The issue here is that there should be an R rating - it shouldn't stop at MA15+. I think that will change soon.
The other issue is that killing a prostitute for money is not part of the main game play for GTA3 - you can kill _anyone_ in the movie, so why should the prostitute be any different?
This is interesting ... A good friend of mine is now working as a Java developer. Yet he did a BA (Honours) majoring in medieval history and semiotics. I think he's a little ahead of the crowd because of his arts background. He can write and he understand how the world fits together and that's important in any career. Semiotics is mostly linguistics, so he understands Java as a "language" more than many people would. People seem to associate computer work with maths, but if you're talking coding, linguistic ability is probably more important.
Actually I would argue that you shouldn't teach the "tree" until the student has grasped the "forest". Having a good general picture of things so more specialised knowledge can be slotted in like pieces of a puzzle is probably the single most valuable skill at any time of life/career, including the first ten years out of uni. It's certainly more important than turning out students with a deep specialised knowledge and no understanding of the wider world!
I thought Australian IT was a specialist IT site, not "mainstream press".
I think the question is whether they have the right to take the authority away from Elz.
Check out this report in The Australian IT.
Hear! Hear!
I think it's INSANE that you guys only get 2 weeks annual leave per year. How can you survive with that? I live in Australia where annual leave is 4 weeks a year. It's the same in Europe and most other industrialised countries - in some it's even 6 weeks a year! The government sets a minimum wage, why not a minimum annual leave period? Surely it's better to have happy, more productive workers and give them a reasonable time off per year. It's better for society too.