Works great as long as you don't mind the fact that your data could become corrupt at any time.
Heck yeah!! Why would anyone mind their data becoming corrupt at anytime?
Re:This is not the worst kind.
on
Cheating Made Easy
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I have also seen sites that advertise (for greater expense) to write papers individually for you
I would bet that they don't really write individual papers. They possibly have a stash of papers ready to go, and just "individualise" them to some degree.
Remember...what they are offering to do is ethically questionable anyway.
'live' means while it happens. The bulk of Olympic events will take place during daylight hours in Greece. That's middle of the night in North America.
You forget that Olympic matches are on for approx. 18 hours a day (morning, afternoon, night). Which pretty much means that no matter where in the world you are looking at it, at least 10-12 hours of sports is happening while you are awake. Thats pretty good. If your don't have at least 12 hours of live olympics a day, then your networks are screwing you. But who does that suprise anymore?
Here in Australia, Greece morning sports happen during our afternoon, their afternoon stuff happens during our evening, and their evening stuff happens during our late night (ie after mid-night). Sure, its a pain that some of our fav. sports' finals are happening at 3am in the morning, but even worst case scenario means there is 12 hours of live sports to watch a day.
And if I didn't have to work...it would make 18 hours, sleeping in our morning time!
Not really. The difference between wants and needs is irrelevant. From the prespective of the IT/IS department, they need to worry about how much bandwidth consumption there's going to be, and that's it.
Not quite right. Sure, some IT departments may take that approach, but when I worked in the IT department of the school of Computer Science and Engineering (CSE) at UNSW, we cared a *lot* about the difference between needs and wants.
We implemented a bandwidth quota for students and staff. Bandwidth would be allocated (generously) based on what courses people were doing. Research, PHDs and staff got heaps more. You got a minimum each session, plus a certain amount per subject you were doing. IE If you did Comp1011 (Intro to computing), you only needed a small amount of data. If you were doing three subjects, you got an allocation for each subject. If you were doing Networks, you got more bandwidth. The limits were set by the lecturers, and was very generous. It was very fair, and generally speaking, people didn't have a problem with their bandwidth. Students were able to buy extra bandwidth at cost price if they wanted more. It cost them less from us than any ISP.
Local bandwidth (Uni-wide) was not charged. Local (Australian) was charged what it cost us (fairly cheap..4c a meg or so) and international was charged at 9c a meg or so. This was all cost price. Aarnet was not charged at all (A local Aus mirror which holds heaps), plus we held heaps of local mirrors of all sorts of stuff. If the data was fetched from our proxy, you weren't charged.
At the end of the day, it was a complex system that worked to make sure people had enough data for Uni needs, plus a bit extra for personal. if you were big into downloading heaps of stuff...you paid for it yourself. The system had a lot of thought put in to make it as fair as possible, and to make sure that only "at cost" was charged. It wasn't fair that non-leeching students payed for leechers. We didn't want to make money out of it...just stop bleeding money ourselves.
Why not give everyone as much data as they wanted? We did up until about 2000, but the bandwidth cost was starting to kill us. In Australia we pay through our teeth for data. We didn't want to charge...but the bandwidth had to be payed for somehow.
...1984. You could only buy them new, and they cost at least $13...but the price would go down soon...In 1989...in 1999, the prices of CDs still hadn't caught down...It's 2003 -- 19 years since I started college -- and the price of CDs is about the same as it ever was...
Actually, the prices of the CDs have come down a lot. You forgot about inflation. In the USA (as far as I can see) the CPI rose 108% between 1980 and 2000. Which means if the price of a CD in 1980 was $13, it should now cost $27 (about).
In fact, it still costs $13. So in fact, over the last 20 years, its cost has halved.
Disclaimer 1: I don't live in the USA, so prices of CDs is based on/. comments (not a great source), and the CPI increase was on a college I found. Inflation of 1-5% per year sounds reasonable. IE all figures are dodgy. Its really 1984-2003, not 1980-2000. But this is slasdhot.
Disclaimer 2: I am not saying that the price now is fair and reasonable. I am saying that the price has dropped by approx 50%. Perhaps the price should have dropped more...considering how much cheaper CDs are now to produce.
So would Slashdot today still remove that text if it was posted in a comment?
I remember Rob pulling that comment. I thought (and still think) that it was and is the saddest day in the history of Slashdot.
After handling trolls, first posters, legal threats by Microsoft and other parties...they gave in to a Scientology threat. I'm not sure if Slashdot has removed posts since. But that was the first.
One thing regarding urban areas, Sydney and Melbourne are big cities in Australia. Not as big as NYC...but thats not unusual (I live in Sydney). In our summers, the hosttest days approach 40c. Hot sweaty, and lots of humidity. I don't know anyone who would be worried on a thursday or friday about civel unrest (even if the power went out). Hot, Muggy, Payday means beery thurs/fri afternoon. Trip to the pub, or if you are lucky enough, a wonderful picnic/BBQ on the beach. I love those sorts of days! A power-outage now (2pm friday afternoon) would mean an early start to a weekend. I got paid today, so I'll buy another case of beer.
Of course things are different here, but the urban environment gives us no fear. You talk of the media concentrating on the fear factor. I saw Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine, and it talks of this media fear mongering.
thanks for the insight into different gun "groups" or "cultures" in the US.
Okay...I'm curious. Why would cut down anyone "who's head stick up too
good question!
Rosey Golds, a social commentator for ABC radio (Australian Broadcasting Commission) says: "The tall poppy syndrome expressed our great reluctance to defer to authority figures (and thus establish a new class system) and our abhorrence towards a society predicated on the worship of money. We mocked the desire to impress. There was a great Australian proverb used to describe the wealthy graziers who came down from the country on holiday breaks flaunting their Akubras - the wider the brim the smaller the property "
We do it because of our background. We are by nature very cynical of authority figures. Many friends of mine in the USA think they are cynical of their political figures...but they haven't seen Australian cynicism. We often give our pollies no respect at all.
A certain amount if cynicism is good. But not too much. Another advantage of our "tall poppy syndrome" is that we treat people based on their substance...IE who they are...not how big a car they drive, what title they have, or other such social standings. In social interaction, we very rarely introduce ourselves with titles (IE Doctor, Professor, Coach, Reverend etc etc). Nor do use those titles (An exeption would be a doctor of medicine, but we would only call them doctor whilst at the hospital. At the pub we would call them Bruce). I was amazed once when visiting the states with my parents (My mum is a General Practicioner...ie a Doc). When shoping in a department store, people would call us "Sir" or "Maam" (Which is weird for us!). But when they saw Mum's credit card with "Dr" on their...we all of a sudden would get red carpet treament. Sales assistants would be there ready to help, calling her "Doctor". It was very strange, unheard of to get better treament because of your profession in Australia. When Dad visits the USA (or has colleauges visit him), every American calls him "Doctor" (He's got a PHD). I've never seen it happen here.
With all cultural things, there are often reasons why things happen that way...but as always too much can be very bad.
Sites you may find interesting is this one. I found it using google, so haven't read it before (and thus may not agee exactly with what it says).
Mike
I've lived in Australia most my life, but have spent several years living in the USA and UK
One point though - You said part of the reason for the fear is because in the past during blackouts really bad things have happened.
You also said that people in cities have good reason to fear blackouts. Yet other cities have suffered blackouts without mass rioting. They may not have been as big a NYC...but they were still pretty big.
Negative reactions to blackouts (IE rioting) seem to happen in NYC (and possibly other cities world wide), but often a blackout doesn't cause such negative reactions. I truly wonder what the difference is between cities that riot, and cities that don't.
Or perhaps there haven't been enough test cases to understand what really happens.
2 - Yes, its true that outsiders of the USA find it hard to understand why Americans are often so big on guns. "Culture" are socially transmitted partterns of behaviour. American society is big on guns. So it is a gun culture. I'm not saying thats a bad thing, or not thought out, or that it has no reason or rationality behind it. But it is part of your culture. Perhaps instead of condemning outsiders who ask, you could educate them.
In Australia we have the "Tall Poppy Syndrome". Outsiders often find this difficult to understand. If you ask me what it is...I have no probs telling you what it is, and why we do it. I wouldn't attack you for asking. It is a big part of our culture and national identity. (BTW..its cutting down anyone who's head sticks up too far. We have legit reasons it...at times.)
What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" do you not understand
I'm not attacking your right to bear arms. I was asking about why that right was given.
The USA is a funny funny place! People seem to be worried about all sorts of crimes being comitted now that there are no lights. Riots, Murders, Home Invasions...possibly even an Army of Darkness attacking (Great Movie!).
Why are you so worried? You seem to be more afraid of each other, then other things!
Auckland CBD (New Zealand) was without power for several weeks. Us in Oz thought it was a bit of a joke. But people just went home. No big deal. I've been in major blackouts (obviously not as major as what just happened in the USA), but so far have never worried about being attacked. Go home early. See some stars. Snuggle. Have fun.
Is the veil of civilization so thin in the USA that simple darkness will create the downfall of mankind? In the past people thought it would take a nuclear war to break up civilisation. Now it seems turning out the lights will do it.
My other question is...isn't the 2nd Amendment about creating a mulitia to defend your country...not about defending your house? And is it the gun culture of the USA that brings about this fear?
And you'll wind up with a very freaked out administration. What you want to do is to bring the problem to the attention of one of the techies that run the system, they might react sanely.
Why do people often assume that a techie will handle a security breach "sanely", whislt an administrator won't?
I have seen administrators, management and developers shrug their shoulders when huge security holes are pointed out to them. I have also seen them react more appropriately. I don't think I have seen a correlation between the correct reaction and their job role (except for perhaps computer security people).
Freaking out and shutting everything down sometimes *is* the sane response.
Wrong. The DVR boxes are on the order of $400-450 - standard digital boxes are $150-200.
Where are you getting this data from? That sounds extraordinarily expensive for what is essentially an extra harddrive (plus tuner). Do you know what brand their $150 one is? And perhaps their $450 one?
On the other hand, perhaps their current digital STBes are very very limitted.
In Australia, Foxtel is going to be releasing digital STBes next year, and I think their base unit is the PACE DVR box with OpenTV middleware. I believe they are costing in the range of $5-600 AU each. I have friends working on it there.
6 months ago I was working on Optus's digital TV roll out, using Pace digital STBes with Liberate middleware. They cost around $800 AU each. But we were only doing a trial, and thus didn't have the economies of scale. The liberate middleware takes a lot more power to run than OpenTV. Though the box we were using couldn't do DVR, we had had the power too (just needed a HD).
anyway, I would be iteresting in hearing what sort of digital STBes they are buying at either $150 or $450 (assuming they are both digital, and we are talking about mass produced units).
These boxes are a LOT more expensive than a traditional cable box, to the tune of $250-300 add'l per unit. It takes a lot of months of $5/month service fees to recoup that investment. The main reason they're willing to make the investment is that it helps keep viewers from dropping cable entirely and going to satellite.
Digital boxes are much more expensive then Analouge boxes. But getting DVR functionality in a digital box is not expensive at all.
Cable are going digital anyway for all the other benifits. Other revenue streams, iTV, better use of bandwidth etc etc.
I thought that they would restrict the speed so you were forced to watch commercials.
An earlier post said that to get the DVR you had to pay an extra $5 per month. Thats $5 per subscriber. I'm not sure how much advertising profit they get *per subscriber* currently, but I'd bet it would be a *lot* less then $5 per person. Cable companies get revenue from two main sources. You, and the advertisers. They have no problems shutting out advertisers if you will pay them to.
Don't forget the $5 they get per subscriber is almost pure profit. They have to buy digital boxes anyway, so why not keep the extra revenue themselves? Plus by owning the technology themselves, they set up lots of other revenue stream possibilities. "Premium" adverts that can't be skipped, targetted advertising, and all sorts of other benifits.
And until advertisers start saying "I won't pay to advertising on your cable network cause they can skip my advert", the cable company is still earning their advertising dollars.
Unlike the RIAA, the cable companies know that technology progresses, and generally look to the new technology for new revenue possibilities (don't think they'll let you pirate movies though).
If they see a market for a product...they will go for it. If they can create more products by going digital and DVR, they will do that.
(background...I've done iTV dev work for cable companies, and have heard a little about the types of revenue models possible, but I certainly wouldn't call myself an expert)
I would be interested in hearing what you see as the basic rights of mankind.
I'm afraid I'm still fuzzy on that. I mean, what makes up "basic" rights. If you need a government to "protect" those rights, how can they be basic? Surely those rights are the ones that your government gives you.
On the other hand I believe that there are certain rights every government should give their citizens. Free Speech, freedom from opression, freedom of religeon.
Though I am in no way a comunist, I wouldn't automatically throw in "property". In Fiji you can't own land. You only rent it off the government (or is it the local tribes?). This lack of ownership of land doesn't look like it is such a bad idea. Different cultures, countries, history and countries need different solutions.
Also, the liberty one is an interesting one. Though I would say I believe in liberty, I also have no problems with the idea that we live in a comunity, and part of our responsibility in exchange for the benifits of our comunity is to fulfill our duties to that comunity. That may include paying taxes so everyone can go to school (Is education a basic human right?), or have medical care (is that also a basic right?). It includes jury duty, possibly the draft, voting and other such things. Of course, the government (or others) should not abuse these things.
I'm also not sure that I would claim that driving a car is a derived right of property. By saying that, am I now saying that those who don't drive a car (or can't...even in other countries) have had their right to drive a car violated?
Possibly a government should not only protect "rights" as maintain a comunity. Freedom of Speech, Religion, Medical Help, Education, and maintaining roads may be examples.
anyway, as always, there is never any easy answer.
1. Man has rights. He has the same rights whether he is a wheat farmer, forced to hand over his crop to Stalin, in exchange for almost enough bread, or a hermit who hunts his own food, lives in a house he built with his hands, and has managed to avoid any interaction with any other human for the last 12 years. Government's job is to define an implementation of those rights in a legal way, and protect them.
A. These rights include life, liberty, property and self-determination. Revolution is a corollary of self-determination.(This is my view and the view of the philosophers of the age of enlightenment.)
B. Man has inalienable rights, endowed by the Creator, but they aren't the same as what is laid out in 1A. 2. Man's rights are those that are defined by the government. If the government says he has a right to liberty, then he does. And if they say he has to hand over his property to the government, or that he doesn't have the right to be on the street after midnight, or that he has to go to the polling center today and place a piece of paper, blank or not, in a box, then that's the way it should be.
I think we may actually have a meeting of the minds! You are right in saying I am of catagory 1B. Some of the rights you point out in 1A I would also claim to be basic rights.
I still think you are very American-Centric (understandable) in defining what "rights" there are. The writers of bill of rights attempt to define universal rights. You are correct when you point out this is based on a philosophy held by a group of people, not just Americans. You are even right in saying that other countries have looked (and do look) at the US Bill of Rights as worthwhile. But...even though it is a good document (and based on good philosophies), I am hesitent to use it as the basis of universal rights. There are many philosophies out there regarding basic rights. The Bill of Rights is one of them (though a good one). As you pointed out, this is a difference of opinion on the basis of human rights. I am happy for you to use it as your own basis.
The interesting thing about rights is what defines a "right".
There are "Basic" rights (or:God Given", "universal", or "inalienable"...depending on what you want to call them). And there are rights given by other organisations (such as governments, companies, etc etc).
For example. My government has given me a right to drive a car. This is certainly not a "basic" right, but it is one I have been given, and will fight for. When I say "fight", I don't really mean with deadly force.
I am personally of the opinion that voting for someone you think is just going to be a part of the problem is as bad or worse than not voting.
Note that in Australia they don't have to vote. They just have to turn up to the polling booth. In the last state election many people wrote things like "WAR SUCKS" on their papers, and refused to vote.
One point though, though the bill of rights does say these rights are universal, that doesn't make them universal. Nor is it a document the rest of the world looks at to help define human rights.
In regards to invidividual freedom to choose their own path, and suffer consequences, I whole heartedly agree. The good news that in Australia not turning up to vote (note that you are not forced to vote, just turn up to vote) is punished by a $20 fine, which is hardly ever enforced. Though I know plently of people who have not voted, and been sent a fine (including me), I don't know anyone who has paid it. 3 years after I received my $20 fine, I wrote and told them I was at my sisters wedding (I was...though both she and her husband managed to vote!), and haven't heard anything since the first notice of fine.
Since the Australian people have agreed to let their personal liberty be compromised
Which we both admit is your opinion. Which I won't argue with.
During World War II, in the United States...
We are not talking about US abuse of human rights, but Australia's abuse of human rights. If I understand correctly, you think Australian being told to turn up and vote is an abuse of human rights. I believe in other threads you claim that the draft, jury duty, and the government requiring you to do anything is an abuse of human rights. Yet somehow requiring you to pay tax is not (I don't understand why you make this exception).
Though I am not an American, it does seem (to me) that Americans hold up the bill of rights as their philosophy behind human rights (some...of course not all). IE, that is what they point to, when showing what they think basic rights are. It also seems to me that is what you are doing. Which is why I was pointing out that the bill of rights does not nessesarily apply outside of the USA. IE, those rights may not be universal.
hang on a sec...so you think the Australian government does have a duty to compel its citizens to vote? Cause your posts suggests otherwise, and backing up your claims with quotes from the US constitution.
To say they are the values of the American people, or to say that they are values of the American government is ignorant and nonsensical.
You are telling me that the bill of rights, US Constitution, and Declaration of Independence are not values of the American people? If so, why do you guys go on so much about them?
Thowing insults at people isn't going to facilitate a discussion. If you want a discussion, I'm happy to discuss things with you, but not throw insults.
Slashdot Mirror
Works great as long as you don't mind the fact that your data could become corrupt at any time.
Heck yeah!! Why would anyone mind their data becoming corrupt at anytime?
I have also seen sites that advertise (for greater expense) to write papers individually for you
I would bet that they don't really write individual papers. They possibly have a stash of papers ready to go, and just "individualise" them to some degree.
Remember...what they are offering to do is ethically questionable anyway.
'live' means while it happens. The bulk of Olympic events will take place during daylight hours in Greece. That's middle of the night in North America.
You forget that Olympic matches are on for approx. 18 hours a day (morning, afternoon, night). Which pretty much means that no matter where in the world you are looking at it, at least 10-12 hours of sports is happening while you are awake. Thats pretty good. If your don't have at least 12 hours of live olympics a day, then your networks are screwing you. But who does that suprise anymore?
Here in Australia, Greece morning sports happen during our afternoon, their afternoon stuff happens during our evening, and their evening stuff happens during our late night (ie after mid-night). Sure, its a pain that some of our fav. sports' finals are happening at 3am in the morning, but even worst case scenario means there is 12 hours of live sports to watch a day.
And if I didn't have to work...it would make 18 hours, sleeping in our morning time!
Not really. The difference between wants and needs is irrelevant.
From the prespective of the IT/IS department, they need to worry about how much bandwidth consumption there's going to be, and that's it.
Not quite right. Sure, some IT departments may take that approach, but when I worked in the IT department of the school of Computer Science and Engineering (CSE) at UNSW, we cared a *lot* about the difference between needs and wants.
We implemented a bandwidth quota for students and staff. Bandwidth would be allocated (generously) based on what courses people were doing. Research, PHDs and staff got heaps more. You got a minimum each session, plus a certain amount per subject you were doing. IE If you did Comp1011 (Intro to computing), you only needed a small amount of data. If you were doing three subjects, you got an allocation for each subject. If you were doing Networks, you got more bandwidth. The limits were set by the lecturers, and was very generous. It was very fair, and generally speaking, people didn't have a problem with their bandwidth. Students were able to buy extra bandwidth at cost price if they wanted more. It cost them less from us than any ISP.
Local bandwidth (Uni-wide) was not charged. Local (Australian) was charged what it cost us (fairly cheap..4c a meg or so) and international was charged at 9c a meg or so. This was all cost price. Aarnet was not charged at all (A local Aus mirror which holds heaps), plus we held heaps of local mirrors of all sorts of stuff. If the data was fetched from our proxy, you weren't charged.
At the end of the day, it was a complex system that worked to make sure people had enough data for Uni needs, plus a bit extra for personal. if you were big into downloading heaps of stuff...you paid for it yourself. The system had a lot of thought put in to make it as fair as possible, and to make sure that only "at cost" was charged. It wasn't fair that non-leeching students payed for leechers. We didn't want to make money out of it...just stop bleeding money ourselves.
Why not give everyone as much data as they wanted? We did up until about 2000, but the bandwidth cost was starting to kill us. In Australia we pay through our teeth for data. We didn't want to charge...but the bandwidth had to be payed for somehow.
Actually, the prices of the CDs have come down a lot. You forgot about inflation. In the USA (as far as I can see) the CPI rose 108% between 1980 and 2000. Which means if the price of a CD in 1980 was $13, it should now cost $27 (about).
In fact, it still costs $13. So in fact, over the last 20 years, its cost has halved.
Disclaimer 1: I don't live in the USA, so prices of CDs is based on
Disclaimer 2: I am not saying that the price now is fair and reasonable. I am saying that the price has dropped by approx 50%. Perhaps the price should have dropped more...considering how much cheaper CDs are now to produce.
To be fair, the comment was reposted 10,000 times after the fact, and Slashdot did nothing proactive to remove those copies.
Very very very true. And to also be fair...slashdot has a great history for standing up for free speech.
So would Slashdot today still remove that text if it was posted in a comment?
I remember Rob pulling that comment. I thought (and still think) that it was and is the saddest day in the history of Slashdot.
After handling trolls, first posters, legal threats by Microsoft and other parties...they gave in to a Scientology threat. I'm not sure if Slashdot has removed posts since. But that was the first.
a sad sad day.
'Cept in Australia no decent service person will treat anyone with respect :-)
thanks for the info.
One thing regarding urban areas, Sydney and Melbourne are big cities in Australia. Not as big as NYC...but thats not unusual (I live in Sydney). In our summers, the hosttest days approach 40c. Hot sweaty, and lots of humidity. I don't know anyone who would be worried on a thursday or friday about civel unrest (even if the power went out). Hot, Muggy, Payday means beery thurs/fri afternoon. Trip to the pub, or if you are lucky enough, a wonderful picnic/BBQ on the beach. I love those sorts of days! A power-outage now (2pm friday afternoon) would mean an early start to a weekend. I got paid today, so I'll buy another case of beer.
Of course things are different here, but the urban environment gives us no fear. You talk of the media concentrating on the fear factor. I saw Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine, and it talks of this media fear mongering.
thanks for the insight into different gun "groups" or "cultures" in the US.
Okay...I'm curious. Why would cut down anyone "who's head stick up too
good question!
Rosey Golds, a social commentator for ABC radio (Australian Broadcasting Commission) says:
"The tall poppy syndrome expressed our great reluctance to defer to authority figures (and thus establish a new class system) and our abhorrence towards a society predicated on the worship of money. We mocked the desire to impress. There was a great Australian proverb used to describe the wealthy graziers who came down from the country on holiday breaks flaunting their Akubras - the wider the brim the smaller the property "
We do it because of our background. We are by nature very cynical of authority figures. Many friends of mine in the USA think they are cynical of their political figures...but they haven't seen Australian cynicism. We often give our pollies no respect at all.
A certain amount if cynicism is good. But not too much. Another advantage of our "tall poppy syndrome" is that we treat people based on their substance...IE who they are...not how big a car they drive, what title they have, or other such social standings. In social interaction, we very rarely introduce ourselves with titles (IE Doctor, Professor, Coach, Reverend etc etc). Nor do use those titles (An exeption would be a doctor of medicine, but we would only call them doctor whilst at the hospital. At the pub we would call them Bruce). I was amazed once when visiting the states with my parents (My mum is a General Practicioner...ie a Doc). When shoping in a department store, people would call us "Sir" or "Maam" (Which is weird for us!). But when they saw Mum's credit card with "Dr" on their...we all of a sudden would get red carpet treament. Sales assistants would be there ready to help, calling her "Doctor". It was very strange, unheard of to get better treament because of your profession in Australia. When Dad visits the USA (or has colleauges visit him), every American calls him "Doctor" (He's got a PHD). I've never seen it happen here.
With all cultural things, there are often reasons why things happen that way...but as always too much can be very bad.
Sites you may find interesting is
this one. I found it using google, so haven't read it before (and thus may not agee exactly with what it says).
Mike
I've lived in Australia most my life, but have spent several years living in the USA and UK
thanks for the info. Very helpful.
One point though - You said part of the reason for the fear is because in the past during blackouts really bad things have happened.
You also said that people in cities have good reason to fear blackouts. Yet other cities have suffered blackouts without mass rioting. They may not have been as big a NYC...but they were still pretty big.
Negative reactions to blackouts (IE rioting) seem to happen in NYC (and possibly other cities world wide), but often a blackout doesn't cause such negative reactions. I truly wonder what the difference is between cities that riot, and cities that don't.
Or perhaps there haven't been enough test cases to understand what really happens.
Which sounds fair enough.
1 - Fair 'nuff. no probs there.
2 - Yes, its true that outsiders of the USA find it hard to understand why Americans are often so big on guns. "Culture" are socially transmitted partterns of behaviour. American society is big on guns. So it is a gun culture. I'm not saying thats a bad thing, or not thought out, or that it has no reason or rationality behind it. But it is part of your culture. Perhaps instead of condemning outsiders who ask, you could educate them.
In Australia we have the "Tall Poppy Syndrome". Outsiders often find this difficult to understand. If you ask me what it is...I have no probs telling you what it is, and why we do it. I wouldn't attack you for asking. It is a big part of our culture and national identity.
(BTW..its cutting down anyone who's head sticks up too far. We have legit reasons it...at times.)
What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" do you not understand
I'm not attacking your right to bear arms. I was asking about why that right was given.
no big deal.
The 2nd Amendment was made for times like this
The USA is a funny funny place! People seem to be worried about all sorts of crimes being comitted now that there are no lights. Riots, Murders, Home Invasions...possibly even an Army of Darkness attacking (Great Movie!).
Why are you so worried? You seem to be more afraid of each other, then other things!
Auckland CBD (New Zealand) was without power for several weeks. Us in Oz thought it was a bit of a joke. But people just went home. No big deal. I've been in major blackouts (obviously not as major as what just happened in the USA), but so far have never worried about being attacked. Go home early. See some stars. Snuggle. Have fun.
Is the veil of civilization so thin in the USA that simple darkness will create the downfall of mankind? In the past people thought it would take a nuclear war to break up civilisation. Now it seems turning out the lights will do it.
My other question is...isn't the 2nd Amendment about creating a mulitia to defend your country...not about defending your house? And is it the gun culture of the USA that brings about this fear?
Here is a link to the
second amendment text
And you'll wind up with a very freaked out administration. What you want to do is to bring the problem to the attention of one of the techies that run the system, they might react sanely.
Why do people often assume that a techie will handle a security breach "sanely", whislt an administrator won't?
I have seen administrators, management and developers shrug their shoulders when huge security holes are pointed out to them. I have also seen them react more appropriately. I don't think I have seen a correlation between the correct reaction and their job role (except for perhaps computer security people).
Freaking out and shutting everything down sometimes *is* the sane response.
Wrong. The DVR boxes are on the order of $400-450 - standard digital boxes are $150-200.
Where are you getting this data from? That sounds extraordinarily expensive for what is essentially an extra harddrive (plus tuner). Do you know what brand their $150 one is? And perhaps their $450 one?
On the other hand, perhaps their current digital STBes are very very limitted.
In Australia, Foxtel is going to be releasing digital STBes next year, and I think their base unit is the PACE DVR box with OpenTV middleware. I believe they are costing in the range of $5-600 AU each. I have friends working on it there.
6 months ago I was working on Optus's digital TV roll out, using Pace digital STBes with Liberate middleware. They cost around $800 AU each. But we were only doing a trial, and thus didn't have the economies of scale. The liberate middleware takes a lot more power to run than OpenTV. Though the box we were using couldn't do DVR, we had had the power too (just needed a HD).
anyway, I would be iteresting in hearing what sort of digital STBes they are buying at either $150 or $450 (assuming they are both digital, and we are talking about mass produced units).
These boxes are a LOT more expensive than a traditional cable box, to the tune of $250-300 add'l per unit. It takes a lot of months of $5/month service fees to recoup that investment. The main reason they're willing to make the investment is that it helps keep viewers from dropping cable entirely and going to satellite.
Digital boxes are much more expensive then Analouge boxes. But getting DVR functionality in a digital box is not expensive at all.
Cable are going digital anyway for all the other benifits. Other revenue streams, iTV, better use of bandwidth etc etc.
I thought that they would restrict the speed so you were forced to watch commercials.
An earlier post said that to get the DVR you had to pay an extra $5 per month. Thats $5 per subscriber. I'm not sure how much advertising profit they get *per subscriber* currently, but I'd bet it would be a *lot* less then $5 per person. Cable companies get revenue from two main sources. You, and the advertisers. They have no problems shutting out advertisers if you will pay them to.
Don't forget the $5 they get per subscriber is almost pure profit. They have to buy digital boxes anyway, so why not keep the extra revenue themselves? Plus by owning the technology themselves, they set up lots of other revenue stream possibilities. "Premium" adverts that can't be skipped, targetted advertising, and all sorts of other benifits.
And until advertisers start saying "I won't pay to advertising on your cable network cause they can skip my advert", the cable company is still earning their advertising dollars.
Unlike the RIAA, the cable companies know that technology progresses, and generally look to the new technology for new revenue possibilities (don't think they'll let you pirate movies though).
If they see a market for a product...they will go for it. If they can create more products by going digital and DVR, they will do that.
(background...I've done iTV dev work for cable companies, and have heard a little about the types of revenue models possible, but I certainly wouldn't call myself an expert)
I would be interested in hearing what you see as the basic rights of mankind.
I'm afraid I'm still fuzzy on that. I mean, what makes up "basic" rights. If you need a government to "protect" those rights, how can they be basic? Surely those rights are the ones that your government gives you.
On the other hand I believe that there are certain rights every government should give their citizens. Free Speech, freedom from opression, freedom of religeon.
Though I am in no way a comunist, I wouldn't automatically throw in "property". In Fiji you can't own land. You only rent it off the government (or is it the local tribes?). This lack of ownership of land doesn't look like it is such a bad idea. Different cultures, countries, history and countries need different solutions.
Also, the liberty one is an interesting one. Though I would say I believe in liberty, I also have no problems with the idea that we live in a comunity, and part of our responsibility in exchange for the benifits of our comunity is to fulfill our duties to that comunity. That may include paying taxes so everyone can go to school (Is education a basic human right?), or have medical care (is that also a basic right?). It includes jury duty, possibly the draft, voting and other such things. Of course, the government (or others) should not abuse these things.
I'm also not sure that I would claim that driving a car is a derived right of property. By saying that, am I now saying that those who don't drive a car (or can't...even in other countries) have had their right to drive a car violated?
Possibly a government should not only protect "rights" as maintain a comunity. Freedom of Speech, Religion, Medical Help, Education, and maintaining roads may be examples.
anyway, as always, there is never any easy answer.
1. Man has rights. He has the same rights whether he is a wheat farmer, forced to hand over his crop to Stalin, in exchange for almost enough bread, or a hermit who hunts his own food, lives in a house he built with his hands, and has managed to avoid any interaction with any other human for the last 12 years. Government's job is to define an implementation of those rights in a legal way, and protect them.
A. These rights include life, liberty, property and self-determination. Revolution is a corollary of self-determination.(This is my view and the view of the philosophers of the age of enlightenment.)
B. Man has inalienable rights, endowed by the Creator, but they aren't the same as what is laid out in 1A.
2. Man's rights are those that are defined by the government. If the government says he has a right to liberty, then he does. And if they say he has to hand over his property to the government, or that he doesn't have the right to be on the street after midnight, or that he has to go to the polling center today and place a piece of paper, blank or not, in a box, then that's the way it should be.
I think we may actually have a meeting of the minds! You are right in saying I am of catagory 1B. Some of the rights you point out in 1A I would also claim to be basic rights.
I still think you are very American-Centric (understandable) in defining what "rights" there are. The writers of bill of rights attempt to define universal rights. You are correct when you point out this is based on a philosophy held by a group of people, not just Americans. You are even right in saying that other countries have looked (and do look) at the US Bill of Rights as worthwhile. But...even though it is a good document (and based on good philosophies), I am hesitent to use it as the basis of universal rights. There are many philosophies out there regarding basic rights. The Bill of Rights is one of them (though a good one). As you pointed out, this is a difference of opinion on the basis of human rights. I am happy for you to use it as your own basis.
The interesting thing about rights is what defines a "right".
There are "Basic" rights (or
For example. My government has given me a right to drive a car. This is certainly not a "basic" right, but it is one I have been given, and will fight for. When I say "fight", I don't really mean with deadly force.
The author spends a lot of time talking about his inability to document the license and the provisions he didn't want to agree to.
Could he have printed the licence from a friend's windows computer?
I am personally of the opinion that voting for someone you think is just going to be a part of the problem is as bad or worse than not voting.
Note that in Australia they don't have to vote. They just have to turn up to the polling booth. In the last state election many people wrote things like "WAR SUCKS" on their papers, and refused to vote.
That all sounds fairly fair to me.
One point though, though the bill of rights does say these rights are universal, that doesn't make them universal. Nor is it a document the rest of the world looks at to help define human rights.
In regards to invidividual freedom to choose their own path, and suffer consequences, I whole heartedly agree. The good news that in Australia not turning up to vote (note that you are not forced to vote, just turn up to vote) is punished by a $20 fine, which is hardly ever enforced. Though I know plently of people who have not voted, and been sent a fine (including me), I don't know anyone who has paid it. 3 years after I received my $20 fine, I wrote and told them I was at my sisters wedding (I was...though both she and her husband managed to vote!), and haven't heard anything since the first notice of fine.
Since the Australian people have agreed to let their personal liberty be compromised
Which we both admit is your opinion. Which I won't argue with.
During World War II, in the United States...
We are not talking about US abuse of human rights, but Australia's abuse of human rights. If I understand correctly, you think Australian being told to turn up and vote is an abuse of human rights. I believe in other threads you claim that the draft, jury duty, and the government requiring you to do anything is an abuse of human rights. Yet somehow requiring you to pay tax is not (I don't understand why you make this exception).
Though I am not an American, it does seem (to me) that Americans hold up the bill of rights as their philosophy behind human rights (some...of course not all). IE, that is what they point to, when showing what they think basic rights are. It also seems to me that is what you are doing. Which is why I was pointing out that the bill of rights does not nessesarily apply outside of the USA. IE, those rights may not be universal.
OK you win.
woohooo!! I win!
oh...you're being sarcastic right? damn it man...don't do this to me! keep the comments rolling! Keep up the fight! Don't let me off so easily!
hang on a sec...so you think the Australian government does have a duty to compel its citizens to vote? Cause your posts suggests otherwise, and backing up your claims with quotes from the US constitution.
To say they are the values of the American people, or to say that they are values of the American government is ignorant and nonsensical.
You are telling me that the bill of rights, US Constitution, and Declaration of Independence are not values of the American people? If so, why do you guys go on so much about them?
Thowing insults at people isn't going to facilitate a discussion. If you want a discussion, I'm happy to discuss things with you, but not throw insults.