Helen Clark replaced shipley as prime minister, and was elected for 3 full terms. While she was in office, there was also our first female Governor General, and female Chief Justice.
Yeah, she also had a deeper voice than our prime ministers - and her actions in standing up for New Zealand proved she also had a bigger set too.... (hope this is taken as intended, I had enormous repect for her).
Well the hell is going on in Australia lately???
Easy, both major political parties have super glued their butts to the right side of the religious see-saw (after extending said side).
There's already a low-ball legal cap. Wow, it is low - 75 million. Transocean - a separate company (thanks for that phantomcircuit) - is trying to limit it's liability to 26 million.
Even if congress approves lifting the cap to 10 billion. I would think the cost will be a lot higher than that figure. At 75 million I think BP execs would not be losing too much sleep. Will they invoice the US for the money they've spent above the 75 million?
Transocean is a separate company entirely.
Thanks for pointing that out to me, I mistakenly thought BP was using a company that that acquired a controlling interest in the company running the platform.
We know the company operating the drilling platform was a separate company (owned by BP), is the BP company that has the drilling rights the main BP company or is it something like "BP Cayman Islands"?
Is it possible if the BP accountants and lawyers have done their jobs properly the amount of money that can be extracted from BP might be "capped"? - the US public could end up paying the bulk of the clean up costs while BP keeps operating in the US under a different name.
1) Stephen Conroy is spot on when he says the internet shouldn't be treated any different to any other forms of media. It isn't a magical beast, it's just another form of media (albeit more accessible and chaotic).
So there's nothing fundamentally wrong with filtering it. I mean hell, it's already illegal to *host* this sort of content in Australia.
1: The current Australian censorship regime is transparent. Not only do we know what is classified or refused classification, the people making this decision are obligated to explain their reasons to us, what is proposed is not treating the internet the same as "other media". 2) It might be abused, or it filter stuff you disagree with.
2:If the list is secret, how would you know it is being abused? How would you know if you disagree with anything blocked? 3) The reason it will fail is exactly the reason it will work.
It will fail miserably because anyone can circumnavigate it
3. But that would make anyone breaking it "a criminal".
When legislation as vague and open-ended as the net filter legislation is proposed, everyone should protest against it - including people in government.
I'm sure the OOXML file format is somehow involved.
I can tell you how, OOXML was the encryption - Microsoft assured the DOD that nothing can read that format so they embedded the video in an OOXML document.
This vulnerability in OOXML will be fixed on Patch Tuesday.
Of course they do, if I could get what I want, I'd be very happy! I don't know how well our infrastructure and services we take for granted would fare though.
Are you advocating competing with countries like the Cook Islands? Offshore investors in the Cook Islands pay no income tax, capital gains tax or death duties, although locals pay personal and company taxes.
A resident domestic company is liable to pay 20% on its worldwide income, a nonresident domestic company pays 20% on profits derived from business activities conducted within the territory of the Cook Islands. The last bit effectively means no tax for business conducted overseas by multinationals (e.g. the scenario I painted) and I believe that is a loophole that should be closed. I do agree we are being over taxed though.
An example of difficulties in taxing multinational companies:
If I were to employ the services of programmers in another country, this could be done via a subsidiary that would of course add it's margins and ensure it makes a reasonable profit. The same philosophy could be applied to all resources and manufacturing processes.
The end result of the "reasonable profit" would be that although the bulk of the sales of the corporate end-products might be to relatively high taxing countries, shareholder returns have to be looked after first and foremost so the bulk of the profits would end up in the more tax friendly nations.
That scenario fits in with your "vast majority of dodged income is foreign earned" philosophy and hence, I assume, "ethical".
The sad reality is there are a multitude of methods multinational corporations can and do use that are more effective than the simplistic transfer pricing. scheme that I mentioned (there are guide lines for the use of transfer pricing and what constitutes avoidance / minimization / evasion btw but it is difficult to police).
The seal hunt has never been about profitability. Most seal hunters, while they hope to profit, are hardly corporations making tons of cash. For aboriginals and the atlantic sealers its a tradition and way of life.
You appear to be a bit hot under the collar about seal hunting, and to top it off, we do not disagree on much, I gather you believe that seal hunting is something carried out by Inuits and a few hunters (Canada has issued 12,000 licenses I believe, Inuits do not need licenses), I think it is an industry that some large companies make a lot of money out of, companies where the seal portion is only part of the picture.
My statement on "corporations" is borne from articles like this: http://www.harpseals.org/about_the_hunt/pelts.html
From the article:
The total export value of the fur industry in Canada increased from CAN$185,309,841 in 2001 for "raw furskins" to CAN$242,556,390 in 2005. For processed/tanned skins, the export value rose from CAN$216,081,324 in 2001, to CAN$286,760,595 in 2005, according to Industry Canada. The value of the seal skin exports (see table above) is about 5% of the total value of the Canadian fur industry. in 2001, Canada's fur industry was valued at $335 million, and seal fur was a small portion of Canada's fur trade.
Seals are hardly going extinct. And in fact high seal numbers might be threatening populations of less photogenic animals.
? Did I say they were going extinct??? They are actually growing in number and competing for the fish stocks. Yes, Inuit livelihoods are being affected by the ban on seal products but I suspect it is the loss of money that the Canadian government was upset about, not the plight of the Inuits and I suspect it will be the money the Canadian government will be after with the copyright argument. If I am wrong about this, I am more than happy to learn and to acknowledge my mistakes.
The real "corporations" are PETA and their ilk. They make the real money.
You make them sound different to other money making organizations, I do not differentiate and they all make real money.
There's a difference with this and seal hunts, corporations make money if seal hunts remain, corporations make money if copyright and patent laws are changed. The corporations will be on the other side for this.
I suspect your government knows who to listen to, just as ours do.
care to show me an instance of a western run nuclear plant that put nuclear waste in someones backyard where it leaked? oh right you can't, because they put them deep under ground in them middle of no where, in geologically stable areas in multiple casings which can't leak.
There are numerous ways in which athletes have cheated on tests. Taking masking substances for example, or even going as far as having their bladder filled with someone else's pee.
.....Landis' lawyer is arguing that it wasn't his urine.
Were there any mysterious deaths at the time where the body had a bicycle inserted up it's bum?
Sorry but I suspect the endgame is presented in this http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/04/2809856.htm
quote: Outside court, Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft executive director Neil Gane said he was disappointed with the decision.
He said the case was lodged to try to protect the livelihoods of the thousands of Australians who work in the television and film industries.
Mr Gane said he was confident that the Federal Government would now review the laws surrounding copyright infringement.
as the saying goes, who needs judges and courts when you can afford politicians.
People should start thinking "outside the box" with this sort of problem.
It has been proven by numerous studies that unpatched computers and unqualified home users running cheap homebrew servers are the real culprits with the botnet dilema hence the best solution would be that every computer that connects to the internet should pass a validation check to ensure they have the latest most up to date security patches. In order to do this Microsoft could, for a nominal monthly fee, assist ISPs with setting up Genuine Online Transmission Control High Availability software. Any computer that does not have the latest update on their computer will be blocked.
Each computer that requires GOTCHA authentication will have a small monthly fee collected by GOTCHA ISPs on behalf of Microsoft.
This approach is a three dimensional solution to the problem:
1. This ensures all internet users can feel safe knowing that all other internet users have been passed as a GOTCHA customer.
2. All highly dangerous homebrew server operating systems will be blocked from the internet as only safe Microsoft operating systems will be able to pass the rigorous authentication - it is important to emphasize this will affect all terrorists running their own servers.
3. The flow of internet traffic will be more orderly and kept at a safe speed to discourage illegal downloaders of child pornography.
Anyone that cares about the online safety of their children and loved ones should tell their politicians and friends, there is only one solution - tell them Microsoft Gotcha!
P.S. Mr Balmer, GOTCHA is my IP but for a nominal monthly fee.....
The detector really works. The Instructions are:
1:Locate a person from an opposing faction (terrorist) that is carrying a package.
2:Use the detector, this will detect the bomb the terrorist is carrying.
3:Take the terrorist away for questioning.
4:Do not open the package as it might be booby trapped, the recommended method for dealing with the package is to blow it up.
Guaranteed 100% success rate. With proper questioning techniques employed, the terrorist will admit to carrying a bomb - so far the only ones that did not confess died of health related conditions whilst being interviewed.
We have legal systems set up to decide who has committed a crime and or misdemeanor not me or slashdot - the legal system should be the ones to decide - this should also apply to alleged "illegal downloaders".
The statement was:
"if x-1 and x+1 are prime, x is divisible by 6"
Not "in what cases would the statement hold true" Any condition that proves it false means it is not true - but thanks for the maths lesson.
Oh and I do agree with the sentiments about good people, that applies to all fields not just the sciences.
just thought I'd be anal and point out that your theorem only holds true for x > 4.
Nothing anal about it - I suspect it highlights that incompetence is not limited to the sciences.
Slashdot Mirror
Helen Clark replaced shipley as prime minister, and was elected for 3 full terms. While she was in office, there was also our first female Governor General, and female Chief Justice.
Yeah, she also had a deeper voice than our prime ministers - and her actions in standing up for New Zealand proved she also had a bigger set too.... (hope this is taken as intended, I had enormous repect for her).
Well the hell is going on in Australia lately???
Easy, both major political parties have super glued their butts to the right side of the religious see-saw (after extending said side).
There's already a low-ball legal cap.
Wow, it is low - 75 million. Transocean - a separate company (thanks for that phantomcircuit) - is trying to limit it's liability to 26 million.
Even if congress approves lifting the cap to 10 billion. I would think the cost will be a lot higher than that figure. At 75 million I think BP execs would not be losing too much sleep. Will they invoice the US for the money they've spent above the 75 million?
Transocean is a separate company entirely.
Thanks for pointing that out to me, I mistakenly thought BP was using a company that that acquired a controlling interest in the company running the platform.
We know the company operating the drilling platform was a separate company (owned by BP), is the BP company that has the drilling rights the main BP company or is it something like "BP Cayman Islands"?
Is it possible if the BP accountants and lawyers have done their jobs properly the amount of money that can be extracted from BP might be "capped"? - the US public could end up paying the bulk of the clean up costs while BP keeps operating in the US under a different name.
I know, my cynicism is showing.
1) Stephen Conroy is spot on when he says the internet shouldn't be treated any different to any other forms of media. It isn't a magical beast, it's just another form of media (albeit more accessible and chaotic). So there's nothing fundamentally wrong with filtering it. I mean hell, it's already illegal to *host* this sort of content in Australia.
1: The current Australian censorship regime is transparent. Not only do we know what is classified or refused classification, the people making this decision are obligated to explain their reasons to us, what is proposed is not treating the internet the same as "other media".
2) It might be abused, or it filter stuff you disagree with.
2:If the list is secret, how would you know it is being abused? How would you know if you disagree with anything blocked?
3) The reason it will fail is exactly the reason it will work. It will fail miserably because anyone can circumnavigate it
3. But that would make anyone breaking it "a criminal".
When legislation as vague and open-ended as the net filter legislation is proposed, everyone should protest against it - including people in government.
It appears to me that we all must be casting donkey votes - we always end up with donkeys in government (and quite often only their rear ends).
I'll claim prior art
I'm sure the OOXML file format is somehow involved.
I can tell you how, OOXML was the encryption - Microsoft assured the DOD that nothing can read that format so they embedded the video in an OOXML document.
This vulnerability in OOXML will be fixed on Patch Tuesday.
Of course they do, if I could get what I want, I'd be very happy! I don't know how well our infrastructure and services we take for granted would fare though.
Are you advocating competing with countries like the Cook Islands?
Offshore investors in the Cook Islands pay no income tax, capital gains tax or death duties, although locals pay personal and company taxes.
A resident domestic company is liable to pay 20% on its worldwide income, a nonresident domestic company pays 20% on profits derived from business activities conducted within the territory of the Cook Islands.
The last bit effectively means no tax for business conducted overseas by multinationals (e.g. the scenario I painted) and I believe that is a loophole that should be closed.
I do agree we are being over taxed though.
who is this everyone you speak of and why do you not want him / her angry?
An example of difficulties in taxing multinational companies: If I were to employ the services of programmers in another country, this could be done via a subsidiary that would of course add it's margins and ensure it makes a reasonable profit. The same philosophy could be applied to all resources and manufacturing processes.
The end result of the "reasonable profit" would be that although the bulk of the sales of the corporate end-products might be to relatively high taxing countries, shareholder returns have to be looked after first and foremost so the bulk of the profits would end up in the more tax friendly nations.
That scenario fits in with your "vast majority of dodged income is foreign earned" philosophy and hence, I assume, "ethical".
The sad reality is there are a multitude of methods multinational corporations can and do use that are more effective than the simplistic transfer pricing. scheme that I mentioned (there are guide lines for the use of transfer pricing and what constitutes avoidance / minimization / evasion btw but it is difficult to police).
The seal hunt has never been about profitability. Most seal hunters, while they hope to profit, are hardly corporations making tons of cash. For aboriginals and the atlantic sealers its a tradition and way of life.
You appear to be a bit hot under the collar about seal hunting, and to top it off, we do not disagree on much, I gather you believe that seal hunting is something carried out by Inuits and a few hunters (Canada has issued 12,000 licenses I believe, Inuits do not need licenses), I think it is an industry that some large companies make a lot of money out of, companies where the seal portion is only part of the picture.
My statement on "corporations" is borne from articles like this:
http://www.harpseals.org/about_the_hunt/pelts.html
From the article:
The total export value of the fur industry in Canada increased from CAN$185,309,841 in 2001 for "raw furskins" to CAN$242,556,390 in 2005. For processed/tanned skins, the export value rose from CAN$216,081,324 in 2001, to CAN$286,760,595 in 2005, according to Industry Canada. The value of the seal skin exports (see table above) is about 5% of the total value of the Canadian fur industry. in 2001, Canada's fur industry was valued at $335 million, and seal fur was a small portion of Canada's fur trade.
Seals are hardly going extinct. And in fact high seal numbers might be threatening populations of less photogenic animals.
? Did I say they were going extinct??? They are actually growing in number and competing for the fish stocks. Yes, Inuit livelihoods are being affected by the ban on seal products but I suspect it is the loss of money that the Canadian government was upset about, not the plight of the Inuits and I suspect it will be the money the Canadian government will be after with the copyright argument.
If I am wrong about this, I am more than happy to learn and to acknowledge my mistakes.
The real "corporations" are PETA and their ilk. They make the real money.
You make them sound different to other money making organizations, I do not differentiate and they all make real money.
There's a difference with this and seal hunts, corporations make money if seal hunts remain, corporations make money if copyright and patent laws are changed. The corporations will be on the other side for this.
I suspect your government knows who to listen to, just as ours do.
care to show me an instance of a western run nuclear plant that put nuclear waste in someones backyard where it leaked? oh right you can't, because they put them deep under ground in them middle of no where, in geologically stable areas in multiple casings which can't leak.
I suspect that he was being figurative - but:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/19/nuclear-waste-landfill-threat
http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=12578
I guess it can't leak if they just dumped it into the soil though.
No, I am not against the use of nuclear power.
Isn't that what the child porn is for?
There are numerous ways in which athletes have cheated on tests. Taking masking substances for example, or even going as far as having their bladder filled with someone else's pee.
.....Landis' lawyer is arguing that it wasn't his urine.
Were there any mysterious deaths at the time where the body had a bicycle inserted up it's bum?
Sorry but I suspect the endgame is presented in this http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/04/2809856.htm
quote:
Outside court, Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft executive director Neil Gane said he was disappointed with the decision. He said the case was lodged to try to protect the livelihoods of the thousands of Australians who work in the television and film industries. Mr Gane said he was confident that the Federal Government would now review the laws surrounding copyright infringement.
as the saying goes, who needs judges and courts when you can afford politicians.
People should start thinking "outside the box" with this sort of problem.
It has been proven by numerous studies that unpatched computers and unqualified home users running cheap homebrew servers are the real culprits with the botnet dilema hence the best solution would be that every computer that connects to the internet should pass a validation check to ensure they have the latest most up to date security patches. In order to do this Microsoft could, for a nominal monthly fee, assist ISPs with setting up Genuine Online Transmission Control High Availability software. Any computer that does not have the latest update on their computer will be blocked.
Each computer that requires GOTCHA authentication will have a small monthly fee collected by GOTCHA ISPs on behalf of Microsoft.
This approach is a three dimensional solution to the problem:
1. This ensures all internet users can feel safe knowing that all other internet users have been passed as a GOTCHA customer.
2. All highly dangerous homebrew server operating systems will be blocked from the internet as only safe Microsoft operating systems will be able to pass the rigorous authentication - it is important to emphasize this will affect all terrorists running their own servers.
3. The flow of internet traffic will be more orderly and kept at a safe speed to discourage illegal downloaders of child pornography.
Anyone that cares about the online safety of their children and loved ones should tell their politicians and friends, there is only one solution - tell them Microsoft Gotcha!
P.S. Mr Balmer, GOTCHA is my IP but for a nominal monthly fee.....
It's true, NZ keep saying it's all about bringing us democracy but everyone knows they're after our sheep!
The detector really works. The Instructions are:
1:Locate a person from an opposing faction (terrorist) that is carrying a package.
2:Use the detector, this will detect the bomb the terrorist is carrying.
3:Take the terrorist away for questioning.
4:Do not open the package as it might be booby trapped, the recommended method for dealing with the package is to blow it up.
Guaranteed 100% success rate. With proper questioning techniques employed, the terrorist will admit to carrying a bomb - so far the only ones that did not confess died of health related conditions whilst being interviewed.
We have legal systems set up to decide who has committed a crime and or misdemeanor not me or slashdot - the legal system should be the ones to decide - this should also apply to alleged "illegal downloaders".
I did not realise slashdot allows wife beaters to post.
There should be legislation to force slashdot to block access to anyone from their address!
The statement was:
"if x-1 and x+1 are prime, x is divisible by 6"
Not "in what cases would the statement hold true"
Any condition that proves it false means it is not true - but thanks for the maths lesson.
Oh and I do agree with the sentiments about good people, that applies to all fields not just the sciences.
just thought I'd be anal and point out that your theorem only holds true for x > 4.
Nothing anal about it - I suspect it highlights that incompetence is not limited to the sciences.