From what institution? I know tutors and lecturers at one institution, where they privately admitted that they had given over half their students too many credits, resulting in students graduating far earlier than they should have. At the same time, I've heard that the required competency at this institution compared to others, is far lower.
So, what you fail to recognize is that various institutions require different levels of work, for different degrees, at different periods of time.
Also, most of the people I've known who've done a BA in History, have told me it's fucking easy. Though, that could just be the institutions they are going to.
I agree. Though, I'd add, you've said "deleting her voicemail", and while that's technically true, what it really was, was "tampering with evidence in a missing persons/murder investigation".
While I'm not suggesting that's what happened here, I am saying that a confession isn't necessarily definitive evidence that anyone has done what they confessed too. The methods used to solicit the confession, the motivations of those involved, and the persons mental capacity (either at the time, or in general), need to be taken into account.
Hopefully they have substantially more evidence than just a confession. Especially if this person is "creepy", weird, or similar, as he might be the kind of person who would fall prey to this sort of coercion.
Just something to keep in mind when they say "he confessed".
In my experience, almost everyone who is an MBA, comes from a finance/accounting background, the other few who aren't, have some background in engineering/etc.
Company problems are like people problems, sometimes there's a systematic reason, other times it's completely down to the individual and the circumstance.
While you've focused more on the personal skills that many geeks lack, you're also missing that many geeks don't seem to understand how difficult running a business, really is. Even small businesses. There's so many things going on, so many things out of your control, so many people you rely on, and so many unintuitive "systems", which are really hard to get a grasp on.
The worst companies I personally know of, that I have worked for, or with, are run by engineers/scientists.
While there is something to be said for the executives having been in that industry, there's also a lot to be said for people with outside perspective, and a fuck load to be said for people who understand how businesses run. The article has said MBA's, but I take that more to mean accounting/management/finance/economics professionals, so MBA's/CA/CPA/CFA/* all in one bag. It's condescending to suggest that this is due to "MBA's", and the real discussion seems to be one of "short-term balance sheet driven management" versus "long-term" and or "non-balance sheet driven management".
Well, short-term versus long-term versus some mix of both, has and continues to be, one of the most debated topics amogst "MBA's". To suggest that somehow they don't understand this, is absurd. Hell, the very fact that Bob Lutz is writing about it, shows this is absurd, since he is in fact one of those "MBA" people.
Oh well, for those who haven't read the the Business Week article, I recommend it. It really gets to the heart of his story. The TIME one, not so much.
"Every Linux distro I've tried (Except Red Hat, and that was back in 1998) was brain-dead simple to install and completely painless, even Mandrake back in 2003."
You're mistaking installing the OS, with setting everything up. Sure, installation is really easy. But from then on, it's a LOT harder to do anything.
Good to see a positive American on this. I live in Australia, and know many Americans, and most have commented similarly. Though I wonder if that's a sort of "new myopia". However, on the whole, none of them have really had a problem with them.
Though we do pay them out chronically about being unable to traverse them (even though they don't have a problem with this).
The US to UK comparison works well for their densely populated cities and suburban areas. However, for the majority of the country, a better comparison is Australia, as it has closer population density.
That means the US (15) compared to Australia (8). Either way, it's an interesting comparison.
I'm from Australia, we've a large amount of roundabouts here too, I pass through 4 roundabouts on my way to work, in peak hour traffic, and most of my trip is highway driving.
They filter traffic extremely well, on the whole. Yes dominant flows can make it hard for people to enter sometimes, however in my experience, there's often other flows, which intermittently interrupt the dominant flow.
One of the roundabouts I take home in peak hour, has this problem. It can result in the traffic backing up a bit. At which point you see some people taking other routes and bypassing it altogether, and others, like myself, just sit there for a minute, and every now and then, there's some other car, forcing the dominant cars to either pause/hesitate, or forcing them to stop.
There have been some really terrible roundabouts I've used, but they've all been reasonably okay. Annoying at times, but okay.
Over my entire life, I've seen a LOT of car accidents, and I've never seen, or heard of one, at a roundabout. Where as I regularly see them at traffic lights, and non-roundabout intersections.
I think on the balance of probabilities, the benefits from roundabouts far outweigh the problems from roundabouts.
Also, dominant traffic, even under traffic lights, is still given the greatest priority. Why? Because that's where the most amount of people are going, and planners usually want to move the most amount of people as possible.
LOL What you're saying is, people from the US, are incapable of learning very very very basic traffic rules, that people in MANY other countries, can learn without hassle.
Hilarious. I love the US, where "driving in circles" is considered a hard maneuver which causes a lot of accidents.
A rotary is defined as entering traffic having right of way. A roundabout is defined as entering traffic yielding.
Pedestrians usually go around roundabouts, instead of over them. Though, I believe some larger roundabouts do have zebra crossings for pedestrians, and they would work the same as regular crossings. Traffic yields. Much as it does, if a car stalled on a roundabout, or if someone walked out into roundabout traffic anyway.
Yeah, that's not a strong point. They do have interstate infrastructure, and some rural infrastructure, but few which are ONLY Agile.
So, I do concede that, that part of my argument is weak, but the rest still stands.
LOL Yeah. In my defence, arguing against arrogant people, requires a fair amount of arrogance yourself. However, I am often too resolved in my own ideas, and more, and more these days, am trying to curtail it. It's just hard, as it's apart of my personality.
Telstra isn't implementing any amazing technological changes or budgetary changes. Also, they've had this tech for a while now. On one of the other responses I posted about 30 minutes ago, I linked to an article from 2003 which discussed Telstra implementing this tech.
Either way, you've essentially gone 'I've no particular idea why this was implemented, just that there's a possibility it isn't related', I assume you believe it's more likely it isn't, where is I believe it's more likely it is.
Sorry, I should have clarified, a "reasonable person" is a technical term meaning an objective view point, such that an objective person, on the balance of probabilities, would arrive at this result. It wasn't meant as an insult.
Simple game theory tells us that going for the juiciest target in a saturated market is rarely the best thing to do.
I study game theory, can you explain how it applies in this instance. From my cursory searches, Bigponds market share is between 40% to 50%, making it the dominant player. Additionally, due to its position in provisioning the lines, it has the ability to move first. As such, it would want to appeal to as many people as possible, to capture their business on that first try. What type of game, and what conditions are you imposing? I've a feeling that this was said in jest, but just in case it wasn't, I am actually interested. (When I read this back, this also comes off sarcastic, but it isn't)
Either way, what we've got here is, you're saying these 2 things, happening at the same time, is more likely to NOT be quid pro quo, and I'm saying that it is more likely. I feel like there's more evidence to support my theory, but everyone always does. Since we won't know, maybe ever, unless there is a leak, it comes down to a "feeling" for both of us.
Mandatory education. Do I have to name only one, or am I allowed to name more?
I really got to change my signature, because I get this way too much, and these days, I'm sick of arguing about it. I spend all day working and studying economics/politics, that I just can't bare to argue it after hours. However, if you delve into my posts from about, over a year and a half ago, which is when I first stopped responding to these (given you're actually interested in this, which I think you might be, since you brought up game theory, then again this could all be an elaborate flamebait, as your nick suggests), you can find a LOT of very long, very in depth debates on:
Services (the popular ones being Education, Health Care, Social Security)
Infrastructure (the popular ones being Roads, Telephony, Energy)
Acts (the popular ones being Abolishing Slavery, Women's Rights)
Justice (the popular ones being the Law, the Police, the Military)
This is where the reading comprehension comes in. Even with the single line you quoted, in no way, can it be taken to mean 'they were paid to censor the internet'. Please re-read it. What it says is 'They censored the internet, at the same time as they were awarded a contract', not a contract for censoring the internet, but a contract for buying the infrastructure.
Please, keep up.
This is because they own 0% of the pits and ducts (or copper) that make up the last mile which is where the NBN is operating.
Now this is reasonably true, except that Agile (Internodes infrastructure company) does supply last mile connections for manyrural communities. On top of this, they own a significant amount of interstate fiber, which is something the NBN also had in its deal, though to a lesser extent at this stage.
You dont actually understand what's going on here and should never have been modded up.
The thing I like about your post, is the arrogance it has, while being exceptionally wrong. It's almost like you're trolling me. Not sure if you're retarded, or trolling. I'm erring on the former.
Yes, it has always marketed itself this way. However, if this was their true driving force... Then why didn't they do this YEARS ago? Why did Optus simultaneously also do it? Why haven't they started to market this previously wildly unpopular feature?
Taking into account that, I think a reasonable person would agree, that this isn't a sudden realization that they could appeal more that way.
Also, Telstra don't specifically target religious zealots, there are other ISPs for that. Telstra is trying to target average people. The largest demographic. That's all.
Yeah, I know they don't own last mile, except in a few places (their research places, etc), they do also own some interstate infrastructure, and some wireless infrastructure. The point was that, while Optus does own other more necessary infrastructure, their deal included the purchase of infrastructure similar to Internode's. However, Internode wouldn't be offered as favourable a contract.
And as far as the list goes, it is actually very conservative in its definition of child pornography, only classifying sites depicting minors under 13, not under 18.
Can you link me to somewhere I can download the list? As it stands, I've no idea what's on the list, and whether it accurately actually truly only limits itself to those things. Historically, these lists have NOT limited themselves to only these things. Even the list that the Australia Government previously wanted to use, was found to have A LOT of material which was far outside of these bounds, when it was leaked.
In Australia the age of consent is either 16 or 17 depending on the circumstances (homosexual relationships, age of both partners, and state you're in).
However, with regards to pornography, that's a whole other set of laws, which I'm uncertain about.
Nice try, but you obviously haven't been keeping up with the local news.
The current government (The Australian Labor Party) has been trying to push through this form of censorship, to gain support from the religious zealots in the country. They need the religious zealots support, because they do not have a large enough majority to ram through what they want. This censorship plan was developed by minister Stephen Conroy, and at the previous election they had to ditch this plan, because it was so amazingly un-popular.
At the same time the Australian Labor Party has decided to "nationalize" (debatable as to whether the National Broadband Network is really nationalized or not) the internal internet infrastructure of Australia, by laying down billions of dollars, buying up a fuck load of fiber, and handing out a lot of contracts to roll out more fiber. This plan is being setup and run by minister Stephen Conroy, the exact same man who came up with the original legislative censorship plans, has now been given a fuck load of money, and authority. Telstra owns MOST of the infrastructure the government is looking to buy, as it was Australia's first (I think it was the first) telephony provider, which used to be nationalized, but was privatized in the late 90s.
At the same time Telstra started to censor the internet, they were awarded a very large favourable contract, from the government, to purchase this infrastructure from them. Both of these were announced in THE SAME WEEK. This is a mighty fine coincidence.
Now, you might say, but that's just a coincidence and doesn't mean anything. The company is just voluntarily deciding to censor the internet.
Well, in the same week another company, Optus, which is Australia's second largest telephony provider, was awarded a very large favourable contract for the purchase of their infrastructure handed to them, and in the same week, that company also decided to announce that they would voluntarily censor the internet with this same list, under a similar time frame.
So... There are 2 companies, selling a large amount of equipment to the government, for very large amounts of money, with very favourable terms, and they both decided to announce, in the same week that these contracts were handed out, that they will voluntarily censor the internet.
That is FAR too great a coincidence.
Additionally, ISPs like Internode, which are the nerds choice of ISP, who also own a significant amount of infrastructure, and were active in dissenting against the prior censorship plans, have been told flat out that they will not be offered such favourable contracts for their infrastructure, in the same week these were awarded.
So yes, "technically", you're correct, but we all know that the government would have had a hand in this, especially because these plans were so wildly unpopular with the public, that any ISP that implements censorship of any kind, knows they will get backlash over it. In fact, Telstra knows it was going to get this backlash, and actually put off implementing it specifically because they were afraid of reprisals from LulzSec, AnonSec, Anonymous, and similar.
What ISP do you know, that voluntarily does things like this, which don't improve its profitability, which expose it to reprisal, and targeted attacks, without being forced to by government?
Not to mention, two of them at the same time.
The Australian Government, and their currently "unlimited" spending account, has EVERYTHING to do with this.
I have links for all the above, but there's too many, and I'm too lazy. Instead, just read Delimiter which has some of the best coverage on this.
Slashdot Mirror
A BS in Engineering or BA in History
From what institution? I know tutors and lecturers at one institution, where they privately admitted that they had given over half their students too many credits, resulting in students graduating far earlier than they should have. At the same time, I've heard that the required competency at this institution compared to others, is far lower.
So, what you fail to recognize is that various institutions require different levels of work, for different degrees, at different periods of time.
Also, most of the people I've known who've done a BA in History, have told me it's fucking easy. Though, that could just be the institutions they are going to.
I agree. Though, I'd add, you've said "deleting her voicemail", and while that's technically true, what it really was, was "tampering with evidence in a missing persons/murder investigation".
You damned dirty apes!
They've always converged, other people just don't trace the functions far enough! :-)
If it's the grim calculus, then just differentiate with respect to their ever changing mood, and slowly slowly back away on a tangent.
Tell that to the Norfolk Four, watch the PBS documentary.
While I'm not suggesting that's what happened here, I am saying that a confession isn't necessarily definitive evidence that anyone has done what they confessed too. The methods used to solicit the confession, the motivations of those involved, and the persons mental capacity (either at the time, or in general), need to be taken into account.
Hopefully they have substantially more evidence than just a confession. Especially if this person is "creepy", weird, or similar, as he might be the kind of person who would fall prey to this sort of coercion.
Just something to keep in mind when they say "he confessed".
If we did that, we'd run out of numbers!
In my experience, almost everyone who is an MBA, comes from a finance/accounting background, the other few who aren't, have some background in engineering/etc.
Company problems are like people problems, sometimes there's a systematic reason, other times it's completely down to the individual and the circumstance.
While you've focused more on the personal skills that many geeks lack, you're also missing that many geeks don't seem to understand how difficult running a business, really is. Even small businesses. There's so many things going on, so many things out of your control, so many people you rely on, and so many unintuitive "systems", which are really hard to get a grasp on.
The worst companies I personally know of, that I have worked for, or with, are run by engineers/scientists.
While there is something to be said for the executives having been in that industry, there's also a lot to be said for people with outside perspective, and a fuck load to be said for people who understand how businesses run. The article has said MBA's, but I take that more to mean accounting/management/finance/economics professionals, so MBA's/CA/CPA/CFA/* all in one bag. It's condescending to suggest that this is due to "MBA's", and the real discussion seems to be one of "short-term balance sheet driven management" versus "long-term" and or "non-balance sheet driven management".
Well, short-term versus long-term versus some mix of both, has and continues to be, one of the most debated topics amogst "MBA's". To suggest that somehow they don't understand this, is absurd. Hell, the very fact that Bob Lutz is writing about it, shows this is absurd, since he is in fact one of those "MBA" people.
Oh well, for those who haven't read the the Business Week article, I recommend it. It really gets to the heart of his story. The TIME one, not so much.
Ahh, I see what you did there...
"Every Linux distro I've tried (Except Red Hat, and that was back in 1998) was brain-dead simple to install and completely painless, even Mandrake back in 2003."
You're mistaking installing the OS, with setting everything up. Sure, installation is really easy. But from then on, it's a LOT harder to do anything.
The thing I like about Linux, is the ease of use. Such that you don't need to spend hours/days figuring out how to do the simplest of tasks.
This is definitely the year of Linux on the desktop!
Close enough. :-)
Good to see a positive American on this. I live in Australia, and know many Americans, and most have commented similarly. Though I wonder if that's a sort of "new myopia". However, on the whole, none of them have really had a problem with them.
Though we do pay them out chronically about being unable to traverse them (even though they don't have a problem with this).
The US to UK comparison works well for their densely populated cities and suburban areas. However, for the majority of the country, a better comparison is Australia, as it has closer population density.
That means the US (15) compared to Australia (8). Either way, it's an interesting comparison.
I'm from Australia, we've a large amount of roundabouts here too, I pass through 4 roundabouts on my way to work, in peak hour traffic, and most of my trip is highway driving.
They filter traffic extremely well, on the whole. Yes dominant flows can make it hard for people to enter sometimes, however in my experience, there's often other flows, which intermittently interrupt the dominant flow.
One of the roundabouts I take home in peak hour, has this problem. It can result in the traffic backing up a bit. At which point you see some people taking other routes and bypassing it altogether, and others, like myself, just sit there for a minute, and every now and then, there's some other car, forcing the dominant cars to either pause/hesitate, or forcing them to stop.
There have been some really terrible roundabouts I've used, but they've all been reasonably okay. Annoying at times, but okay.
Over my entire life, I've seen a LOT of car accidents, and I've never seen, or heard of one, at a roundabout. Where as I regularly see them at traffic lights, and non-roundabout intersections.
I think on the balance of probabilities, the benefits from roundabouts far outweigh the problems from roundabouts.
Also, dominant traffic, even under traffic lights, is still given the greatest priority. Why? Because that's where the most amount of people are going, and planners usually want to move the most amount of people as possible.
LOL What you're saying is, people from the US, are incapable of learning very very very basic traffic rules, that people in MANY other countries, can learn without hassle.
Hilarious. I love the US, where "driving in circles" is considered a hard maneuver which causes a lot of accidents.
You're approaching the rotary wrong then.
A rotary is defined as entering traffic having right of way. A roundabout is defined as entering traffic yielding.
Pedestrians usually go around roundabouts, instead of over them. Though, I believe some larger roundabouts do have zebra crossings for pedestrians, and they would work the same as regular crossings. Traffic yields. Much as it does, if a car stalled on a roundabout, or if someone walked out into roundabout traffic anyway.
Yeah, that's not a strong point. They do have interstate infrastructure, and some rural infrastructure, but few which are ONLY Agile.
So, I do concede that, that part of my argument is weak, but the rest still stands.
LOL Yeah. In my defence, arguing against arrogant people, requires a fair amount of arrogance yourself. However, I am often too resolved in my own ideas, and more, and more these days, am trying to curtail it. It's just hard, as it's apart of my personality.
Telstra isn't implementing any amazing technological changes or budgetary changes. Also, they've had this tech for a while now. On one of the other responses I posted about 30 minutes ago, I linked to an article from 2003 which discussed Telstra implementing this tech.
Either way, you've essentially gone 'I've no particular idea why this was implemented, just that there's a possibility it isn't related', I assume you believe it's more likely it isn't, where is I believe it's more likely it is.
Sorry, I should have clarified, a "reasonable person" is a technical term meaning an objective view point, such that an objective person, on the balance of probabilities, would arrive at this result. It wasn't meant as an insult.
Simple game theory tells us that going for the juiciest target in a saturated market is rarely the best thing to do.
I study game theory, can you explain how it applies in this instance. From my cursory searches, Bigponds market share is between 40% to 50%, making it the dominant player. Additionally, due to its position in provisioning the lines, it has the ability to move first. As such, it would want to appeal to as many people as possible, to capture their business on that first try. What type of game, and what conditions are you imposing? I've a feeling that this was said in jest, but just in case it wasn't, I am actually interested. (When I read this back, this also comes off sarcastic, but it isn't)
Either way, what we've got here is, you're saying these 2 things, happening at the same time, is more likely to NOT be quid pro quo, and I'm saying that it is more likely. I feel like there's more evidence to support my theory, but everyone always does. Since we won't know, maybe ever, unless there is a leak, it comes down to a "feeling" for both of us.
Mandatory education. Do I have to name only one, or am I allowed to name more?
I really got to change my signature, because I get this way too much, and these days, I'm sick of arguing about it. I spend all day working and studying economics/politics, that I just can't bare to argue it after hours. However, if you delve into my posts from about, over a year and a half ago, which is when I first stopped responding to these (given you're actually interested in this, which I think you might be, since you brought up game theory, then again this could all be an elaborate flamebait, as your nick suggests), you can find a LOT of very long, very in depth debates on:
Okay, just changed my sig. Problem solvered.
Ahh, I see you're not good at reading, let me help you out.
You mean Conroy, not the Labor party.
Completely wrong. The beginnings of these policies started with Kim Beazley. Additionally, if it's not a Labor party policy, then you need to tell the Prime Minister that, and you might ask them to update their pages. While you can say the most recent ones are crafted and pushed by Conroy, it does have the support of "the party", where its leader and strategists speak for what the party supports.
Deputy comms minister Kate Lundy has been an outspoken critic of filtering
Partially wrong. She's been an outspoken critic of... THIS type of filter. She wants it to be an opt-out filter. She was however an outspoken critic of ISP level filtering... when LIBERAL was in power.
The contract was to buy that.
This is where the reading comprehension comes in. Even with the single line you quoted, in no way, can it be taken to mean 'they were paid to censor the internet'. Please re-read it. What it says is 'They censored the internet, at the same time as they were awarded a contract', not a contract for censoring the internet, but a contract for buying the infrastructure.
Please, keep up.
This is because they own 0% of the pits and ducts (or copper) that make up the last mile which is where the NBN is operating.
Now this is reasonably true, except that Agile (Internodes infrastructure company) does supply last mile connections for many rural communities. On top of this, they own a significant amount of interstate fiber, which is something the NBN also had in its deal, though to a lesser extent at this stage.
You dont actually understand what's going on here and should never have been modded up.
The thing I like about your post, is the arrogance it has, while being exceptionally wrong. It's almost like you're trolling me. Not sure if you're retarded, or trolling. I'm erring on the former.
Yes, it has always marketed itself this way. However, if this was their true driving force...
Then why didn't they do this YEARS ago?
Why did Optus simultaneously also do it?
Why haven't they started to market this previously wildly unpopular feature?
Taking into account that, I think a reasonable person would agree, that this isn't a sudden realization that they could appeal more that way.
Also, Telstra don't specifically target religious zealots, there are other ISPs for that. Telstra is trying to target average people. The largest demographic. That's all.
Yeah, I know they don't own last mile, except in a few places (their research places, etc), they do also own some interstate infrastructure, and some wireless infrastructure. The point was that, while Optus does own other more necessary infrastructure, their deal included the purchase of infrastructure similar to Internode's. However, Internode wouldn't be offered as favourable a contract.
And as far as the list goes, it is actually very conservative in its definition of child pornography, only classifying sites depicting minors under 13, not under 18.
Can you link me to somewhere I can download the list? As it stands, I've no idea what's on the list, and whether it accurately actually truly only limits itself to those things. Historically, these lists have NOT limited themselves to only these things. Even the list that the Australia Government previously wanted to use, was found to have A LOT of material which was far outside of these bounds, when it was leaked.
In Australia the age of consent is either 16 or 17 depending on the circumstances (homosexual relationships, age of both partners, and state you're in).
However, with regards to pornography, that's a whole other set of laws, which I'm uncertain about.
Nice try, but you obviously haven't been keeping up with the local news.
The current government (The Australian Labor Party) has been trying to push through this form of censorship, to gain support from the religious zealots in the country. They need the religious zealots support, because they do not have a large enough majority to ram through what they want. This censorship plan was developed by minister Stephen Conroy, and at the previous election they had to ditch this plan, because it was so amazingly un-popular.
At the same time the Australian Labor Party has decided to "nationalize" (debatable as to whether the National Broadband Network is really nationalized or not) the internal internet infrastructure of Australia, by laying down billions of dollars, buying up a fuck load of fiber, and handing out a lot of contracts to roll out more fiber. This plan is being setup and run by minister Stephen Conroy, the exact same man who came up with the original legislative censorship plans, has now been given a fuck load of money, and authority. Telstra owns MOST of the infrastructure the government is looking to buy, as it was Australia's first (I think it was the first) telephony provider, which used to be nationalized, but was privatized in the late 90s.
At the same time Telstra started to censor the internet, they were awarded a very large favourable contract, from the government, to purchase this infrastructure from them. Both of these were announced in THE SAME WEEK. This is a mighty fine coincidence.
Now, you might say, but that's just a coincidence and doesn't mean anything. The company is just voluntarily deciding to censor the internet.
Well, in the same week another company, Optus, which is Australia's second largest telephony provider, was awarded a very large favourable contract for the purchase of their infrastructure handed to them, and in the same week, that company also decided to announce that they would voluntarily censor the internet with this same list, under a similar time frame.
So...
There are 2 companies, selling a large amount of equipment to the government, for very large amounts of money, with very favourable terms, and they both decided to announce, in the same week that these contracts were handed out, that they will voluntarily censor the internet.
That is FAR too great a coincidence.
Additionally, ISPs like Internode, which are the nerds choice of ISP, who also own a significant amount of infrastructure, and were active in dissenting against the prior censorship plans, have been told flat out that they will not be offered such favourable contracts for their infrastructure, in the same week these were awarded.
So yes, "technically", you're correct, but we all know that the government would have had a hand in this, especially because these plans were so wildly unpopular with the public, that any ISP that implements censorship of any kind, knows they will get backlash over it. In fact, Telstra knows it was going to get this backlash, and actually put off implementing it specifically because they were afraid of reprisals from LulzSec, AnonSec, Anonymous, and similar.
What ISP do you know, that voluntarily does things like this, which don't improve its profitability, which expose it to reprisal, and targeted attacks, without being forced to by government?
Not to mention, two of them at the same time.
The Australian Government, and their currently "unlimited" spending account, has EVERYTHING to do with this.
I have links for all the above, but there's too many, and I'm too lazy. Instead, just read Delimiter which has some of the best coverage on this.