Yes. A major bit of the cost was Danegeld to Telstra to get access to the ducts that the taxpayer paid for not so long back (since Telstra haven't done much wired infrastructure since). Without that the cost would have been a shitload less. Simon Hackett of Internode wrote a few well reasoned articles back when the NBN ws proposed about how it couldn't possibly cost as much as proposed - but then it became clear later that Telstra had to be bought off.
And you would rather the state nationalising a private asset?
Like a shot. Vital infrastructure belongs to the country, not just a few shareholders. Privatising was a mistake.
The real question is at what point do these ideas become "common knowledge" enough that the patent should be no more. After all, every TV was rectangular with rounded corners in shape, with button (touch) controls in the lower right or right hand side. That's right, this is the USA where the patents are made up and the durations don't matter.
Are your principles worth more to your than your career?
- In reply to "I dare the administration to tell me I have to teach this curriculum to my students. I'll give my own slant on it and end up teaching anonymous proxy, torrents, ripping, you name it..."
If they really are a teacher - yes (it's part of the job description).
But there's no need to concentrate on "anonymous proxy, torrents, ripping, you name it...", although they merit discussion - I'd just spend time on the public domain and how copyright can be, has been and is being used to steal from society.
They could just ask people to buy a license... It doesn't have to pirate-proof, just ask for a small payment in exchange for a license key, those who want will pay for it and those who don't want or can't afford will use a pirated key. Way back, I paid for an Opera license even though I could get a free Netscape or IE, because Opera was a much much better product IMO. I also drop some money into buskers' hats when I appreciate their performance, many other people do too. I'd pay for a solid spy-free Ubuntu as well.
Trouble is, it (the licence) isn't Canonical's to sell.
They can, however, charge for support, documentation, physical medium (the DVD set), access to their servers for downloading and a whole lot of other things I can't be bothered thinking up. But not for a licence. And if they charge too much for any of those things we can all look forward to the new free (as in beer) Tatmsa 9000 distribution (which will look a lot like Ubuntu).
I am not sure I understand this story: why US has its word to say about who is connecting Australia and New Zaeland? Aren't theses territories sovereign nations?
We like to think so, but we have our doubts (especially now that Tony is PM).
You've just proven my point. Buy a linux friendly tablet then.
Serious question, are there any readily available tablets that are easily set up to run Linux natively without a trace of Android? All the ones I've seen do it in a chroot environment.
Really love my old HP netbook (Opensuse 12.3) - great for sitting on the couch and writing stuff during the breaks between the ads on TV. Hopefully by the time this one breaks down I'll be able to buy a cheap Chromebook, nuke Chrome and install some flavour of full Linux.
Chromebooks are great for their target market, your parents....
If my kids ever get me a Chromebook words will be said. Unpleasant words, spoken VERY LOUDLY.
But they probably won't, since they should know by now how I feel about crippled systems ("crippled" = "wiping existing OS and installing whatever I want needs more effort than booting from a USB device").
But what's the cost in special training and support?...
From my experience in my business - 3/8 of stuff all (for the initial changeover from office 95(?), ie less than the training needed after a new version of office came out).
Since converting - a lot less than if we stayed with microsoft office (comparing our training needs to those of people who stayed on the microsoft upgrade treadmill).
While I agree that some history is locked away in books that can't be copied, I think that many, many writers and artists are only able to devote time to their work because copyright allows them to charge for access to their work. All of the new books at my store-- including plenty of non-fiction-- is protected by copyright...
Tolkien's work is protected by copyright, but he doesn't seem to be devoting much time to anything new.
As an American, I don't know enough about the NBN program to say. If Labour sucks then let Australian voters throw them out.
Labor hasn't done that bad of a job, there's just a lot of people who hated Julia Gillard for no rational reason...
Seeing her on TV baying for Julian Assange's blood - actually a pretty good reason.
The real problem is that the Liberals are even worse. Tony Abbott is nothing but a frontman for the party powerbrokers, he is even more spineless and weasely than the average politician. The biggest thing he has going for him is the fact that people hated Julia Gillard. But he's lost this edge now that Kevin Rudd is back in charge.
Seriously though, I dont mindlessly hate the Liberals, just the current form of the Liberal party. Abbott talks about "faceless men" in Labor yet expects us to ignore the strings attached to Abbott. If the Liberals really wanted to win this election, they'd sack Abbott and put Malcolm Turnbull in charge, but the "faceless men" of the Liberal party wont do this because 1) Turnbull is too much of a centrist for their liking, 2) Turnbull will not blindly follow their agenda.
If you're not making money, you're losing money. But only a government can simply tax you for more or worse borrow it and let your kids pay it back.
Put the government in charge of the Sahara desert and in five years it will run out of sand. Any organization tends toward inefficiency. A free and open competitive market tends to put pressure on participants to be efficient.
Governments have no idea how to run a tech (or any) business except to make it late, over budget and under spec. Every decision is made for political rather than economic reasons. The only people who think that's a good idea are fools that thing government is always good, or wolves that want the power.
... go back to a patron system where a generous benefactor foots the bill for research, in which case the research that the scientists do is only what the benefactor wants, which may be the ultimate cure for baldness or a little dick. I think patents are better than the alternatives. That is, unless you can come up with a better idea. Just be sure to think it through...
One of the things governments were invented for WAS to be the benefactor which foots the bill for research (usually, in the civilised parts of the world, they don't insist on micromanaging where the research goes).
So block the annoying ads, let the non-annoying ones through, and don't destroy the internet.
Hilarious. You crack me up. As if the Internet was nothing until the ad dollars showed up. Ha. Ha.
And I thought that the internet was DESIGNED to be almost indestructable:)
I remember the internet before the world wide web (ignore the size my ID) and can safely say that the overall quality of the web is inversely proportional to the number of ad dollars thrown at it.
I agree completely, and I'm always amazed when people get so upset every time advertisers learn to target better. I can only guess it has something to do with lack of willpower. People know hey are susceptible to advertising and get mad because they know they are going to get "tricked" out of their money, or something like that.
So if we got rid of all ads a significant number of people would feel more comfortable. I'm feeling altruistic enough to help this happen.
Because advertisers have made a really useful resource such a pain in the arse to use. While we're at it we should also get rid of non interweb advertising as well.
We still need a mechanism that allows us to know what is available, and at what price.
Such as a website people can go to when they particularly WANT to see ads. One that includes the ability to search for goods, services and their suppliers. And is, of course, payed for by the scumb^w advertisers.
What I want to destroy is the means for marketers to set prices of goods and services based on "targeted" information that seemingly have no relation to the product or service being purchased. I hate when people in Florida have are offered a product via a WWW site that costs more than the same exact product offered to someone in Massachusetts. It is even worse when you take a look at the picture on a global basis. I hate it when I pay $100 more for an airline seat than the guy sitting next to me. We both got the same exact service, but at wildly divergent prices.
Make a good product...sell it at a price point determined by supply and demand (which I am guessing won't fluctuate each minute) where a reasonable profit can be had, and be happy with it. Probably a little naive...
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. A major bit of the cost was Danegeld to Telstra to get access to the ducts that the taxpayer paid for not so long back (since Telstra haven't done much wired infrastructure since). Without that the cost would have been a shitload less. Simon Hackett of Internode wrote a few well reasoned articles back when the NBN ws proposed about how it couldn't possibly cost as much as proposed - but then it became clear later that Telstra had to be bought off.
And you would rather the state nationalising a private asset?
Like a shot. Vital infrastructure belongs to the country, not just a few shareholders. Privatising was a mistake.
The real question is at what point do these ideas become "common knowledge" enough that the patent should be no more. After all, every TV was rectangular with rounded corners in shape, with button (touch) controls in the lower right or right hand side. That's right, this is the USA where the patents are made up and the durations don't matter.
Sorry, couldn't resist fixing that for you.
Are your principles worth more to your than your career?
- In reply to "I dare the administration to tell me I have to teach this curriculum to my students. I'll give my own slant on it and end up teaching anonymous proxy, torrents, ripping, you name it..."
If they really are a teacher - yes (it's part of the job description).
But there's no need to concentrate on "anonymous proxy, torrents, ripping, you name it...", although they merit discussion - I'd just spend time on the public domain and how copyright can be, has been and is being used to steal from society.
They could just ask people to buy a license... It doesn't have to pirate-proof, just ask for a small payment in exchange for a license key, those who want will pay for it and those who don't want or can't afford will use a pirated key. Way back, I paid for an Opera license even though I could get a free Netscape or IE, because Opera was a much much better product IMO. I also drop some money into buskers' hats when I appreciate their performance, many other people do too. I'd pay for a solid spy-free Ubuntu as well.
Trouble is, it (the licence) isn't Canonical's to sell.
They can, however, charge for support, documentation, physical medium (the DVD set), access to their servers for downloading and a whole lot of other things I can't be bothered thinking up. But not for a licence. And if they charge too much for any of those things we can all look forward to the new free (as in beer) Tatmsa 9000 distribution (which will look a lot like Ubuntu).
I am not sure I understand this story: why US has its word to say about who is connecting Australia and New Zaeland? Aren't theses territories sovereign nations?
We like to think so, but we have our doubts (especially now that Tony is PM).
Who do you prefer listening into your communications? The US or China?
Given the inherent malignity of corporate entities, which is the least-worst?
An alternative and eqally valid wording.
You've just proven my point. Buy a linux friendly tablet then.
Serious question, are there any readily available tablets that are easily set up to run Linux natively without a trace of Android? All the ones I've seen do it in a chroot environment.
Really love my old HP netbook (Opensuse 12.3) - great for sitting on the couch and writing stuff during the breaks between the ads on TV. Hopefully by the time this one breaks down I'll be able to buy a cheap Chromebook, nuke Chrome and install some flavour of full Linux.
Chromebooks are great for their target market, your parents. ...
If my kids ever get me a Chromebook words will be said. Unpleasant words, spoken VERY LOUDLY.
But they probably won't, since they should know by now how I feel about crippled systems ("crippled" = "wiping existing OS and installing whatever I want needs more effort than booting from a USB device").
But what's the cost in special training and support?...
From my experience in my business - 3/8 of stuff all (for the initial changeover from office 95(?), ie less than the training needed after a new version of office came out).
Since converting - a lot less than if we stayed with microsoft office (comparing our training needs to those of people who stayed on the microsoft upgrade treadmill).
Google and Apple are the new Microsoft.
And microsoft is still the old microsoft.
I don't know about you but I'm looking for an exit from the Google and Apple islands.
And it is wise for you to do so - those islands are best avoided.
So it was wrong when Microsoft did it, but because Microsoft did it's ok for Google to do it?
Yes, provided the only "victim" is microsoft.
We need to get past the "sticking it to Microsoft" mentality and focus on the fact that it's wrong no matter who does it.
It's not wrong if it only happens to the monster that uses the technique as its standard way of doing business.
I must admit it is kind reinvigorating to see Microsoft getting the same kind of treatment only Microsoft could give to others just 5 to 10 years ago.
It's called karma.
I am not saying Google is better although, their turn might come some day too.
True, but while the enemy of our enemy may not be our friend they are, right now, doing us a good service.
We can worry about Google when they come to within three orders of magnitude of MS on the evil scale.
There were many better operating systems at the time Windows came into power and I'm sure you know that.
Really? On affordable microcomputers? Name one!
Without much looking up:
CP/M and GEM.
DR-Dos and GEM.
Linux (or as many prefer, GNU-Linux).
*BSD.
OS/2.
Does that count as 4, 4.5 or 5?
While I agree that some history is locked away in books that can't be copied, I think that many, many writers and artists are only able to devote time to their work because copyright allows them to charge for access to their work. All of the new books at my store-- including plenty of non-fiction-- is protected by copyright...
Tolkien's work is protected by copyright, but he doesn't seem to be devoting much time to anything new.
This isn't a legal alternative (at least according to US copyright law). "Song of the South" won't be in the public domain in the U.S. until 2039. ....
"Song of the South" is eighteen years younger than Mickey Mouse so will be in the public domain eighteen years after Mickey Mouse... ie never.
I'm not up to speed with current hipster talk. Does that mean good or bad?
Yes.
Labor hasn't done that bad of a job, there's just a lot of people who hated Julia Gillard for no rational reason ...
Seeing her on TV baying for Julian Assange's blood - actually a pretty good reason.
The real problem is that the Liberals are even worse. Tony Abbott is nothing but a frontman for the party powerbrokers, he is even more spineless and weasely than the average politician. The biggest thing he has going for him is the fact that people hated Julia Gillard. But he's lost this edge now that Kevin Rudd is back in charge.
Seriously though, I dont mindlessly hate the Liberals, just the current form of the Liberal party. Abbott talks about "faceless men" in Labor yet expects us to ignore the strings attached to Abbott. If the Liberals really wanted to win this election, they'd sack Abbott and put Malcolm Turnbull in charge, but the "faceless men" of the Liberal party wont do this because 1) Turnbull is too much of a centrist for their liking, 2) Turnbull will not blindly follow their agenda.
Sadly true.
If you're not making money, you're losing money. But only a government can simply tax you for more or worse borrow it and let your kids pay it back.
Put the government in charge of the Sahara desert and in five years it will run out of sand. Any organization tends toward inefficiency. A free and open competitive market tends to put pressure on participants to be efficient.
Governments have no idea how to run a tech (or any) business except to make it late, over budget and under spec. Every decision is made for political rather than economic reasons. The only people who think that's a good idea are fools that thing government is always good, or wolves that want the power.
Which are you?
Tony? You on Slashdot?
... go back to a patron system where a generous benefactor foots the bill for research, in which case the research that the scientists do is only what the benefactor wants, which may be the ultimate cure for baldness or a little dick. I think patents are better than the alternatives. That is, unless you can come up with a better idea. Just be sure to think it through...
One of the things governments were invented for WAS to be the benefactor which foots the bill for research (usually, in the civilised parts of the world, they don't insist on micromanaging where the research goes).
Name one public media distribution system that isn't plastered with ads? .....
Aunty ABC (radio and TV)?
The Beeb (wireless and television)?
So block the annoying ads, let the non-annoying ones through, and don't destroy the internet.
Hilarious. You crack me up. As if the Internet was nothing until the ad dollars showed up. Ha. Ha.
And I thought that the internet was DESIGNED to be almost indestructable :)
I remember the internet before the world wide web (ignore the size my ID) and can safely say that the overall quality of the web is inversely proportional to the number of ad dollars thrown at it.
Trying to cover operating costs whilst providing users a free service != hate.
Insisting on shoving ads down users' throats == hate
I agree completely, and I'm always amazed when people get so upset every time advertisers learn to target better. I can only guess it has something to do with lack of willpower. People know hey are susceptible to advertising and get mad because they know they are going to get "tricked" out of their money, or something like that.
So if we got rid of all ads a significant number of people would feel more comfortable. I'm feeling altruistic enough to help this happen.
Why destroy all ads and marketing?
Because advertisers have made a really useful resource such a pain in the arse to use. While we're at it we should also get rid of non interweb advertising as well.
We still need a mechanism that allows us to know what is available, and at what price.
Such as a website people can go to when they particularly WANT to see ads. One that includes the ability to search for goods, services and their suppliers. And is, of course, payed for by the scumb^w advertisers.
What I want to destroy is the means for marketers to set prices of goods and services based on "targeted" information that seemingly have no relation to the product or service being purchased. I hate when people in Florida have are offered a product via a WWW site that costs more than the same exact product offered to someone in Massachusetts. It is even worse when you take a look at the picture on a global basis. I hate it when I pay $100 more for an airline seat than the guy sitting next to me. We both got the same exact service, but at wildly divergent prices.
Make a good product...sell it at a price point determined by supply and demand (which I am guessing won't fluctuate each minute) where a reasonable profit can be had, and be happy with it. Probably a little naive...
Yep.
Then you will not have as many websites.
Omelettes...cracked eggs. A price to pay, but worth it.