Rather than how much to charge, it's more of a QoS thing. Oil companies have to supply a minimum quality fuel. You can buy the minimum quality fuel and your car will still run without damage or decreased performance. You can also buy 'super' fuel, and your car will run (unnoticably by the average person) better or possibly get slightly better economy.
In terms of Internet, it is similar thing. We have a standard minimum quality service. We can nowadays pay for higher bandwidth services and high speed VPNs etc, with more noticable differences than super fuel of course.
If oil companies could offer fuel mixed with water as the standard minimum, and charge more for the current standard fuel so that your vehicle ran properly, then these anti-neutrality people would have an analogy that worked.
I guess it's all a moot point anyway. Ten years ago, the question of allowing commercial interests to charge subscriptions for content was a hot topic. Then came the debate of advertising. Now we can argue about QoS. The power of the 'mighty' dollar will once again prevail and I fear that once the novelty of screaming about this is over, we'll all have to wear it anyway...and pay for it.
Back in the days when BASIC was the code of choice (well, the only code a young geek with a Commodore 64 could learn), it was easy. Procedural programming. Nowadays the choice is too broad, the languages compared to BASIC are very difficult and the competition from old school coders too fierce. It seems to be far easier to grab a degree with diversified skills and enter the computer maintenance, network management, or get into the database management field. That seems to be where the easy money is, which is the drawcard for most IT undergrads these days. When I did my degree in the late '90s at the tender age of 30 something(yewp, I'm a newbie), the focus was C++, database design and human/computer interaction. Granted, my focus wasn't pure computer science, but neither is it the focus of the majority of students now.
The anecdotal evidence I gathered in my days at uni was that people were doing their IT degree because they thought there was either good money to be made, a high demand for advanced computer skills or that students figured that an IT degree would be a breeze. How wrong these assumptions turned out to be for many, resulting in an average 80% drop out and/or failure rate in the place I studied at. My motivation for obtaining an IT degree was (besides my love of 'puters') that I would find it far easier to get a job than if I'd studied Environmental Science. While I did find it easy to get a job in the IT sector, I think environmental science would have been a better long term proposition. Cheers
Damn. I thought my post would have scored for at least being educational. I provided references to back up the knowledge that I was passing to you and others Dephex Twin. As a student, you would know the importance of providing references to back up your statements.
I followed your link to the Wiki entry and read the information provided therein. To confirm what was claimed in that Wiki entry (remember, there were no references on the 'Australia, (continent) page), I did some basic five minute research to either confirm or refute that page. The dictionaries I quoted are in my personal library. The web pages are easily Googled. Due to the fact that there are different definitions, depending on the source and context, I provided references for you to check. If you or anyone feels that I am being an asshole, then so be it. I'll keep providing the references, rather than expect people to take my statements as gospel (no, that's not a veiled jibe at you Dephex Twin).
Perhaps you should have checked to see if NZ was part of the Australian continent *before* posting? Then maybe I would not have considered you ignorant. The same as I should have checked how many states are in the US, rather than rattling off a figure I thought was right (my ignorance).
When I call you ignorant, I mean 'uninformed', not ill-mannered and uninformed. There is a big difference in how the term is interpreted sometimes.
So Wikipedia is your only resource? You should probably check a little further than the open source encyclopedia, or perhaps check the full article for consistency...
The Wikipedia entry variously states that the land masses are 'Australia' and 'Australasia' while referring to the same 'land masses'.
Referenced from the Macquarie Dictionary (4th Ed.):
Australasia: (noun) Australia, New Zealand, New Guinea and neighbouring islands of the South Pacific Ocean.
Australia: (noun) the continent south-east of Asia,lying between the Indian and Pacific Oceans, the smallest continent in the world...2. a federal parliamentary state consisting of the continent of Australia and the island of Tasmania; comprised a number of smaller colonies before federation in 1901.
Referenced from the Readers Digest Universal Dictionary (1998):
Australasia: an imprecise term referring to lands of the Pacific Ocean. The name is used in a broad sense to include the Malay Archipelago, Micronesia, Polynesia and Melanesia in addition to New Zealand, the island of New Guinea and Australia. It is used more commonly to refer simply to Australia, New Zealand and their dependencies (or former dependencies) such as Papua New Guinea.
Australia: Official name - Commonwealth of Australia. Island commonwealth lying between the Indian and Pacific Oceans...
If you still want to believe Wikipedia, then I'd suggest reading this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/'Australia'
Or try:
http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/686/1/ PA005910.htm
This may give you some ammunition as it states that 'when used in a geographical sense, includes the external territories'. However, neither New Zealand, nor New Guinea are external territories of Australia. Christmas Island, Lord Howe Island and a few other smaller islands (and a large section of Antarctica) are external territories.
I will happily accept the Wikipedia 'continent' entry once the entry is referenced. Without references, you or I could say that all of Eastern Russia is part of America, or that New Zealand is part of Australia even. You may also note that the entry specifies that it is a geological association, which is different to the geographical association.
Perhaps this site may help:
http://www.australia.gov.au/about-australia-1conti nent
I have contacted Geosciences Australia who may respond here. Any responses to me personally from Geosciences will be posted here. If I am wrong, I will happily apologise.
Cheers
Why? Because you, in what most would consider an extremely ignorant statement, stated that New Zealanders were part of Australia. Which is incorrect. Perhaps you meant to say 'Australasia'?
New Guinea is an independant country to Australia. They gained independence from Australia around 30 years ago.
Now, I will apologise for appearing to lump all Americans in the ignorant boat. However, if you do not wish to be considered ignorant, check your facts prior to responding with more misconceptions.
Australia is Australia New Zealand is New Zealand Papua (and) New Guinea or Papua New Guinea is Papua New Guinea
These countries are all (but not exclusively) described as being in a geographical region called Australasia. If you expanded the geographical region to take in many of the Western Pacific island nations, the region is oft described as Oceania as you correctly stated.
For the record, I do not 'instantly look down my nose...' at people based on their country of origin. Unfortunately, you have done what many of your countryfolk do. You open your mouth before thinking too hard. If you check one of my previous posts, you will note that I don't tar all Americans (US'ians as I put it) with the same brush. Most of your compatriats are intelligent and educated enough to see beyond their shoreline. Unfortunately the ignorant ones are more vocal, causing embarrassment for the rest. Check out 'Bushisms' for a classic example.
I guess the importance of a world figure must have more relevance, the closer you live to said world figure's home country. Knowing who a world leader is or was may also have a lot to do with ones age.
It's probably rude to ask, but how old are you dwater? The question is not meant to be a precursor to a patronising comment, just wondering if your not knowing about Mao is age related (our 18 yr old asked "who is Ronald Reagan" last week). I am 42 and I know who Mao Zedong...'Chairman Mao' was. I was taught at school about most figures of note in history. Mao Zedong had a HUGE impact on the world, so I would have thought that his name would be right up there (in a historical sense) with Lenin, Marx, Washington, Lincoln, Breshnev, Reagan, Gorbachoff, Macarthur, Churchill (most likely some typos back there) and others.
Can I offer some sage words of advice? Never choose to forget something because you don't consider it relevant at that point in your life. Eventually the information may come in handy, even if might only win you a six pack at a trivia quiz. Worse, you may start forgetting stuff you wanted to remember one day...
"Also, I don't see anyone getting up in arms about Australians calling themselves such, even though New Zealanders are also from the continent of Australia"
You're from the United States of America, aren't you?
All you people who have ever looked at an atlas...could you please explain to the person I have quoted above, that when a large body of water (sometimes known as the Pacific Ocean) separates one large island (big enough to be called a continent) from two small islands by around 2000km if I recall correctly...and both cultures (and I'm talking traditional native cultures, not the Anglo-Saxon invaders) are as far separated as one could imagine, it strongly suggests that New Zealanders may *not* be from the same continent?
Or, put simply, a Kiwi would get pretty pissed off if you suggested his country was part of Australia.
It's not all about you Flower. I think this is why the general consensus is that Americans are self-centred and ignorant of the rest of the world. Please don't think that I assume ALL US based Americans are ignorant. I don't. I do believe though that the majority of Americans have been led to believe that their country is the only educated country on the planet and that the rest of us are third world non-entities. I doubt people find the term 'World Series' offensive when used in the context of Baseball. Now, back to the subject. I figured (even though I am a stupid non-American) that Marshmallow Peeps had something to do with Marshmallows, those sugary soft things that you can roast over coals and burn your tongue with. I also figured they were just another vaslue added modified sweet that saved (and also made) the manufacturers a bucketload of money. In Oz, we have 'Potato Gems'. These are half mashed potato pieces about the size of an average marble that are fried and sold for more than your average serve of chips (fries). Less potato, more money.
On the subject of Hollywood...isn't Hollywood the de facto propaganda vehicle for the US government? Sorry, that's rude. It *was* the de facto propaganda machine for the US govt. Lets see, Top Gun, Saving Private Ryan, anything with John Wayne in a uniform, anything with Elvis in a uniform...should I continue?
I don't generally give U.S. folk a hard time because I know it's not their fault they have a corrupt election process or a puppet for a leader, but when people like you get offended by facts, I have to say something.
The 'World Series' is still called that after 102 years. Many people still refer to your President as 'Leader of the Free World'. Many U.S. citizens refer to themselves as 'Americans' but really mean U.S-ians.
Fact is, most of your compatriats think I'm from Austria and that I have to side step Kangaroo shit on the foot-path (sidewalk). A lot your fellow USians probably think I wear a crocodile skin vest and throw shrimps on the barbie every second day. However, I know that not all of you folk walk down the street with a side-arm (except maybe in Texas) and scream USA all day.
I also know that a lot of USians are aware that there is more to the planet than the 52 states and the Star Spangled Banner.
Slashdot Mirror
I tend to think that the analogy is flawed.
Rather than how much to charge, it's more of a QoS thing. Oil companies have to supply a minimum quality fuel. You can buy the minimum quality fuel and your car will still run without damage or decreased performance. You can also buy 'super' fuel, and your car will run (unnoticably by the average person) better or possibly get slightly better economy.
In terms of Internet, it is similar thing. We have a standard minimum quality service. We can nowadays pay for higher bandwidth services and high speed VPNs etc, with more noticable differences than super fuel of course.
If oil companies could offer fuel mixed with water as the standard minimum, and charge more for the current standard fuel so that your vehicle ran properly, then these anti-neutrality people would have an analogy that worked.
I guess it's all a moot point anyway. Ten years ago, the question of allowing commercial interests to charge subscriptions for content was a hot topic. Then came the debate of advertising. Now we can argue about QoS. The power of the 'mighty' dollar will once again prevail and I fear that once the novelty of screaming about this is over, we'll all have to wear it anyway...and pay for it.
Cheers
Back in the days when BASIC was the code of choice (well, the only code a young geek with a Commodore 64 could learn), it was easy. Procedural programming. Nowadays the choice is too broad, the languages compared to BASIC are very difficult and the competition from old school coders too fierce. It seems to be far easier to grab a degree with diversified skills and enter the computer maintenance, network management, or get into the database management field. That seems to be where the easy money is, which is the drawcard for most IT undergrads these days.
When I did my degree in the late '90s at the tender age of 30 something(yewp, I'm a newbie), the focus was C++, database design and human/computer interaction. Granted, my focus wasn't pure computer science, but neither is it the focus of the majority of students now.
The anecdotal evidence I gathered in my days at uni was that people were doing their IT degree because they thought there was either good money to be made, a high demand for advanced computer skills or that students figured that an IT degree would be a breeze. How wrong these assumptions turned out to be for many, resulting in an average 80% drop out and/or failure rate in the place I studied at.
My motivation for obtaining an IT degree was (besides my love of 'puters') that I would find it far easier to get a job than if I'd studied Environmental Science. While I did find it easy to get a job in the IT sector, I think environmental science would have been a better long term proposition.
Cheers
:o)
Damn. I thought my post would have scored for at least being educational.
I provided references to back up the knowledge that I was passing to you and others Dephex Twin. As a student, you would know the importance of providing references to back up your statements.
I followed your link to the Wiki entry and read the information provided therein. To confirm what was claimed in that Wiki entry (remember, there were no references on the 'Australia, (continent) page), I did some basic five minute research to either confirm or refute that page.
The dictionaries I quoted are in my personal library. The web pages are easily Googled.
Due to the fact that there are different definitions, depending on the source and context, I provided references for you to check.
If you or anyone feels that I am being an asshole, then so be it. I'll keep providing the references, rather than expect people to take my statements as gospel (no, that's not a veiled jibe at you Dephex Twin).
Perhaps you should have checked to see if NZ was part of the Australian continent *before* posting? Then maybe I would not have considered you ignorant. The same as I should have checked how many states are in the US, rather than rattling off a figure I thought was right (my ignorance).
When I call you ignorant, I mean 'uninformed', not ill-mannered and uninformed. There is a big difference in how the term is interpreted sometimes.
Cheers from another (past) student
Yep, you may well be right on that. My bad and my apologies.
Cheers
So Wikipedia is your only resource? You should probably check a little further than the open source encyclopedia, or perhaps check the full article for consistency... The Wikipedia entry variously states that the land masses are 'Australia' and 'Australasia' while referring to the same 'land masses'. Referenced from the Macquarie Dictionary (4th Ed.): Australasia: (noun) Australia, New Zealand, New Guinea and neighbouring islands of the South Pacific Ocean. Australia: (noun) the continent south-east of Asia,lying between the Indian and Pacific Oceans, the smallest continent in the world...2. a federal parliamentary state consisting of the continent of Australia and the island of Tasmania; comprised a number of smaller colonies before federation in 1901. Referenced from the Readers Digest Universal Dictionary (1998): Australasia: an imprecise term referring to lands of the Pacific Ocean. The name is used in a broad sense to include the Malay Archipelago, Micronesia, Polynesia and Melanesia in addition to New Zealand, the island of New Guinea and Australia. It is used more commonly to refer simply to Australia, New Zealand and their dependencies (or former dependencies) such as Papua New Guinea. Australia: Official name - Commonwealth of Australia. Island commonwealth lying between the Indian and Pacific Oceans... If you still want to believe Wikipedia, then I'd suggest reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/'Australia' Or try: http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/686/1/ PA005910.htm
This may give you some ammunition as it states that 'when used in a geographical sense, includes the external territories'. However, neither New Zealand, nor New Guinea are external territories of Australia. Christmas Island, Lord Howe Island and a few other smaller islands (and a large section of Antarctica) are external territories.
I will happily accept the Wikipedia 'continent' entry once the entry is referenced. Without references, you or I could say that all of Eastern Russia is part of America, or that New Zealand is part of Australia even. You may also note that the entry specifies that it is a geological association, which is different to the geographical association.
Perhaps this site may help:
http://www.australia.gov.au/about-australia-1conti nent
I have contacted Geosciences Australia who may respond here. Any responses to me personally from Geosciences will be posted here. If I am wrong, I will happily apologise.
Cheers
Why? Because you, in what most would consider an extremely ignorant statement, stated that New Zealanders were part of Australia. Which is incorrect.
Perhaps you meant to say 'Australasia'?
New Guinea is an independant country to Australia. They gained independence from Australia around 30 years ago.
Now, I will apologise for appearing to lump all Americans in the ignorant boat. However, if you do not wish to be considered ignorant, check your facts prior to responding with more misconceptions.
Australia is Australia
New Zealand is New Zealand
Papua (and) New Guinea or Papua New Guinea is Papua New Guinea
These countries are all (but not exclusively) described as being in a geographical region called Australasia. If you expanded the geographical region to take in many of the Western Pacific island nations, the region is oft described as Oceania as you correctly stated.
For the record, I do not 'instantly look down my nose...' at people based on their country of origin. Unfortunately, you have done what many of your countryfolk do. You open your mouth before thinking too hard. If you check one of my previous posts, you will note that I don't tar all Americans (US'ians as I put it) with the same brush. Most of your compatriats are intelligent and educated enough to see beyond their shoreline. Unfortunately the ignorant ones are more vocal, causing embarrassment for the rest. Check out 'Bushisms' for a classic example.
I guess the importance of a world figure must have more relevance, the closer you live to said world figure's home country. Knowing who a world leader is or was may also have a lot to do with ones age.
It's probably rude to ask, but how old are you dwater? The question is not meant to be a precursor to a patronising comment, just wondering if your not knowing about Mao is age related (our 18 yr old asked "who is Ronald Reagan" last week).
I am 42 and I know who Mao Zedong...'Chairman Mao' was. I was taught at school about most figures of note in history. Mao Zedong had a HUGE impact on the world, so I would have thought that his name would be right up there (in a historical sense) with Lenin, Marx, Washington, Lincoln, Breshnev, Reagan, Gorbachoff, Macarthur, Churchill (most likely some typos back there) and others.
Can I offer some sage words of advice? Never choose to forget something because you don't consider it relevant at that point in your life. Eventually the information may come in handy, even if might only win you a six pack at a trivia quiz. Worse, you may start forgetting stuff you wanted to remember one day...
Cheers
The computer that Gryph inputs to
"Also, I don't see anyone getting up in arms about Australians calling themselves such, even though New Zealanders are also from the continent of Australia"
You're from the United States of America, aren't you?
All you people who have ever looked at an atlas...could you please explain to the person I have quoted above, that when a large body of water (sometimes known as the Pacific Ocean) separates one large island (big enough to be called a continent) from two small islands by around 2000km if I recall correctly...and both cultures (and I'm talking traditional native cultures, not the Anglo-Saxon invaders) are as far separated as one could imagine, it strongly suggests that New Zealanders may *not* be from the same continent?
Or, put simply, a Kiwi would get pretty pissed off if you suggested his country was part of Australia.
Cheers
It's not all about you Flower.
I think this is why the general consensus is that Americans are self-centred and ignorant of the rest of the world. Please don't think that I assume ALL US based Americans are ignorant. I don't. I do believe though that the majority of Americans have been led to believe that their country is the only educated country on the planet and that the rest of us are third world non-entities.
I doubt people find the term 'World Series' offensive when used in the context of Baseball.
Now, back to the subject. I figured (even though I am a stupid non-American) that Marshmallow Peeps had something to do with Marshmallows, those sugary soft things that you can roast over coals and burn your tongue with. I also figured they were just another vaslue added modified sweet that saved (and also made) the manufacturers a bucketload of money.
In Oz, we have 'Potato Gems'. These are half mashed potato pieces about the size of an average marble that are fried and sold for more than your average serve of chips (fries). Less potato, more money.
On the subject of Hollywood...isn't Hollywood the de facto propaganda vehicle for the US government? Sorry, that's rude. It *was* the de facto propaganda machine for the US govt. Lets see, Top Gun, Saving Private Ryan, anything with John Wayne in a uniform, anything with Elvis in a uniform...should I continue?
I don't generally give U.S. folk a hard time because I know it's not their fault they have a corrupt election process or a puppet for a leader, but when people like you get offended by facts, I have to say something.
The 'World Series' is still called that after 102 years. Many people still refer to your President as 'Leader of the Free World'. Many U.S. citizens refer to themselves as 'Americans' but really mean U.S-ians.
Fact is, most of your compatriats think I'm from Austria and that I have to side step Kangaroo shit on the foot-path (sidewalk). A lot your fellow USians probably think I wear a crocodile skin vest and throw shrimps on the barbie every second day. However, I know that not all of you folk walk down the street with a side-arm (except maybe in Texas) and scream USA all day.
I also know that a lot of USians are aware that there is more to the planet than the 52 states and the Star Spangled Banner.
Cheerrs all, I've had my fun,
Gryph