Buying a house is a huge deal. The amount of money needed to buy a house is more than I've had in my entire life, total (well maybe not an absolute dump in the middle of nowhere, but nothing worth living in).
There are people out there who advocate that buying a house is better than renting, because if you are renting your just making someone else's mortgage payments, so why not make your own payments and have an asset at the end of the process. Plus there is the security of owning your own home, etc.
Recently I've been thinking this is not the way to go. The big reason for this is interest. The interest on an average home loan is a bit more than the actual amount borrowed. Yay compound interest. So for every dollar of house you get, you pay another dollar to the bank. This is the killer. Let's say I rent a house, and I manage to save an amount of money equal to my rent each week. This is about the same ratio of interest to principle. 1 dollar to the house provider, one dollar to savings. At the end of the process, assuming the payments are about the same size, the home owner has paid a certain amount of money and got a house worth about half that amount of money. The renter has paid the same amount, doesn't have a house, but does have cash of about the value of the house. Plus they will have all the interest on that cash. And remember, interest on the mortgage was about as much as the principle. And even if the interest rate for savings accounts is a lot less than the interest rate for mortgages, it's still going to add up. And that doesn't even consider the possibility of investing the money somewhere where it will earn you even more money.
Now this analysis ignores a few factors, like rates, inflation, increase in the value of land, insurance, etc. Without thinking about it too much, I think these other factors would tend to balance out.
So it looks like I've got a long future of renting ahead of me, and hopefully my savings will grow as I go along. Of course, to do that, I need a god damned job.
End Post
Writing time: 16 minutes
Time since last post: 2 days
Current media: silence
Monday, August 14, 2006
Saturday, August 12, 2006
A Coffin Too Small
I got back from Rocky on Friday. I got a plane back. The plane I caught was not a jet plane, but propeller based. A bit smaller than the jet I got up there, but the flight time was the same and everything else was pretty much the same.
The funeral for Mal's mother was more religious than Mal's at the beginning of the year. It was led by a minister instead of just some guy from the funeral director. There was a more religious bent to the reflection from the minister.
One thing that got to me was that the coffin seemed to small for her to fit in. I remember thinking something similar at Mal's funeral. Perhaps if I'd been able to go to the viewing of the body (morbid as that seems) I'd be able to see if they actually fit without problem in the box. Admittedly it doesn't really matter to them if they are squashed into the box, but it is a little undignified.
Also, for something due to be cremated, the box seemed quite sturdy and elaborate. If I ever get to the point of specifying such things, I'm to go in the simplest, plainest box possible, cremated and my ashes then sent either into deep space or the sun (I'm not sure which yet. Both have a certain eloquence). I don't know if I'd want some sort of memorial plaque thingy (instead of an actual thing on the earth with my ashes). Graveyards really depress me, and is not a place where I'd want to spend a great deal of time in, even if I was a pile of ashes.
Mal's father handled this funeral a lot better than he did Mal's. He was aware of what was going on and even had a few drinks at the wake. At Mal's funeral he had a fit outside before the event and was taken back to his hospital unconscious before the service started. This was good as it prevented further distress for the family.
End Post
Writing time: 26 minutes
Time since last post: 4 days
Current media: He Died With A Felafel In His Hand (the movie)
The funeral for Mal's mother was more religious than Mal's at the beginning of the year. It was led by a minister instead of just some guy from the funeral director. There was a more religious bent to the reflection from the minister.
One thing that got to me was that the coffin seemed to small for her to fit in. I remember thinking something similar at Mal's funeral. Perhaps if I'd been able to go to the viewing of the body (morbid as that seems) I'd be able to see if they actually fit without problem in the box. Admittedly it doesn't really matter to them if they are squashed into the box, but it is a little undignified.
Also, for something due to be cremated, the box seemed quite sturdy and elaborate. If I ever get to the point of specifying such things, I'm to go in the simplest, plainest box possible, cremated and my ashes then sent either into deep space or the sun (I'm not sure which yet. Both have a certain eloquence). I don't know if I'd want some sort of memorial plaque thingy (instead of an actual thing on the earth with my ashes). Graveyards really depress me, and is not a place where I'd want to spend a great deal of time in, even if I was a pile of ashes.
Mal's father handled this funeral a lot better than he did Mal's. He was aware of what was going on and even had a few drinks at the wake. At Mal's funeral he had a fit outside before the event and was taken back to his hospital unconscious before the service started. This was good as it prevented further distress for the family.
End Post
Writing time: 26 minutes
Time since last post: 4 days
Current media: He Died With A Felafel In His Hand (the movie)
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Rubbish In Rubbish Out
Note: This is based on stuff I wrote during job search training today. I'm sure I've previously mentioned how unproductive such activities are. I'll note in the text chronological shifts
What is the point of this? After 1 day of job search training I am less motivated and more morose than I have been for some time. I've been through this process before. I know all the stuff they're spouting. I also know the biggest thing hold me back right now is the lack of references, which they can't really help me with.
The moroseness is worrying. I think two weeks of this will not leave me in a good frame of mind.
I'm not sure if part of this is due to the death of my mothers mother-in-law (step grandmother) (almost in law, but close enough). She's been on a steady decline for the past year or so. She's had a few strokes and slipped into a few comas over the last few months, so while the passing was not wanted, it was really just a matter of time.
A few weeks ago I visited her with Mum and she was stuck in her bed unable to get out or even sit up. She was also unable to speak in complete sentences while I was there.
(abrupt change in flow due to taking a break)
It's definitely the job search training. While popping over to Coles to get a drink I was much more cheerful while walking around. Now I'm back in the training and the depression is seeping in again.
While at Coles I saw an old lady with a shopping bag with a ration card printed on it. I thought it was worth mentioning.
Anyway, back to the previous topic.
Seeing someone be unable to move or communicate is really one of the sorrowful states of being. I do not want to end up in that condition. Hopefully by the time it's a serious risk for me brain implants will be around so I could still use a computer to communicate
(that ends the stuff written at job search training, now in real time)
Hopefully I will survive job search training.
End Post
Writing time: 46 minutes
Time since last post: 7 days
Current media: Not much
Another Note: I do realize that Garbage In, Garbage Out is the usual phrasing for the concept referred to in the post title, but the job search trainer used it, so it reflects the overall futility of the job search training program.
What is the point of this? After 1 day of job search training I am less motivated and more morose than I have been for some time. I've been through this process before. I know all the stuff they're spouting. I also know the biggest thing hold me back right now is the lack of references, which they can't really help me with.
The moroseness is worrying. I think two weeks of this will not leave me in a good frame of mind.
I'm not sure if part of this is due to the death of my mothers mother-in-law (step grandmother) (almost in law, but close enough). She's been on a steady decline for the past year or so. She's had a few strokes and slipped into a few comas over the last few months, so while the passing was not wanted, it was really just a matter of time.
A few weeks ago I visited her with Mum and she was stuck in her bed unable to get out or even sit up. She was also unable to speak in complete sentences while I was there.
(abrupt change in flow due to taking a break)
It's definitely the job search training. While popping over to Coles to get a drink I was much more cheerful while walking around. Now I'm back in the training and the depression is seeping in again.
While at Coles I saw an old lady with a shopping bag with a ration card printed on it. I thought it was worth mentioning.
Anyway, back to the previous topic.
Seeing someone be unable to move or communicate is really one of the sorrowful states of being. I do not want to end up in that condition. Hopefully by the time it's a serious risk for me brain implants will be around so I could still use a computer to communicate
(that ends the stuff written at job search training, now in real time)
Hopefully I will survive job search training.
End Post
Writing time: 46 minutes
Time since last post: 7 days
Current media: Not much
Another Note: I do realize that Garbage In, Garbage Out is the usual phrasing for the concept referred to in the post title, but the job search trainer used it, so it reflects the overall futility of the job search training program.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Scary law
I was reading slashdot today, an article about a guy getting arrested for taking a photo of some police officers arresting someone else. One of the posts pointed out this gem of a law from Montana.
45-7-302. Obstructing peace officer or other public servant
The first clause says that it's a crime to interfere or obstruct criminal investigations, preservation of the peace and government functions. Understandable. Government functions might be pushing things if it's interpreted widely.
The third clause just establishes the penalty. No more than $500 and/or 6 months in prison. Although 6 months in prison is a lot harsher than $500, jail time is probably for the more malovent justice obstructors.
The second clause is the scary and very dangerous part. It is not a defense if the officer in question is acting illegally in trying to accomplish their duty. This is bad. This I would go so far as to say, is unconstitutional in America. This law makes it an offense to demand that the police abide by the 4th and 5th ammendments. For example, if a cop comes to your house and wants to do a search but doesn't have a warrant, if you insist that they have to get a warrant before searching, you're now obstructing justice, and the fact that the cop was trying to do something illegal isn't going to help you when you try and plead your case.
It's also bad because it allows a group of people to ignore certain aspects of the law. One of the keystones of modern democracies is that the law applies equally to everyone. This law states that peace officers can ignore certain laws. This is a bad precedent. No one should be exempt from the consequences of breaking the law. Especially not the group of people entrusted with enforcing the law.
There is also the fact that when officers use illegal means to get evidence, that evidence, nor any evidence derived from it, can not be used in court. This does mean some people will get off charges where the police have not acted properly. This is needed to stop the police abusing power. There have been incidents where people have insisted that police get warrants and so forth before they would divulge information to the police, and these have usually had people in government deriding the people who insisted on the police following the law. This is not a good approach from those in power.
Ultimately, people have certain rights that should not be denied except under extraordinary conditions. This law from Montana makes it harder for individuals to defend their rights, and because of that is a bad law.
45-7-302. Obstructing peace officer or other public servant
The first clause says that it's a crime to interfere or obstruct criminal investigations, preservation of the peace and government functions. Understandable. Government functions might be pushing things if it's interpreted widely.
The third clause just establishes the penalty. No more than $500 and/or 6 months in prison. Although 6 months in prison is a lot harsher than $500, jail time is probably for the more malovent justice obstructors.
The second clause is the scary and very dangerous part. It is not a defense if the officer in question is acting illegally in trying to accomplish their duty. This is bad. This I would go so far as to say, is unconstitutional in America. This law makes it an offense to demand that the police abide by the 4th and 5th ammendments. For example, if a cop comes to your house and wants to do a search but doesn't have a warrant, if you insist that they have to get a warrant before searching, you're now obstructing justice, and the fact that the cop was trying to do something illegal isn't going to help you when you try and plead your case.
It's also bad because it allows a group of people to ignore certain aspects of the law. One of the keystones of modern democracies is that the law applies equally to everyone. This law states that peace officers can ignore certain laws. This is a bad precedent. No one should be exempt from the consequences of breaking the law. Especially not the group of people entrusted with enforcing the law.
There is also the fact that when officers use illegal means to get evidence, that evidence, nor any evidence derived from it, can not be used in court. This does mean some people will get off charges where the police have not acted properly. This is needed to stop the police abusing power. There have been incidents where people have insisted that police get warrants and so forth before they would divulge information to the police, and these have usually had people in government deriding the people who insisted on the police following the law. This is not a good approach from those in power.
Ultimately, people have certain rights that should not be denied except under extraordinary conditions. This law from Montana makes it harder for individuals to defend their rights, and because of that is a bad law.
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Rich Girl Not So Rich
I first heard Gwen Stefani's cover of If I were A Rich Man titled If I Were A Rich Girl while I was visiting my sister in Thailand last year while browsing in a music store. I didn't listen too much, but given that I'm somewhat of a fan of covers and parodies of songs, I was mildly interested.
It was a little while later that I found out who the artist was, and listened a bit more to the lyrics. When I did this, I realized just how much she and her collaborators had missed the point of the song.
In Fiddler on the Roof, the song starts out saying how if Tevye (one of the main characters from the musical) was rich, he wouldn't have to work, would have a big house, lots of animals, materialistic things. But then it turns to other things. Freeing his wife from the burden of having to do all the housework. Gaining respect from his neighbours, and them asking him for advice. And then finally he would be able to spend time to study the Torah, and spend more time praying. The song starts out materialistic, but comes round and shows that the main thing that Tevye would gain from it is being able to not worry about the mundane things like having food to eat and a roof to sleep under but concern himself with the more important (well, less materialistic, more spiritual) things in life.
In comparison, Gwen Stefani's version is about all the glittering things money can buy, and people wanting to know you just because you're rich. It does not look at other aspects of what having money can do for you. It's shallow, and misses the point of the original.
I could say that this is a symptom of the moral and cultural decline of modern society, but such claims have been made since the days of Socrates. And anyway, reality TV fills that role. I think my main point is that Gwen Stefani and co are shallow and missed the point of the song the were redoing. And the point of the original is a point worth making.
End Post
Writing time: 31 minutes
Time since last post: 2 days
Current media: Firefly
It was a little while later that I found out who the artist was, and listened a bit more to the lyrics. When I did this, I realized just how much she and her collaborators had missed the point of the song.
In Fiddler on the Roof, the song starts out saying how if Tevye (one of the main characters from the musical) was rich, he wouldn't have to work, would have a big house, lots of animals, materialistic things. But then it turns to other things. Freeing his wife from the burden of having to do all the housework. Gaining respect from his neighbours, and them asking him for advice. And then finally he would be able to spend time to study the Torah, and spend more time praying. The song starts out materialistic, but comes round and shows that the main thing that Tevye would gain from it is being able to not worry about the mundane things like having food to eat and a roof to sleep under but concern himself with the more important (well, less materialistic, more spiritual) things in life.
In comparison, Gwen Stefani's version is about all the glittering things money can buy, and people wanting to know you just because you're rich. It does not look at other aspects of what having money can do for you. It's shallow, and misses the point of the original.
I could say that this is a symptom of the moral and cultural decline of modern society, but such claims have been made since the days of Socrates. And anyway, reality TV fills that role. I think my main point is that Gwen Stefani and co are shallow and missed the point of the song the were redoing. And the point of the original is a point worth making.
End Post
Writing time: 31 minutes
Time since last post: 2 days
Current media: Firefly
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Blue Sun
When I got my first chunk of cash from the work I did on Rent A Coder, one thing I did was to splurge on a t-shirt. And not just any T-short. I got me a Blue Sun t-shirt.
Now, I think most people who might read this will be wondering just what the hell is so special about a Blue Sun shirt. I will say that Blue Sun has a wikipedia entry, and those interested can look it up.
At the moment I'm still considering something big, and while having mostly made up my mind, am still a bit wary. More on that when I am more certain about the matter.
I bought a book on to read on the flight back from Townsville on Wednesday, The Great Philosophers. It's a series of articles on some of the big names in philosophy and what they were about. So far I've got through Socrates and most of the way through Plato, and next up is Descartes. Also in the list is Turing, which should be interesting. Look forward to a few more philosophical posts in the near future.
End Post
Writing time: 22 minutes
Time since last post: 13 days
Current media: iTunes Shuffle
Technorati tags: Blue Sun, stuff, rambling
Now, I think most people who might read this will be wondering just what the hell is so special about a Blue Sun shirt. I will say that Blue Sun has a wikipedia entry, and those interested can look it up.
At the moment I'm still considering something big, and while having mostly made up my mind, am still a bit wary. More on that when I am more certain about the matter.
I bought a book on to read on the flight back from Townsville on Wednesday, The Great Philosophers. It's a series of articles on some of the big names in philosophy and what they were about. So far I've got through Socrates and most of the way through Plato, and next up is Descartes. Also in the list is Turing, which should be interesting. Look forward to a few more philosophical posts in the near future.
End Post
Writing time: 22 minutes
Time since last post: 13 days
Current media: iTunes Shuffle
Technorati tags: Blue Sun, stuff, rambling
Saturday, July 15, 2006
a Cool quote
Here's a cool quote from a slashdot poll for people's favorite pirate
"I've found that brothels make for a surer investment than merchant ships. Whores rarely sink, and when they're boarded by pirates, they come away richer instead of poorer."
"I've found that brothels make for a surer investment than merchant ships. Whores rarely sink, and when they're boarded by pirates, they come away richer instead of poorer."
Thursday, July 06, 2006
The Return of the Extended Kingdom
While I was on the train back from Rockhampton earlier this week, I got motivated and did some writing on the Extended Kingdom (see previous posts here and here). Not so much a story as a what could be considered a rough wikipedia entry on the Kingdom. Anyway the following is a transcription of what I wrote with some editing. Some of it recaps material in previous posts on the topic, but that's the way things happen.
Notes on the Extended Kingdom
The Extended Kingdom is a spacefaring civilization whose government is a constitutional monarchy. It is located in a small star cluster with most stars separated by distances of between 5 and 20 light years.
The Extended Kingdom currently occupies 4 solar systems. In its home system two planets in addition to the home world are inhabited, along with a few moons and many space habitats. The other systems are less densely populated, with just the most suitable world in each colonized and a number of habitats supporting the colony.
The Extended Kingdom has possessed faster than light for about 600 years but has not been able to travel faster than 13 times the speed of light, and travel is only practical at up to 6 times the speed of light. At this speed, trips between systems take between 8 to 18 months. Communication between systems is much quicker than physical travel, the longest delays in signals being about a minute or so.
The government of the Extended Kingdom is divided into three levels. The Grand Parliament governs the entire kingdom. Cities and Habitats have a local government that is responsible for administrating local affairs. Between these two levels sits the planetary government. Each planet has a planet wide government that exists mainly to centralize tasks that are more effectively dealt with on a larger scale (e.g., long distance infrastructure).
The Grand Parliament consists of three houses. The first is the House of Locales, and it's members are elected by the citizens of allocated regions, with each region having roughly the same population. The second house is the House of Metropolitans, which is made up of two representatives of each city or habitat administration. The last house is the House of Numbers. The House of Numbers has the same number of members as the House of Locales, but members are elected by a proportional ballot from a single electorate that covers the entire kingdom.
Members of the Houses of Numbers, Locales and Metropolitans are elected every two, three and six years respectively. The Metropolitans are staggered so one member from each local administration is replaced at each election for the House of Locales. The method of appointing the Metropolitans depends on the local administration. In some they are appointed by the administration, some are put up for direct election, and some are chosen based on the outcome of elections for the House of Locales.
The monarch of the Extended Kingdom is largely a symbolic figure, but does play a role in advancing social issues, and the degree to which this has been done depends on the reigning monarch.
The Extended Kingdom has grown from humble beginnings, and the monarchy traces back an unbroken line to the founder of the Kingdom of Antarius, Brilthang the Gruesome. Antarius started out as a small city-state, which Brilthang took control of after overthrowing the cruel tyrant Frimbar. He was well loved by the people of the city, Brilthang led Antarius in conquering nine other nearby city-states over the next twenty years.
Antarius then existed as one of eight nations on the main continent of the kingdom's homeworld. For a few centuries various conflicts moved back and forth between the nations, with shifting alliances and much use of subterfuge as well as actual warfare. Antarius broke this equilibrium when it went on a massive offensive after suffering a sneak attack from one of its most trusted ally. This success is attributed to Tilan, later called the Magnificent, who was the king at the time. Tilan was the first leader to realize the potential of several new technologies at the time including that of gunpowder, which was just being introduced to warfare.
As Antarius was consolidating its control of the continent, explorers returned having reached several new continents, and having established relations with two nations on other continents, Gerem and Sevant. The three nations co-existed for a few centuries until Gerem and Sevant were not conquered so much as absorbed. The absorption of the other nations was prompted by the surge in economic power that followed from Antarius' change from a feudal government to a limited form of constitutional monarchy. It was at this point the Kingdom of Antarius controlled the whole of it's world.
That's it for now. It's only taken me about a year to write some more of this stuff.
End Post
Writing time: 3 hours
Time since last post: 0 days
Current media: Quiet
Notes on the Extended Kingdom
The Extended Kingdom is a spacefaring civilization whose government is a constitutional monarchy. It is located in a small star cluster with most stars separated by distances of between 5 and 20 light years.
The Extended Kingdom currently occupies 4 solar systems. In its home system two planets in addition to the home world are inhabited, along with a few moons and many space habitats. The other systems are less densely populated, with just the most suitable world in each colonized and a number of habitats supporting the colony.
The Extended Kingdom has possessed faster than light for about 600 years but has not been able to travel faster than 13 times the speed of light, and travel is only practical at up to 6 times the speed of light. At this speed, trips between systems take between 8 to 18 months. Communication between systems is much quicker than physical travel, the longest delays in signals being about a minute or so.
The government of the Extended Kingdom is divided into three levels. The Grand Parliament governs the entire kingdom. Cities and Habitats have a local government that is responsible for administrating local affairs. Between these two levels sits the planetary government. Each planet has a planet wide government that exists mainly to centralize tasks that are more effectively dealt with on a larger scale (e.g., long distance infrastructure).
The Grand Parliament consists of three houses. The first is the House of Locales, and it's members are elected by the citizens of allocated regions, with each region having roughly the same population. The second house is the House of Metropolitans, which is made up of two representatives of each city or habitat administration. The last house is the House of Numbers. The House of Numbers has the same number of members as the House of Locales, but members are elected by a proportional ballot from a single electorate that covers the entire kingdom.
Members of the Houses of Numbers, Locales and Metropolitans are elected every two, three and six years respectively. The Metropolitans are staggered so one member from each local administration is replaced at each election for the House of Locales. The method of appointing the Metropolitans depends on the local administration. In some they are appointed by the administration, some are put up for direct election, and some are chosen based on the outcome of elections for the House of Locales.
The monarch of the Extended Kingdom is largely a symbolic figure, but does play a role in advancing social issues, and the degree to which this has been done depends on the reigning monarch.
The Extended Kingdom has grown from humble beginnings, and the monarchy traces back an unbroken line to the founder of the Kingdom of Antarius, Brilthang the Gruesome. Antarius started out as a small city-state, which Brilthang took control of after overthrowing the cruel tyrant Frimbar. He was well loved by the people of the city, Brilthang led Antarius in conquering nine other nearby city-states over the next twenty years.
Antarius then existed as one of eight nations on the main continent of the kingdom's homeworld. For a few centuries various conflicts moved back and forth between the nations, with shifting alliances and much use of subterfuge as well as actual warfare. Antarius broke this equilibrium when it went on a massive offensive after suffering a sneak attack from one of its most trusted ally. This success is attributed to Tilan, later called the Magnificent, who was the king at the time. Tilan was the first leader to realize the potential of several new technologies at the time including that of gunpowder, which was just being introduced to warfare.
As Antarius was consolidating its control of the continent, explorers returned having reached several new continents, and having established relations with two nations on other continents, Gerem and Sevant. The three nations co-existed for a few centuries until Gerem and Sevant were not conquered so much as absorbed. The absorption of the other nations was prompted by the surge in economic power that followed from Antarius' change from a feudal government to a limited form of constitutional monarchy. It was at this point the Kingdom of Antarius controlled the whole of it's world.
That's it for now. It's only taken me about a year to write some more of this stuff.
End Post
Writing time: 3 hours
Time since last post: 0 days
Current media: Quiet
A Trip to Rocky
On Tuesday the internment of Mal's ashes took place. Mum and his family have taken some time deciding what should be done with the ashes. Just a few close friends and some family attended. I was mainly there just to give Mum support. I also did manage to paraphrase a quote from a volume of The Sandman. I'm sure Neil Gaiman got it from somewhere else, but that's where I got the bit I said. Things weren't made easier by the fact that Mal's mother had a few strokes the night before.
Monday was spent traveling up to Rocky in Mum's newish car. I did a stint of driving that day. I did pretty much all the driving on Tuesday, and a little on Wednesday (to the train station) before catching a train back to Brisbane.
Anyway, it wasn't really a fun trip, but it was good to see there are a lot of people giving Mum support.
End Post
Writing time: 30 minutes
Time since last post: 15 days
Current media: Scrubs
Monday was spent traveling up to Rocky in Mum's newish car. I did a stint of driving that day. I did pretty much all the driving on Tuesday, and a little on Wednesday (to the train station) before catching a train back to Brisbane.
Anyway, it wasn't really a fun trip, but it was good to see there are a lot of people giving Mum support.
End Post
Writing time: 30 minutes
Time since last post: 15 days
Current media: Scrubs
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
The way of the world
A few days ago, to try and solve a few problems I'd been having with my computer, I did a reinstall of Windows. Once this was done I realized that because windows gives programs so many different user spaces to store stuff, some of the things I would have liked to have backed up, I hadn't.
One of the things I hadn't backed up was the search engines used in the search bar in firefox. Those of you using internet explorer probably don't know the joys of the search box, but it is quite useful. Through it you can use any number of search engines without having to go to their actual page and the cumulative time saving is significant.
Anyway, while going through the steps to put back the extra search options I wanted (Google AU, Wikipedia and IMDB), I decided to have a look at the top 25 installed options. Among them are four different languages of Wikipedia (English 2, German 20, Swedish 21, and Spanish 25), and more impressively 5 torrent sites, including the now even more infamous thepiratebay.org.
Given that firefox is the fastest growing browser in terms of market share, and has already taken a chunk out of internet explorer, it's worth noting that a fair number of these people use torrent sites so much that it's worthwhile making it easier to do so.
This also shows that groups like RIAA and MPAA are not succeeding when they try to stop this sort of copyright infringement. It also suggests that what people really want is easy and convenient media. But this is not a terribly original thought.
End Post
Writing time: 30 minutes
Time since last post: 3 days
Current media: Absolute Power
One of the things I hadn't backed up was the search engines used in the search bar in firefox. Those of you using internet explorer probably don't know the joys of the search box, but it is quite useful. Through it you can use any number of search engines without having to go to their actual page and the cumulative time saving is significant.
Anyway, while going through the steps to put back the extra search options I wanted (Google AU, Wikipedia and IMDB), I decided to have a look at the top 25 installed options. Among them are four different languages of Wikipedia (English 2, German 20, Swedish 21, and Spanish 25), and more impressively 5 torrent sites, including the now even more infamous thepiratebay.org.
Given that firefox is the fastest growing browser in terms of market share, and has already taken a chunk out of internet explorer, it's worth noting that a fair number of these people use torrent sites so much that it's worthwhile making it easier to do so.
This also shows that groups like RIAA and MPAA are not succeeding when they try to stop this sort of copyright infringement. It also suggests that what people really want is easy and convenient media. But this is not a terribly original thought.
End Post
Writing time: 30 minutes
Time since last post: 3 days
Current media: Absolute Power
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Rent A Me
So last week I actually managed to earn some money. I've started putting in tenders for work on Rent A Coder, a site that lets people do private contracting for computer based jobs (programming and web site stuff). The first job I did was just some proof reading some stuff for a guy. I did that real cheap because Rent A Coder has a reputation system, so I thought getting some cred was more important than getting some cash. The second job I did was helping a lady with the settings for her blog, which wasn't too complicated, and worked out ok. I got a bit more for that job, and she seemed quite happy as I got a bonus on top of the agreed upon fee.
I queried centrelink about how I should treat these small contracts with regard to my job searching requirements, and they said that I'd be better of with their paperwork just reporting regular jobs I've applied for. I'm going to compromise by just putting tenders I win on the forms. They also recommended I get an ABN, as they don't really like individuals essentially working for cash in hand. I've asked Mum about if it's worthwhile getting an ABN. I guess it would allow me to claim depreciation on my computer as an expense on my taxes, although I think there's a bit where you have to scale it with regards to how much is personal use and how much is business use.
One downside of Rent A Coder is that a lot of people wanting articles designed to do well in search engines and links to make their sites look more important, but I'm avoiding those sorts of jobs, and sticking with mostly technical stuff.
It's also made me want to add to my computer skills, to learn some PHP and mySQL stuff. I'm probably going to set up VMWare on my computer so that I can try that on a Linux machine without having to get another computer.
End Post
Writing time: 1 hour, 10 minutes
Time since last post: 4 days
Current media: Penn Radio
I queried centrelink about how I should treat these small contracts with regard to my job searching requirements, and they said that I'd be better of with their paperwork just reporting regular jobs I've applied for. I'm going to compromise by just putting tenders I win on the forms. They also recommended I get an ABN, as they don't really like individuals essentially working for cash in hand. I've asked Mum about if it's worthwhile getting an ABN. I guess it would allow me to claim depreciation on my computer as an expense on my taxes, although I think there's a bit where you have to scale it with regards to how much is personal use and how much is business use.
One downside of Rent A Coder is that a lot of people wanting articles designed to do well in search engines and links to make their sites look more important, but I'm avoiding those sorts of jobs, and sticking with mostly technical stuff.
It's also made me want to add to my computer skills, to learn some PHP and mySQL stuff. I'm probably going to set up VMWare on my computer so that I can try that on a Linux machine without having to get another computer.
End Post
Writing time: 1 hour, 10 minutes
Time since last post: 4 days
Current media: Penn Radio
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
This morning I listened to the BBC world news' latest podcast, and I heard a bit about some suicides at the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. Three of the detainees committed suicide a few days ago, hanging themselves from sheets. The three had previously been involved in hunger strikes. One was apparently due to be released in a few days, but hadn't been told.
Now what really truly amazes me is the comments of the guy in charge of Guantanamo Bay. Navy Rear-Admiral Harry Harris made the following statement about the deaths
"They are smart; they are creative; they are committed. They have no regard for life, neither ours nor their own. I believe this was not an act of desperation but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us."
This is a pretty messed up statement. Few suicides are acts of violence against others (suicide bombers are the obvious exception). These most definitely aren't. These are people who have been held against will, without trial, without charge, without even the chance to talk to the red cross unsupervised. Their deaths are not an act of aggression. They were acts of desperation by men who no longer had control of their fates.
An act of war is a very specific set of actions. Acts of war are done on a nation-state level. I, personally cannot make an act of war. I, as a person, cannot declare war. No person, acting on their own behalf can commit an act of war. A prisoner committing suicide is not an act of war.
Harry Harris really needs to have a long think about the job he does and the things he says. Surely he must know that the rest of the world is not impressed with the existence of Guantanamo Bay. This sort of aggressive bullshit with no empathy with those being held by the guy in charge is not going to improve the way people think about the place. Harry's bosses should seriously think about how he's doing his job (although given who his bosses are, they may not think he has much to answer to).
Sydney Morning Herald
News.com.au
End Post
Writing time: 35 minutes
Time since last post: 1 day
Current media: Geeknights
Now what really truly amazes me is the comments of the guy in charge of Guantanamo Bay. Navy Rear-Admiral Harry Harris made the following statement about the deaths
"They are smart; they are creative; they are committed. They have no regard for life, neither ours nor their own. I believe this was not an act of desperation but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us."
This is a pretty messed up statement. Few suicides are acts of violence against others (suicide bombers are the obvious exception). These most definitely aren't. These are people who have been held against will, without trial, without charge, without even the chance to talk to the red cross unsupervised. Their deaths are not an act of aggression. They were acts of desperation by men who no longer had control of their fates.
An act of war is a very specific set of actions. Acts of war are done on a nation-state level. I, personally cannot make an act of war. I, as a person, cannot declare war. No person, acting on their own behalf can commit an act of war. A prisoner committing suicide is not an act of war.
Harry Harris really needs to have a long think about the job he does and the things he says. Surely he must know that the rest of the world is not impressed with the existence of Guantanamo Bay. This sort of aggressive bullshit with no empathy with those being held by the guy in charge is not going to improve the way people think about the place. Harry's bosses should seriously think about how he's doing his job (although given who his bosses are, they may not think he has much to answer to).
Sydney Morning Herald
News.com.au
End Post
Writing time: 35 minutes
Time since last post: 1 day
Current media: Geeknights
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
A Smaller God
Story telling has always included gods. And for their parts, gods have always had stories. The Greek, Norse and Celtic all have their stories. The Judeo-Christian god has the Torah, the Bible and the Koran telling his story.
And since gods are such well known and impressive characters, writers have included them in their own stories. Douglas Adams' "The Long Dark Teatime of the Soul" deals with what life is like for the Norse gods in the modern day. Other novels look at similar themes with other gods. Robert Rankin's "Waiting for Goldaming" is about someone investigating the death of God.
One writer who has freely incorporated gods into his stories is Neil Gaiman. "American Gods" is all about gods. In The Sandman, a number of gods from various pantheons are encountered. And this brings me to the actual purpose of this writing. In The Sandman, one particular mythos is singled out as being different. In the Brief Lives arc, Gaiman describes the life cycle of gods. They are born in the dreams of men, move into the waking world, as belief wanes they return to dreams and eventually move onto realms about which the only thing known is that there is no return. It is possible to avoid this fate by ensuring that belief, no matter how little endures. Pharamond achieves this by becoming the embodiment of transportation, something that will never go away. Ishtar, a Babylonian love goddess ekes out a meager existence working at a strip club. The Japanese gods incorporate everything from Marilyn Monroe to astronauts into their pantheon so that there's always something in there being worshipped by people.
The main point though is that people came first and that they formed their gods in their image. Only one mythos is excepted from this rule. And not surprisingly it's the Judeo-Christian mythos. First, it is stated that his home realm, called the Silver City, is explicitly separate from the rest of the universe. This is not just the material universe, but non-material parts as well, such the Dreaming and Hell. This separates it from every other realm in the Sandman universe, such as the realms of Fairie, Asgard, Destiny's Garden and others. The Sandman, during The Wake arc, states that there is a power above the Endless, although does not explicitly name that power or link it to the God of the Silver City.
Second, the Silver City, God and the angels all existed before the rest of creation. The short story Murder Mystery (not a Sandman story, but set in the same universe) is set in this before time, when the angels are helping God in designing his universe, although given how events play out, it is clear that this is just another stage in God's design, and needs to be gone through to ensure that the creation works out right, by making Lucifer into who he is destined to be.
The spin off series Lucifer, while not being written by Gaiman, continues this them of God being the overall creator of everything, and other gods being part of that creation. When God leaves, everything falls apart, including the realms of other gods.
So God is treated differently to other gods. This is not surprising given that he is the divinity of the western worlds dominant religions, while other gods are not held with such reverence by modern readers. Part of it is surely not wanting to antagonise the reader. Few gods in the Sandman are shown as unflawed beings. The gods lie, manipulate, bribe, scheme and more, while God sits above it all, watching his creation.
That was pretty much my point. God gets treated differently to all the other gods. Not the most significant of thoughts, but it is interesting to note that a difference is present, and it is a major difference in the nature of and significance of the being known as God.
End Post
Writing time: 6 hours, 10 minutes (I did leave the house for a few hours to play some chess, take about 4 hours off of that at least in reality)
Time since last post: 5 days
Current media: iTunes party shuffle
And since gods are such well known and impressive characters, writers have included them in their own stories. Douglas Adams' "The Long Dark Teatime of the Soul" deals with what life is like for the Norse gods in the modern day. Other novels look at similar themes with other gods. Robert Rankin's "Waiting for Goldaming" is about someone investigating the death of God.
One writer who has freely incorporated gods into his stories is Neil Gaiman. "American Gods" is all about gods. In The Sandman, a number of gods from various pantheons are encountered. And this brings me to the actual purpose of this writing. In The Sandman, one particular mythos is singled out as being different. In the Brief Lives arc, Gaiman describes the life cycle of gods. They are born in the dreams of men, move into the waking world, as belief wanes they return to dreams and eventually move onto realms about which the only thing known is that there is no return. It is possible to avoid this fate by ensuring that belief, no matter how little endures. Pharamond achieves this by becoming the embodiment of transportation, something that will never go away. Ishtar, a Babylonian love goddess ekes out a meager existence working at a strip club. The Japanese gods incorporate everything from Marilyn Monroe to astronauts into their pantheon so that there's always something in there being worshipped by people.
The main point though is that people came first and that they formed their gods in their image. Only one mythos is excepted from this rule. And not surprisingly it's the Judeo-Christian mythos. First, it is stated that his home realm, called the Silver City, is explicitly separate from the rest of the universe. This is not just the material universe, but non-material parts as well, such the Dreaming and Hell. This separates it from every other realm in the Sandman universe, such as the realms of Fairie, Asgard, Destiny's Garden and others. The Sandman, during The Wake arc, states that there is a power above the Endless, although does not explicitly name that power or link it to the God of the Silver City.
Second, the Silver City, God and the angels all existed before the rest of creation. The short story Murder Mystery (not a Sandman story, but set in the same universe) is set in this before time, when the angels are helping God in designing his universe, although given how events play out, it is clear that this is just another stage in God's design, and needs to be gone through to ensure that the creation works out right, by making Lucifer into who he is destined to be.
The spin off series Lucifer, while not being written by Gaiman, continues this them of God being the overall creator of everything, and other gods being part of that creation. When God leaves, everything falls apart, including the realms of other gods.
So God is treated differently to other gods. This is not surprising given that he is the divinity of the western worlds dominant religions, while other gods are not held with such reverence by modern readers. Part of it is surely not wanting to antagonise the reader. Few gods in the Sandman are shown as unflawed beings. The gods lie, manipulate, bribe, scheme and more, while God sits above it all, watching his creation.
That was pretty much my point. God gets treated differently to all the other gods. Not the most significant of thoughts, but it is interesting to note that a difference is present, and it is a major difference in the nature of and significance of the being known as God.
End Post
Writing time: 6 hours, 10 minutes (I did leave the house for a few hours to play some chess, take about 4 hours off of that at least in reality)
Time since last post: 5 days
Current media: iTunes party shuffle
Thursday, June 08, 2006
The past rears its head
Back when life was simple and I was doing a PhD, one of the things I started was a little user guide for the program I was using to do the calculations. It was mostly just saying what the heck the major input and output files were, and a few example calculations. Some of the information in there was picked up from using the program, but a lot it I picked up by actually talking with the main guy who wrote it and making lots of notes.
Anyway on Monday I got an email from a girl at a university in the US who said she'd found the guide useful and wanted to know if I had any plans to complete it as some areas such as the introduction were just blank spaces. My brief reply just said that I was no longer working with NRLMOL and had no plans to complete it.
I felt a bit bad saying that, as it was a reminder of just another thing I didn't complete with my PhD. On the other hand, it was good to know that it had been helpful to others even in its partial form. I think on the whole it was more good than bad, as I've kind of got used a little to the emotions that get associated with the non-completion of post grad (I use the word emotions because neither guilt nor depression accurately describe it, but do encompass part of it).
End Post
Writing time: 11 minutes
Time since last post: 2 days
Current media: The Long Kiss Goodnight
Anyway on Monday I got an email from a girl at a university in the US who said she'd found the guide useful and wanted to know if I had any plans to complete it as some areas such as the introduction were just blank spaces. My brief reply just said that I was no longer working with NRLMOL and had no plans to complete it.
I felt a bit bad saying that, as it was a reminder of just another thing I didn't complete with my PhD. On the other hand, it was good to know that it had been helpful to others even in its partial form. I think on the whole it was more good than bad, as I've kind of got used a little to the emotions that get associated with the non-completion of post grad (I use the word emotions because neither guilt nor depression accurately describe it, but do encompass part of it).
End Post
Writing time: 11 minutes
Time since last post: 2 days
Current media: The Long Kiss Goodnight
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Improved Comms
A fair number of things have popped into my mind since my last post. I think I'll list them in reverse chronological order, as I know there are things I wanted to write about that are slipping my mind, so hopefully when I get to them I'll remember.
I bought a new mobile phone today. Still with the same company on the same sort of plan, just a new piece of hardware. It is also a cheap and clunky model, but it sends and receives phone calls and text messages, which is what I require from a phone. The impetus for me buying a new phone was the fact that my old one had a talk time of 30 seconds when not plugged into the charger, and so was not so much a mobile phone as a expensive home phone.
This morning was spent in a recruitment process. This is for a call center job, with a bit of sales involved, so we'll see how it goes. It involved an interview, some roleplays, some computer tests, some verbal and numerical reasoning and a team exercise. Most of it went ok, the roleplay I got a bit flustered on. The numerical reasoning test was simple, but they design it so that you have to really rush to get it all finished, so I missed the last two of 20 questions.
On a related note, as I left I was chatting with a girl who had also gone through the process, just some idle chit chat, but we split ways at an intersection, and in saying goodbye I didn't pay attention to where I was going and almost walked out in front of some oncoming traffic.
Also, I left my jacket behind, and so had to go and get it. Not sure if that is a winning move or not.
I found a online cartoon a few days ago that seems quite good. The art isn't the greatest, but the humor and maths references make it good. This one particularly resonates with me. Also the URL is quite original.
That seems about all for now.
End Post
Writing time: 28 minutes
Time since last post: 12 days
Current media: Monty Python
I bought a new mobile phone today. Still with the same company on the same sort of plan, just a new piece of hardware. It is also a cheap and clunky model, but it sends and receives phone calls and text messages, which is what I require from a phone. The impetus for me buying a new phone was the fact that my old one had a talk time of 30 seconds when not plugged into the charger, and so was not so much a mobile phone as a expensive home phone.
This morning was spent in a recruitment process. This is for a call center job, with a bit of sales involved, so we'll see how it goes. It involved an interview, some roleplays, some computer tests, some verbal and numerical reasoning and a team exercise. Most of it went ok, the roleplay I got a bit flustered on. The numerical reasoning test was simple, but they design it so that you have to really rush to get it all finished, so I missed the last two of 20 questions.
On a related note, as I left I was chatting with a girl who had also gone through the process, just some idle chit chat, but we split ways at an intersection, and in saying goodbye I didn't pay attention to where I was going and almost walked out in front of some oncoming traffic.
Also, I left my jacket behind, and so had to go and get it. Not sure if that is a winning move or not.
I found a online cartoon a few days ago that seems quite good. The art isn't the greatest, but the humor and maths references make it good. This one particularly resonates with me. Also the URL is quite original.
That seems about all for now.
End Post
Writing time: 28 minutes
Time since last post: 12 days
Current media: Monty Python
Monday, May 29, 2006
Single Purpose Legislation
A rider is a piece of legislation attached as an amendment to another unrelated bill. Usually the rider is something of specific interest to only a limited number of the members of the legislature, and the bill it is attached to is usually something of significant importance that is likely to be approved without much comment or controversy. An example of this is the REAL ID act passed about a year ago by the US Congress as a rider to a military appropriations bill. Riders can be used to as a means of pork barreling, if it the rider can be attached without too much notice.
A rider can also be used to sabotage important legislation. By attaching a rider with provisions that may be abhorrent to others, so that people will vote against the bill to prevent the rider getting through, even though the original bill may have many positive outcomes.
Riders are a problem for legislatures, as they increase the complexity of debate as well as splitting the focus of the legislature. They are bad for the people since representatives trying to get bills through without appropriate consideration are not serving the people they were elected by as well as neglecting the people as a whole.
There is a simple way to minimise the impact of riders. Every bill should have a single purpose that is clearly stated at the beginning of the bill, and all provisions of the bill must act towards that purpose. This still allows amendments that are aimed at improving the bill, but prevents the addition of riders that are unrelated to the bill. This also means that a rider would need it's own bill with its own clearly stated purpose and will get the appropriate debate.
A rider can also be used to sabotage important legislation. By attaching a rider with provisions that may be abhorrent to others, so that people will vote against the bill to prevent the rider getting through, even though the original bill may have many positive outcomes.
Riders are a problem for legislatures, as they increase the complexity of debate as well as splitting the focus of the legislature. They are bad for the people since representatives trying to get bills through without appropriate consideration are not serving the people they were elected by as well as neglecting the people as a whole.
There is a simple way to minimise the impact of riders. Every bill should have a single purpose that is clearly stated at the beginning of the bill, and all provisions of the bill must act towards that purpose. This still allows amendments that are aimed at improving the bill, but prevents the addition of riders that are unrelated to the bill. This also means that a rider would need it's own bill with its own clearly stated purpose and will get the appropriate debate.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Flawed Avatars
The idea of an avatar is an old one, coming from Hindu mythology, being a physical manifestation of a god. Since those days science fiction has used the concept with varying degrees of success and consistency. In science fiction, avatars are a human sized embodiment of significantly larger constructs that are self aware, such as ships or habitats. Rommie from Andromeda is probably the most well known, being one of the few who've made it to TV. In books, the Ships and Habitats of Iain M Banks' The Culture have numerous avatars.
Unfortunately, most of the time when avatars are used in science fiction, they tend not to act as they would given their stated capabilities. In Andromeda, the ship Andromeda Ascendant is a self aware entity. But it is a mixed up being. First there are four manifestations of the Andromeda. First is the ship itself. Andromeda's AI is able to control nearly every system on itself. Second is a visual display, that mainly just gives information. Third is a holographic projection that has a role similar to that of the visual display, but is more interactive and displays more of a personality. Finally is Rommie, an android who shows the most personality.
Nominally, all of these have the same ability to control ships systems, access data and sensors. However, in practice, the different manifestations not only have different levels of control, but indeed have distinct personalities. The android can be considered an exception as it is somewhat autonomous, both physically as well as computationally, as it has operated well beyond any ability to be controlled by the ship itself. But even while on board, differences in access and personality exist. This is a rather odd way of doing things, when the main task of these avatars is to communicate with the crew on board. Having more than one persona with varying degrees of overlap between the different versions would just complicate matters.
I think that the avatar is a good idea, and can be used to good effect. Iain M Banks has shown this, most effectively in Look to Windward, and not so well in Excession. The biggest difference in the presentation of these avatars is that Banks does not treat his avatars as independent entities. This is probably the root of most poor representations of avatars, that they are considered separate things to what they are a representative for. Banks' avatars are quite upfront about being the appendage of something greater.
So in conclusion, avatars good, just be clear about what they are and how they act.
End Post
Writing time:
Time since last post: 1 hour 7 minutes
Current media: The Daily Show
Unfortunately, most of the time when avatars are used in science fiction, they tend not to act as they would given their stated capabilities. In Andromeda, the ship Andromeda Ascendant is a self aware entity. But it is a mixed up being. First there are four manifestations of the Andromeda. First is the ship itself. Andromeda's AI is able to control nearly every system on itself. Second is a visual display, that mainly just gives information. Third is a holographic projection that has a role similar to that of the visual display, but is more interactive and displays more of a personality. Finally is Rommie, an android who shows the most personality.
Nominally, all of these have the same ability to control ships systems, access data and sensors. However, in practice, the different manifestations not only have different levels of control, but indeed have distinct personalities. The android can be considered an exception as it is somewhat autonomous, both physically as well as computationally, as it has operated well beyond any ability to be controlled by the ship itself. But even while on board, differences in access and personality exist. This is a rather odd way of doing things, when the main task of these avatars is to communicate with the crew on board. Having more than one persona with varying degrees of overlap between the different versions would just complicate matters.
I think that the avatar is a good idea, and can be used to good effect. Iain M Banks has shown this, most effectively in Look to Windward, and not so well in Excession. The biggest difference in the presentation of these avatars is that Banks does not treat his avatars as independent entities. This is probably the root of most poor representations of avatars, that they are considered separate things to what they are a representative for. Banks' avatars are quite upfront about being the appendage of something greater.
So in conclusion, avatars good, just be clear about what they are and how they act.
End Post
Writing time:
Time since last post: 1 hour 7 minutes
Current media: The Daily Show
Monday, May 22, 2006
Avoiding Gerrymandering
Gerrymandering is the practise of moving the boundaries of electoral districts with the aim of gaining an advantage in the results of a vote. The term gets its name from Elbridge Gerry, an American politician born in the 18th century who was involved in a notorious allocation of districts in Massachusetts in 1812. Gerrymandering reduces the effectiveness of a democracy by reducing the impact of each persons vote.
For example, if in a population of 50000, support for party A is 60% and support for party B is 40%, and this is spread randomly throughout 5 districts, it would be expected that party A would win 60% of the districts and get about 60% of the total vote. But if the districts are drawn up so that some districts contain a great deal more voters for party A than would be expected, say about 90% vote party A in two districts, this gives party B a majority in the remaining 3 districts, causing them to do better overall, despite not getting a greater share of the total vote.
Gerrymandering can also be used to make it harder for incumbent representitives to be replaced through similar tactics, this time by rearranging the district to remove those who may not be happy with the incumbents performance and politics.
There are a few simple guidelines for establishing the boudaries of districts that can greatly limit the ability of people to gerrymander.
1) The people setting the boudaries should be independent of elected representitives or political factions. If this is not possible, then a system by which all parties must agree to all new boundaries. In the USA, district boundaries are drawn up by the current legislature, and as a consequence, some districts are quite convoluted such as the 4th congressional district of Illinois.
2) The shapes of each district should be as simple as possible, while maintaining equal numbers of voters. Boundaries should be straight lines except when following natural features such as rivers or coasts, or where restricted by other causes (such as us congressional districts being in one state only). Ideally each district should be rectangular, or as close to as possible.
3) There are a few mathematical tricks and restrictions we can specify to prevent outragous districts. Set a maximum for the ratio of the square of the perimeter to the area of a district (For a circle this ratio is 4 pi, or about 12.57. Any other shape will have a higher ratio. A square will have a ratio of 16, a rectangle 4 times as long as it is high has a ratio of 100.
4) Get people out of the process all together. Computers can do all of this. We have a map, with people spread out all over it. We need to split it up into a certain number of divisions, and we want those divisions to have almost the same number of people in them. We also want the shape to be as simple geometrically as possible. This is exactly the sort of thing computers are good at. If someone were to put up a thousand dollar bounty and publicise it, this thing would be done in a week. Hell, I'm going to give it a go for myself once I find some useable population data.
These steps are all aimed at preventing people from setting district boundaries to suit their interests, because when that happens the value of a persons vote, and their say in the government is diminished.
For example, if in a population of 50000, support for party A is 60% and support for party B is 40%, and this is spread randomly throughout 5 districts, it would be expected that party A would win 60% of the districts and get about 60% of the total vote. But if the districts are drawn up so that some districts contain a great deal more voters for party A than would be expected, say about 90% vote party A in two districts, this gives party B a majority in the remaining 3 districts, causing them to do better overall, despite not getting a greater share of the total vote.
Gerrymandering can also be used to make it harder for incumbent representitives to be replaced through similar tactics, this time by rearranging the district to remove those who may not be happy with the incumbents performance and politics.
There are a few simple guidelines for establishing the boudaries of districts that can greatly limit the ability of people to gerrymander.
1) The people setting the boudaries should be independent of elected representitives or political factions. If this is not possible, then a system by which all parties must agree to all new boundaries. In the USA, district boundaries are drawn up by the current legislature, and as a consequence, some districts are quite convoluted such as the 4th congressional district of Illinois.
2) The shapes of each district should be as simple as possible, while maintaining equal numbers of voters. Boundaries should be straight lines except when following natural features such as rivers or coasts, or where restricted by other causes (such as us congressional districts being in one state only). Ideally each district should be rectangular, or as close to as possible.
3) There are a few mathematical tricks and restrictions we can specify to prevent outragous districts. Set a maximum for the ratio of the square of the perimeter to the area of a district (For a circle this ratio is 4 pi, or about 12.57. Any other shape will have a higher ratio. A square will have a ratio of 16, a rectangle 4 times as long as it is high has a ratio of 100.
4) Get people out of the process all together. Computers can do all of this. We have a map, with people spread out all over it. We need to split it up into a certain number of divisions, and we want those divisions to have almost the same number of people in them. We also want the shape to be as simple geometrically as possible. This is exactly the sort of thing computers are good at. If someone were to put up a thousand dollar bounty and publicise it, this thing would be done in a week. Hell, I'm going to give it a go for myself once I find some useable population data.
These steps are all aimed at preventing people from setting district boundaries to suit their interests, because when that happens the value of a persons vote, and their say in the government is diminished.
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Sucks to be me
So after having previously described the final interview for the data analyst job, you'd expect soon after I'd have found out if I got it or not. And indeed I did find out. Lamentably, I did not get the job. Apparently my references were not up to scratch, and so I did not get the job. This puts me in the rather frustrating position of not having any references I can use for job applications. And everyone it seems demands references, although apparently the whole not giving references out is not just something GE does, it's a growing trend. This does not bode well for my immediate prospects. I think I may give in and do as Mum suggested and have one of her partners brothers act as a reference.
And so I have gone to centerlink and applied for the dole again. I had hoped that I wouldn't need to but my savings are almost gone, and I still need to pay rent and so forth. It should be enough to get by on, but I won't be going to any movies or any other paid for entertainment (free movie tickets hopefully will continue to come on a regular basis, this month I've got tickets to two movies from triple j). Of course dealing with centerlink brings with it a number of hassles, but this should hopefully be a motivating factor for me.
The longer this goes on, the more I think going back to university to do an education course sounds like a good idea. I've just looked and while UQ does not have mid year entry for such a course, QUT does. I shall investigate further. A big concern is if HECS or some equivalent will apply to such a course. Otherwise I would need to find the cash to pay for it.
Well this has been really depressing writing this. It seems very little good has come from leaving things. I left my PhD and went to a crap job. I left the crap job and have been unemployed for nearly four months. I currently don't seem to have any prospects, and on top of that I'm hungry.
On a more positive note the BSOL stuff is going well. I've had two sessions with the first old lady I was dealing with, and they went well. In fact she tried to pay me the second time round. On Monday I meet with my next mentee, who is less experienced, so we'll probably have more sessions.
Well, I'm going to stop typing now and go to the gym, and then go shopping for a cheap lunch/dinner.
End Post
Writing time: 26 minutes
Time since last post: 3 days
Current media: Leva's Polka (flash warning)
And so I have gone to centerlink and applied for the dole again. I had hoped that I wouldn't need to but my savings are almost gone, and I still need to pay rent and so forth. It should be enough to get by on, but I won't be going to any movies or any other paid for entertainment (free movie tickets hopefully will continue to come on a regular basis, this month I've got tickets to two movies from triple j). Of course dealing with centerlink brings with it a number of hassles, but this should hopefully be a motivating factor for me.
The longer this goes on, the more I think going back to university to do an education course sounds like a good idea. I've just looked and while UQ does not have mid year entry for such a course, QUT does. I shall investigate further. A big concern is if HECS or some equivalent will apply to such a course. Otherwise I would need to find the cash to pay for it.
Well this has been really depressing writing this. It seems very little good has come from leaving things. I left my PhD and went to a crap job. I left the crap job and have been unemployed for nearly four months. I currently don't seem to have any prospects, and on top of that I'm hungry.
On a more positive note the BSOL stuff is going well. I've had two sessions with the first old lady I was dealing with, and they went well. In fact she tried to pay me the second time round. On Monday I meet with my next mentee, who is less experienced, so we'll probably have more sessions.
Well, I'm going to stop typing now and go to the gym, and then go shopping for a cheap lunch/dinner.
End Post
Writing time: 26 minutes
Time since last post: 3 days
Current media: Leva's Polka (flash warning)
Monday, May 15, 2006
I Ran From Iran
So two days ago I read the letter that the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, recently sent to the president of America, George W Bush. It is interesting to read the communications that occur at those levels, just to try and get a grip on what world leaders might be thinking.
The thing that really impressed me was the sensibility and rationality of the letter. It covered both recent events in the middle east as well as the regions history of the last 60 years or so, as well as America's actions with things such as Guantanamo, the secret prisons in Europe, and the whole War on Terror.
None of what Ahmadinejad says is new or a revelation, it's things most people have been aware of for some time. However, he presents it in a non confrontational way, and points out how Bush's actions contradict his statements that he is for freedom, democracy, liberalism, peace, etc. He appeals to Bush to consider the things they have in common, rather than trying to foment further conflict.
The only part of the letter I disagree with is the last few paragraphs, where Ahmadinejad claims that the world is heading towards a more theocratic society. This I think is not the case, and should not be the case. Religion has an important part to play in society, but religion and government should be separate. No government should either promote or disparage any religion or it's practitioners. If people wish to embrace spirituality, they should do so, but it should not be mandated by law.
The letter is quite well put and respectful, and if the situations were reversed, I cannot see Bush being able to write such a letter, or even being willing to put his name to it. Given all the antagonizing things America has done, it's impressive that the leader of Iran can be so well mannered about things.
Bush has seized upon the uranium issue in Iran and used it to build up tension with Iran. The nuclear non proliferation treaty allows countries to develop nuclear technology for civilian purposes. This really shouldn't be an issue. Except for some statements regarding Israel, Iran's leader seems to be a reasonable leader.
I've seen a number of people predicting Bush will invade sometime before November, when the mid term elections occur, and given his actions in the past, I doubt I'll be surprised if it happens. I just hope Australia will have the sense to stay out of it this time. Another invasion is not a good idea. Iraq is nowhere near stable, America has already used up whatever goodwill they have with most of the world, as well as having run up a massive debt in process.
End Post
Writing time: 33 hours (about 30 minutes yesterday, then restarted this evening about 40 minutes ago)
Time since last post: 8 days
Current media: Dr Who
The thing that really impressed me was the sensibility and rationality of the letter. It covered both recent events in the middle east as well as the regions history of the last 60 years or so, as well as America's actions with things such as Guantanamo, the secret prisons in Europe, and the whole War on Terror.
None of what Ahmadinejad says is new or a revelation, it's things most people have been aware of for some time. However, he presents it in a non confrontational way, and points out how Bush's actions contradict his statements that he is for freedom, democracy, liberalism, peace, etc. He appeals to Bush to consider the things they have in common, rather than trying to foment further conflict.
The only part of the letter I disagree with is the last few paragraphs, where Ahmadinejad claims that the world is heading towards a more theocratic society. This I think is not the case, and should not be the case. Religion has an important part to play in society, but religion and government should be separate. No government should either promote or disparage any religion or it's practitioners. If people wish to embrace spirituality, they should do so, but it should not be mandated by law.
The letter is quite well put and respectful, and if the situations were reversed, I cannot see Bush being able to write such a letter, or even being willing to put his name to it. Given all the antagonizing things America has done, it's impressive that the leader of Iran can be so well mannered about things.
Bush has seized upon the uranium issue in Iran and used it to build up tension with Iran. The nuclear non proliferation treaty allows countries to develop nuclear technology for civilian purposes. This really shouldn't be an issue. Except for some statements regarding Israel, Iran's leader seems to be a reasonable leader.
I've seen a number of people predicting Bush will invade sometime before November, when the mid term elections occur, and given his actions in the past, I doubt I'll be surprised if it happens. I just hope Australia will have the sense to stay out of it this time. Another invasion is not a good idea. Iraq is nowhere near stable, America has already used up whatever goodwill they have with most of the world, as well as having run up a massive debt in process.
End Post
Writing time: 33 hours (about 30 minutes yesterday, then restarted this evening about 40 minutes ago)
Time since last post: 8 days
Current media: Dr Who
Saturday, May 13, 2006
Elected Representative Responsibility
Within a representative democracy, the elected representatives are chosen by the people to represent their interests to the rest of the government. Before voting they should consider the matter being considered, how it will affect the people they were elected to represent as well as how it will affect the country. In practice, most elected representatives vote along party lines unless the consequences for their electorate are particularly bad, and may not even read the legislation that they are passing.
One factor behind is that apart from the desire to be reelected, in most countries I'm aware, elected representatives have no obligation as to how much attention or consideration they give a bill before they vote on it. This is particularly the case in countries with only two major political parties.
To discontinue this trend and make sure that representatives have considered the matters being voted upon, I propose that when a vote is called within the legislature, the representatives must sign a declaration stating that they have read and understood the bill that they are voting on under the penalty of perjury. Those abstaining would not need to sign a declaration, but a minimum number of representatives must vote on each act (this I believe is a requirement in most governments already).
If applied properly, this should ensure that representatives vote on matters only after having thought about the matter, and not just trusting the people who proposed the bill. Also, it should slow down the rate at which legislation is introduced and voted upon. I very much doubt anyone is able to read 4 whole bills each day, as well as fulfilling the other responsibilities of a representative.
The only downside is the problem of enforcement. I guess a first check would be the rate of legislation the representatives vote upon. And of course, any claims they make to not have been aware of certain parts of bills they have voted upon should be looked into.
One factor behind is that apart from the desire to be reelected, in most countries I'm aware, elected representatives have no obligation as to how much attention or consideration they give a bill before they vote on it. This is particularly the case in countries with only two major political parties.
To discontinue this trend and make sure that representatives have considered the matters being voted upon, I propose that when a vote is called within the legislature, the representatives must sign a declaration stating that they have read and understood the bill that they are voting on under the penalty of perjury. Those abstaining would not need to sign a declaration, but a minimum number of representatives must vote on each act (this I believe is a requirement in most governments already).
If applied properly, this should ensure that representatives vote on matters only after having thought about the matter, and not just trusting the people who proposed the bill. Also, it should slow down the rate at which legislation is introduced and voted upon. I very much doubt anyone is able to read 4 whole bills each day, as well as fulfilling the other responsibilities of a representative.
The only downside is the problem of enforcement. I guess a first check would be the rate of legislation the representatives vote upon. And of course, any claims they make to not have been aware of certain parts of bills they have voted upon should be looked into.
Sunday, May 07, 2006
The Final Interview, Ford and other miscellany
Tomorrow I have a final interview for the data analyst job I've been jumping through hoops for. I'm a bit uncertain as to what's actually going to happen. Apparently they weren't able to get in contact with my former supervisor on Friday, so have missed yet another reference. If they were really upset, and were adamant about having references, I guess they wouldn't be getting me in for another interview, they'd have just told me over the phone or by email. The first thought I had was perhaps they'll make an offer for a trial period, sort of we think you've got potential, but we want to make sure of how you work. I'll see how it goes tomorrow.
In other news, Ford has just got a pile of cash from the federal government, and is going to get some more from the Victorian government. While encouraging companies to work in Australia as opposed to other countries is good, I don't think we should go to the point of actually giving them huge gobs of cash. 52.5 million dollars is not a small amount of money, especially when Ford's net profit for 2004 was 185.6 million. There are many other things the government could have done with that money. Health care and education are the first two to come to mind. Both are areas that the current government is neglecting.
Having looked at some more recent posts from Shelley the Republican (see previous post), I have come to the conclusion it is just one big horrible joke. The tech stuff is quite blatant.
Also, one cool link: Communist Mario
End Post
Writing time: 29 minutes
Time since last post: 5 days
Current media: songs I have yet to play through iTunes
Technorati tags: work, politics, ford
In other news, Ford has just got a pile of cash from the federal government, and is going to get some more from the Victorian government. While encouraging companies to work in Australia as opposed to other countries is good, I don't think we should go to the point of actually giving them huge gobs of cash. 52.5 million dollars is not a small amount of money, especially when Ford's net profit for 2004 was 185.6 million. There are many other things the government could have done with that money. Health care and education are the first two to come to mind. Both are areas that the current government is neglecting.
Having looked at some more recent posts from Shelley the Republican (see previous post), I have come to the conclusion it is just one big horrible joke. The tech stuff is quite blatant.
Also, one cool link: Communist Mario
End Post
Writing time: 29 minutes
Time since last post: 5 days
Current media: songs I have yet to play through iTunes
Technorati tags: work, politics, ford
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Limited Duration Legislation
Under the current way of doing things, once a piece of legislation is enacted, it remains in place until another piece of legislation is passed that repeals or amends it. This is despite changes in the community's attitudes towards things, changes in technology, side effects of the legislation or it's implementation. A government has no obligation outside of the publics desire to review existing legislation.
Additionally, each year a number of new bills are passed, adding to the totality of the law. During the 1st session of the current parliament in Australia which was from the 16th of November to the 9th of December in 2004, 73 bills were introduced, and 29 of those where enacted during that time. The great majority of these were amendments to existing bills (this seems to lend more weight to last weeks idea than this weeks). All this occurred in less than one month. During the 1st session of the previous parliament, in five months 428 bills were introduced of which 150 were passed. That's a rate of about 1 in 3 being passed and about 4 bills per day (parliament has a very generous work week).
My idea had been that all legislation must include a date by which time it must specifically be extended, lest the bill lapse. The amount of time would have been about 10 years at the most, but a lesser amount could be stated. In light of the rate of amendment, I don't think this would have a great effect.
I had also been thinking that one of the consequences of such a time limit would be to devote a certain amount of the governments time to reviewing legislation coming up to expiration, and so this would reduce the rate at which new legislation is introduced, but again the current rate of amendment suggests that only a minority of government is creating truly new legislation.
At any rate, regular review of existing legislation to ensure that it is still achieving the aims it was created for, and not having adverse consequences in other areas is an important task for governments, and should be done in a regular and consistent manner.
Additionally, each year a number of new bills are passed, adding to the totality of the law. During the 1st session of the current parliament in Australia which was from the 16th of November to the 9th of December in 2004, 73 bills were introduced, and 29 of those where enacted during that time. The great majority of these were amendments to existing bills (this seems to lend more weight to last weeks idea than this weeks). All this occurred in less than one month. During the 1st session of the previous parliament, in five months 428 bills were introduced of which 150 were passed. That's a rate of about 1 in 3 being passed and about 4 bills per day (parliament has a very generous work week).
My idea had been that all legislation must include a date by which time it must specifically be extended, lest the bill lapse. The amount of time would have been about 10 years at the most, but a lesser amount could be stated. In light of the rate of amendment, I don't think this would have a great effect.
I had also been thinking that one of the consequences of such a time limit would be to devote a certain amount of the governments time to reviewing legislation coming up to expiration, and so this would reduce the rate at which new legislation is introduced, but again the current rate of amendment suggests that only a minority of government is creating truly new legislation.
At any rate, regular review of existing legislation to ensure that it is still achieving the aims it was created for, and not having adverse consequences in other areas is an important task for governments, and should be done in a regular and consistent manner.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Driving, job and scary Shelley
So a few things have come up since the last time I wrote something. On Thursday I drove up to Rockhampton with Mum. She had been planning to do the drive by herself, but at dinner on Wednesday she really seemed not up too it, so I offered to go up with her to help with the driving. I got the train back to Brisbane on Friday.
While driving up got a call from the recruitment company handling the data analyst job I'm in the recruitment process for. Apparently there as been some problem with the reference from my team leader at GE, so they asked for a new reference. I think they just haven't been able to get in contact with her, as they mentioned in a call about a week before that that they couldn't get though to her. If she had said something bad, I doubt they would have asked for a new reference. One of my old supervisors has agreed to be a reference, so hopefully it will all work out. On the same topic, I called the police today to check on the progress of the criminal history check I ordered for this job. It's taken a week longer than usual, and while it should have been posted today, they did mention that it had been delayed because they picked something up in an interstate check. This is worrying one because I shouldn't have a criminal history anywhere, especially interstate where I've only spent maybe two months total. I shall see what's on there when it arrives, and if need be take matters further if it's inaccurate. I am slightly concerned as I had to fill out a form for GE to do a police check when I applied for a permanent spot, but they wouldn't have kept me on if something had turned up.
I found a blog yesterday that is either one of the scariest sites out there, or one of the most elaborate jokes ever. Shelley the Republican is worrying either way. Although Mosquewatch is also pretty messed up, even if it is just a guy ripping off another rabid conservative. Both of these sights err by taking their belief in their own rightness to the exclusion of any other possibilities. From my perspective, most of the truly horrible things in the world come about because people are so certain that they are right they consider all those to be not just wrong but less worthy than those who are right. Once the people in the wrong are less important than those in the right, it's easy to justify doing things against them, all while thinking that what you are doing is good and right.
Over the last week I've slacked off with my exercise, as I was spending more time with my family, so this week I aim to get back into the habit, and go to the gym at least 4 times.
Well, now I'm just rambling, so I'm stopping.
End Post
Writing time: 1 hour 52 minutes
Time since last post: 7 days
Current media: Penn & Teller's Bullshit
While driving up got a call from the recruitment company handling the data analyst job I'm in the recruitment process for. Apparently there as been some problem with the reference from my team leader at GE, so they asked for a new reference. I think they just haven't been able to get in contact with her, as they mentioned in a call about a week before that that they couldn't get though to her. If she had said something bad, I doubt they would have asked for a new reference. One of my old supervisors has agreed to be a reference, so hopefully it will all work out. On the same topic, I called the police today to check on the progress of the criminal history check I ordered for this job. It's taken a week longer than usual, and while it should have been posted today, they did mention that it had been delayed because they picked something up in an interstate check. This is worrying one because I shouldn't have a criminal history anywhere, especially interstate where I've only spent maybe two months total. I shall see what's on there when it arrives, and if need be take matters further if it's inaccurate. I am slightly concerned as I had to fill out a form for GE to do a police check when I applied for a permanent spot, but they wouldn't have kept me on if something had turned up.
I found a blog yesterday that is either one of the scariest sites out there, or one of the most elaborate jokes ever. Shelley the Republican is worrying either way. Although Mosquewatch is also pretty messed up, even if it is just a guy ripping off another rabid conservative. Both of these sights err by taking their belief in their own rightness to the exclusion of any other possibilities. From my perspective, most of the truly horrible things in the world come about because people are so certain that they are right they consider all those to be not just wrong but less worthy than those who are right. Once the people in the wrong are less important than those in the right, it's easy to justify doing things against them, all while thinking that what you are doing is good and right.
Over the last week I've slacked off with my exercise, as I was spending more time with my family, so this week I aim to get back into the habit, and go to the gym at least 4 times.
Well, now I'm just rambling, so I'm stopping.
End Post
Writing time: 1 hour 52 minutes
Time since last post: 7 days
Current media: Penn & Teller's Bullshit
Monday, May 01, 2006
Complete Amendments
When a law is passed, it's effects endure until specific action is taken to negate it's effects. This continuation occurs regardless of whether the concerns that brought about the law are still relevant, whether changes in society render the law harmful or unneeded, if the law is having the desired effect, if the law has unexpected consequences that are unwanted and other concerns.
When a law does need to be changed, it is usually done so as an amendment to existing law, and then only listing the changes that are being made, what is known in computer circles as a diff. For example is the following from the USA-PATRIOT Act, section 201:
SEC. 201. AUTHORITY TO INTERCEPT WIRE, ORAL, AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO TERRORISM.
Section 2516(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (p), as so redesignated by section 434(2) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-132; 110 Stat. 1274), as paragraph (r); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (p), as so redesignated by section 201(3) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (division C of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-565), the following new paragraph:
`(q) any criminal violation of section 229 (relating to chemical weapons); or sections 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2332d, 2339A, or 2339B of this title (relating to terrorism); or'.
Changes like this make it very difficult to work out what the effects of the amendments will be without having to compare and contrast great portions of legislation. Indeed the section quoted changes something that was previously changed by another bill.
In most countries ignorance of the law is not a valid defense. However, when learning exactly what is the law requires extraordinary time and effort, eventually everyone will slip up somewhere. In Australia, there is no fair use clause in copyright law, and so numerous devices such as VCRs and iPods technically are not allowed to be used, which means a large part of the population have violated the law, though few would consider that they weren't allowed to use such devices. The law should be such that everyone can understand and find the whole of the law. Tax law is another example, with many loopholes, exceptions and variations.
So, in response to the onslaught of amendments that don't make clear there purpose and require the checking of many other documents to find their full effect, I propose the following. That when an amendment to a law is made, the bill state the previous version that is repealed, and then state the new version in its entirety. Notations showing where changes have been made should be included throughout the text of the law bill, and a complete list of changes for those who like the old format could be included as an appendix.
One consequence of this is that a bill could change one and only one already existing act. This would be particularly important when some wishes to make wide ranging changes to a number of laws, forcing a separate vote and debate on the changes in each area.
It will also make it easier to see the history of a law, as any bill that changes an existing states what it is replacing.
This should not have a major effect on the way amendments are developed, and laws would still be changed as needed, but the new laws will be much clearer and thus easier to understand, debate and consider.
When a law does need to be changed, it is usually done so as an amendment to existing law, and then only listing the changes that are being made, what is known in computer circles as a diff. For example is the following from the USA-PATRIOT Act, section 201:
SEC. 201. AUTHORITY TO INTERCEPT WIRE, ORAL, AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO TERRORISM.
Section 2516(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (p), as so redesignated by section 434(2) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-132; 110 Stat. 1274), as paragraph (r); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (p), as so redesignated by section 201(3) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (division C of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-565), the following new paragraph:
`(q) any criminal violation of section 229 (relating to chemical weapons); or sections 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2332d, 2339A, or 2339B of this title (relating to terrorism); or'.
Changes like this make it very difficult to work out what the effects of the amendments will be without having to compare and contrast great portions of legislation. Indeed the section quoted changes something that was previously changed by another bill.
In most countries ignorance of the law is not a valid defense. However, when learning exactly what is the law requires extraordinary time and effort, eventually everyone will slip up somewhere. In Australia, there is no fair use clause in copyright law, and so numerous devices such as VCRs and iPods technically are not allowed to be used, which means a large part of the population have violated the law, though few would consider that they weren't allowed to use such devices. The law should be such that everyone can understand and find the whole of the law. Tax law is another example, with many loopholes, exceptions and variations.
So, in response to the onslaught of amendments that don't make clear there purpose and require the checking of many other documents to find their full effect, I propose the following. That when an amendment to a law is made, the bill state the previous version that is repealed, and then state the new version in its entirety. Notations showing where changes have been made should be included throughout the text of the law bill, and a complete list of changes for those who like the old format could be included as an appendix.
One consequence of this is that a bill could change one and only one already existing act. This would be particularly important when some wishes to make wide ranging changes to a number of laws, forcing a separate vote and debate on the changes in each area.
It will also make it easier to see the history of a law, as any bill that changes an existing states what it is replacing.
This should not have a major effect on the way amendments are developed, and laws would still be changed as needed, but the new laws will be much clearer and thus easier to understand, debate and consider.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
ANZAC thoughts
Today is ANZAC day, the day Australia remembers all those who have died while fighting in wars. Australia's military history only goes back a little over one hundred years, and mostly consists of us sending soldiers to help Britain, and later America with it's wars. The Boer War, World Wars I and II, Vietnam, and Gulf Wars I and II. It has also done a lot of aid and peacekeeping work in the region, for example East Timor, and more recently, the Solomon Islands. Aside from the fact that it's a public holiday, I don't really feel much for the day. I haven't gone in to watch the parade, or even watched it on TV.
I think Australia's military is not really needed for purely military purposes any more. The only time Australia's mainland has been approached by an enemy was during World War II when the Japanese bombed Darwin and had submarines traveling down the east coast. In modern days, I don't foresee any such actions being taken by any parties. The Gulf Wars have all maintained existing borders, and other recent conflicts have been civil wars. It seems that conflict over land territory has mostly gone away.
New Zealand seems to have already realized this and has decided that the three main aims of it's military is self defense, and to contribute to peacekeeping efforts around the world. It only spends about 1% of it's GDP on the military, and its navy has only 10 ships, of which only two are combat vessels. Australia in comparison spends almost 2% of our GDP on our military, and our navy has a fleet of about 70 ships, of which 32 are combat craft. In comparison, our population is only about 5 times that of New Zealand's, but I will admit our coastline is much larger than New Zealand's. Our army and air force is similarly much larger.
I think if we could convince other countries to take a similar approach, things would be better. For one thing, it would greatly reduce military spending, thus freeing up a lot of money for other uses. Plus when you don't have a big stick to whack others with, there's no temptation to use it. Unfortunately belligerent nations are less likely to do this, so there will still be some need for a military. Since most peacekeeping actions have been joint actions taken under the auspices of the United Nations, so perhaps they should have a standing force of their own that is independent of any member nation.
Anyway, none of this is meant to disparage those that have fought for their country, but more a hope that no more will have to.
End Post
Writing time: 1 hour 10 minutes
Time since last post: 5 days
Current media: The complete series of Dilbert
I think Australia's military is not really needed for purely military purposes any more. The only time Australia's mainland has been approached by an enemy was during World War II when the Japanese bombed Darwin and had submarines traveling down the east coast. In modern days, I don't foresee any such actions being taken by any parties. The Gulf Wars have all maintained existing borders, and other recent conflicts have been civil wars. It seems that conflict over land territory has mostly gone away.
New Zealand seems to have already realized this and has decided that the three main aims of it's military is self defense, and to contribute to peacekeeping efforts around the world. It only spends about 1% of it's GDP on the military, and its navy has only 10 ships, of which only two are combat vessels. Australia in comparison spends almost 2% of our GDP on our military, and our navy has a fleet of about 70 ships, of which 32 are combat craft. In comparison, our population is only about 5 times that of New Zealand's, but I will admit our coastline is much larger than New Zealand's. Our army and air force is similarly much larger.
I think if we could convince other countries to take a similar approach, things would be better. For one thing, it would greatly reduce military spending, thus freeing up a lot of money for other uses. Plus when you don't have a big stick to whack others with, there's no temptation to use it. Unfortunately belligerent nations are less likely to do this, so there will still be some need for a military. Since most peacekeeping actions have been joint actions taken under the auspices of the United Nations, so perhaps they should have a standing force of their own that is independent of any member nation.
Anyway, none of this is meant to disparage those that have fought for their country, but more a hope that no more will have to.
End Post
Writing time: 1 hour 10 minutes
Time since last post: 5 days
Current media: The complete series of Dilbert
Saturday, April 22, 2006
Organization Pay Ratio Limitation
This week's idea is a socio-economic idea, not a political one. Here I'm looking at an idea to reduce the financial disparity in society. Today the majority of wealth in the world is concentrated in a relatively very small number of people. For example, Bill Gates has a net worth of 51 billion US dollars. I on the other hand have a net worth of maybe 3000 US dollars (and I'm counting on a good exchange rate to get that high). That's six orders of magnitude difference. The gap between the rich and the poor is expanding at a rapid rate, and those on the poor side are finding life harder and harder. Now I don't think I'm entitle to a share of Bill Gates bank account, but I do think that certain roles in society are being compensated much more generously than others.
Within a company, or indeed an organization, there are many people doing many different things. Some people do the menial jobs, some do more skilled work that varies with what sort of business it is, and then there is management. As you work your way up the ranks, the amount you earn increases, as do your responsibilities and the expectations upon you.
In many cases though, the amount of compensation that the highest ranked employees get seems excessive and that on top of a straight out pay packet, they get numerous other fringe benefits, stock options and other forms of equity, as well as generous severance packages that get paid regardless of their performance.
On the other end of the scale, the people who do the menial work are often paid at minimum wage levels, which in some countries is not sufficient to make ends meet. If missing work due to sickness means you can't pay your rent then you're not earning a living wage. Everyone should be able to find some means of employment that provides them enough money to live at a certain standard that includes essential health care, a livable home, sufficient food and clothing, and a few other basic essentials (power, phone, maybe minimal internet, etc).
So on to the idea. Establish a restriction on pay within a company or organization so that the highest paid person cannot earn more than a certain amount more than the lowest paid person, ie, the highest paid person can only earn up to 125 times as much as the lowest paid person. At the moment I doubt any company would meet this requirement, and so if it were to be enacted there are two ways a company can approach the restriction. First they could reduce the amount the highest paid people are paid. This is unlikely because of the people who'd be making the decision are going to be the highest paid people. So then there's option two, which is to increase the amount the lowest paid people are paid. It would probably be very expensive to just raise these payments, as there would need to be a wholesale restructuring so that there is still some motivation to be a qualified programmer over a cleaner or what not. So the more likely outcome is a compromise between the two, so that the highest payments go down and the lowest payments go up.
The exact ratio would take a bit of working out to get right, I just picked 125 because it sounded reasonable. I think the value should be between 100 and 1000, but I'm not sure where exactly. Perhaps there should be a scaling factor based on the size of the company.
Then there is the question of what should be taken into consideration when evaluating someone's income. I'm for any form of compensation, be it direct pay, fringe benefits, stocks all being taken into consideration. Another issue would be companies hiding payment details of the highest paid people, much as wealthy people now have tax minimization strategies, but that would then be financial fraud, and when found should be treated as such, and since publicly traded companies need to comply with numerous financial regulations, this would be another for them to work with.
Another issue could be with companies outsourcing certain aspects of running the business. Cleaners hired by the company would need to be paid more than a smaller company could charge the business to do the cleaning for them. Actually, that is a big loophole here, as a company could just insist that all employees actually become contractors with their own small businesses that are contracted to the main company for much less than they could pay someone.
Some might say that this is an unfair burden on corporations, and that they should not have to subsidize the poor, etc. But this is not subsidizing people that they are not involved with, this only affects how they treat the people working for them. It is similar in aim to minimum wage laws, and is only different in how it sets the minimum amount, allowing companies to decide
just how much they value the contributions of each level of it's staff.
Within a company, or indeed an organization, there are many people doing many different things. Some people do the menial jobs, some do more skilled work that varies with what sort of business it is, and then there is management. As you work your way up the ranks, the amount you earn increases, as do your responsibilities and the expectations upon you.
In many cases though, the amount of compensation that the highest ranked employees get seems excessive and that on top of a straight out pay packet, they get numerous other fringe benefits, stock options and other forms of equity, as well as generous severance packages that get paid regardless of their performance.
On the other end of the scale, the people who do the menial work are often paid at minimum wage levels, which in some countries is not sufficient to make ends meet. If missing work due to sickness means you can't pay your rent then you're not earning a living wage. Everyone should be able to find some means of employment that provides them enough money to live at a certain standard that includes essential health care, a livable home, sufficient food and clothing, and a few other basic essentials (power, phone, maybe minimal internet, etc).
So on to the idea. Establish a restriction on pay within a company or organization so that the highest paid person cannot earn more than a certain amount more than the lowest paid person, ie, the highest paid person can only earn up to 125 times as much as the lowest paid person. At the moment I doubt any company would meet this requirement, and so if it were to be enacted there are two ways a company can approach the restriction. First they could reduce the amount the highest paid people are paid. This is unlikely because of the people who'd be making the decision are going to be the highest paid people. So then there's option two, which is to increase the amount the lowest paid people are paid. It would probably be very expensive to just raise these payments, as there would need to be a wholesale restructuring so that there is still some motivation to be a qualified programmer over a cleaner or what not. So the more likely outcome is a compromise between the two, so that the highest payments go down and the lowest payments go up.
The exact ratio would take a bit of working out to get right, I just picked 125 because it sounded reasonable. I think the value should be between 100 and 1000, but I'm not sure where exactly. Perhaps there should be a scaling factor based on the size of the company.
Then there is the question of what should be taken into consideration when evaluating someone's income. I'm for any form of compensation, be it direct pay, fringe benefits, stocks all being taken into consideration. Another issue would be companies hiding payment details of the highest paid people, much as wealthy people now have tax minimization strategies, but that would then be financial fraud, and when found should be treated as such, and since publicly traded companies need to comply with numerous financial regulations, this would be another for them to work with.
Another issue could be with companies outsourcing certain aspects of running the business. Cleaners hired by the company would need to be paid more than a smaller company could charge the business to do the cleaning for them. Actually, that is a big loophole here, as a company could just insist that all employees actually become contractors with their own small businesses that are contracted to the main company for much less than they could pay someone.
Some might say that this is an unfair burden on corporations, and that they should not have to subsidize the poor, etc. But this is not subsidizing people that they are not involved with, this only affects how they treat the people working for them. It is similar in aim to minimum wage laws, and is only different in how it sets the minimum amount, allowing companies to decide
just how much they value the contributions of each level of it's staff.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
A non-pervert for porn
Recently in Australian politics there have been calls for ISP level filtering of pornography and extreme violence on the internet. This is not the first time the idea has come up, and each time before it didn't go ahead. This time round it started out as a proposal from the Labor party, and the communications minister scoffed at it and said no. But then a Liberal senator, Guy Barnett, from Tasmania decided, hey this is a good idea, and now it's being taken more seriously by the government. At this stage nothing seems to be happening nationwide, but Senator Barnett has managed to organise a state wide trial in Tasmania, with only a few ISPs not taking place. Telstra and Optus, the two biggest ISPs are not taking place, which is promising.
There are many reasons why this is a bad thing, but one of the trickiest parts is that when you try and defend the right to get porn, you come off looking like a pervert. Now while I won't deny occasionally indulging, the type of content being filtered is irrelevant. To show this, consider all the arguments, but replace the word pornography with democracy. If you think this is being silly, or taking things to extremes, I invite you to consider China, where such filters are already in place. I think we all agree that China, for all its industriousness, is not the best role model for a country to follow.
As part of my plan to become more involved in things, I have so far sent two emails to Senator Barnett. The first put forward three reasons as to why such schemes are not a good idea. First it is an unnecessary and unreasonable extension of government powers, as the main motivation for this scheme, "The key objective will be to ensure every Australian has a right to access the internet free from pornography and extreme violence", according to Senator Barnett, is a parents responsibility, not a government one, and it is unfair to restrict others use of the internet to make things easier for others. Secondly, the free speech implications are horrible, for once such a system is put in place, what is to stop the government from expanding the material that is to be filtered. The third point is that such filtering will be inefficient, ineffective, intrusive and incomplete for a number of technical reasons.
My second email included a lot of questions regarding the trial in Tasmania, such as how it is to be operated, how it effectiveness is to be measured, under what circumstances will it be considered a success, and conversely when it might be considered a failure? How will the trial affect users. How will material that is restricted be seen by users. Will they be advised that the content has been blocked, or will it just appear as if it doesn't exist? Other than the fact that over half of Tasmania's internet users have their service diminished for three months, and which companies are involved, very little details of the trial have been disclosed. This has the potential to affect many people, and so we should be able to know what exactly is being done in this trial.
I'll also point out that I use the internet a lot. Much more than most people. And quite frankly I can't remember the last time I was bombarded with porn while innocently looking for something else. I've also managed to avoid a number of the other less pleasant of the internet. It isn't hard to do. If people do not take the steps to avoid seeing what the don't want to see, they shouldn't complain. And they should not place restrictions on what others do that has no affect on them so that they can stay in their state of blissful ignorance.
Finally to all those who think that this is a good idea, I again suggest you go through all the arguments for this and replace the word "pornography" with "democracy", or "traditional family values", or "free speech", or whatever is very important to your worldview. This isn't about what's being blocked. It's about blocking. The freedom to speak includes the freedom of others to listen. It also applies to people who say things we don't like. Freedom to say only the things approved by parliament is no true freedom.
I'll end with two quotes from Senator Barnett, which I feel highlights his brutal misunderstanding as to what fundamental rights are and how they should be applied (for those who don't get why this view is bad, see the end of this post).
"Every Australian has a fundamental right to access the internet free from pornography and extreme violence"
"The objective in the first instance is to protect children, before we consider the rights of adults."
End Post
Writing time: 1 hour
Time since last post: 3 days
Current media: Penny Arcade podcast
answers for the clueless re basic rights.
1) No fundamental right is limited to a specific medium
2) No fundamental right is conditional (ie you can use the internet, just don't worry about the naughty parts)
3) Protection of children, while important, does not trump an adults ability to exercise a basic right
There are many reasons why this is a bad thing, but one of the trickiest parts is that when you try and defend the right to get porn, you come off looking like a pervert. Now while I won't deny occasionally indulging, the type of content being filtered is irrelevant. To show this, consider all the arguments, but replace the word pornography with democracy. If you think this is being silly, or taking things to extremes, I invite you to consider China, where such filters are already in place. I think we all agree that China, for all its industriousness, is not the best role model for a country to follow.
As part of my plan to become more involved in things, I have so far sent two emails to Senator Barnett. The first put forward three reasons as to why such schemes are not a good idea. First it is an unnecessary and unreasonable extension of government powers, as the main motivation for this scheme, "The key objective will be to ensure every Australian has a right to access the internet free from pornography and extreme violence", according to Senator Barnett, is a parents responsibility, not a government one, and it is unfair to restrict others use of the internet to make things easier for others. Secondly, the free speech implications are horrible, for once such a system is put in place, what is to stop the government from expanding the material that is to be filtered. The third point is that such filtering will be inefficient, ineffective, intrusive and incomplete for a number of technical reasons.
My second email included a lot of questions regarding the trial in Tasmania, such as how it is to be operated, how it effectiveness is to be measured, under what circumstances will it be considered a success, and conversely when it might be considered a failure? How will the trial affect users. How will material that is restricted be seen by users. Will they be advised that the content has been blocked, or will it just appear as if it doesn't exist? Other than the fact that over half of Tasmania's internet users have their service diminished for three months, and which companies are involved, very little details of the trial have been disclosed. This has the potential to affect many people, and so we should be able to know what exactly is being done in this trial.
I'll also point out that I use the internet a lot. Much more than most people. And quite frankly I can't remember the last time I was bombarded with porn while innocently looking for something else. I've also managed to avoid a number of the other less pleasant of the internet. It isn't hard to do. If people do not take the steps to avoid seeing what the don't want to see, they shouldn't complain. And they should not place restrictions on what others do that has no affect on them so that they can stay in their state of blissful ignorance.
Finally to all those who think that this is a good idea, I again suggest you go through all the arguments for this and replace the word "pornography" with "democracy", or "traditional family values", or "free speech", or whatever is very important to your worldview. This isn't about what's being blocked. It's about blocking. The freedom to speak includes the freedom of others to listen. It also applies to people who say things we don't like. Freedom to say only the things approved by parliament is no true freedom.
I'll end with two quotes from Senator Barnett, which I feel highlights his brutal misunderstanding as to what fundamental rights are and how they should be applied (for those who don't get why this view is bad, see the end of this post).
"Every Australian has a fundamental right to access the internet free from pornography and extreme violence"
"The objective in the first instance is to protect children, before we consider the rights of adults."
End Post
Writing time: 1 hour
Time since last post: 3 days
Current media: Penny Arcade podcast
answers for the clueless re basic rights.
1) No fundamental right is limited to a specific medium
2) No fundamental right is conditional (ie you can use the internet, just don't worry about the naughty parts)
3) Protection of children, while important, does not trump an adults ability to exercise a basic right
Monday, April 17, 2006
Some quizes
While browsing the blogosphere (or at least the blogspot sector thereof) I came across a few quizes. Lacking much to write right now, I'm going to post the results.
What Power is Compatible With You?
Your power is: Clairvoyance
Take this quiz!
What wise quote fits you?
Your wise quote is: "Reality bites with a variety of sizes of teeth"(-Tony Follari)
As a person, you think life is just plain painful, horrible and everything else you don't like. Happy people confuse you. Alot. I mean, why are they so happy anyway? You are depressed and perhaps utterly alone and live life rather montone. You feel there is no reason to really be here and feel helpless.
Take this quiz!
You are an assassin.
That means you are a proffessional and do your job without mixing any emotions in it. In your life you have probably been hurt many times and have gotten some mental scars. This results in you being distant from people. Though many think that you are evil, you are not. What you really are is a person, trying to forget your pain and past. You are the person who never seems to care and that is why being an assassin fits you good. Atleast, that's what people think. Even if you don't care that much for your victims, you still have the ability to care and to generally feel. It is not lost, just a little forgotten. In crowds you tend to not get to noticed, and dress in black or other discrete colours. You don't being in the spotlight and wish people would just leave you alone. But once you do get close to someone you have a hard time letting go and get real down if you loose him/her.
Main weapon: Sniper
Quote:"The walls we build around us to keep out the sadness also keep out the joy" -Jim Rohn
Facial expression: Narrowed eyes
Take this quiz!
What is your element?
Your element is Earth. You have your feet on the ground and are in touch with reality. Some may say you need to lighten up, but you are just not that way. It's not that you don't enjoy having fun, you only find it in more calmer activities such as writing or reading a book. But before you have your fun you always make sure your work is done. You are considered the reliable one among your friends, you would never betray anyone just like and are not influenced on peer-pressure. Friends and family can always come to you for guidance because you are wise and smart. You know what is right and what is wrong and you study hard to become something big in the future. The bad side is that your friend/s feel ignored when you spend more time with books and papers rather with them. You are not such a people person and are sometimes a question-mark on how to behave around them at certain times. Luckily it always works out, somehow. Love is not really desired in your world right now, maybe in the future when you've got a work and so on under control. After all, you are a perfectionist.
Take this quiz!
Writing time: 1 hour (mainly html tweaking
Time since last post: 2 days
Current media: none
Technorati tags: not going to bother tonight
Edit Notes: removed excessive spacing due to annoying copy and pasted html code, no actual text removed
What Power is Compatible With You?
Your power is: Clairvoyance
Explanation: Your power is that you can look into the future and see what is coming. How far and long you can look is all depending on your skill level. This can, as all powers, be used in both evil and good. Even if it may seem like a boring ability it is a huge responsibility for the carrier, becase they are constantly tempted with doing the wrongs deeds (e.g. cheat on a test). It takes high morals to not be brought down with it.
Therefor you fit with this power quite well. You take responsibility and do what is the right thing to do. This does not make you a saint, since you're only human after all. But it makes a trustworthy person and you are loyal to camrades and/or team mates. In school you were probably a good student. If you were social varies from person to person, but most clairvoyant people tend to prefer their own company or that of close friends and family. That is because you are wise and knows how to treasure the reliable in your life, since you know popularity can be a false element. You are also not that big on taking risks and prefer what is already explored. That is because you don't like suprises, they can turn out bad and then you won't be in control.
Negative aspects: Since you're always doing the right thing and being trustworthy all the time you can become frustrated. Also, all that you carry on your shoulders may stress you out. You need to relax to be in good mental shape.
Take this quiz!
How do you see life?
Life is all about balance. Darkness can't be without light, and light can't be without darkness. You see everything through different angeles to gain perspective over situations. You act rather rational and people can find you stiff and/or emotionless due to this. Life is not really that good to you, yet it's not so bad. Like everything else, you need to balance it in order to find peace.
Take this quiz!
Life is all about balance. Darkness can't be without light, and light can't be without darkness. You see everything through different angeles to gain perspective over situations. You act rather rational and people can find you stiff and/or emotionless due to this. Life is not really that good to you, yet it's not so bad. Like everything else, you need to balance it in order to find peace.
Take this quiz!
Your wise quote is: "Reality bites with a variety of sizes of teeth"(-Tony Follari)
As a person, you think life is just plain painful, horrible and everything else you don't like. Happy people confuse you. Alot. I mean, why are they so happy anyway? You are depressed and perhaps utterly alone and live life rather montone. You feel there is no reason to really be here and feel helpless.
Take this quiz!
What Type of Killer Are You?
You are an assassin.
That means you are a proffessional and do your job without mixing any emotions in it. In your life you have probably been hurt many times and have gotten some mental scars. This results in you being distant from people. Though many think that you are evil, you are not. What you really are is a person, trying to forget your pain and past. You are the person who never seems to care and that is why being an assassin fits you good. Atleast, that's what people think. Even if you don't care that much for your victims, you still have the ability to care and to generally feel. It is not lost, just a little forgotten. In crowds you tend to not get to noticed, and dress in black or other discrete colours. You don't being in the spotlight and wish people would just leave you alone. But once you do get close to someone you have a hard time letting go and get real down if you loose him/her.
Main weapon: Sniper
Quote:"The walls we build around us to keep out the sadness also keep out the joy" -Jim Rohn
Facial expression: Narrowed eyes
Take this quiz!
What is your element?
Your element is Earth. You have your feet on the ground and are in touch with reality. Some may say you need to lighten up, but you are just not that way. It's not that you don't enjoy having fun, you only find it in more calmer activities such as writing or reading a book. But before you have your fun you always make sure your work is done. You are considered the reliable one among your friends, you would never betray anyone just like and are not influenced on peer-pressure. Friends and family can always come to you for guidance because you are wise and smart. You know what is right and what is wrong and you study hard to become something big in the future. The bad side is that your friend/s feel ignored when you spend more time with books and papers rather with them. You are not such a people person and are sometimes a question-mark on how to behave around them at certain times. Luckily it always works out, somehow. Love is not really desired in your world right now, maybe in the future when you've got a work and so on under control. After all, you are a perfectionist.
Take this quiz!
Writing time: 1 hour (mainly html tweaking
Time since last post: 2 days
Current media: none
Technorati tags: not going to bother tonight
Edit Notes: removed excessive spacing due to annoying copy and pasted html code, no actual text removed
Saturday, April 15, 2006
One Small Change
For a long time I've bitched and made snide remarks and otherwise talked big while never putting up or shutting up. A lot of this is on the way things work, and how governments are no longer representing the people as they should be (although governments representing all the people is a relatively recent concept, it's not one we should lose). And I've had ideas on how to improve things, mainly wild crazy ones that involve a small change to the way things get done, but that should have many beneficial follow on effects.
So today I started another blog. This one is actually meant for people other than me. It's called One Small Change. My original title of fix the world was already taken on Blogspot (by a single post lamenting how the DMCA is unconstitutional because it denies liberty to people from more than two years ago), so I thought up a new name, and I think it works better. Now I just have the challenge of building up some sort of readership. This will be somewhat of a challenge, but we'll see what happens.
In other news my birthday wasn't as depressing as I thought it might be. A friend came over and we spent most the day talking and watching DVDs, and it turned out better than I expected.
I've been a bit worried in the past day or two regarding the references I've been asked to provide for the job I'm currently applying for. It seems the interviews have gone quite well (after the first in person one, they said it would probably be about a week before they decided who they'd progress to the next stage, and then I got a call the day after to organise the next interview), so I've kind of freaked out regarding them. But things seem slightly more in order now, and so we'll see how things progress.
End Post
Writing time: 9 minutes
Time since last post: 2 days
Current media: Stargate SG-1 season 5
Technorati tags: birthday, politics, blog
So today I started another blog. This one is actually meant for people other than me. It's called One Small Change. My original title of fix the world was already taken on Blogspot (by a single post lamenting how the DMCA is unconstitutional because it denies liberty to people from more than two years ago), so I thought up a new name, and I think it works better. Now I just have the challenge of building up some sort of readership. This will be somewhat of a challenge, but we'll see what happens.
In other news my birthday wasn't as depressing as I thought it might be. A friend came over and we spent most the day talking and watching DVDs, and it turned out better than I expected.
I've been a bit worried in the past day or two regarding the references I've been asked to provide for the job I'm currently applying for. It seems the interviews have gone quite well (after the first in person one, they said it would probably be about a week before they decided who they'd progress to the next stage, and then I got a call the day after to organise the next interview), so I've kind of freaked out regarding them. But things seem slightly more in order now, and so we'll see how things progress.
End Post
Writing time: 9 minutes
Time since last post: 2 days
Current media: Stargate SG-1 season 5
Technorati tags: birthday, politics, blog
Rated Voting
I doubt I would be able to find many people who would argue that a system of government that is democratic is not the best option of the various kinds of governments. Nor am I going to argue that democracy is bad. However one of the requirements of a truly functional democracy is that the people are informed upon the issues that they make decisions on. This is not the case for a large number of citizens in many countries. The reasons for this numerous. Voter apathy, a feeling that an individuals vote doesn't count is part of it. Other demands on peoples' time means that they don't pay attention to the actions of government that don't affect them directly.
So how do we encourage the citizens to pay more attention to what is going on. The simple answer is to provide an incentive. Simple monetary compensation for such a thing is impractical, expensive, and is only rather limited a motivation. This also goes for other material considerations.
What I propose is to weight individuals votes. In addition to marking the relevant choices on the ballot, there would be a small test. For ease of processing the questions would be multiple choice, and there would be about 10. The questions would be on current affairs and the current political landscape. In Australia, for example, two of the questions could be who is the current Prime Minister and who is the leader of the opposition. There could also be some short term historical questions.
Every person would receive at least one vote, regardless of how or if they answer the questions. For each correct answer that persons vote would be worth an extra vote. Thus those that know what is going on and keep themselves informed would have a greater say in matters.
The questions, and indeed the elections as a whole, would be administered by a body independent of any political party or existing government body. The questions would be checked over and accepted by all candidates before being placed on the ballot, in much the same way as candidates scrutinise counting of ballots in many countries.
Now a look at some of the disadvantages of such a scheme. Firstly it will complicate tallying of votes, and thus increase the time and expense of the count, but the question of how much effort we are willing to put in to maintaining our government is not one on which we should scrimp. Second, it does abandon the principle of one person, one vote. But each person still has the same potential vote, but it is up to the individual to determine how much effort they wish to put into ensuring that they are able to participate to the fullest. Third is the potential for cheating on the test. This could be reduced by producing a number of sets of questions, and random ordering of the questions within the sets.
Another objection is that groups that have special interests could make special efforts to ensure that they're members are tutored on current events near an election to increase the voting power of their members. This is no different from groups encouraging their members to just get out and vote.
In conclusion, this small change is a way to encourage people to pay attention to what is going on, and so induce greater participation in democracy.
So how do we encourage the citizens to pay more attention to what is going on. The simple answer is to provide an incentive. Simple monetary compensation for such a thing is impractical, expensive, and is only rather limited a motivation. This also goes for other material considerations.
What I propose is to weight individuals votes. In addition to marking the relevant choices on the ballot, there would be a small test. For ease of processing the questions would be multiple choice, and there would be about 10. The questions would be on current affairs and the current political landscape. In Australia, for example, two of the questions could be who is the current Prime Minister and who is the leader of the opposition. There could also be some short term historical questions.
Every person would receive at least one vote, regardless of how or if they answer the questions. For each correct answer that persons vote would be worth an extra vote. Thus those that know what is going on and keep themselves informed would have a greater say in matters.
The questions, and indeed the elections as a whole, would be administered by a body independent of any political party or existing government body. The questions would be checked over and accepted by all candidates before being placed on the ballot, in much the same way as candidates scrutinise counting of ballots in many countries.
Now a look at some of the disadvantages of such a scheme. Firstly it will complicate tallying of votes, and thus increase the time and expense of the count, but the question of how much effort we are willing to put in to maintaining our government is not one on which we should scrimp. Second, it does abandon the principle of one person, one vote. But each person still has the same potential vote, but it is up to the individual to determine how much effort they wish to put into ensuring that they are able to participate to the fullest. Third is the potential for cheating on the test. This could be reduced by producing a number of sets of questions, and random ordering of the questions within the sets.
Another objection is that groups that have special interests could make special efforts to ensure that they're members are tutored on current events near an election to increase the voting power of their members. This is no different from groups encouraging their members to just get out and vote.
In conclusion, this small change is a way to encourage people to pay attention to what is going on, and so induce greater participation in democracy.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
9131 days and counting
First up, a bit of bitching. The interview on Tuesday went well, and now the people for the data analyst job have gotten to the last stage of the recruitment process, which is to check my references. In fact, they want three references. Unfortunately I've only got two references, and one of those I haven't talked to in about a year and a half. I asked one of my supervisors from when I was doing a PhD, and they said kind of sort of, but they didn't know how positive he could be. So now I need to find another reference, maybe two more. My team leader from my last job hasn't got back to me yet to let me know if she still is willing to give me a reference. So now I may have issues getting this really good job, because I haven't had that many jobs, and decided a while ago to burn a bridge to stop me going back to bad place. I'm not yet sure what I'm going to do. I'm going to call my former team leader tomorrow, but for he rest, I don't know.
Tomorrow is my 25th birthday. The last week or so I've kind of had mixed feelings about it. I've got the feeling I haven't done much with my life. I've never had a girlfriend. I've never kissed a girl. I've never had a real job (one that involved more than answering phones or cooking lots of chicken). I'm rapidly depleting my savings. I'm overweight and unfit. I've got very few friends. For the past month or two, I've rarely left my house except to go to the store, visit the gym or go out to play games.
So do I have anything to balance all that? I've completed an honours degree in physics, something most people would automatically assume meant I'm very, very smart. I'm the main author on a scientific paper, and a coauthor on another. I've traveled to several countries, America, Italy, France and Thailand, as well as passing through a few others en route. I've submitted a story to Slashdot (not that impressive, but I was pleased when I saw it on the main page). I can juggle three balls well enough that I wouldn't feel a fool if I were to try and busk. I got a best painted prize at a warhammer tournament. I can type while keeping my eyes closed (although I'm sure the spell checker will have a rougher time with this post).
These don't seem to quite outweigh the negatives I've listed.
I'm rather tired and it's getting late, so I'm going to do the following
to be continued...
End Post
Writing time: 40 minutes
Time since last post: 4 days
Current media: Firefly
Tomorrow is my 25th birthday. The last week or so I've kind of had mixed feelings about it. I've got the feeling I haven't done much with my life. I've never had a girlfriend. I've never kissed a girl. I've never had a real job (one that involved more than answering phones or cooking lots of chicken). I'm rapidly depleting my savings. I'm overweight and unfit. I've got very few friends. For the past month or two, I've rarely left my house except to go to the store, visit the gym or go out to play games.
So do I have anything to balance all that? I've completed an honours degree in physics, something most people would automatically assume meant I'm very, very smart. I'm the main author on a scientific paper, and a coauthor on another. I've traveled to several countries, America, Italy, France and Thailand, as well as passing through a few others en route. I've submitted a story to Slashdot (not that impressive, but I was pleased when I saw it on the main page). I can juggle three balls well enough that I wouldn't feel a fool if I were to try and busk. I got a best painted prize at a warhammer tournament. I can type while keeping my eyes closed (although I'm sure the spell checker will have a rougher time with this post).
These don't seem to quite outweigh the negatives I've listed.
I'm rather tired and it's getting late, so I'm going to do the following
to be continued...
End Post
Writing time: 40 minutes
Time since last post: 4 days
Current media: Firefly
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Missing post
I've just been playing with the settings in blogger, and found a post I thought I'd published but hadn't. I've put it up now, but it's where it was chronologically. so here is a link to that post.
That is all.
End Post
writing time: 1 minute
time since last post: 2 days
Current media: silence
edit notes: it helps if you include the link.
That is all.
End Post
writing time: 1 minute
time since last post: 2 days
Current media: silence
edit notes: it helps if you include the link.
Friday, April 07, 2006
Interviewing some more
Today I had an interview for the data analyst job I discussed two posts ago. After the phone interview, which got postponed to a day later (I only got notified this half an hour after it should have started), I did some more testing. Some psychometrics, which I did from at home, and then I went into the recruitment company to do some verbal and mathematical problem solving tests, which were also done online with the same system as the psychometrics, but I guess they wanted to make sure that it was actually me doing the test.
The interview today consisted of a teleconference with the director of the division I'd be working in, which was the longest and toughest part, a shorter interview with the person who would be my immediate supervisor, who I had the phone interview with earlier, and a short session with the HR and IT managers.
I thought it went ok, some parts were tough, but others went well, so I was a bit concerned and anxious about finding out how I went, as they said it would take maybe a week to shortlist people for the next stage.
Since I started typing I've found out that it went better than I thought, and I am going onto the next stage, which will be a teleconference with one of the owners. They also asked me to get a police certificate showing that I don't have a criminal record. I'm going to sort this out on Monday.
On another topic, I'm actually becoming active in an online forum. It's a forum for a podcast I listen to, geeknights. I've done the classic just hang around thing, and slowly interact more and more. The people on the forum are from all over the place (mainly the US and Australia), but the number of shared interests are pretty impressive. Anyway, this is something new for me, as I don't really do the chat, bulletin board thing despite the amount of time I spend online. I remember when I first got an internet connection at home using ICQ to chat with random people, but stopped doing that during uni because my university provided account blocked chat programs.
Well that's it for now. I'm going to stick with the technorati tags, see if I can't get some readers.
End post
Writing time: 1 hour 31 minutes
Time since last post: 5 days
The interview today consisted of a teleconference with the director of the division I'd be working in, which was the longest and toughest part, a shorter interview with the person who would be my immediate supervisor, who I had the phone interview with earlier, and a short session with the HR and IT managers.
I thought it went ok, some parts were tough, but others went well, so I was a bit concerned and anxious about finding out how I went, as they said it would take maybe a week to shortlist people for the next stage.
Since I started typing I've found out that it went better than I thought, and I am going onto the next stage, which will be a teleconference with one of the owners. They also asked me to get a police certificate showing that I don't have a criminal record. I'm going to sort this out on Monday.
On another topic, I'm actually becoming active in an online forum. It's a forum for a podcast I listen to, geeknights. I've done the classic just hang around thing, and slowly interact more and more. The people on the forum are from all over the place (mainly the US and Australia), but the number of shared interests are pretty impressive. Anyway, this is something new for me, as I don't really do the chat, bulletin board thing despite the amount of time I spend online. I remember when I first got an internet connection at home using ICQ to chat with random people, but stopped doing that during uni because my university provided account blocked chat programs.
Well that's it for now. I'm going to stick with the technorati tags, see if I can't get some readers.
End post
Writing time: 1 hour 31 minutes
Time since last post: 5 days
Sunday, April 02, 2006
V for lack of moral fortitude
Since V for Vendetta opened in the cinemas here this week, I made the effort to read the comic, and then I went and saw it this afternoon. As with all of Alan Moore's work, it's quite impressive and very deep. The main idea of the comic is battle between the ideals of anarchy and fascism. In such a battle I of course side with anarchy, especially as V sees it, as not being the opposite of order, which is chaos, but as a true society of equals, with no-one placed above others.
Another facet is that the protagonist, while not what I'd call a villain, is definitely not a good guy. He kills many people, and blows up several buildings, but is brutally up front about it, and when asked about it makes no denials. He tortures the only character who can really be called an ally, albeit to bring about a change in her for the better.
This aspect of V I disagree with. I think that violence against people is wrong in any situation, with the sole exception of preventing someone else doing likewise in the immediate future (ie, stopping someone from punching someone else, not killing someone because they might shoot someone next week). Likewise the destruction of others in a violent manner also falls into the wrong category.
I also feel that an immediate wrong for a better future is not a justification for such actions. This belief is obviously more easy to keep when one lives in a participatory democracy with little restrictions on one's rights, but I feel that non-violent methods should be preferred.
One thing I do admire in V is his conviction in his beliefs. At the moment, I don't think there is anything I feel strongly enough to be willing to die for. I recently emailed a senator who was proposing a policy of mandatory blocking at the ISP level of objectionable material outlining how I felt it was a usurpation of parental responsibility and unconscionable restriction of peoples rights by the government, as well as being practically impossible to do in practice. I have never been to a rally or protest, but that is mainly because while I usually agree with the main point being protested, ie don't invade Iraq, the groups running such things tend to bring in a lot of other ideological baggage that I don't agree with and don't want to be associated with. I wonder if protest rallies would be more successful if they were solely about the issue at hand, and didn't try to become recruiting and marketing opportunities for all these groups. Sure their ideas can inform their decision to attend, and can illustrate some points of discussion, but if the rallies about Iraq, don't bring in the ailing welfare and health systems, aboriginal land rights and everything else.
While I admire V's conviction, I also see it as one of his flaws. Believe in anything too much, too passionately, and you start to put that thing above all else. Take anything to an extreme, and it becomes a bad thing. I feel a strong point of the story of V is that he does realise that his path has an end. He realises that while bringing down the old and opening the door for the new are things he can accomplish, he is not the one to build the new order, that is something for others. This is a realisation that while what he is doing is needed now, and can accomplish something, if taken too far will become just as bad as what he wanted to get rid of. This point is more blatant in the movie, but by doing so they have removed some of the self-realisation of Evey, and reduced the subtlety of what V told her.
The other main change the movie made from the comic was to make the Norsefire government a lot more sinister, in that they committed atrocities and manipulated the people to establish their control of the government, and to introduce their harsh regime. The actions of Norsefire have many parallels with the current American administration, which is the intention of the producers.
Having nothing more to say on this right now, and since I have to get up early for a meeting regarding a potential job, I'm going to finish here with an attempt at using some technorati tags.
End Post
Writing time: 1 hour 3 minutes
time since last post: 10 days
current media: Bill Hicks
Technorati tags: V for Vendetta, movies, philosophy
PS: curious tidbit. Bloggers spell check came up with the suggestion degenerate for Technorati
Another facet is that the protagonist, while not what I'd call a villain, is definitely not a good guy. He kills many people, and blows up several buildings, but is brutally up front about it, and when asked about it makes no denials. He tortures the only character who can really be called an ally, albeit to bring about a change in her for the better.
This aspect of V I disagree with. I think that violence against people is wrong in any situation, with the sole exception of preventing someone else doing likewise in the immediate future (ie, stopping someone from punching someone else, not killing someone because they might shoot someone next week). Likewise the destruction of others in a violent manner also falls into the wrong category.
I also feel that an immediate wrong for a better future is not a justification for such actions. This belief is obviously more easy to keep when one lives in a participatory democracy with little restrictions on one's rights, but I feel that non-violent methods should be preferred.
One thing I do admire in V is his conviction in his beliefs. At the moment, I don't think there is anything I feel strongly enough to be willing to die for. I recently emailed a senator who was proposing a policy of mandatory blocking at the ISP level of objectionable material outlining how I felt it was a usurpation of parental responsibility and unconscionable restriction of peoples rights by the government, as well as being practically impossible to do in practice. I have never been to a rally or protest, but that is mainly because while I usually agree with the main point being protested, ie don't invade Iraq, the groups running such things tend to bring in a lot of other ideological baggage that I don't agree with and don't want to be associated with. I wonder if protest rallies would be more successful if they were solely about the issue at hand, and didn't try to become recruiting and marketing opportunities for all these groups. Sure their ideas can inform their decision to attend, and can illustrate some points of discussion, but if the rallies about Iraq, don't bring in the ailing welfare and health systems, aboriginal land rights and everything else.
While I admire V's conviction, I also see it as one of his flaws. Believe in anything too much, too passionately, and you start to put that thing above all else. Take anything to an extreme, and it becomes a bad thing. I feel a strong point of the story of V is that he does realise that his path has an end. He realises that while bringing down the old and opening the door for the new are things he can accomplish, he is not the one to build the new order, that is something for others. This is a realisation that while what he is doing is needed now, and can accomplish something, if taken too far will become just as bad as what he wanted to get rid of. This point is more blatant in the movie, but by doing so they have removed some of the self-realisation of Evey, and reduced the subtlety of what V told her.
The other main change the movie made from the comic was to make the Norsefire government a lot more sinister, in that they committed atrocities and manipulated the people to establish their control of the government, and to introduce their harsh regime. The actions of Norsefire have many parallels with the current American administration, which is the intention of the producers.
Having nothing more to say on this right now, and since I have to get up early for a meeting regarding a potential job, I'm going to finish here with an attempt at using some technorati tags.
End Post
Writing time: 1 hour 3 minutes
time since last post: 10 days
current media: Bill Hicks
Technorati tags: V for Vendetta, movies, philosophy
PS: curious tidbit. Bloggers spell check came up with the suggestion degenerate for Technorati
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Interview pending
So, I heard back about the data analyst job I went to the test on last Friday. Apparently I did quite well on the test, and I have a phone interview with the data teams manager on Monday morning. As interviews go, phone interviews are ok. You don't need to get dressed up for a start. So I just need to make sure I'm up and alert by 8 am on Monday, and all should go well. It is kind of odd in that they've said they don't want someone who wants a career in finance, or sort of high flyer type people. I guess it depends on how you interpret it. The spin the recruitment company has put on it is that they want people who like what they do and want to do it, and that they reward those who do good work, not people who are looking at it as a stepping stone to bigger and better things.
In terms of where I want to go with jobs I don't know. I do know I don't want to go into management type stuff. Leading is not my strong suit. I'm much more comfortable and capable in a supporting role. Once we know what needs doing, I can get things done. I think a military analogy would be senior NCO as opposed to officer. I would like a job that becomes bigger as I learn more and become more capable. And I wouldn't mind staying in the one job for a few years if it was a good job that continued to interest me.
In other news, I got into the google pages beta the other day. Check out http://kevin.brake.googlepages.com. It's got a rough version of the website I'm putting together for the house. However the content is mostly mine (there's a link to one of my housemate's blog, but that's about it).
My hometown got hit by Cyclone Larry earlier this week. My grandmothers roof was damaged, and the house Mum owns up there was destroyed. Given that it needed some major work to bring it back up to scratch, and that Mum had rented it out to a few people who needed a hand but decided to then bite that hand, some would make the case that so long as the insurance is enough to pay of the loan, she should sell the land and find something better to invest in. And leave the management of any future rental properties to a rental agency. I know if I ever get a rental property, I'm going to go to a real estate agent and say "Here is my property. I would like you to rent it for me. I would like to receive some money each month, and have you take care of everything else, and you can have a cut of the action", and let them take it from there. Of course, that assumes I ever get enough money to buy a rental property.
End post
writing time: 40 minutes
time since last post: 6 days
current media: geeknights
In terms of where I want to go with jobs I don't know. I do know I don't want to go into management type stuff. Leading is not my strong suit. I'm much more comfortable and capable in a supporting role. Once we know what needs doing, I can get things done. I think a military analogy would be senior NCO as opposed to officer. I would like a job that becomes bigger as I learn more and become more capable. And I wouldn't mind staying in the one job for a few years if it was a good job that continued to interest me.
In other news, I got into the google pages beta the other day. Check out http://kevin.brake.googlepages.com. It's got a rough version of the website I'm putting together for the house. However the content is mostly mine (there's a link to one of my housemate's blog, but that's about it).
My hometown got hit by Cyclone Larry earlier this week. My grandmothers roof was damaged, and the house Mum owns up there was destroyed. Given that it needed some major work to bring it back up to scratch, and that Mum had rented it out to a few people who needed a hand but decided to then bite that hand, some would make the case that so long as the insurance is enough to pay of the loan, she should sell the land and find something better to invest in. And leave the management of any future rental properties to a rental agency. I know if I ever get a rental property, I'm going to go to a real estate agent and say "Here is my property. I would like you to rent it for me. I would like to receive some money each month, and have you take care of everything else, and you can have a cut of the action", and let them take it from there. Of course, that assumes I ever get enough money to buy a rental property.
End post
writing time: 40 minutes
time since last post: 6 days
current media: geeknights
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
