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
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
