March 2014 - luv-talk

Re: [luv-talk] recommendation for a good NBN router
by Rohan McLeod 03 Mar '14

03 Mar '14

cory seligman wrote: > On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 5:59 PM, Rohan McLeod <rhn(a)jeack.com.au > <mailto:rhn@jeack.com.au>> wrote: > > cory seligman wrote: > > I'll be getting my NBN connected in a few weeks and it seems like a > > good time to retire my old WRT54G routers. > ...........snip > Just out of interest: > 1/ Your ISP won't support any form of Linux ? > 2/ so their NBN router preferences are not relevant ? > > > My ISP is iiNet. They want to sell me one of their BoB router/modems. > That's fine, but they don't support GigE and the default config is > pretty insecure. I reckon for the similar money I can get a router > with better radio performance and GigE that can be configured to have > no known backdoors. > > iiNet have been pretty good about support. I've been using an > "unsupported" ADSL modem for years. The only time I ever had a problem > I rang them an explained what I had and the tech acknowledged that the > problem must be at their end and fixed it anyways. When I had one of the early NBN accounts, the iPrimus tech nearly had a nervous breakdown, when I finally convinced him there was no phone line input just an ethernet connection to the NBN box; wasn't on his script !......hopefully the scripts are better now :-] regards Rohan Mcleod

1 0

Re: [luv-talk] Refugees (was Re: Vale Nelson Mandela)
by Lev Lafayette 02 Mar '14

02 Mar '14

On Tue, February 25, 2014 2:17 pm, Tim Josling wrote: > The url does indeed contain the word "policies" but the headings on the page are "Principles" and "Aims" and it is indeed a *very* high level document. With some familiarity with policy statements of political parties between elections you would become aware that high level statements are the norm. For example (and this was also the result of a 3 second google search), the ALP 2011 National Platform is available here: http://www.alp.org.au/national_platform >> 1. What measures would you put in place to discourage people arriving by > boat or plane, if any? > Not clear, though they state that "mandatory and/or indefinite detention" > would be eliminated. [What is non-mandatory detention by the way? Would they retain <voluntary> detention? Or do they really mean automatic?] Not > clear if carriers would still be penalized for bring in people without visas. See also Q5 below. The term "mandatory detention" has been used in public discourse for the past fifteen years. Either you're being facetious or display a rather surprising lack of knowledge on the subject. As for the Greens actual policy to discourage people arriving by boat you can see that they propose more funding for UNHCR centres in the region. http://www.adambandt.com/saferpathways Again, this took a couple of seconds to find, rather than the "hours and hours" of searching, as claimed. I suppose the difference is that I know what I'm looking for. >> 2. What change would you make to the refugee quota? Would there still be > a limit? > There would still be a quota, but it would be increased to an > *unspecified* > number. Again, see the same URL. http://www.adambandt.com/saferpathways >> 3. Would the arrivals get work permits? How would they be supported if > they did not get work? > " Asylum seekers to have work rights, and access to social security, legal > representation, interpreters, health services, case management, and appropriate education for the duration of their assessment." Presumably this is after the initial checks mentioned in Q5 below. No indication what > happens to those who are rejected as asylum seekers. > Not fully answered. I think that is disingenuous on your part. People who arrive and apply for asylum and are found not to be refugees are not receiving work permits. >> 4. To what degree would you vet arrivals to see if a) they are 'genuine' > refugees b) They are criminals, terrorists, or fanatics of one sort or another c) They have communicable illnesses? What level of appeals would be > possible? Would we pay for legal aid throughout a long-drawn-out legal process? There are already extremely well-known processes in place for this. >> 5. When people arrive would they be detained or monitored? Describe these > arrangements. Would this depend on the answers to the previous question? "Once initial health, security and identity checks are completed within a > maximum of 30 days, asylum seekers who arrive without a valid visa to be accommodated in the community, unless otherwise ordered by a court, with periodic judicial review thereafter." Note that this seems to contradict (1) above, in that it seems to imply some form of temporary detention, and > perhaps permanent detention for those who fail security etc checks. They imply that people can be detained with court approval. But not very clear. > Not clearly answered. Seems pretty clear to anyone else. >> 6. What would you do with people who are not 'genuine' refugees, or who > are otherwise undesirable? Would you deport or detain them? > " fair and appropriate accommodation" would be provided. Not clear if they > are allowed to work or not. > Not clearly answered. People who are not refugees are sent back to their country of origin. That is a standard procedure. >> 7. What do you do with people whose status is uncertain? People arrive > without documentation, they may lie or exaggerate their predicament. You cannot exactly ask, say, the Iranian government "It is true that if this person were returned then you would persecute them?" and expect a useful answer. > There is no explicit description of what happens to people whose status is > or remains uncertain. > Not clearly answered. Again, this is a procedural matter, not a policy position. You do not seem to acknowledge the difference between the two. >> 8, Would you limit where people could live and what work they could do? > How would you enforce this? > "Greater incentives for rural and regional distribution of refugees and immigrants using successful models for settlement." This is rather mealy-mouthed and it is hard to know whether any restrictions would apply. > Not clearly answered. Clearly answered. They are not providing special limits, rather they are providing incentives. >> 9. Would you devote any extra resources to projects such as solving world > hunger (as suggested above) **as part of the solution**? > There is no mention of increased foreign aid within the page referred to. > But elsewhere they propose a significant increase in foreign aid. Not clearly answered. That's about as clearly answered as anyone could ask for. >> 1. What measures would you put in place to discourage people arriving by > boat or plane, if any? > Significant penalties for carriers who bring in people without visas. Talk about "not clearly answered". Tell us what the current penalties are and whether or not you think they are significant. > Mandatory detention of unsolicited arrivals until a) They are found to be > refugees per the UN definition, and b) They reach the top of the refugee queue. Please tell us about this queue of which you speak. >> 2. What change would you make to the refugee quota? Would there still be > a limit? > Increase to 100,000 at the expense of family reunion quota and the lower end of skilled migration. Apart from the fact that asylum seekers who arrive by boat are already prohibited on making family reunion applications... (c.f., http://www.immi.gov.au/FAQs/Pages/how-can-i-propose-an-immediate-family-mem…) .. what numbers of people do you think migrate to Australia under family reunion and skilled migration. Why do you want to reduce these anyway? (snip until you've done further research on the matter). -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt

1 0

Re: [luv-talk] Mike Godwin comments on Australian politics
by Petros 02 Mar '14

02 Mar '14

Quoting "Russell Coker" <russell(a)coker.com.au> > https://twitter.com/JustJen64/status/439384937435635712/photo/1 > > Now it's official, you can't cite Godwin's law as a reason for not comparing > the Australian government policy (and the rampant cowardice among Australians > which led to it) to what happened in Nazi Germany. The article is referring to: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/australians-are-wimps-for-allowing-… It mentions some inconvenient truth about the riots too. She mentions Australia since 2001. It includes Howard, Rudd, Gillard, Abbott. Amazingly (or not) the Herald Sun I browsed through in a cafe last weekend did not even mention the topic. It does not seem to exist in Murdoch world. Horror in Murdoch world are deranged ex-husbands and neglected toddlers (or something like that, I did not bother to read the details of their head story) Gleichschaltung of media (getting them "in sync" wih the government) was part of the Nazi strategy. The Liberals attacks on ABC and SBS (the Victorian Liberals have the privatisation officially on the agenda) are hitting the same mark. With the dominance of Murdoch in print and with privately owned (and right-wing biased) Seven, Nine and Ten on TV they would have the Gleichschaltung. Then they could go away with everything the next 1000 years.. BTW: I find the preference system broken if my vote is finally collected in a Liberal or Labor bucket and I do not have an option to say: Never ever in this one! It is part of what makes them so complacent and opportunistic. They do not have to care for my vote, they get it at the end anyway.. Anyway, I was in a concert last week with a fake Abbott on stage barking something like: "Go back to where you come from! Go back to Antarctica! These are our shores!" before he was beheaded. It was an American band. That's what they think of us.. And for sure: Andrew Bolt took offense! http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/… God save the Queen! (the Johnny Rotten version;-) Peter

1 0