luv-talk May 2016

luv-talk@luv.asn.au

12 participants
10 discussions

Start a nNew thread

Take action: Don’t send 267 people back to offshore detention

by Peter Ross

http://bit.ly/1R3MiYB Maybe Australians can avoid another "Sorry" fifty years later this time. Thanks Peter

3 years, 7 months

ssl on domainname or www.domainname

by MikeH

I am in the process of upgrading my personal/business web server to use SSL. In the setup process I am being asked whether to use domainname or www.domainname . I can see benefits of both and thus I can see that which one I chose will have down sides for the other. Just wiped out a discussion paragraph arguing with myself the pros and cons... Any thoughts on which way to go? { quote from request: Your SSL certificate will be ordered with and will work only with the hostname which you provide to us, it is not a wildcard certificate. For example if you ask us to make the certificate for https://www.yourdominname.com , your SSL will not work when you use https://yourdomainname.com and vice versa. Please make sure you provide us with the correct hostname for your certificate! } Cheers Mike

5 years, 11 months

Re: [luv-talk] Phone battery.

by David Zuccaro

On 23/05/16 18:09, Dan062 wrote: > On Mon, 23 May 2016 17:59:52 +1000 > David Zuccaro <david.zuccaro(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > >> How old is the battery? > About 2.5 yrs old. > > If you have been using the phone regularly on a daily basis the battery could be starting to short out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery#Battery_life

6 years

Phone repair

by Russell Coker

What's a good place in the central city area to get a phone repaired? The glass on my Note3 has cracked. I just need new glass the screen itself seems ok. -- Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 3 with K-9 Mail.

6 years

Phone battery.

by Dan062

Hi all, does a phone battery die suddenly with no warning or is it a more gradual process with the battery holding less and less charge after each recharge? Since last 2-3 days, my phone battery is running flat after 3-4 hrs. Problem is I also did a os upgrade (Android) a few days ago! ... Why I think its the battery and not the os upgrade, its because it seems to be getting worse - (just now its loss about 15% in about 20 mins and its just idle) Thanks, Daniel. -- dan062 <dan062(a)yahoo.com.au>

6 years

Compose Melbourne Functional Programming Conference in August -- Launch Party, Thursday 19 May

by Les Kitchen (LUV)

Just in case some of you are interested in functional programming (newbies or veterans): There's a group of us in Melbourne organizing a conference in functional programming, to run 29th and 30th of August. To start things off, we're holding a launch party Thursday evening, 19 May 2016, 6pm. Details follow. Sorry for short notice. — Smiles, Les. ================================================================ Compose :: Melbourne is a new functional programming conference focused on developing the community and bringing functional programming to a wider audience. It is a 2-day event being held in Melbourne, Australia on the 29th and 30th of August 2016. The first day features a single track of presentations followed by a second day of workshops and an unconference. It is the new sister-conference of the NY based Compose Conference. http://www.composeconference.org/ We're throwing a launch-party at LOOP Bar, so come along and have a drink and chat to a bunch of FPeeps and find out what exactly we've been scheming about! Feel free to register for the party at Eventbrite: https://www.eventbrite.com.au/e/compose-conference-melbourne-cfparty-ticket… Or join the Facebook event: https://www.facebook.com/events/1698824013707374/ Or subscribe to the mailing list: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/composemel More details coming soon! ================================================================

6 years

Re: [luv-talk] Who owns Android ?

by Russell Coker

On Tue, 17 May 2016 06:20:23 PM Erik Christiansen via luv-main wrote: > > Do you own a house if a corporation can pollute the air and give you a > > high probability of cancer if you choose to keep living there? > > It is difficult to gain FOSS-type freedom for our residences, but > utility independence is possible. I'm in the last throes of design of > my tree-change strawbale solar-powered off-grid tank-water home. As no > utilities are provided at the site, there are no related charges¹. OK, > there's still rates, but four down (electricity, water, gas², telephone) > is a good start. > > Admittedly, I'm quietly praying to Odin, Thor, Freja, and Sif, that the > wireless internet out there will improve from basically adequate to good. > > The biggest freedom, though, is no-one else on my 3 sq. km. - just > kangas, wombats, and possums. The kangas stop and hang about if you talk > to them right. You still don't have freedom from pollution. While Lock The Gate is getting some traction they are far from preventing mining companies from destroying farmland. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/

6 years

Re: [luv-talk] Who owns Android ?

by Russell Coker

On Sat, 14 May 2016 10:41:28 PM David Zuccaro via luv-main wrote: > On 12/05/16 11:54, Russell Coker wrote: > > Do you own a house if banks can destroy your neighborhood by robo-signing > > forclosure documents that the residents can't afford to legally oppose? > > Libertarianism opposes fraudulent practices. Hopefully down the track AI > will make legal procedures a lot cheaper. Libertarianism opposes any measure to stop fraud. The idea that Libertarianism could work once we invent AI is a new one. > > Do you own a house if corporations own the roads, water, and electricity > > supplies and can cut off your entire neighborhood if it's not profitable > > or if there are mostly non-white people living there (IE Flint)? > > The Flint water crisis was actually caused by corrupt *government* > officials. I doubt private company subject to the rigors of the free > market would have engaged in such dubious practices. Why not? > > Do you own a house if a corporation can pollute the air and give you a > > high probability of cancer if you choose to keep living there? > > It's true that the environment is the Achilles heel of libertarianism. Well that and the starving kids to death thing. > I've come up with a possible solution the air pollution that does sound > far fetched I agree but may go some way to addressing this problem. So > basically the atmosphere is treated as an asset and all people living on > the earth are given an equal share in the atmosphere as an asset. That's not an original idea. > Industries that pollute must basically pay compensation to the > shareholders. This is very much like a carbon tax except that it is more > market based and would ensure polluting is dis-incentivised. But you need a world government to enforce it. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates > > > > If you look at the comparison of countries by tax rates Australia doesn't > > seem that high. With a couple of exceptions it seems that the countries > > with higher tax rates than Australia are places you probably wouldn't > > mind living (Belgium, Finland, Sweden are all good places to live). The > > countries with the lowest tax rates include Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, > > and UAE - places where I don't even want to change flights. The > > middle-eastern countries with low tax are also fairly positive towards > > slavery, no-one who likes liberty wants anything to do with that. > > I have an old school friend that lives in Kuwait -- he seems to live the > life of Riley regularly flying to Europe for the weekend due the the > middle east's centralised location. You mean he chooses to be rich rather than free? > > Libertarianism is all about liberty for the super-rich and serfdom for > > people like us. > > I'd rather be poor and free than rich and overburdened by regulations. > Additionally regulations seem to be being used by corporations to > entrench their position in the market rather than to give the consumer > benefits. Of course this stifles economic mobility. If that was the case then corporations would be lobbying for more regulation! While some companies lobby for regulation to prevent competition most of the lobbying is for less regulation. That's because most of the regulation protects people from corporations rather than the other way around. > > Libertarianism is about helping the powerful subjugate the weak. That's > > why mistreatment of children is so important to influential libertarians > > such as Rothbard and Rewart. > > > > I believe that society should protect the weak. We need a legal system > > to protect children from sexual abuse etc, a welfare system to prevent > > them from starving etc. The Libertarian approach of legalising child > > porn, ceasing welfare, and essentially forcing children into sex work is > > unacceptable to me. > > This is a ridiculous strawman. What is ridiculous is when people argue for things they know little about. http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1808384,00.html From the above article about Libertarian leader Mary J. Ruwart: # Ruwart wrote. "When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child # performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children # against their will." She's not just arguing for child porn, but she's arguing for so much child porn that the prices go down. That's a huge amount of child porn! https://mises.org/library/children-and-rights From the above article by Murray N. Rothbard who personally invented the political system referred to nowadays as Libertarianism: # But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to # allow it to die.2 The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to # feed a child or to keep it alive. Libertarianism was FOUNDED on the idea of permitting parents to starve their children to death. Many people who call themselves Libertarians don't support this because Libertarianism is too horrid for Libertarians. But the fact is that Libertarianism was based in philosophy. In philosophy if you reach a conclusion that is disgusting (like permitting people to starve children to death) you don't say "let's do everything logically about from the logical end result", instead you revisit the assumptions that you used to base your philosophy. This leads to the conclusion that unrestricted personal liberty is not acceptable unless starving children is also acceptable. More from the above article: # Parents would be able to sell their trustee-rights in children to anyone who # wished to buy them at any mutually agreed price. Slavery as Libertarian philosophy! Seriously you could buy "trustee rights" to children of poor people and then tell the kids that you won't feed them unless they work. Libertarianism was too awful for Ayn Rand. Need I say more? -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/

6 years

Re: [luv-talk] Regarding Libertarians: Fwd: Suicide – Update on "Barnaby Joyce: dairy farmers like my family are being destroyed - please step in urgently"

by Rohan McLeod

Russell Coker via luv-talk wrote: > https://www.change.org/p/barnaby-joyce-dairy-farmers-like-my-family-are-bei… > destroyed-please-step-in- > urgently/u/16583897?tk=TYRO2k3SiGZUBRu4hwtFwXXkn357kIh6RcXFDSxVXgw&utm_source=petition_update&utm_medium=email I sympathise with the dairy farmers; but would need to see what is being proposed to remedy their plight; before signing the partition. On the subject of Libertarianism At the Existentenialist Society (which is a lecture forum not a club); we get left and right-wing anarchist attendee's and speakers. Frankly, right-wing anarchists seem little different from Libertarians and the kind of utopia they advocate; suggests a very strong connection between the Libertarian ideology and a Chicago style , ' Rational-Free-market ' economic one. My objection to the latter is more epistemological than political; as I believe a science of economics; is possible (ie consisting of objectively falsifiable hypothesis only.); with all questions of ends relegated back to philosophy and the ballot box; where such questions properly belong. The Rational-Free-market proposition that: " a free-market (ie without legislated price controls) will produce 'optimimum' social-ends when least regulated" is I contend "not even wrong" ( to quote a remark from Wolfgang Pauli ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong -firstly because 'optimimum' social-ends' is not even potentially empirically definable -secondly because consumer demand does not constitute any kind of plebliscite of a society's wants; being merely a record of what was chosen from what was on sale. Which is why 'rational producer/ retailers' pay for market-research ! I contend this central economic ideology traceable back to Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand"; is a pathetic , irresponsible, fatalistic economic delusion.! ie a free-market needs to be constrained to whatever economic ends 'the ballot box decrees ! regards Rohan McLeod

6 years

Re: [luv-talk] Who owns Android ?

by Russell Coker

On Sun, 15 May 2016 04:14:25 AM Ben McGinnes via luv-main wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:54:41AM +1000, Russell Coker via luv-main wrote: > > Libertarianism is all about liberty for the super-rich and serfdom > > for people like us. > > You're thinking of the American brand of the Libertarian Right, not > all forms of libertarianism. I'm talking about Murray Rothbard's brand of Libertarianism. He boasted about his success in stealing the word from the left and he was correct in that. > For instance my lot, Pirate Party > Australia, our policies and principles are pretty much consistent with > the Libertarian Left and I think you'll find plenty in there that you > agree with (given one of your other examples I suggest you start with > the tax policy, negative tax and the basic income policy). There is no such thing as Libertarian Left. Rothbard was totally successful in stealing the word. Words have to have meanings if we are to communicate. Rothbard has defined the meaning of "Libertarian". > > Libertarianism is about helping the powerful subjugate the weak. > > Not even the Libertarian Right go that far if they're genuine and > stick to their principles. They don't claim to do that, but every time they find a way of supporting the powerful. > People seriously trying that and claiming > to be libertarian aren't actually libertarian, they're fascists > without an army to back it up. That's exactly what Libertarianism is all about. But instead of a state army they want to have a corporate army. Not that it matters as there is never going to be a functional Libertarian state. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/

6 years

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

luv-talk May 2016