- luv-talk - luv.asn.au

Arjen in Melbourne
by Arjen Lentz 06 Mar '13

06 Mar '13

Hi all Anyone up for dinner tonight? (Wednesday)

1 0

Any recommendations for local high speed point-to-point network connections?
by Graeme Cross 05 Mar '13

05 Mar '13

Hi all. I need to connect networks together between two buildings that are 130 metres apart. As is always the way, the higher the network speed, the better, but it does need to be well above 100Mbps, with a preference for 1Gbps, as there will be at least several people using this link, using network-intensive applications on a regular basis. We have quotes from a couple of wireless point-to-point providers, but I am also looking at alternatives, such as laser, as I am concerned about wireless performance, especially with a tramline running between the two buildings! For what it's worth, we have used Nanostation M5s in the past (and in a different location) with only modest success; the M5s work well but simply did not have the bandwidth required for the number of people working from the remote point. So far we have not had much luck with finding local laser point-to-point network providers who will sell and install gear. Does anyone have any recommendations (for laser or other alternatives)? Thanks in advance, Graeme

6 6

Re: [luv-talk] Any recommendations for local high speed point-to-point, network connections?
by Douglas Ray 05 Mar '13

05 Mar '13

At unimelb, fibre was put under the tram lines in early 90's (between the earth sciences building - which used to house Computing Services - and the main campus). Other off-block links were by laser (was always dodgy - rain, spiders, anything) and - also early 90's - microwave to RMIT (hail and thunderstorms permitting). I was given to understand there were illicit spread-spectrum radio links - this is before wi-fi was called wi-fi - by directional antennae from the Elec Eng tower to residences in Carlton. cheers, Douglas >> Graeme Cross<gcross(a)fastmail.fm> wrote: >> >>> We have quotes from a couple of wireless point-to-point providers, but I >>> am also looking at alternatives, such as laser, as I am concerned about >>> wireless performance, especially with a tramline running between the two >>> buildings! >> Am I right in assuming that the roadway rules out the possibility of >> running a >> fibre cable between the buildings? I don't know what form of state/local >> government approval you would need for that, even if you could easily run >> it high overhead for example. > Hi Jason. > > We looked into fibre initially, and it seems to not be an option - > especially if you want to go above a tram line instead of underground! > > Regards > Graeme > > > ------------------------------ >

1 0

Re: [luv-talk] Fwd: Fwd: Local Governments -- future referendum notes
by Petros 05 Mar '13

05 Mar '13

From: "Andrew McGlashan" <andrew.mcglashan(a)affinityvision.com.au> Sent: Tuesday, 5 March, 2013 11:42:07 AM > The blame game is a serious issue too, but when there are strongly > opposing views state against federal, it's almost impossible to fix when > responsibility for governance is used as a political tool and not for > the greater good. Besides of it "shared responsibility" makes it harder for the voter. E.g. If we want all schools having free tablets. Imagine the majority of the voters in Victoria want it. Voting for the party X in the state election? Okay, but then comes a Federal government and tells the elected government to run the school system as the Federal government wants. Voting for the party X in federal elections? But than you may have party Y in Victoria blocking all attempts from Canberra - no luck either. Voting for party X in both elections? Well, party X has to look after a marginal seat in a mining town. The miners want the kids to work with shovels not with computers. So you vote for X in Federal and state elections and still your kid does not have an education with a tablet. If education is a matter of a state - you vote for X in the state and may have it done. Regards Peter

1 0

Re: [luv-talk] Fwd: Local Governments -- future referendum notes
by Petros 05 Mar '13

05 Mar '13

From: "Lev Lafayette" <lev(a)levlafayette.com> > Personally, I've long been an advocate for the abolition of state > governments. Now there's an institution well passed it's use-by date. Can you explain the reasons? Most countries slightly bigger as the Vatican have three tiers of government. Naturally, coming from Germany, I compare the system I was "used to", try to make sense of the system here, and see some shortcomings and advantages. Both countries have one thing in common: it is very very hard to change a constitution. Germany consists of 16 states, and education is strictly off-limits for federal intervention. Result: the school systems differ a lot, have serious shortcomings but it is incredibly hard to get anything done. If you have kids and move from state to state.. well, that's a challenge. Australia seems to be comparably easy in that regard. What are the things that have to be dealt with on federal level? A federal law system makes sense, because Australians share more or less the same values, and why should the wheel reinvented many times. A fiscal union makes sense, because we share a currency and we also believe, fundamentally, that the people should have roughly equal means of living. It also works as an "insurance", because states rely on particular industries and are vulnerable if they fail. Agriculture, mining, manufacturing, the services sector, finance, they all have up and downs, and a fiscal union helps to navigate in this environment. Wide area infrastructure makes sense. Defence makes sense. But why should Canberra found an hospital here or a road or a train line there, if it is in the interest of the state only? I think we would be better of with state-wide collection of taxes and a yearly transfer as a lumpsum, and then the states decide to build a hospital, look after schools, roads or train. That would stop the blame-game blocking development here and there. Living in Melbourne, I would not think it is much fun to have that run directly by Canberra, which is already, at least mentally, half-way located in the outer Western Sydney suburbs, with all implications. The next lot seems to be a very Sydney-centric one, with Abbott, Turnbull, Morrison etc. as key players. Howard was living there and ignored the capital, more or less. And we already run politics as a showcase for Western Sydney and the Shire only.. Just look where the PM lives this week.. Nope, I am not found of them, not because they are Blue and not Red, just because they do not represent my surroundings in Melbourne at all. Australia may be unique in one way: In most of the states, most people live in the area close to its capitals, with a vast landmass sparsely populated. The differences in political culture is much bigger than between German states (with the exception of Bavaria who are not that typical German as believed abroad;-) I believe we need governments that run this population centres effectively in their interest and reflecting their culture, and that needs state governments. Regards Peter

3 2

50th Anniversary Melbourne Steamfest
by duncan16v 04 Mar '13

04 Mar '13

Hi all, For those of you with an interest in archaic technology: the 50thanniversary Steamfest is on this weekend at the National Steam Centre, 1200 Ferntree Gully Rd. Scoresby. More details here: http://www.melbournesteam.com.au/ Cheers, Duncan

1 0

free SATA disks?
by Russell Coker 24 Feb '13

24 Feb '13

Does anyone have SATA disks that they don't need? My stockpile of spare disks is running low and even 40G disks would do. Any SATA disk that isn't known to be defective will do. If anyone has such disks could they please bring them to the next LUV meeting? If you have more than one disk to donate then please let me know in advance. Naturally any disks that are excess to my own needs will end up in the LUV hardware library. As an aside, I've got plenty of IDE disks and DVD drives available if anyone needs them. Contact me by private mail if you'd like me to bring some to the next LUV meeting. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/

2 1

Re: [luv-talk] is Marriage dying?
by Tim Josling 22 Feb '13

22 Feb '13

>> From: Petros ... >Table 4: Risk of poverty - proportion of people from different groups living below poverty lines in 2009-10 (%) 50% of median - At risk group 60% of median >Single, no children: 25.3 41.5 >Lone parent: 25.0 36.4 >Couple, no children: 8.4 18.5 >Couple, children: 9.0 14.0 >Obviously living as a couple decreases your risk of being poor. Correlation does not imply causation. For example, it is no secret that men with high incomes are regarded as better 'catches' than the unemployed, all else being equal. Tim Josling

3 4

Re: [luv-talk] local government
by Petros 22 Feb '13

22 Feb '13

Quoting "Michael Scott" <luv(a)inoz.net> > One big difference is that migrants immigrated to Australia, whereas > Europeans encroached on Aboriginal territory (originally). > Aborigines didn't CHOOSE to come here and integrate into Australian > culture. Immigrants did. > > Alcohol is an issue in a great deal of Aboriginal society, but it, > too, was introduced by Europeans. That is true. But does it have to change how to deal with the problem at hand? Imagine - You have a mess and have to fix it - You have a proven method to fix it - You tried many other ways since 1967 and failed If I have a "mess" in my network, as I had yesterday, I do not care who caused it, I am working on a solution. I would not think: Well, that was Lisa's problem this time, so I do not try the normal way to fix it, I just walk over and give her a hug so she may feel better;-) The mess does not disappear that way. > If recognition of the Aboriginal people as the first Australians > will help, without harming the body of the constitution, I'm all for > it and I don't see any harm in it, only good. If it means that I have to give a hug to Lisa every time, and are not allowed to fix her computer problem? Regards Peter

3 2

Re: [luv-talk] local government (Andrew McGlashan)
by Tim Hamilton 22 Feb '13

22 Feb '13

> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan(a)affinityvision.com.au> > To: luv-talk(a)lists.luv.asn.au > Cc: > Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:48:32 +1100 > Subject: Re: [luv-talk] Fwd: local government > > It won't, but it will cause significant damage to our rights under the > Australian Constitution instead. > > Unfortunately, ANY change to the constitution will put the whole > constitution at risk. This is not just an issue over local governance, > it is much more encompassing ... the recognition of Aboriginals for > instance, is another area of reform that is not necessary; Aboriginals, > like any other Australian person are already protected by out > constitution (as are "illegal" immigrants that enter our shores by > whatever means). > > I cannot stress enough, that ANY change to the constitution will be a > serious risk to our rights and has the potential to make our entire > constitution absolutely worthless. It is simply not worth the risk, no > matter what is proposed -- and that is irregardless of whether or not > you agree with the any assertions that have been made above or at the > following link. > > > [1] > > http://www.religiousword.com/2012/04/the-1975-victorian-constitution-is-inv… > > -- > Kind Regards > AndrewM > > > Ignoring your arguments about local government, concerns which in some respects I share, I must take you up on your claim that *any* change to the Australian constitution puts the entire document at risk. This claim patiently absurd and shows little understanding of the Australian political system. Since Federation, Australia has seen forty-four proposals to change the constitution go to referendum. To change the constitution, a referendum needs to pass the relatively high hurdle of a 'double majority' (majority of voters in the majority of States). Due to this, of the forty-four referenda held, only eight have been carried. None have resulted in the constitution, or our political system, being 'endangered' in any way. In addition, the double majority requirement means that to be carried, a constitutional amendment really needs bipartisan political, as well as popular support. A contentious change to the constitution is unlikely to reach this hurdle. And, in fact, none have ever done so. I would imagine if, as you claim, a proposed change to the constitution is dangerous in any way, it would fall at this hurdle. As was a similar proposal to recognise local government in July 1988. You also ignore the role of convention within our political system. It was the breakdown of convention that was largely the cause of the only 'constitutional crisis' this nation has faced. This crisis had little to do with the document itself and much to do with the actions of certain people. It had certainly nothing to do with the kinds of changes you hold up as examples. If we are to face another crisis, it is more likely to be the result of a breakdown in convention than changes to our constitutional document. The most recent constitutional change illustrates this point nicely. Carried in 1977, it changed the rules surrounding the filling of casual Senate vacancies (along with two other changes, both also carried), an issue that, in part, led to the crisis of 1975. Contrary to your claim that any changes to the constitution endanger the document, this change actually strengthened our system of constitutional government by not allowing a shift in numbers on the floor of the Senate without an associated election. Finally, I suggest the exact opposite of your assertion is true. For our constitution to remain relevant, stable and enduring we must have the ability and courageousness to change it. If not often, when it is necessary. The second example you cite, the constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians, is exactly a case in point. Indigenous Australians have long been marginalised in this country and they have *not*--in the strongest possible terms--*not* been adequately protected by our constitution; before or after the changes to the document made in 1967. The current proposal, however, is different. It calls for Indigenous recognition via a non-legally binding preamble to the constitution. That is, even though it would require a referendum, the reality is any change would be a largely a symbolic measure. Nonetheless, there remains a strong case for constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians within the legally binding body of the document. I do not believe that such a proposal would in any way endanger the constitution, our political system or our way of life. Again, I assert the opposite, any debate on the subject can only strengthen our polity and our nation. Excuse the length of this post, it is a subject I feel strongly about. Regards, Tim Hamilton PS. In this instance, ignore my quip for that is all it is. A quip. -- Vote NO in referenda.

4 5