Posts by dan1980

Re: However...

Woah.

And I though 40km in Sydney was bad.

Re: However...

@Wade Burchette

"If you want to put the police in an untenable situation, ask them that if the purpose of a police trap is to get people to slow down, then how is it a bad thing when you caused a person to slow down?"

I'm no fan of speed cameras and especially no fan of police officers hiding with portable radar guns, but there would be a very simple, reasonable response that your hypothetical police officer could give.

He or she could say that the purpose of mobile radars is to get people to slow down not just in the current vicinity of the trap but everywhere and the only way to do that is to make it so that drivers do not know where or when they might get caught and so are prompted to drive at the speed limit everywhere and at all times. If people can know ahead of time where the radars are, they therefore know where they are not and so there is no deterrent for speeding generally.

In other words, if you know where the traps are, the deterrent is only for speeding in one small area, rather than getting people to do the speed limit everywhere.

Yes, they are revenue raisers but any half-way intelligent police officer would hardly find themselves in an 'untenable' situation.

Re: Rethinking the problem: Why are the theives that desperate?

Is there nothing the Transit can't do?

Re: Rethinking the problem: Why are the theives that desperate?

Mkay, so with all my website hopping, I kind of ignored the fact that 7,000lb might just be a little beyond the capabilities of a pickup. And indeed the F-150 can do up to 3,500lb in the tray, though that's one of the V8s. Take a V6, we can say somewhere between 2-3,000lb. Let's take 2,000lb, assuming that when it starts to groan, our crims stop loading.

That's still $3,000, which is not at all bad for a night's work!

Of course, the F-150 will tow a fair amount too, though keeping to the simpler and cheaper trailers (i.e. no brakes) that's still another 1,000lb - $1,500.

Re: Rethinking the problem: Why are the theives that desperate?

@Shannon Jacobs

Well, it's not pennies.

Doing some rough calcs, phone cabling is 24AWG, which is 1.94lb per 1000ft. Taking a 100-pair bundle, that's ~0.25lb per foot, which puts a 300ft length (apparently the average stolen) at ~75lb - that's just the wire, excluding insulation.

At around $2.7/lb for pure, high quality copper scrap (cursory check only), that brings our 300ft length of 100-pair in at ~$200.

Now, if one could grab as much as one could transport, we have to look at the feasibility of taking the cable. A quick check shows me the Ford F-150 is the best selling pickup in the US and 100-pair cable is 0.83" wide but that is indoor cable so let's round-up to an even 1". That means that one could fit 70,000ft of such cable into the tray of an F-150 and still be able to close the lid, should you have one.

Of course, that's putting it in as perfectly as possible, and that seems rather unlikely, so let's drop it significantly and say that out hasty crims only manage a quarter of that density.

That's still 17,500ft, which is $11,000.

Yet another quick check shows that telephone cabling fetches ~$1.50/lb (for the whole bundle - insulation and all). Approaching the calculation from that number, it works out pretty close.

Using the cabling linked above shows a total weight of 435.5lb per 1000ft. 17,500ft = 7620lb x $1.50 = $11,400.

So, a hastily packed F-150 can yield $11K.

Cool.

Re: What?

@Skelband

My first question would be "how do I switch all that shit off."

The answer to that will depend on how these early cases go and how blase people are about them. If the vast majority of people just shrug and let it happen then in the future, all cars will be so connected and data will be shared as a matter of course.

The answer to your question will then be: "you can't and any attempt to do so will void your warranty".

Re: The NSA has no real standing on helping secure anything

@YAAC

But this is the thing - this conflict was understood and that's why this area is the domain of NIST. The idea was to have a civilian organisation dealing with civilian matters - which government is. NIST sets the standards for the protection of government information, which is civilian information.

NSA is there for the armed forces.

The problem came when the Memorandum of Understanding was signed in n 1989, which had the effect of inserting the NSA into this process, specifically requiring NIST to consult NSA and, for all intents and purposes, rubber-stamp the recommendations of the NSA as though they were from NIST themselves.

That arrangement needs to end. Right now. If not sooner.

Re: ...everyone follows all the laws

They are both as bad as the other but their problem is not stupidity but an inherent self-serving nature that ensures that the only thing about the public they consider is who they'll vote for next time around. (They rarely think much further.)

Labor pushed through this agreement without due consideration for how it would affect the citizens of this country and the Coalition is pushing through the TPP (behind closed doors), without due consideration or concern for how it will affect the citizens (see the numerous concerns about copyright law and increases in costs for Australians). Before them both was the AUSFTA, signed under Howard, the result of which was an INCREASE in the trade imbalance between the US and Australia and no real benefit for Australia.

It doesn't matter who is in government.

Re: re: henceforth to be kmows as...

@JassMan

What are these half-problems being fixed? If, indeed, any problems are being half-fixed by a law, you can be sure it will create a much bigger or more pernicious problem in the process.

The only problem our politicians are ever trying to fix is the one the one where their image is utter mud and the government chosen is whichever of the two major parties is the less unelectable.

All they want is to be seen as less incompetent than their opposition. Abbott did this very well last time around. Where he had failed before was in actually talking up the Coalition policies and points of view, which the electorate rejected. This time, with Labor imploding, he simply needed to more-or-less keep quiet and maintain some measure of solidarity in the party. This is why there were no tilts for leadership despite the many rumbles - they realised that all they needed was to be more-or-less not seen to be tearing themselves apart with petty bickering and backstabbing.

That's not against the Coalition or for Labor - it's just a great example of how the aim is simply to be the slightly lesser of two evils. (And this was Labor's work.)

Re: Ummm... you missed a word there

@big_D

The situation varies by location because taxi regulations are sorted out per city/county/state/etc... (per country). In the UK, for example, the big stoush is in London. In London, only 'black cabs' can pickup 'hails' - i.e. people flagging down a taxi on the side of the road. Also, only black cabs can have a 'taximeter' 'installed'. That is a BIG point of contention because the Uber application provides all the functionality of a meter while staying outside of a strict reading of the regulations.

In other cities, this is different and 'minicabs' can have meters.

It's in the areas where taxi regulation is strongest that are having the biggest conflicts with Uber. The reason is that in these areas, driving a taxi generally requires the most investment of money from the owners and operators - whether that's in mandatory lessons and tests, insurance, specific models of cars (which might not be able to double as personal cars), memberships, higher standards of maintenance and more frequent servicing, uniforms, signage, dispatch costs, and of course rent or interest for the license/badge/medallion.

The question really is one of whether it's more important whether Uber satisfies the letter of the law as to what is and is not a taxi service or if Uber functions as a taxi service and fulfills the same purpose.

Those who operate taxis argue that because Uber fills the same role as a taxi, it should be subject to the same regulations. Those who run Uber argue that they aren't technically a taxi service so shouldn't be subject to those regulations.

Passengers largely don't care, of course.

Personally, I believe that governments and cities love Uber because it has gotten them out of a mess of their own making. THEY created the monopoly and used the promise of it as an incentive to sell expensive licenses. That means that the value of their offering (the license) rests on them (the government) limiting supply. Unfortunately, that system just doesn't work any more and the cities generally need more taxis and more flexibility in how they're run (while still maintaining a good level of service).

The clear answer is to issue more licenses/badges/medallions but this has the undesirable effect of diluting the investment of all those who have already bought into the scheme. Doing so would lead to demands for compensation for all those who would have their investments wiped out.

But Uber solves the problem for them - more service without the authorities having to actually dilute the license value themselves - win! Apparently they don't really care that all the people who bought into their scheme are getting screwed.

If someone thinks they aren't getting screwed then understand that taxi medallions in, say, Boston, have dropped from ~$700,000 at the start of last year to ~$450,000 - $500,000 now. Imagine YOU had taken out a loan (as is the way it works for owner-operators) for a $700K medallion and just one year later, that medallion is now worth $200K less. Your loan is still for $700K and you're still paying interest on that $700K, of course and the value is likely to drop even further as new drivers continue to work with Uber instead.

One would expect this to naturally reach an equilibrium such that licenses are much, much cheaper than they are now but for that to happen, you've financially ruined a whole load of drivers. In Boston (just because I was looking at it for my previous comment), half of all the medallions are owned by people who have 1-4 medallions. Some of them will be fine but others - especially those with just the one license - are likely to be in for some very hard times.

Re: Ummm... you missed a word there

@ChaosFreak

"You know, like a real market economy would demand that they do."

Here's the thing . . . Taxis are (generally) not even ABLE to function in a 'real market economy'. The medallion/license system is tied up in regulations and investments and legal actions and this means that to a large extent, drivers are slaves to that.

There are 1825 medallions in Boston.

These medallions grant the owner the right to operate a taxi (a right they can lease out) but come with numerous restrictions - from the eminently sensible to the the slightly petty and outright ridiculous. All of these regulations entail some kind of financial burden - whether its the purchase and maintenance of uniforms or having the required stickers and signs (usually required to be laminated) inside and outside the vehicle. Failure to comply with any of these regulations carries a fine.

Essentially, the medallion system is a kind of bargain between the cities and the owners that was born of the problems that arose from having an unregulated taxi service. Those problems were that there were far too many drivers and they were being unscrupulous and sometimes dangerous and, despite the high level of supply, it was not meeting customer needs.

The bargain that the medallion represents is that the owners/drivers will be regulated so that they provide a service as dictated by the government/council and in return, they will be allowed to operate in a quasi-monopoly.

Whether you think that's a good thing or not is a little beside the point - that is the system that taxi drivers are bound to and if you want to drive a taxi, that's the deal. This has seen medallions become a very sound investment over the years and so an industry has grown around that. Again, whether this is to be considered right or wrong, good or bad is beside the point - it's the system that the governments and councils created and so taxi owners and operators have had to work with it.

It has led owner-operators to take out loans (essentially mortgages) to get their medallions and be able to treat it like an investment so that, despite the relatively low wages of taxi-drivers - especially once you consider all their expenses - they know they have an investment that they can, once they retire, sell or lease out. That's the system and it's what people have had to buy into.

Uber has had the effect of quite seriously impacting medallion values and, while this seems like a great thing, it will be disastrous to the owners - especially small owner-operators who will be in much the same situation as people whose house value falls away. Imagine having a mortgage on a $600,000 medallion that is now worth $450,000? This is what is happening!

Medallions provide an exclusive right for owners to operate taxi services and they value is predicated on that. It is an agreement between the cities and the owners and allowing services like Uber to provide a functionally (nearly) identical service is akin to the cities not holding up their end of the bargain.

Remember that the cities create these medallions/licenses out of essentially thin air and auction them off. They do so infrequently because to flood the market would dilute the value, but when they do, they just pocket the money. When they have released new batches, that's pure profit.

Taxis are a monopoly but they are a government created monopoly. People have paid for the right to operate in that monopoly and paid a LOT. They take out mortgages to gain buy into the exclusive right to provide this service and now the governments and cities are allowing other companies to provide the same services.

In other words, the exclusive right they paid for is no longer there!

So, yes, the current systems are not ideal and need reforming but if that reform involves breaking the essential promise that the sale of medallions is based on then there must be compensation for the owners - they bought rights from the cities and the cities are no longer honouring them.

I am not at all against Uber because I think this is a disruption that is sorely needed because the current systems (all around the world) are just not meeting passenger needs and expectations. I think Uber needs to be a catalyst for things to be reworked - properly. This necessarily includes making sure that those who have played by the rules of the medallion/licensing system do not have the value of their investments destroyed.

Re: Oh not again

Please, let's leave the car-vs-cyclist argument aside . . . (It seems it's just as popular in London as in Sydney.)

On my point, however, the NSW Police force did have a bit of a blitz about a year ago in the city, issuing fines for people crossing unsafely and apparently it had an immediate impact in reduced pedestrian injuries.

That was great and is exactly the kind of thing we need - enforce the laws. Not every second of every day but enough so that people at least think twice. The problem there was that it was pretty much a one-off as I haven't seen them since. I'm sure there have been other areas similarly targetted but people have short memories and you need to keep reminding them.

So here we had an operation that proved my point - if you actually enforce the laws, you get a result. But, sadly, the laws were enforced for a brief period only and then it was evidently considered too hard or a waste of police time so the alternative they chose was to drop the speed limit instead.

This is the kind of thing that absolutely hacks me off - they HAVE a solution that works to achieve their stated goal and they KNOW it works. They crowed about how well it worked at the time. But, they decided on the easier option of just inconveniencing and penalising everyone instead.

And, as Kevin implied, enforcing speed limits is just a few cameras away so it's always a preferred option rather than actually getting out there and making sure people being safe.

Re: Oh not again

You see it all along George street in Sydney every (week)day!

And of course you DEFINITELY see cyclists (especially couriers) doing it too - almost hit by one just a few days ago as he raced through the lights as I was crossing. In terms of the number of cars that do this vs the number of cars that don't, yes, it's a small percentage but then the number of pedestrians hit is also a small percentage.

I see many more pedestrians crossing dangerously, of course.

The point is simply that speed, per se, is not the issue - it's people who aren't obeying the existing laws. Obviously, the faster a car is going, the more damage it will do but if drives follow their rules and pedestrians follow theirs then it's not an issue.

Further reducing the speed limit in that example is not addressing the core problem, just as trying to outlaw encrypted communications is not addressing the core problem (such as it is in the context).

Re: Oh not again

@Marcus Fil

"Not everyone who uses encryption is a terrorist or a paedophile - in fact, most are absolutely not."

True but the wording is not strong enough - most are not? The huge, vast, overwhelming majority are not.

This is like banning car boots because some people have used them to transport kidnap victims or bodies. Or banning duct tape because it can be used in the same crime.

Oh, but encryption makes the police's job harder. BOO FUCKING HOO. Guess what? My job is fucking difficult at times as well and you aren't making laws to make that any easier. Maybe if they could prove to us that they are making the most of the tools they already have then it might just have the barest bit of justification. It still wouldn't be good enough but at least they (i.e. the politicians) wouldn't sound like complete fucking idiots.

But this is all par for the course for our pollies (and police at times) - some crime or tragedy occurs and no one wants to say that it could have been prevented if only people had done their jobs properly or taken more responsibility for their own actions. No, the problem is clearly that we need more or stricter laws.

Pedestrians getting hit and killed in Sydney CBD? Drop the speed limit to 40kph - that will do it. We'll conveniently ignore the fact that drivers are running red lights (especial when turning) left right and centre, or that pedestrians are just crossing the road wherever they please without much concern. That can't be the reason because that would mean that police weren't adequately enforcing the existing laws against both those things. That can't be the case . . .

Some tiny, TINY subset of people in Sydney are sometimes getting violent in a small subset of locations on Friday and Saturday night after a night on the sauce. The solution? Not ensuring bars are actually abiding by the RSA or issuing fines when they aren't. Not working to provide better transport so people aren't all standing around for an hour waiting for a late bus that will only fit half the people on, or competing for a handful of taxis that drive around with their lights off, asking people where they are going before accepting and refusing anyone that lives somewhere they don't feel like driving to. No. Nor do they look at RELAXING licensing laws to promote MORE bars in more places so that everyone isn't crowded into a few small areas, forced to weave their way through a jostling crowd just to get to the bar and then having to wait for 15 minutes to be served, thereafter having to weave back through the crowd to the tiny square metre or two of space they have managed to occupy because there are no tables or seats free.

No, the solution is clearly to raise prices and restrict licensing ever further. Oh, and force bottleshops to close at 10pm. Solved!

That was a bit of a tangent but I'm just fed up with the way our governments approach these issues. It's always a disproportionately large response to a relatively small problem and blanket restrictions/penalties/impositions on everyone to address an issue which is due to a tiny percentage of people.

And always there are existing laws which are not being adequately enforced or resources that are not being effectively utilised. Whether it is terrorism or just general crime - speeding, personal injury, drug abuse, or disruptive behaviour at a sporting match - the laws and tools exist but they want more.

Re: May I add my voice to the choir

@AC

"Security services exist for security."

There is nothing to support that premise : )

Couldn't resist - sorry. (That's my immaturity . . . )

"However, it is when such information is miss used that should be of concern. . . . The important thing with those services, including government is that [our] rights are not violated by those services."

Well, this is the thing. What we know is that our rights have been, are being and will continue to be violated. Frequently, grossly and apparently with an arrogant disregard not just for the rights being violated but also for the people having those rights violated - us.

That arrogance is the biggest problem because it sets our governments and these agencies as above us - we are the ignorant masses who don't understand just how good we have it and how lucky we are. We should just shut up and trust them because they are smarter than us and know what's best for us and you can't go to that concert because I said so; that's why.

With that attitude of self-importance they feel they are not answerable to us - the rules that apply to us don't apply to them because, well, you get the idea.

With that in mind - the sure knowledge that our governments ARE and WILL CONTINUE TO violate our rights - we have to ask ourselves whether the potential benefits of these programmes out weigh the assured intrusions into our everyday lives and what many consider to be the fundamental tenets of our collective way of life.

In other words, we must ASSUME that our rights will be violated and decide if the supposed benefits are still worth the cost. Yes, one can theorise about the ways that these programmes might be conducted more responsibly and without violating our rights but it's pointless to defend an unrealistic ideal version of something - we have to look at what we have and judge it on the reality of how it works now, not how it could, one day, maybe, if only, wouldn't it be better if it did, if everyone comes around, work.

Re: @G.D.

Ahhh - that explains the single downvotes through this thread.

Look mate, I am sure that you are the most wise and experienced human alive but some of us use snark and humour to comment and this does not render us 'immature'. When you are faced with an opponent who will largely do what they want regardless of what others think, sometimes ridicule - however ineffectual - is the only response.

Whatever the threats we face - however scary or credible - the simple fact remains that our politicians, collectively, are talking up bravery the and the preservation of freedom but making laws that discard the former and curtail the latter.

My own Prime Minister said:

"We will defend our values. What we can never do is compromise our values in defending them."

What exactly are our values? I think one of the key values of what we consider our progressive, modern, liberal western societies is that we have privacy and freedom to live our lives without our governments constantly looking over our shoulders. Evidently our politicians don't believe this to be an important 'value'.

Rubbish.

Our country and others like us might hold up multiculturalism and freedom of expression and our inclusiveness as core values but all those are predicated on the foundation of letting people just live their lives in peace and this is what our seemingly inexorable transition to a surveillance state is destroying.

What happened in Paris is not something one would wish to happen to anyone and many people can look at that (and other such attacks) and see themselves or their loved ones there - what if that was my wife/son/father/friend?

But, that is the risk we take - when that risk eventuates as real loss, that's when bravery and 'not giving in to fear' is tested. When it's just a risk, we can discount it; when it's made real we must confront it.

@Mark 85

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhJQp-q1Y1s

At least that's what I suspect moiety was referencing. Certainly it feels that way - that we keep getting slapped and slapped until it just has to be let out at some point.

Re: May I add my voice to the choir

"To the governments of the world . . . you have done far more to destroy my freedom than any Islamic terrorist."

Every time I hear one of these politicians talking about how we must protect 'our way of life',the only question is which part of our 'way of life' they are planning to sacrifice next.