I saw a book once that said “Laugh a minute” and I thought - but hang on I’m quite a slow reader. I saw a book once on a cofee table that said on the cover “Unputdownable”. Aparently not.

i am probably not going to get far and if I do i am probably not goint to last long and if I do I’m probably not going to be remembered and if I am I won’t be around to appreciate it so lets just start at the bottom people - a little expectation management.

There are things that I wasn’t taught. And i resent not being taught these things but I’m not one to sit around and mope - I’m guess one to get up on stage and mope standing up - I am making a concerted effort to try to understand these things as a grown man. I suspect bullshit. I suspect it everywhere. It’s like that song “Love is all around”. Except with Bullshit. Bullshit it all around.

Its OK. It’s liberating. When you realise bullshit is all around you see with a new clarity that the world is potent and beautiful and promsing and bursting with fresh promise and life every single day and the only thing wrong with it is that its full of absolute cunts.

The ever brilliant FREE TALK LIVE had a little something to say about the Australian ban on small breasted women in porn.

I’ve posted the section in it’s entirety (29mins) below.

FileDropper Free File Hosting

You can subscribe to Free Talk Live via iTunes here. Alternatively the RSS feed is here.

They made at least one bloody good point - the logic behind this could just as easily apply on a ban against ‘brazilians’. Think about it.

On 16 December 2009, the government of Australia announced it intends to go ahead with legislation to filter the internet in Australia at an ISP level - on a compulsory basis - based on a blacklist of websites.

This is a specially written article which has grown out of a comment I made on a social networking site where I expressed my anger over this. It looked like this:

After a few back and forth comments, a friend of mine named Matt made this (quite genuine) comment:

“...if a filter blocks child sexual abuse etc content, I can't see how that is an infringement on our liberty.”

...and I realised I was going to have to write a more thoughtful and thorough reply. Here it is.

Read More...

If you run a quick Google search on the phrase "When does my Driver's License expire?" you get a lot of hits.

A lot of them are links to websites explaining what to do if your driver's license has expired.

A lot harder to run a effective search on is the phrase "Why does my Driver's License expire?".

Seriously...why does it expire?

My perfectly good Driver's License which has a picture that looks like me and my current address on it, which was perfectly good yesterday...today is not valid anymore.

Of course there is a very good reason for this - the renewing mechanism is there to make sure that you are still OK to drive, right?

...right?

Nope, that doesn't happen.

That sort of thing will happen but only after a certain age by which point the license has been renewed a whole lot of times...

Let me tell you what i have to do to renew my driver's license:

1. I have to pay fee, and...
2. Actually no, that's it - I just have to pay a fee.

And then, depending on the fee between one and five years later I have to pay another fee.

Don't you think that's odd?

To illustrate the problem here, consider this: I just had my driver's license renewed about 2 months ago - September 2009. I have not driven a car since 2005 and that was in Spain. Before that I think it was 2003. (For the record, I get the driver's license renewed because I *might* need to drive.)

But I pay them and they rubber stamped me and I can just keep on doing this until I reach the age where they have a policy to give me a vision test.

I'm not trying to push for manditory testing everytime your driver's license expires I'm trying to point out how happy we all seem to be paying for nothing because its...just...well...the law.

My question is a basic one...what do you get for your money?

I can understand having to become initially qualified to drive on a road - that's a big part of getting the license the first time.

But after that, its not been about qualifications or safety at all - because all I do is hand the money over and in return the RTA give me a new plastic card - no questions asked - every time.

The problem is that I had a perfectly good one when I walked in.

Hmm.

Maybe the necessity is to update the picture? After all we change over time...fair enough.

But my passport picture lasts 10 years, why is this one no good after as little as one year?

Ah! Maybe its to update my address?

But no...really I could be moving house next week for all they know...plus it never comes up. They never ask about it and I don't have to prove it. I just write it on the form and it becomes official.

Its one thing to argue about what you get for your money when you are taxed, but when it is nothing....literally NOTHING...and we still line up and pay...isn't it something that no-one seems to have challeneged that fact? Indeed, most of us seem to just pay without thinking.

Now that you are thinking about it, doesn't it seem a little glaringly obvious?

Doug Suiter,
Sydney, Australia.
Saturday, 21 November 2009

____________________________________________________________________

PS - below is a query form I have sent to the RTA. Maybe they can clear this up for me.
I'll update this post when...and if...they reply.

Contact the RTA

Message Type
Question
Subject
Licensing or Registration
Message
Hello, this might sound like a strange question but I was wondering why it is that my driver's license expires after a set period of time. Since I never get re-tested, my picture on my passport gets updated far less frequently and my address can theoretically change at any time, could you please explain to me why my driver's license should expire at all. Thank you.

UPDATE:

AS AT 1 December 2009 the only response I’ve received from the RTA is this, dated Nov 21:

Sent: Saturday, 21 November 2009 10:01am
To: RTA Contact Centre
Subject: INTERNET FEEDBACK

Dear Doug,

Your email has been forwarded to the appropriate department for their attention.

Regards,
Bernadette


Customer_Service_Centre@rta.nsw.gov.au
Roads & Traffic Authority, NSW
Contact Centre
Phone 132213


UPDATE - 21 January 2010 - THE RTA’S RESPONSE:

The Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Regulation 2008 requires that:
 
o       an expiry date is shown on the licence card, and
o       an expiry date is recorded on the Road and Traffic Authority’s database, and
o       a photograph be taken for the renewal of a driver licence, and
o       ongoing eyesight, medical and driving assessments be undertaken depending on the customer's age, licence class and medical condition(s) for the renewal of a driver licence.
 
The Regulation also sets the licensing fees.
 
Periodic renewal of a driver licence is  required to allow updating of the photograph of the licence holder.
 
Licensing fees charged in NSW are reflective of the cost of developing, delivering and maintaining the driver licensing system. The revenue collected by the RTA may be used to fund road safety and construction initiatives which are of benefit to the wider community.
 
I trust this clarifies the matter.

My Thoughts:

I guess its just in my case - that of a healthy young person - that it feels so much like a tax. But I cannot deny that making sure other drivers can see properly is a valuable service for all.

The thing that remains with me is the arbitrariness of the fee. If it was doubled tomorrow, all of the above answers would remain the same. nd you would stil have to pay it. I know the reply says “Licensing fees charged in NSW are reflective of the cost of developing, delivering and maintaining the driver licensing system.” but in the very next breath it says “The revenue collected by the RTA may be used to fund road safety and construction initiatives which are of benefit to the wider community”.

I am not against a driver’s license...but it would be great to see it being issued by, say, three or four competing companies. A bit like getting your diver’s lisence or a learning to swim or getting software accreditation.

I’m glad I went through this exercise though - that sort of thought exercise is exactly what this blog is for

21 January 2010.

Question: Can a generalization be any more true just because it's flattering?

Apparently, yes.

Everyone seems to accept it when a 'nation of people' is described in general positive terms.

Does anyone else out there wince whenever a 'nation of people' is described as Proud? Or Resilient? Or Hard Working?

No?

What about when a nation of people are described as Thieves? Or Dishonest? Or Bad Drivers?

Ah! ...do you see?

When these positive generalizations gush from the mouths of interest groups and politicians and then wash up on television, radio and in the newspapers I can't help but look around and see if anyone is balking the way I am. The thing is, don't really see any.

"The working families of Australia deserve better."

Er...No they don't. Some deserve better. Some deserve worse. Some are getting exactly what they deserve.

But those who identify as part of a 'working family' let the warm self-stroking non-sense wash over them as they nod in agreement...and no one seems to call anyone on it.

OK then, I will:

Aussie Battlers deserve a fair go! No they don't. The (hypothetical) Aussie Battler Dave Gibson of North Fremantle, WA might...or he might not. That's a statement you could make...and that could be debated.

The Australian Troops overseas deserve your support. The (hypothetical) Sergeant Trevor Michaels serving in Afghanistan might. But he might also be an arsehole. We can have that conversation.

But you can't have a conversation over whether 'single mothers deserve better' because the fact is you could find some who actually deserve worse.

Of course, the issue isn't what single mothers deserve...its whether you can generalize qualitatively about single mothers at all.

My point it you can't generalize - qualitatively - about any group.

You can generalize facts about a group, sure. That is to say you can generalize quantitatively.

For example you can say "The Single Mothers of Australia are Female".

But you can't say "The Single Mothers of Australia are Honest". Its an entirely prejudiced statement. It is wrong and unacceptable for exactly the same reasons as it is wrong and unacceptable to say "The Single Mothers of Australia are Sluts."

Note here: People get all caught up in the 'sluts' part of that statement - but that's not what's primarily wrong with the statement. What’s wrong is that the term "Sluts" is describing not a measurable fact but a subjective value. Swap out the words "Sluts" with "Nice People", "Bad with Money", "Attractive", "Saints", "Evil","Generous" or any other value based term (positive or negative) you can come up with and the problem is the same.

However, swap it out with a valueless quantitative term such as "female" or "human" "and you don't have a problem. (Unless of course your statement is simply inaccurate, as in "The Single Mothers of Australia are Men").

A stereotype is any value-based generalization about a group. Just because the generalization is a positive one does not make it any less questionable, just less likely to be questioned because its flattery.

And that's my point: We are so quick to admonish a negative stereotype but a positive one is spoken by many commentators and politicians openly with - not shame - but with actual pride. Like its some sort of profound and inviolable insight.

So we get bullshit statements like these:

• Australians deserve to have their stories told
• The 'working families of Australia' have had it too hard for too long
• Aboriginals are a 'proud people'
• Our men and women in blue deserve our support

Don't be walked all over with this simple twisting of reality. The only strength it holds is in people's reluctance to challenge such statements because usually, the statement is an appeal to the popular ego of the subject.

Its bullshit and it should be called as such. Such statements should not pass unchallenged. Such pandering should be attacked.

However don't fall into the trap of attacking the statement itself. Then you'll be written off as 'not supporting the troops' or 'scapegoating single mothers'.

Instead, attack the assumption behind the statement: that its OK to generalize if your being flattering in the process.

Because if its OK to generalise about the good things, why not the bad things too?


Doug Suiter,
Melbourne, Australia.
Friday, 13 November 2009

I'm more than a little sick of people invoking terms like OPEN and FREE when trying to make Apple Computer look like an "Evil Empire" company. And I'm just as sick of people calling Apple's business practice "Dictatorial" and "Oppressive".

It's no more dictatorial than Burger Kings "Iron Grip" on The Whopper.

Have you ever eaten in a take away restaurant that makes a point of saying "Only Food And Drink Purchased on These Premises may be Consumed Here"? Or have you ever bought a bottle of wine and then tried to walk into a restaurant only to have them say "You can't bring that in here, we are a licensed establishment and you can't bring your own".

Oh, Iron grip of the fast food restaurant! The evil dictatorial restaurant 'forcing' you to buy their wine!

Come on, seriously. A free company is offering you a price to use their product under restricted conditions. You can either take the offer or walk. Don't be a pussy and try to legislate your way out of it with anti-trust suits.

What 'monopoly' are they trying to protect? Their monopoly of OS-X? Really? Their 'monopoly' on their own invention?

OK. Well, in that case, how dare Burger King have a monopoly on The Whopper! You want to introduce legislation to make MacDonald's have to sell The Whopper too? After all - Hungry Jacks can charge whatever they want for a Whopper! How criminal! How Evil! It's in the interests of the consumer to have competition in the Whopper industry, right?

No, not right. In fact, bullshit.

Because there is no Whopper Industry. There is a Hamburger industry. Beyond that there is a Fast-Food industry. And beyond that a Food industry.

At every level right up to "Food" any product is replaceable making it competitive by nature.

You don't have to intervene to protect Whoppers because people can choose Big Macs -> No monopoly. You Don't have to intervene to protect Hamburgers because people can choose Pizzas -> No monopoly… And you don't have to intervene to protect Fast Food generally because people can choose other forms of nutrition -> No monopoly.

If someone had a monopoly on Food, then maybe you'd have an argument for intervention.

Likewise if you don't like the terms of sale of the Mac OS then go with another OS.

Or an alternative to a computer altogether!

Apple is NOT a monopoly.

Anyone can try to install OSX on a PC in violation of their terms of purchase. And Apple can code them into a corner until they try again. What's the issue?

Its practices are no more anticompetitive than KFC having 7 secret herbs and spices.

Apple use code to make sure their OS that they wrote can't run on a competitors hardware.

KFC uses a combination lock to make sure their recipe cant be used on a competitor's fried chicken.

What the hell is the difference??

What exactly is the problem with Apple Inc. wanting to do whatever the hell they want with their OS and letting people decide whether or not they are going to buy it with whatever restrictive conditions it is sold with?

Its called Freedom of Choice.

Do you know how you benefit from Apple's behaviour? You get to choose whether or not you want to buy and use the iPhone, the iMac, the iPod and OSX - at the level of quality that they offer - with all the restrictions that come with it.

You agree and buy, or you don't and you walk. You don't buy and then say how unjust it is.

Look, I'm a Final Cut Studio user. A few years back, Apple purchased Final Touch - a color correction tool - and rebadged it as 'Apple Color'.

It dropped from $25, 000 per license to being included in the Final Cut Studio which costs around $1,200 all up.

Years before that Apple bought Final Cut Pro from Macromedia and sold it as a low cost alternative to Avid.

The reason they can practically operate this way is because their business model involves subsidising their low software prices with their inflated hardware prices.

It works.

As a bonus we have immaculately designed computers and second to none innovation. The downside is that the hardware is locked to the software.

At this point I should mention that another upside to me is that the hardware is locked to the software.

I consider the fact that Apple can control what exactly is in my Laptop and design the software environment accordingly to be a massive advantage in both the initial design of the Mac environment and in subsequent trouble shooting of anything that does go wrong.

The bottom line is this:

Apple computers would not be apple computers if their OS ran on just any machine because they would not have the hardware profits as a foundation on which to concentrate on other innovations.

People who want to force that to happen might just break Apple in the process. I have no doubt that many people would like to do just that.

I'd prefer that didn't happen cos I like my Apple hardware and software just the way it is. Controlled, well designed, well supported and consistently cutting edge.

Don't be a pussy and try to legislate your way around your choices.

A company is offering you a software-hardware combination at a premium price. They have every right to do this. If you disagree with their methods of maintaining their control and their business model you have a right not to support them.

But you can't have it both ways.

If you like their OS enough to force them to release it on any and every piece of hardware, you deserve the Apple you'll get.

I should mention... I am not being all "Apple faithful" as you might assume. This article is about freedom of choice. If Microsoft introduced code that would prevent Windows from operating on a Mac under Bootcamp I would fully support them too.

It's the enthusiasm with which people are prepared to petition the government to get what they want which sickens me.

Legislation should always be a last resort. This is petty, petty stuff.


Doug Suiter,
Sydney, Australia.
Wednesday 11 November 2009.

She has done a lot of running in her time and in a couple of weeks was going to do a half marathon so when she offered a peice of advice to me I listened. And it was something I really needed to hear.

"You know, you really ought to try slowing down". Read More...

I have learned a few things about writing stories and specifically scripts which I thought might make a nice topic for today’s Thinking in Ink entry. Its not advice, as usual its just my thinking out loud. Or if it is advice, its only advice for myself Read More...

After looking around on the internet I found it was kind of hard to find any blogs or articles on ex-libertarians or folks moving on from libertarianism. So I wrote one... Read More...

The first blog entry, and introduction to what I’ll be writing about here at THINKING IN INK Read More...