Steal This Title: April 2006

Steal This Title

Friday, April 28, 2006

Seeing (Infra)Red

I am just wondering what the justifications for internet incurred fees are. For example; Internet banking charges. Let us not drift into bank charges (in australia) in general, because the intricacies that we have to deal with are something i don't want to go into right now, and we know that many of them are a farce. Internet Service Bank Charges. Charging 5oc for a single monetry transfer between non-connected accounts - certain banks began charging for logging onto the internet system, but someone somewhere decided that this charge was going a little too far; they don't charge for balance views. In a user-pay system, i want to know what the user is paying for? There is no man power involved. Hence no wages. The system and infrastructure has already been completely paid off, so there is no initial cost left to be paid. The internet transfer is a self purporting service. I hear people shout out for the security programmers - they must be paid. Most definitely these people must be paid by the banks. By no meanss should the user pay here. The security of an internet portal on a banking system is a given. The same goes with actual banking security; safes, ATM, insurance, armoured guards. This is the only reason we give our money over to banks - so we don't lose it. Security is the only thing the bank is offering. The consumer loans money to banks so that banks may invest on a larger scale thus recieving higher returns, and loaning our money at higher rates of interest. This is how banks have always made their money. All i ask for is the justification for fees so late in the game?

Another example of internet robbery in Australia are the Internet Service Providers themselves. Australian ISP's are holding the internet (and telecommunications) for a high ransom. Most services, such as free area calls and high quality broadband internet, are standard in other first world nations, such as the USA, Great Britain, Netherlands, and France to name a few - i'm not even going to start with the dismal comparison of Australia to other first world pacific nations. While other first world nations are embracing new telecommunication technologies, offering them at cheaper and cheaper prices, Australia is stagnating at a test-like stage for commercial purposes. For decades mobile phone corporations have been using Australia and New Zealand as test nations for new services and technologies. Both Australia and New Zealand completed their mobile communications networks at similar times. The difference: New Zealand stopped charging infrastructure costs while Australian providers continue to do so. This include mobile and internet communications.

For example, the $1 charge for adding another computer onto cable internet. While paying infrastructure costs in the monthly bill - infrastructure falls onto cable and phone companies such as foxtel and telstra rather than ISPs - ISPs will charge you for every extra computer you wish to connect to the one account. What is this dollar paying for?

In post-enlightenment era are we as free-thinking individuals supposed to merely sit back and accept this seemingly unjustified restrictions and charges upon living? Not only should we be demanding transparency and accountability, there should be a demand for logical justification for the expenses of the consumer.

¶ 12:19 pm 1 Comments

Monday, April 24, 2006

Entering Into Conjecture

If i may at first correct myself by saying that at least one journalist is asking the hard questions. "Was it suicide?"

The question was undoubtedly posed to someone in authority, someone who should know the details, someone who will give an honest and reputable answer. Of course they may not be the person who watched Private Jacob Kovco die, but surely an official who would have been informed and could not be in a position to lie. So Brendan Nelson is a perfect choice.

Let's ask a few hard questions ourselves. Firstly why was the gun loaded?

The soldier is in a military zone. Private Jacob Kovco is participating in a war; as an armed combatant. It is perfectly legitimate of him to carry a loaded firearm. This is believable, and it is most probably true that he carried a firearm ready for combat.

So why was he cleaning his firearm?

It is practice to clean a firearm. A firearm will become inaccurate after disuse due to the buildup of dirt and grit in the chamber, barrel and working mechanisms. A well used firearm does require cleaning as well, due to the nature of gunpowder used. The gunpowder is slightly chorosive and will wear out the barrel of a firearm if it is not cleaned regularly and properly. The regular armed forces of Australia have a minimum two-year intensive weapons training; included is the safe handling and cleaning of firearms. Private Jacob Kovco was not merely egular army, but a member of a special trained force sent to Iraq - SECDET. Private Jacob Kovco's training in firearms was superior to regular army.

Now here is the hard one. Why was the firearm loaded AND fully assembled while being cleaned by Private Jacob Kovco?

"Soldiers in a combat situation, especially if outside the Green Zone in Baghdad, would not necessarily unload their weapons to clean them", The Australian Defence Association's executive director Neil James said.

A soldier in a Red Zone would be expecting combat at any moment and may carry out a provisionary weapons clean of a firearm while it is loaded. However cleaning a firearm in this way is an action clean, which does not involve the cleaning of the barrel, nor the trigger. It is important to note that Private Jacob Kovco was located well within a Green Zone and was in fact sitting in his barracks. Whether he was alone or not we can only speculate. Firearms cleaning protocal in this situation requires one to check if the firearm is unloaded, if so unload the firearm, and also remove the bolt and firing pin from the firearm. Without the bolt and firing pin the firearm cannot discharge. Obviously none of these first procedural steps were taken.

This leads to the dissambly of the firearm. To properly clean any firearm, and by Australian Defence Force procedure, the firearm must be dissambled, thereby destroying is functionality.

Neil James said that "He (Private Jacob Kovco) would have been cleaning (his rifle) and to do that you've got to disassemble the weapon, and to do that you have to carry out some safety precautions."

Let us assume three things. That Private Jacob Kovco did not unload his firearm. That Private Jacob Kovco did not disassemble his firearm. That Private Jacob Kovco was indeed cleaning his firearm. Private Jacob Kovco would have had to point the barrel of the firearm toward his own head for his death, in the manner that it ocurred, to occur. The Australian Defence Force has not released the model of the firearm that Private Jacob Kovco was cleaning. However Australian Standards of Firearm safety insist that a firearm never be pointed or aimed at an object that one would not want to hit, nor a living object that one would not want to kill.

SMH - Australian Soldier Dies In Iraq

ABC - Soldier To Be Honoured At ANZAC Service

SMH - Faulty Gun May Have Caused Death: ADA

¶ 10:38 am 3 Comments

Saturday, April 22, 2006