Australia - The Land Down Under



@MikeRocor, continuing on from your post at : https://www.linux.org/threads/australia-the-land-down-under.21024/post-287570

we now discover that fire was used for warmth etc etc, far earlier than first thought.....and there likely wasn't a forest fire or an Aussie in sight !!!

Back when the "fire department" was a guy named Gronk, with a flint and some fake gold... ;)
 
Fire helped us cook meat. We could cook it. That resulted in being able to digest it better and to get more nutrients from the meat. This helped us grow a larger brain.

It's well accepted that neanderthals used and controlled fire, at least as far back as 400,000 years. The difference is that many experts don't think they could actually make fire. They'd have to wait until nature made it for them and then do what they could to keep the fire going.

While this may sound crazy, we also have evidence of prehistoric hominoids (likely early humans) using fire in their simple wooden boats. It's believed that they'd keep some embers hot and use those to kindle fires. They'd happily start a fire in their wooden boats, on the floor of said boat, to either keep the fire going, to cook food, or for heat. The experts are not sure exactly what they were doing.

Anyhow, there are two things humans have been exceptionally good at for a long time. We're good at making fires, and we're good at smashing stuff. In fact, we even smash stuff together to make fire.
 
there are two three things humans have been exceptionally good at,......
mending holes in the bottom of boats....
 
Blame Samsung.
1765430339176.gif


https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article...locked-by-networks-to-call-triple-0/ddidrm7vv

Here in Australia...the Media is blaming Samsung because people don't upgrade their Mobile Phones.
1765430576451.gif

The 3G network is being turned off...so if you have a 3G phone and you don't get a 4G or 5G phone it's a paper weight...how the hell can anyone blame Samsung...typical Media BS.
1765431331828.gif


I have a Samsung 5G phone and it's 2 years old...people had plenty of time to upgrade...you can't help stupid ignorant people.
1765431748703.gif
 
ban on facebook etc etc etc

[td]

Hello there,

[/td]
[td]
On day one of Australia's social media ban, my 13-year-old son said the most unexpected thing.

"It's a good start — but it doesn't go far enough."

This from the kid who, like so many of his peers, had been rolling his eyes at the "lame" attempts by the federal government to restrict what has become open access by predators to kids on almost every social media and messaging site.

At the time of writing we are three days in from Facebook, Instagram, Threads, X, YouTube, Snapchat, Reddit, Kick, Twitch and TikTok being required to remove accounts held by users under 16 years of age in Australia and prevent those teens from registering new accounts.

Platforms that do not comply risk fines of up to $49.5 million.

The kids are not restricted from viewing content on sites like YouTube, but they can't sign up for their own accounts until they are 16.

Highly criticised online gaming platforms like Roblox are also required to implement facial age assurance tests, and my son noted that this was in place and was smartly executed. Chat restrictions were immediately obvious.

This can only be a relief to any parent, even to the ones whose younger teens are anguished at being locked out of their preferred messaging platforms.

But parental responses have been as varied as their kids are furious. Some parents have gone on the record saying they will help out their kids with VPNs and fake accounts, so their kids aren't "left out". Lesser-known messaging services are being downloaded by kids, and possibly parents, to link them in with a hyper-connected world they can no longer imagine doing without.

I understand the impulse. Teens are impressive advocates for their causes.

But, despite my own scepticism over the effectiveness of this law, it's been heartening to see young teens respond warmly to what is a positive statement of protection and care — and I think we underestimate the force of that.

From infancy, parents are told about the importance of attachment and presence: of ensuring that a child knows its needs are seen and will be met, and that being around their parents is safe. Because our teens are mouthy, critical and opinionated young souls yearning to be free of our boundaries I think we can underestimate the central nervous system calming that comes with knowing that boundaries, even resented ones, are being placed with care and safety around the kids we love.

Grace Tame gets it. The steely former Australian of the Year, author and child sex abuse victim advocate posted to Instagram when the law came into place, noting that the internet gave direct access to children and that "child sex offenders are usually the earliest adopters of new technologies, which they repurpose for harm".

Anything we can do to restrict access is important, she says.

This is where we parents should remind ourselves of the power of the loving boundary: not to bind and constrain, but to properly demonstrate that we hold our kids and their safety in our mind, and that they do not slip out of our mind.

And that's what this might just turn out to be. Not a watertight seal of safety against predators. Nor an onerous restriction of business of the tech giants. But a good first step.

Jonathan Haidt, the author of the book The Anxious Generation, and a powerful critic of young people having access to phones, is a huge fan of the change. He calls it "the most vital law on the planet" and says it doesn't matter if the rollout is messy and imperfect — "the alternative is far worse. Without action we leave yet another generation to grow up under the rule of a handful of tech companies whose business models depend on capturing as much of children's time and attention as possible."

In this household we will try to keep an eye on the shortcuts, contain the resentments and, probably most important of all, try to lead by example by putting our phones away, turning off the messages and reconnecting in the most essential and powerful way: in person.

This was written by Virginia Trioli, from : https://view.mail-list.abc.net.au/?...ea9e45f8b28da6cde7cd39faa70b166cbc5192ac40778
[/td]
 
Got a moth problem in your crop"...?..... "top pests in Australian vineyards are the offspring (caterpillars) of light brown apple moths and grapevine moths"
Sound familiar?

 
 
There has been announcement after announcement, seemingly endlessly.....for the past 12 months to my knowledge....in fact thsi article, linked to Australia the Land Down Under, said ....

Thousands of Samsung phones may still be unable to call triple-zero, estimates hears​


Dated ::

Talk about inaction !!
 
The internet tells me that Telstra started announcing this in 2019. It looks like they planned on doing it in 2024. They gave everybody an extra year, or more, to resolve this.

I won't speak for Australians. I will say that, in my opinion, there's no need to keep old tech infrastructure around for the sake of a small group of people who refused to migrate to newer technology. That's my opinion and only my opinion. I am not an Australian. I can't not speak for Australians. That and, well, my other thoughts would be political in nature.
 
the switching off of G3 is not just a one country event In the UK they have been gradually cutting 3G area for area, we lost ours about 9 months ago but as of last weekend the remaining towers were switched off, most G2 have been off for a lot longer, although I understand there are still a few towers in the more remote areas of the uk which will go as soon as they get 4/5G coverage, each country has been allowed to set its own cut off date, I read somewhere North America will be 2033
 
I don't know why they single out Samsung because this affects all brands of mobile phones and 5G phones have been out for years.

The same thing happened when the 2G network was shut off but they didn't blame phone manufactures back then...so who's fault is it.
1766179769118.gif
 
there's no need to keep old tech infrastructure around for the sake of a small group of people who refused to migrate to newer technology.
I am Australian, and I will say (out loud) that there is a cohort who would stay stuck in a mud puddle if they thought it would garner a trifle more attention than they are already receiving.
Regardless of the possible harm it may do to other people.

Move on folks !

"and the times, they are a'changing" (Bob Dylan.....and Condobloke)
 
Move on folks !

That'd be my sentiments. The US carriers have already shut down 3G, as of a few years ago.

Sure, it caused some issues. For example, security systems that relied on 3G networks were made obsolete. Yeah, that sucks, but it's not actually a good reason to maintain costly old infrastructure that's supporting just a tiny group of people -- unless it's truly necessary.

In my country, they're trying to phase out the old wired phone system. I'm not really okay with that, but that's because there are still people who can only get a wired phone system. They don't have cell service where they live. They can't just buy a modern phone (most major phones sold over the past decade, or longer, as 4G is still available). They would still have no service. 2 to 3% of Americans still rely on a landline telephone.

I'm okay with phasing out the old wired phone system after those people have a reasonable alternative. (Having used it, I'm not sure that I'd call a satellite connection 'reasonable'.)

I'd like to keep the old system in place. It's a very, very robust system. Back when I had DSL, I saw the phone lines on the ground and encased in ice while I still had a perfectly fine connection to the internet. It takes a lot to take out phone service.

But, I also understand that it's expensive to maintain and that it is no longer making the profits it once did. In fact, it may be a cost center for the carriers. So, maybe there's a path to making it a true public utility.

Also, there are laws (in my country) that apply to phone lines that do not apply to cell phones. I won't get into the weeds with this, but cell phones aren't required to offer universal coverage (plus there are state-specific laws).

So, I have (what I feel are) legitimate reasons to want copper phone lines to stay for now, but that is (in my mind) a very big difference between the two situations. These people/products can be updated, and probably should be updated. There's no good reason to keep 3G around. Additionally, and equally important, those people have had ample time to upgrade. It's not like this is some sort of surprise.

But, again, I can't speak for Australians.

The people complaining remind me of Luddites. (Let's hope they don't behave as the Luddites did.)
 
Luddites:....for those unaware

The Luddites were a group of 19th-century English textile workers who protested against the introduction of automated machinery, fearing it would threaten their jobs and livelihoods. They often resorted to destroying machines in organized raids, primarily between 1811 and 1816, and were named after a mythical figure, Ned Ludd.

Wikipedia
 
Luddites:....for those unaware

Good point, thanks. I didn't think it would need to be explained, but it probably should have been. My post was already getting pretty long by that point, plus I just didn't think of it.
 


Follow Linux.org

Members online


Top