Stern,

First of all, I would like to apologise for not encoding my message well enough so that you could understand it. But in future, if you don't understand, try to at least stay relevant.

Because I wasn't talking about me, and I'm certainly not talking about you or your credentials as a mother. As an aside, your own little anecdote is a perfect example of the neo-liberal baby-boomer attitude towards their children: "It's my money, don't ask for any help unless you want to show me how much you've failed me." If that's not the intention of the NLBBs, it sure is the message they're giving off. Although I'm in no place to comment on your individual family circumstances, which leads me to my second point:

...There is no name-calling on this planet that could offend me as much as you telling me my children should not have been born (GrahamY take note) except perhaps being told I was possibly as obtuse as certain posters in OLO.

I was merely saying that one generation should not complain about what has happened to society or the attitudes etc of younger generations while on their watch. You can't blame the garden for not growing the way you want when you watered it with cola.

Your point on private enterprise is correct in principle; however sometimes we need to go beyond profit when talking about issues of nation-building.

And I can hardly see how impeding the country's development is worthwhile just to stop a handful of refugees. I'm going to assume you were just laying bait there...

Yuyutsu,

You lost me. No computers in schools? Just bibles eh?

TrashcanMan,

You keep amazing me:

If it's not the forefront of world-technology, then it must be North-Korea.
If it's not computers, then it must be the bible.
Nothing in between? what's wrong with Shakespeare for example? or Darwin?

I just wrote that we should keep a healthy gap of about 20 years behind the rest of the developed world, not 200 years, so now you are suggesting 2000 years...

Was it so bad 20 years ago? Were you missing anything?
Didn't they teach science and maths and biology, history and geography in schools then? or may I remind you that man landed on the moon already 41 years ago?

Yes, I repeat, no computers in public and public-funded schools (can't tell totally private schools what to do), for the same reasons that school-canteens don't sell beer. Children ought to experience nature and fresh air and confidently interact with the world and its elements using their physical bodies, before they disappear forever into their tiny gadgets. Do you really think that all those simulated shoot'em games do them any good? What's wrong with building tree-houses, reading a good book, playing ball or sitting on the floor to play board-games with other kids? Once they grow of course, with a solid basis, both academic and in moral-character, and go to university, they will have plenty of time to specialize in the electronic/scientific world, if that's what they are inclined to do.

The maximum transmission speed on optical fibre has multiplied many times over the last 5-10 years and I see no reason why that trend won't continue. In fact there's no domestic technology available - outside telco hardware- that can match the speed. It's simply the fastest known secure digital transmission media available.
What it amounts to is whether we want to catch up with our comparable trading partners or do nothing and just hope for the best.

Rache,

On the technical side, if indeed the speed of optical-fibre continues to multiply, then by your own admission, it would be foolish to install it now, prior to reaching its theoretical maximum (and a maximum will be reached, just as the maximum was recently reached in silicon, so now all you can to do to gain more computing power is to place more units in parallel, side-by-side). Also, while speed has importance, the GBit/sec numbers being discussed here are of capacity, not speed.

On the competition side, it is unrealistic to expect to catch up with "our comparable trading partners": they just have many more hungry mouths to feed than our mere 22-millions, mostly overfed. Why do you want to compete with them in the first place? is it to make them even hungrier, so they come and take us by force? The best way is to learn to live more simply, so to not depend on their products.

As I explained earlier, business already has many options and is not hindered by the capacity of lines (and as for speed, it can only get close to the speed of light, nothing more anyway). It should better concentrate on having more worthwhile data to transfer over the physical lines it already has. Claiming that NBN is needed for business is therefore a blatant lie. NBN is designed to provide entertainment for the masses, lull them into drowsy non-resistence, just as they did in ancient Rome - when they did not have enough bread to eat, they delivered gladiator-games instead.

Yes, We can wait for the best, or we can prepare for the inevitable future by learning to live more simply, demand less, and be more self-sufficient.

If anyone was to suggest that buying a computer of similar capability in 5-10 yrs would be more expensive than today, they would be laughed off the forum.

Yet I see claims that IT infrastructure will cost double!

Either they are staunch labor supporters who feel they have to punt the party line irrespective of the nonsensical nature of it, or they are technically challenged, or both.

I understand that installing the cables is a large part of the expense, but the cost of the fibre cable, and modems is no small part either. In 5-10 yrs time, they will be far cheaper and faster if they are not completely surpassed by other emerging technologies.

While I make no bones about whom I support for the elections, this is just another large ill advised attempt at social engineering by the incompetents that brought you the BER rort.

SM,

Please explain to me how the NBN is social engineering.

Cheers,
Trashcan Man.

Yuyutsu,

You're correct, the bible is out of date by 2000 years and it was silly of me to think that it had any relevance to even 20yrs ago.

Once again, while I do agree with your idealism, it is a lovely idea, yet I think it's unrealistic for us if we want to remain a competitive economy.