Interesting - so iTunes will let me buy, download and play video in Australia on my PS3, which I already own? Good to know.

So if I propose a system of government which includes a rule that citizens randomly murdering one another is not only acceptable, but necessary and commendable, you would have no way of concluding that my system is worse than our current system other than blind belief?

Is North Korea's system equally valid with only an assertion of belief to distinguish it from ours? Etc etc.

Using the word "morals" is slightly loaded IMHO, too. "Ethics" or "principles" would be more neutral language.

I think it's terrific that someone who is profoundly deaf can still participate in a discussion about hi fi equipment.

This type of pessimism is frustrating. And you are wrong.

Rewind about 500-1000 years. Pretty much 100% of the wealth around the world was held be a sovereign of some kind and his mates, who between them shuffled some tribute money around but otherwise gained more wealth by taxing the pittance earned by everyone else. Killing a random animal in a random bit of wilderness was a crime because all animals belonged to the King, etc.

A couple of hundred years ago this had shifted such that the state, independent of the crown, was stepping in, intercepting some of the wealth and redistributing it via social spending. Serfdom and slavery were on the way out. Meanwhile property and other laws had evolved so that the poor could start becoming the middle class through hard work, with obviously much less of a boost at the start than the landed gentry.

Today, at least in principle, we agree that the rich and privileged deserve no special treatment, and that at least the opportunity to acquire and hold wealth is akin to a universal right. The fact that we haven't fully implemented a system which puts this into practice doesn't mean that "the rich always have it better", nor does the fact that we have recently experienced some short term backsliding on the move from "the king has everything" to "everyone has something".

In other words, you need to use a larger data set than just the last few years or decades. On a longer timeline there has been a very successful reduction in the extent to which the rich get their own way. The current thrashing around by companies and wealthy individuals post-financial crisis indicates to me that they appreciate that their only chance to maintain their privilege is to manipulate things outside of the rules of the game (political influence and tax evasion, for example).

Excellent post. The problem here (at least from a taxation perspective) isn't the holding of wealth in shares so much as the fact that they can be locked up and then sidestep tax upon death.

The solution is that the person inheriting the shares has to pay a tax on their capital gain.

So long as you have that, plus a tax on dividends and on actual income, all increases in wealth are covered and taxed.

I assume critics of these guys holding wealth in shares wouldn't be too thrilled if the government re-assessed the value of their house and charged them a percentage of any gains every year.

If Heisenberg has taught us anything, it's that all money problems can be solved by manufacturing huge quantities of crystal meth.

With the greatest of respect, you're insane. I've watched hundreds of blu rays and noticed distracting artifacts on maybe 3 or 4 of them. You are preventing yourself from enjoying by far the best home theatre experience yet devised on the basis of OCD-type concerns about a very minor issue.

Tape, maybe. Vinyl, no, you are wrong.

Tell me, have you ever listened to a newly pressed vinyl played through a half-decent hi fi? No? Then you don't really know what the hell you're talking about, do you?

I'm sorry, but this is completely wrong. Have you ever actually done a side by side listen?

I was given a turntable as a gift - I was highly skeptical about the vinyl revival, probably as much as most people on ./ - but the first time I listened to one of my favourite albums played from a brand new vinyl pressing through a very modest pre-amp I was instantly converted. I would have listened to this album 1000+ times on CD/FLAC/MP3, yet on vinyl I could hear more detail and subtlety in the sound than I'd ever experienced before, and the overall sound was (for want of a better term) 'smoother' and more complete.

This is playing the same album side by side through the same amp and speakers. There is no comparison. I am not an audiophile - my setup is very modest by hi-fi standards, components worth maybe $3000 in total.

IMHO, if you buy a brand new album cut in 2011 on CD and vinyl, there is no question that anyone without serious hearing impairment can hear the difference and that the vinyl is vastly superior as a listening experience.

This is one of those stupid memes on ./ that just won't die - a bunch of nerds with no actual experience of a decent turntable setup declaring that it's impossible that vinyl sounds better. It does. It really, really does. Do yourself a favour - pick out a favourite CD, get hold of the vinyl and play it through a decent turntable.

So where are you going to go?

USA - scanners, retinal scanners, fingerprints, aggressive unpleasant TSA employees.

EU - scanners, weird obsession with bureaucracy and officialdom, in France they blow up your luggage at CDG if you leave it unattended.

Asia/Africa/Russia - some scanners in the more developed countries IIRC, approximately 90000% higher chance of corrupt officials detaining or "fining" you.

Enjoy your trip to the Antarctic!

PS - I oppose these scanners, but the reason we're getting them is because the US and EU already have them.

Just checking, but you do realise that not all Australians are white, right? Given that you don't generally have to show your passport when you go through security in Australia, I'm not sure what you're basing your assessment of "Aussie" vs "non-Aussie" on.

In my experience, the factors which affect "extra" security in Australia are: walking speed (slower = more likely to get stopped), eye contact (making it = more likely to get stopped), having a beard (beard = likely terrorist), being male (less perceived risk of someone complaining about harassment).

One reason Australia is getting attention is that, unlike the EU and USA, here pat downs will not be an option - it's "scan" or "don't fly".

Was about to post something similar - flying into the US is now so unpleasant, demeaning and intimidating that it actually has a serious impact on the decision about whether to fly there or go somewhere where unaccountable uniformed guards won't treat me like a likely criminal, fingerprint me and scan my retinas.

You mean the United States, I take it?

In case you haven't been paying attention, Israel began attacking Iran some months ago - a lot of Iranian scientists have been mysteriously exploding, along with at least one major Iranian facility. And what was the real reason Iran was able to bring down that drone, I wonder?

If a foreign power was murdering state employed scientists in the U.S. and blowing up facilities in the U.S. while flying drones in U.S. airspace I'm pretty sure that would count as being under attack.